The Hierarchy Of Truth

[Owen]

Could it be the case that....

There is a hierarchy of the truths of philosophy starting with:

1. Logic; tautology (T) and contradiction (F).
This includes the logic/mathematics branch of philosophy.

(2-valued logic)

2. Science; factual truths (t) and factual falsities (f).
This includes all of the empircal sciences and 1. Logic/math.

(4-valued logic)

3. Epistimology; It is believed that (B), It is known that (K), etc.

(16-valued logic)

4. Ethics; it is good that, it is bad that, etc.

(64-valued logic)

5. Aesthetics; it is beautiful, it is ugly, etc..

(256-valued logic)

If this notion of truth-value heirarchy can be made plausable then we can anticipate an objective method of decision for these (epistemics, ethics, aesthetics) 'subjective' concerns.

What do you think of this possibility?

Owen

[sahyo]

shimmer glows fieldsky
stillbreezing sweet liquiding
bees thistleflower fuzz

[slayer]

Aheera, you've disappointed me. Here you respond to a question about logic with a silly poem, when you had recourse to an even more irrelevant medium, a drawing of a bird regurgitating to feeds its young. I think that drawing could only mean that a hierarchy of truths is futile because all truth is futile, as the drawing would clearly demonstrate.

slowly squeezing s-shaped trigger
small cylinder spirralling -- oh my skull!
sibblings' screaching sobs and
-- my casket glides --
Mother's wails cannot squelch
-- my casket glides --
Silence's piercing serenade
-- my casket glides --
Into the dimness I slide, into Heaven I stride
-- my casket glides --
No more stupid drawings, no more Asheera
No more, no more -- my casket glides

slayer swinburne

[sonrisa]

I thought you didn't believe in heaven. I thought you said that when you croak you're gonna fade to black & that will be the end of it.

and if it's not the end of it, what makes you so sure you're going to heaven, non-believer?

[slayer]

Dear person I was never talking to again,

That's correct, I don't believe in Heaven. I don't think that should bar me from using the idea of Heaven in a poem. The poem wasn't about me going to heaven, it was about me killing myself and putting an end to the existence that includes Asheera.

But you're right, I did mention that I was going to heaven in the poem. My next poem will be about me riding off on a unicorn, so heads up -- I don't believe in unicorns.

happy reading,

slayer

[sahyo]

Aheera, you've disappointed me.

expecting a post "about logic", expecting should post as imagines should,
re-acted as though disappointed...imagining expecting, which didn't happen, disappointed slayer



Here you respond to a question about logic with a silly poem,

is logic necessary?:

shimmer glows fieldsky
stillbreezing sweet liquiding
bees thistleflower fuzz



when you had recourse to an even more irrelevant medium, a drawing of a bird regurgitating to feeds its young. I think that drawing could only mean that a hierarchy of truths is futile because all truth is futile, as the drawing would clearly demonstrate.

slayer imagining commenting a drawing, thinking could've posted, which didn't happen...slayer imagining as though slayer needs assigning "mean"ing?



slowly squeezing s-shaped trigger
small cylinder spirralling -- oh my skull!
sibblings' screaching sobs and
-- my casket glides --
Mother's wails cannot squelch
-- my casket glides --
Silence's piercing serenade
-- my casket glides --
Into the dimness I slide, into Heaven I stride
-- my casket glides --
No more stupid drawings, no more Asheera
No more, no more -- my casket glides

if slayer hadn't thought about, hadn't thought more less the paintings/ poems posted, reacting wouldn't've happened...but happened slayer thought about

was Asheera as though slayer imagined?

did slayer imagine the paintings/poems, defining?

does slayer imagine logic can understand?



slayer swinburne

really?



splash no thought time for logic

;)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer@Apr 7 2004, 03:53 PM
Dear person I was never talking to again,

That's correct, I don't believe in Heaven. I don't think that should bar me from using the idea of Heaven in a poem. The poem wasn't about me going to heaven, it was about me killing myself and putting an end to the existence that includes Asheera.

But you're right, I did mention that I was going to heaven in the poem. My next poem will be about me riding off on a unicorn, so heads up -- I don't believe in unicorns.

happy reading,

slayer


I have been thinking about that poem.
It is sick. I'm serious as a heart attack here. You talk about committing suicide simply becuz you don't like Asheera's contributions to this site. You post the damn thing on a public board, for anybody to see, somebody who may have lost a loved one to suicide, your stupid poem about committing suicide over something so trivial. That is sick.

Why are you constantly whining about Asheera posting paintings, anyhow? Why are they a nuisance? I thought you wuz an art luvver? Could it be the paucity of sharp pointy things in Asheera's selections? Is that the problem? Before you get all up on your high unicorn (& don't let the horn get up in your butt, btw) I'm just asking, ok?

[slayer]

I'm too weak-willed, for I continue to break my own word.

Sonrisa: I have been thinking about that poem.
It is sick. I'm serious as a heart attack here. You talk about committing suicide simply becuz you don't like Asheera's contributions to this site. You post the damn thing on a public board, for anybody to see, somebody who may have lost a loved one to suicide, your stupid poem about committing suicide over something so trivial. That is sick.

slayer -- The poem was intended to show that I experience frustration over Asheera's irrelevant and unintelligible posts, it wasn't a suicide note or an excerpt from my diary, er, journal. So you became sickened more due to your poor reading skills than anything else.

Please, spare me your hypersensitive politically correct bulls**t. I'm not to write a poem that includes talk of suicide over something trivial because someone who has lost a loved one to suicide may read it? Didn't I tell you that my great-grandmother was appled to death? It sorta like being stoned to death, except they use apples. Okay, she really wasn't, but there is that chance that someone's great-grandmother may have been, and it was terribly insensitive and inconsiderate of Asheera to post that drawing of those haunting apples. Go feign moral repugnance to someone else, Sonrisa -- you bore me.

Sonrisa: Why are you constantly whining about Asheera posting paintings, anyhow? Why are they a nuisance? I thought you wuz an art luvver? Could it be the paucity of sharp pointy things in Asheera's selections? Is that the problem? Before you get all up on your high unicorn (& don't let the horn get up in your butt, btw) I'm just asking, ok?

slayer -- The reason I am bothered by Asheera's posts is because they're irrelevant and a waste of time. She is posting as if she were making legitimate contributions, when in fact she's not, and someone should really tell her so. I've appointed myself that someone, considering that you're too politically correct and a relativist to ever do it yourself. This characterization applies to many here.

Being as art lover doesn't mean you enjoy every piece of art. Art lovers use this funny thing called discrimination. Oh my! did he say "discrimination"!? Let me respond to your next post: No, I'm not a racist.

More importantly, even if I loved every piece of art, it wouldn't make this forum the appropriate place for art displays, when the particular piece is irrelevant. I am also a bibliophile, so therefore it's okay to interject any thread with a list of my favorite books? No, that would be an irrelevant post.

Take a little time before you write to me again, please. Explaining things to you has become dull, and I'm used to getting paid for such instruction.

Uhm, I'm Sonrisa: You're an art lover, therefore look at this drawing my dog made; don't you love it!? What? Go away? Hey, don't call me that! Oh sorry, slayer, I didn't mean to interrupt your honeymood, but you did say you were an art lover, so I thought, you know....

yeah, I know,

slayer

[sahyo]

therefore it's okay to interject any thread with a list of my favorite books? No, that would be an irrelevant post.

perhaps slayer imagining relevant "irrelevant"?

