Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby promethean75 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:07 pm

dear iambiguous,

we'd like to say that we've taken a special interest in you at the institute of philosophical meta-linguistics study (or IPMS), and your work has accomplished a great many things that have assisted us in our research on the forum philosopher.

an area of particular importance in our research is the study of philosophical behavior and how it corresponds to models we've designed to describe philosophical discourse in terms of maximizing cognitive consonance and avoiding cognitive dissonance, rather than what was previously believed to be the motivating force behind philosophy; the 'pursuit of truth'.

your importance lies in your ability to engage a particular dynamic we call antiprocess, and this forces philosophers to unknowingly reveal various kinds of defense mechanisms in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. in doing so, we are able to analyze specific patterns of reasoning that help govern social behavior, and this gives us insight into our constructivist theory of human nature.

what we have deduced after an extensive two century study - we are a secret organization of intellectuals founded on the work of comte (the positivist, not the cheese) - is that the liminal transition from mythopoeic to non-mythopoeic thought due to the rapid increase of activity in the sylvian fissure and broca area, has caused a precedence in attentional bias and cognitive inertia over the logical diffusion of the valenced components involved in reasoning.

we've discovered a vast array of mechanisms subconsciously employed by the philosopher to maintain a kind of mental stasis during the periods of information overload which are brought about due to the excessive ambiguity of philosophical language and vocabulary. what we have found is that the ruling dynamic governing philosophical behavior is what we call the 'belief perseverance' phenomena. we've allocated the structures of this phenomena to a variety of operant conditioning factors that evolve over the period of the learning stage each philosopher goes through... a stage which generally characterizes the period between 18 and 34. during this period, the philosopher undergoes a process in which what we call 'post-purchase vocabulary sets' are consigned to cognitive operations that either enforce or decline the emotional stasis of the philosopher.

what this means is remarkable; a philosopher can be completely submerged in linguistic nonsense without experiencing the least bit of cognitive dissonance. this proves that the higher level cognitive functions are completely epiphenomenal, and governed not by the rules of logic, but by the post-purchase efficacy of the vocabulary set as it relates to the real, existential circumstances reflected during that particular period in which the 'idea' was learned, and the extent to which the behavior exhibited during the allocation of that idea was positively or negatively reinforced by the social group the philosopher is participating in, or, by the pre-existing grammatical form giving sense upon which the newly developed line of philosophical nonsense is based. this is to say that the 'certainty' of the philosopher develops through a series of gradations which accumulate as the philosopher ages and loses his capacity to learn, finally reaching an apex period at which the philosopher is completely unable to unlearn the accumulated nonsense he has acquired over the years.

what contributes most to this inability is not that the philosopher lacks the capacity for neuro-plasticity - i.e., his brain is able to correct and diffuse the valence components involved in his nonsensical reasoning if he is taught how to use logic - but the overpowering force of the various defense mechanisms unconsciously employed to protect the philosopher from the cognitive dissonance he would experience if he discovered he were wrong.

these mechanisms are largely socially developed and have nothing to do with reasoning, per se. that is to say, there is no actual dissonance attributed to incorrect reasoning... only to the resultant consequences the philosopher experiences when his 'ignorance' is considered, socially, as some kind of evidence for inferiority or ineptitude. it is for this reason that the philosopher 'holds on' to his belief perseverance at any cost... so much so that his brain blocks and prevents any potential for post-purchase modification of his reasoning. this results in what we call 'effort justification', a process in which the retention of the nonsense the philosopher believes, because it is 'tried and true' in keeping emotionally consonant stasis, is worth more to him than the effort he would need to make to admit he is a buffoon and make an attempt to unlearn what he believes. the final mechanism, which insulates the philosopher from the cognitive dissonance that would follow his loss of certainty, is the dunning–kruger effect.

now what we would like to thank you for, specifically, is your ability to render theoretical and conceptual philosophical language into existentially inapplicable nonsense. we find your persistence in demanding that the philosopher demonstrate how his 'ideas' can be 'brought down to earth' such that one cannot be mistaken about their veracity in practice - about the 'rightness' of the idea as opposed to other ideas which are counter-factual and/or contrary to, and therefore challenge that veracity - to be very useful in helping further our research.

we have watched you do this with all manner of 'philosophers' with incredible consistency. we would therefore like to give you our prestigious medal of honor; the 'calling bullshit when you see it' (or CBWYSI award), and we look forward to following your work in the future. with your further collaboration we hope to make new breakthroughs in our particular field of historical materialism and finally eliminate the scourge of the 'philosopher' once and for all.

sincerely,

the IPMS
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:22 pm

Note to others:

Is this one worth reading? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:07 pm

Now that I have actually read the OP, I recognize that I am indeed worthy of your medal of honor.

And even though my reaction here is no less an existential contraption, I'm willing to concede that it may well be as close as we are ever likely to come to the objective truth.

Here and now as it were.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby denniskane » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:02 pm

detrures wrote:today i'm like a frickin' seventh dan in philosophical aikido, bruh, and i've taken badassedness to a whole nuther level


Jesus. Some kind of 3-ring Tracircus Illogico-Philosophicus happening over here!

Or something.

I'm spending so much time now immersed in message forums filled with jealous, nitpicking techies who think they do tangible, worthwhile things with their lives while everyone hanging out in places like this are just blowing hot air...

Ha!
User avatar
denniskane
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:56 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby promethean75 » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:20 pm

dk wrote:I'm spending so much time now immersed in message forums filled with jealous, nitpicking techies who think they do tangible, worthwhile things with their lives while everyone hanging out in places like this are just blowing hot air...


well kane, i don't think what those techies said is entirely untrue, i'm loath to admit. a great bit of philosophy is hot air, but because most philosophers - excluding a section of ruling class lackey philosophers who's job it was to rationalize the power of the elite over the majority - aren't aware of the hot air they're blowing, so they aren't to be blamed for the mess they make. these are honest mistakes. when a philosopher commits these, we treat him/her like a retarded kid; we pat him on the head, say 'it's okay, you did your best', and give him a popsicle.

but just because the techies happened to be right in their estimation, it doesn't mean they know exactly how and why most philosophy is hot air... and this is because one has to be a philosopher to know this stuff. that totally looks like a blatant contradiction, i know, but it's not. i meant a different kind of philosopher; the new and improved version, one who will appear to the philosophers in the same way the antichrist appears to the christians.

but these techies are probably just jealous because they don't have the vocabularies or rhetorical skills that philosophers are trained to have. and btw, something needs to be righted about the history of philosophy, while i'm at it. every philosopher hitherto called a 'sophist' has actually been the true philosopher, while those who most detested them (e.g., plato and socrates) were the fakes. the art of true philosophy has only recently come into form over the last couple centuries... namely in the analytical movements. the analytical movement is to philosophy as a whole, what the sophist movement was to philosophy in particular. in fact, we owe the sophists for proving, ipso facto, the essence of philosophy as hot air. it was their capacity to persuade with any well crafted argument, that proved the latent obscurity in philosophical language. we needed the sophists to realize this, to be able to see what philosophy was capable of. without them, and the recent analytical movement, we might have been doomed for another thousand years of gobbledygook and intellectual shenanigans.

p.s. i can't seem to find a way to reply to your comment on my soundcloud page. probably because i only spent 4.7 seconds doing so. i'll just answer here; all those songs were 'written' with a free beat-maker app, so any sounds you are hearing are part of whatever sound-set is being used. i've linked to the app in the info section of the page if you want to try it out. it's very easy to use. if you want a challenge, try recording a single track without using the metronome. this is as close as you'll get to actually needing some skill as a 'musician' to write something. these new electronic music making devices are so easy to use, an orangutan could put mozart to shame with one. this isn't a good thing, btw. modern technologies are slowly depreciating music, eliminating both the intimacy a musician has with his instrument, as well as the technical skill needed to be a real musician with any degree of talent.

this all began with the tinsel town rebellion, which is a long story that would require a critical analysis of capitalism and its effects on the music industry... something i am not able to give at this juncture due to a toasted bagel being now ready for my consumption. frank will fill you in while i'm gone.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby promethean75 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:02 am

[bumped for biggs]
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:18 am

I appreciate your sharing of the concept 'antiprocess', but less so that you chose to harden one person's antiprocess.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby promethean75 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:56 pm

everyone is guilty of a little antiprocess... some more than others. this is because pure reason is very difficult to engage in. by that i mean, reasoning that by virtue of its nature, can't be affected by emotion, and therefore exists independently of emotional thinking's influence. unfortunately there is very little of this pure reason available to us - it amounts to a few basic truisms - and it has even less existential significance... i mean as far as being knowledge that is useful ethically.

