Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/14/12 05:16 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Do you think that General is the best place to discuss this?

Not at all; esp. on Newgrounds. I really do enjoy a good challenge though. : ) It isn't like every one turns a blind eye or trolls me.

At 5/14/12 05:01 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Obstructivism?

Yes, I am still questioning my previous question I had earlier. If someone were to say ''God externally affects the world around us.'' That would be obstructive to the natural objectivity behind our reality; hence the reality of ours speaks of no God and only demonstrates a simple system of naturally functions and a simple group of of inhabitants scattered across the unknown world with no supernatural influences.

So if you want to be literal about it all and tell me that it is neither subjectivism or objectivism due to semantics - then what the hell would you refer to this interesting concept? People can truly convince themselves that what they see inside their heads is inside the objectivity of this world and attempt to cheat the laws of nature in all actuality for their own fictitious fairy tale that we can not contest with our own interpersonal subjective theories for our world. We are all create subjectivity rather we like it or not. Subjectivism is always cancelled out by other subjectivism. Essentially, imagine a sword fight. By arguing against another's subjective POV with your subjective POV, you are ALWAYS clanking with another's sword. This is WHY I let the world see for me, for the world is objective and un-bias unlike my own head.

Anyways, do we need to create a new word for all of this? Would obstructivism become the new term to explain this pseudo-reality bending concept? I'm not sure, but please, share your thoughts!

Obstructivism?

Yes, I am still questioning my previous question I had earlier. If someone were to say ''God externally affects the world around us.'' That would be obstructive to the natural objectivity behind our reality; hence that the reality of ours speaks of no God and only demonstrates a simple system of naturally functions followed by a simple group of of inhabitants scattered across the unknown world that is NOT affected by supernatural influences.

So if you want to be literal about it all and tell me that it is neither subjectivism or objectivism due to semantics - then what the hell would you refer to for this interesting concept? People can truly convince themselves that what they see inside their heads, is inside the objectivity of this world, and attempt to cheat the laws of nature in all actuality for their own fictitious fairy tale - that we can not contest with our own interpersonal subjective theories of our world. We are all creating subjectivity rather we like it or not. Subjectivism is always cancelled out by other forms of subjectivism. Essentially, imagine a sword fight. By arguing against another's subjective POV with your subjective POV, you are ALWAYS clanking with another's sword. This is WHY I let the world see for me, for the world is objective and un-bias unlike my own head.

Anyways, do we need to create a new word for all of this? Would obstructivism become the new term to explain this pseudo-reality bending concept? I'm not sure, but please, share your thoughts!

I had to fix all of those mistakes

Obstructivism?

Yes, I am still questioning my previous question I had earlier. If someone were to say ''God externally affects the world around us.'' That would be obstructive to the natural objectivity behind our reality; hence the reality of ours speaks of no God and only demonstrates a simple system of naturally functions and a simple group of of inhabitants scattered across the unknown world with no supernatural influences.

So if you want to be literal about it all and tell me that it is neither subjectivism or objectivism due to semantics - then what the hell would you refer to this interesting concept? People can truly convince themselves that what they see inside their heads is inside the objectivity of this world and attempt to cheat the laws of nature in all actuality for their own fictitious fairy tale that we can not contest with our own interpersonal subjective theories for our world. We are all create subjectivity rather we like it or not. Subjectivism is always cancelled out by other subjectivism. Essentially, imagine a sword fight. By arguing against another's subjective POV with your subjective POV, you are ALWAYS clanking with another's sword. This is WHY I let the world see for me, for the world is objective and un-bias unlike my own head.

Anyways, do we need to create a new word for all of this? Would obstructivism become the new term to explain this pseudo-reality bending concept? I'm not sure, but please, share your thoughts!

I only take showers when I am dirty. My mind would rather focus on contemplation than a simple 7 minute shower. Haha.

At 5/14/12 10:38 AM, Natick wrote: Do you seriously think you're the first fucking person to think of these things? Does a moment go by where you think to yourself that you might be stating the blatantly obvious?

There is something I do not think anyone has questioned, but that is irrelevant to this thread, Natick.

I'm asking a simple question - do any of you believe that dreams are more than the brain's recollection of every day experiences.

Take mental pictures.

The End

At 5/13/12 11:24 PM, Skaren wrote:

Because low brow humor is better than dressed up bullshit words.

Your subjectivism is showing.

At 5/13/12 11:18 PM, ih8dude wrote:

At 5/13/12 11:17 PM, Skaren wrote: Guess what else does?

Bratwurst?

Give us all a favor and stop spamming the thread with your image dump you used for fapping. : )

At 5/13/12 11:17 PM, Skaren wrote:

At 5/13/12 11:13 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 5/13/12 11:10 PM, Skaren wrote:

You're just jealous because you're the unpopular emo kid in the corner cutting himself.

