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

Login with username, password and session length

What is 'thinking', anyway?

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 06:59:38 PM
I am not irritated by it.
I was once a Signwriter.
Such a craftsman uses white space to emphasize the actual content.
The space is almost as important as the words themselves.
It is easy to read, and generally, people react emotionally to individual words, rather than string words together, to deduce meaning.
But there is really nothing that can be done about people's refusal to divine the intended meaning.
One can only do one's best.
I do mine.
Do you do yours?


Formatting message to fit the medium makes sense, but this isn't a billboard.  We aren't driving by at 78 and catching your words at the periphery of vision.  The form you've chosen disrupts the continuity of your content, breaking what should or at least could be a unified thought into separate discrete bits that struggle to stand on their own.  It's also pretentious.

Writers didn't eventually settle on standard paragraph formatting for prose because they're sheep, they settled on it because paragraph formatting allows for the clearest expression of complex ideas in written form.  Paragraph form emphasizes and enhances the unity and continuity of ideas, while simultaneously demarcating discrete elements within a larger chain of ideas.  Paragraph formatting also moves the personality of the writer out of the foreground and into the background, putting content front and center.  Your formatting choices emphasize personality almost to the exclusion of content, leaving the impression that you're really interested more in exalting your own person than in either the communication of ideas or something more resembling actual dialogue.  The stance is fundamentally antagonistic, even when it doesn't really have to be, and that's kind of puzzling.

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
That's why I never debate, and never argue.
People often think I am doing that, but what I'm really doing is being secure in my worldview, to the point where nobody can modify it.
My worldview is always open to modification, but only by me, as a result of what I learn, through direct experience of the world around me.
I don't abdicate responsibility, by taking on board what anyone else may push upon me.
And I don't expect anybody else to take my words and wear them without due consideration.

The bane of wise men, through history, has been those damned disciples, who behave like leftists, and hear something that sounds good, then start repeating it, without ever having understood what it meant.


And yet your methodology—point, counterpoint—frames your responses as arguments whether you recognize this or not.  My suspicion is that you do recognize that this is so, but have chosen to maintain otherwise because it allows you to maintain the illusion of being above the fray, and hence insulates you psychologically from the possibility of criticism or reproach.

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:07:22 PM
You think it pretentious, because if you did it, it would be.
I merely do what I do.
I am not a 'writer'. I am me.
My ideas are not important, or complex. Why do you assume they are?
It is interesting that you are antagonized by clarity.
Is clarity such a threat?

I submit that most commenters here, are all about appearing impressive.
They manifest this by over-wordiness and densely stacked copy.
If there ever was any content to their posts, it gets lost, for the most part, in the avalanche of words and unusual-arcane-language.
I write for nine year olds. If they can understand it, so can you.
Unless you are five.

Damn. Look at that. It all came out as prose, again.
Sorry; I just can't help it.

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:10:03 PM
My suspicion is that you do recognize that this is so, but have chosen to maintain otherwise because it allows you to maintain the illusion of being above the fray, and hence insulates you psychologically from the possibility of criticism or reproach.


Haha! That's amusing :)
I haven't noticed any such insulation from criticism or reproach.
You fellas have been firing broadsides at me ever since I showed up.
Yet, notice how I remain utterly unmoved by it.
That alone should make you pay attention.


Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:28:01 PM
You think it pretentious, because if you did it, it would be.
I merely do what I do.
I am not a 'writer'. I am me.
My ideas are not important, or complex. Why do you assume they are?
It is interesting that you are antagonized by clarity.
Is clarity such a threat?

I submit that most commenters here, are all about appearing impressive.
They manifest this by over-wordiness and densely stacked copy.
If there ever was any content to their posts, it gets lost, for the most part, in the avalanche of words and unusual-arcane-language.
I write for nine year olds. If they can understand it, so can you.
Unless you are five.

Damn. Look at that. It all came out as prose, again.
Sorry; I just can't help it.