that being the case, the great majority of philosophical theory is very much motivated not by the pursuit of truth, but as a kind of emotional catharsis through which we undergo something like a minor schizophrenic split in our minds; the part capable of ascertaining knowledge of pure reason is pushed back to give room for the activity of the emotional mind... that part that is operating as a kind of software that's been written by our genetic predispositions and our learned behaviors. our 'culture', more or less. these are all focused primarily on unphilosophical needs like survival, social belonging, personal self-esteem and so on. what happens is, because of the magnificent complexity of our 'minds', we project the driving force to accomplish these needs into the form of various philosophical languages... and as a result, defile the genuine capacity of philosophy to be used in the pursuit of pure reason. everything becomes philosophy, as it were, and philosophers proceed as if the reasoning they have - which is only a reflection and representation of the emotional drives motivating them - has given them knowledge of the real world... and by that i mean truths that are eternally true and unchanging.... of which there are only a few.

but it's the discord created between the conclusions drawn from such pure reason, and what those conclusions make of our philosophical hopes and ideals, that further assists our plunge into the confused and muddled effects of the emotional reasoning (which we want to call philosophy proper, but is not) we are naturally afflicted with.

more often than not what you get from a 'philosopher' is a memoir or diary- a record of a person struggling to rationalize some particular emotional struggle to make sense of a hostile and/or unfamiliar environment/experience. as a general rule you could even say that the greater the expanse of the philosophy, the greater the emotional suffering. i exclude analytical philosophy, of course, as this field is concerned primarily with linguistics and not with 'giving existential meaning' to life and the world. it's the philosophical idealisms that are subject here... the philosophical systems composed by some variation of 'objectivist', that give no account of the knowledge of pure reason and exist solely as an edifice through which confused emotional knowledge is expressed. these systems deal only with contingencies, not with eternal truths. and as such, they are only ever true 'for a brief moment' in the head of whoever struggles, if they are even true at all.

if you're not familar with my generalization here - talk of confused emotional knowledge and pure reason and such - check out spinoza's 'ethics' if you haven't already. in it he lays the groundwork and draws the distinction between what philosophy is capable of doing, and what it is not. basically. i mean he doesn't declare that that's what he's doing... but that's what he does, nonetheless. whether on purpose or not.

but the beauty of the biggs is that he is almost entirely incapable of expressing emotionally muddled knowledge. and this is why he claims very little certainty in anything... because there are only a few things we can be certain of. this is honest nihilism, epistemological nihilism, that inadvertently already occupies the skeptical position against the effects of emotionally drawn/charged knowledge, contingent knowledge, that tells us more about the person than the world he/she's in. the 'objectivist', who is essentially an idealist of some variety - even if he/she claims to be a realist, btw, because realism, in its disregard of metaphysics, still advances a prescriptive philosophy that moves beyond the few truths we can glean from pure reason - is the proper target of such skepticism/nihilism. and private biggs is our heavy gunner. and what he's doing here is not a full scale attack on philosophy, but rather on what philosophers expect/think philosophy can do. so we observe; if philosopher x is doing something philosophy can't do... he must be doing something else. but what? ah, he's discharging emotional confusion in the form of a philosophically sophisticated language. this is why biggs is so important to us at the IPMS. he's our elite fighting unit. we call him 'delta farce', because that's what he does; finds farces.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:04 am

"promethean75"
but the beauty of the biggs is that he is almost entirely incapable of expressing emotionally muddled knowledge. and this is why he claims very little certainty in anything... because there are only a few things we can be certain of.
There are a number of things that happen when one interacts with people, but I would like to stress a contrast between 'assertions of what is the case' and what the dynamic asserts is the case. If Iamb encounters someone who is not depressed, he tends to presume that they have a contraption. His depression, he assumes, is caused by facing all he (and all rational people) cannot know. So anyone lacking his depression, must have contraptions. This is in a general context where he will say that the issue of solving conflicting goods (or more recently determinism) is the most important issue. Yes, he will express this via incredulty: what could be more important? he asks, putting the onus on others to make a counter claim. But it is a claim he makes in that dynamic sense I mention above: dynamic in relation to others.

If we do not think that one should engage in vast efforts to find solutions to conflicting goods, we must have a contraption. His dilemma is presumed, by him, not to caused by contraptions, it is caused by a lack of contraptions. He does not feel any need to demonstrate this.

He has long used 'objectivist' as a pejorative term. Yet, his own philosophy makes this implicit, and sometimes explicit, claim one he cannot make and be consistant.

IOW he presents himself as the default. His states, emotional and attitudinal, are the norm that most deviate from via not recognizing what issues we should all consider most important, and by, theoretically, finding some concept to make us feel better. To put it another way: it should be the norm, but since people have contraptions, it isn't. They soothe themselves, he doesn't. Since he is unsoothed, he has less contraptions. Depression is the default norm he exemplifies and others cannot face. He puts the onus on others, but does not recognize the onus of his own position, nor the implicit claims about why he is despressed. He thinks that by often saying he cannot be sure, he is evading the implicit claims he consistantly makes. And these implicit positions are obviously emotionally based, with the often habitual assumtion humans make that they must be right about what is important, what we need to do, and right to feel the way they do.

For some on the right, it is pathological to accept diversity. We should all be outraged. They consider themselves the default norm.
For Iamb, it is pathological, to be an objectivist, but also to not be depressed and also to not be striving to solve the problem of conflicting goods or determinism or 'what can we know'. One could not possibly be not depressed in the face of conflicting goods, unless one has some philosophically unsustainable concept one worships. He like right (and left wing) idealogues considers himself the default norm.

I could go into the assumptions about what language is - his is a kind of correspondance theory of language, which many have. Language contains truth that mirror reality. He never justified this, nor do I think he even knows that he has a particular position on truth and what language is doing. And this is convenient. Because it allows him, and you, to think he is not asserting much. Assertions, in that philosophy are only verbal assertions in sentences. What one does dynamically, in relation to other people, is not, in that philosophy, claims of truth.

That his occasional claims to not be sure, means he is not doing what objectivists do. Memea can be like viruses. He thinks his memes are default, but like other memes his are are trying to take root in other minds.

And look, It's not that I think there are objective morals. It is his presumption of being the one good man, that permeates his communication, and the denial of his hatred of anyone who is not depressed like he is that make him a kind of dead end trying to spread a dead end, in the guise of finding a rational positiont on morality that all rational humans must agree with. What is a person doing when he tells people that should be their goal, that nothing could be more important? What is person doing when they tacitly tell everyone that the only truths are those that every rational person should agree with, a vague and untestable criterion?
And that if we are not engaged in these probjects and are not depressed we must have a contraption, which he considers a pathological state, and the having of which shows we are not as brave as him, since these comfort us.

He has, it seems, no onus to demontrate that everyone who is not depressed like him has a contraption that is comforting them. He just states this or implies it ad infinitum, without demonstration. If the issue comes up, the other person has the onus to prove they do nto have a contraption. He never bears an onus.

Not despressed like him, we are comforting ourselves with lies. That must be the case and we, somehow, have the onus to prove otherwise.

If emotions were not driving his dynamic with others, he would notice all the onuses he bears.

The way he interacts with people meets all the criteria of an antiprocess. Even if from a correspondance theory of langage and truth, it may seem like he avoids making assertions - though he does this also via 'comfort' accusations - and is an epistemological nihilist. But his dynamic is riddled with assertions and riddled with the antiproccess. A depressing person labelling everyone who is not depressed pathological. It shouldn't take a moment's mulling to notice the kinds of denial mechanisms underlying that dynamic. The likely fears of noticing any cognitive dissonence around his assumptions there. And what unpalatable truths are being avoided. His depression is not contingent, it is default in his mind. The pure homo sapien, bravely not comforting himself.

And now he has a fan, but the fan does not feel like he is in the pit of depression and one wonders when he will be called to the Tribunal, given the onus and implicitly considered pathological for his lack of depression.

Ah, but that would require Iamb to consider his own antiprocess.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:43 am

It is not only an insult to the sufferers of the world to be depressed just because of them, it is non utilitarian to simply be depressed in general... depression is infertile soil for epiphanies.

