On May 15, 4:25 pm, Executive Function wrote:
> On 15 May, 21:50, mika wrote:
>> On May 15, 1:57 pm, Executive Function
>>> On 15 May, 20:26, mika wrote:
>>>> On May 15, 12:32 pm, Executive Function wrote:
>>>>> On 15 May, 16:11, mika wrote:
>>>>>> On May 14, 3:48 pm, Executive Function wrote:
>
>>>>>>> It's a philosophical issue
>
>>>>>> Not for Absorbed. Quite the contrary - it's a practical issue.
>
>>>>> It was a practical issue to start with until he started getting
>>>>> philosophical with the term 'belief' in a desperate attempt to pull
>>>>> his pants up.
>
>>>> No. *You* tried to turn this into a philosophical discussion when you
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>> "Personally, I take each thought and look for it's opposite, then try
>>>> and see what the two have in common, look for the opposite of that
>>>> thought, and try and see what they have in common. Follow any chain
>>>> like this for long enough and you come to an unanswerable, and that's
>>>> when you stop and *hopefully* live in the moment with a smile on your
>>>> face. :) Whatever thought it was you started with, doesn't matter by
>>>> then. "
>
>>>> Absorbed pointed out that your response comments were not relevant to
>>>> his post, which was accurate. You then tried to divert the
>>>> conversation further into some kind of philosophical discussion about
>>>> belief, which has even less to do with Absorbed's original post. So,
>>>> now you're scrambling to save face, and it's really sadly pathetic.
>
>>>> The conversation as it actually occurred is right up thread for you or
>>>> anyone else to see. Will you check it out, or are you too lazy for
>>>> that as well?
>
>>> Absorbed was talking about verifying belief, and the amount of effort
>>> he puts into that.
>
>> No, he wasn't. He was talking about *experiences* and the amount of
>> effort one puts into determining what they mean.
>
>> Apparently you really are too lazy to verify exactly what is being
>> discussed. Here, I'll do it for you. This is what was actually said:
>
>> Absorbed wrote:
>>> Tom wrote:
>>>> "Absorbed" wrote
>>>>> I find that spending a lot of time thinking about the things I've
>>>>> experienced, that I've begun to figure things out.
>
>>>> Yes, but is a lot enough? How do we know when to stop thinking about
>>>> our experiences and decide, once and for all, what these experiences
>>>> really mean? It seems to me that the more I think about things, the
>>>> more conclusions I start to question, whereas, for some people, it works
>>>> just the opposite.
>
>>> ...
>>> I think the way to approach this is to set strict boundaries about how
>>> much to think about something. It's similar to playing Blackjack in a
>>> casino; it's sensible to say "I'll quit when I lose X amount of money".
>
>>> The problem is how do you set such a boundary. With some decisions, you
>>> make the best decision with the evidence available and that's that. But
>>> if we consider a Chess position as an example, you could think about it
>>> for ages, reading ever deeper. So then I could say how long I consider
>>> it depends on the importance of the decision. And then the boundary has
>>> blurred, as how does one decide how important a decision is? ...
No comment on any of the above? A little too much reality for you to
deal with?
>>> As you can't verify belief (using the ordinary
>>> dict. definition) then I suggested a method where he could break out
>>> of a silly circular time wasting cycle.
>
>> Which was an irrelevant comment that had nothing to do with his
>> original statements.
>
>> You have this habit of attempting to participate in serious
>> discussions without understanding exactly what is being discussed,
>> which wouldn't be a big deal if you were willing to learn a thing or
>> two. However, when your errors or misunderstandings are pointed out
>> to you, instead of asking questions and reviewing the thread to gain
>> some clarity, you defend your errors as if they're relevant and try to
>> divert the conversation, avoiding the fact that you don't grasp the
>> topic at hand. When that doesn't work, you accuse others of taking
>> the conversation too seriously or being too judgmental or whatever
>> other personal attack. Your defensiveness, attachment to your errors
>> and unwillingness to admit mistakes is transparent. I think Tom may
>> be the only participant here who has the patience to deal with that
>> kind of bullshit for much longer.- Hide quoted text -
>
> lmao. Look - disagreement or a different perspective, or even a
> different cognative style is not a personal insult to anyone.
So, this isn't about insults, it's about disagreement or different
perspectives?
> I partcipate in the
> insult thing as much as anyone here and enjoy the giving and the
> recieving.
Wait, now it is about insults?
You are very confused. Your mind is very disorganized right now. It
would be a good idea for you to start trying to see reality as it
really is.
> I don't take it seriously, and I don't expect anyone else
> to either, Ms Judy:P
Like I said, when your errors are pointed out to you, instead of
asking questions and reviewing the thread to gain some clarity, you
try to divert the conversation, and when that doesn't work, you accuse
others of taking the conversation too seriously or being too
judgmental.
You might be better off spending your time on alt.pagan or alt.slack,
you'll fit right in there.
