At 1/27/12 11:39 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

yeah I used to use Fahrenheit back when I was a pleb but now I'm much more into the Rankine measurement of temperature, it's pretty obscure you've probably never heard of it

Bitch please, all the real mean use Degrees Kelvin nowadays.

How about that theory that we are misinterpreting our body's signals now?

At 1/28/12 12:13 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 12:02 AM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: How about that theory that we are misinterpreting our body's signals now?

I'm much more into the labour-value theory, it's pretty obscure you've probably never heard of it

What does that even mean? -- all I see is a sequence of letters and spaces. Who am I to extrapolate meaning and irony from your statement? When you think about it, if I tried to meaning from anything you wrote, I'd be a spider giant spider spinning an increasingly more complex web of self-delusion. Words are incapable of expressing anything anyway, so new super words must be created that completely transcend the limits of language and convey absolute truth. But all I can really do is accept things and expel all materials. See our lives are dictated by dopamine and I need rid all fallacy and embrace the genuine. That's my philosophy anyway -- shunning all subjectivity and becoming the world [metaphor].

At 1/28/12 12:37 AM, Dubbi wrote:

At 1/28/12 12:13 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 12:02 AM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: How about that theory that we are misinterpreting our body's signals now?

I'm much more into the labour-value theory, it's pretty obscure you've probably never heard of it

What does that even mean? -- all I see is a sequence of letters and spaces. Who am I to extrapolate meaning and irony from your statement? When you think about it, if I tried to meaning from anything you wrote, I'd be a spider giant spider spinning an increasingly more complex web of self-delusion. Words are incapable of expressing anything anyway, so new super words must be created that completely transcend the limits of language and convey absolute truth. But all I can really do is accept things and expel all materials. See our lives are dictated by dopamine and I need rid all fallacy and embrace the genuine. That's my philosophy anyway -- shunning all subjectivity and becoming the world [metaphor].

Instead of mocking me. I'd suggest you to discuss with me. I believe my word to be true. I've stated this already. Why do you have to turn my philosophy into a childish game?

:{

Let me help you: I do not see a sequence of letters and spaces. I'm actually applying sense to something that lacks sense. [?] You've used the giant spider metaphor wrong. Words can express plenty of communicational depth; only certain words are lacking substance and/or structure. I'm not trying to expel all materials [?] Being dictated by dopamine is not the root of our problem.

Your philosophy of my alleged pseudo philosophy is not a philosophy if it's just as poorly constructed as these following terms:

Anger, fear and intelligence.

anger is a emotion that can cause adrenalin which can give you super-strength that can help you lift a car in the air.

At 1/28/12 01:00 PM, 420SWED wrote: anger is a emotion that can cause adrenalin which can give you super-strength that can help you lift a car in the air.

Actually. Willpower can subsitute for that.

People are still taking this clown seriously?

At 1/27/12 11:31 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Intelligence is some sort of dessert for the ego. How are we intelligent again? We are either aware at X capacity, and ignorant at X capacity.

LOL, what?

I'm so making a video based on this thread lol

At 1/28/12 01:34 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: People are still taking this clown seriously?

At 1/27/12 11:31 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Intelligence is some sort of dessert for the ego. How are we intelligent again? We are either aware at X capacity, and ignorant at X capacity.

LOL, what?

You are still not understanding why I am saying what I do? When you acknowledge that the terms we use to express our world could be flawed; you are naturally going to sought for a greater definition and structure to replace it's petty lesser self.

Awareness. Ignorance. These two terms are perfectly fine to elaborate on potentially everything that has to do with perspective and what is of it.

At 1/28/12 01:36 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/28/12 01:34 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: People are still taking this clown seriously?

When you acknowledge that the terms we use to express our world could be flawed; you are naturally going to sought for a greater definition and structure to replace it's petty lesser self.

So you're not trying to be a philosopher, you're trying to be a librarian.

Awareness. Ignorance. These two terms are perfectly fine to elaborate on potentially everything that has to do with perspective and what is of it.

And, this matters how?

Reading this makes me angry. >:I

At 1/28/12 01:42 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 1/28/12 01:36 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/28/12 01:34 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: People are still taking this clown seriously?

When you acknowledge that the terms we use to express our world could be flawed; you are naturally going to sought for a greater definition and structure to replace it's petty lesser self.

So you're not trying to be a philosopher, you're trying to be a librarian.

Awareness. Ignorance. These two terms are perfectly fine to elaborate on potentially everything that has to do with perspective and what is of it.

