Someone on another thread said:
"I suppose I was thinking from the point of view that most people are not alive – for they are not conscious of the existence of Truth."
Most, O. K. all followers of organized religion would claim "alive" status, don't you think?
What is alive?
-
Steven Coyle
Another Fallacy
Well, you're a "slippery slope" ...
Is your whole agenda for being here to prove that you're cute?
Is your whole agenda for being here to prove that you're cute?
Re: Another Fallacy
Is it possible to discuss anything on this forum without the regulars responding with logical fallacies? The thread will go somewhere if you stop being defensive, protective of the herd.Steven Coyle wrote:Well, you're a "slippery slope" ...
Is your whole agenda for being here to prove that you're cute?
-
Steven Coyle
Re: Another Fallacy
But you used to enjoy them.Is it possible to discuss anything on this forum without the regulars responding with logical fallacies?
That's your job.The thread will go somewhere if you stop being defensive, protective of the herd.
-
millipodium
Definitely there is a clique, here. Obviously, it's not everyone. This isn't an "I'll love and agree with you, if you love and agree with me" forum. Put like and dislike aside.millipodium wrote:There's no clique here, Kowtipper. It just so happens that a lot of people dislike you.kowtaaia wrote:Seriously, you guys have to get over your clique mentality.
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
I think this might help:
You can use one word to mean two different things. Often, common terms such as; alive, self-awarness, being dead, consciousness, truth, power, love, friendship - - all of these terms can mean different things depending on what context they are expressed in.
Kow's problem is he doesnt seem to be aware of this. The irony is that his favorite game to play is accusing people of being trapped in mere belief and subjectivity.
Could there be anyone more trapped in belief and subjectivity than kow considering how hard of a time he has at communicating with people? His behavior indicates a profound lack of awareness and consideration for the limitations of thought. To see the limitiations of thought is to understand the incredible and invaluable usefullness of it.
Anyway, lets get this topic back on course, or at least finish it on a more sane note.
When it comes to judging the quality of an organism in strictly biological (and more superficial terms) terms, it is perfectly correct to call it 'alive' or 'dead' depending on whether it is a rotting carcass or a breathing thing.
I think Kow is defending the validity of alive in the more common and superfical context, which is fine.
However, you can use the word alive in order to point to something deeper which it appears steven is trying to do.
And so I think what steven is defending is a notion of alive that implies one being conscious, aware, truthful.
It is true that most people, despite they are of a biological organism that is breathing, are dead.
And those who realize and can see themselves as thoroughly dead, are those most alive.
But without me going into further detail about what I mean here, then I should not expect someone to understand what I am saying, and that's because what I am saying is born from percieving in a context that is much more broad, absolute and unusual than the more ordinary context that people use the terms 'alive and dead' in.
You can use one word to mean two different things. Often, common terms such as; alive, self-awarness, being dead, consciousness, truth, power, love, friendship - - all of these terms can mean different things depending on what context they are expressed in.
Kow's problem is he doesnt seem to be aware of this. The irony is that his favorite game to play is accusing people of being trapped in mere belief and subjectivity.
Could there be anyone more trapped in belief and subjectivity than kow considering how hard of a time he has at communicating with people? His behavior indicates a profound lack of awareness and consideration for the limitations of thought. To see the limitiations of thought is to understand the incredible and invaluable usefullness of it.
Anyway, lets get this topic back on course, or at least finish it on a more sane note.
When it comes to judging the quality of an organism in strictly biological (and more superficial terms) terms, it is perfectly correct to call it 'alive' or 'dead' depending on whether it is a rotting carcass or a breathing thing.
I think Kow is defending the validity of alive in the more common and superfical context, which is fine.
However, you can use the word alive in order to point to something deeper which it appears steven is trying to do.
And so I think what steven is defending is a notion of alive that implies one being conscious, aware, truthful.
It is true that most people, despite they are of a biological organism that is breathing, are dead.
And those who realize and can see themselves as thoroughly dead, are those most alive.
But without me going into further detail about what I mean here, then I should not expect someone to understand what I am saying, and that's because what I am saying is born from percieving in a context that is much more broad, absolute and unusual than the more ordinary context that people use the terms 'alive and dead' in.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cory,
Just a few points: It's regrettable that you are still upset. Please let it go.
