You're good. < Meh-dward >
2009-02-22 14:30:22
I really wasn't going to indulge you, but I indulged an indulgence of mine a bit, and this may be pretty comically indulgent. I believe that I have three things to say; that number may evolve into a greater number by the time that I am done, but, for the moment, I believe that I have three things to say.
My response to what I was able to glean from that post, sequentially, respectively:
We all choose what we believe. You choose to believe that the possible scenario of you conjuring this up with your comatose mind (meaning that you're in a coma; not to condescend, but the quality of your posts is indicative of a lesser intellectual capacity - and may very well be in need of an explanation of that phrase) is not reality; that, or you believe yourself to be deriding me from your bed in some long term care facility.
Followed by about 90% of the post's bulk being spent elucidating your absolute detestation of my utilizing my capacity for choice. The fact is that I choose to hold my belief as an equal peer to my knowledge - and my conscious recognition and belief of the nature of the universe is as two great seas of seas, each inverse to each other, all of inverse equalities, forever still, and forever in a state of change, and each one containing the whole. I digress.
I do believe in Mickey Mouse, the animated character that "fantastically" forged the beginning of an empire for a revolutionary man. How ever did a life spent believing in the fantastic ever yield such beneficial results here in the real world? I am doubtful that science or mathematics would have predicted that.
What you choose to believe, my ignoramus, is what you are told.
I choose to believe all of this, that:
You have not thought through the patterns whose contemplation is necessary to autonomously realize the truths that these entities you reference are conveying. You call these things "FACTS", yet that is a rented title, owned by people you choose to let determine your beliefs for you. Never once have you focused on the most basic knowledge that you possess, then progressed forward to explain the true nature of the existence of your most enigmatic observations. These things I will do. These things I am doing. These things I have done.
Reprovingly,
Meh-dward
Sunday, March 8, 2009
I fail to understand (Post 1 and 2)
I fail to understand (Post 1) < Meh-dward >
2009-02-23 18:47:07
how you, a self-admitted "dumb-shit," could be capable of maintaining the lack of composure that enables you to spew forth this apparently unintentionally self-deprecating conglomeration of your own shabby metaphors (i.e. the tooth fairy, and the definitions of the words shut and open) and your poorly-constructed representation of these things that you claim to understand, all while appreciating the content of my own responses - the mere comprehension of which would denote a mental faculty evolved far beyond the mindset that would render you so enthralled by the petty squabbles you spend these poorly constructed posts waging.
I'll save myself the tedium of reading your post more than once more, and just respond to it in a section-by-section format, beginning with your succinct description of my intellectual capacity:
Yes, I am. "Stupid" is a relative term.
I don't care to pluck from common opinion my appreciation of the true nature of anything, much less something whose nature is so abstract as that of a dimension. This fact was previously conveyed.
I failed to clearly interpret your intended meaning of that sentence: what location is meant by "here," and what is meant by "like"? You might mean that the insane people on CL are fond of me, or that I resemble other "insane freaks" you have encountered on CL, or you might have been referencing a location entirely separate from CL... but I haven't the heart to go on further processing more of the same dribble.
I can. I did. It's mine. Much in the same way that I define myself; I didn't discover who or what I am within a book; I determined it (after a point) the same way that I would in a world where (*GASP*) I would not have common knowledge (or dictionaries) to define me for me; listen to Incubus' "Make Yourself." Whence came the definitions that you hoist as your own, thus rendering you superior? Where did the dictionary's definitions come from? [continued...]
I fail to understand (Post 2) < Meh-dward >
2009-02-23 18:55:31
[continuation...]
Where did the dictionary's definitions come from? It may be that these definitions, the words they are made up of and pertain to, and all of language itself may just have been invented. It's an intriguing avenue of thought; I'd suggest mulling it over.
[I deign no response to the substanceless, albeit ingeniously contrived and deeply wounding attack against me. Skip forward to "IF IT AGREES..."]
Here's where I get to the addressing of the first line of this (my) response: I have yet to read a post within this thread in which the author seems to disagree that an apt title for you would be something whose meaning, as "USED BY EVERYONE ELSE," is something similar to that of a "dumb shit." If you insist upon borrowing the opinion of "EVERYONE" as your own, why not try to improve their opinion of you? Or, better yet, acknowledge what is rather than opposing it.
