Sorry Ailin, I was fiddeling around with my previous post and I think I deleted it. I send it again:



Hi Ailin - well, this is a linguistic question, and I don´t want to get too fuzzy and too repetitive about it. Nevertheless I feel that mixing up belief and knowledge is a basic confusion factor in spiritual discussions.

I know my age, my weight, my husband´s shirt size, my haircolour.
I believe that it might rain tomorrow, in humanity, in organic gardening, in what my zen master says.
One is a fact, the other an assumption. What I know can be confirmed by others. What I believe is my personal experience. We might wish to confirm it as an ultimate fact, but we can´t. This is why we are actually alone with deep spiritual experience. It can not be confirmed, it can not be proved, it can not be forced down the throat of others (a christian speciality), in the very best case it can be shared. And that´s true grace.

Can you share something about paganism and belief/experience? I would be very interested.
LOve, take care, PJ

QUOTE

hmmm....good point, good point, maybe your right...     but then again dont you have to form a sort of asumption or belief on things before you can know...because usually a person forms a belief of assumption before when they

Hi Ailin, again, it boils down to linguistics. I would have to know how you define knowing and belief. Can you give a practical example of what you mean above?
LOve, PJ

Well, i think a belief is an assumption. Like those you make everyday, everytime you turn around. Like when you look at somekind of food that looks like the most grotesque thing on the planet, you make the assumption that it will taste bad but then you actually try it and it tasted like the greatest thing ever. You go from a assumption to knowing it taste good. You, as a person, make assumptions about things every second of the day, and after an assumption comes knowing. But of course this is just going by a belief being an assumption.

The again a belief could be an assumption that can not be proved, also. It fits that way too. Just like the idea above, its not 100% but everything has an exception to it. I'm just looking at this from other shades of light. I basically agree with you, but i just want to look at it from, like i said, other shades of light.

(or it could be said that the assumption comes first, then a belief, then knowing. And as in most things, the middle step is not always required. I think that's what i believe. But none the less a belief is still an assumption in my opinion, just a stronger one)

"If I let go of an apple, it will fall to the ground unless something prevents it." Is this an assumption or a fact?

It's a fact, but to get to the fact you have to make assumptions first. These assumptions you don't even realize you have made. OF course i'm not saying if i was to drop the apple right now i would make assumptions about the whole preventing thing, but to know that it will fall unless something prevents, for a fact, sometime in my life i would have had to make an assumption. Weither it was me assuming then testing it out, or the apple starting to fall and i stop it, then i make the assumption that if it is to fall, something can prevent it.

Hi again. I've been away for a while, so I may be a bit behind, but I'm just going to pick up this conversation again. How do you know that next time you drop the apple, it won't float?

seanf,
If it lands on the bald headed man below it is a fact.
If you speculate about it then it is an assumption.

However, I would like to introduce a new principle here.
Excepting for chance occurances like the toss of a coin, where the choice can be either/or,  I would like to introduce the Chinese method of determination adopted into Western ways.  The ancient Chinese number for infinity is 10,000.  If something happens 10,000 times without deviation, than let it be considered a fact rather than an assumption.  How do you think that would fare as an approach?  A factual belief system based on assumptions. perhaps?

Alin,

An atheist is someone that declares all is speculation and belief system about what we cannot know.  Therefore, I chose not to believe.
An agnostic is one that says show me first and then I will believe upon factual presentation.
An Gnostic says I have self knowledge and I recognize this inner truth above all else.
A believer is someone that believes in a certain set of parameters that have subjective truths, they are not satisfied with this condition and try to make people believe these are facts.
A True Believer cannot be talked to with out a fight unless you are a True Believer in the same camp.  This does not hold true all the time.
That then leaves Nietzsche that believes God is dead.  He too is dead.  The followers of this path are called nihilists.
Then there are people on this board hoping for scandalous reputations.  I cheer you all on.
Then there are most of the scientists.  Believing one thing at home, another thing on the job.
Any other additions to the list?

Nietzsche was not a nihilist, but he did predit that modern-day man would have to confront nihilism, and go BEYOND it.  His whole philosophy is about going beyond nihilism, as he himself had done, by creating our own values and pushing to go beyond ourselves, to redeem the past thru what we create in the present and future.    Like he said, 'Man is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome him today?!'.    He was definitely not a nihilist.

I had a typo in my post above.  I meant to say "Nietzsche was not a nihilist, but he did predict that modern-day man would have to confront nihilism, and go BEYOND it."

Also, in his comment about 'God is dead', he was just referring to the gross inadequacy of traditional notions of God, and in particular, Christian notions of God for most modern-day men, and for the 'superior man' in particular.   He was vehemently anti-christian because he believed christian values and morals are totally contrary to life (which I happen to concur with for the most part).

But, like I said above, Nietzsche was not, nor was he ever, a nihilist.   He believed that we have to create our values and that WE have to give meaning to the earth and to all existence thru what we create.  

Though Nietzsche's body may be dead, his spirit, thoughts, and mindset live on in others, and indeed inspire others to go beyond themselves and to break thru all traditional values and belief systems.

