Reciprocality

I think you are doing more then mere rambling, you are certeintly making good points and asking relevant questions But i want you to clearify, on the one hand one can argue the ethics of censoring certain voices on a cartain platform, on the other one may speak of having a policeofficer pointing his gun at you because of your speech, that is the potential within any law not obeyed. On the first one i would deplatform the fuck out of many, many people. But i would let ANY opinion pass on the latter (in western societies). Edit: i would somewhat respect others voting for SOME restrictions on free speech while not doing it myself, other restrictions again i would sense strong repulsion towards.

Can i ask you Leo, when last did you have a red hour? Or do you maybe think that red have no value in lives of those who transcended it beyond green? Not neccesarily caused by exterior stimulus even, altough that would be a far easier answer. : )

I can try, but the chances it will make adequate sense becomes smaller, and the quantity of words multiply. Of all those things i said, the scenario of negatives as positives are the important one. Lets say person A have faith in god, more specific a faith in some creator which within its creation planted all human and elsewise metaphysical potential. Person B says that person A is wrong, for person B believes that the universe had no plan, antithetical to person A, and is therefore a disbelief. Then comes person C along, who do not believe that either is wrong, nor do he believe that either is correct. He believes Person A and B are "uneccesarily" correct, not a disbelief, but a non-belief. When you think someones beliefs are too improper you do not only have "non-belief" of their belief, but you have a disbelief. A disbelief is itself a positive, it is A BELIEF of somethings validity, while a "non-belief" is not, and i add: by its definition. I tried to explain that your disbelief of "meta-narratives" are itself a meta-narrative, if you had only a non-belief of the persons meta narrative you could IMPOSSIBLE conclude that it were improper. Meta narratives are the all "isms", and those that you specifically refuted. edit: Now i could be challanged on many things i have written here, and if something seems off then i welcome you to "destroy" it. : ) edit2: If you take my words as premises you shortly after will be able to conclude that all interactions, all acts, all concepts are derivative of beliefs, further showing you that metanarratives are everywhere. The yellow postmodern beauty is when those are teared down or when many believes are changed with hypotheticals/openmindedness, so that when somebody comes along and tells you they believe death is a construction you can answer: yes indeed it could be, and indeed it could be that it is not. Not NEEDING it to be either or, as you will see many do.

That were my mistake, haha. Should have connected that, for the swedes public sector are indeed somewhat psychotic, stockholm more than any.

Sounds very healthy to be that aware of ones assimilation prosess, than again, it will lead to potent identity crisis. Which take many orange people out.

To try to kill another by means of arms, feet and hands are indeed low consciousness, in its doing. Now if you avoided lower conscious activities alotogether you would die in an instant. What one presumably would like to do is finding those insights in any conscious rank so to further live a LIFE. "no mma because lower consciousness" is fallacious to the degree begging of question is fallacious, what i will ask you is what about the act of trying to kill another is so "bad" that it undermines the positives which can be shown to come out of it? Or is it "bad" only for those which positives do not follow thereafter, in which case your overall sentiment presumably would be changed.

And then again, so are you doing concluding on the subject matter at all. It can not be otherwise. This is a postmodern fallacy of expectations, YOU are the one expecting something rigid, definable, understandable, categorical, stratificational for knowledge to BE at all, its only that truth adheres not to your rules. This is postmodernism being the ultimate materialism, dualism, empericism, epistemological realism, by a simple fallacy of expectation. The yellow postmodernist will understand that he can not conclude a positive due to those negatives, some of the french philosophers understood this, and would never have claimed any set abstractions (in its relation to any other set) to be "neccesary" or "neccesarily not", only "not neccesarily". There is ofcourse a second layer to it, in which the "not neccesarily" itself is questioned as "not neccesarily", giving place for epistemological absurdism. Which can function as premises for ethical absurdism, and make one nihilistic.

I think the tax funded public secotor in the us is a monstreously stabile and steady collective, i do not see your comment direct relation to mine and nor do i think it it will collapse any time soon. Psychosis would be a designation begging thousand questions while the nihilism one begges but a few. It seems anti liberation of speech-therefore thought is coming to stay, atleast for 20/30 years, and we better suck it up.. taking responsebility for the REASONS it came. Edit, that is to say: to make the many unequal outcomes in our societies to a lesser extent derivative of unequal oppurtunity, and to the furthest extent the result of those disinterested, apathetical to their place in the world. This is ofcourse an immensly hard task, but one we can not afford giving up on.

Lots of good advices, "tunnel vision" is a word dependant on 'negative relatives/relations', for example that one as you assume judge mma more 'beautiful' due to it NOT being any one of those others. I judge it most beautiful because 1. all these other modes of fighting get intelectualized as superior to eachother within it and 2. that one goes as already said 'for the kill' which is the equlibrium to many of the techniques which are mere means. The sport is half human half animal, it has the name of "mixed martial arts" but would better be called "the peak of all martial arts combined/the peak of human survival", would sound rather weird but i am after truth not utility, if that can even be done. Many of those other sports are in themselves, i find, rather boring, because of the constructed baundraries which makes due to perfection of techinques but very little beige survival. However, BJJ is in its techinques alone quite spectacular, and in its own non-letality beautiful in another way. Now i may be struck by tunnel vision, but seems to be a say begging a thousand questions. I am not planning on making this a career, a hobby would suffice.