To continue with the facetiousness: I am humbled by your apparent mastery of the "english" language, my misuse of which I dread now, thanks to your stern rebuke. I won't provide another instance of my expounding on my thoughts regarding accepting what "EVERYONE" holds to be true as one's own basis for truth. I think my definition of a dimension is not incorrect, and I'll continue with my intended point (one that I hoped you might draw on your own): without a greater dimension in which to evolve, a dimension and its contents would be static - as the "highest" dimension, it would not have the capacity to recognize a "past" or a "future" state, and would, therefore, lack a present. Therefore, a dimension is the capacity for change. There are an infinite number of them. Change is the only thing that doesn't.
You are correct; language is based on agreement. If your goal is accuracy, the frequent use of superlatives is likely not a constructive habit.
I'd rather have a discussion than this non-productive, baseless, mundane one-sided shit-throwing match that I am observing your efforts to engage me in from within my (metaphorically, of course) plexi-glass, flung-shit-resistant fortress. Please, play with those who enjoy it; I'd rather communicate, amicably. I'm not small enough to be riled by something so trivial as this. If you care to discuss something, I welcome your messages. Sincerely.
2009-02-23 18:47:07
how you, a self-admitted "dumb-shit," could be capable of maintaining the lack of composure that enables you to spew forth this apparently unintentionally self-deprecating conglomeration of your own shabby metaphors (i.e. the tooth fairy, and the definitions of the words shut and open) and your poorly-constructed representation of these things that you claim to understand, all while appreciating the content of my own responses - the mere comprehension of which would denote a mental faculty evolved far beyond the mindset that would render you so enthralled by the petty squabbles you spend these poorly constructed posts waging.
I'll save myself the tedium of reading your post more than once more, and just respond to it in a section-by-section format, beginning with your succinct description of my intellectual capacity:
Yes, I am. "Stupid" is a relative term.
I don't care to pluck from common opinion my appreciation of the true nature of anything, much less something whose nature is so abstract as that of a dimension. This fact was previously conveyed.
I failed to clearly interpret your intended meaning of that sentence: what location is meant by "here," and what is meant by "like"? You might mean that the insane people on CL are fond of me, or that I resemble other "insane freaks" you have encountered on CL, or you might have been referencing a location entirely separate from CL... but I haven't the heart to go on further processing more of the same dribble.
I can. I did. It's mine. Much in the same way that I define myself; I didn't discover who or what I am within a book; I determined it (after a point) the same way that I would in a world where (*GASP*) I would not have common knowledge (or dictionaries) to define me for me; listen to Incubus' "Make Yourself." Whence came the definitions that you hoist as your own, thus rendering you superior? Where did the dictionary's definitions come from? [continued...]
I fail to understand (Post 2) < Meh-dward >
2009-02-23 18:55:31
[continuation...]
Where did the dictionary's definitions come from? It may be that these definitions, the words they are made up of and pertain to, and all of language itself may just have been invented. It's an intriguing avenue of thought; I'd suggest mulling it over.
[I deign no response to the substanceless, albeit ingeniously contrived and deeply wounding attack against me. Skip forward to "IF IT AGREES..."]
Here's where I get to the addressing of the first line of this (my) response: I have yet to read a post within this thread in which the author seems to disagree that an apt title for you would be something whose meaning, as "USED BY EVERYONE ELSE," is something similar to that of a "dumb shit." If you insist upon borrowing the opinion of "EVERYONE" as your own, why not try to improve their opinion of you? Or, better yet, acknowledge what is rather than opposing it.
To continue with the facetiousness: I am humbled by your apparent mastery of the "english" language, my misuse of which I dread now, thanks to your stern rebuke. I won't provide another instance of my expounding on my thoughts regarding accepting what "EVERYONE" holds to be true as one's own basis for truth. I think my definition of a dimension is not incorrect, and I'll continue with my intended point (one that I hoped you might draw on your own): without a greater dimension in which to evolve, a dimension and its contents would be static - as the "highest" dimension, it would not have the capacity to recognize a "past" or a "future" state, and would, therefore, lack a present. Therefore, a dimension is the capacity for change. There are an infinite number of them. Change is the only thing that doesn't.
You are correct; language is based on agreement. If your goal is accuracy, the frequent use of superlatives is likely not a constructive habit.
I'd rather have a discussion than this non-productive, baseless, mundane one-sided shit-throwing match that I am observing your efforts to engage me in from within my (metaphorically, of course) plexi-glass, flung-shit-resistant fortress. Please, play with those who enjoy it; I'd rather communicate, amicably. I'm not small enough to be riled by something so trivial as this. If you care to discuss something, I welcome your messages. Sincerely.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)