Without a doubt, Nietzsche was far, far beyond nihilism.  

Remember, Man is something to be overcome.   What have you done to overcome him?!

personally, i agree with nieschze(sp?) when he said that the christian religion sides with the weaker man. He is absolutly right! christianity bluntly states that having beliefs against god is sinfull, therefore the people who believe that are bad. i HATE the christian religion I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW IT. (sorry bout the caps, i just wanted to get the point across taht im not prejudice towards christians). anyway, an atheist (as people here have said before) believs that there IS a god but chooses to reject him, because in order to "not" believe in something you have to acknowledge that it is there. for example "i dont believe in medicine".

QUOTE

an atheist (as people here have said before) believs that there IS a god but chooses to reject him, because in order to "not" believe in something you have to acknowledge that it is there.

it sounds like you're defining something along the lines of 'anti-theist', not athiest.  I think athiests believe that the idea of God is purely imaginary

Friedrich,

This was a fun little list.  My comment about Nietzsche was two lines long.  In it I identified the followers of this path-God is dead- are called nihilists.  Do you take exception to this?
I love Nietzcshe, not to make amends to you.  I think he is volcanic.  I understand what he is saying in Thus Spake Tharathusta and admire his poetry and acumen.
He wrote the book in sixteen days and it made him famous.  I tend not to make anyone a figurehead, being human we all have clay feet.   I see he is a near name sake.  Were you named after him?  
He did  go insane during the last eleven years of his life.  It was a tall order to re-order all order, don't you think?  He was helped along the way with taking copious quantities of laudenum for his migraine.  Nasty rumor had it that he suffered from tertiary syphyllis, I don't believe this.  What do you think?
I have not yet died, so my contribution is not yet all in.  I will send you notice if there is anything specific to report toward this end.

I'm jumping in this conversation without the knowledge of what said before, so if I repeat things, just ignore me.

As I see it, there are four general categories of belief, with the middle two existing as a sort of continuum of belief.

1) Theism
2) Agnostic Theism
3) Agnostic Atheism
4) Atheism

A theist believes in the existence of god in some sense--monotheism, polytheism, pantheism.  Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of God is NOT possible.  This is distinct from saying that there is currently no knowledge of god, but that there never will be knowledge of God, nor is it possible.  However, in the absense of proof, there is probability and agnostics can in varying degrees say either that god is probable or that god is not probable.  Atheism is of course the belief that the concept of God is irrational and that it is impossible for God, in any meaningful sense, to even exist.

The problem with categories 1 and 4 is they generally are reactionary positions dependent upon the existence of absolute knowledge, which is another discussion altogether.  Can we ever know anything absolutely?  Theism is much more resistent to this difficulty because when reason contradicts a statement of faith, we throw reason out the window.  Atheism, on the contrary, will attempt to resolve the contradiction.  This is why I don't know anyone who actually considers him or herself a pure atheist.  Most 'non-believers,' myself included, fall somewhere into the third category.  Many people in this category consider themselves atheists, even though they are technically agnostic, because they view god as so improbable, that there might as well be absolute proof against existence.

QUOTE

personally, i agree with nieschze(sp?) when he said that the christian religion sides with the weaker man. He is absolutly right! christianity bluntly states that having beliefs against god is sinfull, therefore the people who believe that are bad. i HATE the christian religion I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW IT. (sorry bout the caps, i just wanted to get the point across taht im not prejudice towards christians). anyway, an atheist (as people here have said before) believs that there IS a god but chooses to reject him, because in order to "not" believe in something you have to acknowledge that it is there. for example "i dont believe in medicine".

Interesting assumptions are always made after the fact.
Most religions were started by a movement towards somthing that someone had realized or experienced. Christians although traditionally follow the idea of christ as in the word christ-ian, actually predates the birth of Jesus. Moses spoke of the coming of a christed person and 1000 years before christ a man reputidly born of a virgin mother walked the earth performing miracles.

Like any story whether read from a book or passed down from the original story teller the person listening or reading the story filters the information through the past experiences that have accumulated throughout ones life. The christian religion was never intended by its originators to be dogmatic but interpretation leads to some strange ideas.
The point of the statement that to turn away from God is a sin has been misconstrued to follow the ideas that the turning away from actions deemed appropriate by certain individuals is wrong.
 This is far from the truth.
Each individual has within the ability to self realise.
Where philosophers through epiphanies and the objective viewpoints of actions of the world around them made statements to the ideas of creation, others have made even more bold statements.
I think therefor I am. A popular statement made by one who with his simple statement describes his own conscious movement and the recognition that internal creativity is not learned but sprouts from a point of inner spirit.
Children who are talented whether from creative parents or not seem to 'pop" in to the world without any preconception of their arrival or expectations of reasoning.
This creative force that exists in the Self of all men can be denied but only on the surface of the mind.
The idea of God being or not being is an idea and it also resides on the surface of the mind.
Sin has had its share of interpreted connotations and definitions as well.
The human nervous system is trained from birth to follow impulses that are synonimous with external forces and reactive behavior patterns. good bad, hot and cold, like and dislike are a few of the ideas that are associated with thoughts, feelings and actions that are associated with the outer world. Science struggles to answer all the questions regarding the things on the outside but until recently spends little time on the more subtle aspects of the source of idea and even materialism.
To turn away from the more subtle aspects of the self is to deny a deeper part of all of this creation, the person and his thoughts, creativity, inspiration etc.
The Ego also given the name Satan is a label given to the outward turned senses, the awareness that denies any aspect of the subtle inward direction that leads to intuition, creativity and love.
Like the differences in the left and right hemispheres of the brain one side without the balancing affect of the other is lopsided and ineffective.

