Well, thankfully, I remember the "form" of my post is like BGE 19, 24, 9, 19 something something BoT Through Will to P.

that is the stone age... and Im using my phone. Geesh, sitting at a desk pools the blood. And although I have a desk I can walk at and notes I can type in there on my phone... no... I think I'll raise the question as to why this place can't do save as draft functionality when comments are saved... I guess TFP is just hosted by a company not owned by the owner of TFP.

Personally, my experience with hardcoded is that you can often figure a creative way around the hardcoded limitations.

Heh, well consider what a state does: presents pretty much a standard to live by while building a structure to govern people who can't govern themselves... that isn't to say that there aren't those that do... but by and large most fail at governing themselves. They look to the state to provide solutions.

Intension is the total set of receptors intrinsic to the physical form of a word.

One cannot use words without knowing the meanings — Corvus

True, though, ultimately the meaning of a word is dependent upon the sentence it shows up in.

Because I see that Quine has read Nietzsche and I see Quine attempting to overcome aspects Nietzsche would harp on doesn't mean I see everything through Nietzsche. That means I know Nietzsche's phrases and when I read it in another author, I'm like "ah, hes read Nietzsche." Because it's a stimulus that triggers a total set of receptors...

Just as I realized Quines philosophy is based on Set Theory and Mathematics to inform him on linguistics... with hardly any ability in set theory none the less. I simply realized that what I was learning about Ordinals is how Quine orders linguistics from the top down. His "total set of receptors" was the same as the total set of nodes in which one can say this references that

1. I'm going to throw shit on you vs. 2. I'm going to throw "shit" on you... what am I referring to by "shit" in number 2? I'll give you three guesses. If you can not get it right, then it's likely cause it's incoherent because I quoted shit... and thus, modality and reference do not trigger all the same set of receptors from De Re vs De Dicto.

That I detail every language as its own quotational account... well, you cannot know wtf "hintegedanke" means without knowing it in German because there is no word for it in any other language, or even "Aristeuein" for that matter but for the Greek. Even without that... how many words are there for a Bird? In other languages? I don't know... and I dont even know 1/10th or probably 1/100ths of all the words for Bird... the different modality of a language can render something incoherent just as a quotational account...

Unless you know the meaning within that modality... the same total set of receptors wont fire...

And thus if I switch modalities from English to French w/ That oiseau is flying... the plane? the insects, ... what exactly is flying when I don't know what "oiseau" is? I can make an educated guess based on faith and "what I know that can fly?"

Thus modalities have a certain resisting against identity when substituted...

The modalities of necessity and possibility are not overtly mentalistic, but still they are intensional, in the sense of resisting substitutivity of identity. — Quine's Pursuit of Truth.

If that's opaque then I can see why you take Russel's boneheaded criticism of Nietzsche. Because you're out here substituting your meanings and words for Nietzsche's own...

And as Wittgenstein shows us, every philosopher has his own language, a language that you have to familiarize yourself with otherwise you wont know wtf they're saying.

by the nature of the question, it appears to me that you're thinking I'm saying they're already stealing all the money. What I'm saying is the state loves to take the excess of power and productivity of a person and turns it into fiat money that represents a style of power and productivity within a given post-phenomenalist structure.

That fiat money isn't printed for public serivce is because your politicians aren't really giving a damn about that vs other interests.

The state literally already takes everything from the people, money is generally a superfluous representation of power, power and productivity stolen by the state.

Not sure what's so hard to understand

30 Modalities The modalities of necessity and possibility are not overtly mentalistic, but still they are intensional, in the sense of resisting substitutivity of identity. Here again we have the interplay between de dicto and de re. Thus ‘nec (7 < the number of the planets)’ is true de re, since nec (7 < 9), but false de dicto...

28 Propositional Attitudes: (1) There are some whom Ralph believes to be spies, not just that (2) Ralph believes ‘∃x(x is a spy)’. If rendered quotationally, (1) goes incoherent. (3) ∃x(Ralph believes ‘x is a spy’). The quotation in (3) is just a name of a string of seven letters and three spaces; its ‘x’ has nothing to do with the outlying ‘∃x’. (1) ascribed belief de re; quotation ascribes it de dicto. Between (1) and (2) we sense the vital difference between spotting a suspect and merely believing, like all of us, that there are spies. — Quine's Pursuit of Truth.

