Philosophy

[Meno_]

Is magnet a transformer sub stance from solid to liquid essence of flowing words into the sub stance of substance of the substance of the substance, heating causing the liquid to transform effortless and placidly , then by fiat, a spirit engulfing its oroborous union through it's form become it's precepice, coded for safe keeping.

While fermenting into joy, pleasure but then . causing pain and vast battled loss of millions of gallons of the bled of strife.

[Faust]

That's easy enough to say, but does the precipice fermenting into joy cause the oroborous union or does the oroborous union cause the joyfully fermenting precipice? Either way, the safe should be coded for keeping. If not, the likely result is a spirit that's not quite as engulfing as pleasure would desire.

[Guide]

You're not considering that the magnet is what men manifestly call true freedom. That is because it is vulgar to love what is needed. Ergo, they give it a high name. Yet, the philosopher is much more cold, and doesn't fly into fancy.

[Mr Reasonable]

Faust, Meno...I think you guys are on to something.

Guide, your post doesn't even make sense.

[Meno_]

That's easy enough to say, but does the precipice fermenting into joy cause the oroborous union or does the oroborous union cause the joyfully fermenting precipice? Either way, the safe should be coded for keeping. If not, the likely result is a spirit that's not quite as engulfing as pleasure would desire.

It's hard to say. Once the question us asked, the oroborous transcends its desire , and instead of the spirit embracing unity, it fears the precipice, and instead of leaping it is overcome with fear , causing manifold tragedy through conflict.

[Meno_]

You're not considering that the magnet is what men manifestly call true freedom. That is because it is vulgar to love what is needed. Ergo, they give it a high name. Yet, the philosopher is much more cold, and doesn't fly into fancy.

It takes practice to overcome the draw, not by denying it, but by keeping the potential energy at bay. Magnetism was used in the 16 th century (Parscelsus) and the 18 th (Mesmer) as a cure. It was supposed to draw out ills, using a very tight metaphore, the conclusion can encompass both: the inward and the outward pull.
As in : whatever is being pulled out, once, was drawn in, and whatever was drawn in had parts of it pulled out
Its a systemic machine, much like described by Deleuze and Guittari.
It is a foreshadowed cyborg.

The symposium does enclose both: the high and low , and as such, can absolutely understand both.

I'm interpreting freedom and love and necessity as considered as your notion of very loosely structured metaphore metaphore : however coding loosely is open to such wide array of interpretation, that it works against the necessity of using code.

It became erogenized by Freud/Reich.

[Meno_]

Faust, Meno...I think you guys are on to something.

Guide, your post doesn't even make sense.

Guide, is anti entropic, using reversing logic to entail nearly all possibility. That is to say, You are right, however in a futuristic sense, when and if such may be generally adopted, a most sophisticated decoder, could possibly make sense, given the possibility that all writing, even the most loosely structured "free form" would have hidden underlying meaning, even if, written in an subliminal level.

I searched his meaning, and what occurred was my take on the most likely tangent implicated by what he took out of it.

Its possible, he will counter with that he absolutely did not mean what my interpretation implied, but then the rules driving the conversation will collapse, because it will lead to an absurd reduction of the type:

I thought you thought, that I thought that is what you meant.

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
You're not considering that the magnet is what men manifestly call true freedom. That is because it is vulgar to love what is needed. Ergo, they give it a high name. Yet, the philosopher is much more cold, and doesn't fly into fancy.

It takes practice to overcome the draw, not by denying it, but by keeping the potential energy at bay. Magnetism was used in the 16 th century (Parscelsus) and the 18 th (Mesmer) as a cure. It was supposed to draw out ills, using a very tight metaphore, the conclusion can encompass both: the inward and the outward pull.
As in : whatever is being pulled out, once, was drawn in, and whatever was drawn in had parts of it pulled out
Its a systemic machine, much like described by Deleuze and Guittari.
It is a foreshadowed cyborg.

The symposium does enclose both: the high and low , and as such, can absolutely understand both.

I'm interpreting freedom and love and necessity as considered as your notion of very loosely structured metaphore metaphore : however coding loosely is open to such wide array of interpretation, that it works against the necessity of using code.

