hi,
I am new here. I read quite a few interesting posts and decided to join. I like logic and philosophy but thank hardware these concepts exist, not a fireplace with a stupid chair in front of it.
introduction
Re: introduction
I got the image from television.
Their (whoever they may be) definition of philosophy still hangs as a medievil painting.
I heard through the speakers:
"Nice and cozy and warm (in the evening), with the book...oh if there wasn't something like philosophy"
..accompanied by music for those individuals who are attracted to philosophy only for the sake of getting an answer (spitting right in the face of true logic or in the face of a process and formalism). If logic is understood...then intelligence is a burden...not a money making slag. Sorry for my expressions but i want to throw up if enlightenment is defined that way. Philosophy is a pain in the ass if you understand it. Okay, you can say....philo means god or whatever and sofia is wisdom but in the end....i was motivated by the fact that there are individuals who like philosophy but dislike logic....you know...the pyramid of the new age with at the bottom some naïve coffeedrinking women (and men) who take philosophy as toiletlecture (i say lecture because in dutch we say "lectuur" for the mediums of written words but i do not now the exact translation)...i wouldn't dare placing a book of Kant for example next to the toilet...in the end...where is the big money ? converted in the toilet ? The secret of alchemy lies in the water, not in a popular book. Okay maybe water=emotion but throw this ID away. Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair). But...personal frustrations...understanding..okay..Well it speaks for itself because if i say hardware, then a computer is the first thing an enslaved mind thinks about while sitting is a function of chair. I rather walk, because it stimulates thoughtprocesses.
Now someone might think that i prefer screens instead of books (think what you want)...well it is cheaper and easier but books have this kind of smell that catapults me back in time if i am not careful. Nonetheless, most books smell good and this is not the point because if it was, then this sentence:
"Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair)"
would become
"Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(book) "
but if this was the point then then it would not speak for itself.
Their (whoever they may be) definition of philosophy still hangs as a medievil painting.
I heard through the speakers:
"Nice and cozy and warm (in the evening), with the book...oh if there wasn't something like philosophy"
..accompanied by music for those individuals who are attracted to philosophy only for the sake of getting an answer (spitting right in the face of true logic or in the face of a process and formalism). If logic is understood...then intelligence is a burden...not a money making slag. Sorry for my expressions but i want to throw up if enlightenment is defined that way. Philosophy is a pain in the ass if you understand it. Okay, you can say....philo means god or whatever and sofia is wisdom but in the end....i was motivated by the fact that there are individuals who like philosophy but dislike logic....you know...the pyramid of the new age with at the bottom some naïve coffeedrinking women (and men) who take philosophy as toiletlecture (i say lecture because in dutch we say "lectuur" for the mediums of written words but i do not now the exact translation)...i wouldn't dare placing a book of Kant for example next to the toilet...in the end...where is the big money ? converted in the toilet ? The secret of alchemy lies in the water, not in a popular book. Okay maybe water=emotion but throw this ID away. Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair). But...personal frustrations...understanding..okay..Well it speaks for itself because if i say hardware, then a computer is the first thing an enslaved mind thinks about while sitting is a function of chair. I rather walk, because it stimulates thoughtprocesses.
Now someone might think that i prefer screens instead of books (think what you want)...well it is cheaper and easier but books have this kind of smell that catapults me back in time if i am not careful. Nonetheless, most books smell good and this is not the point because if it was, then this sentence:
"Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair)"
would become
"Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(book) "
but if this was the point then then it would not speak for itself.
-
otiosedodge
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
- Location: Italy
Re: introduction
Hi Manatron, and welcome!
I have to say I'm intrigued by your style.
About your answer:
Manatron wrote:
I got the image from television.
Their (whoever they may be) definition of philosophy still hangs as a medievil painting.
I heard through the speakers:
"Nice and cozy and warm (in the evening), with the book...oh if there wasn't something like philosophy"
..accompanied by music for those individuals who are attracted to philosophy only for the sake of getting an answer (spitting right in the face of true logic or in the face of a process and formalism).