Quite simple... de dicto is incoherent cause it's a quotational account, so who knows what exactly he's referencing...

You cant tell which total set of receptors are triggered for the words in a quotational account... hence the popularity of disquotation. Apollonians flock to disquotation because of its form.

But in truth, every language is a quotational account... what observation sentences are true for every person in the world are very few. Even science as its truths delve deeper and deeper. Overturning older ways for the newer, better, faster, stronger method...

In reading Quine, there are times when the man will use phrases direct from Nietzsche, that trigger a total set of receptors (example "leading to strange new vistas") and it's my belief that Quine would consider his own perspective from his opposite under the mask of Nietzsche, to scrutinize his works. To overcome this problem of subjectivity from "Stimulus to Science."

There are no facts, there are only interpretations — Arcane Sandwich

I dont give a fuck if AS(s) Boy isn't even here... heres the facts. WHO THE FUCK SAID THERE ARE NO FACTS ONLY INTERPRETATION? Nietzsche said there are no MORAL FACTS ONLY MORAL INTERPRETATION OF PHENOMENON...

When you're a retard who doesn't read Nietzsche, perhaps you shouldn't comment on trying to refute Nietzsche. There's a reaaon Ole boy AS was posting 33 times a day... Nietzsche spells it out: Powerlessness.

I swear, middling fuck wits thinking they know something...

My leading doctrine is this: there are no moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena. The origin of this interpretation itself lies beyond the pale of morality. — Nietzsche, WtP

We can see Nietzsche discusses this very concept as early as HATH (Aphorism 2), all the way to Ecce Homo and Antichrist... Which even Peter Gast gets right in WtP...

"I hate Nietzsche, so I want to try and refute something Nietzsche doesn't even say." 99% of "Bannos/Low calibre Russels" in the world.

Though, I suppose if you fancy a shit interpretation... don't be surprised when you end up covered in the shit of your own poor interpretation.

pretty simple, the first law of Thermo Dynamics pretty much says everything can neither be created nor destroyed, but that what is changes form.

Nothing to be sorry about.

The law of conservation of humans

Humans can neither be created or destroyed, but they can change forms.

A baby isn't created, just a changing of forms of matter.

The law of conservation of shit

Shits can neither be created or destroyed, but they can change forms...

"I'm eating this 'shit' so my body transforms it into that shit which I'll shit out as a pile of shit..."

You can sub anyword for energy and it's more or less true.

Better yet, Life is neither created or destroyed...

Or light for that matter...

But wait God does those things?

So apparently energy can be created or destroyed. According to any true Christian perspective.

I dont know the answer either. ALL that I'm getting at is it seems odd to make a very obvious law that says details the definition of limitless is to be without limits.

your question and assertion is in reference to perpetual motion. Trying to pretend it's not because I didn't reference it in my assertion is just you being a troll.

Can you think of a different reason why perpetual motion machines would be impossible? — flannel jesus

What about friction, heat loss, things like that? When a machine loses energy, it doesn't just lose it into the void, it gets transferred to other things in its immediate environment.

The concept of energy doesn't dictate that energy is really lost, if you want to relate entropy to energy, entropy is more about patterns of distribution of energy. — flannel jesus

this is why you're a lying sack of poop...

Certainly implied.

Well you're definitely asserting something here:

What about friction, heat loss, things like that? When a machine loses energy, it doesn't just lose it into the void, it gets transferred to other things in its immediate environment.

The concept of energy doesn't dictate that energy is really lost, if you want to relate entropy to energy, entropy is more about patterns of distribution of energy. — flannel jesus

Is motion perpetual without limits?

What? I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify? Why are you saying such a thing to me without referencing anything I said? I don't understand.


->If you can't remember what you said, go back and read it.

You asked like 5 times, every time I respond is quite clear and simple. If you're incapable of even understanding that, then perhaps this place isn't for you. Playing dumb is just a troll tactic. So you'll be trolled right back.

Then perhaps leave these forums. Obviously your limits are many. Your understanding would be without limit if you weren't limited. Just as motion would be limitless without limitation. If you cannot see that, well, carry on. *waves a shooing hand*

Trolling like fuck I see...