Yet... You are the moody one? Right? The one who makes up wild assertions without backing them up? Then only begins spamming spider-man pictures to compensate for their low contributive status?

I only spam Spidey in boring threads, and I love Gimmick, he's like a brother to me. A gay brother, but still a brother.

I don't try to be boring. My philosophical rambles aren't meant for people like you who have selective attention.

Do you ever try to discuss?

Hell naw man, dat ain't me.

Then why do you flood my poor thread? : (

At 5/13/12 11:10 PM, Skaren wrote:

You're just jealous because you're the unpopular emo kid in the corner cutting himself.

Yet... You are the moody one? Right? The one who makes up wild assertions without backing them up? Then only begins spamming spider-man pictures to compensate for their low contributive status?

At 5/13/12 10:51 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 5/13/12 10:49 PM, Kanon wrote: Can we get some more spider man pictures in here please?

I agree with this. Never enough Spider-man.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Do you ever try to discuss?

At 5/13/12 11:03 PM, MatrixGravity wrote: Or am I wrong here?

You live in a worldly ocean filled with sharks, my friend.

At 5/13/12 10:29 PM, Skaren wrote: If by flower you mean gay, yes.

*FF7 final encounter music*

Why are you always so rude? Do you like me? Is this your reverse psychology working?

At 5/13/12 10:26 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
It is a noun. I previously typed flowery, you see, but the letter y was being bullied by the constanants and the vowels were very pretentious about their special place in words. That lonely y.

consonant*

At 5/13/12 10:24 PM, knightsofthecircle wrote: Flower isn't an adjective, son.

It is a noun. I previously typed flowery, you see, but the letter y was being bullied by the constanants and the vowels were very pretentious about their special place in words. That lonely y.

Be honest.

Are you absolutely sure you are not mistaked that this movie you thought you watched in real life was actually in your dreams?

inb4inception

At 5/13/12 09:48 PM, Suprememessage wrote: Except if you did you'd have to choose between being completely good or completely evil, which would you choose?

It is not unlimited power if you can't even pick a moral position.

I personally do not support spur of the moments involving such personal cohesion when it isn't at all that very comitting.

At 5/13/12 09:37 PM, Verspar wrote:

At 5/13/12 09:30 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 5/13/12 09:15 PM, Verspar wrote: "X" marks the spot.

Not in religious debates. : )

You thought I was talking about "X" being the answer?
AIM. . . FIRE!!!!

Did I misinterpret?

I better not have.

I hate misinterpreting.

You can not blame me. One moment you were writing a large paragraph of sense - then another moment you go off saying ''I found the X''. It wasn't very specific. : )

At 3/25/12 12:10 AM, vannila-guerilla wrote:

At 3/25/12 12:07 AM, Cootie wrote: You're sexually free when you stop giving a damn what people think.

I question how accurate this statement is. You can't truly be free if your hormones control you.

Hormones are an excuse. People are using biology to blame their own problems. Biology is not the master system - our cognitive will as a being is. Biology is nothing more but a small influence that sways us.

At 5/13/12 09:27 PM, KeyserSozed wrote: They might serve as, say, a representation of your subconscious thoughts, feelings, and desires. For example, if you dream of your hair falling off, that may be representative of you feeling particularly stressed, or your fear of aging. Other than that, though, I do not think they have any supernatural significance.

Having an abstract guidance doesn't necessarily tie to the supernatural. It could all be one incredibly intelligent simulation of all of our experiences coming together in a designed system that acts as an outlet for what we can not necessarily partake in/in the conscious world.

At 5/13/12 09:30 PM, Suprememessage wrote: Yes I believe that dreams reveal deep physcological messages, I can attest to this because after someone interpreted my nightmare and what I had to do and I did that and the nightmare stopped happening.

Yes, exactly. Things like that make you only question people's non-questioning of the mysterious influences behind the conscious structure. : )

At 5/13/12 09:15 PM, Verspar wrote:

At 5/13/12 11:05 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Any one who thinks a yes and a no means anything is in denial. I always expect more than a black and white response. I want to know why they said what they said. I want to see the idea from its very birth.

Surely this allows more complex thoughts, but I think some of this comes from a form of over-analysis, I should know because I over-analyze to a point of analysis paralysis. But these thoughts are ones that can help you and can hurt you. An overall example is that you make a philosophy that may seem to have meaning inside it; keep it. But someone can over-analyze and ask "if I dream something I did yesterday, am I doomed to repeat it?" in this case, it doesn't always happen. I will say they have a more often than not chance of it happening, only because they stopped and thought about the situation and the possibility of it actually happening, then at the end of the day, they look back at what they did that day and compare it to the day before and it shows that the dream was true. It's like learning a new word, you never know it existed until you learned it; then you hear it all the time. Its an array of consciousness, sub-consciousness, and unconsciousness the body works as one no matter what, the body will work with the brain, the brain will work with the body and thoughts will be intertwined by oneself, that's why there are people who believe in their own thoughts over others, even what I just wrote could be considered one. And the only validity you have on thoughts is when someone else validates it. Like I said over-analyzing the situation can help or hurt you. If you want you may use it against me.

