You told me one second hand account of a story told to you, and you’re telling it to me as a third hand account. Then claim billions of people believe stories like these. And I say cool stories but they don’t prove anything and I’m cherry picking, and being an asshole?
It’s not like you haven’t told the story a dozen times in other threads either. I’ve gone way back and read of few of your arguments. Way back to what I believe was your first post. You have learned nothing but to spin your words differently. And that goes for your account of sex dimorphism as well. I’ve looked that up in a few places as well. But you don’t seem to remember those questions. Sex dimorphism is the result of the adaptation of sexual reproduction. The evolution of sexual reproduction predates sexual dimorphism. And you’re going to use the example of a ornate duck as proof humans don’t have consensual sex because it’s used as an ornament like the music of James Taylor or driving a fast noisy car? Attracting the attention of the other sex is how reproduction gets done. Pare bonding is an adaptation for how reproduction in some species gets done. There are other species that exhibit no pair bonding. There are species living on the planet that reproduce without sex. There is a species of bird that lays it’s eggs in an other species nest because it’s working for that species.
You make wild claims of facts that aren’t facts, then simply turn your attention to other wild statements that aren’t facts either. Back up your claims with some actual evidence, that can be verified. You don’t bother to address those circumstances where your facts aren’t facts, you just twist your story around to spin it in an other direction. Parthenogenesis thoughtco.com/parthenogenesis-373474.
But lets take us back in the way back machine where you argued the purpose of all life was? And you continue to spin the theory with more and more contradictory statements. Well I didn’t mean deities I meant spirits. I didn’t mean powers I meant empowerment. You’ve claimed your a king, you’ve claimed you’ve lived 400 billion years, you’ve claimed you know what a trillion year old would think.
Let’s go back in time a few years and look at the sorts of claims you have made, the sort of arguments you’ve presented. You’re not getting any better at explaining things, but you are getting real good at spinning things and spinning even wilder generalizations. You don’t belong on a philosophy website, you belong behind a typewriter writing screenplays for fiction movies, where green screens and CGI can make your stories look real. Get a grip on reality or write fiction stories, I don’t care which. But don’t claim you’re the greatest philosopher the planet has ever seen.
You’ve been telling the same little stories since you got here. They have grown into huge stories. Mythic tales. Songs will be sung of the conquests of Ecmandu.
And you blame everyone else that your stories aren’t compelling? Stories of great fiction. They have always been. Great stories for a screen play, but as far a philosophy goes… not so much. That’s likely why you’ve been banned from every other philosophy forum on the planet. You even asked Carleas to allow you a place in creative writing. He should have jumped at the opportunity.
You don’t get me yet. You really don’t. Do I want songs to be sang about ecmandu evermore ?
No. That’s zero sum, and I hate every aspect of zero sum realities.
You’re projecting things about yourself on me, as have others on this board.
I don’t want to be the fucking king (even though it was given to me) and I sure as hell don’t want to be eternalized as a memorialized eternal song.
I want, more than anything that I could ever want, for all of us to be these things, not just me.
Why do you think I’m so mad at monoamourous couples!!! Because they celebrate being THE ONLY ONE… for me that’s nothing to celebrate, it’s something to grieve for trillions of years.
You’re trying to project that I’m as shallow or more shallow than you. It’s just not true.
I was joking. Satirically, but joking all the same. You do take yourself too seriously. We don’t live for trillions of years, we just get this one lifetime as far as I’m aware. And for some it’s really short. If you wanna get all bunged up about it for trillions of years that’s your fantasy. No one is even going to be aware, my wife and her husband were even here in another 100 years. Oh there may be a photo or two that survives but the narrative will go something like, Oh I think that’s your nutty great great uncle and aunt on your mother’s fathers side, but my aren’t those old photos interesting, what’s that thing with four wheels in the background, I think they use to call them cars, and a hundred years from then, our memories will be resting at the bottom of some land fill. I don’t have a problem with that.
