Mindfulness is achievable – that’s the evidence. The question is why we need to achieve it by deception…. we don’t. Buddha was speaking in conflationary nonsense because he lacked the scientific means to speak otherwise. But his original attempt at producing a discipline of mindfulness was second only to the stoics. In my opinion, the principle purpose of studying philosophy is also mindfulness.
Form: Critique
-
Mindfulness is achievable – that’s the evidence. The question is why we need to
Mindfulness is achievable – that’s the evidence. The question is why we need to achieve it by deception…. we don’t. Buddha was speaking in conflationary nonsense because he lacked the scientific means to speak otherwise. But his original attempt at producing a discipline of mindfulness was second only to the stoics. In my opinion, the principle purpose of studying philosophy is also mindfulness.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 13:08:00 UTC
-
Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.
I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’. If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters? That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation. If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity. “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.” And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public? -
Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.
I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’. If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters? That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation. If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity. “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.” And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public? -
ONLY HUMAN ENOUGH TO NOT SOIL ONE’S SELF IN PUBLIC. I just went through the comm
ONLY HUMAN ENOUGH TO NOT SOIL ONE’S SELF IN PUBLIC.
I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’.
If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters?
That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation.
If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is
Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity.
“Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.”
And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:39:00 UTC
-
Incomprehension Is Not An Argument To Anything Other Than Your Lack Of Ability – Really.
> Robert Laird Incoherent nonsense. > Curt Doolittle Not an argument. A dunning kruger assertion. > Robert Laird Friends with Yuri N Maltsev and 4 others Not an argument. You’re right. Just my judgment that you’ve produced incoherent nonsense. Lots of people think they know how to write. Almost all of them are wrong. You’re in that bunch. > Curt Doolittle I do my craft in public like an old village smith. People can watch the process. FB is not my end result but my sketch pad. And people can join along in the journey with me. So, you know, I don’t ‘compose’ every idea I put down. …See More > Robert Laird I’m twice the writer you’ve ever been. You’re pretentious, sententious, and a bore. Don’t patronize me, or I’ll have a real fling at you. > Curt Doolittle I’m baiting you as I bait all critics, in to making a substantive argument. I have never claimed to be a great writer… I claim only to be right. 😉 So dish it if you can. 😉 > Robert Laird Village smith. What a joke. You drape words around half baked ideas. I really am a great writer. My wife asks, “Why bother with this guy?” I tell her I have a duty to mess with the incoherent poseurs. I’m probably wrong. Don’t care how many “follow” you. You’re a fool on a fool’s mission. You can’t write a single paragraph. Why I poked at you in the first place. Go away now. You haven’t earned another word. > Curt Doolittle Now, any sophist of any scale will argue quite obviously that you make no argument whatsoever. But then intuitionistically accessible prose illustrating the mundane, is quite different from the composition of novel argument. So. Given that ‘incomprehensibility’ has been a sophist’s criticism that I’ve lived with for decades, and yet there are plenty of people (demonstrably) who can grasp the insights, and who are ‘moved’ by them, it’s just an empirically demonstrated fact that I’m producing novel content. Now if you have an argument (I know you don’t, or you would make one, like those who do form criticisms) then please make one. As far as I know I have NO, meaning ZERO material critics, but many empty hats railing against that which they cannot grasp. What I have done here is profound. And until you can construct an argument against one of the central propositions you’re just a poser. (which is common.) Dunning Kruger rules you. 😉 -
Incomprehension Is Not An Argument To Anything Other Than Your Lack Of Ability – Really.