"favorite"?...slayer sure?

[sahyo]

slayer imagines should shouldn't only use words?

[sonrisa]

well Asheera, u know what thay say about pictures saying 1000 words? Perhaps that's too many words at one time for whatever passes for his split pea brain to handle.... (shrug)

[slayer]

What neither of you, Sonrisa or Asheera, seem to understand is that my objection is not to the posting of a picture, but to the posting of an irrelevant picture. And the reason why neither of you have figured that out thus far is because you're both poor readers who lack good reasoning abilities.

Sonrisa, your comment about a picture being worth a thousand words is the epitome of gaybob talk, and a perfect example of the scenario I gave where the moron interjects a crude joke about Bush because he has nothing worthwhile to offer. Feel free to reference that post to determine what I think of you.

Asheera, you continue with your relativist bulls**t talk of imagining. You still don't understand anything, yet you continue to counsel people on what they themselves don't know, or only seem to think to know. Here are your latest two gaybob posts:

Asheera: slayer imagines should shouldn't only use words?
Asheera: perhaps slayer imagining relevant "irrelevant"?
"favorite"?...slayer sure?

About the first one, it's not that I imagine that I should or shouldn't use words, it's that I believe that you should use words when what the picture is supposed to convey isn't obvious. But this still leaves you out of the loop, because your picture is irrelevant, as are your (word-ed) posts. STOP using 'imagines' as if that somehow casts doubt on my ability to believe and know certain things.

About the second one, No, I'm not imagining that it's irrelevant, I know that it is. I know that it is because there are rules to reasoning well, and since I know these rules (yeah, know them! not imagine I know them), then I am in a position to know whether your post was irrelevant. And your post -- as well as almost any other post of yours -- was irrelevant.

Also, drop the "perhaps" talk. I told you before, you're a relativist stuck in Perhaps Mode. Your gaybob use of "imagining" and "perhaps" are not arguments. So, yes, the list which I make up about my favorite books is about my FAVORITE books. I'm sure of this. I know this. I justly believe this. Uhm, feel free not to respond with: perhaps imagining sure?

Every time you write "perhaps" or "imagine" you're making a claim about the limitations of our epistemic abilities, a claim which you never give reasons for. I am pretty damn sure that you cannot give good reasons, even should those reasons exists.

So, stop writing to me unless you're prepared to defend your position. Otherwise, all your replies are a waste of my time, because you intend that I should simply grant you your claim -- the one you never make explicit -- and move on to your gaybob objections that you think follow from this world perspective. You get no free pass here.

in English!

slayer

[sahyo]

What neither of you, Sonrisa or Asheera, seem to understand is that my objection is not to the posting of a picture, but to the posting of an irrelevant picture. And the reason why neither of you have figured that out thus far is because you're both poor readers who lack good reasoning abilities.

slayer often thinking mistaking when reading responses, and when is responded slayer mistaking, instead listening, slayer remains thinking mistaking

Asheera, you continue with your relativist bulls**t talk of imagining. You still don't understand anything, yet you continue to counsel people on what they themselves don't know, or only seem to think to know.

"counsel"?

Here are your latest two gaybob posts:

Asheera: slayer imagines should shouldn't only use words?
Asheera: perhaps slayer imagining relevant "irrelevant"?
"favorite"?...slayer sure?

About the first one, it's not that I imagine that I should or shouldn't use words, it's that I believe that you should use words when what the picture is supposed to convey isn't obvious.

said "slayer imagines should shouldn't only use words?"...ONLY...didn't say "should or shouldn't use words"

But this still leaves you out of the loop, because your picture is irrelevant, as are your (word-ed) posts. STOP using 'imagines' as if that somehow casts doubt on my ability to believe and know certain things.

imagining/"believe and know certain things."

About the second one, No, I'm not imagining that it's irrelevant, I know that it is.

imagining/"I know that it is."

I know that it is because there are rules to reasoning well, and since I know these rules (yeah, know them! not imagine I know them), then I am in a position to know whether your post was irrelevant. And your post -- as well as almost any other post of yours -- was irrelevant.

imagined "reasoning" "know" cannot understand, though tries

Also, drop the "perhaps" talk. I told you before, you're a relativist stuck in Perhaps Mode. Your gaybob use of "imagining" and "perhaps" are not arguments. So, yes, the list which I make up about my favorite books is about my FAVORITE books. I'm sure of this. I know this. I justly believe this. Uhm, feel free not to respond with: perhaps imagining sure?

slayer didn't listening when posted that using word perhaps 'not about' perhaps

Every time you write "perhaps" or "imagine" you're making a claim about the limitations of our epistemic abilities, a claim which you never give reasons for. I am pretty damn sure that you cannot give good reasons, even should those reasons exists.

So, stop writing to me unless you're prepared to defend your position. Otherwise, all your replies are a waste of my time, because you intend that I should simply grant you your claim -- the one you never make explicit -- and move on to your gaybob objections that you think follow from this world perspective. You get no free pass here.

"claim"? "position"?

does imagining "reasoning"/"reasons"/"perspective"/proof seeming sooth?

[sahyo]

slayer:

But this still leaves you out of the loop, because your picture is irrelevant, as are your (word-ed) posts. STOP using 'imagines' as if that somehow casts doubt on my ability to believe and know certain things.

slayer:

The reason I am bothered by Asheera's posts is because they're irrelevant and a waste of time.

About the second one, No, I'm not imagining that it's irrelevant, I know that it is. I know that it is because there are rules to reasoning well, and since I know these rules (yeah, know them! not imagine I know them), then I am in a position to know whether your post was irrelevant. And your post -- as well as almost any other post of yours -- was irrelevant.

slayer:

Asheera, you continue with your relativist bulls**t

"they're irrelevant and a waste of time. "your relativist bulls**t"....slayer confused?

[sonrisa]

I think you got the right of it there Asheera

:dancing:

[sonrisa]

slayer-- What neither of you, Sonrisa or Asheera, seem to understand is that my objection is not to the posting of a picture, but to the posting of an irrelevant picture.

-- so you say. Relevancy is subjective. Somebody else may not think it's irrelevant. Others posting here may consider your posts irrelevant & a waste of time. That stuff about your Gramma being appled to death is ludicrous, for instance. As for my pov re:the pix, Asheera is correct, btw. I was commenting on the pictures themselves, I happen to like Chinese watercolors. But I could see her point about the apples being equal yet nonequal, same but different. As for the other 3 watercolors, I'd have to go back & reread the very first post she referred to



slayer--Sonrisa, your comment about a picture being worth a thousand words is the epitome of gaybob talk, and a perfect example of the scenario I gave where the moron interjects a crude joke about Bush because he has nothing worthwhile to offer.

--dubya is the joke, albeit a very bad one. As Asheera pointed out, perhaps your so-called moron wasn't making a joke (I wasn't) Scuse me for not responding to your request to explain Asheera's comments on that post to you, but by the time I read it she had already clarified it for you herself so I didn't see any need on my part to do the same



slayer-- Feel free to reference that post to determine what I think of you.