Christianity as well as any belief system has its origins in the deciphering of what and who we are as does most philosophies in the things that are related to us and the world.

Hating anything is the the idea that it contains something or nothing of value and is abhorrant to the nature of being.( at least that is my description at the moment)
What we judge from feeling is reactionary. Its the turning away from the creation that contains within it the essence of all things. The microcosm and the macrocosm. IT exists in and around us. To be open to possibilities does not allow much room for exclusion and that is the difficult part, how to discern between the emotional reactive actions of our selves and the deeper rooted stresses that cause us to reject the more subtle aspects of what we see in front of us.
Habits are hard to break. what we don't like we push away.
There are many opportunities to change the way we think and react if we can move beyond petty reactionary behavior and thoughts, bigger insights to the things we think are innapproprate or bad.
In the sense of Good and bad we could say good leads to expansion and bad leads to contraction. In our own growth and objectivity the more outward and gross our consciousness gets the more narrow minded and limited it gets, this could be bad. Anything that leads to the expansion of the Self and the awareness of creativity and inspiration could be good.
How would you know the difference in what is expanding and contracting?
Lost in habit you wouldn't. You may stumble upon yourself and a reactive thought or behavior by finding a different more expanding action or thought and replacing the old. Or be open to possibility with each negative thought that you see within you.
The disciplinary measures to turn towards expansion and creativity is sometimes tedious as habit is rooted in such time related complacency and beliefs but the rewards are infinately available to those that are willing to look beyond what they have heard to take the time to expand their own experiences beyond what is anchored in yesterdays news.

woa, dude, i didnt understand any of that. well, some of it.

QUOTE

personally, i agree with nieschze(sp?) when he said that the christian religion sides with the weaker man.

Clinton, if that was true I would probably be a Christian. But all through history christianity has always sided with the rich, with the violent, with war, with rape, with exploitation and repression. Nietzsche´s critique on christianity did not go far enough and that´s why he inspired the nazis and not the anarchists. It could not go far enough because he died as a psychological virgin, a man who never loved passionately and madly, a man who never dived into life but lived in the hollow realms of his mental ivory towers, a lonely professor.

And to Synchronox John, dear: Yes, it still seems likely that Nietsche suffered and died of syphillis. He was a genius who never - not in philosophy and not in his personal life - found balance between the wish for power and the need to surrender.  For those who love movies: Check "Jenseits von Gut und Böse/Beyond Good and Evil" about the relationship of Nietsche and Lou Andreas Salome.
LOVE
Piratjenny

Joe,

Ailin has started a thread here that many people are enjoying.  There is a dialog between us.
Please treat us as the humans that we are with all our frailties.
In other words, stop talking down to us as if we were in church and you are up on a pulpit.  Every opportunity you get you launch into a monolog.  It is inappropriate here.  We are not your flock or congregation.  If you continue this inappropriate behavior, I will delete your posts.
Now, let us create this dialog.  You said that Moses talked of a christed one.  Of course, christ is a Greek name meaning the annointed one.  Moses was a priest in the Egyptian hierarchy circa 1400BCE.  He would not be using a Greek name in this case.  So, I take it you meant this in equivelency.  There was a book that I skimmed through that claimed that there were eighteen different versions of christ throughout history.
Many of the points you speak to have relevency.  Let others at least have a chance to comment without scolding them if their outlook differs from yours.  We are all fools making our way here.  If you have something to share please do not act like a christ, that is, unless you announce it and then perhaps we shall deal with you in a different way.

Thank you,

John

QUOTE

In other words, stop talking down to us as if we were in church and you are up on a pulpit.  Every opportunity you get you launch into a monolog.  It is inappropriate here.  We are not your flock or congregation.  If you continue this inappropriate behavior, I

John, you have my full support in moderating Joe´s posts.

All I see here is a pompous Ego who likes to hear himself preach and lecture but shows no interest in communication, in exchanging ideas and in learning from each other. I am interested in an alive, creative and juicy discussion with many different voices and ideas - no mindfuck de luxe by Joe Ãœbermensch, please.
LOVE
Piratjenny

I second PJ's support, but on the grounds of his perpetual hi-jacking of every interesting threat in order promote a personal philosophy.  I don't know of anyone who actually wants to talk with him about his theories anymore (if you can actually consider dialogue with joe 'talking').  No matter what you say to him, he will respond with the same one-trick pony message trumped up in ambiguity and nonesense.  In fact there's not even anything to talk about because all appeal to reason is obviated.  His 'theory' is completely unfalsifiable (dogmatic) and anti-rational.

