Self-evidence (main q)

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#341  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 11:39 am

Regina wrote:It's ultimately a question of marketing.


You mean, sort of like the difference between juggling spoons and juggling carving knives.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#342  Postby Regina » Apr 15, 2012 11:42 am

lobawad wrote:Sorry to bum your high, I think you'll find that the market for abominable rapping is well saturated.

I know what you mean But we are talking Cito's Extra Special FLR Protection Foil here, not just any old rapping. :P
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#343  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 11:42 am

Destroyer wrote:
I guess that we should all be exremely grateful to have your wisdom policing this forum.


lolwut?

Destroyer wrote:
The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


gotcha
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#344  Postby Regina » Apr 15, 2012 11:46 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:It's ultimately a question of marketing.


You mean, sort of like the difference between juggling spoons and juggling carving knives.

More like the difference between bending spoons and throwing knives.
What's this obsession with spoons here, anyway?
Penny has one in his avatar, and last night he talked about wooden spoons. Is there some kind of spoon virus infecting the members? :scratch:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#345  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 11:51 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
I guess that we should all be extremely grateful to have your wisdom policing this forum.


lolwut?

Destroyer wrote:
The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


gotcha
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#346  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 11:54 am

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Maybe not confused but certainly questioning your qualifications to have this discussion.

This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#347  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 11:54 am

Regina wrote:
lobawad wrote:Sorry to bum your high, I think you'll find that the market for abominable rapping is well saturated.

I know what you mean But we are talking Cito's Extra Special FLR Protection Foil here, not just any old rapping. :P


You can also investigate bake-out procedures used for UHV lines and chambers. Not useful for application to living organisms, but really eliminates the residual effects of FLR in intelligent robots and cyborgs.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#348  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 11:56 am

lobawad wrote:I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.


You need to use the existing definition of 'existence'.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#349  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 11:56 am

lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

Existence = Existence... There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#350  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 11:57 am

Regina wrote:
What's this obsession with spoons here, anyway?


Uri Geller. Google is your friend.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#351  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 11:59 am

Destroyer wrote:There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".


Works for me. Equally useful is the contrapositive, expression of which is left as an exercise for the diligent reader.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#352  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 12:04 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
lobawad wrote:I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.


You need to use the existing definition of 'existence'.


Knowing from which orifice it will most likely be extruded, hopefully it will be wrapped up safely in your new foil.

"Sistere" is "to erect" so kneeling humbly before Destroyer awaiting enlightenment might be a lot of fun... or not.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#353  Postby GrahamH » Apr 15, 2012 12:05 pm

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Maybe not confused but certainly questioning your qualifications to have this discussion.

This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously. Your move...
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#354  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 12:07 pm

Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

Existence = Existence... There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".


Permission to speak candidly, sir!

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Jesus H. Christ home-gargoyle, even a minute of the winternet will reveal that there is more than one definition of existence.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#355  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 12:08 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously.


Graham, I think you may have neglected to consider the self-causing existent. But let us not tarry with such trivialities, and move directly on to the problem of enumerating the relata of a property-exemplification nexus.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Apr 15, 2012 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#356  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 12:09 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
This discussion is not about my scientific knowledge (which is vacuous, to say the least) but about the cause of existence; of which I have plenty to say.

I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously. Your move...

Non-existence is precisely where we do start.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#357  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 12:10 pm

lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.


I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

Existence = Existence... There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".


Permission to speak candidly, sir!

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Jesus H. Christ home-gargoyle, even a minute of the winternet will reveal that there is more than one definition of existence.

I would be very interested in hearing another definition of existence. If you would be so kind.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#358  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 12:13 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence is precisely where we do start.


And end. Every operator has come into existence simultaneously with its corresponding annihilation operator. The arguments to operators are secondary to the operators themselves. There isn't really anything that isn't canceled out by something else that necessarily exists.

Conclusion: Nothing exists. In reality.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#359  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 12:16 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence is precisely where we do start.


And end. Every operator has come into existence simultaneously with its corresponding annihilation operator. The arguments to operators are secondary to the operators themselves. There isn't really anything that isn't canceled out by something else that necessarily exists.

Conclusion: Nothing exists. In reality.

Correct.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#360  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 12:17 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence is precisely where we do start.


And end. Every operator has come into existence simultaneously with its corresponding annihilation operator. The arguments to operators are secondary to the operators themselves. There isn't really anything that isn't canceled out by something else that necessarily exists.

Conclusion: Nothing exists. In reality.

Correct.


Yay.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29401
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest