Until at last I reach a vantage where I may look into its eye, and know that I am seen? — Pantagruel

Why do you suppose that it would have eyes?

Is there something special about first marriages? Like that first person will always be a bigger deal than any spouse after? — TiredThinker

Nope, third time is the charm. #1, 6 years. #2, 5 years. #3, 35 years.

Any strange Hondurian "birds" we ought to know about. You've Toucans down there. — Nils Loc

Yes we have some wonderful birds down here. I had a pair of these for a while.

The wild ones used to come and visit them, the trade food sometimes.
I had a pain of hawks nesting in one of the almond trees in my yard last year. We also have redheaded woodpeckers, parrots, hummingbirds, doves and lots of others I don't know the names of.


But the word BIRD has been is is still being used in other ways that to talk about feathered friends.
In England a bird is the same as a chick in the states, a girl. But it also was used to describe time in prison, "doing bird".
And lets not forget the international sign of disagreement and anger, "flipping the bird".

Bird has several meanings, think about it.

I heard about that, but they will probably have problems hiring a 68 year old.

But I am really ready to quit, the kids nowadays are just getting more and more pathetic every year. they have no interesting in learning anything because all of the information they will ever need is on Wikipedia. :rofl:

I am trying to figure what kind of a business I can start but right now the prospects are not that great for small businesses.

It might take a while to get there, the boss does not want to let me quit yet.
If I had any money I would quit anyway. :lol:

Another thread to see who can piss highest on the wall of fame.

And you are here to ping the conflict, huh. Once a sissy always a sissy. Must feel great being you. — skyblack

Better after fat doobie or a nice cabernet, I must say, but I don't complain much. There's just one of me anyway. Must be nice having the variety of personalities that you enjoy. — praxis

Maybe it would be a good idea to start a flaming thread so that you guys can get together on a friendly basis. :rofl:

But dropping $100,000 for some of the answers I am looking for would be a basement level bargain. — Book273

Unless I can see that there are opportunities to make a lot more, I will skip.

Finding 100k isn't all that hard. — Book273

Yeah, definitely. Err well no, it is hard.

No, I was discussing an epistemological issue. — baker

Well yes, everything comes under that title.

But your sad attempt to psychoanalyze and explain peoples' behavior using interpersonal communication theories goes a little beyond the scope of an epistemological issue.

But I guess that you could entertain us with an epistemological view of the issue.

It's not like we're at a philosophy forum or anything, dude. — baker

Oh, that's right.

So why are we discussing Psychology and sociology? I was sure that peoples' interaction with each other came mostly under those headings.

Beauty manifests itself in many ways, I don't understand all of them though.

As one of the commenters said about Mungo Gerry

Bad words 0%
Drugs 0%
Naked girls 0%
Beard 73%

Against a lot of today's music it is almost a chapel song.
They did not even have drums, fancy sound systems nor computer editing. This song played more than any other that whole summer.

In case everyone is wondering if only pretty things can make music.





So long ago, like yesterday.

Will the irony never end! — baker

Well I think that irony is preferable to plain bullshit, but that is only my humble opinion.
And it is always better to get an ironic reply to questions that none at all.

Anyway, I'd like to see the OP's reply -- ↪schopenhauer1
! -- that's why I posted in this thread to begin with. — baker

Which reply? Are you waiting for him to come and explain it all?

When the participant IS in that state, as you so excellently describe above and has demonstrated it, as you have, and also has a history of the being part of a terrorist group engaging in acts of terrorism, in context of what we have already discussed, dismissing them politely is about the best alternative available to one who understands the value of correct usage of energy and time. Now, carry on. I will let you figure what that means this time. — skyblack

No need to even think about what it means. It was simply. Let me explain it for you.

It means that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about therefore you have decided to try and blow off anyone that tries to discuss things with you by spouting a load of verbal diarrhea and hoping that they will walk away from the mess and that you will be able to claim victory because no one else will tell you that you are wrong.

Even if no one else tells you that you are wrong does not make you right.