Sorry dude, you’re not painting yourself in a manner I want to get. Guilty as charged.
I know this because of what happened when I sought eternal death…
Oh man o man was that a nightmare!
When that didn’t work, I tried to destroy existence…
Man o man o man o man…
That’s a hell I’d never want to go back to!!
Existence is a complicated place.
We do reincarnate, BUT!!! The former incarnations never die!!
It’s both at the same time. Like I said: weird.
Existence is even weirder than that, but I’ll just leave it there for now.
When people ask me to demonstrate this; I tell them that if they ever died (past, present, future), I mean like dead, dead… they couldn’t be here right now, as the moment is a subset of their entire being. By virtue of being here right now, it’s impossible for you to ever die as a continuity of consciousness.
Well again, I’ll cross that bridge if I get to it. You’ve still managed not to be convincing.
Besides being rather convoluted thinking, it’s also not a demonstration of anything. If I died in the past I wouldn’t be here, If I died in the present I wouldn’t be here, When I die in the future, be it seconds from now or years from now I won’t be here past that moment. This moment for me in experience is only a subset of the time I have experienced. It is not a subset, as you suggest of all time. Nope, not even close to a rational argument.
I will have no future. And it will be only be “not me” moving forward from that point in time. For a while I’ll be a memory and then, well I’ll be no more, no present no future. Alpha and omega, My own beginning and my own end.
Forget Toys Are Us… more like Samsara Is He… and some here think meditation a fruitless task.
Suffering is obviously preferable to practice… for the ill-advised un-spirited, but the required effort is so minimal, that certain minds cannot understand the hesitation to action for instant benefit gained.
I am genius! they cry… but all they exhibit is the opposite and continue to lie through gritted teeth… lie about the claim put forth in this here thread.
I don’t think she understands that I tried to destroy my souls forever. That’s when things got really nasty in my life. So then I tried to destroy existence forever, and it got even nastier.
Through that process however, I can certainly come back to you and say this:
These are the sorts of contradictions you’ve stated. “We do live forever” and “everyone I knew is in eternal death now. and …before I leave again into my eternal rest.”
Before “I” was born, there was a conception, before that there was some planning for, and before that I just wasn’t. After the conception developed, but not enough, there was a premature birth, and getting stuck in an incubator, where there was a further development of an ability to breath and digest food. The process of that life turning into a Me took some time after that. In those nows I’ve spent 60 years on this rock and here we are in this present. I don’t know when I will perish, but death is inevitable, and after that I will exist for a time as a memory in someone else’s mind, and then disappear. End of story, no future after that. I won’t be in eternal rest, that would imply some I that is resting. I just won’t be. An “I” developed into, had some good times and some bad times, and I will dim out. The body will be cremated, and the ashes will be spread into the wind. What ever celebration of life that takes place will not be for me, for I won’t be. It will be for the sake of a memory of what I was.
And I’m cool with that. That is the appearance of it and the guess I am living by. If by some chance I’ve gotten it wrong, well then, based on the new information… I’ll likely have to guess again.
But that’s not really the point. The point is my inconsistencies.
The spirit world has taken me through many dimensions of space and time over the years, and depending on where I’ve travelled, I have a theory.
I’ve found the spirit world very vindictive …
Like I try to destroy my souls forever, and I’m sent to a place where nobody knows you anymore…
My life has for a while now, been like the John Lennon song “instant karma”
Basically, I’m being trained. I don’t know why.
I actually think I was murdered on 'this timeline, about 11 years ago. One of my theories is that this has all been my afterlife since then and that none of you are real. I just pretend like you are.
Some of the things I’ve had to wrap my mind around would give almost any being a headache…
I have about 5 theories for what happened 11 years ago.
That’s when THE CHANGE happened!!
What I do to hold reality. Orientation is to meditate on universal truths “nobody wants their consent violated”. “Zero sum realities are consent violating by nature”
Things like this.
Is what I do to keep myself centered after so much chaos for so long.
