Reason S'il Vous Plait?

[Kya]

For the life of me, I cannot remember what is "reason." I blame the night trains now that wail in the distance from the new flat. I think my thoughts have hopped on them and left; are waving bye-bye in the sound. Not just 'reason" in its grand philosophical sense, but the slippery kernel inside expressions such as "be reasonable." What is at its core? What is meant by this?

It was just so clear at one point. Was it that which "preserves" life best (in any given context)? Is it reserved only for preservation and not flourishment? For surely "flourishment" contains its fair share of squandering and hastening. I am not so certain about this preservation function anymore, even if I violate my Nietzsche Primer. I am not so certain about reason. But I am certain I am not up for a discussion that makes binary battles out of "reason" and "emotion." I know I am being pesky, but could we avoid deconstruction too? I know meaning is slippery. I am sliding in it now.

I see you are spirited enough to revisit "philosophy" qua philosophy - whose definition and purpose I find far less problematic. What do some of you sages, students, and philosophers say is "Reason"?

[rich]

Kya,

Sorry Kya, but I can not think of any rhyme or reason to reply to your post, but I just did. :D ;)

[Kya]

. . . reason enough, rich. right welcoming anyway what what.

I think I have a lot of homework. More than your community's deeper threads and histories, there are so many more buttons for posting than I am used to (which is very little).

Gurus are good that way, with the fractal answer, the smile . . . :)

[Fujoubou]

Why reason when you can just let it be. Reason can be good or bad depending on factors. So why reason, cause there is balance into this world.

[Kya]

. . . but Fujoubou, you have just reasoned with me . . . .

[rich]

Dear Kya,

You made the following statement in your reply:

Gurus are good that way, with the fractal answer, the smile . . .* ]

Am not a genuine Guru, a misleading title, bestowed on posters, that make 250 posts. So, am not really a Guru, and could request a title of my choice, but it really does not matter what they call me, as long as they do not call me late for supper. ;)

BTW, Welcome Kya!

[Fujoubou]

Kya: I would call it discution more then reasoning but it can also be called litle reasoning.

En passant es-tu francophonne ?

[a random hack]

Not just 'reason" in its grand philosophical sense, but the slippery kernel inside expressions such as "be reasonable." What is at its core? What is meant by this?

will take a stab :)
'be reasonable', at it's core, means, 'agree with me' :)
and seems 'reason' is just another way of attempting to explain...

[Kya]

. . . oui, Fujoubou, ou plutot, citoyenne du monde d'esprit qui habite en amerique. Et toi?

"Little reasoning" - I like this anyway. I think one must possess something before they can let it go.

Today a friend tells me that reasoning is synonymous with logic. no, no, no, there is more afoot, but I am still riding the trains without ground and can only refute. Reason shall be the path to or from anything human, regardless of logic.

I am beginning to feel like a Pirsig bedeviled with "quality."

The best friend tells me that reason is nothing more than Love. why all the synonyms? symptomatic of this word, it seems. and very telling, too.

Beautiful reason - now there is something. Where have I seen it before? I know it to be bound too beautifully to e-motion . . . . Dostoevsky comes to mind. but then, so does eeyore . . . .

The official welcome, rich. thanksagain. 250 posts seem very far away!

[Kya]

'be reasonable', at it's core, means, 'agree with me'

hmm. . . . "perhaps" :)

what about a whole room full of people who see the same thing missed by the unreasonable one?

you are right though, random hack, for so many cases . . . .

[sahyo]

anal-'y'-zzzzzzz-'i'-ng poopoos?

[Kya]

anal-'y'-zzzzzzz-'i'-ng poopoos?

I would put the laughing smiley here if it were loud enough.

I cannot help loving my feet in the concrete shoes of concepts. makes me light enough to fly . . . .

[a random hack]

what about a whole room full of people who see the same thing missed by the unreasonable one?


so what? doesn't change a thing :)

have been in this exact situation, 'being unreasonable' (you surprised? :lol:), but of course, I was right <preen>
took two hours to convince 'them', tho :lol:
actally, convinced one person, ad let him convince the rest :)

have also recently re-noticed that he who speaks most, 'knows' most, understands least, and requires the most reassurance... ;)

[rich]

a random hack wrote:have also recently re-noticed that he who speaks most, 'knows' most, understands least, and requires the most reassurance...