--look, as long as you keep on entertaining me, I don't give a rat's butt what you think about me




slayer-- and since I know these rules (yeah know them! not imagine I know them)

-- what rules? your rules? would you mind posting these rules so I know what I'm sposed to be breaking?



as for the rest of your yammering, let's see... ok the suicide poem, it's not so much that I object to a poem about committing suicide, but that you made fun of committing suicide in order take a potshot at somebody. My sense of humor runs pretty black, & as you can probably tell from my posts, there's not much I hold sacred, but it has occurred to me that making fun of committing suicide may be crossing a line, esp for the trivial reasons that you did it for.

I don't always understand everything Asheera posts either, but at least I make the attempt to understand her. It is good to strech the brain every now & again. If she really loses me, I simply tell her so. No need to be ugly about it. And the whining! Lord it's like Ozzy whining to Sharon, except you do it alot more. Wood u like sum cheeze 2 go with it? :D :D there ya go!

& here I go! Later :)

[sahyo]

sonrisa

missed this:


well Asheera, u know what thay say about pictures saying 1000 words?



:applause:

:D

[slayer]

Addicted to the stupid:

Dearest Sonrisa,

Your inability to comprehend the most basic points, together with your inability to read well, is the reason why you continually misunderstand everything; leading to your responses to me, which are mainly a waste of time. But since I have nothing but time today, I'll once again do your thinking for you.

Sonrisa: Relevancy is subjective.

slayer -- I think I found the new relativist credo: Relevancy is subjective! I thought relativists about truth were ridiculous enough, but you take the cake. What is relevant to a topic is regulated by the topic, not by what you think is relative. If you think anything is relevant to a certain topic merely because you think it's relative, then you in essence do away with the meaning of 'relevant,' because nothing could then be said to be irrelevant. I know that was beyond your reasoning powers, so I thought I'd save you the mental anguish by stating it as clearly as possible.

Sonrisa: Others posting here may consider your posts irrelevant & a waste of time.

slayer -- Again, what others think isn't important, because they do not determine what is relevant -- the topic dictates that. Warning: If you grasp that truth, your relativist mind might explode.

Sonrisa: As for my pov re:the pix, Asheera is correct, btw.

slayer -- You, my dear, are the least qualified to say who is or isn't correct. Asheera would only be correct if she somehow gave a decent argument as to how the pictures were relevant. This argument will have to include at least a plausible interpretation of the pictures, followed by how they relate to the topic. Did you catch that last part?..."how they relate to the topic." Let me summarize: the topic dictates what is relevant, not anything that your miniscule mouse trap game of a mind fancies is relevant.

Sonrisa: But I could see her point about the apples being equal yet nonequal, same but different.

slayer -- Maybe Asheera's point was that the apples on the left were somehow equal and yet not equal to the ones on the right. And thus that they were the same and yet different. Of course how they would be the "same" and how they would be "different" would be in a difference sense than what Owen had in mind. That aside, Asheera, like you, misses the whole point of Owen's post, which was about how something can not be equal to ITSELF, not to other things (even other things of the same kind, like other apples). This is why even with the interpretation you gave the picture, it would still be irrelevant. At best she is misunderstanding Owen's question and equivocating on 'equal', 'same', and 'different.'

Sonrisa: As Asheera pointed out, perhaps your so-called moron wasn't making a joke (I wasn't)

slayer -- Listen, relativist, if I tell a story about a guy making a joke, then the guy in my story is making a joke. What is so damn difficult to understand? Hack gave the same "perhaps" response, and I responded similarly. So all three of you think that the guy in my story perhaps wasn't making a joke, though I explicitly say he makes a pun with "Bush"; I describe his insecurities that led him to make the pun; I explicitly say that he is politically ignorant; and I neither mention nor allude to any other possible reason for making the pun. I think you've just proven my theory: there's only one of you, with three names: Sonrisa, Asheera, and Hack. Your mind is so corrupted by relativism that you cannot commit to the fact that the guy in my story was making a joke out of his insecurity. WOW. Really, wow.

Sonrisa: Scuse me for not responding to your request to explain Asheera's comments on that post to you, but by the time I read it she had already clarified it for you herself so I didn't see any need on my part to do the same

slayer -- Oh my. Please direct me to where Asheera does this clarifying. I'll settle for directions to any post of Asheera's that is remotely clear. Once you can't produce this mythical post of Asheera's, the offer still stands for you to try to articulate what she meant.

Sonrisa: -- what rules? your rules? would you mind posting these rules so I know what I'm sposed to be breaking?

slayer -- You're now questioning whether there are rules for reasoning well! No, my dear, they're not my rules, I simply abide by them. I can't very well sit here and type out the rules, but you can take a course on logic (deductive and inductive arguments, and the fallacies that people commit) at your local city college. You'll learn about modus ponens, modus tollens, the straw man, red herring, accident, composition, division, false cause, equivocation, amphiboly, and the list goes on. You'd do well to learn these and many, many other guidelines and rules -- you know, the ones I didn't make up. Would I mind posting them up? Come on, try your rhetorical tricks on someone at least closer to IQ with you, you know, like my shoe. Uhm, I'm Sonrisa: So, slayer, you claim that there are over 5 million people on earth, would you mind listing their names for me so I can verify this purported fact. Again, you bore me.

Sonrisa: I don't always understand everything Asheera posts either, but at least I make the attempt to understand her. It is good to strech the brain every now & again.

slayer --- You're being too humble, you don't understand a lot of things. The onus isn't on me to try to understand her jibberish, but on her to write more clearly. It may be a good idea to stretch your brain now and again, but it isn't a good idea to try to decipher poor English when you're already competent at English, unless you think or know that the person writing poorly has something worthwhile to say, and Asheera doesn't carry that kind of clout. You even less so, since I can understand you better and know that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. With Asheera, at least there's a fraction of chance she might contribute in a worthwhile way yet, if she ever learns English.

The good reasoning and grammar rules maker-upper guy,

slayer

[sonrisa]

:goodlaugh: :chairdrop: :rofl: :hug:

[sonrisa]

asheera!! :D


:dance:

[sahyo]

:D

:dancing:

:dance:

:dancing:

[slayer]

Asheera, you applaud Sonrisa. Are you agreeing with what Sonrisa said about pictures being worth a thousand words?

puzzled,

slayer

[sahyo]

slayer think words when pictures/paintings?

words/pictures/paintings can't say

most people imagine wording as though can define, so when listening wording most people not listening but thinking definition, so listening may not happen....though people can also imagine definition when looking which may seem visual/pictures/paintings, perhaps may happen looking not imagining words/defining....also may not happen people imagining definition listening musicing :D ....musicing requires receptivity looking not require, so easier can happen people not habitually imagining definition when listening happening

not saying wordingpaintingmusicing as though imagined separate

not saying looker or listener

[slayer]

Uhm, yeah, I'm not going to try to attempt to decipher that jibberish, but since you avoided my question, I'll spell out what your response to Sonrisa indicates. You were pleased with Sonrisa because she SAID something you agreed with. That means that language was used to SAY something, a certain something which you understood.

You stand refuted.

slayer

[sahyo]

happened learning word definitions people use ,
but don't imagine words can define

responsing sonrisa wasn't
as slayer imagined

:D

[sahyo]

That means that language was used to SAY something, a certain something which you understood.

slayer imagine believe "something"?

[sonrisa]

slayer-- But since I have nothing but time today, I'll once again do your thinking for you.

--oh christ!! time to be scared



slayer -- I think I found the new relativist credo: Relevancy is subjective! I thought relativists about truth were ridiculous enough, but you take the cake.

--only if it's chocolate (preferably
with chocolate icing) or red velvet



slayer--What is relevant to a topic is regulated by the topic, not by what you think is relative.