Whether someone is Caucasian or not is not up to you (except if you were in some racial identity comission or some such). — baker

Well that is pretty obvious.

But whether someone "is" aggravating or not is 1. up to you, and 2. how you interact with that person. — baker

When I find someone aggravating, it is because of that person having a quality I do not like. It is possible that that person has acquired that specific trait because they have cultured it themselves or because it has been imposed upon them through nature or nurture. The ones I find most irritating are the self cultured traits such as snobby accents, exaggeration of intellect and the worst of all is the overbearing belief that some people have in their own superiority.

In the way you formulate your statements.
As if "Tom is aggravating" would ontologically and epistemologically be the same type of statement as "A cube has 6 surfaces." — baker

Now this is sort of silly. Where did I make a statement like that?

except that you don't formulate it as your thought, as your opinion, but as if it were an objective fact about the other person. — baker

OK, so you think that they way I am saying that I think Tom is a dickhead actually means that he is the head of a dick?

When someone says "I think" at the beginning of a sentence it is not to be counted true statement.

For instance, when I say that I find you to be a very irritating person, does that mean that you are one?

I do not know the truth about that, you may be a nice person. But based on the way you are interacting with me, I think I can safely say that you are irritating.

So either get used to everyday use of language and stop thinking that every interaction between parts of the universe HAS to be analyzed philosophically or find a better playpen.

Have you read the link? — baker

No, I just asked for fun. Anyone that uses the wiki as a serious reference leaves a lot to be desired as a bearer of knowledge.

What I asked, maybe not clearly enough is that I still don't understand what you mean by this. How does this apply to the topic? Are you trying to tell me that you think I am aggravating because of the way I speak and its nonconformity to someones theory about how to use language?

You said things like "this makes no sense", "people that ask pointless questions". You didn't say "I don't understand this" (until now, after all my trying to change the mode of the conversation). — baker

A person usually speaks what they think, it meant exactly what it said. "This makes no sense". Is it so confusing?

Right, i was waiting for that shift from the topic to the person.Says it all. — skyblack

Yes you are right, it is irritating when people start to get personal and insulting instead of discussing the topic.
Here is a very good example of someone doing exactly that.

Carry on. — skyblack

Being dismissive is one of the easiest ways out for someone that has their head so far up their butt that they think the light they see is the brilliance of their intellect. The truth is that what they really see is the light shining though their ears into the empty space where their brain should be. :rofl:

I wasn't giving you permission, it was my way of politely saying you are being dismissed. — skyblack

I don't need that either. But it serves as a good example of your conformity to society. :rofl:

Carry on. — skyblack

Best comedy films ever made in England.

But in case you are trying to give me permission, I don't need it.

I'm saying that other people don't have characteristics that would exist or have relevance regardless of the observer. — baker

I am really sorry to say that this makes no sense. If people don't have characteristic that would exist regardless of the observer then there is nothing to talk about here.

Also, "aggravating" is not the same kind of personal characteristic like "Caucasian". — baker

Both are descriptive of people, one is physical the other is personality. Did you just figure that out or do you think I am not able to recognize the difference.

You're externalizing, you talk of other people as if you're the one who decides who they really are or what is true about them. — baker

Exactly where did I say something like that? I am the one that decides what I think about them, or is that not obvious to you?

You use you-messages, not I-messages. Most people are like that. But it still makes for very low quality interactions. — baker

Again I do not understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you could give an example of what I have said that makes you think something like this.

I think that this thread is morphing into the "Quotable Quotes" section of the Readers Digest.

(And I swear the first person that points out it is actually 2 words is going to become acutely aware of another point.) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It is so sad what we have become. In days gone by would not have had to worry about this dilemma at all, you could have simply written firemen.

All of this politically correct bullshit is making a mess of normal people and common sense.

Aren't you part of that group of terrorists? — skyblack

No.
Just because I adjust my needs to society does not mean that I am going to fight either for or against it.

As I said, one can and has to adjust to society without being happy with it (conforming).