In other words: Joe = SPAM.

The fact that he can't understand this, nor for all appearances, is he even slightly importuned by the massive criticism levelled against him, causes me to be skeptical about his own psychological stability.  The guy claims to have his own coterie of followers.  I cannot help but wonder if we are in the presence of the next comet-chasing, cyanide-chugging, messianic incarnation.

So tell us Joe, who are you the reincarnation of?  Jesus?  Julius Ceasar? Muhammad, Confuscious, Ghandi?  No of course not, these are too lowly for you.

[img]http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/bullbeg.gif[/img] Sniff......

poor Joe

[img]http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/b4.gif[/img]


:-*

Joe,

We all have our own discoveries to share.  You are articulate and intelligent.  This crowd is not responsive to the approach you have taken.  Come join us and share in our common goal of reaching a higher playing field.  I am sure everyone would greet you as a fellow human.  We do not understand your approach, nor wish to have anyone take over for us and tell us what to do.
If you have found a way, let us share in the joy of our own discoveries.  It is apparent that you have similar difficulties that we all are wrestling with.

In anticipated understanding,

John

Joe,
I have deleted your long and contentious post once again.  Stay within the loose boundaries of the thread.  We are not interested in narcissistic behavior.  Get attention for your problems some where else.  You are violating the spirit of this board.  If you think this is unfair behavior on my part, take it up with Shawn.

Dan,  I deleted your response in fairness.  I do like your graphics though.

QUOTE

Joe, We all have our own discoveries to share.  You are articulate and intelligent.  This crowd is not responsive to the approach you have taken.  Come join us and share in our common goal of reaching a higher playing field.  I am sure everyone would greet you as a fellow human.  We do not understand your approach, nor wish to have anyone take over for us and tell us what to do. If you have found a way, let us share in the joy of our own discoveries.  It is apparent that you have similar difficulties that we all are wrestling with. In anticipated understanding, John

Undoubtedly not too much anticipation or understanding after deleting my post.
That post was as sincere and to the point in answering your questions as I could have been.

Seig Heil! O Fuhrer of the discussion group.
Your lack of intellegence is underwhelming.

QUOTE

Joe, I have deleted your long and contentious post once again.  Stay within the loose boundaries of the thread.  We are not interested in narcissistic behavior.  Get attention for your problems some where else.  You are violating the spirit of this board.  If you think this is unfair behavior on my part, take it up with Shawn. Dan,  I deleted your response in fairness.  I do like your graphics though.

Loose boundaries? Come again? Please explain to me just where the boundaries exist in this forum?
What you call contentious was from total sincerity.

You amaze me with your twisted two sided opinions and prejudice.
Why would I take this up with Shawn. My bet is that if he chose you as a moderator he is just as equal in his prejudice and lack of open expression as you are.

QUOTE

Why would I take this up with Shawn. My bet is that if he chose you as a moderator he is just as equal in his prejudice and lack of open expression as you are.

Joe, you should know that, with few exceptions, I value open expression and do not support censorship here.  Nonetheless, I've also granted John certain autonomy, as all moderators here enjoy, whereby it's understood that they may take actions that I wouldn't necessarily take myself, within reason, through the exercise of their own good judgement.  

So, that being said, if there's something you'd like to take up with me, by all means do.

take care,
Shawn

it's OK, Joe.  There can only be perfection in the movement of reality.  Your distress is unfounded
:-*

I don't think bposts shoudl be deletled.  It's unfair.  You don't like a post, so what?  DOes that mean you take away other persons right to view post??

My take on the matter is this.  Each of us has rejected in our own ways Joe's 'theory' of reality, as is our right to do.  We have expressed to him why we disagree and for all practical purposes of discussion, consider the matter closed.  As such, it is incumbant upon Joe to accept our rejection of his theory and move on.  Freedom of expression is not equivalent to freedom to harass and many posters, if not all, consider Joe's behavior, insofar as it is disruptive non-joeism dialogue, tantamount to harassment.

Consider this analog.  If I were to barge into almost every single philosophy conversation and denounce the participants as deluded pagans, write three cryptic pages of nonsense, and proclaim the divinity of the one true God, Jehovah, how would you respond?  Would you tolerate this, or would you uphold my right to express myself.  

Joe cannot seem to grasp the simplicity of this concept.  His is a pernicious fundamentalism, parasitic to our search for truth and promulgated by a sophistic spirit irrationalism, that ought not be tolerated.

If he can find someone to talk about his cult in his own thread, fine, but why should all of us listen to his spam in our own conversations.

To all,

I agreed to moderate two of the line items out of forty some odd lines.  I did it in appreciation of Shawn putting together this great forum which I believe will grow.  I am not trying to impose some autocratic standard here, just do the job in the best way I can.
I tried to reason with Joe using several different techniques.  Finally, he wanted to do it his way.  There were a number of people complaining about his approach.  He continued to make the same point over and over.  I did what I did the best way I knew how.
So, in the spirit of positivity, there maybe some very obvious ways out.
1)  Continue in the same fashion and suffer with my limited solution to the problem.
2)  Ban Joe.
3)  It would not take any effort for me to resign this position with no hard feelings.
4)  Assign Joe a thread of his own to moderate.
5)  ????? (Please make a suggestion here and we also need some humor or music at this time).