Secondly... kow is not defending anything.
Lastly... it seems and you and sschaula are trying to turn this into a joke thread.
Admittedly though, this: But without me going into further detail about what I mean here, then I should not expect someone to understand what I am saying, and that's because what I am saying is born from percieving in a context that is much more broad, absolute and unusual than the more ordinary context that people use the terms 'alive and dead' in.
...is really funny. The phrase "Get over yourself!" comes to mind.
P. S. You guys are trying to defend something that was stupidly expressed.
Just a few points: It's regrettable that you are still upset. Please let it go.
Secondly... kow is not defending anything.
Lastly... it seems and you and sschaula are trying to turn this into a joke thread.
Admittedly though, this: But without me going into further detail about what I mean here, then I should not expect someone to understand what I am saying, and that's because what I am saying is born from percieving in a context that is much more broad, absolute and unusual than the more ordinary context that people use the terms 'alive and dead' in.
...is really funny. The phrase "Get over yourself!" comes to mind.
P. S. You guys are trying to defend something that was stupidly expressed.
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Thank you Cory. If people would get back to actually discussing things seriously rather than catering to kow's mindless ramblings, perhaps we can have a real discussion again,Cory Duchesne wrote:Anyway, lets get this topic back on course, or at least finish it on a more sane note.
Hence the expression sometimes heard "I feel so alive!"I think this might help:
You can use one word to mean two different things. Often, common terms such as; alive, self-awarness, being dead, consciousness, truth, power, love, friendship - - all of these terms can mean different things depending on what context they are expressed in.
...
When it comes to judging the quality of an organism in strictly biological (and more superficial terms) terms, it is perfectly correct to call it 'alive' or 'dead' depending on whether it is a rotting carcass or a breathing thing.
...
you can use the word alive in order to point to something deeper which it appears steven is trying to do.
And so I think what steven is defending is a notion of alive that implies one being conscious, aware, truthful.
Some will say "I feel dead inside" (anhedonia is different from depression, even though it can be a symptom). At least they have enough awareness to recognize this, which is beyond mere cellular life which would not be aware of their lack of conciousness.It is true that most people, despite they are of a biological organism that is breathing, are dead.
Here is where an interpretation of this interpretation is in order. If someone is used to extremes of emotion, becoming balanced might feel comparativly dead - when in fact that is the feeling of serenity or contentment - which might be considered by some as most alive, and is definatly the most sane state.And those who realize and can see themselves as thoroughly dead, are those most alive.
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
And if you werent also trying to defend more 'intelligent expressions' then would you be attacking what you see as stupid? Why do you post? Obvousiouly to defend/attack.kow: You guys are trying to defend something that was stupidly expressed.
They are one in the same.
Your attack reveals your defense.
You are trying to defend your idea of intelligence by attacking what you see as stupid.
Welcome to the club.
You are unconscious my friend, its time to wake up.Secondly... kow is not defending anything.
A very difficult task for you I'm sure, as I can imagine how hard it is to break from the addiction of believing you are the awakened one.
Why do you tell others what to do, Kow? It's not like they're ever going to listen to you. If you want the shit to stop, then YOU must be the one to "get over the hurt".
You said that I'm trying to make this a joke thread. It already was a joke thread...what kind of philosophy is "I suppose I was thinking from the point of view that most people are not alive – for they are not conscious of the existence of Truth."? I bet Sue was the one that wrote that statement.
It's on the same par as calling reality, God. It's ridiculous.
And starting a topic asking this question: "all followers of organized religion would claim "alive" status, don't you think?" is even more ridiculous. What was your point?
So I say this thread was a joke in the first place. It's impossible for me to ruin it in any way since it's already so useless.
I'd like to see if you can post anything of value, Kow.
You said that I'm trying to make this a joke thread. It already was a joke thread...what kind of philosophy is "I suppose I was thinking from the point of view that most people are not alive – for they are not conscious of the existence of Truth."? I bet Sue was the one that wrote that statement.
It's on the same par as calling reality, God. It's ridiculous.
And starting a topic asking this question: "all followers of organized religion would claim "alive" status, don't you think?" is even more ridiculous. What was your point?
So I say this thread was a joke in the first place. It's impossible for me to ruin it in any way since it's already so useless.
I'd like to see if you can post anything of value, Kow.
- Scott
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am