GENIUS FORUMS

Cory Duchesne wrote:

No. People are not ideas. Just as perception is not action. you've gone retarded. A debate is not a war. you're ridiculous and you have bad ideas.

You ARE that which you identify yourself with.

NO YOU ARE NOT.

That's why some people have a nervous breakdown when they get a scratch on their car, or have a fit because of a new stain on the posh couch. Some people get insecure when you criticize food that they really like. That food is a part of who they are, part of their daily routine, part of their security. Their favorite food is, in a sense, partly, what they are.

Likewise, a man falls apart when is woman leaves him, or cheats or something. His woman is apart of who he is.

People identify with certain material things. They ARE their material things.

Identifying with something is not actually BEING that thing.

Some people are a bit deeper and they instead identify with intellectual achievements, original thoughts, books they've written, essays.

If their ideas get threated by more intelligent ones, they also feel pain, fear and anger. That's becaues they identify with their thoughts.

They need to grow up and be adults and learn to take criticism of their ideas.

The deepest of humans identify with the totality.

this is just a crazy assertion, not a fact.

Therefore, from my perspective Milli, I am you.

Whatever. You're like dealing with a retarded person.

Milli,

You're cute when you're angry.

(Just Joshin')

Are you guys reading this stuff? This is enlightenment? A complete collapse of rational thought is enlightenment? I don't think so.

Merging all concepts and things into one undefferentiated mystical mass is stupidity.

Steven Coyle wrote:Milli,

You're cute when you're angry.

It's true. I am! I can admit it.

Then your cool in my book.

Now, about this mystical mush...

What then is the basis of rationality?

Steven Coyle wrote:Then your cool in my book.

Now, about this mystical mush...

What then is the basis of rationality?

I don't believe I have to provide the basis of rationality to dispute the wisdom of garbling everything together in an undifferentiated mass. Are you saying the "totality concept"(spit) is the basis of rationality? I don't see how. It seems orthogonal to the issue, aka irrelevant.

And Steven, smoking is bad for you.

millipodium wrote: I don't believe I have to provide the basis of rationality to dispute the wisdom of garbling everything together in an undifferentiated mass. Are you saying the "totality concept"(spit) is the basis of rationality? I don't see how. It seems orthogonal to the issue, aka irrelevant.

I am saying that. But I expected it to take some posts to root it out.

The Totality is a concept. It takes some rational and maybe even some irrational thoughts to root it out.

Do you understand the idea behind the Totality?

millipodium wrote: It seems orthogonal to the issue, aka irrelevant.

"Orthogonal" actually means "at a right angle."

LOL!

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

millipodium wrote: It seems orthogonal to the issue, aka irrelevant.

"Orthogonal" actually means "at a right angle."

yes. tangential.

Mill wrote:

Identifying with something is not actually BEING that thing.

What am I? I am my thoughts, my beliefs.

I can't even say they are 'my' conclusions. Because 'MY' is a conclusion. I don't exist. All that each person is is just an agglomeration of conclusions rooted in emotion.

there is no inherent 'you' & 'me'. Each person is just a bunch of parts, a bunch of habits, a bunch of memories.

For instance, if I attribute a great deal of value to my couch, or my car - I AM the those thoughts.

The thought that says: "this thing is very important"

Is basically saying: "I am very important".

There is no significant difference.

They are the same thing.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Mill wrote:

Identifying with something is not actually BEING that thing.

What am I? I am my thoughts, my beliefs.

I can't even say they are 'my' conclusions. Because 'MY' is a conclusion. I don't exist. All that each person is is just an agglomeration of conclusions rooted in emotion.

there is no inherent 'you' & 'me'. Each person is just a bunch of parts, a bunch of habits, a bunch of memories.

For instance, if I attribute a great deal of value to my couch, or my car - I AM the those thoughts.

The thought that says: "this thing is very important"

Is basically saying: "I am very important".

There is no significant difference.

They are the same thing.

You aren't your thoughts.

You do exist.

Milli wrote:

You do exist.

But inherently I don't.

Nor do you.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Milli wrote:

You do exist.

But inherently I don't.

Nor do you.

Yes. You do exist, as do I.

Adding INHERENTLY doesn't fortify your argument in any way.

David Quinn wrote on another thread:

It is as though Knieirm is running a nursery, which looks very odd.

and here we find:
"I do not exist"
"Yes, you do"
"Do Not!"
"DO TOO!"
"DO NOT! - and neither do you!"
"DO TOO! - and so do you!"

Oh, man, David's going to love this thread when he gets back...

I also predict that this thread will magically move to Worldly Matters really soon.

Lizzy wrote:

Oh, man, David's going to love this thread when he gets back...

I also predict that this thread will magically move to Worldly Matters really soon.

And I nominate you the genius forum 'weather girl'.


"And david Quinn is coming in from the east with a heavy gale, Dan Rowden is a bit overcast with a sunny break coming mid-day, Millipodium we should expect to be sprinkled with light yellow showers in the evening....."

Cory,
It actually took almost a minute for me to stop laughing enough to respond to that post.

millipodium wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:No need to get defensive, you big, blubbering vagina. I was just trying to convince Ed there not to leave just because of the thread getting frayed.

Shut your deformed rectum mouth, assjacker.

Quit it! You're going to give me indigestion before I've even started eating my dinner.

Matt Gregory wrote:

millipodium wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:No need to get defensive, you big, blubbering vagina. I was just trying to convince Ed there not to leave just because of the thread getting frayed.

Shut your deformed rectum mouth, assjacker.

Quit it! You're going to give me indigestion before I've even started eating my dinner.

Quit being a stoma.

Steven Coyle wrote: Do you understand the idea behind the Totality?

Is mental retardation behind the concept of the totality?

Mil, Mill, Milli...

Were did all these quotes come from? Did something get deleted but the responses are still here? Is this on the wrong thread? What happened?
******************
edited - nevermind, I missed part of the first page.

eequalsmv2 wrote:i thought perhaps reaction to this small sample would get us onto the wavelength of the group, and spark a thought-out discussion

Well Ed, you sparked something about dehumanization alright, but it's not your fault.

Ed wrote:

i found that including dehumanization as one of 4 branches of evil was a good start.

I'll agree to that.