I  like 4 above, but it is not my site.  It would relieve every one and perhaps Joe would attract a major following of like minded people (why does he not get a site of his own (?) also comes to mind.)

I see no reason why Joe cannot participate meaningfully with the rest of us without belaboring the point of his personal religious convictions.  If he were to simply stick to the established subject matter without subsuming our conversations into cult-speak, I would be content.  In fact my opinion of him would greatly improve were he only to take up block format rather than eyegouge-style.

I am reluctant to support the creation of a new forum specifically for his kind of musing as that is the equivalent of rewarding bad behavior, and that is essentially what the problem is after all--bad behavior.  I really don't have a problem with him saying what he says, but there is a point when too much is too much.  I'm sick of it and so is everyone else, except Dan who thrives on disputatiousness.  As a community, we have a right to define what we view as bad behavior, and with the consent of the established authority, sanction it accordingly.

As such, I support resolution 1 with respect to the following guidelines:

1) Joe-ism should not be allowed to monopolize our conversations
2) Joe-ism should be restricted to an appropriate venue, such as his own thread
3) Joe should give block format a try
4) Joe should acknowledge that he has overstepped the bounds of appropriate behavior and will commit a more respectful, less skitzoid pattern of behavior.

hmmmm, I'm inclined towards 1 or 4.  What do other people think about this matter and about the idea of letting joe have his own board?   Joe, what do you think about it?

Shawn I can appreciate your position and my statement was not a reflection of your ability to be objective rather to make a point through sarcasm that you cannot put any decision you make on anothers point of view. That makes you a slave to another. Similarly when you arrogantly decide to make decisions for the majority you shoule be in tune with the majority rather than with your own personal feelings and one or two that are similarly stressed to find the thought of majority in perspective. With 6 billion people on the planet I doubt anyone can predict the majorities direction in personal thought.

In the spirit of Understanding as John so hollowly implied I wrote back a response with a detailed description of the environment in which I live and teach.
Not trying to push my way of thinking on anyone else what I did explain is that I encourage in everyone the ability to freely express without being co-dependant or fearful of doing something wrong.
We do enough tiptoeing around the world trying to keep ourselves and others safe in a world that needs to be able to feel and express without fear of oppression, repression, fear and judgment.
Expression being the ability to state ones own thoughts and feelings and take complete responsibility for those feelings without burdening another with the excuse that any feeling is the responsibility of another.

Excuse me folks but I am not responsible for the way anyone feels. That is a psychological problem that lies within the person having the emotional stress.
I am still amazed at the level of reactionary behavior that takes place when someone says something that another doesn't agree with.
You get two or more people together that have a feeling and they create a kingdom which now judges and isolates themselves from the rest of the world they don't particularly like.
Any post I have written was my version as it related to the topic. Always objective, sometimes purely to play the devils advocate to the process of thought but always directed to the stability of what is inside of a person not what one thinks they need from the ever changing outside world full of opinions and ideas of personal likes and dislikes.
You can't hide from the world and to try and do it here on an open forum with censorship and small thinking just goes to show where people set their standards and values to personal opinion and feelings.
I have feelings but I sure don't let them rule my life or my discernment in choosing for what is real in the world.

I am sure Shawns intent is to create a media where all forms and thoughts could come together to form a greater picture than the single thought ever could but in order to make it work one would have to be objective enough to not feel threatened by another or take anothers opinion to such a degree that it caused them enough pain to cause a problem. If it does cause that kind of aversion or pain I would say that the person has a problem.
If you can't step into the world whole within yourself and are so fragile that anothers presence takes away your ability to stand within yourself with some kind of stability then there is a need for a few caves to isolate ones self from the possibility of threat and fear of not being supported.

The basic idea of freedom set within the original standards of this country was to give all the people freedom to choose their lives and speak their minds without fear of oppression or repression. In order to do that one would have to feel they are free enough to be stable and free from threat to their own thoughts without having to censor another or ban the other from the land to protect their rights at the cost of anothers.

John, you are a hypocrite. What you say you would like the world to be you don't do with your actions. Rather than blending the emotional and mathematical hemispheres of the brain you cling to reasoning that is merely logical and lacks any intuitive sense that may free the repressed emotional side of your personality. It is locked in fear and anger and you project your anger on others in their actions and their ideas.
Tim, you have the same problem, being dissappointed by your illusions of God and lied to by people that had no idea what it meant to say the word God you still stuff your disappointment and project the anger out on others that touch the memories of the wound that is still sore.
Dan you are just a frustrated kid who wants to be included and heard in all the conversations.
PJ I think you just pms stress at times.

Its easy to say what you want to, its not always to be objective and listen to another rant and rave if that is what they need to do because we want to protect ourselves from feeling anything other than happiness.
Feelings are a part of life and if you haven't got the stomach to carry the load then life is hell.