To whom does hack refer to?? :unsure:

[rich]

asheera posted:anal-'y'-zzzzzzz-'i'-ng poopoos?


As long as it comes out in yhe end, everything is alright. :lol:

[a random hack]

a random hack wrote:QUOTE
have also recently re-noticed that he who speaks most, 'knows' most, understands least, and requires the most reassurance...


To whom does hack refer to??



dunno, any ideas, rt?

[rich]

rh posted:dunno, any ideas, rt?

and this:a random hack wrote:QUOTE
have also recently re-noticed that he who speaks most, 'knows' most, understands least, and requires the most reassurance...



To whom does hack refer to??
rh made original statement, (not rt), and must have been thinking of a specific person. Trying to find out whom you was thinking about, when post was made?

[a random hack]

is ok, you don't know 'em :lol:

[slayer]

Hack: have also recently re-noticed that he who speaks most, 'knows' most, understands least, and requires the most reassurance... ;)

Dear Hack,

I know who you must be referring to! Let's look at the numbers:

The paranthetical number is the number of posts.

Asheera (1063)
Rich (885)
Hack (466)
David S (457)
Sonrisa (444)
Thomas (166)
slayer (100)

I think it's pretty low to insult Aheera the way you have, Hack. You should have the courage to make your insults explicit. This reminds me of a cowardly comment by Rich on another thread when he tried to get "someone's goat," a someone who hadn't, at the time, posted on that particular thread.

It is the weak who are the greatest criminals,

slayer

[a random hack]

hmm, come to think of it, i may have got that completely wrong :lol:

[rich]

I think it's pretty low to insult Aheera the way you have, Hack. You should have the courage to make your insults explicit. This reminds me of a cowardly comment by Rich on another thread when he tried to get "someone's goat," a someone who hadn't, at the time, posted on that particular thread.

It is the weak who are the greatest criminals,

slayer


slayer,

The above post of yours, may be true, but is not obvious, so please give me more info, so I will know what you are talking about. If I tried to get your goat, that was not very nice to do. Sorry, please accept my apology. :o




:shakehead: :reallysad: :cry:

[Owen]

kya:
For the life of me, I cannot remember what is "reason." I blame the night trains now that wail in the distance from the new flat. I think my thoughts have hopped on them and left; are waving bye-bye in the sound. Not just 'reason" in its grand philosophical sense, but the slippery kernel inside expressions such as "be reasonable." What is at its core? What is meant by this?


Kya: " I am not so certain about reason. "

Surely, you have reasoned to arrive at this conclusion.


Hello Kya,

Like 'rich'; I am not sure why I am responding to you either.

But, I think it was our 'reasoning' that provided the method of decision required to act.

IMHO, Ordery thoughts require some method of reasoning, that is to say, some method of decision, ..some reasoning.

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

Truth is determined by reasoning.

We assume that all occurrences have sufficient reasons to occur at all. Otherwise they would not occur.

Fanciful thoughts do not require this sense of order.

When someone says 'be reasonable' they mean 'please don't be fanciful', don't they?

Reason and logic are required to make sense of any situation.

Owen

[sahyo]

Reason and logic are required to make sense of any situation.

worm flourishes
turning burrowed air flowering
honey bee songs

[slayer]

Rich: slayer, The above post of yours, may be true, but is not obvious, so please give me more info, so I will know what you are talking about. If I tried to get your goat, that was not very nice to do. Sorry, please accept my apology.

slayer -- Apology accepted, Rich.

I'm not recalling which thread that occurred in, so unless you really want that reference, we'll leave it at 'apology accepted.'

