Gendanken on the "Passion of the Christ"

On the contrary, I don't hate the beach, quite love it in fact. Living in Queensland I am in the surf often (I am a shrimp after all, so one would think I am in the water often :D ). However I do not make generalisations about the whole population of Australia. I go to the beach and to the movies often enough and both are always crowded.
 
Bells said:
On the contrary, I don't hate the beach, quite love it in fact. Living in Queensland I am in the surf often (I am a shrimp after all, so one would think I am in the water often :D ). However I do not make generalisations about the whole population of Australia. I go to the beach and to the movies often enough and both are always crowded.

so your a queenslander? well yes that's alot like middle america.
 
*GASP* Be gone with you! :mad:

It's too tacky here to be like middle America. :p

Many Americans I know who have visited Sydney find that city to be more like main stream US capital cities. One friend of mine likened it to a smaller version of New York :p.
 
Bells said:
Many Americans I know who have visited Sydney find that city to be more like main stream US capital cities. One friend of mine likened it to a smaller version of New York :p.

I don't get it why Americans go abroad and immediately go spawning insults about the country they are visiting.

(for the retards: sydney feels like an american city).
 
Last edited:
I'd love nothing more than to bash two skulls in here with a machete and then feed them their own brains. I wonder if the babylonian king and his monkey know who I am speaking of. Anyway.

Spidergoat:
How would you know? You're a self-hating pit-plucker!
WHOA.

*odd silence*

Uhm..how do you know I used to pluck my pit hair?

And since you quoted Shakepeare (that voluptious free-spirit that lionized this wonder we call the Written Word) I feel almost indebted to you. So:
There is no self, so any definition of it is an illusion.

Tell me, you have either stumbled on Shopenheaur's breakup with his 'principle of idividuation' or broke individuality yourself after discovering the Oriential tendencies in doing so.

You know what happened to Schopenhaur? He got lost and lazy in mystical nonsense. I too do not believe in this concept of self, but for entirely different reasons.

I did not hear of some far away mysticism and fell in love with its ascetic jargon..
I did not come across some yogi and then aped his disciplines.
I did not take whatever -ism fell on my lap and then made it my own.
This is what you or the Beatles do. I may be wrong about you but we'll see.

I did away with this concept of self with a theory, a language theory I constructed all on my own and then supplemented with science. This you do not know. And this keeps you trying to teach me something that only leaves you sounding like a student.

So tell me- why do you believe there is no self?
 
gendanken said:
I'd love nothing more than to bash two skulls in here with a machete and then feed them their own brains. I wonder if the babylonian king and his monkey know who I am speaking of. Anyway.
QUOTE]

you just make yourself sound immature with posts like that.

In no way whatsoever have you attempted to reply to my posts in an intellectual fashion, that's quite pathetic.

let me guess, your an American? that explains alot.
 
Mysticism isn't nonsense, it is the perception of something that cannot be communicated. Communication through words is only possible when our internal dictionaries match. They only match because of shared experiences. If you experience something truly new, the explanation is bound to sound vague and poetic. The reverse is also true, you can't experience anything really new simply by reading words or hearing explanations. I am glad you agree I have nothing to teach you.

So, why do I say there is no self? Because I have percieved that self is only an idea, that the only real boundries between self and other are literary ones, and when I say "I", I might as well say "everything that shaped this temporary form, including culture."
I did not hear of some far away mysticism and fell in love with its ascetic jargon..
I did not come across some yogi and then aped his disciplines.
I did not take whatever -ism fell on my lap and then made it my own.
Wonderful, neither did I.
I realize the idea of self is a piece of mental software that helps the organism to survive, so I believe in the expendiency of believing in self in the same way we believe that objects are solid, even though they are mostly empty space, or we believe we have money in the bank like stacks of gold bricks, when actually it is just a number in a computer.

A curious implication of this is that self investigation is an investigation into the nature of reality, and is far from being an escape from the "real" world of human culture, which is a kind of "virtual" reality composed of ideas and symbols.
 