I suspect it feels good to be able to express to me what you feel and I could care less what you feel about me but I also think that if the emotional system is used objectively it stays healthy.
If it is all subjective then you might as well build your castle now, with the moat to keep the invaders of your peace of mind out. Good luck trying to make it work.

The idea of creating my own post is humorous since you are trying damned hard to isolate your version of your preferences into this one to make it yours and yours alone without the addition of any Joe behavior or anyone else that might fit the category.

As a moderator John You are emotionally unstable and far from being objective enough to keep your personal feelings from getting in the way.
This particular thread has over 600 views, 83 postings mostly by the same people and you have decided to make the choice based on your feelings and two other disturbed individuals as the choice for the whole that reads this board.
Ya got big balls kid but their tied in a knot. I  can't even logically can't see the justification for your idea as being the majority, the numbers just don't add up. Nor does the idea that pushing away what you don't like could ever change the things within that created the stress to perceive the problem in the first place.

You keep talking John the hole just keeps getting deeper.

Excuse me folks but I am not responsible for the way anyone feels. That is a psychological problem that lies within the person having the emotional stress.

This argument, which you use to justify your behavior, is fundamentally flawed and worse, ridiculous.  Essentially you are saying that burden of responsibility for the consequences of behavior is lies not within the agent, but within the object.  It's my fault somehow, if I don't like what you do.  Suppose you were to post "fuck you" in every thread.  Is it my fault if I don't like it?  Does that mean we ought accept your behavior?  What if you were to shoot my family.  I guess its my fault if I feel badly about it.  It's just a psychological problem after all.

Sorry Joe, but whether you understand it or not, your position undermines the very possibility of any kind of meaningful ethics.  You are responsible for your behavior.  If one person doesn't like it, well consider yourself lucky.  If two, that's not so bad.  But if nearly everyone that has conversed with you extensively can't stand you, so much the worse for you.

It's a simple request really.  Stop monopolizing conversations.  Show some empathy for crying out loud.

To all,

I would have deleted this post at this point of the game.  It is combative, contentious and too long.
This is the same type of post that occurs over and over again.  There is no reasoning with Joe.  He want to preach, tell people what is wrong with them and convince them of his methodology.  Above all he wants to be in the center of the spotlight anyway that he can.
He hijacks the thead and turns the subject over to his conception of the world.  I have changed my mind.  He would be insufferable with his own thread and would not be able to contain himself from creeping to the next thread  to tell people the error of there ways.  I would elect 1,2 or 3 above.  Saviors are only content to lead or be crucified.  I desire to not play a part in either of his plays.

Well Tim I have not said fuck you in every thread nor killed your family but your own ideas full of the many what ifs seem to want to take this to extremes. That is what I call projection and lack of personal responsibility.
John and Tim what is different about you and your opinions of me as compared to the statements you make about my posts.
You are extremely set on viewing my posts as cult like and contentious. So it seems we have something in common. we both have taken a stand on what we see as the reality of the world and niether you or I am budging from the viewpoint of the experiences.

Of course this is only one of a thousand ways to see this.

QUOTE

Dan you are just a frustrated kid who wants to be included and heard in all the conversations.

funny, I was thinking you were becoming a frustrated guru who increasingly needs to be validated by others in order to maintain his own peace of mind.  

now let's have some fun with words

QUOTE

Not trying to push my way of thinking on anyone else what I did explain is that I encourage in everyone the ability to freely express without being co-dependant or fearful of doing something wrong.

sounds like this thread is exactly this!  yet, somehow, I am not convinced you are 'encouraging' it  ???

QUOTE

We do enough tiptoeing around the world trying to keep ourselves and others safe in a world that needs to be able to feel and express without fear of oppression, repression, fear and judgment.

yes, I think Synch and Tim should feel free to express to you their opinion of you without fear of judgment  >:(

QUOTE

Expression is the ability to state ones own thoughts and feelings and take complete responsibility for those feelings without burdening another with the excuse that any feeling is the responsibility of another.

that's a bit overcooked...  Expression is to express one's thoughts and/or feelings.   period .

QUOTE

Excuse me folks but I am not responsible for the way anyone feels. That is a psychological problem that lies within the person having the emotional stress.

kinda like the emotional stress that you feel when people think you are degassing excessively?

QUOTE

I am still amazed at the level of reactionary behavior that takes place when someone says something that another doesn't agree with.

one would think you'd have learned by now.  sheesh!  

QUOTE

sometimes purely to play the devils advocate

there's a big surprise.  nothin' like stirrin' the pot, eh?  ;)

QUOTE

If you can't step into the world whole within yourself and are so fragile that anothers presence takes away your ability to stand within yourself with some kind of stability then there is a need for a few caves to isolate ones self from the possibility of threat and fear of not being supported.

I take it you know this from experience?  