I wasn't offended by your comment, but I was disappointed to see you stoop to such means. Likewise, I was not offended by what Hack wrote, just amused at how he managed to botch up an insult.

the man of stone,

slayer

[a random hack]

I wasn't offended by your comment, but I was disappointed to see you stoop to such means. Likewise, I was not offended by what Hack wrote, just amused at how he managed to botch up an insult.

it seems it was quite effective..... assuming it was an insult :lol:

[slayer]

(Philosophy) Hack: it seems it was quite effective..... assuming it was an insult

First, it wasn't effective as an insult. Second, why be coy? Certainly you know whether you intended it as an insult. It's quite obvious that you did. But the fact that your definite description actually managed to pick out Asheera, instead of me, made your attempted insult laughable.

You use "assuming" as if that somehow casts doubt on whether you intended it as an insult. Asheera uses "imagining" in a similar vein. You two go to the same pre-school?

When will you realize that your attempted insults aren't what prompts my frustration or ire, but it's your poor logic and obliviousness to it that does.

your idol,

sayer

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Jan 1 2004, 11:37 PM
rh posted:dunno, any ideas, rt?

and this:a random hack wrote:QUOTE*
have also recently re-noticed that he who speaks most, 'knows' most, understands least, and requires the most reassurance...



To whom does hack refer to??
rh made original statement, (not rt), and must have been thinking of a specific person. Trying to find out whom you was thinking about, when post was made?
to which rh responded-

is ok, you don't know 'em :lol:

now, assuming that we all know each other via cyberspace (these message boards) then logically my dear Mr Spock, Random must of been referring to somebody that doesn't post here, since he sez Richie doesn't know them.

[slayer]

Dear person I was never talking to again,

No, my dear poor reader, what Hack said was that Rich didn't know 'em, in the sense that Rich didn't know who Hack was referring to, not in the sense that Rich didn't know the person at all.

But thanks for your poor interpretation,

slayer

[a random hack]

:lol:
must i correct you again, slayer?

First, it wasn't effective as an insult.
of course it was, even you understood it as such

Second, why be coy? Certainly you know whether you intended it as an insult.
yes i do,
It's quite obvious that you did. and no, you don't :D
But the fact that your definite description actually managed to pick out Asheera, instead of me, made your attempted insult laughable.

it was only a 'maybe' :lol:

You use "assuming" as if that somehow casts doubt on whether you intended it as an insult. Asheera uses "imagining" in a similar vein. You two go to the same pre-school?
yes, it's called 'The Big View dot com':lol:

When will you realize that your attempted insults aren't what prompts my frustration or ire, but it's your poor logic and obliviousness to it that does.
right.....now :)
your idol,

your idiot

Hack :)

[slayer]

Random (Thoughts),

That's funny, I don't see one correction in your whole post.

Your insult wasn't effective in that I didn't feel insulted. Of course it's debatable whether an insult is an insult if the other person doesn't feel insulted, but I wasn't making that claim, simply saying that I didn't feel insulted. Hence, it wasn't effective, not "it wasn't an insult."

You then agree, with me, that you know whether you intended as an insult or not. How is this correcting me?

You quote me as saying "It's quite obvious that you did," to which you reply, "and no, you don't." Sorry, but I'm not seeing how your response addresses the quote.

Yes, Hack, we know you prefixed a "maybe" in front of your rhetorical question. But rhetorical questions are claims. Do you too need a lesson in English?

By my count, no corrections were made on your part. But you can count the times I set you straight in this post on your own, I hope.

You did get your good-bye right at least.

still your idol,

slayer

[a random hack]

as i'm bored by this, i'll only correct you no one point :)

Your insult wasn't effective in that I didn't feel insulted. Of course it's debatable whether an insult is an insult if the other person doesn't feel insulted, but I wasn't making that claim, simply saying that I didn't feel insulted. Hence, it wasn't effective, not "it wasn't an insult."


if you weren't offended, how do you know it was an insult? :lol:

[slayer]

Dear Hack,

Please, just stop and think before asking stupid questions. Mind you, I didn't just call you stupid, but I am claiming that you ask stupid questions.

Random (Questions): if you weren't offended, how do you know it was an insult?

Listen, if I call you a dumb ass, does it therefore mean that you would be insulted? If some kid calls you and old geezer, would it mean that you would be insulted? Since you're incapable of such deep thinking, I'll asnwer for you: No.