-- ok, you have a point, but even when somebody is posting re:the topic at hand, somebody else reading the post may consider it irrelevant & scroll on thru it. That's what I meant. Perhaps nonsense is a better word (or not). Then again, a third reader may not consider the post nonsense. Depends on the readers' pov (shrug)


slayer-- If you think anything is relevant to a certain topic merely because you think it's relative, then you in essence do away with the meaning of 'relevant,' because nothing could then be said to be irrelevant.

--hmmmm.... interesting concept...




(previously) Sonrisa: As for my pov re:the pix, Asheera is correct, btw.

slayer -- You, my dear, are the least qualified to say who is or isn't correct.

--listen, jethro, if I post that I like something, then that means I like it ( or luvvit, as the case may be) & Asheera is correct in stating "sonrisa sharing enjoying" becuz that exactly what I was doing. I told you that I like Chinese watercolors. What is so damn difficult to understand?




slayer -- Listen, relativist, if I tell a story about a guy making a joke, then the guy in my story is making a joke. What is so damn difficult to understand? Hack gave the same "perhaps" response, and I responded similarly. So all three of you think that the guy in my story perhaps wasn't making a joke, though I explicitly say he makes a pun with "Bush"; I describe his insecurities that led him to make the pun; I explicitly say that he is politically ignorant; and I neither mention nor allude to any other possible reason for making the pun.

---jawohl!!



slayer-- I think you've just proven
my theory: there's only one of you, with three names: Sonrisa, Asheera, and Hack.

--and you would be wrong.....


(previously)Sonrisa: -- what rules? your rules? would you mind posting these rules so I know what I'm sposed to be breaking?

slayer -- You're now questioning whether there are rules for reasoning well!


-- I question the rules for everything. Everybody should. Not that rules don't have their purposes- driving for instance. But as far as this site goes, beyond the basic rules that Thomas posted, I don't see the need for any more rules.




slayer-- You'd do well to learn these and many, many other guidelines and rules -- you know, the ones I didn't make up. Would I mind posting them up?

-- shoulda known with you, there'd be a myriad of them :rolleyes:



slayer--Come on, try your rhetorical tricks on someone at least closer to IQ with you

--but sometimes I like to go slumming



slayer--I'm Sonrisa: So, slayer, you claim that there are over 5 million people on earth, would you mind listing their names for me so I can verify this purported fact.

--actually it's closer to 6 billion & no I don't need any names thanx very much



slayer --- You're being too humble, you don't understand a lot of things.
-- so? I'm the first one to fess up to that. Most folx don't understand alot of things, including you. Course, god forbid that you should fess up to it, which is partly why you're so much fun. No, I'm not trying to irritate you, or get under yor skin, or get you pissed or anything like that. I'm just stating a fact- you're fun. Is that permissable by these rules of yours- to state facts?



slayer--puzzled

slayer

--crossword or jigsaw?

[slayer]

Dear Sonrisa,

First I'd like to congratulate you, sincerely this time, for your most reasonable post. Although I didfind several things wrong in your post, I did notice that you conceded some things. Now, I'm not congratulating you simply for agreeing with me, but because what you conceded, or what you thought deserved serious consideration, were indeed corrects opinions. That said, I'd like to comment on some of the things I found mistaken or misleading. Whatever you think of me, you cannot deny that I provide reasons for the things I say, and so if you find my reasons don't explain or support my view, or why I hold that view, then feel free to question me further on them. Same applies if you think my reasons (premises) are false. And the following might not apply to this post, but when one of us gives a view counter to intuition (most people's intuition, that is), then the onus is on that person to explain why most of us are wrong. This will apply to Asheera's view about how language cannot say, for example. Now back to your post.

Sonrisa: -- ok, you have a point, but even when somebody is posting re:the topic at hand, somebody else reading the post may consider it irrelevant & scroll on thru it. That's what I meant. Perhaps nonsense is a better word (or not). Then again, a third reader may not consider the post nonsense. Depends on the readers' pov (shrug)

slayer -- I'm glad that you see that I have a point about what results if you hold that anything is relevant so long as someone thinks it's relevant. But then right away you return to your similar mistake. It does not matter that one person thinks it's relevant or nonsense and another person doesn't. Because how then do we decide which person is right? And, yes, there is a right answer. Well, since the topic determines relevancy, we refer to the topic, and the person's opinion in accord with what the topic dictates, is correct. And please don't respond with: Who's to say what's relevant? Listen, if we're discussing Chinese art and I post something about the Rodney King trial, then I've posted something irrelevant. And if you're tempted to say, "Well, it could be relevant to you, slayer," then ask yourself why it isn't relevant to you? And what would I need to tell you about the trials to make that post relevant to Chinese art for you. You see, just any answer won't suffice, and a good answer will bring in Chinese art or something salient about Chinese art.

(previously) Sonrisa: As for my pov re:the pix, Asheera is correct, btw.

(then) slayer -- You, my dear, are the least qualified to say who is or isn't correct.

(...then) Sonrisa: --listen, jethro, if I post that I like something, then that means I like it ( or luvvit, as the case may be) & Asheera is correct in stating "sonrisa sharing enjoying" becuz that exactly what I was doing. I told you that I like Chinese watercolors. What is so damn difficult to understand?

Sonrisa: I agree with your reply, with a qualification. Yes, if you post that you like something, then I concede that you like it. But our initial response above (Asheera is correct) was about whether her picture was relevant, and this is what I was saying you're not qualified to judge. So I wasn't challenging that you liked the pictures, I was challenging that you were qualified to determine whether Asheera's picture was relevant. If you missed it, Thomas has also agreed that her picture is irrelevant and has directed her to open a different thread if she wishes to post such things. I don't usually go for the appeal to authority, but his opinion seems to carry some weight here, so at least I'm hoping it'll spare me the trouble of further arguing this point.

I apologize to Thomas, seeing as how he was very tactful in telling Asheera that she was wrong, and I keep reminding everyone of the fact.

Sonrisa: -- I question the rules for everything. Everybody should. Not that rules don't have their purposes- driving for instance. But as far as this site goes, beyond the basic rules that Thomas posted, I don't see the need for any more rules.

slayer -- That's a nice cliche: question everything. You don't see a need for abiding by mathematical rules, grammar rules, logic rules, relevancy rules, reasoning rules? Silly me, of course you don't.

One last thing. I have accused many of you before of not speaking up on the side of Reason, Truth, Justice, and Morality before. Not in so many words, but that's basically my complaint. You let people say the most unsubstantiated, unargued for, counterintuitive, false and immoral things, without so much as a challenge. Asheera claims that language cannot say. Yet no one here challenges her on such a ridiculous claim. Asheera says that thinking does not lead to understanding things. Another bold falsehood. I can list other examples of implicit and explicit Asheera beliefs. Oh, she doesn't think we can believe either. But where, oh where, are the challenges? Why does she get a pass? Why does everyone let these things slide?

I can understand that you might not be in the know about certain topics and therefore are afraid to challenge someone making a claim about that topic. For example, you might not know anything about language, so her language claim isn't something you'd like to take her on about. But it's obvious that she is making a controversial claim about language, so at least question her -- ask her to explain this position of hers. Instead all I see is silence.