Iambiguous is clearly a malignant narcissist with borderline personality disorder. He has two personality disorders co existing.

Personality disorders are known to be impossible to treat.

Iambiguous will make bold claims like "it's impossible to prove whether eating candy is right or wrong"

When you prove that it's right for most people, he'll get flustered when backed into a corner and say something like:

"But!! Is it right for jimmy to eat candy at 1:00 pm on whendsday novenmber 25th in the year 2020?!?"

And when he does this, over and over and over again..

He thinks he's the genius and we're all kids or idiots.

I'll then say something to iambiguous like: given the margin of error, it doesn't matter whether jimmy eats candy then or not...

Iambiguous is not a philosopher, he is simply an incarnation of personality disorders.

The one thing that will to power people or "there is no truth except no truth" people have in common, is that they want ZERO accountability for anything!!!!

While they act like complete jackasses.

"I can't be a jackass because truth doesn't morally exist!!"

No. Truth does exist. There is accountability. And you actually are a jackass!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8922
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:05 am

Ecmandu wrote:It is not only an insult to the sufferers of the world to be depressed just because of them, it is non utilitarian to simply be depressed in general... depression is infertile soil for epiphanies.

Iambiguous is clearly a malignant narcissist with borderline personality disorder. He has two personality disorders co existing.

Personality disorders are known to be impossible to treat.

Iambiguous will make bold claims like "it's impossible to prove whether eating candy is right or wrong"

When you prove that it's right for most people, he'll get flustered when backed into a corner and say something like:

"But!! Is it right for jimmy to eat candy at 1:00 pm on whendsday novenmber 25th in the year 2020?!?"

And when he does this, over and over and over again..

He thinks he's the genius and we're all kids or idiots.

I'll then say something to iambiguous like: given the margin of error, it doesn't matter whether jimmy eats candy then or not...

Iambiguous is not a philosopher, he is simply an incarnation of personality disorders.

The one thing that will to power people or "there is no truth except no truth" people have in common, is that they want ZERO accountability for anything!!!!

While they act like complete jackasses.

"I can't be a jackass because truth doesn't morally exist!!"

No. Truth does exist. There is accountability. And you actually are a jackass!


What does iambiguous truly want, besides no accountability ... even deeper than this, iambiguous want what all beings want (objective), iambiguous doesn't want his consent violated anymore:

Iambiguous doesn't want conflicting goods or a fractured self.

Iambiguous is just another being having his consent violated who doesn't want that (objective morality) just like the rest of us.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8922
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:32 pm

When I am finally figured out here, well, keep me posted.

Here's a hint: :banana-linedance:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby MagsJ » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:18 pm

iambiguous wrote:When I am finally figured out here, well, keep me posted.

Here's a hint: :banana-linedance:

They hate, those that they can’t figure out, and so love to hate.. I think it awesome, and I happily countersign this open letter of Tribute to Iambiguous. :handgestures-salute:

I’m glad to know you. :D
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18778
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:27 pm

MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:When I am finally figured out here, well, keep me posted.

Here's a hint: :banana-linedance:

They hate, those that they can’t figure out, and so love to hate.. I think it awesome, and I happily countersign this open letter of Tribute to Iambiguous. :handgestures-salute:

I’m glad to know you. :D
Oh, Mags, I never hated you. It's good Iambiguous has objectivist supporters.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It's good Iambiguous has objectivist supporters.


Just for the record, I am not arguing there is in fact a precise definition and meaning that philosophers are obligated to use when discussing or describing an objectivist. I am merely noting that, given my own subjective frame of mind [here and now], an objectivist is someone who believes that his or her own argument in regard to value judgments and conflicting goods, reflects either the optimal point of view or the only rational assessment that there is.

I leave it to others to decide for themselves if that is applicable to them.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:53 pm

MagsJ wrote:I’m glad to know you. :D
And he must be glad to know you: you brought out the objectivist in him.

Ecmandu wrote:

Like I stated: I feel guilty.



As well you should, Kid.