Yet we both know that I intended to insult you, and so I insulted you. The kid insulted you too, but you weren't insulted is all. Is this so hard to grasp?

I can tell a joke and it could turn out that no one thinks it's funny, but would that disqualify it as a joke? And even if it did disqualify it as a joke, you could still tell that I intended to tell a joke. So, I can I know that you insulted me without me feeling insulted. Take some time and think this through. You'll come to appreciate something very interesting about the grammar of "insult" and "joke." Consider this a free philosophy of language lesson.

you big bad man you,

slayer

[sahyo]

Take some time and think this through. You'll come to appreciate something very interesting about the grammar of "insult" and "joke." Consider this a free philosophy of language lesson.

slayer imagine thinking can understand and language can say?

[slayer]

These will be my last sorties to you, Asheera.

Asheera: slayer imagine thinking can understand and language can say?

Again, you're putting forth a certain world view, one in which we can't attain knowledge or true belief, but one which you never defend or argue for. So, as I've said elsewhere to you, defend that position or stop addressing me in your posts. You'll get no further replies otherwise.

Imagining thinking? Wrong. I'm thinking. Do I imagine that thinking can lead to understanding? Exactly, it can. Do I imagine that language can say? That's horribly stated, but, yes, language can be used to say lots of things, an infinite number of things. And I'm not the only one who thinks this, my self-refuting friend; you do too. Now, your instincts are going to propel you towards responding with a denial of that charge, but don't waste your time, it's obviously true. Irony is a cruel master, isn't she?

I don't think words exists but I'm writing this anyway,

slayer

[sahyo]

Asheera: slayer imagine thinking can understand and language can say?

Again, you're putting forth a certain world view, one in which we can't attain knowledge or true belief, but one which you never defend or argue for. So, as I've said elsewhere to you, defend that position or stop addressing me in your posts. You'll get no further replies otherwise.

didn't say "can't attain knowledge or true belief" ...said "knowledge only knowledge"

slayer imagines imagined belief "true"?

Imagining thinking? Wrong. I'm thinking. Do I imagine that thinking can lead to understanding? Exactly, it can. Do I imagine that language can say? That's horribly stated, but, yes, language can be used to say lots of things, an infinite number of things. And I'm not the only one who thinks this, my self-refuting friend; you do too. Now, your instincts are going to propel you towards responding with a denial of that charge, but don't waste your time, it's obviously true.

does comfort slayer to imagine slayer 'knows', when slayer imagining guessing assuming concluding which not happening?

[sahyo]

slayer

didn't remember wording exact...
was >"educated" only knowledge"<, not >knowlege only knowledge<,
though "educated"/knowlege only knowledge

:D

[a random hack]

[I][COLOR=orange]just stops, sits and listens to the *WHOOSH* of concepts flying overhead

:think: :thumbsup: :boxing: :cry: :lol:

[slayer]

My diagnosis:

The problem with you, Asheera, in my unprofessional opinion, is that you lack a mastery of English, which I find to be the biggest cause behind your poor thinking/reading/philosophy. I'm not saying that everyone has to be grammarians, as probably few of us are these days, but at least one should understand the meanings of the words one uses. If a word has several meanings, try not to equivocate. If a word is ambiguous, try to not to rest too much on it. If you're having trouble articulating something, then it's probably because you don't understand it. We all make these mistakes, but some less than others, and some are oblivious to their mistakes.

Asheera, I ask in all sincerity, is English not your primary language? If not, then don't be offended when I say that your writing is almost incomprehensible. And even when you respond with your patented "not what asheera meant," you still fail to articulate what you meant in the first place.

And then there's your retort about how language cannot say. Do you not see that you are using language -- when replying or posting (excluding non-word posts) -- to say things? Surely this cannot be beyond your grasp.

Even if you have some unsubstantiated world view about the limitations of our understanding or of language, at least recognize that the majority of English words have specific meanings, sometimes multiple specific meanings, so don't abuse them, unless you intend not to be understood. The same applies to English grammar. Almost every time you've had to respond to someone with "not what Asheera meant," it has been your fault because your grammar creates the confusion.