Can you think of a different reason why perpetual motion machines would be impossible — flannel jesus

IE "Can you think of any reason why limitless become limited"

The law of everything is that it's limitless without limits.

ANY THING IS FUCKING LIMITLESS WHEN YOU REMOVE THEIR LIMITS.

A little imagination would be all it took to understand vs obstinance. But, just my opinion.

More or less, it's kinda all too obvious to say "x is limitless were there nothing making it limited..."

Not a huge gap at all, just perhaps a lack of understanding on your behalf:

It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines—real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into an energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. — Deleuze, Anti-Oedipus, Pg 1

Pretty simple...

"Motion is perpetual because only other things kill it off."

In that same vein of thinking... "life is immortal because only other things kill it off."

Okay all life is immortal... doesn't matter that other things kill you off... life would be immortal otherwise...

Literally the perspective of perpetual motion...

"Cause other things kill me off other than me, Life is never ending."

Physics aside, this whole thread was determined. Determined thoughts about the topic and what needs to be expressed by the determined individuals within the topic. A need to try and bring science into even... out of a need to refute others... doubtful there are truly passionate scientists here. Just ones looking to talk about the concepts behind the science for other purposes than science. Science as objective dogma... Because the mind is a tyrant.

a standard ploy that denies God some facet and experience or another that denies God omnimity.

Only if you relegate madness as a domain of God...

Ah, "Fecal Freakal," I understand.

The Left Rights - Take a Shit

I doubt anyone here can muster much, if any critique of my knowledge of Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology. His thoughts are like trees, with roots trunks branches and fragments, all of which details Nietzsche's thoughts. Not my concept of Nietzsche's thoughts.

Which joke - that π is beyond our grasp or that Nietzsche is difficult? — Banno

Sad, that you think that worth writing. — Banno

Doesn't realize that shame/guilt doesn't work on someone who understands Nietzsche.

It’s meant to be irrational.

the only true expression of pi is that Janus is J's Anus

What's it matter? We're grasping pi...

there is no true way to express pi is all...

Well, according to I need memos.

Well, that's another joke, because he sure fooled you and your homeboy Russel...

My joke is rimshot cheese shit eating grin opportunity strikes... yours and Banno's joke is different and I definitely didn't think about it at all, until being pinged by Banno.

My comment is the joke. That it's hard for you to understand, well, I can understand that. Nietzsche too is hard for you to grasp.

Taking literally the ruthless implications of Nietzsche's anti-democratic thinking—his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics — Maw

Oh, right colonial expansion and eugenics isn't about Nationalism at all... :roll:

The fact dude even suggest Nietzsche celebrates those things is straight trash.

That the masses prop up the higher social rank is what Nietzsche details for OTIUM... not eugenics... The Superman isn't about domination over others...it isn't about literally breeding a new type of man.

How the fuck is suffering with them from them (the only time Nietzsche declares the superman becoming reality) the same as breeding a new type of superman?

the type "Superman" already exists...

The word "Superman," which designates a type of man that would be one of nature's rarest and luckiest strokes...

See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

You insulted Nietzsche with that donk post about Nietzsche... Maybe read Nietzsche vs someone's work about Nietzsche which lead you astray. Also, I'm sitting here watching my father waste away in hospice. I was bitter.

Is the number pi beyond our grasp? — frank

It's an irrational number after all.

I'm generally opposed to victim searching, where folks go out and try to convince others they are oppressed or downtrodden. — Hanover

I dont feel oppressed or down trodden from it either, personally. I hardly even care about the fact that I'm a man, I barely consider it at all, generally only when something inqures my gender/sex.

Doesn't mean I can't see the necessity for the profoundest antagonism between man and woman attempting to assert itself within humanity...

The fact that feminism and feminity is being advocated so hard... for every action there is an equal but opposite... every hero/heroine has their enemy.

Just as slaves rose up against the values of the masters who ruled them, woman too is rising up against the constellation of the past few thousand years.

Which is certainly one of the issues Nietzsche has with feminism that dictates "woman as such." It's just another dogma. A slave morality for women, for the most part, just as Nietzsche considers Science a slave morality for most practitioners, as it's their way to deny others their beliefs based off of some calculations or another...