Jump to content

nonuniqueipaddress

Member
  • Content Count

    1547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

nonuniqueipaddress last won the day on August 4 2009

nonuniqueipaddress had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

507 Excellent

About nonuniqueipaddress

  • Rank
    wheeeeee

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    fluxualentity
  1. http://www.tiddlywiki.com/ might be an interesting way to split up evidence
  2. Thanks for your efforts in helping people understand the topic at hand, my thoughts were just a diversion. Anyhow, what is interesting is that the body perfectly embodies what we understand about openness towards changing environments. If we are constantly tense, or move in repetitious patterns, we have a stuck way of "seeing ourselves in the world". So, then, adjusting a movement or complex series of movements allows us to transform through time/space. Our whole body has to catch up with our mind - muscle memory and physical blockage can prevent us from using our theories in the world. I hope that a union of this nature will occur, to where we can be smart, and use our bodies in full ways, and then it will be increasingly hard to "pull one over on us".
  3. There is a trapping in all levels of consciousness - its to think that because you figured out your current condition, that you "know something", whereas each new moment contains infinite perspectives and new information. To see this we have to let go of the past and let go of what was felt/thought/seen before, but at the same time, use it as a reference point. Its easier to do this when the ego has taken the back-burner. I have posted before that D&G basically theorize and embody many Tai Chi principles. What they don't seem to express, however, is that a method of realizing the truth of their words is by being mindful of the body as it tries to balance through change, or living life on the "razors edge", constantly not-knowing and surrendering and giving up neurotic tendencies. This can only be achieved with the help of a teacher, and through devotion and discipline, something our society seems to have issue with. Its a simple method, whereas the scholarly approach, or reading through many books, is a lot of work and effort and basically just brings you to the same point, of inner-wisdom and internal-knowing, but doesn't seem to have the advantage of giving you a powerful body that can do things such as stay healthy in our increasingly polluted world. If Tai Chi mind can give you infinite options and can allow you to take and give ground without resistance, then its politically useful and capable of changing the dominant world perspective, by creating circles of influence that naturally expand and connect outward in ways invisible to people who have linear-thought-patterns. The entire premise of our government operates on us not seeing the oppressive mechanisms that we silently comply with. If we just decided to stop, then everything would change. But, we have to, you, i, everyone else, one person at a time. Generally, Lazzarone, I agree with your interpretation of what D&G are getting at. Its crazy wisdom and its concealed knowledge that has to be unlocked through experience. When they say: All they mean is you can't live in extremes, and that balance is essential. My criticism of their way of saying it is that its not very practical information, whereas when you have a physical practice its easy to see if you understand the BwO - can you move from place A to B without sliding into obsessive fantasies or without falling flat on your face. Can we move with grace and keep ourselves up to date on our inside/outside relationship.
  4. All people have a lower nature. I do not believe in new age spirituality whatsoever, and any correlations drawn about that I am willing to listen to and hear but honestly they aren't really what I'm getting at. I think there are just common human principles that are shared between everyone, that have been forced out of us by oppressive social control mechanisms. My hope is to give that back so a united wisdom of the mind and heart could exist. In this regard, I feel as though debate could change and transform in many positive ways. My desire to come back here is based on genuinely wanting to assist people become better thinkers. And, especially, from the place of adopting sincerity and personal practice and refinement, someones argumentative movements and tactics become blatantly obvious and your debate skills would skyrocket. Or, on a physical level just having more blood and oxygen circulating through your system increases brain function so you can talk faster and respond quickly. These are things we could all continue to learn about.
  5. when you think relationally one thing applies to many things. you can see an event in popular culture or even the way a person walking by glances at you to know the next turn of events. this is called natural intelligence, and its a feeling you get and has little to do with your precious, overused brain. the other way is called linear, scholarly thinking. it lives in a closed box and sees what it wants to see and excludes what it thinks is not useful. its hilarious how the author above also thinks he is making some kind of awesomely intelligent statement but is really just saying some obvious things that anyone who just observes their own reality would know innately. but hey, that's just my stupid opinion.
  6. The greater point is that we are only on this earth for a truly small and limited amount of time, and it decays our body and spirit to say things we don't believe. This concept scales small and large and is timeless. Its a waste of time to gain useless factoids about subjects we have no involvement in. And, on the other hand, it trains us about why this is not useful and why it hurts us, so later on in life we can live with compassion and wisdom. You don't need Spanos or any other philosopher of person to point this out to you. And, on the level of debate, I don't think your argument makes any sense. Having a couple positions, say a critique and a disadvantage, that operate on levels of "the way you are doing this is not useful" and "if you do this policy action x or y will occur" is not inherently anything, unless one of the arguments makes sexist or racist assumptions. Saying that complexity, or seeing an affirmative case as having faults from multiple perspectives is inherently sexist/racist is a stretch of the imagination. You might be better of saying that since the aff has to uphold the case from the perspective of it being a good idea to pass, that the negative has to hold a consistent opinion of why it should not pass. If they aren't even sure if its good/bad idea by having multiple contradictory arguments, why vote for them? But again, debate theory can be made up in any way just like anything else.
  7. Dropbox is the shit but they don't have a great KDE-linux client solution yet. I think debate teams could really benefit from distributed version controls systems
  8. everyone here should check out tiddlywiki - a whole wiki in one file (through html / css / js ) - the ultimate "file" - can also sync to a tiddly server for distributed updates. can anyone say oh yes?
  9. its interesting that people would withhold their best blocks - then they wouldn't be scrutinized and checked for errors before use. this is why proprietary software (such as windows) ships with more bugs and defects than something like BSD or Linux. openness breeds more creativity and more success, typically. release your best blocks, give your best stuff, get the best stuff - goes both ways.
  10. Why do you need to answer questions? Can't some questions just be left alone? The learning comes from the sincerity - waiting to receive the response. What if two contradictory perspectives are true? Debate does not make any sense. We all have where we're standing from, then there's the center. All philosophies, religions, traditions, and ways agree at a certain point. We're all more the same than different. Put the sword down.
  11. this is all as true as we want it to be
  12. just thought i'd claim the title.
  13. So, Zizek makes a living criticizing things too? What's new, there are talkers and do-ers.
  14. The question of being is best answered by yourself. Even a library of thousand paged books will never answer the question, because the question is framed incorrectly by many. "Being-there" is a feeling, not a thought. Curious that someone would waste so much time translating it to words. That this is even a question shows the extreme degree of confusion in our world. Why don't we regain some basic sanity before constructing arguments and theories?
  15. Hardt/Negri's "Multitude" has a section in it about open source leading to rise of the multitude. Also, "A Hackers Manifesto" by Wark is a nice complement to that "line of thinking".
×
×
  • Create New...