Community > Posts By > John8659

 
John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 07:11 PM
Edited by John8659 on Thu 12/29/11 07:12 PM

Good thing is, we can all have our own opinions on this.


I assure you, it is not an opinion. There is nothing in all of creation more beautiful than a woman. Any additions what so ever only detracts from that perfection.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 05:55 PM

Sorry I saw this title and automatically launched into:

"Exciting and new. Come aboard We're expecting.........."


I am just waiting for the video to finish processing, for the 4th time. Keep noticing minor plate flaws.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 05:52 PM

uh.
no.


Well, you certainly handle stress in a normal manner.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 05:37 PM
I think you miss what is really going on there,

some people handle stress that way I believe.



John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 05:21 PM
Edited by John8659 on Thu 12/29/11 05:23 PM

John, This is your claim:

>>In order for me to perceive, or know myself, I would have to be other than myself. <<


I disagree.

Prove your claim.


Is proof possible when someone does not even understand the principles of the grammar they believe that they think in?

Take my advice, you win the argument.

Proofing is a demonstration of the compliance with the principles of a grammar system. I know, I post work with quite detailed proofs all the time.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 05:07 PM

John you used the term "self." You should have some idea what you think that means.

If you really think that self is a product of your brain, then okay.

I think you don't know what you are talking about.




I think it is best if you believe that.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 05:05 PM
Edited by John8659 on Thu 12/29/11 05:06 PM
When someone does not even understand the basics of assertion and denial, can you ever answer them, or they you?

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:59 PM

How do you define "self?"

You refuse to answer my question.


No, I did not, I can bet good money, you don't know what a definition is. How it differs from a description.

Which is the most primitive, and why.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:58 PM
I know, it is an unfair question.

If you knew the answer, you could prove Einstein's theories wrong.

Forget I asked.


John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:56 PM
Edited by John8659 on Thu 12/29/11 04:56 PM

How do you define "self?"




Now I gotcha.

There are three primitive categories of names.

Which can be defined and which cannot and why?



John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:52 PM

If you are blind, are you not still yourself?

If your ears are cut off, are you not still yourself?

If you breathe with a lung machine, are you still not yourself?

If you have brain damage, are you still not yourself?

If you are in a coma, where is yourself then? In the bed?




I am the product of a human brain. Just like running or walking is the product of legs.

That that does not mean, I think myself, or know myself. What is your point?

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:50 PM



What do you define as yourself? Your eyes? Your nose? Your ears? Your lungs? All of that mass of flesh together?




No, what makes you think I am every example of a truism?


John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:46 PM



Why do you think I said that we are different from ourselves? Rubbish.

I said no such thing.

You don't make any sense at all.

Sorry, but you don't.




To know, means to perceive. Now, the eye does not see itself, the ears do no hear themselves, lungs do not breathe themselves.

In order for me to perceive, or know myself, I would have to be other than myself.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:42 PM




Who said it changes anything? It is the way it is.




Nope. You implied that A does not equal A.

A -- A = 0, can be said in English, "relation to self is inadmissible.

What you said is that we are different from ourselves, which is not possible.

Ever study Plato's Charmides? It is all about relation to self, in fact Charmides was a relation to Plato. Very nice dialog.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:39 PM

Mistakes are the best teachers. As long as your mistake doesn't get you killed.




I actually made one of those once. Something stepped in and showed me the errors of my ways.


John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:37 PM

Of course by "know" I mean "understand."

Understand yourself.




That really does not change anything.

However, not letting reason get in the way of words is very, very, normal.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:33 PM

Perfection, like beauty, is in the mind. It is only in your own mind that you can you judge your own perfection or lack of it.



Relation to self is inadmissible.

As the eyes do not see themselves, I do not, nor ever can, know myself.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:31 PM
I am thinking about my current project.

Will it turn out well or not? I have 15 min. of video done, the idea is a video audio book.

It is a Universal Speller and Grammar book written in the 1760's

Redoing it in Word, it can be read on screen and listen'd to at the same time.

Well, sitting here ain't getting it done.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:23 PM



Your implication is that there is no standard reference by which one should treat their body. I have to disagree.


There is a root psychological perspective involved. Our body lives for us, or we live for the life of the body.

And art is suppose to increase a things beauty, not decrease it.

Now, if anyone rather look at some poor scribbling than a woman in all her glory, they are not tightly wrapped.



how are tattoos mutilating a body.
i'd say twinkies do more damage than tattoos.
o.O
beauty is quite subjective.
tattoos don't float your boat.
lack of facial hair on a man doesn't float mine.



I like hair on my face, just not my hair.

And beauty is virtue, not the lack of it.

John8659's photo
Thu 12/29/11 04:18 PM
Edited by John8659 on Thu 12/29/11 04:19 PM
self-interest and more on the collective good.


I seem to be rather stupid when I hear such rubbish. I mean, take the example of arithmetic, would you say anyone knew math, if they claimed to understand and could work with 1000, yet the 1 was superfluous?

So many buy into the idea that the 1 can be violated--for the sake of the many.

Ayn Rand may have gotten a lot wrong, but she did not get this wrong at all.

The definition of the 1 is the same as the many. The same definition applies to every member of a class.