For example, Asheera: slayer imagines imagined belief "true"?

What exactly is your point here? Also, why is my belief imagined, and not believed? Why do you use "imagines" instead of "thinks"? And why is it an "imagined belief", and not just a "belief"? Lastly, if I'm supposed to be imagining only, according to you, am I imagining an imagined belief? Or am I imagining a belief? How would the former differ from the latter?

Despite these vaguenesses, it seems to me that you're not just drawing a distinction between imagining and thinking or believing, but claiming that we can only imagine, and not think or believe or know. Somehow the world is such, or our minds are such, that we cannot attain a higher epistemic level than imagining. You really should make an argument for this claim, if it's what you believe, considering that this position is the underpinning of all your posts.

But if you truly believe that language cannot say, then why don't you stop posting, considering that this is a forum for discussions? At least limit yourself to relevant non-language posts. And, no, I'm not trying to control you. I just want to know how you reconcile holding to 'language cannot say' and posting in this forum.

language cannot say good-bye,

slayer

[sahyo]

The problem with you, Asheera, in my unprofessional opinion, is that you lack a mastery of English, which I find to be the biggest cause behind your poor thinking/reading/philosophy. I'm not saying that everyone has to be grammarians, as probably few of us are these days, but at least one should understand the meanings of the words one uses. If a word has several meanings, try not to equivocate. If a word is ambiguous, try to not to rest too much on it. If you're having trouble articulating something, then it's probably because you don't understand it. We all make these mistakes, but some less than others, and some are oblivious to their mistakes.

"problem"? ;)

perhaps slayer mistaking when reading the posts, so thinks mistaking?

though people seeking called truth, philosophy cannot as seek



Asheera, I ask in all sincerity, is English not your primary language? If not, then don't be offended when I say that your writing is almost incomprehensible. And even when you respond with your patented "not what asheera meant," you still fail to articulate what you meant in the first place.

yes wasn't primary language....seeming "primary language" wasn't language

cannot offend :)

wasn't interested learning language, slayer....didn't happen hearing/speaking seeming/linier/ordering 'sounding'wordslanguage, like most people, for hearing/ speaking....was veryvery difficult learning language, and though happened started speaking around three, was many years couldn't read/write like most people....was extremely rebellious people pushing to learn hearing/speaking language the way most people hear/speak....language didn't/couldn't say, so wasn't interested

....but, happened writing/poeming without much vocabulary when ten....and though still not much vocabulary, isn't necessary

when speaking, speak like most people....just not when writing



And then there's your retort about how language cannot say. Do you not see that you are using language -- when replying or posting (excluding non-word posts) -- to say things? Surely this cannot be beyond your grasp.

yes use language though language can't say



Even if you have some unsubstantiated world view about the limitations of our understanding or of language, at least recognize that the majority of English words have specific meanings, sometimes multiple specific meanings, so don't abuse them, unless you intend not to be understood. The same applies to English grammar. Almost every time you've had to respond to someone with "not what Asheera meant," it has been your fault because your grammar creates the confusion.

can abuse language, slayer?....language changing :D

"fault"?, or perhaps didn't/couldn't understand so thinks fault?



For example, Asheera: slayer imagines imagined belief "true"?

What exactly is your point here? Also, why is my belief imagined, and not believed? Why do you use "imagines" instead of "thinks"? And why is it an "imagined belief", and not just a "belief"? Lastly, if I'm supposed to be imagining only, according to you, am I imagining an imagined belief? Or am I imagining a belief? How would the former differ from the latter?

aha....happened using word 'imagined' as though called adjective

can slayer separate thinking'imagining'belief?....is difference "am I imagining an imagined belief?" " Or am I imagining a belief?"?



Despite these vaguenesses, it seems to me that you're not just drawing a distinction between imagining and thinking or believing, but claiming that we can only imagine, and not think or believe or know. Somehow the world is such, or our minds are such, that we cannot attain a higher epistemic level than imagining. You really should make an argument for this claim, if it's what you believe, considering that this position is the underpinning of all your posts.

yes not distinguishing "between imagining and thinking or believing"

"but claiming that we can only imagine, and not think or believe or know"....can separate thinking'imaginingbelievingknow?....can thinking 'know', slayer?