If that is so could you tell me one place in which his mind is not open, clear, nuanced and inspiering? Merely qurious, i haven't looked him up yet so.

Impro theathre sounds like psychology 101, as you perhaps alluded to : P

Instead of creating the life i wanna live i would try to live the life i wanna create, you know, not putting 'the cart before the horse'.

Pure insanity to make such a thing illegal, to an ultimate extent suicidal and nihilistic.

Go for it, crystalized spatial inteligence is completely undermined in all standard formal education i know of. If it were either a movie or a game like fortnite the choice is pretty simple. The childs mind will spontaneously try to fix relatable problems as he do not play the game, which self-evidently is a great thing. This regards all games ofcourse, by definition, but most games hits a point of diminishing returns, the returns of creative games like fortnite however will diminish paralell only to the one playing it. Or rather, the one subjected to the game becomes the bottleneck of the game. : )

Knowing would not hurt, but beliefs will make due for second place

Haha one better look out for those types i presume. I think you have a deluded idea of this sport though, it is not that they are more animal than they are human, they engage in one act, as described in the thread which stimulates their innate animal. Some do indeed embody anger and frustration in their general persona, while the majorty from what i have seen seems absurdly normal, while other again have deep respect for their oponents AS fellow humans. (edit: this in congruence with any developmental stage, as well as conscious, though the destribution will be skewed toward the shorter end of sticks) I think it is a good advice you are giving however, for one to be careful threading in to the sport unexperienced.

I see mentions of Cercei in the thread, i believe she had just as much blue though, so ofcourse red aswell. This mother of dragons on the other hand, she would in deteriation become solid at that. "All men must die, but we are not men" -Daenerys Targaryen

I want naught achieved, only to have turned stones in solitude. If achievement can be such a stone than I welcome it, but know its essence were the conclusion, NEVER the premise. Among whom will I witness the divinity of mere stones, I dare call no name, for if I knew a name it would be a premise. This I can not deconstruct, for emotion is intra-human axioms. It is those axioms and those only deconstruction were due to, and without which apathy emerges. Without which a soul asks only a minimum so to confirm his previous delusion. .. To achieve means to corrupt all thoughts, to emphasize a the judge in one’s ethics. You say the judge is accidental, a mere means to which the achievement is the end. To which I answer: if that were not the case, how could you know, is it not eternally self-referential? Or even worse, how is there anything subjected to reference at all? Think for a while, when last did you in relation to anything human avoid actions which came to your awareness by no will of your own, which appealed to nothing short of a judge outside? And how many millions and millions more of those will there be? If ART could be cognitive, then would art not be the avoidance of adhering to ANY such judge? As opposed to the opposite, which we see in constructed aesthetics and its perfected material end?

Feelings presuppose the rationale by which freespeech could ever be enacted as law. More precise we can call it 'emotions', it is with the emotions of the speaker as well as listener in mind such laws could ever be sustainable, if there were no emotions in the reciever's end to take into considerations the law would be extranous itself, as it even more obvious is with the one speaking. There is due to extreme intricacies speech becomes hatered to degrees beyond 'opinions in and by itself', when have a statement become explicit in its prescriptions as opposed to relatively innocent descriptions? Could there even be such a thing as an opinion without underlying calls to actions, in a fatalistic sense? (i would presume the yellow types sees the connection between fatalism and a totality as its own essence) I think the mere manifistation of a human 'neccesarily aiming' for which 'fact' to point forward is testament to some unified field *those in between, ultimatley causing implications within his 'mere' usage of any data. Seeing that the bondraries between calls to action and opinions are this emorpheus i can hardly see how a third boundrary of good/evil can possibly be drawn so not to cause more harm then good in a more then 10 year timeframe, then again; begging the question. All under the premise that the interactions concerned the humans inbetween were on governmental property opperating as civilians as opposed to paid for their service in that exact area, to not utter the latter caveat would be hillariously destructive to the cause. *those as in the descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy.

GREAT question, and by extention i would add: what happens when psychological diagnoses are looked upon as philosophical lenses, more so then 'less then ideal' personality traits? I think such times would be reminiscent of daseinanalytics, so there would flow over with people not having to explicitly mask themselves. Now the implicit "mask" would perhaps never really go away, but it would be a beautiful start non the less.

Yes Arthur, so it is.

I believe my post were deleted, but a short version is an innocent question asking maybe instead that there are those you should kill. And perhaps a proposition that murder is not a categorical evil. Why should you kill them, and are those emotions leading one to such desires to be enacted? If not to an absolution then so not to remain undermined. And even which emotions murder actually sprungs within us, especially men? Are they in themselves a mere self disgust, or is there more? I would not claim knowledge on these things, which is especially why to cover it is tragical.

Haha, well it weren't meant as pessimistic as you may thought it were, for it sure sounded so reading it for myself. A first-principled suicidality weren't quite what i were going for.

But than you complain also about the asserted, not only the asserter. Does not mean you validate the reality of the asserted.

We think we live forever, thus follows destructive avocations, conspiracies is but one of those.