View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Sat May 18th, 2013 04:00 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sergey,

Odd things are happening on this Forum with the name sunipod123 showing up on the TAB name on top of this page. There is a new user named sunipod123, and I can delete the user if odd things persist, or if the new user starts using the forum as a advertizing vehicle, but I wonder if you have seen the odd things (name sunipod123 showing up on the page window for topics that so far do not include any posts by sunipod123) and I wonder if you have any idea what is going on with the forum.

You wrote:

Huh. As if I was the one to put in 'terms are symbols' as an argument... Alright, redacted.
I do not perceive a discussion as being an argument, since I perceive an argument as a method of aggressively or deceitfully "winning" said argument.

I see a discussion as a voluntary and welcome competition of ideas, and a discussion can even occur between myself and my former or future self, as I write my viewpoints down, and then, in another time and place, I may have another viewpoint to compared with my former viewpoint.

So your discussion, or argument as you say, that involves me isn't one involving me when an argument may (I said "if" in my earlier sentence concerning an argument over the meaning of symbols) become this aggressive, or deceptive, idea and then action, to "win" an argument.

 If you and I can communicate it will be a result of our finding symbols arranged in a way where we can both agree to the meaning of those symbols without one of us claiming the the symbols do not mean what the other one says they mean.

I provided examples of what I mean with the road, the road sign, and the danger ahead.

If you do not agree with the meaning of the words I use, where my words are not meant to be ambiguous, then I can try to use words that mean specific things, so as to remove enough ambiguity to reach the goal of offering an accurate perspective.

If you were speeding down the road, and I had an opportunity to warn you about the impending doom that will happen down the road if you continue speeding down the road, then my intent is not to be ambiguous, my intent is to arrange the symbols in such a way as to be specific, precise, and effective at giving you warning concerning the viewpoint I currently have in view, which in this example is illustrating impending doom as someone speeds down a road, over a blind hill, and falls off a cliff where a bridge was and is no more.

That is my way of illustrating my viewpoint offered to you on the present subject matter concerning the arrangements of symbols, and that is just a beginning, not an end, and I do not have any desire to win the argument, my goal is to know better, because knowing worse is unfordable.

I think your viewpoints, so far expressed, contain many competitive ideas that are worth comparing to my own, as there is no way I can see for me to invent your viewpoints myself, not in a million years, to repeat an old ambiguous phrase.

You specifically indicated deceit, threat and violence as 'tools'. Tools are things, not the person. And you seem to try and view 'tools' separately.
Here is where I am still confused as to what I may "seem" to do and what I actually try to convey with symbols. A tool is separate from a person, and so I see that as being a fact, not me doing the connecting or disconnecting of the person from the tool. The tool is already separate from the person, so where do I fit into this power to connect them, or to disconnect them, seemingly, or actually?

If the tool and the person were one and the same thing, why would there be any need for two words?

Looking at your quote again, I am further confused, since one of your sentences is a statement of fact, which is stated as a statement of fact as if someone, somewhere, needs to know this statement of fact, as if someone somewhere does not know this statement of fact, so you are going to state this statement of fact, in such a way as to inform this person who may not know this statement of fact.

Tools are things, not the person.
I know that, so who does not know that, and if we both know that, then where is the disagreement, where is the person who does not know that, or the question that may work better is a question as to why you find the need to state that fact, since we both know that that is a fact.

The next sentence appears to be contradictory to the previous sentence, furthering my effort to explain my confusion.

Tools are things, not the person. And you seem to try and view 'tools' separately.
I am working on the concept of motive, and the tools are clues that may help in this work of working on the concept of motive. I am also firmly planted in the perception of a very destructive lie, whereby the liar claims that things can be held responsible, and accountable, for the thoughts and actions of human beings, or inhuman beings.

There is a phrase or two that illustrates the point.

The gun did it.

The government did it.

Guns kill people.

Governments are bad.

I don't know if that helps in building a mutually agreeable viewpoint.

Maybe I'm looking at things from too much of a teacher's perspective, but, oh, well, that's the human material you find yourself talking with.
I may be able to offer an example of the competition I have in view concerning morality.

If two people meet on that road where the road is a blind hill, and just after the blind hill there was a bridge, but the bridge has fallen, and now there is a certain fall to a certain death instead of a bridge, and these two people meet, and they work to communicate their competitive viewpoints on morality.

In fact I can describe this situation with a video that was shown on "The News" here where I live.

In this video a person films a car full of people driving off the edge of a cliff, and the news report reports that those people in the car died.

This happened after a very serious Earthquake that occurred some years ago, centered somewhere near San Francisco, California.

I saw that video of that event where the car drives by, and goes off the cliff, and my first thought was to wonder why that person doing the recording of the video was recording the video instead of stepping in the way of the car, warning the driver of the car, about the fact that the bridge was broken by the Earthquake, and driving fast on that road was not a good idea.

So that can help set the stage on this concept of competitive viewpoints concerning morality.

Person A wants to get rich filming a video that can be sold to people who want to get rich in the business of entertaining the masses of people who are bored and are at their televisions on a regular basis, looking for things to see that they want to see while they are on this schedule of looking at the television every day.

Person B says, hold on there, those people will die if they are not warned, so seriously, Person A, isn't there some other way you may get rich?

I don't know if that helps bridge the language gap.