I write:
Why does being only interested in getting an answer 'spit in the face' of true logic? And why does it also spit in the face of process and formalism? It seems to me that someone could easily be interested only in an answer but at the same time respect the means to arrive there. Otherwise, how do we get there?
Manatron wrote:
If logic is understood...then intelligence is a burden...not a money making slag.
Me:
Can't say I understand. Could you elaborate?
Manatron:
Sorry for my expressions but i want to throw up if enlightenment is defined that way. Philosophy is a pain in the ass if you understand it.
Me:
I disagree. I'd say that if you understand emptiness, it can be an incredibly liberating experience.
Manatron:
Okay, you can say....philo means god or whatever and sofia is wisdom but in the end....i was motivated by the fact that there are individuals who like philosophy but dislike logic....you know...the pyramid of the new age with at the bottom some naïve coffeedrinking women (and men) who take philosophy as toiletlecture (i say lecture because in dutch we say "lectuur" for the mediums of written words but i do not now the exact translation)...i wouldn't dare placing a book of Kant for example next to the toilet...in the end...where is the big money ? converted in the toilet ?
Me:
I see your point about people who like philosophy but dislike logic, but I don't understand your questions about money and the toilet.
Manatron:
The secret of alchemy lies in the water, not in a popular book. Okay maybe water=emotion but throw this ID away.
Me:
Do you mean that philosophy only works when there is formal logic behind it, and not some popular treatment? If so, I can't say I agree; I think that there are ways of communicating the most important ideas out there without resorting to formalism.
Manatron:
Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair).
Me:
Again, I don't understand what you mean.
Manatron:
But...personal frustrations...understanding..okay..Well it speaks for itself because if i say hardware, then a computer is the first thing an enslaved mind thinks about while sitting is a function of chair. I rather walk, because it stimulates thoughtprocesses.
Me:
You lost me here too. Do you mean that the 'software' of a chair is its function?
Manatron:
Now someone might think that i prefer screens instead of books (think what you want)...well it is cheaper and easier but books have this kind of smell that catapults me back in time if i am not careful. Nonetheless, most books smell good and this is not the point because if it was, then this sentence:
"Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair)"
would become
"Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(book) "
but if this was the point then then it would not speak for itself.
Me:
Linked to the above: do you mean that the 'software' of a book is its meaning? Maybe I can't understand the above statement without understanding this point first.
I have to say I'm intrigued by your style.
About your answer:
Manatron wrote:
I got the image from television.
Their (whoever they may be) definition of philosophy still hangs as a medievil painting.
I heard through the speakers:
"Nice and cozy and warm (in the evening), with the book...oh if there wasn't something like philosophy"
..accompanied by music for those individuals who are attracted to philosophy only for the sake of getting an answer (spitting right in the face of true logic or in the face of a process and formalism).
I write:
Why does being only interested in getting an answer 'spit in the face' of true logic? And why does it also spit in the face of process and formalism? It seems to me that someone could easily be interested only in an answer but at the same time respect the means to arrive there. Otherwise, how do we get there?
Manatron wrote:
If logic is understood...then intelligence is a burden...not a money making slag.
Me:
Can't say I understand. Could you elaborate?
Manatron:
Sorry for my expressions but i want to throw up if enlightenment is defined that way. Philosophy is a pain in the ass if you understand it.
Me:
I disagree. I'd say that if you understand emptiness, it can be an incredibly liberating experience.
Manatron:
Okay, you can say....philo means god or whatever and sofia is wisdom but in the end....i was motivated by the fact that there are individuals who like philosophy but dislike logic....you know...the pyramid of the new age with at the bottom some naïve coffeedrinking women (and men) who take philosophy as toiletlecture (i say lecture because in dutch we say "lectuur" for the mediums of written words but i do not now the exact translation)...i wouldn't dare placing a book of Kant for example next to the toilet...in the end...where is the big money ? converted in the toilet ?
Me:
I see your point about people who like philosophy but dislike logic, but I don't understand your questions about money and the toilet.
Manatron:
The secret of alchemy lies in the water, not in a popular book. Okay maybe water=emotion but throw this ID away.
Me:
Do you mean that philosophy only works when there is formal logic behind it, and not some popular treatment? If so, I can't say I agree; I think that there are ways of communicating the most important ideas out there without resorting to formalism.
