Originally posted by Oneness
You claim to understand having a mind like that by saying this.That's as unsubstantiated as claiming that, because there're action-reactions that seem to be totally related, that it isn't all illusory none-the-less.
The amount of pseudointellectualism here is both saddening and hilarious at the same time.
Originally posted by Stealth MooseWell, blatantly appearing as a psuedointellectual is almost against my newly adopted life-philosophy (48 laws of power); however, it is similar to one of the laws: Always take credit for the work of others.
The amount of pseudointellectualism here is both saddening and hilarious at the same time.
It is a similar tendency.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThe ideology of an end-all, be-all understanding of anything (no matter how utterly specialized the area of research [what theoretical physics is all about] is) ---- is truly "thought-terminating". In the end it is a theory that could be replaced. So then, no end-all or be-all.
I suggest you read From Eternity to Here by Sean Carrollhttp://www.amazon.com/From-Eternity-Here-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0452296544
You will then see why I fundamentally disagree with you, not misunderstand you.
My whole issue with scientific atheism is, are we eliminating what isn't real (witchcraft), or are we just coming to momentary establishments of what may or may not be real? The issue is, in either case, you're taking a leap of faith in trusting the "human POV" because we have a way of testing, observing, and documenting the recurrent effects of our interactions with, or the interactions inherent in, nature.
Because what if nature is "an illusion"? What if time is truly non-linear and there is only the eternal now and our perspectives are merely being altered? What if individuality is also a trick? What if it's all just a rouse out of the banality of the omniscient nature of nature?
This is indeed psychobabble, but not gibberish. The difference between psychobabble and incoherent thought is simple: "crazy-talk" is going too far or trying to be on all ends of the spectrum simultaneously, incoherence comes from the inability to be anywhere or articulate or comprehend any idea. It is closer to incoherence to be rational than crazy in one way, and that is that the mad-man doesn't believe that he can't make anything coherent, he believes he can make sense of anything.
As I do.
Believe me when I say this because I have dabbled in controlling not just my life but anything you can think of, with a concentrated dose of 40 mg of Geodon twice a day for years I was able to [because this drug is an anti-psychotic, it alters the way your unconscious self can get a hold of you in a paroxysmal manner with that kinda dose] use the awareness of being in a lucid dream to shape that dream and in doing so I seemed to just lose lucidity, just withered away; if you were "God" you'd be so broken that the ability to be surprised, to live momentarily, to discover new things - would be an automatic reflex to your existence.
Originally posted by Oneness
Believe me when I say this because I have dabbled in controlling not just my life but anything you can think of, with a concentrated dose of 40 mg of Geodon twice a day for years I was able to [because this drug is an anti-psychotic, it alters the way your unconscious self can get a hold of you in a paroxysmal manner with that kinda dose] use the awareness of being in a lucid dream to shape that dream and in doing so I seemed to just lose lucidity, just withered away; if you were "God" you'd be so broken that the ability to be surprised, to live momentarily, to discover new things - would be an automatic reflex to your existence.
What you experienced is not real.
Originally posted by Oneness
Well, blatantly appearing as a psuedointellectual is almost against my newly adopted life-philosophy (48 laws of power); however, it is similar to one of the laws: Always take credit for the work of others.It is a similar tendency.
See, your main problem is that you attribute your life-philosophy to a narcissistic, contradictory, and aimless Robert Greene affair.
You! Stop that. Now.
Seriously, unless you're fifteen and want to impress your high school buddies with some trite-ass quotes, you need to throw that book away or give it to a prison inmate, which is literally one of the book's most popular readers.
Originally posted by The RenegadeThe aim is to manipulate people to gain off of them.
and aimless...
Parasitic systems are the most enduring in today's world. Most wealthy people are trained to be insincere, untrusting, deceptive, manipulative, infectious, ambitious, and neurotic. This is Satan's fire, one must beat them at their own game. The only way to annihilate fire is with a stronger blaze in this case.
Originally posted by Stealth Mooseit wouldn't have been bad to seem pseudointelligent if it were intentional, like if I wanted to make you think you're more intelligent than I or that your argument is more sound.
Do you even sense, bro?
But to my knowledge theres nothing to be gained by inflating your ego here and everything to be lost in seeming as if I don't actually know what I'm talking about. And losing anything is against my life philosophy which is entirely focused on gaining and taking at minimal cost and risk.
Originally posted by Oneness
it wouldn't have been bad to seem pseudointelligent if it were intentional, like if I wanted to make you think you're more intelligent than I or that your argument is more sound.
I pointed out that you're using big words and bizarre syntax to obfuscate the point which you claim to have in this discussion.
Somewhere you got this notion that you're some kind of intellectual powerhouse, but you can't relate a single thing that makes real sense around here. I liked you better before you started being loopy.
But to my knowledge theres nothing to be gained by inflating your ego here and everything to be lost in seeming as if I don't actually know what I'm talking about. And losing anything is against my life philosophy which is entirely focused on gaining and taking at minimal cost and risk.
You lost a lot of time by not making sense. Why don't you start there?
Originally posted by Stealth Mooseit is more difficult to articulate points with big words than otherwise. And more indicative of intellect.
The amount of pseudointellectualism here is both saddening and hilarious at the same time.
That being said, I invite you to demonstrate the logic holes in my articulations.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
K.Considering [b]all
knowledge is subject to humanity, this question can't be answered outside of that POV.See above. You either believe that what you see is what you get, or you believe in some Descartian evil genius demon bullshit. When I hear hoofbeats, I think horses, not lizard people riding unicorns.
An illusion would mean that things do not really change. But they measurably do. Even without being able to use absolute knowledge or a God's-eye view of reality, we can at least determine causation and change. This is mindless babbling.
Nope. For someone who claims to be an uber Anakin archetype/omnipolymathgeniusglot/loves dem numbers/super sciences it up, this kind of talk is bafflingly stupid and thought-terminating. [/B]