And there is a difference between adjusting and conforming. When I adjust I can take advantage of the parts of society that are beneficial while avoiding the parts I disagree with.

So you neither feel nor take any responsibility for how you feel about (and react to) others. — baker

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Is it not obvious that I am the one that decided that I have a low tolerance threshold for people that ask pointless questions, or are you imagining that it is somehow genetic or programmed into me.

It must be terrible to have one's state of mind so affected/directed by others. — baker

Yes it is terrible having people ask pointless questions because they are either failing to understand what I am saying or purposely misunderstanding my words to try and provoke reaction.

But it does not really bother my state of mind, when I have reached the threshold I tell them to piss off.

There are three people in the room, a rich man, a sexy young lady and an hunky athlete.
The rich man spends a lot of time talk about his possessions.
The athlete spends the time talking about his exploits on the field and with the ladies.
The young lady listens to both with interest for a while and imagines what life would be like with lots of money to spend and with a handsome hunk. But then decides that they are both arseholes and walks out telling them that she will see them later on the golf course.

People can have tolerance for some aspects of other people while loathing others parts of their personality. Try to remember that everything is not black and white.

"It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society".----Anonymous — skyblack

One can adjust without conformity. That is what many terrorist do. And we all know how good they are for society.

So would you say richness, then, gives those who are rich a great sense of leisure instead of labor, — d Luke

No, but if you can explain how someone could have a sense of leisure or of labor I might rethink my answer.

I might agree that those who have enough money to not have to work to pay their bills might find it less necessary to work.

Or do you think richness would be more than these things? — d Luke

Richness could mean something different for each and every rich person, but to me it is meaningless because I have not experienced it.

I would a guess that some of those that have gone from rags to riches would celebrate their good lucky in doing so and live a happy life. But others either born into money or have gained it for themselves become money grabbers that are only interested in making more.

But the original problem is still there. — InPitzotl

Your right about that, and he will probably stick around for a while longer. :rofl:

Indeed. I think everything you've said is a load of Pollocks. — Bartricks

You must have been working on your charm class homework very hard. Some many compliments.

But you have still failed to address what I said.

From a psychological point of view it is extremely interesting to see how you abuse others that fail to meet your pathetic expectations even when they have the courtesy to write replies to your hogwash. But you do not even have the courtesy to reply.

Indeed, I think that everything you have said is a load of bollocks that is completely unsustainable in any form that you care to spout it.

Do you think that if Tom thinks Dick is aggravating, this has nothing in any way to do with Tom? — baker

Of course it has something to do with them both. One has a low tolerance for a specific characteristic of the other. For example, I have a low tolerance for people that ask pointless questions, therefore those that have a tendency to do that irritate me.

And that Tom is completey helpless in the face of Dick's aggravation? Ie. that if Tom is in Dick's presence, Tom will become aggravated, and there's nothing Tom can do about that? — baker

Tom can quite easily walk away or just tell Dick to piss off. How is this relevant to what I said?

Paint flinger. — Bartricks

Oh dear, thank you so much. I never imagined that a dipshit like you was capable of paying such a compliment,

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jackson-Pollock

There are a lot more famous paint flinger like him.

Thank you so much.

I'm sure that passes for wit in a Burger King or a Kentucky Fried Chicken, but you are talking to a champagne drinking truffle muncher, so you really need to up your game. Thicky. — Bartricks

If I was abusive as you, I would correct your opinion of yourself to read piss drinking shit eating type of person. But I am not at all abusive. :halo:

And the monkey-flung painting is clearly not a portrait of you. However, if your reason says otherwise, then i think it is too badly corrupted to be of any use. — Bartricks

Please explain how you dickionary contradicts my point of view. IF YOU CAN. :rofl:

I use to think richness could be enough money. But what if a person does not have to pay the bills because of government assistance or welfare. This person gets bills paid because of a lack of money. Why should this person not be considered rich? — d Luke

Because it does not fit into the definition I gave.
I said that anyone with enough money to pay the bills without having to work. That would mean that they choose not to work because they don't need to.
These people do not have enough money to pay the bills, that is why they are paid for them. And most of them don't work because they cannot do so.

