Philosophers

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sputnik on Mon 04 Jul 2011, 11:30

Oh no, because I think it's kind of a fruitless effort to contemplate about the nature of the unconscious mind. The proof of the pudding is in the eating...this couldn't be more true then for the subject of the unconciousness. To 'consciously contemplate' the nature of the unconsciousness is not only using the wrong side of the brain, it won't yield any experience....you need to choose the right medium.

This is why I mentioned Dante. The Divine Comedy describes Dante's journey through Hell, Purgatory and Paradise, but it is written as a comedy story...he uses the "right" side of his brain to let you feel the "breath & nature of the snake"...so to speak...

When you write poetry (or any other artistic works like music or painting) it makes you use mostly the right hemisphere of the brain, where you process 20 million information units per second, while the left brain hemisphere (philosophy and logic, science etc.) only processes 40 information units per second.

And 40 information units per second can hardly explain to you what 20 million information units per second are capable of....the unconsciousness is like the ocean...if you want to learn to swim in it you got to have to get wet....that's all Smile
avatar
Sputnik

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Tue 05 Jul 2011, 21:58

When you write poetry (or any other artistic works like music or painting) it makes you use mostly the right hemisphere of the brain, where you process 20 million information units per second, while the left brain hemisphere (philosophy and logic, science etc.) only processes 40 information units per second.

Whats the source of this 20 million to 40 ratio and was it consciously mathematicised

Oh no, because I think it's kind of a fruitless effort to contemplate about the nature of the unconscious mind. The proof of the pudding is in the eating...this couldn't be more true then for the subject of the unconciousness. To 'consciously contemplate' the nature of the unconsciousness is not only using the wrong side of the brain, it won't yield any experience....you need to choose the right medium.

Personally, i think its vital to contemplate the nature of the unconscious specifically to try and recognise where it interjects into the conscious mind
I have to agree that its fruitless to point the conscious intellect at the unconscious invariably and believe that some form of scientific pattern could be formed
Because everyone may have differing bandwidths of what they recognise as conscious mind

The conscious mind can look for effects , influences, patterns , messages from the unconscious , not with the intention to understand the source but with the intention to contemplate how best to utilise this information in present time like honing the instincts and intuitions

Also it depends on how a persona perceives the unconscious , if at all, for example, an aetheist artist may just wait around for what they term Inspirations or moments of creativity and when these arrive periodically, they may just credit themselves for this occurence , they never think about the source beyond themselves and would credit all their great work to their own disciplined endeavour only
Whereas an occultist would believe that the unconscious is the domain of non physical intelligences both creative and destructive and which have direct influence to human consciousness through the doors of perception whenever they may be opened
Whereas a religious nut might just call it god or the devil

And there will be many other theorys out there

The aetheist artist has it real easy because their suspended ignorance allows them to live a materialistic dominated existence without wasting too much energy contemplating the source which can turn out to be the lost trail for many if they be stuck in one form of perception which is what is taught in our exclusively biological thinking societys

Some people just refer to the unconscious as their "guide" and the consciously confirmed pattern of this "guides" behaviour is that if you ever turn your conscious attention directly at the "guide" it immediately disappears , but as soon as you stop focussing attention directly at it , it is back

You could say a dog is a completly conscious energy motivated animal whereas a cat is an unconscious energy motivated animal
avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sputnik on Wed 06 Jul 2011, 15:52

A human being has about 100 billion brain cells.

The hard disk on my computer holds 60 gigabytes, so we can say that the 'storage capacity' of the human mind is equal to about 1666 x 60 gigabites, the brain looks pretty good.

The computational power of our brains comes from the fact that we have a lot of neurons.

Some people's (wet) dream is to built A COMPUTER that will surpass the power of that of a human brain.

They are to fail, but that is another story Twisted Evil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think it is vital to MAKE CONTACT with the SUBconcious world and afterwards...
you write something like Dante's Inferno Very Happy
avatar
Sputnik

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sputnik on Wed 06 Jul 2011, 16:01

Oh, do you remember the picture I drew you asked me about some time ago?

that picture (like all of my art) was created while I was somewhat consciously 'absent' ..

.. as soon as I start painting or drawing, I am as if "in a different state of being"..

you know?

BUT...it 'IS' NOT something or somebody else - rather, it is another 'unconscious' aspect of myself,

being able to..see things in 'this way'...

I do think I am guided by other "intelligent beings" ... but I refuse "occupation" in principle...

I do not consent to "occupation", ( I know about this posibility to achieve similar results)

BUT...I am totally against it, for important reasons..
avatar
Sputnik

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Thu 07 Jul 2011, 22:22

but I refuse "occupation" in principle
but its quite nice on those shared special occassions wouldnt you say Razz

The subconscious , is this the overlap between the conscious and unconscious , in your view ?
avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sputnik on Fri 08 Jul 2011, 09:46

LOL, Honi soit qui mal y pense. I was refering to entity posession. Some Shamans allow themselves to be posessed by entities and others don't practice this.

