Giftedness Exists

“I have heard gifted children play musical compositions, seen gifted dancers dance and gifted people exist.”

Ah! The group is glad the group agrees.

:laughing:

It wasn’t so much an agreement, as it was about my experience, which ended up in my agreeing… by default. Those words were never meant to be uttered though. :-$ for I don’t care whether the Group is glad I agree or not.

I have seen gifted people exist (and can tell that they are) by the amount of cheek they can give… without ever becoming rude, but always being close to… it’s an art-form all by its-self, you know.

Some do see more… hear more… and even feel more, and others see hear and feel what they want…

The group is nonetheless glad.

For it is here, at the question of what to see, hear and feel, that philosophy is relevant.

D’oh! #-o

Some do those beyond the self, and others within the boundaries of the self… either, probably making for a different kind of philosophy.

The questions of philosophy stand before the questions of a self.

From philosophy, one can arrive at a self. Or some wildly different thing.

There aren’t different kinds of philosiphy. Only philosophy.

Yes, the self is a religious object. It doesn’t exist, there is no coherent circle containing all the properties of an individual and excluding the rest. All i intertwined, in and out. The experience of the self is nothing but “success”- one can only have the experience of a self if one commands ones environment.

The other thing is the ego - this always exists, unless psychosis strikes, which is the cracking of the ego.

But the Self, as a comprehensive entity of sorts, is only the wave of power on which the capable and fortunate ego may find itself riding.

Jung tried to explain the transgressant scope of the self in terms of subconscious archetypes. But that was just the most colourful triviality of the 20th century, completely irrelevant to what the Self is, which is only a question of power through a question of value - i.e. the alchemy of the egoic entity with the rest of the world.

A member of the group upholds this invocation of philosophic spirit, which is a monument to the group’s passion for becoming a guest of philosophy itself.

One of the group says, while not sure it quite understands what is said, they think of the fight many persons put up whenever a word is to be defined. For instance, the near outrage, or simple supercilious laugh, elicited by the notion that what objectivity, practicality or reality means might require to be asked. This lack of a passion to know of what one speaks is perhaps congenital, ergo, if it is wholly lacking in someone, it is as well that they do something else apart from philosophy, no increase in information about philosophy may stimulate this passion in many. Genuine questioning moves even in a region available only rarely, and requires more than does a simple determination of terms (yet, many can not even endure to this level of inquiry).

The group would say in the case of Chomsky’s criticism of Zizek, the claim of “posturing” is a mistake. Though, that is not to say the latter does not talk a great deal of nonsense. The issue of the motivation of the questioner comes in. Chomsky lacks a passion for the manner of questioning which deals with conceptions as paths of thought, which are opened to the other thinkers, not as arguments but ways in thought that show and attempt to leap into the sense of the motivation of the region they lead to. Lacking this predilection of motive, never can the work needed come to the envisaging of what is aduced in the work of a thinker. Zizek is the lowest form, lame in every respect, of the kind of thinking still know before the war in Germany. Yet, it is wrong to speak in such a case simply of “posturing”.

In this sense the showing of what is heard of the subject matters under investigation is the only teacher. Yet, a member of the group points out that members of the group are sometimes said to be “posturing”, this could be taken, in some cases, as provocation to let the group envisage more of what is lurking under the ostensible or putative posturing.

The group says, in the text called Heidegger, what is most rich of Nietzsche is the challenged text, challenged in its total authenticity, Will to Power, in Jung it is the Zarathustra. The Zarathustra is the book of Rausch or Life. One may ask, what is Life and what is Will? The Zarathustra is not a book of Platonic thinking, as is the book that challenges Plato, Beyond Good and Evil, it is not a reasoning, but a flowing and a poeticizing as a master that is to teach itself.

It seems to the group, the ego can not be Power or Will, for as Nietzsche says, the “I” wills the “I” and says, “I” have commanded! And yet, though Will is back behind the ego, in Rausch and archetype, it is also what is Geistigste, it is in philosophy. This ground of thinking of will is unwieldy.

The group says, what in this speaks of giftedness? Perhaps, in that Nietzsche says the gifted must demand to destroy the non-gifted. This will seems unlikely to prevail, in the age of equality and normalcy of salutary ease of health, at best, consumer’s will to the struggle to exist in the manner of making (the most & infinite) money.

The group says, in some way, this group comment is taken out of context. In any case, the group does not speak of authority in the case of mere speaking, any more than does this answer of posturing in all things. Both lead to a kind of raging misuse of terms as in “some animals are more equal”.

The group formally protests the group’s ascribing of abstract thought of any kind to Nietzsche.

In these here modern times, different kinds of philosophy are used to generate specific outcomes… philosophy stopped being basic a long time ago, and in the process became multi-stranded. Philosophy is not a singularity.

The question is what comes first. If philosophy comes first, how can it beget many philosophies? Or be begat by egos?

These are confusions imposed by modern scholars to avoid the hard wzzork. The painful work! And also the absurdly rewarding work.

Isn’t replying to the same post twice, the same as not being tried for the same crime twice? i.e. expecting a different answer/outcome, but with no new information presented.

The group understood.

The group is sad, since a member of the group cannot step out from behind the podium, perhaps ashamed of the shape of its body. The particular shape. The group notices how this member stays in the clouds, safe in not being concrete, safe in not being quite clear, not diving into specific issues, staying in the role of lecturer to lectured, in meta-position, superposition. This wave that never becomes a particle, remaining gestural, vague, ephemeral…

but feeling no doubt pristine, untouchable, safe…and gifted.

But all true gifts much come into the specific grit of life or they are just fanstasy

signifying, if not nothing, then little.

Are you saying that there isn’t, and cannot be, variants of philosophy and ways of thinking?

Perhaps… if you are, then this is where the difference in male and female thought processing and thinking lies… the renowned ability to multi-task. :-k

The group inquires as to the details involved in this protest.

The group deplores this group answer as stereotyped prejudiced response. Obviously only what one is able to understand is meaningful. So, does the group turn away from what ever it doesn’t now understand? The group, one fears, is utterly lacking in philosophic sense.

Groups often deplore suggestions that their approach, whether habitual or newly prized or…, might be improved. The group has engaged in prejudiced responses itself and may not like when this is mirrored and here has perhaps turned away from what it does not understand or perhaps what seems to be a threat to its sense of its role.

The group appreciates the introduction of collective third person response.
The group thinks this adds something.
The group feels no need for this to change.
The group however learns more from the blend of abstraction and the concrete/particular.
That is where gifts shine or do not.

Groups are the plain’s best defence against philosophy or any challenge.

“There are no philosophies, only philosophers” - N

Meaning there is at this point only me.