But if you truly believe that language cannot say, then why don't you stop posting, considering that this is a forum for discussions? At least limit yourself to relevant non-language posts. And, no, I'm not trying to control you. I just want to know how you reconcile holding to 'language cannot say' and posting in this forum.

breath relevant irrelevant?

though language cannot say, posting happens anyway



language cannot say good-bye,

cannot good-bye though say


aSsLhAeYeErRa

[sahyo]

ha :dancing: ck

[slayer]

Dear Asheera,

I'm going to take the time and effort to try to figure out what you're saying. Please return the favor by trying to be more clear. If you speak like other people, then write like you speak, please.

Your claim that language cannot say is unsubstantiated. Yes, language cannot fully express some things, for example, like what we feel when we're in love. But language can clearly be used to say lots of other mundane things, such as, "Yo, that's a good cheese sandwich." Language can and does allow us to say a great many things. Now let me address what you appear to be saying.

Asheera: perhaps slayer mistaking when reading the posts, so thinks mistaking?

slayer -- Well, no, Asheera, I'm not mistaken. This reply of yours was to my objection about how you're not clear primarily because of your poor grammar, and since I know English grammar, then I am in a position to say whether you're abusing it or not. And you are abusing it. You are unclear, and since I write clearly, I know what clear writing is. Again, I'm in a position to say. See, English grammar, like logic, has certain rules, and anyone who knows these rules is in a position to say when someone, anyone, is breaking them. You are breaking them. There is no perhaps about this, there is no imagining about this, it is a fact.

Asheera: yes use language though language can't say

slayer -- Again, you'd have us believe that you post in a DISCUSSION FORUM even though you believe language cannot say. If it's not to communicate, then why do you post? Let me not be disingenuous: I won't believe anything you say, because I firmly believe that you post in order to communicate with others. Last time I checked, that was language saying something. You see, your posting refutes your own supposed belief. I don't think you even believe this, I think you're just confused.

Asheera: can abuse language, slayer?....language changing

slayer -- Yes, you can abuse the English language, Asheera. Language does change, but that doesn't mean you can't abuse language. At any one time, the English language has set rules, and you are abusing the current rules. Is this too difficult to understand? The English language changes by convention, and you don't constitute a convention, so your sloppy English is an abuse of the current rules -- uhm, the ones that might change.

Asheera: "fault"?, or perhaps didn't/couldn't understand so thinks fault?

Again, this reply is to my point that most peoples' misunderstanding of your posts is your own fault. No, not perhaps. It is most definitely your fault. It's not that I can't understand, it's that you're unclear. I'm a competent English speaker (writer), which makes me an authority on whether what you wrote was clear or unclear. And considering that I have a ba in philosophy, I'm more of an authority when it comes to clear writing than most.

Asheera: breath relevant irrelevant?

slayer -- Breath or breathing is irrelevant to the thread in question. As were your picures, which Thomas also agreed on. Which most would agree on, if they weren't so squeamish about pointing out others' faults.

Asheera: though language cannot say, posting happens anyway

slayer -- Uhm, no, Asheera, "posting happens" because language can be used to say lots of things. What you don't provide is an alternate reason for why you would post, if you truly thought that language couldn't be used to communicate.

Asheera: cannot good-bye though say

slayer -- I must admit, this is my favorite one. Language cannot SAY good-bye, you SAY, but people SAY good-bye anyway. Let me SAY it another way. SAYING good-bye is beyond what language can be used to do, because language lacks the machinery for SAYING good-bye. Oh this is rich. Rich, I SAY!

sayonara,

slayer

[sahyo]

:) dear


I'm going to take the time and effort to try to figure out what you're saying. Please return the favor by trying to be more clear. If you speak like other people, then write like you speak, please.

cannot writing/typing like speaking....requires much typing

reading/typing can dizzy, though not dizzy, then blank, though not blank

also, when scrolling/typing, cannot click screen and press keys like most people....not think directioning like most people

tiring happens easily when reading/writing/typing posts



Your claim that language cannot say is unsubstantiated. Yes, language cannot fully express some things, for example, like what we feel when we're in love. But language can clearly be used to say lots of other mundane things, such as, "Yo, that's a good cheese sandwich." Language can and does allow us to say a great many things. Now let me address what you appear to be saying.

yes people can use language like "Yo, that's a good cheese sandwich." but can language say?

as though "things"?