And, this matters how?

Honey, I'm not a philosopher. I'm not brilliant. I'm not pretentious. I'm just me, and frankly; I am just trying to explain a flaw in a fews word -- that are stretched out amongst our world -- which happens to encompass major fields. You may not see the damage it can cause; but I do. Whenever someone tells me that they are intelligent. I think to myself: they can absorb knowledge and use a vocabulary they've spent time on learning -- how does this make them intelligent -- if they aren't aware of things that does not take regurgitated notes and information to obtain?] Then you realise, that awareness and ignorance are the most balanced way of expressing one's level of perception and what is of it. That if people are lead to believe that they are ''intelligent'' they aren't going to pursue a greater level of perception, because they are too caught up in their own pretentious web of fabricated facts that only derive from interpretations.

Not ''intelligence''.

At 1/28/12 01:49 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Honey,

Lol.

I'm not a philosopher. I'm not brilliant. I'm not pretentious. I'm just me, and frankly; I am just trying to explain a flaw in a fews word -- that are stretched out amongst our world -- which happens to encompass major fields.

Take a scientific field if this truly matters to you beyond basic communication. Also, your run-ons are getting extremely aggravating to read.

You may not see the damage it can cause; but I do. Whenever someone tells me that they are intelligent. I think to myself: they can absorb knowledge and use a vocabulary they've spent time on learning -- how does this make them intelligent -- if they aren't aware of things that does not take regurgitated notes and information to obtain?]

You derived completely opinionated conclusions from a simple statement. Stop over-thinking. This sounds like a personal problem, and not one in society.

Then you realise, that awareness and ignorance are the most balanced way of expressing one's level of perception and what is of it.

No, actually they are clear definitions of the extent of one's ability to recognize a situation and one's quantity of knowledge on a subject, respectively. Although the terms can be mischaracterized, there is nothing wrong with the definitions.

That if people are lead to believe that they are ''intelligent'' they aren't going to pursue a greater level of perception, because they are too caught up in their own pretentious web of fabricated facts that only derive from interpretations.

You cannot predict the future for each of us; and this does not help your "argument".

At 1/27/12 10:48 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Enlighten me. What are these ''similarities''?

Girl, go to Insanctuary's page Insanctuary and tell me, what do you see? As far as I'm concerned, you're one and the same. Or perhaps master and apprentice? Maybe this riddle shall help you. It's certain that you've heard it before.

At 1/28/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 1/28/12 01:49 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Honey,

Lol.

I'm not a philosopher. I'm not brilliant. I'm not pretentious. I'm just me, and frankly; I am just trying to explain a flaw in a fews word -- that are stretched out amongst our world -- which happens to encompass major fields.

Take a scientific field if this truly matters to you beyond basic communication. Also, your run-ons are getting extremely aggravating to read.

You may not see the damage it can cause; but I do. Whenever someone tells me that they are intelligent. I think to myself: they can absorb knowledge and use a vocabulary they've spent time on learning -- how does this make them intelligent -- if they aren't aware of things that does not take regurgitated notes and information to obtain?]

You derived completely opinionated conclusions from a simple statement. Stop over-thinking. This sounds like a personal problem, and not one in society.

Then you realise, that awareness and ignorance are the most balanced way of expressing one's level of perception and what is of it.

No, actually they are clear definitions of the extent of one's ability to recognize a situation and one's quantity of knowledge on a subject, respectively. Although the terms can be mischaracterized, there is nothing wrong with the definitions.

That if people are lead to believe that they are ''intelligent'' they aren't going to pursue a greater level of perception, because they are too caught up in their own pretentious web of fabricated facts that only derive from interpretations.

You cannot predict the future for each of us; and this does not help your "argument".

Lol.

The word is flawed. You are the one who is getting aggravating by not discussing with me. You act as if though I am stupid because I am pushing one simple different theory that contradicts your world of perspective through my eyes, and I only wish to keep on trying to see if I can form a tangible variable that will convince you that perhaps the term needs to be revamped.

I'm not over-thinking. Something is completely off about these terms. How am I over-thinking?

There is something wrong with the terms. They do not line up with expression. They are vague, and entirely ambiguous -- let alone substanceless. It's like trying to put up a tent with straws.

Oh, I was implying that it perpetually harms the atmosphere of communication due present.

At 1/28/12 02:09 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/28/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: You cannot predict the future for each of us; and this does not help your "argument".

The word is flawed. You are the one who is getting aggravating by not discussing with me.