Psychologists and psychiatrists, unsurprisingly, take a much more limited view of the capabilities of the unconscious mind. Freud dispised the term 'subconscious'..for him the only antithesis is conscious vs unconscious...and a state discribed as preconscious

"Subconsciousness" has its precise equivalent in German, where the word (inappropriately?) employed is >das Unterbewusstsein<

Your definition of subconscious is quite nice actually. And why not...I am very sure that such a overlapping actually exists...mine likes to "inform" me about all the important issues minutes before waking up..and starting a new day..it is also a good time for consultations of friendly spirit-entities..
that make "occupations" (posessions, take-overs, etc) redundant...it's nothing I would suscribe to..
with one exception though...a physical take-over can take place while in a certain conscious mental state, and it's purpose is to teach you some skill..but with your CONSCIOUS consent..that's what Tantrists and Buddhists (in connection to martial arts) sometimes practice..the teacher can enter the energy body of the student and move it with his spirit. The student will move like as moved by a ghost...and 'feel' the perfected sequence of a movement..once experienced, this can then be retrieved by the subconscious mind of the student whenever needed. But this is quite a bit different from the orthodox 'spirit entity posession' were the posessed will suffer a conplete mental black out...during the session of physical occupation.
avatar
Sputnik

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Fri 08 Jul 2011, 22:41

plaisir a celui qui pense plaisir de Idea
i hold in high regard the term subconscious because that allows for the possibility of communications between the 2 states of consciousness
Pre conscious suggests its only 1 way, where i believe it is 2 way , hence my alarm example here ,
If i go to bed and consider i wish to wake at 7.30am, even if i set an alarm, i will wake about 1 minute before the alarm , thats a nice trick that must be a coordination between conscious intelligence and the beyond consciousness
avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Fri 03 Feb 2012, 02:44

Some Rand insight on Reason - some good shit ,though i don't concur exactly with her thoughts , could do with more public females developing this advanced state of rationalisation


I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are impossible. Why do we kill wild animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And that is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind -- a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence. And more: no man or mystical elite can hold a whole society subjugated to their arbitrary assertions, edicts and whims, without the use of force. Anyone who resorts to the formula: "It's so, because I say so," will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later. Communists, like all materialists, are neo-mystics: it does not matter whether one rejects the mind in favor of revelations or in favor of conditioned reflexes. The basic premise and the results are the same.

Such is the nature of the evil which modern intellectuals have helped to let loose in the world -- and such is the nature of their guilt.

- - - - -

Since "challenge" is your slogan, I will say that if you are looking for a challenge, you are facing the greatest one in history. A moral revolution is the most difficult, the most demanding, the most radical form of rebellion, but that is the task to be done today, if you choose to accept it. When I say "radical," I mean it in its literal and reputable sense: fundamental. Civilization does not have to perish. The brutes are winning only by default. But in order to fight them to the finish and with full rectitude, it is the altruist morality that you have to reject.

Now, if you want to know what my philosophy, Objectivism, offers you -- I will give you a brief indication. I will not attempt, in one lecture, to present my whole philosophy. I will merely indicate to you what I mean by a rational morality of self-interest, what I mean by the opposite of altruism, what kind of morality is possible to man and why. I will preface it by reminding you that most philosophers -- especially most of them today -- have always claimed that morality is outside the province of reason, that no rational morality can be defined, and that man has no practical need of morality. Morality, they claim, is not a necessity of man's existence, but only some sort of mystical luxury or arbitrary social whim; in fact, they claim, nobody can prove why we should be moral at all; in reason, they claim, there's no reason to be moral.

I cannot summarize for you the essence and the base of my morality any better than I did it in Atlas Shrugged. So, rather than attempt to paraphrase it, I will read to you the passages from Atlas Shrugged which pertain to the nature, the base and the proof of my morality.

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch -- or build a cyclotron -- without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

"But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival -- so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think.'

"A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

"There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence -- and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

"A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is not alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

"An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer -- and that is the way he has acted through most of his history [...]

"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice -- and the alternative his nature offers himm is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man -- by choice; he has to hold his life as a value -- by choice; he has to learn to sustain it -- by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues -- by choice.

"A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.

"Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

"Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being -- not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement -- not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason.

"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man -- for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life."

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what Objectivism offers you.

And when you make your choice, I would like you to remember that the only alternative to it is communist slavery. The "middle-of-the-road" is like an unstable, radioactive element that can last only so long -- and its time is running out. There is no more chance for a middle-of-the-road.