It became erogenized by Freud/Reich.

In Heidegger eros is only sorrow (sorge), and not Freude or "joy", however, nothing and fullness happen in being. If we all follow Aristotle, eros is not Freudian, connected to hidden interpretations of gestures pointing to drives and Ronellian idocy, rather, it is the deepest pessimism of the theory of happiness as the sublime. As technological cure for the necessary needs of humans. So, in this, you forget, the war over what is noble.

[Meno_]

Guide wrote:
You're not considering that the magnet is what men manifestly call true freedom. That is because it is vulgar to love what is needed. Ergo, they give it a high name. Yet, the philosopher is much more cold, and doesn't fly into fancy.

It takes practice to overcome the draw, not by denying it, but by keeping the potential energy at bay. Magnetism was used in the 16 th century (Parscelsus) and the 18 th (Mesmer) as a cure. It was supposed to draw out ills, using a very tight metaphore, the conclusion can encompass both: the inward and the outward pull.
As in : whatever is being pulled out, once, was drawn in, and whatever was drawn in had parts of it pulled out
Its a systemic machine, much like described by Deleuze and Guittari.
It is a foreshadowed cyborg.

The symposium does enclose both: the high and low , and as such, can absolutely understand both.

I'm interpreting freedom and love and necessity as considered as your notion of very loosely structured metaphore metaphore : however coding loosely is open to such wide array of interpretation, that it works against the necessity of using code.

It became erogenized by Freud/Reich.

In Heidegger eros is only sorrow (sorge), and not Freude or "joy", however, nothing and fullness happen in being. If we all follow Aristotle, eros is not Freudian, connected to hidden interpretations of gestures pointing to drives and Ronellian idocy, rather, it is the deepest pessimism of the theory of happiness as the sublime. As technological cure for the necessary needs of humans. So, in this, you forget, the war over what is noble.

Sure of Aristotle is followed, the hidden need not and cannot ascertained by implication, however.
If that would hold, Jung could also be dismissed as irrelevant .

Modern behaviorism could survive, but had it?

Newest behavioral guidelines have practically eliminated analysis, but merely for political and financial reasons and treatment methodology revolves around medicating emotional and cognitive distortions.

Heidegger is not dismissed but evolved into the persistence of German pessimism.

The same oroborous covers both, pleasure and pain , into an unholy alliance , where the will will determine the pejorotive, or approbatory.

[Faust]

That's easy enough to say, but does the precipice fermenting into joy cause the oroborous union or does the oroborous union cause the joyfully fermenting precipice? Either way, the safe should be coded for keeping. If not, the likely result is a spirit that's not quite as engulfing as pleasure would desire.

It's hard to say. Once the question us asked, the oroborous transcends its desire , and instead of the spirit embracing unity, it fears the precipice, and instead of leaping it is overcome with fear , causing manifold tragedy through conflict.

Crap! I had no idea!

[Meno_]

That's easy enough to say, but does the precipice fermenting into joy cause the oroborous union or does the oroborous union cause the joyfully fermenting precipice? Either way, the safe should be coded for keeping. If not, the likely result is a spirit that's not quite as engulfing as pleasure would desire.

It's hard to say. Once the question us asked, the oroborous transcends its desire , and instead of the spirit embracing unity, it fears the precipice, and instead of leaping it is overcome with fear , causing manifold tragedy through conflict.

Crap! I had no idea!

Whenever the oroborous or the eternal return is inquired in the form of exclusive choice between possibility and certainty, the unity sources from its basic mythological impression, it reverts to the doubt between pursuing a pleasurable happy course and its opposite. That needs no further encapsulation, and causes a.negative reaction.

Perhaps the negative interpretation of Heidegger's Nietzsche is what caused the unfortunate misinterpretation. toward actual conflicting horrors which ensued.


Ref:Janko Lozar, Nietzsche and Heidegger

....gain strength, our composure, gatheredness grows or fades. The “logical”
nature of attunement reveals itself in its growth and fading away. We can thus
point to the close affinity between logos and physis (nature). Phyein means to
grow, become. For like physis, attunement (and the world!) grows and fades,
is unconcealed and concealed. And since, as Heraclitus puts it, .....