Nebuchadgonads:
In no way whatsoever have you attempted to reply to my posts in an intellectual fashion, that's quite pathetic.
Oh suffer thine idiots but one day more, went the sirens.

Dude, you had a problem with me calling it a snuff film, I rebutted.
You came back wondering how I could find this film so grandeloquently awful and I told you. Somehwere in there you were dismissed because you hadn't brought anything to this thread that is dying on me. And you dare to say I have not responded ~intellectually~ to your posts?

You're becoming almost as annoying as Porfiry's new layout. Go away.

Spidergoat:
Mysticism isn't nonsense, it is the perception of something that cannot be communicated
Acutally it does become nonsensical as soon as thinkers move to label what they feel cannot be communicated.

Example: a sage looked on his mysterious world long ago and tried explaining it with his theory of 'opposites'. Hot, cold, light, dark. Fine and well- but what is the opposite of rice? Shakespeare? a sandwich?

The feeling of mystery, however, makes perfect sense.

If you experience something truly new, the explanation is bound to sound vague and poetic. The reverse is also true, you can't experience anything really new simply by reading words or hearing explanations. I

Well said.

In a word: qualia. Its in trying to translate this with language that we work up abstract bullshit. Gnocism, Zen, Buddhism, Taosim, ism ism *drip drip* ism....

I'm digging this:
realize the idea of self is a piece of mental software that helps the organism to survive, so I believe in the expendiency of believing in self in the same way we believe that objects are solid, even though they are mostly empty space, or we believe we have money in the bank like stacks of gold bricks, when actually it is just a number in a computer.
The mental software part, like number currency.

Self as a right *is* fiction, I think, and I've piecing together why for over a year now. It is our human contraption's loyalty to its maker: the brain.

By contraption I mean "language": in it you will find the autobiography that you feel seperates you from the material, yet its only an autobiography, not a spirit. THIS is the cornerpice to my theory of self being mythical. A scientific error on the part of an invention we no longer have complete conrol over.

This has been fasninating me- you have no clue how terribly.
 
Gendanken --

I just wanted to point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking others' thoughts and opinions and considering if there is any wisdom within. I believe that you let your pride get in the way of this.

"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." - Confucius

You are trying to learn through reflection alone. As Confucius says, reflection is indeed noble. But while a single mind can certainly be great, it can only generate so much. Spidergoat has a point in that by essentially insisting on distilling your own gasoline and building your own car in order to get anywhere, you make things needlessly difficult, and thus limit yourself.

You know that fire burns if you touch it with your bare hands. Why?

1. You studied fire, performed experiments, and concluded that it is able to burn bare hands based on the evidence. (Reflection)

2. You stuck your hand in it. (Experience)

3. Someone else told you that fire burned bare hands, and when you asked how and why, they gave you one or both of the reasons above. You thought on this and decided it made sense. (Imitation)

Chances are, we all first learned that fire burns bare hands by the third method. This was far easier than testing it and less painful than being burned, yet all three methods yielded the same results. In fact, I believe the best way is a combination of two or more of these: to reach an idea through reflection, or imitation followed by reflection, and then having the idea tested practically through experience.

I am not telling you to parrot anyone, least of all me. Discern for yourself whether or not what I am saying has any worth. After all, if one or both of us is wrong, this will likely be revealed through time, by experience. I'm just making suggestions that I believe may spare you pain or difficulty. And I think you would do well to refrain from the teacher and student comments; we're all students here, as life always, *always* has something new to teach us. If you think you are so far above the rest of us, well...pride goeth before a fall.
 
/I did away with this concept of self with a theory, a language theory I constructed all on my own and then supplemented with science. This you do not know. And this keeps you trying to teach me something that only leaves you sounding like a student./

You keep telling spidergoat this, yet you fail to follow your principle when dealing with him... making assumptions.
If you really have 'constructed' a theory of your own why don't you publish it?
You keep denouncing Gibson and his movie all the time giving your opinion of it which only you seem to value. Why don't you go out into the real world and do something which the world can take notice of. This should be quite easy, taking into account all your self professed genius.
 
gendanken said:
By contraption I mean "language": in it you will find the autobiography that you feel seperates you from the material, yet its only an autobiography, not a spirit. THIS is the cornerpice to my theory of self being mythical. A scientific error on the part of an invention we no longer have complete conrol over.