The issue will be decided, not in the middle, but between the two consistent extremes. It's Objectivism or communism. It's a rational morality based on man's right to exist -- or altruism, which means: slave labor camps under the rule of such masters as you might have seen on the screens of your TV last year. If that is what you prefer, the choice is yours.

I hope this may not be fully true here, but I have met too many young people in universities, who have no clear idea, not even in the most primitive terms, of what capitalism really is. They [your elders] do not let you know what the theory of capitalism is, nor how it worked in practice, nor what was its actual history.


The real danger is that communism is an enemy whom they [our so-called intellectual leaders] do not dare to fight on moral grounds, and it can be fought only on moral grounds.

This then, is the choice. Think it over. Consider the subject, check your premises, check past history and find out whether it is true that men can never be free. It isn't true, because they have been. Find out what made it possible. See for yourself. And then if you are convinced -- rationally convinced -- then let us save the world together. We still have time.

To quote Galt once more, such is the choice before you. Let your mind and your love of existence decide.
avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sputnik on Fri 03 Feb 2012, 02:51

LOL, not commenting on Rands rants...rather being amused about your faible for a Bolshevik Operative like Rand herself..LOL indeed..

Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum..to be precise...mega LOL

What did Rosenbaum taught us?

to abandon all social responsibility, obsessively focus on ourselves, and destroy all government institutions. lol!

.....but then, Tsarion isn't really all that smart.

P.S. Zionism stinks!
avatar
Sputnik

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Fri 03 Feb 2012, 03:11

but as i said, i don't concur with it completely in its proposed manifested actions , but i recognise an exceptional intellectual feminine when i read one , and i do believe much of what I've seen of her work can only propel human thinking and introspection to a wiser level , whenever anyone talks about what is best for humanity , it is never perfect because no such thing exists , but she dared to form opinions on the nature of being then make them public
Do you not admire this Lada ? or do you believe she was simply a thought propagandist with a mission for particular chaos or change in the western mindset
avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sputnik on Fri 03 Feb 2012, 03:32

Lada is now --->Sputnik

well....I might just not take her tooo serious because I know tooo much about art nouveau propaganda myself...

and reading MARX is definetely way more fun...I am serious...try Marx.
avatar
Sputnik

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Fri 03 Feb 2012, 03:38

se se sputnik , marx , ok its on the long list of to dos , elaborate anything you feel is inlightening from marx
avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sputnik on Fri 03 Feb 2012, 03:44

"But one thing I can assure you of that I am not a Marxist" ~Karl Marx

study
avatar
Sputnik

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  tgII on Thu 09 Feb 2012, 06:02

Marx thought nothing wrong with money creation, no, no problem there, said Marx.
avatar
tgII

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sputnik on Fri 10 Feb 2012, 02:12

I disagree TG

Let's have Marx talk for himself, shall we...

"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks."

"Capital is money, capital is commodities. By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself.
It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs."


~Karl Marx


His remarks about money were always quite sarcastic. The only thing he thought to create any lasting wealth was through human labor.




avatar
Sputnik

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  tgII on Fri 10 Feb 2012, 02:43

It's not a matter of disagreeing or agreeing, Sputnik; Marx did not
discuss the creation of money which has stolen the energy of the
labor class he appears to be in sympathy with. He did not define
what money is and who creates it.

Marx had a handler who I have identified elsewhere who was connected
to bankers in the City of London. Marx's definition is vague and far too
abstract for the working class to gain anything from.
avatar
tgII

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Fri 13 Jul 2012, 00:57

Im not sure if I've stumbled on a true saint here operating under the catholic church or a deep level jesuit agent who's promoting bigpharma in its early days
Hes a highly educated man of great skills , in public speaking , interspersing humour with excellently devised metaphor and analogy to deliver simple nougats of wisdom about the human condition
If this guy was preaching now, church would be a very inviting place to go to get the mind stimulated about the spirit of being and its relationship to the divine
Ive checked out a few of his vids, and only found a couple points that turned me off a bit, his ignorant or jesuit promotion of pharma in the pp vids and where he proclaims the complete flexibility of the psyche to be changed at will, he also proclaims the psyche somatic relationship but then he also hints at a fatality complex about cancer forgetting his comments on psyche somatic relationship and therefore the possibility ala bruce lipton of the mind reversing the physical declines etc

But i don't want to say anything negative about a guy who spoke without any props for years on tv and radio about conditions of the human psyche etc in a seemingly progressive expansion for peoples understanding

Theres nothing like this on tv nowadays from the church, they don't want people to become aware of the enemy within