Should you ever read my posts, Iamb, I know, I know, you're fractured and contradictory and didn't really mean it, and it wasn't an official objectivist position, but rather a sort of an objectivist Tourette's tic. Which happens to the best of us. Oh, I mean, it happens even to those people whom objectivists think are the best.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby MagsJ » Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:07 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
MagsJ wrote:They hate, those that they can’t figure out, and so love to hate.. I think it awesome, and I happily countersign this open letter of Tribute to Iambiguous. :handgestures-salute:

I’m glad to know you. :D
Oh, Mags, I never hated you. It's good Iambiguous has objectivist supporters.

Are you glad to know me Karpel?

I don’t think it was my imagination, at the amount of negativity being bandied around the last few weeks.. is that a prerequisite for philosophical discussion?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
MagsJ wrote:I’m glad to know you. :D
And he must be glad to know you: you brought out the objectivist in him.

Ecmandu wrote:

Like I stated: I feel guilty.

As well you should, Kid.

Should you ever read my posts, Iamb, I know, I know, you're fractured and contradictory and didn't really mean it, and it wasn't an official objectivist position, but rather a sort of an objectivist Tourette's tic. Which happens to the best of us. Oh, I mean, it happens even to those people whom objectivists think are the best.

..a catalyst for objectivism! ..cool :-k My new strap line for the month..?

Interesting that you use that exchange, from that thread, containing some I’m incommunicado with.. never to exchange words again.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18778
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:15 am

MagsJ wrote:Are you glad to know me Karpel?
Not especially, but that's a long way from hate.

I don’t think it was my imagination, at the amount of negativity being bandied around the last few weeks.. is that a prerequisite for philosophical discussion?
You had basically said that I was grooming since I was willing to talk about sex, in a philosophical context, online, since I was discussing this with strangers. I know you aimed this at Ecmandu, but since it came after posts I and Mowk made, it seemed to apply to us also. And once this was brought up you refused to back down. Yes, unless there are professionals present, strangers talking about sex are grooming.

You think I was negative?????

You were batching me with people who are sexual predators. (and of course this was a lot worse than calling Ecmandu a twit)

When I suggested to Ecmandu that he respect your boundaries and not use your name without consent...nothing from you. When he argued that you did not understand that we can't help but violate consent, I told him he certainly could have easily not used your name. Nothing from you.

When I participated in the thread about moderation, and not about you, you took this as an attack on you. It wasn't, I was mulling for Carleas over what I had experienced personally. But you then threw a negative comment at me and said you were leaving the thread. You came back, but you never responded to my response to your negative comment. No big deal, but I have experienced negativity from you also. I am not sure you notice these things. Your explanation of why twit was not an insult seemed like you having trouble taking responsibility for what you do. And I am also British so the other side of the pond worked as well on me as the very strange etymological argument you made. So, I guess reading that exchange with Carleas I don't have much hope that you might see that it has taken both of us to tango. And I am not real interested in hearing your justifications.

But regardless, I am happy to start at zero with you and see if nothing new and unpleasant develops. And I don't hate you.

I'll keep my distance for a bit and then just treat things as a new beginning. If we get along, great, if we don't, I'll keep my distance.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby MagsJ » Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:34 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Are you glad to know me Karpel?
Not especially,..

:lol:

I wouldn’t have expected you to say anything but..

You had basically said that I was grooming since I was willing to talk about sex, in a philosophical context, online, since I was discussing this with strangers. I know you aimed this at Ecmandu, but since it came after posts I and Mowk made, it seemed to apply to us also. And once this was brought up you refused to back down. Yes, unless there are professionals present, strangers talking about sex are grooming.

You think I was negative?????

You were batching me with people who are sexual predators. (and of course this was a lot worse than calling Ecmandu a twit)

People threw themselves in the line of fire, as it were.. and the rest is history, as they say.

When I suggested to Ecmandu that he respect your boundaries and not use your name without consent...nothing from you. When he argued that you did not understand that we can't help but violate consent, I told him he certainly could have easily not used your name. Nothing from you.

..so moderating the moderator? I left you to it.. I had my reasons.

When I participated in the thread about moderation, and not about you, you took this as an attack on you. It wasn't, I was mulling for Carleas over what I had experienced personally. But you then threw a negative comment at me and said you were leaving the thread. You came back, but you never responded to my response to your negative comment. No big deal, but I have experienced negativity from you also. I am not sure you notice these things. Your explanation of why twit was not an insult seemed like you having trouble taking responsibility for what you do. And I am also British so the other side of the pond worked as well on me as the very strange etymological argument you made. So, I guess reading that exchange with Carleas I don't have much hope that you might see that it has taken both of us to tango. And I am not real interested in hearing your justifications.

