Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

[iambiguous]

Why is everything always so sexual with you?

Pick one:

1] genes
2] memes
3] an unimaginably complex and convoluted labyrinth of both

Leave my balls alone.

Brass balls. Balls of steel. It's all figurative. At least in this production.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Pick one:

1] genes
2] memes
3] an unimaginably complex and convoluted labyrinth of both

Do you all nazis read anything other than Dawkins?

I mean for an anti-objectivist, you sure hold his writings to be some objective-ass truth.

Brass balls. Balls of steel. It's all figurative. At least in this production.

*Sends shivers down pzr's spine.*

[iambiguous]

Pick one:

1] genes
2] memes
3] an unimaginably complex and convoluted labyrinth of both

Do you all nazis read anything other than Dawkins?

I mean for an anti-objectivist, you sure hold his writings to be some objective-ass truth.

Error! Error! Does not compute!

I'm sorry, but that was not one of the options.

Brass balls. Balls of steel. It's all figurative. At least in this production.

*Sends shivers down pzr's spine.*

Okay, if you were not scripting the production, how might that not fit into it?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Error! Error! Does not compute!

I'm sorry, but that was not one of the options.

Well, you know, to be fair, in typical objectivist fashion.

[Pedro I Rengel]

That's always a problem for objectivists, when a human source for their universal truths is identified.

[iambiguous]

Error! Error! Does not compute!

I'm sorry, but that was not one of the options.

Well, you know, to be fair, in typical objectivist fashion.

Obviously, that computes even less! After all, James Bond was basically a cartoon character. And Pussy Galore? Come on, the name itself!

No, in the meta-theater, objectivism is explored more by real life characters...like Turd and iambiguous.

In fact, a new production is already quite possibly in the works: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196131

Audition now, my friend, before the main parts are cast.

[Pedro I Rengel]

OK, so where did you get the idea of the gene / meme paradigm?

[Pedro I Rengel]

You dirty nazi?

[iambiguous]

OK, so where did you get the idea of the gene / meme paradigm?

Hint: Not from you.

Seriously though, I explained that on another thread:

I still recall the very first experience I had as a child with my "identity" as more than just me thinking this or doing that. I was at my Aunt Betty and Uncle Mike's house in Miners Mills, Pennsylvania. My family moved to Baltimore when I was 7, but every summer I would go back and spend a couple of months at my Grandmother's house. That day I had I had done something I was being reprimanded for but I refused to go into details as to why I had done it. That's when my Aunt Mary said something to the effect, "it's no use, he is just like his father".

And then for the first time, and for reasons I did not understand, I began to really think about that. "Philosophically", as it were. I began to wonder how the boy I had become was connected to my parents and my family and how they had raised me and how in some ways I had come to be like them.

What if I had been raised by different parents in very different circumstances? Would I have done what I did that day? Would I have reacted to others as I did?

But then of course I slipped back into just being a kid again.

A kid. Not to be mistaken for a Kid.

[Pedro I Rengel]

OK, so where did you get the idea of the gene / meme paradigm?

Hint: Not from you.

I know. You got that from Dawkins.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I wonder how Dawkins would feel if he knew he was a hero of the nazi underworld?

[iambiguous]

OK, so where did you get the idea of the gene / meme paradigm?

Hint: Not from you.

I know. You got that from Dawkins.

Actually, Dawkins wasn't around back then in Miners Mills. Nor, for that matter, was James Bond. And the productions were of a whole different kind.

Back then, they revolved around the manner in which kids were all the more indoctrinated to view the world around them as others insisted it was. The new productions deconstruct that. They suggest a paradigm that folks like you are particularly averse to.

But: how about phoneutria? How averse to the new productions is she?

On the other hand, I don't have Becky around anymore to tell me.

[Pedro I Rengel]

[quote="Pedro I Rengel"

OK, so where did you get the idea of the gene / meme paradigm?

[/quote

Hint: Not from you.

I know. You got that from Dawkins.

Actually, Dawkins wasn't around back then in Miners Mills.

Yeah but you weren't going on about genes and memes either. Because Dawkins came up with that.

[iambiguous]

Yeah but you weren't going on about genes and memes either. Because Dawkins came up with that.

As per usual, you miss the point entirely.

That part as an extra if you grew a pair? Forget it. I'm giving it to one of the Stooges now. Larry I suspect.

You know, when he grows a pair.

[Pedro I Rengel]

These are the lengths you are willing to go to not to acknowledge where your objectivist theory comes from?

It comes from Dawkins, lad.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I know how sensitive you all are (objectivists) at having it pointed out to you that your theories about reality are only one among many and come from a person.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You dirty nazi.

[iambiguous]

These are the lengths you are willing to go to not to acknowledge where your objectivist theory comes from?