And since you're so fond of cliches, here's my favorite: To ignore evil is to be an accomplice to it. Similarly: Not to stand up for Truth is to be its adversary. The reason is because falsehoods and lies gain adherents if enough people espouse them or if they (the falsehoods and lies) manage to stick around long enough. If you doubt the first reason, read your local leftist (by which I mean, 'almost any') newspaper and see the bullshit they write -- trust me, most people who read it believe it. Or listen to you local leftist newsagency (by which I mean, 'almost any') and see what spin they give the truth. Then read about conspiracy theories, and you'll know that any blatant falsehood will gain adherents if it's told by enough people long enough.

I won't contribute to the ignorance and lies in this world, no matter what you sensitive souls think of me.

off my soapbox,

slayer the champion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way (lo, up in the sky,.......it's a plane; no, it's a bird; no, it's Slayer!)

[sahyo]

Thomas has also agreed that her picture is irrelevant and has directed her to open a different thread if she wishes to post such things.

thomas agreeing cannot was-happening slayer-thomas imagining which wasn't-happening

:)

[sahyo]

happens comforting pain-fear when imagining logic-reason relevent-irrelevent right-wrong, slayer?

[sahyo]

Asheera claims that language cannot say. Yet no one here challenges her on such a ridiculous claim. Asheera says that thinking does not lead to understanding things. Another bold falsehood. I can list other examples of implicit and explicit Asheera beliefs.

perhaps slayer imagining believing imagining asheera believing?

[sahyo]

off my soapbox,

slayer the champion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way (lo, up in the sky,.......it's a plane; no, it's a bird; no, it's Slayer!)


:goodlaugh:

[sonrisa]

(previously) Sonrisa: As for my pov re:the pix, Asheera is correct, btw.

--ok my pov re:the pix was that I luvved them, or liked them, nothing more. Then you got on me about not being specific about exactly what I liked about them. Asheera responded that perhaps I was just "sharing enjoying" & she is correct. I wasn't concerned with the relevancy of irrelevancy of the pictures. Just sharing enjoying




slayer-- Thomas has also agreed that her picture is irrelevant and has directed her to open a different thread if she wishes to post such things.

-- I believe Thomas was concerned with the dial-up & how it would affect the site



slayer-- the champion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way (lo, up in the sky,.......it's a plane; no, it's a bird; no, it's Slayer!)

--oh christ!! :rolleyes:

[slayer]

Hi Sonrisa,

(previously) slayer-- Thomas has also agreed that her picture is irrelevant and has directed her to open a different thread if she wishes to post such things.

(then) Sonrisa: I believe Thomas was concerned with the dial-up & how it would affect the site

(the statement in question) Thomas: I certainly like the paintings, and I have a great interest in Asian art myself, but I agree with Slayer that they are irrelevant to the topic [the bold is mine].

slayer -- Do you still think he didn't find them irrelevant?

your true American idol,

slayer

[zygoat]

slayer,
shimmer glows fieldsky
stillbreezing sweet liquiding
bees thistleflower fuzz


well there you have it,now aren't you glad you went through the trouble of posting your original post?
I can't imagine what went through your mind when you got that response,I laughed my A## off!!! :D :D

[sahyo]

slayer: I hate the rabble, the mob, the herd, the public -- they nauseate me.

slayer: slayer-- the champion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way

slayer imagining slayer not think like most people which imagine as though american?

slayer imagines hating slayer?

[slayer]

Hey Zygoat,

Yes, I remember "shimmer glows fieldsky -- stillbreezing sweet liquiding -- bees thistleflower fuzz" very well.

What's even funnier than her reply though is the realization -- the full profound realization -- that she thinks she's made a winning point with her poem.

When that thought really takes a hold of you -- I mean really takes a hold of you -- you'll soon come to realize that you've been grinning and nodding your head, and you'll sense a cruel and sadistic tear attempting to fully form.

bless their souls,

slayer

[sahyo]

What's even funnier than her reply though is the realization -- the full profound realization -- that she thinks she's made a winning point with her poem.

When that thought really takes a hold of you

yes only thought

does slayer enjoy imagining winninglosing?

slayer often imagines slayer knows

[zygoat]

slayer,
don't you get it...
the heirarchy of truth all starts with the birds and the bees

Yes, I remember "shimmer glows fieldsky -- stillbreezing sweet liquiding -- bees thistleflower fuzz" very well.

LOL :lol:

[slayer]

Oh! I thought that all life began with the birds and the bees, metaphorically speaking. I get it now. Since all life begins with the birds and the bees, and since the truth is relative -- hence dependent upon people (i.e., lives) -- then all truth, in essence, begins with the birds and the bees!

Asheera, our modern-day genius and sage!

thistleflowers fuzz forming on by sphericaldrooping sweetness,

slayer

[sahyo]

Since all life begins with the birds and the bees, and since the truth is relative -- hence dependent upon people (i.e., lives) -- then all truth, in essence, begins with the birds and the bees!



:lol:

[sonrisa]

Hi Sonrisa,

--hi Slayer...



(previously) slayer-- Thomas has also agreed that her picture is irrelevant and has directed her to open a different thread if she wishes to post such things.

(then) Sonrisa: I believe Thomas was concerned with the dial-up & how it would affect the site

(the statement in question) Thomas: I certainly like the paintings, and I have a great interest in Asian art myself, but I agree with Slayer that they are irrelevant to the topic [the bold is mine].

slayer -- Do you still think he didn't find them irrelevant?

-- so he did... you & Thomas think they're irrelevant. Asheera posted them in order to demonstrate equal/not equal, solid/not solid, etc.. She thinks they are relevant. Which is my point- relevancy is subjective.



slayer--your true American idol,

--when's your b'day? I wanna get you that William Hung CD.....




--and now, your royal majesty, :rolleyes: may I please request a moment of your time for you to answer a question for me: Why is it that you can use common expressions like "take the cake" & "off my soapbox", but when I use common expressions like "a picture sez 1000 words" or "think outside The Boxx", I'm being trite & using cliches, even when I doctor up the spelling? Even when I respond to you in kind ("now you are questioning the rules for...." & I responded, "I question the rules for everything.") you say I'm being trite & using a cliche. If that's so, then I was responding to a cliche, was I not my dear Mr Spock? Please explain to me the difference cuz I do not see it.

:)

[slayer]

Hi Sonrisa,

I'll answer the question you posed to me at the end of your post, but first let me address this claim about relevancy being subjective. I hope that you'll finally understand my objection to it, even if you don't agree with me.

Sonrisa: -- so he did... you & Thomas think they're irrelevant. Asheera posted them in order to demonstrate equal/not equal, solid/not solid, etc.. She thinks they are relevant. Which is my point- relevancy is subjective.

slayer -- I want to point out to you what you're doing in the above quote. You cite an epistemological premise, namely that Asheera thinks her pictures were relevant. From the fact that Asheera thinks her pictures were relevant you then proceed to your conclusion, namely that relevancy is subjective.

But my whole point is that relevancy is not determined by us. What determines whether a post is relevant or not is the topic in question. This is why we can settle questions about whether something is relevant or not.

So from the fact that Asheera thinks her pictures are relevant it doesn't follow that they are. You may want to respond with: Slayer, from the fact that you think they are irrelevant it doesn't follow that they are. To this I would wholeheartedly concede. But please note that I didn't say they were irrelevant because I thought they were irrelevant, but because they had nothing to do with Owen's original question, which Asheera had claimed she was responding to.