The first vid series here on temptation is very intriguing as he puts forth an interesting take on the 666 phenomena
Agent 006 is the negative temptation initially outside ones psyche that throws the torch of temptation into ones Id so to speak
If the person then takes that bait and the act becomes habit , that progression is explained as 006 now existing inside the person and taking the title agent 066
After some time, this habit may become a Compulsion , at this point agent 066 becomes agent 666 and now has control over its host through one of the 3 main Id subconscious areas of influence

HERE is SAINT OR AGENT FULTON SHEEN in all his original glory from the 50s and 60s tv series


avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  tgII on Fri 13 Jul 2012, 01:40

Someone I had forgotten all these years: Fulton Sheen. Brilliant. Born and growing up
in the Catholic Church certainly had its hidden significance that you don't realize until
perhaps it is too late or when you are older. Don't know which is worse, perhaps both?

I have several of Fulton Sheen's books and used to listen to him often while growing up.

His significance is that Sheen was considered the first 'televangelist.' This is where Sheen
was educated, the only private Catholic school in America established by American Catholic
Bishops. This was always problematic for the Vatican: a particularly American type of
Catholicism.


    The Catholic University of America (CUA)


Sheen studied philosophy; mental and moral philosophy.

For example: Conquering Protestantism with superior intellectual firepower re: epistemological
warfare.



The American magazine was a Jesuit publication and had a lot of influence. If I am not
mistaken Sheen wrote many essays that were included in the American magazine.

Don't expect any sympathy from the The Catholic University of America towards the LGBT
crowd either. Wonder how this goes over with the huge impact the extorted LGBT perverts
have had on the Department of Justice (DoJ)?



The Cult of Rome is behind the Catholic Church; and herein lies the incredible deception that
billions of people on earth have been literally sucked into. Hiding behind all this is the ever
present element of commerce when one of their popes declared all land as that of the Vatican's
property including every soul born into this world and theVatican held the trusts for everyone of
those souls.

Had not Martin Sheen been a Catholic Bishop, would his message on mental and moral
philosophy been just as significant on the lives he apparently influenced?
avatar
tgII

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Fri 13 Jul 2012, 03:02

Frank O Collins explains the Roman Cult and western Roman Law...video lecture...

avatar
quicksilvercrescendo

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  tgII on Fri 13 Jul 2012, 06:38

If you get through Frank O'Collins' discussion, then the first thing to do is read this:

avatar
tgII

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Tue 21 Aug 2012, 02:04

avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Wed 22 Aug 2012, 01:37

George on Che

avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Thu 23 Aug 2012, 00:24

Gallloway is priceless on his level 1 lectures . one must forgive his roman catholic misunderstood idealism , as he is truly entertaining , educational , and one of the few public voices of rebellion on the corporate imperialist hold on uk and usa society

Episode 2 = The world Of pIrates Very Happy

One jewel memory of a rumsfeld statement of high audacity ......

when america was about to invade iraq , rumsfeld was asked by a journalist if the war was just an excuse to control iraqs oil , rumsfeld answers LOOK ITS NOT OUR FAULT IF GOD PUTS OUR OIL UNDER OTHER PEOPLES COUNTRIES

And on Israel the pirate , hehawhehaw







And Episode 1



Episode 3 on Syria
avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Sat 01 Sep 2012, 00:49



avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  KapitanScarlet on Thu 13 Sep 2012, 02:00

ive posted a few videos of george galloway highlighting some of his more positive traits in speaking from the heart , stating evidence to illuminate his points , being intuitively articulate in expression and also in some of those videos ive watched , it can be deduced (in my opinion) that galloway is a roman catholic idealist

But to show another side of him to add to the roman catholic idealism blinkering, ive also found here that he is completly blinkered hook line and sinker with reference to british reported history

the guy that phones in to his radio show here is being very reasonable in the discussion but it is galloway that loses the plot because of his rigid imported belief in history

There is plenty of alternative evidence available to challenge galloways beliefs on recent historys accuracy's, and as one of his mantras is justice and truth, it really should be his urgent perogative to research all that material out there before allowing an unjustified emotional response like he does here on the subject discussed , i mean unjustified in light of his ignorance to having viewed all the fors and againsts of the subject discussed .

So a roman catholic idealist that is historically conditioned by the media reports and schooling of british history, which to be fair is a condition that many of the people in the uk are cocooned in , but in this audio, he would not allow the guy proper respect and time to put forth his argument , a rare publicly recorded and transmitted error by galloway , but no one is perfect , he still does some good work in other areas of public revelation, maybe in time, he will garner the wisdom to question his own rigid foundational beliefs and not resort to meltdown state whenever those beliefs are force-examined by other persons perspectives

avatar
KapitanScarlet
Admin

Posts : 3292
Join date : 2009-11-16

http://darythymdivine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophers

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum