Jump to content

nonuniqueipaddress

Member
  • Content Count

    1547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by nonuniqueipaddress

  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".
  16. Your personal experience wouldn't "say" anything, now would it? Last time I checked, our experience wasn't connected to our mouth-anus-machine. The critique is more accurately stated as: Don't vote for the affirmative because they have no idea what they are talking about. This is true 99% of the time, says my personal experience (experience I have actually had). Simple test, if they knew what they were talking about they would be involved enacting it outside of the debate round.
  17. What people don't realize is that Jesus was a Yogi and that "Christ being inside of all of us" and "Christ being the Son of God" means we all have the possibility to be enlightened. God is the sum of all things, Christ-consciousness is realizing that and being a part of it. All major religions and prophets speak of unifying the mind/body/spirit and have a mechanism in place for practicing that harmony. Now, this may only be my interpretation...
  18. The perception I recommend comes from feeling a heart-mind-spirit connection, not thought. In Zizek's documentary it is clear he has an over-abundance of mental dialogue and thinks through a theoretical lens, resulting in his arguments being unable to transcend his human-ego-perception. And, the fact that my simple statement was turned into a debate shows an oppositional-defiance position which is based on fear and unknowing. What I am recommending, freedom, a perspective free from perspective or allegiance to a particular frame of reference (a framework), is the most advantageous position if one is trying to win a contest. From a central point, any movement, thought, or feeling is possible to affect all areas. This could even be considered a framework. However, its certainly not one. A framework is a crutch, you use it until you can walk again. Somewhere, we forgot that debate is a trivial matter because it presupposes right or wrong, good or bad, winner or loser; ultimately promoting ignorance and distraction. Education, "the school system", Debate, Law, the US Government, Politics. These are games played by ego-fascinated individuals who have to continue proving they exist or that they are right. Lets acknowledge death, life, and their co-dependence. Lets stop being afraid to admit what we are and love each other a bit more. That's all I suggest. You'll read this and have 10 arguments in mind, but is that really what the point of this is? This human life?
  19. View the world for what it is and not through a lens.
  20. Schlag used a lot of words to say that living in the fantasy realm is perhaps not the best idea.
  21. Give up Western Philosophy today, live a happier life tomorrow.
  22. Everything contains its opposite and is true and false. Doing something does nothing, doing nothing does something. Nothing can be "crystallized" because it is formless in essence, but yet has form. If you observe the moment you are in this becomes increasingly apparent. Original teachings of all cultures and religions are variations of this theme. No matter how "new" today seems, and how "modern" we get, these are the same realities to be confronted (our lives).
  23. Indigenous cultures around the world have used animals to survive and base their culture on the consumption and usage of them, for example the tribes of the lower Klamath river in N. California with Salmon. Is this to say that they should stop doing what they do, or that it is somehow objectionable? Who are we to criticize others or to put a completely humorous world-illusion into a solid and dark painting? Perhaps what you are getting at is that we should treat all objects with respect and dignity. It constantly astounds me that western-thought and science is reproducing what has been known by common, everyday people in indigenous and traditional cultures for thousands of years. This is not to discredit what you are saying or your work, but I am suggesting that perhaps this topic is a little less theoretical and a lot more practical for how we (every one of us) live our everyday lives. The thought of how we should live is perhaps .01% of the total picture.
  24. Most of what you are saying is coming from a linear, logical perspective trying to assert truth value, right or wrong, good or bad. This perspective, which shapes our entire view of the topic matter, ethical choices relating to animals, prevents us from grasping a proper way of seeing things. Our own confusion is what degrades our sensing ability, and to the degree that we are separated from ourselves, we can not relate to others, human or animal. To make ethical choices, we have to see the situation for what it is, "inside and outside becoming the same". Somehow, this is the task, and the challenge, and there is no clear, decisive answer about how to achieve this. And like I said before, anything is true because its false, and right because it is wrong, so my words are not absolute or complete but just my personal understanding of the topic. We can perceive what others feel because a thought or a feeling emanates from our physical body in all directions at all times. The real question is, how have we become so numb to our sensing capacity? The general condition of Americans is a convoluted, paranoid schizophrenic disposition coupled with layers upon layers of repression and conditioning. Ethics at that level? Don't see it being possible. Despite this, we are connected in ways our logical mind will never know, or allow us to see. Our disbelief and our insistence on needing empirical proof is a limited/limiting perspective. Thanks for your input, and I hope this somehow shapes the discussion for you James.
  25. perhaps there are no ethics or morals and they are human constructions to give us a sense or order or purpose in an open, fluid and changing space we call reality. living in this, we have sense organs. when we were born as children we could detect "right" and "wrong" through our feeling-sense and were later conditioned in life to have our mind and logical thoughts overtake our mind/body/spirit connection in value and usage. a human being is an animal, lets not forget that. it is quite possible humans are less intelligent than some if not most animals, considering our track record with issues like warfare and environmental degradation. animals seem to make ethical or moral decisions based on natural sensing of the situation, which contains infinite possibilities. perhaps there is no more than that, except what we think about and describe after the event. everything is always changing, so no ethical rule could really stay true or exist without exception. if we clear the separation between our mind/body/spirits environments it becomes more clear on how to relate to ourselves, others, and our environment. it has a lot to do with feeling, and less to do with words or philosophy. but don't believe me. challenge every word of this yourself in your own direct experience and if i'm wrong, great. but its not about right or wrong ultimately, which is the flaw of the format of debate. however, i will post this as a breadcrumb trail to anyone who is interested.
×
×
  • Create New...