Giftedness Exists

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

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.

Lol I agree on that that is the difference. But um... philosophy is love of wisdom. There are no different variants of love of wisdom. It is itself a variance.

What I think is the case with women is that they are able to think philosophy while they also think other things, multitrack. Not different philosophies! Thay would be like different combustions. The methods of achieving combustion may vary, but combustion is combustion.

They be just words to describe something. If we manipulate the meaning of the word based on grammar rather than on what the word describes, then the word no longer describes it accurately.

Language is a tool, not a law.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Since women can only think in multitrack, it is gentelmanly and proper to not apply the one track rigor one applies to men to them.

If most men had for a second to endure the multitrack thinking of a woman they would go insane. It is much harder for women.

We make up for it by putting our lives on the line. Only that puts us on par.

[Pedro I Rengel]

To put one's life on the line is to acknowledge that there are other tracks, even if one isn't aware of them at the moment.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Lives or pride. Which to a real man is the same.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Truth is less important to a woman. She already knows it.

[Pedro I Rengel]

This is why in early societies men belonged to women, and were happy to.

But then, you know, fear got the best of them and they came up with male head gods. Put the women in chains and began a cycle of rape that has lasted millenia.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Why is Zeus great? He is the first male head god to deem that women were to be seduced or belonged to rather than owned.

He was sneaky and decieving, but at least it was no longer rape.

[Pedro I Rengel]

What was Socrates? The first Greek to put forward that Zeus was fake and women should again be chained and raped.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Why are Catholics better than protestants?

Because they put more enfasis on the Father, who is Zeus, than on Jesus, who is Socrates.

[Fixed Cross]

Since women can only think in multitrack, it is gentelmanly and proper to not apply the one track rigor one applies to men to them.

If most men had for a second to endure the multitrack thinking of a woman they would go insane. It is much harder for women.

We make up for it by putting our lives on the line. Only that puts us on par.

Praytell, what gave you this wisdom about womans inner life?

I think you got it wrong - when all is well, a woman recognizes a man as the meaning of her existence.
But most men will never come close to mean this to any woman. So women will screw with them and make them feel like all they are worthy of being is cannon fodder.
The case of islam - no one is considered worthy by anyone except as a trophy-corpse to be carried through the streets.

[Pedro I Rengel]

What is Dionisus?

The idea that in the end a male pleases a female more than a female, and the question of what the male most pleasing to a female would be like.

[Fixed Cross]

What is Dionisus?

The idea that in the end a male pleases a female more than a female, and the question of what the male most pleasing to a female would be like.

Yeah well Im not in your objectivistic tradition.
I read: "Dionysos is the form in which I, P.I.R., see myself as most worthy, and thus most likely to be worthy in a womans eyes."
Which by all means seems valid.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Islam is a shitty compromise. We put our lives and pride on the line constantly but in return women must belong completely to us.

[Fixed Cross]

Its not just our bravery but very much our refinement, our literacy, our capacity to create powerful engines, lasting sanctuary, etcetera, etcetera.
Where war is concerned, it is in the end more about the lives we take. No widow is grateful to her husband for dying.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Thou readst what thou pleasest.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Its not just our bravery but very much our refinement, our literacy, our capacity to create powerful engines, lasting sanctuary, etcetera, etcetera.
Where war is concerned, it is in the end more about the lives we take. No widow is grateful to her husband for dying.

This is very Zeusian.

There is no one answer on how not to rape women.

[Fixed Cross]

Thou readst what thou pleasest.

Yes, I read the depths.

[Pedro I Rengel]

If you fail to kill many enemies? Would that not cost you your pride?

[Pedro I Rengel]

The depths of the soul!

[Fixed Cross]

Its not just our bravery but very much our refinement, our literacy, our capacity to create powerful engines, lasting sanctuary, etcetera, etcetera.
Where war is concerned, it is in the end more about the lives we take. No widow is grateful to her husband for dying.

This is very Zeusian.

There is no one answer on how not to rape women.

But there is a greater number of answers than there is any number of things to the question why not to rape women.
One of them is: Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.

Among humans, rape is almost always a symptom of inadequacy. The monotheism of the black stone is institutionalized inadequacy.
Philosophy is nothing less or more than the most necessary and most comprehensive human war.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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

Sure. I liked however his third person plural responses, sometimes blending group reactions, sometimes role playing the group reacting. Not arguing it is better than coming as oneself, as the individual philosopher. But I think that kind of play offers something. Like encountering a Deleuzian pack instead of one person. The process this leads to, not the conclusions in a specific post. I also like that sometimes it is clearly his own personal cranky reaction and sometimes seems to be trying to channel soumething more collective. But implict condescension in his use of this tactic and his reluctance to actually deal with life in anything but at a very abstract level make it repulsive over time.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yes, I think Dionisus is very comfortable with Zeus and leaving him in power. The bovi also does not really want what is of Iovi.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Doesn't have the time. But will certainly not stand by for rape.