What does it mean for a person to be rich? — d Luke

Anyone with enough money not to have to work to pay the bills. But most of those people work harder than the rest of us.

I would drop $100,000.00 for the right information any day of the week. — Book273

Do you work for the KGB or something like that?

What are the problems of the world today? — Xtrix

Not to get into too much detail for the answer, but I would guess it to be at least 90% of the population.
Myself included.

Shall I help you to see how dumb you are being? (Or willfully ignorant) — Bartricks

It is about time you got a dictionary so that you can stop using the dickionary you use. Maybe it will help to stop you fucking up so much.
Your lack of knowledge about the use of words, ignorance, is only surpassed by the flagrantly abusive use of them to suite your own ideas, dumbness.

You don't seem to understand the argument. — Bartricks

That makes 2 of us then. One that does not understand it and one that does not understand just how bloody stupid it is.

Visual sensations cannot tell us about the world unless they have representative contents.
That is, unless they are telling us something. — Bartricks

There seems to be enough consensus to let this go.

And they will only have those, if the faculty that created them in us was designed by an agent for that purpose. — Bartricks

This still sounds like bullshit even after you have repeated it so many times.

It's pointless arguing with you, but anyway, in the hope that someone somewhere will get the point - imagine a portrait artist paints a picture of you. That's a pictorial representation. Now imagine a monkey in a room randomly flinging paint at a canvas. And imagine that by some pure fluke the image the monkey's mad antics create exactly resembles the portrait painter's painting.

Is it a portrait of you? — Bartricks

If it is as good as the painters image of me and is indistinguishable from the other one then of course it is a portrait of me. Even if the monkey does not recognize the fact. Can you provide a definition of
"portrait" that specifies that only humans are allowed to create them or that they have to be intentional?

I think you have this wrong again. :gasp: All you have done were is try to prove that only agent created messages are capable of creating representative contents.

But even if I were to admit that it was true, which it is certainly not. It in no way whatsoever proves that the perception of those messages has to be through agent create faculties.

Our visual sensations are random monkey-flung paintings if our visual faculties are bot built. And thus lookingin the oven is not something one can do with bot built faculties. All one can do is 'look' in the oven. — Bartricks

Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, BORING.

It's just that even your insults don't really make sense. — Bartricks

Oh dear, did I give you the impression that the list was of insults? Terribly sorry about that old chap, maybe I should have explained better. That is nothing more than a list of possible reasons for your "mistaken" (read as "Fucked up") ideas.

You proposed that I have read relevant philosophical works (can you tell me some of those, incidentally - ones that are not on an SEP page?) upside down or backwards. — Bartricks

That would be one way of explaining why you have these mistaken ideas.

That would require some skill. Leonardo da Vinci was capable writing backwards and so could presumably read backwards too. And he was a bright lad. So that's why it puzzled me. — Bartricks

No one said that you were/are capable of doing it. I think that you missed the point.
Penny will drop in 10 seconds from now, 9, 8,7..................................

But getting back to the rest of that post.

The whole problem could be solved by opening the oven and looking to see if there is a pie in it. That would eliminate any need of information being passed through any message and therefore even if there are such things as representers they would not be involved in acquiring information.
If I can then confirm that the pie is in the oven, it would seem that in some way I would have received that information directly from my evolutionary developed senses.

Now maybe if Fartrix can show why I am wrong, maybe I will continue to try to explain why he is wrong. — Sir2u

Don't you have anything to comment about it?

A hole exists as the space between boundaries not occupied by objects.

I think your original question lacks clarity, which makes it difficult for people to answer. What do you mean by ‘true awareness’? ‘Some things’? Why would you infer that if we were just the product of evolutionary forces, our senses would be unreliable or partial? Etc, etc. — Ignatius

He has no idea, and he will just tell you that it is in the OP and to read it again.

By the way, if you want to quote someone's text, just select it then click on the QUOTE button that appears.