Haha. analysis paralysis. I do not suffer from over analysis, actually. I'm able to fundamentally break down people's ideas and/or arguments. Yes, you are right. The mind and body work in unison to convey our own inner values and experiences that are only valuable if people choose to apply value.

I like the challenge, really. I'm willing to try to break through any one. : )

And what happens if you break the person instead? :P

Haha. In a sense, if I can break them, it is because of their own irresponsibility in building themselves up.

A deeper meaning... Well, like I've previously said, I believe that our dreams act as some sort of intellectual medium for our mind to communicate with us. People will always be close-minded and say ''X isn't there'' when they can't apply a single argument while the human mind is always there - in its external form - still baffling scientists and revealing new abilities to this day. The mind is always doing weird things we don't fully understand, and dreams are definately one of them. For any one to deny this is either insane, not being serious or in denial of what is obviously an abstract language that is being emitted from the mind. It isn't 'just' the brain's recollection of information. Once again - like I previously mentioned - these lucid dreams feel more like a journey inside my own abstract world rather than some dull recollection.

Some people may interpret it as "X isn't there" because its on a different plane, a plane outside the normal thinking, besides science is and always will be ever-changing. Dreams ARE one of those weird things; where do people think creativity come from remembering? Also I found "X".

Yes, because X is on a different level of awareness. That is what I've been trying to elaborate. X is surely the fundamental foundation behind everything. Every interconnects from ground work.

"X" marks the spot.

Not in religious debates. : )

Childish comments? Aren't you the one who accused me of being a troll?

Actually that was my subconsciousness reacting. I was thinking that at first, but scrapped it, then turned into something that makes you question your way of communication with people, but I guess I won't do that anymore, both the to change your way of communication and the mentioning of my previous thoughts.

Understood. : ) Thank you.

It isn't about 'handling' but much rather 'understanding' it.

I thought it mustn't be esoteric, or was that a joke? I know you were joking at some point, but if it can't be communicated from person to person not within a certain group, then it will always and forever be esoteric. Sorry.

No. I do strive to break the esoteric nature of my philosophy, but I fear as though I have done all that I can, all there is left is for people to open themselves. They do not understand that the world will not show its true face until they show theirs.

At 5/13/12 09:06 PM, ngman7 wrote:

I don't like Barbie Dolls.

A barbie doll is at least more real than your god.

If I had a child, I would always cut down details into one compact happy package of wisdom for them... I would also be simple, and gentle with my words. I will explain to them at the appropiate age for how the world is very interesting. Things people say don't always mean what you hear. Like how someone can say no and actually mean yes. I will always balance the truth as much as I can, without scaring them or making them feel like fish in a barrel. I want them to know that simplicity is always unique. That love is more than saying '' I love you''. The things that we do, every action we make is what slowly defines us til the end of our day. I will show them that a glass is half full and half empty. I will explain to them how to listen to themselves. To always remain opened when someone disagrees with their choice of action. That life will always have its bad and good times in a one state of balanced experience. I want them to be strong, and survive in this dog eat dog world. I want them to know the fundamental meaning of life. That they do not need a purpose or meaning to keep on going in life. Life defines itself, and it will always be there no matter where you are or what you've become in life. I want that candle deep within to always remain lit, I want them to know that this candle will never become extinguished. That their will is the ultimate strength. Nobody can take that away from them.

At 5/13/12 08:25 PM, SolidToad wrote:

At 5/13/12 08:24 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Will you have my babies?

No. You may not have my babies. : ( Only my beloved can. :D

At 5/13/12 08:27 PM, ModernPatriot wrote: You're inside of a sanctuary.

Not exactly. : )

At 5/13/12 08:20 PM, SolidToad wrote:

At 5/13/12 08:15 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Then why are you in my thread

Hahaha, this was all I got, and it proves more points of mine. You're so steeped in ego that you think you can controll what goes on in this thread.

LOL

If that is all you were able to fathom - I wouldn't expect any more from what you call 'points'.

At 5/13/12 08:18 PM, SolidToad wrote: Hi guys, I'm a pseudo-intellectual douche bag. I tell myself that I'm so deep and thoughtful, but I'm not, I'm really just a dumbfuck. Proceed to guess why I'm so deep and cool based on my username. Also, if I disagree with you for your interpretation, I'll ridicule you.

Without properly assessed conjecture, you are a hopeless cry for attention. : )

You are only doing what you accuse me of doing. Well done!

At 5/13/12 08:21 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

its settled, you are gay

fagman7