I am discussing your convoluted argument.

You act as if though I am stupid because I am pushing one simple different theory that contradicts your world of perspective through my eyes

You have not stated a theory at all - merely, denied rationality and commenced to ask ludicrous questions.

I'm not over-thinking. Something is completely off about these terms. How am I over-thinking?

You have yet to explain what is "off" about these terms when they so adequately describe basic emotions.

There is something wrong with the terms. They do not line up with expression. They are vague, and entirely ambiguous -- let alone substanceless.

They are not vague at all. A two-year-old knows what anger is. A squirrel knows what fear is.

Oh, I was implying that it perpetually harms the atmosphere of communication due present.

Believe me, basic communication is fine until you try to complicate things by ignoring sensibility.

At 1/28/12 02:09 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: ....You are the one who is getting aggravating by not discussing with me.

If she spoke to you, everything would suddenly heal? We'll say this again, don't be so quick to seize the upper hand. It's perfectly alright that you wish to share your views with the world, but slowly you're going to grow into a beast that aims to suppress us. You're not trying to stand above us, but you will try. Oh, you'll try so very hard when that day comes. It it comes.

....You act as if though I am stupid because I am pushing one simple different theory that contradicts your world of perspective through my eyes...

She never called your stupid. At least, she does not mean to. We've seen how people can sound harsher than they mean over the web. The point here is, she doesn't understand what you're saying. It's as plain as that. Explain yourself in a way that people can understand.

Sorry for barging into your conversation, I tend to do that in online arguments.

At 1/28/12 02:18 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 1/28/12 02:09 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/28/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: You cannot predict the future for each of us; and this does not help your "argument".

The word is flawed. You are the one who is getting aggravating by not discussing with me.

I am discussing your convoluted argument.

You act as if though I am stupid because I am pushing one simple different theory that contradicts your world of perspective through my eyes

You have not stated a theory at all - merely, denied rationality and commenced to ask ludicrous questions.

I'm not over-thinking. Something is completely off about these terms. How am I over-thinking?

You have yet to explain what is "off" about these terms when they so adequately describe basic emotions.

There is something wrong with the terms. They do not line up with expression. They are vague, and entirely ambiguous -- let alone substanceless.

They are not vague at all. A two-year-old knows what anger is. A squirrel knows what fear is.

Oh, I was implying that it perpetually harms the atmosphere of communication due present.

Believe me, basic communication is fine until you try to complicate things by ignoring sensibility.

If it's not convoluted in my eyes; why call it convoluted?

It's irrational to deny that these terms are lacking communicative backbone. What is intelligence? It says -- ability to learn and understand or to deal with new or trying situations -- when awareness could not only subsitute for that definition but can act as a universal component that also has an opposite which is known as ignorance. Intelligence's opposite is ''dumb''. Awareness > Intelligence in terms of terms.

They are not. Awareness is much greater of a word to define one's ability to absorb information and manifest it. Not ''intelligence''.

That's because a 2 year old is a parrot that copies what we say. They do not apply their own intuition to cut down the roots of these words that we use and say ''Hey! Something is not right here!''.

Basic communication is fine. Terms -- in which are supposed to be there to allow us to express our world -- that are flawed, should be attended to. It's vague. It's boneless. It's just a slapped on label with no real thought applied to it.

Seriously? You're asking what an emotion is?

Are you fucking serious?

At 1/28/12 02:35 PM, ShadyBlackGuy wrote: Seriously? You're asking what an emotion is?

Are you fucking serious?

An emotion is a singular form of an expressive sea of variables -- that are defined through positive and negative components -- which allows us to express ourselves.

At 1/28/12 02:30 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

If it's not convoluted in my eyes; why call it convoluted?
Yeah, that'd be easy to do. But it isn't you who is learning the argument is it? Sorry, but what you have just said follows the same pattern as this: "It looks right from my point of view. Therefore, it is right."
There's actually no wrong in that. It's just simply bland and narrow. It shall hurt the comprehension of others, but not your own.

It's irrational to deny that these terms are lacking communicative backbone. What is intelligence? It says -- ability to learn and understand or to deal with new or trying situations -- when awareness could not only subsitute for that definition but can act as a universal component that also has an opposite which is known as ignorance. Intelligence's opposite is ''dumb''. Awareness > Intelligence in terms of terms.