Owen's post was about whether something (some one thing) could not be equal to itself ("itself" being the key term here). In other words, how could you not be equal to yourself? But Asheera's picture doesn't even address the correct question, let alone answer it.

So, again, that Asheera thinks they are relevant is immaterial.

Sonrisa: --and now, your royal majesty, may I please request a moment of your time for you to answer a question for me: Why is it that you can use common expressions like "take the cake" & "off my soapbox", but when I use common expressions like "a picture sez 1000 words" or "think outside The Boxx", I'm being trite & using cliches, even when I doctor up the spelling? Even when I respond to you in kind ("now you are questioning the rules for...." & I responded, "I question the rules for everything.") you say I'm being trite & using a cliche. If that's so, then I was responding to a cliche, was I not my dear Mr Spock? Please explain to me the difference cuz I do not see it.

slayer -- I understand why it might seem that I'm being hypocritical in castigating you, when it appears that I too 'use' cliches. My response is that we are using cliches in two very different ways.

When you said "a picture is worth a thousand words" and "think outside the Boxx," you were using these cliches as if they justified our beliefs or opinions that these cliches seem to support. So, you used "a picture is worth a thousand words" in support of your claim that Asheera's picture somehow lended to the topic -- because there was an argument there somewhere. And you also used "think outside the Boxx" as a means for poking fun at me -- because those who don't think outside the box, the thinking goes, are uncreative/mentally restricted, with the negative connotations that these expressions usually carry. So they were used to lend to your arguments.

Now, first you should note that my cliches are usually in my good-byes, of which I've said before that I'm not making claims in my good-byes. I am being facetious or silly most of the time, and occassionally I'm mocking someone by being ironical. That aside, I did use "you take the cake." But that wasn't used in support of an argument, it was just a metaphor for something like "you are the worst (or, "best" taken sarcastically) of them all." And I said "off my soapbox" in order to make slight fun of myself, because I knew that the closing of that particular post was sounding like a sermon. But notice again that the phrase wasn't used in support of an argument.

So the difference I'd like to point out between the cases we've just discussed is that I don't attach any insight to the cliches, as if they should be taken seriously.

goodnight,

slayer

[sonrisa]

Hi Sonrisa,

--hi Slayer... :)



slayer -- You cite an epistemological premise, namely that Asheera thinks her pictures were relevant. From the fact that Asheera thinks her pictures were relevant you then proceed to your conclusion, namely that relevancy is subjective.
But my whole point is that relevancy is not determined by us. What determines whether a post is relevant or not is the topic in question. This is why we can settle questions about whether something is relevant or not.

-- ok I understand your point....





Slayer--So from the fact that Asheera thinks her pictures are relevant it doesn't follow that they are. You may want to respond with: Slayer, from the fact that you think they are irrelevant it doesn't follow that they are. To this I would wholeheartedly concede.

--my, you're being reasonable today. why?




slayer-- But please note that I didn't say they were irrelevant because I thought they were irrelevant, but because they had nothing to do with Owen's original question, which Asheera had claimed she was responding to.

--ok



slayer--Owen's post was about whether something (some one thing) could not be equal to itself ("itself" being the key term here). In other words, how could you not be equal to yourself? But Asheera's picture doesn't even address the correct question, let alone answer it.

--Asheera posted 3 watercolors showing a fog in the process of lifting. Could it be that, as the fog lifts it becomes not equal to itself? (shrug) As for the persimmons (yeah, that's what they are) what if they are taken as a group? Could they then be not equal to themselves- bigger/smaller, solid/not solid, etc?



slayer -- I understand why it might
seem that I'm being hypocritical in castigating you, when it appears that I too 'use' cliches.

--yep




slayer-- And you also used "think outside the Boxx" as a means for poking fun at me --

-- no I was not making fun of you. I only know you from your posts on this site, but given what you've posted (so far, at least) you do appear (operative word) to be unable to think outside the box. Try this exercise sometime when you are sitting back in your favorite chair, or at least a comfy one- close your eyes & take a couple deep breaths, exhale slowly. Then shut your left brain off & let your right brain do the thinking for you. Seriously.



:)

[slayer]

Hello Sonrisa,

I want to thank you for reading my previous post, as it seems you have done it carefully and with an open mind.

You suggest the following: sitting back in your favorite chair, or at least a comfy one- close your eyes & take a couple deep breaths, exhale slowly. Then shut your left brain off & let your right brain do the thinking for you."

slayer -- I take it that the right side of the brain is the imaginative and creative side, sort of speak. That much I understand, and thus I understand that you're telling me to let go from being so, uhm, rigid when it comes to thinking (or something along those lines at least). Fine. But really, I don't know how to shut down the left side, nor could I tell if it did indeed shut down. I happen to think I'm very creative, for instance when I'm drawing or writing poetry, even when doing philosophy, but, at least with poetry and philosophy, my left side isn't shut down but works along with my right side. Using your right side is fine, but let's not make it an inherently good thing to do, because there are times when you shouldn't use it and times when you should only use it sparingly. And philosophy or giving arguments is the time for your left side, with your right side possibly contributing some.

Sonrisa: --Asheera posted 3 watercolors showing a fog in the process of lifting. Could it be that, as the fog lifts it becomes not equal to itself? (shrug) As for the persimmons (yeah, that's what they are) what if they are taken as a group? Could they then be not equal to themselves- bigger/smaller, solid/not solid, etc?

slayer -- I really don't see how the fog lifting is not equal to itself (that is, not equal to the very same fog lifting). If you say the fog that lifted is not equal to the fog that it was once, then you're missing the point of Owen's question. He wants to know whether the fog at any given instance of time is not equal to itself at that same instance of time, not if it's not equal to what it was (itself) before. But if you could say more on how this might be a case of something not being equal to itself, then I'd be happy to hear it. As for the group of persimmons, again, I don't see how they would not be equal to themselves, bigger or smaller than themselves, or as both solid and not solid. If you could explain further what you had in mind, or what you thought Asheera might have had in mind, then I'd be happy to consider your view.

after me there will be no more,

slayer

[sonrisa]

Hello Sonrisa,

--lo Slayer :)

I want to thank you for reading my previous post, as it seems you have done it carefully and with an open mind.

-- you're welcome.



slayer -- I take it that the right side of the brain is the imaginative and creative side, sort of speak.

-- according to neurologists, the right brain is spatial, deals with images




now, why am I not surprised by any of this.....

slayer-- But really, I don't know how to shut down the left side

--Houston we have a problem....



slayer--nor could I tell if it did indeed shut down.

-- you'd know becuz your thinking would be different. You'd be seeing things with at least one new perspective, possibly more



slayer--I happen to think I'm very creative, for instance when I'm drawing or writing poetry

--look I hate to put a pin in your bubble, but if that poem you already posted is anything to go by, don't quit your day job, whatever that may be



slayer-- Using your right side is fine, but let's not make it an inherently good thing to do, because there are times when you shouldn't use it and times when you should only use it sparingly. And philosophy or giving arguments is the time for your left side, with your right side possibly contributing some.

--:shakehead: :rolleyes: :shakehead:
I could give you some suggestions to help you shut down your left brain & stimulate your right brain, but with this attitude, what's the point?