QUOTE

PJ I think you just pms stress at times.

now that's a nasty thing to say  :-*

QUOTE

Feelings are a part of life and if you haven't got the stomach to carry the load then life is hell.

sometimes, when your stomach gets bigger than your heart, you start steamrolling folks.  there ain't nothin' cheaper than makin' your heaven out of other people's hell

QUOTE

I suspect it feels good to be able to express to me what you feel and I could care less what you feel about me but I also think that if the emotional system is used objectively it stays healthy.   If it is all subjective then you might as well build your castle now, with the moat to keep the invaders of your peace of mind out. Good luck trying to make it work.

it seems you made it work rather handily.  it must, therefore, be quite possible  



You keep preaching Joe, the hole jest keeps gettin' deeper!  :-*

8)

QUOTE

Excuse me folks but I am not responsible for the way anyone feels. That is a psychological problem that lies within the person having the emotional stress. This argument, which you use to justify your behavior, is fundamentally flawed and worse, ridiculous.  Essentially you are saying that burden of responsibility for the consequences of behavior is lies not within the agent, but within the object.  It's my fault somehow, if I don't like what you do.  Suppose you were to post "fuck you" in every thread.  Is it my fault if I don't like it?  Does that mean we ought accept your behavior?  What if you were to shoot my family.  I guess its my fault if I feel badly about it.  It's just a psychological problem after all. Sorry Joe, but whether you understand it or not, your position undermines the very possibility of any kind of meaningful ethics.  You are responsible for your behavior.  If one person doesn't like it, well consider yourself lucky.  If two, that's not so bad.  But if nearly everyone that has conversed with you extensively can't stand you, so much the worse for you. It's a simple request really.  Stop monopolizing conversations.  Show some empathy for crying out loud.

This is something that has fascinated me for a long time.
When a flood wipes out your property and sweeps away your home who do you make responsible, and as an ethical point of reference how do you direct your feelings to accomodate the rationality of responsibility?
If you trip and fall into a hole and break your leg is it the responsibility of the hole, the person that made the hole ( if man made) or you, for tripping and falling?
We as a society try and find the faults that create injustice and unhappiness so we can protect ourselves.
If you fell and it was your own fault would you ethically hold yourself responsible and how would you deal with yourself and make sure it never happened again?
Maybe a public disclaimer that you were potentially dangerous to yourself and to stand clear at all times because there was no predicting when it would happen again, if at all.

Lets face it if you are going to live you are going to have to move about in the world and you just never know when a plane is going to slam into a building or a car is going to cross the line into ongoing traffic or a poisonous snake is going to surprise someone and bite them or cause a heart attack.
What could possibly be the solution to live without fear and to live life without blame?
Its ok to freak out and blame the drunk driver who slams into your car and kills your family but will you get the same satisfaction of blame from the guy who through no fault of his own hits a pothole has a blowout and careens across traffic and kills your family and himself?
What do you do then? who is responsible for your feelings and the ability to find reason and recovery?

Philosophers have thought about life and why things happen to us. Some have tossed about the idea that nothing happens to us, but that our life is predetermined.
When something is taken from us we react. Sometimes the reaction is of great sorrow and sometimes we move on gracefully and without too much grief or emotional investment.
What is it that makes us so different and why are there so many ways to feel about things?

I have a friend who lost his dog because the neighbor ran over it. Once the grief was over the feelings for the neighbor changed from hatred to a more giving feeling of empathy for his feelings for the guilt of hitting the dog. It wasn't his fault was it? OR was it? Maybe he deliberately aimed for the dog because he hated it. Maybe he planned for months to kill the dog and at that precise moment all the right things came together to create the right circumstances.
I suppose you could get lost in the reasons that are stimulated by the feelings.
Personally it doesn't seem too productive to try and figure it all out when you can just get on with life and leave it behind.

Forrest Gump said his momma told him "Life is like a box of chocolates, ya never know what your gonna get."
Maybe some of us are better prepared for the unknown and the random bumps along the road 'cause some just seem better adjusted than others.

Seems Joe has some people pretty riled up over nothing more than a few words and ideas. He didn't run over no ones dog or kill any ones family and it seems that his language has been pretty clean. In fact I'd say that some of the other people here have been pretty abusive towards him just because they don't like what they hear.
I can't imagine what they would do if Joe really did say fuck you all the time or killed Tims family. He seems pretty emotional about this, I suspect Y'all might not recover at all if something really tragic were to happen.

Dan is quite the prodigy isn't he, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing such an evil is loosed upon the world.

After further consideration, I have decided to retract my previous suggestions in place of a more 'eloquent' and appealing solution.  I hereby propose that we rename joe to "Preacher Joe", or alternatively to "Prophet Joe."  What do you think joe?

That would be entirely acceptible to me.

Joe are you posting under pseudonyms again to prop up your sad arguments?  How about an IP check on Carl?

Not that it matters.  Carl, Mr. Rational, Joe, whoever you are...yeah bad things happen to people all the time and they are obligated to deal with it.  Life's tough, then you die.  But that does not mean any behavior is excusable.  If you believe in the idea of right and wrong at all, however subjective those concepts may be, then wrong behavior must be held accountable.  It must be punished, otherwise what is there to prevent it from reoccuring?  That's what a society is after all, a social contract defining what is and what isn't acceptible behavior.  Those that disagree are sanctioned for the good of the whole.  Most of the time, morality isn't arbitrary, but what is best for the whole.  But once you start preaching that there is no responsibility beyond the self, ethics become might makes right and you get lawlessness.  YOu can't even say that right and wrong exist.