Awareness=/=Intelligence.
Knowledge is information. Chemistry, history, military intelligence. That's knowledge. Knowledge is information that you already possess. Wisdom is in the clearest sense, the ability to differentiate from good and evil. Right and wrong. It's the ability to understand connections and understand the world. It's counterpart is cunning. Wisdom is most commonly drawn from understanding. It's essentially the understanding of action reaction. It can be the same as intelligence, but it's much more innate and does not require training to master. Awareness falls out of this category. It's in fact hard to explain. Essentially, it's seeing without eyes. Hearing without listening. Singing with a shut mouth. You could inquire a dictionary. It would say something along the lines of this: "intelligence is one's ability to understand and to comprehend one's surrounding correctly." But is that it? No. It's far more. It's not easy to explain.
Now, intelligence on the other hand is completely different. It's a measure of brain power, not willpower. It's associated with things such as multitask, lateral reasoning, detective ability. Children, four years of age, learning Latin on their own. That's intelligence. That's genius. A person seeking to purify themselves and to see through the complexities of civilization, that's someone beginning to experience awareness. They are not the same. You can have average intelligence and be the most conscious person in the world, or you can be a genius, yet lack the traits that make a person truly great. Awareness is not intelligence. The seduction of words is a strong one, but it is important that we draw the line. There's no need to wage a war on language. After all, there are thousand of languages. Leave this fight to linguists. There are greater problems at hand. It you truly wish to continue down the path you walk, you're going to have to accept some things. And there is still much you have to learn. Don't try to change everything in a life time.
This can be a literary vengeance, or it could be lesson. That's your choice. Do what you will with it.

Anger is what I feel when I see philosophy threads.

At 1/28/12 02:57 PM, Society-of-Guardians wrote:

At 1/28/12 02:30 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

If it's not convoluted in my eyes; why call it convoluted?
Yeah, that'd be easy to do. But it isn't you who is learning the argument is it? Sorry, but what you have just said follows the same pattern as this: "It looks right from my point of view. Therefore, it is right."
There's actually no wrong in that. It's just simply bland and narrow. It shall hurt the comprehension of others, but not your own.

It's irrational to deny that these terms are lacking communicative backbone. What is intelligence? It says -- ability to learn and understand or to deal with new or trying situations -- when awareness could not only subsitute for that definition but can act as a universal component that also has an opposite which is known as ignorance. Intelligence's opposite is ''dumb''. Awareness > Intelligence in terms of terms.

Awareness=/=Intelligence.
Knowledge is information. Chemistry, history, military intelligence. That's knowledge. Knowledge is information that you already possess. Wisdom is in the clearest sense, the ability to differentiate from good and evil. Right and wrong. It's the ability to understand connections and understand the world. It's counterpart is cunning. Wisdom is most commonly drawn from understanding. It's essentially the understanding of action reaction. It can be the same as intelligence, but it's much more innate and does not require training to master. Awareness falls out of this category. It's in fact hard to explain. Essentially, it's seeing without eyes. Hearing without listening. Singing with a shut mouth. You could inquire a dictionary. It would say something along the lines of this: "intelligence is one's ability to understand and to comprehend one's surrounding correctly." But is that it? No. It's far more. It's not easy to explain.
Now, intelligence on the other hand is completely different. It's a measure of brain power, not willpower. It's associated with things such as multitask, lateral reasoning, detective ability. Children, four years of age, learning Latin on their own. That's intelligence. That's genius. A person seeking to purify themselves and to see through the complexities of civilization, that's someone beginning to experience awareness. They are not the same. You can have average intelligence and be the most conscious person in the world, or you can be a genius, yet lack the traits that make a person truly great. Awareness is not intelligence. The seduction of words is a strong one, but it is important that we draw the line. There's no need to wage a war on language. After all, there are thousand of languages. Leave this fight to linguists. There are greater problems at hand. It you truly wish to continue down the path you walk, you're going to have to accept some things. And there is still much you have to learn. Don't try to change everything in a life time.
This can be a literary vengeance, or it could be lesson. That's your choice. Do what you will with it.

I was implying that they should give me a chance to reason on my side; instead of jumping to conclusions that I'm borderlining a waste of time. I'm trying to discuss with these people even though they disagree with me -- why can't they do the same? How do you come to your conclusions anyways?

You forgot an important variable. Knowledge comes from our interpretation of our world. Awareness is beyond interpretation. It's the ability to understand interpretation and expand on it; rather than using it as a foundation to expand on interpretations as if though we understand our world.

Knowing nothing is the art of knowing everything.

At 1/28/12 03:08 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: I was implying that they should give me a chance to reason on my side....I'm trying to discuss with these people even though they disagree with me -- why can't they do the same? How do you come to your conclusions anyways?