It comes from Dawkins, lad.

I go to the length the role calls for. Up to but not including directing, acting or scripting the scene.

Or, here, the post.

Also, if you are going to play the straight man in our routine, I'll need better lines to bounce off of.

[Pedro I Rengel]

So? You didn't get it from Dawkins?

It is simply an objective truth?

You know, objectively true for everybody, as it were?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Come on iam. Let's bring this sucker down from the skyhooks.

[iambiguous]

So? You didn't get it from Dawkins?

It is simply an objective truth?

You know, objectively true for everybody, as it were?

I'm sorry but even in the meta-theater we need a context. Dawkins may be in the production but no one can point to him as the director or the actor or the playwright. Let alone as embodying them objectively.

Least of all as "the star".

Becky once created this script in the yahoo group Existlist -- https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/existlist/info -- in which "Dawkins" was member.

Selfish genes and socialist memes as it were. And I was the "star".

Unfortunately I just found out that yahoo groups will soon be defunct. You used to be able to click on them and at the bottom of the page was a year to year collection of every single post!

I was going to go back to around 2004 - 2006 and show you an example of how it worked.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm sorry but even in the meta-theater we need a context.

The context is: Dawkins wrote the book where the gene meme paradigm is postulated.

You refer to them as though objective truth.

And so I asked "do you all nazis read anything other than Dawkins."

So. Where did you get the genes/memes idea?

[iambiguous]

I'm sorry but even in the meta-theater we need a context.

The context is: Dawkins wrote the book where the gene meme paradigm is postulated.

No, that's your context. All I'm trying to do here is what Julian and Becky and I tried to do in our "productions": to encompass individual reactions to particular contexts as the subjective, existential embodiment of dasein. Both genes and memes are intertwined in that. Instead, it comes down to emphasis. Folks like Satyr are really, really big on genes. Others, like the "blank slate" crowd, are really, really big on memes.

You refer to them as though objective truth.

"Them" in what context? What can be differentiated in that context as the objective truth from a subjective opinion?

And so I asked "do you all nazis read anything other than Dawkins."

What particular Nazis in what particular context? How might Dawkins take on genes and memes be examined there? In regard to, say, the Final Solution. The extent to which Nazis can ground it in the objective truth rather than the ideological bent of Hitler. And, then: how were Hitler's views of the Jews rooted subjectively in dasein, given the existential trajectory of his own life experiences?

So. Where did you get the genes/memes idea?

Truth be told, I don't remember the exact moment when it first came to my attention. But that's true for all of us. We pick up on things over the course of years over the course of countless experiences. We think things today that we have only the vaguest understanding of how we first came to think it.

Now, once again, in this routine, you're up.

And what you will no doubt do is ignore 90% of the points I raised here. Instead, you will focus in on one thing and ask another "general question".

Either that or something along the lines of "You dirty Commie Nazi asshole!"

Or, most excruciating of all, you will shoot for "clever".

Or, sure, let's just end the "routine" here and now.

If for no other reason this is the "post a picture of yourself" thread. And, truth be told, I don't even know how to do that.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Care to continue this in another thread, in the philosophy forum? https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1#p2784791

Or, sure, if you'd prefer to name call and go to the gutters, we can do it in the rant section.

[iambiguous]

Care to continue this in another thread, in the philosophy forum? https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1#p2784791

Or, sure, if you'd prefer to name call and go to the gutters, we can do it in the rant section.

You got it!

After all, I've been after you for weeks now to go here:

Okay, you're looking for the truth, right?

But: Aside from what you say it is and others say it is, what facts have been established...and where is the documented evidence to substantiate it?

Also, I am willing to acknowledge that my own take on all of this is rooted only in what I have read about it and heard from others. And in my own subjective political prejudices which are ever and always subject to change given new experiences and new information.

Will you admit the same? Or, again, are you just one more "my way or the highway" political objectivist who sees only what you already insist must be true in order to sustain a belief that you are in sync with the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to believe". And that anyone who does not think exactly like you do is basically the scum of the earth.

In other words, the place which you don't dare to go because you've got so much invested in thinking that you know everything that needs to be known about everything that really matters.

Just say the word, and we can start that thread.

And this:

Seriously though if you let me I can cure you of objectivism.

Yes, right now my own frame of mind is still "the place which you don't dare to go because you've got so much invested in thinking that you know everything that needs to be known about everything that really matters."

You lose all that, true. But look at all you gain. Options for example. With the objectivist, there's only one option: "my way or the highway". Every time you think, feel, say or do something you have to ask yourself, "is this what everyone who thinks and feels and says and does exactly what I do think, feel say and do?"

Everything is always either/or. Your trapped in your own insufferable dogma.