Well, the group passes that test. It is easy to question assertions, made out loud, based on arguments. The saddest couch potato can question Chomsky and will. It is so much harder to question what is not asserted but is simply part of the belief furniture of the universe. But sure, I can question Chomsky and his mirror images across the street.
The latter stance even confusable with questioning, which moves forward, while this does not.
And worse, by honest ones.
The group doesnāt call simple disagreeing questioning. Disagreement is largely flippant or based on motivations outside the matters in question. The claim of āposturingā has to be entered into. In other words, it requires attempting to understand what is said by the ones who are said to posture. In such an attempt, one can easily, in not understanding, fall back on the polemical authority of the judgment āposturingā. Also, one can find it already as a guiding one to the judgment, posturing. The region of a confrontation with the matter itself, whether there is there a posturing or a substance, is obstructed. This question has a large ambit, from lowest case of simple pragmatical picking up of argumentative rhetoric, posturing as polemical term, to obstructing of the free judgment of the questioning confrontation which glances at the authoritative opinion fleeing from its own work.
The group doesnāt find this clear. Since change of oneās understanding is possible. The label posturing is not always, and in every nature, a standing pat. Perhaps the smoke in the nostrils in the insult, posture, is pitibly hurled in order to provoke the teacher to show more.
The group considers this a good point. The couch potato reacts as if to a hot stove, then back to distraction. Still, the group maintains that questioning clearly outlined positions and arguments is easy compared to questioning the implicit or even noticing it.
With Chomsky so many are triggered: perhaps by innate knowledge (linguistics) perhaps by positions on Israel or the US, etc. The neon sign of the Chomsky position makes an easy to notice starting point, and many questioners will snap to. Heās in your face, an icon. Pretty much demands to be questioned.
But the implicit authorities, who need not write books, make assertions then try to back them up, they are hardly even noticed. Wheat from the chaff, the group thinks, notices these. Intuits them, feels them first until they can be noticed more clearly.
Even couch potatoes notice Grand Canyons, if only on the screen. But do they notice the authority in distraction. In what is not said. In dead metaphors. In grammar. In body language. In their senses or is it āsensesā. In cultural habit. In both folk and professional psychology, and of course in the whole pharma psychiatric view of the self they donāt even have to argue for anymore. As some examplesā¦
In the ones who do not seem to posture, in the authorities that have no single body nor lecture on their positionā¦the group thinks these are more often left unquestioned. Chomsky takes stands, even weak questioners notice something is happening to mull over.
The identification as teacher, as guide, is pride in the nostrils, a reification in a portion of the group, WHILE questioning does not care for this or that portion of the group, just in the quest itself, the moving toward, the undoing of what binds, the shutting off of the TV and mulling what the dynamic is where information pours toward the couch potato, the couch potato in all the group portions becoming a center instead of just a receptacle. Thereās the rub.
The group need not love the group, the group need not TELL the group.
The group can question and the group will notice this, especially when the questioning is specific.
The appeal, the need, the advantage will be driving.
No need for the driver to keep asserting his specialness, it is the driving itself that drives him or her.
When the driver focuses on himself and his position, he is not watching the road. He cannot question; he is broadcasting. He is another (tv) program.
In such a state he should not simply be questioned, but replaced. For then he is in love with his authority and cannot focus on the details of the road, their absence in his speech always apparant. In love with his own gifts and the role he seeks. Next he will tell us his son is a genius and in line for sucession.
The group SHOWS, in the nittty gritty. It questions in front of itself, authority after authority, through the specific, and the group learns from itself, joins itself. It is not told by a portion that wishes to be proud of its role, it is SHOWN. Learning by doing and who cares if itās Dewey (outside).
ā¦some much more than othersā¦ minimalism aināt just for material goods ya know. The Group assumes too much without knowing any variables.
ā¦Iāll take that as a no. 
The study of body movement, gesture and posture is known as:
A. Chronemics
B. Proxemics
C. Kinesics
D. Haptics
I assume you are studying one of the above? as your argument always gets back to thatā¦ polemic posturing, orā¦ you are simply obsessed.
I have heard gifted children play musical compositions, seen gifted dancers dance and gifted people exist.
āI have heard gifted children play musical compositions, seen gifted dancers dance and gifted people exist.ā
Ah! The group is glad the group agrees.
It wasnāt so much an agreement, as it was about my experience, which ended up in my agreeingā¦ by default. Those words were never meant to be uttered though. 
for I donāt 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 giveā¦ without ever becoming rude, but always being close toā¦ itās an art-form all by its-self, you know.
Some do see moreā¦ hear moreā¦ and even feel more, and others see hear and feel what they wantā¦
The group is nonetheless glad.
For it is here, at the question of what to see, hear and feel, that philosophy is relevant.
Dāoh! 
Some do those beyond the self, and others within the boundaries of the selfā¦ 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 arenāt different kinds of philosiphy. Only philosophy.
Yes, the self is a religious object. It doesnāt 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 āsuccessā- 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 groupās 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 Chomskyās criticism of Zizek, the claim of āposturingā 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 āposturingā.
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 āposturingā, 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 āIā wills the āIā and says, āIā 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, consumerās 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 āsome animals are more equalā.
The group formally protests the groupās ascribing of abstract thought of any kind to Nietzsche.
In these here modern times, different kinds of philosophy are used to generate specific outcomesā¦ 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.
Isnāt 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, ephemeralā¦
but feeling no doubt pristine, untouchable, safeā¦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 isnāt, and cannot be, variants of philosophy and ways of thinking?
Perhapsā¦ if you are, then this is where the difference in male and female thought processing and thinking liesā¦ the renowned ability to multi-task. 