--if you thought with your right brain, you probably wouldn't post stuff like this....

slayer -- I really don't see how the fog lifting is not equal to itself (that is, not equal to the very same fog lifting). If you say the fog that lifted is not equal to the fog that it was once, then you're missing the point of Owen's question. He wants to know whether the fog at any given instance of time is not equal to itself at that same instance of time, not if it's not equal to what it was (itself) before. But if you could say more on how this might be a case of something not being equal to itself, then I'd be happy to hear it. As for the group of persimmons, again, I don't see how they would not be equal to themselves, bigger or smaller than themselves, or as both solid and not solid. If you could explain further what you had in mind, or what you thought Asheera might have had in mind, then I'd be happy to consider your view.

-- ok I just took another look at those paintings. If we take the persimmons as a group- there are 6 of them, 2 are outlines (not solid) 2 are very dark (solid) & the other 2 are somewhere in-between. Some are larger, some are squatter- the one in front is very squat, which brings me to placement- 1 is by itself in the front, of the other 5 behind it, 2 are on one side, 3 on the other. So, as a group they are all persimmons (same thing or equal) but they are not equal in solidity, height/shape, or placement in the painting.
Same thing with the fog- if you consider the density: in the top painting the fog is denser on the left side than on the right since we can see the mountaintops peeking thru. In the middle painting the fog is denser at either end than in the middle, since we can see mountains there, & in the bottom painting the fog (what's left of it) is denser on the right side becuz we can see the mountains on the left side. So even tho it's the very same fog, the density within it is not equal, so the fog is not equal to itself. At least that is how I'm seeing it.

While we're at it with these paintings...

(previously)sonrisa-- ok I understand your point...

--if you we're reading between the lines, then you should of noticed the big BUT hanging there. I didn't have time to get into it the other day, but now that I have some time I'll follow thru- you say that the topic determines relevancy. We have been posting about some paintings from another topic in this topic, the Hierarchy of Truth? How are they relevant to this topic? I don't see that they are, but they, along with the subject of relevancy for that matter, must have some relevancy for you & I or we wouldn't be going back & forth about it.
Moving away from topics & discussion forums, let's consider relevancy in general terms: I could list some relevant things- air, water, plumbing,....no wait! you're a guy, you can go in the bushes if you have to, so maybe plumbing is not all that relevant for you. Well I cannot do that, at least not with any convenience, so plumbing is very relevant for me. You catching my drift here? Furthermore, if you & I continue this discussion long enough, it's a sure bet that somebody will come along & say that air &/or water are not relevant (not for them maybe, they are for me) I usually find this sort of stuff happens just around the time I start thinking it's never gonna happen.....
This is what I mean about relevancy being subjective



--As for Owen's original question, about something being not equal to itself, isn't that what the sum being greater (or sometimess less) than its parts is sposed to mean?




slayer--after me there will be no more

--thank god!!

[fu*]

Hey Sonrisa,

"Then shut your left brain off & let your right brain do the thinking for you."

My 'thinking' of thinking outside the "Boxx"...................shut them both off.

The state in which most of us live is like a vast, peaceful desert in which a tiny radio is blaring. Although the peaceful nature of the desert is always present as the background, and is itself unaffected by the noise, the noise appears to be the predominant experience. However, turning off the radio reveals the noise to be nothing more than a surface disturbance. In the same way, if we shut off the constantly chattering mind, the ever-present peace of the subtle mind will be available to us.

Originally created as a reasoning and survival mechanism, the finite instrument we call the gross mind has become our sole measuring point of the infinite cosmos. Continually living in the world of this chattering mind not only causes mental fatigue, it stops us from seeing the larger context of any given moment. It is only when we step outside of thought, that we can see things as they really are.

Bertram W. Salzman

Everything we see, hear, touch, taste, and feel passes through the brain cells that hold our mental history of experiences and the conclusions those experiences lead us to make. What emerges is a distorted, miniscule picture of life. The picture will not change until we stop using our brains to evaluate life.

fu*

[sonrisa]

shut them both off....

thanx fu*, I shall try that! :)

[sahyo]

when imagining ceases will the ideas:

In the same way, if we shut off the constantly chattering mind, the ever-present peace of the subtle mind will be available to us.

Continually living in the world of this chattering mind not only causes mental fatigue, it stops us from seeing the larger context of any given moment.

It is only when we step outside of thought, that we can see things as they really are.

[slayer]

Dearest Sonrisa,

Thank you for saying how you thought Asheera's pictures were relevant. Your answer lets me know me that you're still not getting Owen's original question, so now let me try again to explain what Owen was asking.

Since I've tried before to explain what Owen was asking, let me use the way you've phrased things in order to explain how your grammar will reveal to you that you're not comparing the same thing with itself, but instead to something different.

You say: So, as a group they are all persimmons (same thing or equal) but they [separately] are not equal in solidity, height/shape, or placement in the painting.

slayer -- The bold bracket is mine, and I've included it to show you that you're comparing the persimmons as a group to the persimmons as separate entities. This is to miss the point of the question. You would have to explain how the persimmons as a group are not equal to the persimmons as a group (the very same persimmons at the very same instance in time).

The same applies to the fog. You say, "So even tho it's the very same fog, the density within it is not equal, so the fog is not equal to itself. At least that is how I'm seeing it."

Again, you're considering the fog as a whole first and comparing it to the different sections or parts of the fog. This is obvious because you compare the densities (that is, the density of different areas within the fog whole) to the fog whole. This is not addressing Owen's question. You even conclude that "the fog is not equal to itself." How would you fully articulate that conclusion? One possibility: different areas of the fog are not equal to each other in density. Another possibility: the fog as a whole is not equally dense throughout. Well, neither of these would work, because in the first case you're comparing the different areas of fog to each other, and not comparing one thing with itself. The second possibility doesn't work because it's the same comparison, just expressed differently

Well, I hope this made things clear for you. I really don't see how I can explain it further, so if you're still thinking the pictures were relevant, or that your interpretation somehow showed how they were relevant, then I think we've come to a dead end.

Sonrisa: --As for Owen's original question, about something being not equal to itself, isn't that what the sum being greater (or sometimess less) than its parts is sposed to mean?

Well, no, that's not what that expression means. You can make a case for two interpretations, but neither will be relevant to Owen's question. I personally think the second one is the intended one, only because the first one is trivial.

On one interpretation: 'The sum (or the 'whole') is greater than its parts' means that any part individually is not greater (bigger) than the whole it makes up. E.g., my tire is not bigger than my car; my door is not bigger than my house, etc.

On the second interpretation: 'The sum is greater than its parts' means that once you put the parts into a whole, you then have a new entity aside from the individual parts. E.g., all the boards, nails, wires, cement, and glass that make up my house (and let's say that this constitutes all of the materials) are still not a house until you put them together into a certain form, which we call a house. Think of it like this. You and your neighbor are building the exact same house. All of the materials for this house are on his lawn, unassembled still. Your house is put together. So, although exactly the same amount of material is present on both lawns, you have an added entity, namely a house.

As for the right side and left side thing, I think it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo. I'd rather not continue that discussion because aside from whatever scientists say is responsible for what type of thinking, I don't see how this information helps me any.

Another problem is that you're equivocating on "relevancy." If we're talking about Owen's question and you say, "water is relevant," then your comment is irrelevant to the topic. Yes, water is relevant....for life. And still this is a misuse of the word "relevant." Water is essential (or 'necessary') for life, but not 'relevant' for life. But even if water is relevant for life, the statement "water is relevant" would be irrelevant to the original topic.