Attunement def:

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/blattnew/heid/terms.htm

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
You're not considering that the magnet is what men manifestly call true freedom. That is because it is vulgar to love what is needed. Ergo, they give it a high name. Yet, the philosopher is much more cold, and doesn't fly into fancy.


It takes practice to overcome the draw, not by denying it, but by keeping the potential energy at bay. Magnetism was used in the 16 th century (Parscelsus) and the 18 th (Mesmer) as a cure. It was supposed to draw out ills, using a very tight metaphore, the conclusion can encompass both: the inward and the outward pull.
As in : whatever is being pulled out, once, was drawn in, and whatever was drawn in had parts of it pulled out
Its a systemic machine, much like described by Deleuze and Guittari.
It is a foreshadowed cyborg.

The symposium does enclose both: the high and low , and as such, can absolutely understand both.

I'm interpreting freedom and love and necessity as considered as your notion of very loosely structured metaphore metaphore : however coding loosely is open to such wide array of interpretation, that it works against the necessity of using code.

It became erogenized by Freud/Reich.


In Heidegger eros is only sorrow (sorge), and not Freude or "joy", however, nothing and fullness happen in being. If we all follow Aristotle, eros is not Freudian, connected to hidden interpretations of gestures pointing to drives and Ronellian idocy, rather, it is the deepest pessimism of the theory of happiness as the sublime. As technological cure for the necessary needs of humans. So, in this, you forget, the war over what is noble.





Sure of Aristotle is followed, the hidden need not and cannot ascertained by implication, however.
If that would hold, Jung could also be dismissed as irrelevant .

Modern behaviorism could survive, but had it?

Newest behavioral guidelines have practically eliminated analysis, but merely for political and financial reasons and treatment methodology revolves around medicating emotional and cognitive distortions.

Heidegger is not dismissed but evolved into the persistence of German pessimism.

The same oroborous covers both, pleasure and pain , into an unholy alliance , where the will will determine the pejorotive, or approbatory.

"Sure of Aristotle is followed, the hidden need not and cannot ascertained by implication, however.
If that would hold, Jung could also be dismissed as irrelevant ."

I'm not sure, Jung was proud of his "empirical" psychology. Jung used what he called various "instrumentum", themes such as that of personality, for the sake of communicating what he observed through his special powers. Rather in contradistinction to the theoretical science of Freud, which worked on the basis of theory formation and test of the psychic data. Jung worked in this mode too, with word recognition studies for instance, but that was not at the core of his work. Jung can't come in in the same analogy here, since Freud speaks directly (cf. the 9th book of the Politeia of "Plato", “When one part of the psuke sleeps, the reasoning and tame, the brute part lives, is with freak inebriation, runs and seeks to push aside sleep and to let its own character come to sick repletion. When it is like this, it dares to do all things and snaps the chain of shame.”) against the ancients rather in keeping with Nietzsche.

"Heidegger is not dismissed but evolved into the persistence of German pessimism.

The same oroborous covers both, pleasure and pain , into an unholy alliance , where the will will determine the pejorotive, or approbatory."

Jawohl, in Heidegger there is something above Fate and gods, in the place of rationality or essence of the human, but it is somehow wild and in need of resolute command within the letting be of thought.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You guys already lost, you explicitly agreed to agree.

[Guide]

"You guys already lost, you explicitly agreed to agree."

We may agree but not in the dismal way you imagine. You seen, Gramsci and Althusser subscribed to Marx and everything he said in every respect, while at the same time they were the roots of post-Marxism.

[Meno_]

"You guys already lost, you explicitly agreed to agree."

We may agree but not in the dismal way you imagine. You seen, Gramsci and Althusser subscribed to Marx and everything he said in every respect, while at the same time they were the roots of post-Marxism.

I think Guide has some thing here. Marxism is converting the legalistic-political requisite foundation of agreeing to disagree, as an equivocal truism to agreeing to agree, by unwearily playing the prisoner's dilemma.
It's an existential dilemma going back to 'No exit', where participants have to play along in the box, since it is the only context within which they are effective, without (of) which, they do not exist.

That is the problem that is sustained and limits post structuralist signs.