Don't imply. Say it. You're trying to be a savior of sorts. That's why you're so desperate to send your word. They don't do that simply because they have no reason to argue with you. You're confusing them. Someone with the exact same ideas as yours gave them a bad first impression, etc. They really don't want to do this. However, your attitude is favorable. People will keep coming back. And as for that final part, I haven't come to a conclusion. What makes you think that?

You forgot an important variable. Knowledge comes from our interpretation of our world.

Wisdom can be gained by interpreting the world. Knowledge is gained through observation, not interpretation. It doesn't require philosophy in any shape or form. It's just to know in the most basic sense.
Knowledge=/=Intelligence=/=Awareness
Knowledge<Intelligence<Awareness

The amount of pseudo intellectual bullshit in this thead is making my head spin.

Fucking amazing.

At 1/28/12 03:21 PM, Society-of-Guardians wrote:

At 1/28/12 03:08 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: I was implying that they should give me a chance to reason on my side....I'm trying to discuss with these people even though they disagree with me -- why can't they do the same? How do you come to your conclusions anyways?

Don't imply. Say it. You're trying to be a savior of sorts. That's why you're so desperate to send your word. They don't do that simply because they have no reason to argue with you. You're confusing them. Someone with the exact same ideas as yours gave them a bad first impression, etc. They really don't want to do this. However, your attitude is favorable. People will keep coming back. And as for that final part, I haven't come to a conclusion. What makes you think that?

You forgot an important variable. Knowledge comes from our interpretation of our world.

Wisdom can be gained by interpreting the world. Knowledge is gained through observation, not interpretation. It doesn't require philosophy in any shape or form. It's just to know in the most basic sense.
Knowledge=/=Intelligence=/=Awareness
Knowledge<Intelligence<Awareness

That I think I'm a savior -- desperate? I'm only influencing an idea that is true in my eyes; and I only wish to discuss with others to establish a greater control over this idea of mine -- for how the opposite end sees this world.

Example: The ______ [sky]. The thing above us. The thing above us that looks like the thing that looks like a ______ [an ocean]. Awareness allows you to perceive that there is a thing. Intelligence is useless here. Knowledge then encompasses your awareness of this thing; which is only stabilised with your interpretation of this thing before you. It will always be a _______. In our minds, it's the sky though. Doesn't make it _______ the sky. Doesn't mean that we know the sky. Which is fine. That is how we communicate; we add distinctions and identifiable means to understand one and each other. The problem that is not being driven abroad is the simple fact that we are only aware of ______ and knowledge [or interpretation] can only go so far -- since it's built on an imaginary line that is founded by our mind's intricate values of understanding; analyzing and manifesting.

At 1/28/12 03:29 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: That I think I'm a savior.....for how the opposite end sees this world.

You will be. You will be.

.....Awareness allows you to perceive that there is a thing....can only go so far -- since it's built on an imaginary line that is founded by our mind's intricate values of understanding...

Alright. I will not argue with not. We seem to agree there.

At 1/28/12 03:33 PM, Society-of-Guardians wrote:

At 1/28/12 03:29 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: That I think I'm a savior.....for how the opposite end sees this world.

You will be. You will be.

.....Awareness allows you to perceive that there is a thing....can only go so far -- since it's built on an imaginary line that is founded by our mind's intricate values of understanding...

Alright. I will not argue with not. We seem to agree there.

Am I missing something here? Are you implying that my inquisitive nature will soon over-run my concern of this world's off-setting? [Power corruption?]

At 1/28/12 03:35 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Am I missing something here? Are you implying that my inquisitive nature will soon over-run my concern of this world's off-setting?

That's only a vague possibility. But it remains in the air. You should be safe for now.

At 1/28/12 03:37 PM, Society-of-Guardians wrote:

At 1/28/12 03:35 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Am I missing something here? Are you implying that my inquisitive nature will soon over-run my concern of this world's off-setting?

That's only a vague possibility. But it remains in the air. You should be safe for now.

You are assuming a future possibility that is offensive to my character. I'd watch what you say around others who actually care what others think. To deply an idea that renders a character a possible future poison to a world; that's telling me that I could be heading down a path that contradicts everything I've put my mind and time into understanding.

Now, let's get back on-topic guys. What is exactly ''anger''? I'm yet convinced to believe that it's what the definition says. I believe it can go much deeper than that; and there are other functions of the body and mind that can create the illusion of ''anger''.