Are you single? I think I'm in love.

anyways....

This entire line of thought smells too much of Derrida. How do you bridge science -- a system of realism/naturalism -- with ideas derived from deconstructuralism? Why stop with the self? Isn't the "material" simply more self-referential language, another big myth?
 
Cathurian:
I just wanted to point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking others' thoughts and opinions and considering if there is any wisdom within. I believe that you let your pride get in the way of this.

"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." - Confucius
Thanks for the Confucius.

Of course it looks as if my pride is getting in the way here, Cathurian. Here we have spidergoat trying to pope a complete stranger he knows nothing about on the pricipicals of individividuality- a field she's already covered on her own and has for some time now taken whatever she's reaped from her experiences there and shared them with a beautiful throng of people that know how to listen and share.

I crave knowledge. I love learning. I'm a sea sponge as wide as Antartica and no pride ever gets in the way of it wanting to be landscaped but by the right people.

Yogees and mystics only get in the way.

1. You studied fire, performed experiments, and concluded that it is able to burn bare hands based on the evidence. (Reflection)

2. You stuck your hand in it. (Experience)

3. Someone else told you that fire burned bare hands, and when you asked how and why, they gave you one or both of the reasons above. You thought on this and decided it made sense. (Imitation
I've done all three. Confuscious is god then for saying all three methods are staple.
Merci.

And as for whether or not I discern any worth in what it is you showed up here to say, I do. Thank you for coming. However, I should never refrain from my 'student and teacher' commentary so long as there are those that assume the role of teacher and try out their coaching skills on others when I feel we all are students. Spidergoat deviates from this.

Airvata:
You keep telling spidergoat this, yet you fail to follow your principle when dealing with him... making assumptions.
If you really have 'constructed' a theory of your own why don't you publish it?
You keep denouncing Gibson and his movie all the time giving your opinion of it which only you seem to value. Why don't you go out into the real world and do something which the world can take notice of. This should be quite easy, taking into account all your self professed genius.
The first thing you can do is eat my shit.
Then second thing you can do is chug it down with Castor Oil.
The third thing I'll have you do is ask that you give me a well thoght out opinion, some thought, something from you to me to either discuss or dissect.

If you fail to meet these criteria, you'll be twice the sorry little fucker you are sitting there with your fucking keyboard farting out those ad hominems like the cattle you likely are in the 'real' life.

Let's see here......published, huh? Think I can even get published? Want a taste of my theory?

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25739

3rd or 4th page, my friend. Then come back and tell me what chance your little gendanken has in a world whre publishers go for Crichton, Roberts, Clark and Grisham bullshit.

e-bow:
This entire line of thought smells too much of Derrida. How do you bridge science -- a system of realism/naturalism -- with ideas derived from deconstructuralism? Why stop with the self? Isn't the "material" simply more self-referential language, another big myth?
Are you single? I think I'm in love.

Has nothing to do with post-constructivist hogwash. Has much to do with brain disorders, strokes, the BRAIN. Scientific curiosities that scream out to me the tenous handle we as humans have on any notions of 'Self'.

Its artificial.
 
I'll make it even simpler for you, Airavata:

What have you to say on "The Passion"?
Have you seen it?
Did you like it?
Changed your life or infuriated it?

Give me something you little worm, keep the personal shit on your side of the screen.
 
On the contrary, I don't hate the beach, quite love it in fact. Living in Queensland I am in the surf often (I am a shrimp after all, so one would think I am in the water often ). However I do not make generalisations about the whole population of Australia. I go to the beach and to the movies often enough and both are always crowded.
Hey, Bells, you're from Australia? Have you seen that movie Bad Boy Bubby? Not sure if I spelled it right, but its about this retarded kid, who kills his cat, then his mom, and goes on to be a rock star? It was pretty strange.
 
Yes I am from Australia and no I haven't seen Bad Boy Bubby. A friend of mine was talking about it the other day actually. He liked it.
 
Back
Top