Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Pavlovian Debaters.

Phoenix

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 10:32:07 PM
Hmmm, I would not consume my time writing on a forum only to interact, or that is to say I would not find interaction only for the sake of interaction fulfilling, but if that's your way then that's OK with me! Or maybe you have some other agenda, you never did say how the crow spirit animal figures into things...

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 10:35:02 PM
Crow.

Either shut the flying fuck up.

Or say actual things.


Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 10:38:24 PM
You seemed a much more interesting and valuable poster before you got asshurt, defensive, and then defensive about being asshurt and defensive.

Knock this off dude. You have embarked on a fool's errand.

Are you actually a fool?

Or is this thread just by design to honor the day?

Is there actually a hidden brilliance above all this new found nonsense?

(take the easy way out and say yes)

Phoenix

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 10:40:12 PM
Crow.

Either shut the flying fuck up.

Or say actual things.

*Transcix puts on Shaolin hat*

*Transcix steps forward to speak.*

It is not his way, Wolfgang.

The way that is the way, is not the way, either.

*Transcix lifts his hat to scratch an itch on his head.*

*Transcix puts his hat back on.*

*Transcix removes his Shaolin hat.*

Was that good for you?

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 11:05:19 PM
Crow.
Either shut the flying fuck up.
Or say actual things.


What do you see in your words that makes them more 'actual' that mine?
All I see in yours is self-important insult.
What do you see in mine?

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 11:14:13 PM
Crow.
Either shut the flying fuck up.
Or say actual things.


What do you see in your words that makes them more 'actual' that mine?
All I see in yours is self-important insult.
What do you see in mine?


I see pseudo-babble thinly veiled under quasi-prattle.
But below that I see a repressed little boy I want to liberate, and on one level, and possibly more, touch.

Phoenix

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 11:21:30 PM
I really would rather not do this, but I think you have a few things to learn Wolfgang about the subtle art of communication. It's just too tempting.

Crow.
Either shut the flying fuck up.
Or say actual things.


What do you see in your words that makes them more 'actual' that mine?
All I see in yours is self-important insult.
What do you see in mine?


I see pseudo-babble thinly veiled under quasi-prattle.
But below that I see a repressed little boy I want to liberate, and on one level, and possibly more, touch.

Hmmmmm, you are a homosexual?

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 11:24:33 PM
I really would rather not do this, but I think you have a few things to learn Wolfgang about the subtle art of communication. It's just too tempting.

Crow.
Either shut the flying fuck up.
Or say actual things.


What do you see in your words that makes them more 'actual' that mine?
All I see in yours is self-important insult.
What do you see in mine?


I see pseudo-babble thinly veiled under quasi-prattle.
But below that I see a repressed little boy I want to liberate, and on one level, and possibly more, touch.

Hmmmmm, you are a homosexual?

Why? Care to exchange email addresses?

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 01, 2012, 11:25:30 PM
Well, that's kinder than 'pedophile'.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 02, 2012, 11:20:47 AM
You can both be rather petulant, but the majority of posters on this forum simply don't concern themselves with the idiocies or semi-idiocies occasionally spouted by the other members (e.g. me, haha!).  The back and forth between you two is interesting at times, but annoying at others.  Amusingly enough, I seem to be halfway between your two perspectives: for me, nothing spiritual exists in the "physical world", and yet the "physical world" is merely a subsystem of a much greater reality (in which the "spiritual" certainly exists, given that it is experienced).

I think it's utterly foolish to be convinced of what would be called the "supernatural" existing on this plane in anything but an ephemeral way; similarly, it is foolish to be convinced that there is nothing above and beyond the natural universe we encounter.  Our senses are windows into a sensory world; every window has two sides, thus there must be a world "behind" sensory perception, looking "in" to the physical world through our perspective.

The most foolish thing of all, though, seems to me to be the degree to which you both care about this crap.  None of it matters, for fuck's sake - have a joint and fuck a girl, you'll feel way better afterwards.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 02, 2012, 04:42:24 PM
Interesting perspective.
I do not aim to either persuade, or gain respect.
Why would I, from, as you say, the taoist perspective?
I leave those things to those who need them.
Although it seems to go right by many, I am interacting, here. No more than that.
I do not seek to learn, or to teach. To argue, or defend.
Watch carefully and you will notice how those who engage me often end up arguing with themselves, since there is no argument.
While others see my interaction, and interact back.
I am what I am. I do what I do. My reasons may not be readily apparent.
Why does anyone do anything?
You can't always know that.

I've never read a more fresh post-modern turd in my life.

Crow, while Wolfgang may be a fool stuck in the modernist mindset, you're not helping him.

And that suggests that you're not actually any wiser, at all, than he.

Ya see man, if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd easily be able to break him out of his self-limiting mindset. Granted, it's ultimately up to him to break out. Even if he was given the best explanations possible, he could still remain in cognitive dissonance.  But then we'd at least see that. We'd at least see that you actually tried. We'd see that you attempted to honestly engage him. You'd talk to him on a human level. You'd clearly lay out why his view is incorrect. Instead, you're playing ego games and hiding in obscurity.

I do take time to read your posts, because many of them do contain interesting insights into epistemology and psychology. But come on already man. While Wolfgang is intellectually incorrect, you're being intellectually and morally retarded, in that you're being disingenuous. Have some intellectual humility and just talk to the guy, so he and others can listen to you. Or, have some courage and admit that you're not interested in communicating anything, so he and others can ignore you until you change.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 02, 2012, 05:00:12 PM
You can both be rather petulant, but the majority of posters on this forum simply don't concern themselves with the idiocies or semi-idiocies occasionally spouted by the other members (e.g. me, haha!).  The back and forth between you two is interesting at times, but annoying at others.  Amusingly enough, I seem to be halfway between your two perspectives: for me, nothing spiritual exists in the "physical world", and yet the "physical world" is merely a subsystem of a much greater reality (in which the "spiritual" certainly exists, given that it is experienced).

I think it's utterly foolish to be convinced of what would be called the "supernatural" existing on this plane in anything but an ephemeral way; similarly, it is foolish to be convinced that there is nothing above and beyond the natural universe we encounter.  Our senses are windows into a sensory world; every window has two sides, thus there must be a world "behind" sensory perception, looking "in" to the physical world through our perspective.

The most foolish thing of all, though, seems to me to be the degree to which you both care about this crap.  None of it matters, for fuck's sake - have a joint and fuck a girl, you'll feel way better afterwards.

Hippie degenerate.

Cargest, you say that what we call supernatural may be something existing on another plane or something kind of like that. Multiverses existing are plausible in physics. Again, what you suggest isn't actually supernatural. It is part of the natural that is not yet understood.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 02, 2012, 05:19:12 PM
Again, what you suggest isn't actually supernatural. It is part of the natural that is not yet understood.

....thus justifying the use of the phrase "supernatural" - as it is beyond our understanding. Once we are able to understand it (which I highly doubt), then we can include it in the realms of the natural.

I'm in the boat with Cargest. Go cook yourself a good meal or play some guitar; this endless vague rambling accomplishes nothing.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 02, 2012, 05:29:03 PM
A strong intellectual ability reinforces itself. If you are used to winning arguments or finding success at certain endeavors through sheer intelligence, you tend to rely on that ability to tackle all problems.

If a problem is of a different nature though, "supernatural", perhaps something different is required.

Re: Pavlovian Debaters.
April 02, 2012, 05:36:52 PM
have a joint and fuck a girl

Man, I feel good.