> Robert Laird Incoherent nonsense. > Curt Doolittle Not an argument. A dunning kruger assertion. > Robert Laird Friends with Yuri N Maltsev and 4 others Not an argument. You’re right. Just my judgment that you’ve produced incoherent nonsense. Lots of people think they know how to write. Almost all of them are wrong. You’re in that bunch. > Curt Doolittle I do my craft in public like an old village smith. People can watch the process. FB is not my end result but my sketch pad. And people can join along in the journey with me. So, you know, I don’t ‘compose’ every idea I put down. …See More > Robert Laird I’m twice the writer you’ve ever been. You’re pretentious, sententious, and a bore. Don’t patronize me, or I’ll have a real fling at you. > Curt Doolittle I’m baiting you as I bait all critics, in to making a substantive argument. I have never claimed to be a great writer… I claim only to be right. 😉 So dish it if you can. 😉 > Robert Laird Village smith. What a joke. You drape words around half baked ideas. I really am a great writer. My wife asks, “Why bother with this guy?” I tell her I have a duty to mess with the incoherent poseurs. I’m probably wrong. Don’t care how many “follow” you. You’re a fool on a fool’s mission. You can’t write a single paragraph. Why I poked at you in the first place. Go away now. You haven’t earned another word. > Curt Doolittle Now, any sophist of any scale will argue quite obviously that you make no argument whatsoever. But then intuitionistically accessible prose illustrating the mundane, is quite different from the composition of novel argument. So. Given that ‘incomprehensibility’ has been a sophist’s criticism that I’ve lived with for decades, and yet there are plenty of people (demonstrably) who can grasp the insights, and who are ‘moved’ by them, it’s just an empirically demonstrated fact that I’m producing novel content. Now if you have an argument (I know you don’t, or you would make one, like those who do form criticisms) then please make one. As far as I know I have NO, meaning ZERO material critics, but many empty hats railing against that which they cannot grasp. What I have done here is profound. And until you can construct an argument against one of the central propositions you’re just a poser. (which is common.) Dunning Kruger rules you. 😉 -
INCOMPREHENSION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR LACK OF ABILITY –
INCOMPREHENSION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR LACK OF ABILITY – REALLY.
> Robert Laird
Incoherent nonsense.
> Curt Doolittle
Not an argument. A dunning kruger assertion.
> Robert Laird
Friends with Yuri N Maltsev and 4 others
Not an argument. You’re right. Just my judgment that you’ve produced incoherent nonsense. Lots of people think they know how to write. Almost all of them are wrong. You’re in that bunch.
> Curt Doolittle
I do my craft in public like an old village smith. People can watch the process. FB is not my end result but my sketch pad. And people can join along in the journey with me.
So, you know, I don’t ‘compose’ every idea I put down. …See More
> Robert Laird
I’m twice the writer you’ve ever been. You’re pretentious, sententious, and a bore. Don’t patronize me, or I’ll have a real fling at you.
> Curt Doolittle
I’m baiting you as I bait all critics, in to making a substantive argument. I have never claimed to be a great writer… I claim only to be right. 😉
So dish it if you can. 😉
> Robert Laird
Village smith. What a joke. You drape words around half baked ideas. I really am a great writer. My wife asks, “Why bother with this guy?” I tell her I have a duty to mess with the incoherent poseurs. I’m probably wrong. Don’t care how many “follow” you. You’re a fool on a fool’s mission. You can’t write a single paragraph. Why I poked at you in the first place. Go away now. You haven’t earned another word.
> Curt Doolittle
Now, any sophist of any scale will argue quite obviously that you make no argument whatsoever. But then intuitionistically accessible prose illustrating the mundane, is quite different from the composition of novel argument.
So. Given that ‘incomprehensibility’ has been a sophist’s criticism that I’ve lived with for decades, and yet there are plenty of people (demonstrably) who can grasp the insights, and who are ‘moved’ by them, it’s just an empirically demonstrated fact that I’m producing novel content.
Now if you have an argument (I know you don’t, or you would make one, like those who do form criticisms) then please make one.
As far as I know I have NO, meaning ZERO material critics, but many empty hats railing against that which they cannot grasp.
What I have done here is profound. And until you can construct an argument against one of the central propositions you’re just a poser. (which is common.)
Dunning Kruger rules you. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 12:55:00 UTC
-
Choose….
You blame (((them))) for the same reason you blame a woman for her lack of agency and indulgence of gossip (see scolds), or dog for its ill manners, or the rat for it’s pestilence. All beasts pursue their evolutionary strategy. The question is what does one do about it? Yet (((they))) are trivial to control by our common law, and the militia’s use of organized violence to enforce it. We are the gods among men. We are the only gods. Men need gods. And gods impose laws. That is the meaning of ‘god’. Only a weak people would claim to be chosen of the gods. The strong demonstrate that they are gods. The weak, conniving, and evil are either their children, students, serfs, or slaves. We are the only people with the choice to be gods. Choose. -
Choose….
You blame (((them))) for the same reason you blame a woman for her lack of agency and indulgence of gossip (see scolds), or dog for its ill manners, or the rat for it’s pestilence. All beasts pursue their evolutionary strategy. The question is what does one do about it? Yet (((they))) are trivial to control by our common law, and the militia’s use of organized violence to enforce it. We are the gods among men. We are the only gods. Men need gods. And gods impose laws. That is the meaning of ‘god’. Only a weak people would claim to be chosen of the gods. The strong demonstrate that they are gods. The weak, conniving, and evil are either their children, students, serfs, or slaves. We are the only people with the choice to be gods. Choose.