I have no intention of giving my justification.. that would be treading over old ground, wouldn’t it?

From the ‘On Moderation’ thread
Re: On Moderation
Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:59 am

MagsJ wrote:
That is not the case with everyone, KT.. it would be ideal if it was though.

Not everyone reacts favourably to even the most pleasant of DM requests to tone things down.. some replies can be so overly-aggressive and even abusive, as to make one think.. wtf, why? :confusion-shrug: I can assure you that how you react to something politely requested, is not how all act to something politely requested.. why ever would you assume they do?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Um, I don't assume that. In fact I assume that moderators deal with abuse and rage.

Stating something, is being negative? I see no demeaning words or bullish behaviour being exercised here, and I guess I had nothing to say, in reply to your reply.. other than to re-state the obvious.

But regardless, I am happy to start at zero with you and see if nothing new and unpleasant develops. And I don't hate you.

I'll keep my distance for a bit and then just treat things as a new beginning. If we get along, great, if we don't, I'll keep my distance.

You have a plan? ok lol..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18778
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:09 pm

Ecmandu wrote:It is not only an insult to the sufferers of the world to be depressed just because of them, it is non utilitarian to simply be depressed in general... depression is infertile soil for epiphanies.

Iambiguous is clearly a malignant narcissist with borderline personality disorder. He has two personality disorders co existing.

Personality disorders are known to be impossible to treat.

Iambiguous will make bold claims like "it's impossible to prove whether eating candy is right or wrong"

When you prove that it's right for most people, he'll get flustered when backed into a corner and say something like:

"But!! Is it right for jimmy to eat candy at 1:00 pm on whendsday novenmber 25th in the year 2020?!?"

Hahahahaha
thats very accurate.

And when he does this, over and over and over again..

He thinks he's the genius and we're all kids or idiots.

I'll then say something to iambiguous like: given the margin of error, it doesn't matter whether jimmy eats candy then or not...

When he gets completely disoriented, he'll make a "note to others".

Iambiguous is not a philosopher, he is simply an incarnation of personality disorders.

Lol

The one thing that will to power people or "there is no truth except no truth" people have in common, is that they want ZERO accountability for anything!!!!

"Will to power people" as I know them must conclude that there is only accountability. This is what the doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same instills in them.

While they act like complete jackasses.

"I can't be a jackass because truth doesn't morally exist!!"

Or maybe: I need to offer myself up as the jackass here to serve as a warning because severe moral truth are at risk of being violated.

Being a jackass ranks very low on the scale of morality-violations, in fact Id say it isn't really a violation.
If someone is a blatant jackass it is highly unlikely he is going to be heinous criminal.
Real immoral scum tends to be very polite. It has evolved that way.

What bothers me, then, about Iambiguous is his constant pretence of being polite and reasonable, whereas he is dealing out grotesque insults and betrayals.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 8758
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Meno_ » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:17 pm

Doesen't that evoke a familiarity with current states of being?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5499
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:23 pm

In case, the sentence, is: open connect, the dots (of Olaf?): in case yes, there if, is but, surplus reconnaissance for stupor indicated as much bafflement available to said, he crumbles forward in nigh-end and also, truth shames where, connection, not slighter, but agreed upon.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 8758
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby iambiguous » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:44 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:

Real immoral scum tends to be very polite. It has evolved that way.

What bothers me...about Iambiguous is his constant pretence of being polite and reasonable, whereas he is dealing out grotesque insults and betrayals.


You forget to note how much pleasure I get in making fools out of all the objectivists here.

You know the ones. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Open Letter of Tribute to Iambiguous

Postby MagsJ » Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:06 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:In case, the sentence, is: open connect, the dots (of Olaf?): in case yes, there if, is but, surplus reconnaissance for stupor indicated as much bafflement available to said, he crumbles forward in nigh-end and also, truth shames where, connection, not slighter, but agreed upon.

Fixed, I never knew you were anti-Iambiguous, and after all these years.. why so?

He doesn’t grate against my sensibilities or annoy me in the slightest, so what differentiates you from me/us from them? Say it isn’t so! :crying-yellow:
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18778
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1


Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users