"A Thelemic Utopia"
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Two statements;
a. Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream
b. water at sea level boils at 100C
One is an opinion and the other is a fact."
The 'fact', though, is only true in certain very limited conditions. Water in a pressure cooker at sea level boils at much higher than 100C, and water in a sealed jar with some of the air pumped out boils at much lower temperature.
Regardless, cherry picking our 'truth' from the Rorschach of the universe is not a liberal problem. It transcends political affiliation. I do it, and I've seen you do it. As far as I can see, opinionated people who believe they don't do it, are the ones doing it the most.
EVERYTHING, including unassailable truths like gravity or at what state liquids turn into gas, are really matters of perspective.
A materialistic, scientific view of the world is a step up from a blind, superstitious point of view. But there is always a step up from the last. See if you can find it.
And... turning backwards to yell at those on the step below you is one way to avoid the step above.
-
Speaking of "clean statements," I get confused when this label "liberal" is thrown around (as I also get confused by the label "conservative"). When you use this label, do you mean that people who believe that what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is a right to privacy, a privacy especially protected against government intrusion? When you us the label "liberal," do you mean that people who believe that doing what they want with their bodies, ingesting whatever substance they find growing on the planet, is a right, a right protected against government intrusion? Or do you mean that a person is "liberal" when he or she wants to spend the government's money to help those who may be deemed as needing help? Or do you mean a liberal is someone who believe that he or she should have the freedom to wear their clothes and hair as they see fit, to go nudist if they wish? Or is a liberal someone who believes that no matter how a person wishes to worship, or who a person wishes to worship, these are protected choices? Or do you believe a liberal is someone who believes that government should have as many laws and regulations as possible so as to protect people who haven't got the knowledge or sense to protect themselves?
Surely I doubt you mean all of those things - and quite possibly you practice some of those things yourself - so this throwing around of the label "liberal" as if it were supposed to be an insult beyond question confuses your meaning to me I suspect. I wonder.
Sincerely, a concerned fiscal conservative/social liberal (to a degree)
-
Veronica wrote:
I see no need to say liberal, all people are in this boat."Speak for yourself, please."
um, I said I....
didnt I....I see no need....
You do....I wanted to share something that I have found to be vaild and true in my life.
-
@Veronica said
"um, I said I....
didnt I....I see no need....
You do...."Excuse me, but you said "all people" which is lumping me in where I do not agree to belong. Thus my request, "speak for yourself". See?
-
"And... turning backwards to yell at those on the step below you is one way to avoid the step above."
I agree one hundred percent. I refer you to the entirity of my argument. I have performed my defense for those who are not able to tease out the complexities of this argument for themselves. I may be untrained and unrefined, but in my experience, invoking the mystery of the "True Initiate" (the ones who "know" are really of THIS opinion), without any evidence to support their claims is a form of control.
It's an argument that manipulates the emotional power of shame while repudiating sensitivity.
If I am a master, then I think that a student's understanding of the purity of this tradition is worth fighting for - especially in cases where the student is combative by self-definition. If I am a student, then how else am I to learn and survive in this environment if I do not have the right to challenge such thinking with all the power of my soul? Who is like God that I may be instructed by him? The one who can instruct me in the laws of Reality.
My conscience is clear.
-
Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.
Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out.
-
"Excuse me, but you said "all people" which is lumping me in where I do not agree to belong."
Yes I do see what you are saying,
Or I guess I mean,
I hear that you are saying you do not belong on this boat,which was a term I used to imply planet Gaia.
All people share one thing,
and you cannot claim otherwise.In my vain attempt at living my life, I have flaws
as beautiful and perfect and loving as I amAnd while I hold myself to certain standards,
I will not ever dare to deny that I have a
dirty dark and nasty past
we all do
a side some call humanand while kings and queens
magi may have more clothes
in which to conceal themselvesI will dance naked for all to see,
and not hide behind wordsas best as I can.
peace and be well brother always
-
@Veronica said
"All people share one thing,"
I was not disagreeing with the fact that we are all here on planet earth. This is another example of what I spoke of on another thread; replying to something not said. ( the point was concerning the ability to separate opinion from fact)
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"The 'fact', though, is only true in certain very limited conditions."
Classic!
This whole post of yours is a great example of this problem. It is a clear demonstration of the classic "Nit-Pick" reply that liberals resort to when getting uncomfortably close to a "fact". Even a generic one introduced for the sake of clarity alone is too close for comfort.
You see, the qualifier "at sea level" is sufficient for reasonable folks to establish the "limited conditions".
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"EVERYTHING, including unassailable truths like gravity or at what state liquids turn into gas, are really matters of perspective."
No. The perspective is implied by stating gravity "at the surface of earth". But for those who want to nit-pick there are plenty of side door exits to be fabricated at will.
-
Please explain the difference between "nit-picking" and "applying ruthless and immense scholarly ability toward a single question."
That, sir, is the very job definition of a Ph.D.
I know how to defend against one.
Do you know how to convince three?
You create your work and present it for their scrutiny.
-
In response to Labyrinthus, because you addressed a question to me and I didn't want to ignore you, I found all of Froclown's post (the one immediately before mine) to be in the vein of "All Liberals X", but specifically the entirety of paragraph 4 which begins with "That is why liberalism shows as Nietzsche...". You'll notice the common usage of the pronoun "They" followed by some remark that lumps all "Liberals" (not well defined who fits this label - as pointed out by Takamba) into a category that Froclown desires.