I'm shutting down both sides of my brain now, so I can understand what Fu wrote,

slayer

[fu*]

Hi Asheera,

"when imagining ceases will the ideas:"

Do you mean,
When imagining ceases-- >so <--will the ideas. ???

It seems for you "imagining" never started....True?
Did you never fall in the hole?

Sincerely
fu

[sahyo]

fu :D


When imagining ceases-- >so <--will the ideas. ???

yes...thanks


It seems for you "imagining" never started....True?
Did you never fall in the hole?

imagining happened

[vicente]

"Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are stronger still, but truth conquers all"
'Prentice Pillar' at the Rosslyn Chapel, Scotland

:)

[vicente]

"Wine is strong a King is stronger, women are stronger still but truth conquers all"
'Prentice Pillar' at Rosslyn Chapel, Scotland

:)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera@Apr 25 2004, 02:45 AM


When imagining ceases-- >so <--will the ideas. ???

yes...thanks


It seems for you "imagining" never started....True?
Did you never fall in the hole?

imagining happened

in the black hole? :D

imagination, ideas are properties of the mind.. shut off the brain, use the mind :)

[sonrisa]

slayer--Thank you for saying how you thought Asheera's pictures were relevant.

--your welcome :)



slayer--You say: So, as a group they are all persimmons (same thing or equal) but they [separately] are not equal in solidity, height/shape, or placement in the painting.

slayer -- The bold bracket is mine, and I've included it to show you that you're comparing the persimmons as a group to the persimmons as separate entities. This is to miss the point of the question.

--no, you missed it. I said to consider the persimmons as a group- as one unit, not as separate entities. So get your damn bracket outta there




slayer--Well, I hope this made things clear for you.

--(shrug) whatever



slayer-- I really don't see how I can explain it further, so if you're still thinking the pictures were relevant, or that your interpretation somehow showed how they were relevant, then I think we've come to a dead end.

--I was only supplying my interpretations at your request. As I
said, that's how I see them. If you see them differently, (shrug) Art is also subjective




slayer--As for the right side and left side thing, I think it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

-- the same can be said about the vast majority of your posts



slayer--Another problem is that you're equivocating on "relevancy." If we're talking about Owen's question and you say, "water is relevant," then your comment is irrelevant to the topic. Yes, water is relevant....for life. And still this is a misuse of the word "relevant." Water is essential (or 'necessary') for life, but not 'relevant' for life. But even if water is relevant for life, the statement "water is relevant" would be irrelevant to the original topic.

--but, at that point, I was not referring to Owen's question. I said
Moving away from topics & discussion forums, let's consider relevancy in general terms: I could list some relevant things- air, water, plumbing... You catching my drift here?
Evidently not, since I was speaking in general terms, not in reference to any question or topic. Do you have poor reading skills? Or are you so left-brained that everything has to pertain to some sort of question or topic in order to have relevancy for you?
Since I was nice enough to take the time to oblige you with my interpretation of the watercolors (you didn't like it, tough, that's how I see them) please humor me & try this: My Uncle sent me something about a Hawaiian good luck sign that lends itself well to this sort of exercise. It's over in Oxymorons. Go over there & read the piece with your right brain. Do not read define, as Asheera would say, that is a left brain activity. Instead, let the words flow into your right brain, & let it fill your head with the images the words convey. Humor me. Please. Leave your left brain here, you won't be needing it. Now get over there.


slayer--I'm shutting down both sides of my brain now, so I can understand what Fu wrote,

-- good! whatever you do, don't start them back up, esp that pesky left brain



just think of me as your very own personal Hawaiian good luck sign :)

[Pamela Canaday]

Concerning left/right brain.

You need both halves of your brain to use and understand language efficiently.
I see that as pretty solid evidence that both sides have value. I can look up details if you need but I'm fairly certain that, without the right brain, you loose the ability to recognize things and assign words to them. Without the left brain you loose the ability to comprehend syntax.
Since both abilities are vital to general comprehension of anything, I hope you read with both of them.

Don't try to throw things away before you understand what they are.

Did you never fall in the hole?

No.
They pushed me out of the airlock before I had a chance.

[sonrisa]

Hi Pam, if I'm reading your post correctly ( & I've read it over several times) it seems to me that you are referring to biological functions, & you may very well be correct about those. I was referring to thought processes. You can read the words & simply define them in your head, that is what I meant by reading with your left brain. Or you can fill your brain with images of what the words mean as you read them. This would be reading with your right brain, so to speak, since the right brain deals with images. It's just a different way to read, that's all.

As for Fu*'s suggestion to turn off both brains, I've tried that several times, using the radio blaring in the desert scenario Fu* posted. I envision myself in the desert & one by one shut off the music & chattering in my head, & then I chill. It certainly seems to relieve mental fatigue. Whenever I come back I feel refreshed, & after one session I had answers to 2 problems that had been bugging me all last week. Thanx Fu* ! :)

[sahyo]

I envision myself in the desert & one by one shut off the music & chattering in my head, & then I chill. It certainly seems to relieve mental fatigue. Whenever I come back I feel refreshed,

if chattering had ceased, then how could imagine "I chill" as though 'an entity' which could "I come back"?

;)

[sahyo]

in the black hole? :D

... :lol:

imagination, ideas are properties of the mind.. shut off the brain, use the mind :)

though humans can imagine ideas,
brain-mind cannot properties :)

[a random hack]

Or you can fill your brain with images of what the words mean as you read them.
or maybe, allow your mind to become filled with images?:)

As for Fu*'s suggestion to turn off both brains, I've tried that several times, using the radio blaring in the desert scenario Fu* posted. I envision myself in the desert & one by one shut off the music & chattering in my head, & then I chill. It certainly seems to relieve mental fatigue. Whenever I come back I feel refreshed, & after one session I had answers to 2 problems that had been bugging me all last week. Thanx Fu* !

congratulations sonrisa, you're 'meditating':O:D :lol:

[sonrisa]

:D
already figured that out Random, esp when one of these sessions turned into something like a visionquest, tho didn't plan on that (Asheera re:your questions, refer to Random's last post)
it's just that I never meditated that way before. Usually I'll meditate on a problem. Or try lucid dreaming. Or do a visionquest.
if not trying to figure out a problem, I usually meditate by thinking about something/body, or how my day went, etc.... I've never meditated by emptying out my head & not thinking until I tried this technique.

It generally lasts for 15-20 min- the longest I've done it so far has been around 1/2 hr- & it's very refreshing, which makes me wonder.... Leonardo supposedly took what he called cat-naps every 4 hours or so, they lasted for around 15-20 min, so that in any given 24 hr period he "slept" for around 1 1/2 hrs....if he was really sleeping, that is. He often came up with solutions to problems for whatever painting or engineering project he was working on at the time, also came up with ideas for new projects during these so-called cat-naps. Makes me wonder if he was really just napping, or performing some variation of this meditation technique.

[sahyo]

I usually meditate by thinking about something/body, or how my day went, etc....I've never meditated by emptying out my head & not thinking until I tried this technique.

the longest I've done it

sweeting, called meditating not thinking imagining as though 'a doer' "the longest I've done it" "by emptying out my head & not thinking"

[sonrisa]

ok Asheera, then what is meditating?

[sahyo]

appleeating :D

[sahyo]

;)

[sonrisa]

applesauce :D

with cinnamon :)

[a random hack]

oh, cinamon is definitely meditating ;):lol: :uninvolved:

[sonrisa]

oh yeah!! :D