Manatron:
Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair).
Me:
Again, I don't understand what you mean.
Manatron:
But...personal frustrations...understanding..okay..Well it speaks for itself because if i say hardware, then a computer is the first thing an enslaved mind thinks about while sitting is a function of chair. I rather walk, because it stimulates thoughtprocesses.
Me:
You lost me here too. Do you mean that the 'software' of a chair is its function?
Manatron:
Now someone might think that i prefer screens instead of books (think what you want)...well it is cheaper and easier but books have this kind of smell that catapults me back in time if i am not careful. Nonetheless, most books smell good and this is not the point because if it was, then this sentence:
"Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair)"
would become
"Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(book) "
but if this was the point then then it would not speak for itself.
Me:
Linked to the above: do you mean that the 'software' of a book is its meaning? Maybe I can't understand the above statement without understanding this point first.
Re: introduction
Well the first question contains some personal emotions. Aside of that; everybody has its own philosophy concerning x and y. The other side of the coin is displaying; it is an expression concerning the importance of "process" as a vehicle leading us to an integration. I don't think that "understanding" alone is sufficient; as this reflects the desire for getting an answer. The propensity evoked by this kind of will; finding the snake in physical experience, while the snake fears the path of the arrow. But this; i find it acceptable, as i have no objections to current bureaucracy and economic functioning as a process influencing limit of freedom. I rather choose observation and analysis for the sake of experience. In the end; my expressions contain some negativity towards certain individuals from; inside my past.Why does being only interested in getting an answer 'spit in the face' of true logic? And why does it also spit in the face of process and formalism? It seems to me that someone could easily be interested only in an answer but at the same time respect the means to arrive there. Otherwise, how do we get there?
lolIf logic is understood...then intelligence is a burden...not a money making slag.Can't say I understand. Could you elaborate?
here, my ex girlfriend came up. I sounded frustrated.
It is not about the answers, but about the relations between the answers. My ex girlfriend wanted some answers and i gave them. She got very frustrated and i laughed.
Of course you don't understand. I did not elaborate. But let it be. Basically however; i am saying: "i am very frustrated in this vehicle and timeframe (the year 2010)."I see your point about people who like philosophy but dislike logic, but I don't understand your questions about money and the toilet.
I was saying; "The will to power leads to a certain propensity and this leads towards vitalism if one has not under control; his own unit as himself or herself, and today the flow of crystallized prana or chi is money."Manatron:
The secret of alchemy lies in the water, not in a popular book. Okay maybe water=emotion but throw this ID away.Do you mean that philosophy only works when there is formal logic behind it, and not some popular treatment? If so, I can't say I agree; I think that there are ways of communicating the most important ideas out there without resorting to formalism.
That i prefer computers and logic; i prefer to formalize a finite structure and on the other side i like books for their smell. E-books are easier to get by. The shortest distance; i did choose it. This is all personal and has no value.Hardware speaks for itself as in hardware(computer), not hardware(chair).
Again, I don't understand what you mean.
No. I mean that the software that is running in the brain produces a chair. The functions are transforms. But if i walk, then the program is not running. If it would run, then a chair stimulates laziness. So there is inertia, and there are dynamics plus there is a process split into walking and running in the program.But...personal frustrations...understanding..okay..Well it speaks for itself because if i say hardware, then a computer is the first thing an enslaved mind thinks about while sitting is a function of chair. I rather walk, because it stimulates thoughtprocesses.You lost me here too. Do you mean that the 'software' of a chair is its function?
Above ? No, look....the software of a book; it means a concatenation of matrices:= your neural networks trying to match certain functions coded as the semantics or certain charasteristics eigen to some portions in a book.Do you mean that the 'software' of a book is its meaning? Maybe I can't understand the above statement without understanding this point first.
I just don't like the media that much. A lot of garbage is being broadcasted. But on the other hand i think; the more information, the better. Information enters my mind and i react but i am always thinking. Sometimes, it is better to shut things off or close some potential loops. Music is a medicine. It is a personal choice. I prefer making music and art in general. But thinking and art...science....i don't know. Both.