To be fair. My mind is never concluded in a thought. I talk to my self sometimes, as if it were a conversation with someone else. And the strange part is all though the “voice” that answers sounds like my own, it often disagrees with my assessment of things. Convincingly some times. IT is a mystery which I do not wish to objectify or personify. I respect IT for what it is, insight and intuition.
If I have to guess again, well, I’m use to that, by now. That’s what happens when the idea of ‘knowing’ ‘absolutely’ anything seems absurd, and face each moment as it comes. I guess I really don’t agree with your notion of universal law. The rules are in flux.
I actually think schizophrenia is a very dangerous diagnosis. I understand to one dimension that it’s about compassion, but the flip side is, anything not deemed rational by the state is considered ‘psychosis’
Drugs don’t do very much.
I think it’s really important instead of using the term “psychosis”, if you just ask someone, “are your symptoms violating your consent?”.
Most would say “yes”
Then it’s a disorder.
But I would investigate further…
“Is it your disorder or the disorder of others that is facilitating this?”
That’s the really hard question for the diagnosed and the clinicians alike!
That’s where we have subtler conversations about species wide psychosis and a rational response to it.
Shouldn’t that make us skeptical of our own beliefs? Whether I’m the clinician or the diagnosed, knowing that there are people who see the world very very differently and can’t be convinced it actually operates in another way, the rational response seems to be doubt about how well I can know the world.
This seems a major blind spot for many of us. Even as I type this, I struggle to think of ways in which specific cognitive abnormalities I know I have could be causing me to see the world incorrectly. When you’ve only ever seen the world in one way, it’s hard to imagine what it would even mean to see it differently.
I agree, but is the person suffering from such symptoms capable of rendering such a clinical diagnosis accurately?
How does one with these symptoms apply that classification to the whole of a society? Much less of a whole species. Society nor species is an entity individually, this member has one this one has another and so forth, but the whole of the symptoms isn’t represented by all of a society or a species. That certainly would make the circumstance of the conversation convoluted.
How would someone suffering from a delusion be in a position to recognize an other’s hallucination?
It would render everyone incapable of having such a conversation. In other words if everyone exhibited the symptoms then it would not be perceived as a disorder in the first place. And no one would be diagnosed individually as a result.
It might get twisted around by the person suffering such symptoms that they are the only one symptom free and it is all of society and even all of a species that is psychotic. That would seem to be the circumstance that should be questioned first by anyone capable of asking the question. What is normal and what is not? And by what yardstick? And is that yardstick valid? A person in such a position would find any rationale to convince them self the truth of their own measurements. That is one reason why subjective experience is not proof.
If for example I were the only sane man not seeing pink elephants everywhere in an insane world that claimed pick elephants were everywhere I would have to ask if I was sane, give the awareness that insanity was the norm.
That is a priority within those admonished to hold to absolute values.
Anything else consists of fearful reticense, inviting defensive postures usually meant to reverse course into the road most traveled.
In other words, expect blindfolds to shield from the hyper-mirroring of sensation.
All that, to try a jest for it’s reversed self valuing of consented violation.
Ecmando, You’re ok in my book,
unless Descartes’ Method, be classified as well.
" What is the Cartesian method of doubt?
Descartes’ doubt is a methodological and rational doubt. That is, the Meditator is not just doubting everything at random, but is providing solid reasons for his doubt at each stage. For instance, he rejects the possibility that he might be mad, since that would undercut the rationality that motivates his doubt."
The thing is with immortality, as any vampire worth his blood lust should know, (and my idea of partially differentiated , or , cut away parts, fits in here neatly), is, that fear of an anonymous eternal continuance, bears into the question : that Hamlet’s ghost can best advise him on.
Is it worth the hunt for a new identity only to find yourself hunted , ghost hunted into such eternity?
Fixed into an immutable crystal , through which forever you are condemning to hunt for your doppelganger?
Two identical spheres one a necessary part of the other? Surely, it is the basis of.absolute identity of.precognition. Re cognition has a this as a sine con non.