Your language is telling.  Everything is "I" this and "me" that.  Most of what you post is self-referential, not just in the sense of looping back to your own personal beliefs, but in the starkly literal sense of being concerned specifically with your own person.

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:35:35 PM
My suspicion is that you do recognize that this is so, but have chosen to maintain otherwise because it allows you to maintain the illusion of being above the fray, and hence insulates you psychologically from the possibility of criticism or reproach.


Haha! That's amusing :)
I haven't noticed any such insulation from criticism or reproach.
You fellas have been firing broadsides at me ever since I showed up.
Yet, notice how I remain utterly unmoved by it.
That alone should make you pay attention.



Don't be deliberately obtuse.  Psychological insulation has nothing to do with the actions of others.  It doesn't matter if we criticize you or not, nor matter whether or not those criticisms are valid.  You've adopted a rhetorical and psychological stance designed to delegitimize any criticism you receive.  You fire your own shots across the bow, then respond to return fire with what amounts to, "Well I'm rubber and you're glue."  Then you congratulate yourself for your "security."  It's a social ploy, and nothing more.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but just know this is transparently obvious to others.

Phoenix

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:35:54 PM
I must clarify that I argue not just to persuade the person I'm in immediate correspondence with, and I'm aware of my influence on the audience at large. That's an important point. And the things I want to persuade you about may be subtle and not always the same things you think they are.

But on the topic at hand, Crow is a very spiritual person. Y'all have to understand something: to people with egos, people with no egos can appear to have very large egos. In the realm of communication, then, much of the responsibility does fall on the ego-less person, because they can see both sides of the equation, they have the upper hand. It's a fun art! But I always thought of it as a rather pointed art, at least in my left-leaning approach. And you don't make a whole bru-ha-ha with people just because you like to receive confirmation that indeed you have less ego than them, as if to confirm your superiority. Crow is not on these forums pointlessly, he has a purpose. Is he accomplishing it? And do I agree with his views about science, Pakistanis, etc? These are other matters. But I appreciate his art and his efforts. That being said, as he wields much power if he makes mistakes in his communication or is blind to certain inner facets of himself these things will show up highlighted. I'm not saying that's the case here, frankly I don't have time to read all this chit-chat, but it's a risk, it's a fine and subtle art, that can go wrong.

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:43:59 PM
Personal experience: people who talk loudly of their lack of ego are creatures dominated by their egos, and intellectual, emotional and spiritual security rarely manifest themselves in the form of dismissing opponents as 'neanderthals' or pronouncements that one is so secure as to have no need to consider thoughts that originate outside one's own direct experience. 

Throw this one to the forum: can there be such a thing as Phariseeic Buddhism?

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:46:58 PM
Hmmm.
Darth Vader: "The force is strong in this one..."
Crow: "I yam what I yam..."
Imperial Stormtrooper: "He is what he is. Let him pass."

Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 07:58:34 PM
Forumgoer: "If it appears real, it can't be. So I must destroy it."
Crow: "If it appears real, it isn't. But nobody can tell what's real and what is not".
Forumgoer: "Damn. Why is this fake thing not being destroyed when I unleash my superior intellect against it?"
Crow: "I wonder why people see real as fake, and fake as real?"
Forumgoer: "OK. So it is immune to my kryptonite missiles. I will accuse it of being defensive!"
Crow: "Why do these people either manifest desire to obtain, or manifest a need to defend?"
Forumgoer: "This troll is taking over the forum!"
Crow: "I wonder why we can't just discuss interesting things?"
Forumgoer: "See the way it writes? It's clear! This obviously signifies some awful ulterior motive!"
Crow: "I wonder why they are unable to understand simple sentences?"


Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 08:43:10 PM






Re: What is 'thinking', anyway?
April 02, 2012, 08:52:07 PM
My goodness!
Me as a child!
Where did you GET that?
Are there more?