The point of my post is to state that I've used the "Liberal" label when talking about myself and I'm doing what Froclown says "liberals" don't do - making a solid judgment about his post and how False it is.
Now to follow that up, in the case of your posts recently, you've been talking about "nit-picking" replies, such as the examples that AvshalomBinyamin gave. It seems to me that "nit-picking" is extremely scientific, and not paying attention to details is not. THAT is not a judgment on which is better, only that AvshalomBinyamin's additional information seems more scientific to me, and I like that approach...
It kind of feels like if you were in a classroom and the teacher said "America was discovered by Christopher Columbus"; you would A) expect the liberal child in the class to raise his hands and "nit-pick" over that "fact" B) tell that Child to shut-up.
-
@Tinman said
"You'll notice the common usage of the pronoun "They" followed by some remark that lumps all "Liberals"..."
Not necessarily. A generalization about "they" is usually debatable to some degree. To say "all" is usually indefensible... which is why many will rephrase a generality as an exclusive 'all' (or 'none' or 'never' or 'always', etc.) which then is much easier to refute. And then the deep denial leftist can continue along his merry way in dismissive bliss of the uncomfortable truth.
One can make a general observation that Florida is warmer than Alaska. Now those who are threatened by such an observation might obfuscate by rephrasing the speaker as saying, "You said Florida is** always** warmer than Alaska but once the southern panhandle of Alaska was warmer than it was one record cold spring day in Florida" or some such thing. Those in denial now presume that they have made a relevant refutation. But the reality is that no meaningful reply was made concerning the actual claim.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.
Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out."
Av, please look up the word umbrage. You have used that word incorrectly regarding comments of mine before. Simply disagreeing with someone or pointing out an error does not imply umbrage. When someone says "ALL people do such n such" and I say "No, they don't, I don't" -- that is NOT umbrage.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out."
Av, please look up the word umbrage. You have used that word incorrectly regarding comments of mine before. Simply disagreeing with someone or pointing out an error does not imply umbrage. When someone says "ALL people do such n such" and I say "No, they don't, I don't" -- that is NOT umbrage."
ahem
to paraphrase.... so the lame may hear and the dumb may walk on....
"Of course you don't see the irony of you taking offense/resenting if someone includes you in their general statement, after you have so repeatedly been doing that all along in your lack of intelligent but highly opinionated arguments."
Sounds like someone needs a nap maybe?
-
"Main Entry: umยทbrage
Pronunciation: \หษm-brij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin umbraticum, neuter of umbraticus of shade, from umbratus, past participle of umbrare to shade, from umbra shade, shadow; akin to Lithuanian unksmฤ shadow
Date: 15th century
1 : shade, shadow
2 : shady branches : foliage
3 a : an indistinct indication : vague suggestion : hint b : a reason for doubt : suspicion
4 : a feeling of pique or resentment at some often fancied slight or insult <took umbrage at the speaker's remarks>
"What's wrong with umbrage?
I'm sorry you don't like the 4th definition.
All terms are relative. All evasion is possible. All madness is conceivable.
But to whom will you turn for confirmation of your Reality? And what are the consequences if you don't?
-
All I can conclude so far about this Utopia is that either Labrynthus won't be in it, or only Labrynthus will be in it. There shall or shall not be liberals in it - for I do not know exactly what a liberal is except that Labrynthus and a few others throw the word around like it in itself is a stinging device. One may as well call another person a "Jew," "Nigger," or "Monster" according to this usage - but I'm sure I know who and what a Jew is and I've never met a monster I didn't enjoy. The phrasing of the ignorant though, even if I may not always know where it comes from, I am usually right when I say I know why it is used. So allow us to each to seek our own orbits by dispensing with this pain once-and-for-all by declaring Labrynthus the winner of the penis match and Froclown and anyone else who wants can declare themselves winners of the soccer game - because I think someone once said we are all supposed to be winners or something silly like that.
-
NO, what they actually said was that we are all supposed to be whiners... but that just seems so tough and I don't wanna
-
"So allow us to each to seek our own orbits by dispensing with this pain once-and-for-all by declaring Labrynthus the winner of the penis match and Froclown and anyone else who wants can declare themselves winners of the soccer game - because I think someone once said we are all supposed to be winners or something silly like that."
if I would have known it was a penis match I would have brought a strap on......
Seriously, thank you for this discussion, and I hope you liked Momma Wolf's lilttle song...
I do have a favorite dream.after little league ball the players have to line up and meet the opposing team, shaking hands with each, and saying good game...
when you have a bunch of children doing this, it sounds remarkibly like a bunch of bees humming....
"good game, good game, good game...."
they say it builds character,
I say the kids say it so they can get over it and get on to the after game party.. -
lol...
Good game!
Seriously.
-
@Froclown said
"Right, so even the slave class who are unable to seek out the ordeals and mastery of their own WILL, are still acting according to their natural orbit and function by serving, and the difference between old and new aeon slavery is that the new aeon masters work to provide labor and opportunity to as close an approximation of the right and proper function of the slave, as anyone can ascertain for anyone else. "
Indeed.
Rather enlightened words for a native of Illinois.
Most fail to realize that the slave is always enslaved of his own Will. One needs a certain kind of stupidity to choose a life of addiction, manual labor, poverty, etc. over a life of opulence. And this opulence need not be merely internal.