Asheera: perhaps slayer mistaking when reading the posts, so thinks mistaking?

slayer -- Well, no, Asheera, I'm not mistaken. This reply of yours was to my objection about how you're not clear primarily because of your poor grammar, and since I know English grammar, then I am in a position to say whether you're abusing it or not. And you are abusing it. You are unclear, and since I write clearly, I know what clear writing is. Again, I'm in a position to say. See, English grammar, like logic, has certain rules, and anyone who knows these rules is in a position to say when someone, anyone, is breaking them. You are breaking them. There is no perhaps about this, there is no imagining about this, it is a fact.

as though "know"? "position"?

yes slayer writing clearly like most people imagine rules....also writing imagining logic as though fogging?

rules imagined....can "breaking"?

if wrote how slayer imagines should, does slayer think could intellectally understand?



Asheera: yes use language though language can't say

slayer -- Again, you'd have us believe that you post in a DISCUSSION FORUM even though you believe language cannot say. If it's not to communicate, then why do you post? Let me not be disingenuous: I won't believe anything you say, because I firmly believe that you post in order to communicate with others. Last time I checked, that was language saying something. You see, your posting refutes your own supposed belief. I don't think you even believe this, I think you're just confused.

as though "why"?

"belief"?, or slayer confused imagining belief ? ;)



Asheera: can abuse language, slayer?....language changing

slayer -- Yes, you can abuse the English language, Asheera. Language does change, but that doesn't mean you can't abuse language. At any one time, the English language has set rules, and you are abusing the current rules. Is this too difficult to understand? The English language changes by convention, and you don't constitute a convention, so your sloppy English is an abuse of the current rules -- uhm, the ones that might change.

can abuse imagined rules?, imagined language?

slayer desires 'trying' conforming to imagined rules?



Asheera: "fault"?, or perhaps didn't/couldn't understand so thinks fault?

Again, this reply is to my point that most peoples' misunderstanding of your posts is your own fault. No, not perhaps. It is most definitely your fault. It's not that I can't understand, it's that you're unclear. I'm a competent English speaker (writer), which makes me an authority on whether what you wrote was clear or unclear. And considering that I have a ba in philosophy, I'm more of an authority when it comes to clear writing than most.

asheera "fault", slayer "competent" "authority" "ba in philosphy", slayer imagining defining assigning imagined roles?

imagined competent authority ba in philosphy imagining fault????



Asheera: breath relevant irrelevant?

slayer -- Breath or breathing is irrelevant to the thread in question. As were your picures, which Thomas also agreed on. Which most would agree on, if they weren't so squeamish about pointing out others' faults.

can equal not equal breath painting-s, slayer?....slayer uses most people imagining as though proof?



Asheera: though language cannot say, posting happens anyway

slayer -- Uhm, no, Asheera, "posting happens" because language can be used to say lots of things. What you don't provide is an alternate reason for why you would post, if you truly thought that language couldn't be used to communicate.

slayer imagines as though "reason"/"why"?....can reason/why... ?



Asheera: cannot good-bye though say

slayer -- I must admit, this is my favorite one. Language cannot SAY good-bye, you SAY, but people SAY good-bye anyway. Let me SAY it another way. SAYING good-bye is beyond what language can be used to do, because language lacks the machinery for SAYING good-bye. Oh this is rich. Rich, I SAY!

sayonara,

sayonara cannot sayonara

dear :)

[slayer]

More jibberish (see above).

Since reading/writing posts tires you, for health reasons, please just stop posting. I only ask for your well-being.

your physician,

slayer

[sahyo]

hehe