QUOTE

Dan is quite the prodigy isn't he, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing such an evil is loosed upon the world.

thanx!  ;D

[move][glow=red,2,300]be afraid!  be very, very afraid!  >:([/glow][/move]

8)

QUOTE

Dan is quite the prodigy isn't he, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing such an evil is loosed upon the world. After further consideration, I have decided to retract my previous suggestions in place of a more 'eloquent' and appealing solution.  I hereby propose that we rename joe to "Preacher Joe", or alternatively to "Prophet Joe."  What do you think joe? That would be entirely acceptible to me.

Sounds OK by me.

By the way I find Dan amusing too, he's like a squeaky toy, squeeze a little get a little squeak, squeeze a lot get a big squeak.

In reference to your post to Carl I would say you have a rather big chip on your shoulder regarding responsibility and punishment.
Not much for the responsibility of your own feelings and the ability to keep from being a victim to the big bad world though.
Your right about one thing I don't believe in victims or right and wrong so on one hand your right but on the other you are wrong because I just said you were right.

Oh my head hurts from so much intellectual ping pong.

You van voluntarily change your moniker from your profile page.  :)

QUOTE

 Excuse me folks but I am not responsible for the way anyone feels. That is a psychological problem that lies within the person having the emotional stress.

said Mohamed Atta when he flew the plane on a sunny morning towards the towers. Said Dr. Mengele standing at the ramp. Said the GI walking into the vietnamese village. Says every silly little boy before he grows up and understands that arrogance does not heal humiliation wounds.

QUOTE

 PJ I think you just pms stress at times.

Maybe I have PMS. Maybe you suffer from premature ejaculation. Maybe you are saving for a penile inplant. Who knows? Who cares?
;D
LOVE
PJ

QUOTE

Maybe I have PMS. Maybe you suffer from premature ejaculation. Maybe you are saving for a penile inplant. Who knows? Who cares? LOVE PJ

Now you're getting the picture.

If there is a God he must be one cruel son of a bitch to have created the hitlers , the mengeles the butchers and the antagonists.
As a human being it seems we have nothing but hope to look forward to with history repeating itself with all the atrocities and the people that affect us so. We can only hope that it doesn't happen to us and make sure that when it does we lash out and punish. Fear, hope and punishment.

Oh what a world what a world......(I'm melting Ohhhh......)

What is taken away can never be taken back but there is always hope for  revenge, and reason or grounds to breed anger and fear. Sounds like the perfect hell.

See! When you slip on an astral banana peel and loose a bit of your well-rehearsed balance you even start to look attractive, sound human and feel interesting....
Nice, Joe! Forget the revenge, though. It´s too exhausting. A little bit of mirroring is enough....
;D ;D ;D
LOVE
PJ

QUOTE

I find Dan amusing too, he's like a squeaky toy, squeeze a little get a little squeak, squeeze a lot get a big squeak.

my squeaks are just warning shots, given from my deep desire to prevent having to kick your ass, byotch!  :-*

Joe,

Your conduct and behavior so far is so opposite a benevolent and all powerful God that you are preaching about to be comical.  Bitter, accusitory, scolding,  preachy, superior attitude, wanting attention, as to be a potential insight into your psychological make up.

Do you see even a hint of this or will you remain oblivious to this very obvious dicotomy between what you are saying and what you are doing?

I am sorry, I just saw that I asked a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question.  Even so, I am curious,  do you think everyone here wrong and you right?   Is there not a suspicion in your mind that you might be taking a fortified position of the man of God for other reasons?  Have you ever meditated on this?

QUOTE

Joe, Your conduct and behavior so far is so opposite a benevolent and all powerful God that you are preaching about to be comical.  Bitter, accusitory, scolding,  preachy, superior attitude, wanting attention, as to be a potential insight into your psychological make up. Do you see even a hint of this or will you remain oblivious to this very obvious dicotomy between what you are saying and what you are doing? I am sorry, I just saw that I asked a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question.  Even so, I am curious,  do you think everyone here wrong and you right?   Is there not a suspicion in your mind that you might be taking a fortified position of the man of God for other reasons?  Have you ever meditated on this?

For the majority of folks that have grown up on planet earth the ideas of right and wrong are usefull ideas to direct one in a way that humanity can agree on as an approach that will create some kind of growth, prosperity and evolution.
The only problem is judgment creates so much hatred and fear when anyone goes outside the lines.

There is no right and wrong. I haven't tried to be right nor make anyone wrong. I just live my reality that whatever you make important, not important, fearful, ugly, beautiful is just and idea that is supported by other ideas. Ideas are constantly changing so I tend to pay attention more to things that are stable and more permanent.
The universe is infinitely supportive and the contrasts are part of the proof.  I just can't help myself I guess. Life is too glorious to try and keep it in any kind of Box.

Fortunately I don't see life the way you do. That would be too painful.