• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does anyone find this strange?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Holy shit alasdair, how the hell did you pull that one off? DUDE, did you hack the internet or something!?
I did not know that was the definition of humility. See you learn something everyday ;)
I just assumed 'to be humiliated'... and didnt actually think of what the root word means.

until next time L2R, i bid thee adieu.
 
One thing is for sure: it's rather difficult to exude condescension and humility simultaneously (I should know, lol :P).
...
Okay. Since both of you have bid "adieu", let's steer things back on topic (or rather to SOME valid topic at least) rather than this argument over 2 specific individuals' behavior and psychology.

ebola
 
Last edited:
ambiguity said:
2.the fact that life is often said to be in a constant state of movement - a.k.a. change. yet change in this sense is contradictory due to the fact that a 'constant' represents something fixed, while movement is described as precisely the opposite, thus paradoxical.
Click to expand...

This is not paradoxical because change is not a constant in the sense you're implying. Change is only a constant within very limited parameters. Change in itself is the opposite of a constant.
 
You may be right Pegasus, but just to clear up... I am implying that change is a constant in the sense that it is constantly expected to happen. It's an inevitability. Id like to know what you mean by limited paramaters. Your right that change is the opposite of a constant in its definition, but im saying that change is constantly happening, which is what would make it a paradox... im not saying that the idea of change is a constant, im saying that the frequency of change happening is very much a fixed occurence.
 
Really, the OP is just discovering that the world and life are often contradictory. Whether or not these contradictions objectively exist or not, or whether they are a product of human linguistics, or the structure of the human mind, is impossible to say.

I think these thoughts are intriguing, but no more valuable then any other thought.
 
ambiguity said:
Hey man... I clearly stated not every example was a paradox.
Some were coincidental, ironic or even just simply peculiar.
I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and giving no credit where its clearly due.
My findings are nothing short of miraculous.
But whatever, if you want to use your 'realism' approach to criticize my observations in a disdainful matter, thats fine.
I guess my way of thinking just a little too http://www.flickr.com/photos/67602445@N05/6154444625/ for you.
Click to expand...

Glad you found a good spot for this picture then. :)
That's the kind of context I was looking for. Not that I care too much, don't get me wrong.

And ...hmm...this is probably blog material. You always risk something when you put yourself out there, and people don't like to read what they consider to be naive stuff, it angers those who've hung out on forums for too long ;) lol
I see nothing wrong with finding that stuff interesting. It's all good

3rd_I_blind said:
Famous last words...
Click to expand...

That definitely seems to be possibly the case, or just a phase, who knows? Some people survive and do other things, some don't.
 
Last edited:
This is basically all summed up with one word: metaphor. You just need to let people know that you are talking about a metaphor, and the details of the reality of the metaphor aren't always relevant to the details of what you're using its image to convey.

ambiguity said:
But after someone has done it once, they learn from they're mistakes.
They dont go running back to it like an addict just out of rehab.

You are literally forced to mediate your psychedelic use, because of the way the drugs begin to treat you if over-consumed
abuse and psychedelic use have no correlation.
Click to expand...

These are not true, and are not supported by bluelight, and are signs the conversation has strayed like a motherfucker...

I dont understand how I'm trolling. Arent we just letting the conversation evolve naturally, and enjoying it?
Click to expand...

People expect a little more from threads, generally. You might be letting evolve naturally, but trolling is just a general label for people being at a forum for the wrong reason. Go out and enjoy thy psychedelics in the wild, and in moderation, not that you need to be told such things. Be wary, that any wisdom sounds like foolishness when spoken over the airways. It's the gift and curse of humanity. Or something...
 
ambiguity said:
You may be right Pegasus, but just to clear up... I am implying that change is a constant in the sense that it is constantly expected to happen. It's an inevitability. Id like to know what you mean by limited paramaters. Your right that change is the opposite of a constant in its definition, but im saying that change is constantly happening, which is what would make it a paradox... im not saying that the idea of change is a constant, im saying that the frequency of change happening is very much a fixed occurence.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I mean by "limited parameters". Change is only a constant in the sense of its overall flow. Each individual instance of change is not a constant however; it is actually the opposite of being constant.
 
Who's to say, in light of the immensity of it all (multiverse, etc.), that it doesn't all average out to anything different than some cosmic constant in stasis?
 
^Regardless, change is different if you look at the issue from afar, as in in your example, or if you look at individual instances. Continuity can't ever apply to a single instance of something changing, as a change is the opposite of continuity. If something changes, it ceases to be the same (constant) and becomes something different. Continuity can only apply when individual occurrences are strung together and examined as a whole. This distinction is important because in the OP, he claimed there was a paradox concerning change being constant, while this is not the case because two different senses of change are used.
 
Why is television static called static? Static in the air causing random electrical impulses hence a false signal? What is static about that?

And to the original poster. I think focusing on things like that will lead you down the road of obsessive compulsivity.

To quote joe dirt "Why are boobs good?!"
 
^Isn't television static the visual interpratation of a constant unchanging electrical signal?

Was that even a question or just rhetorical?
 
Its EMF interference and its random, not static. It doesnt make sense but is simply the word we use for it. Demonstrating no connection between the two concepts.

I simply don't believe in some pseudonumerology. I believe some lines of thinking and behavior can become the trappings on mental instability(This is based on my experience with marijuana induced paranoia and looking for random correlations).
 
I have 3 things to say:

1) English isn't the world's most widely- spoken language. Half the world's population is Chinese.

2) Being humble is essential to humility. It's like saying you can find happiness without being happy.

3) These so-called "findings" aren't miraculous. In the good words of Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
 
Tude said:
I have 3 things to say:

1) English isn't the world's most widely- spoken language. Half the world's population is Chinese.
Click to expand...

True, but English covers the range more.

And as well, more Chinese speak English than "vice versa" (native English or knowing English, but not Chinese), and you'll see far more English writing available in China and every other country, or language saturation area...
 
Plus, you wouldn't really say the the Chinese speak 'Chinese', their are many dialects in the country. People from one area might not even be able to understand those from another.
 
I think we are missing the boat here. There should be two camps on this issue. Either its pure coincidence, which is where I fall. Or it is some deeper meaning octet rule thing.

So, to cancel out some these language arguments lets just get to the etymology.

infinity
late 14c., from O.Fr. infinité "infinity; large number or quantity" (13c.), from L. infinitatem (nom. infinitas) "boundlessness, endlessness," from infinitus boundless, unlimited" (see infinite). Infinitas was used as a loan-translation of Gk. apeiria "infinity," from apeiros "endless."


As you can see, the words infinity is derived from do not share the same number of letters. I think this is evidence enough that the number of characters is meaningless.

The symbol is algebraic and called the Lemniscape. Etymology From Latin lēmniscātus meaning "decorated with ribbons".

John Wallis is credited with introducing the symbol in 1655 in his De sectionibus conicis.[2][3] One conjecture about why he chose this symbol is that he derived it from a Roman numeral for 1000 that was in turn derived from the Etruscan numeral for 1000, which looked somewhat like CIƆ and was sometimes used to mean "many." Another conjecture is that he derived it from the Greek letter ω (omega), the last letter in the Greek alphabet.[4] Also, before typesetting machines were invented, ∞ was easily made in printing by typesetting the numeral 8 on its side.

So, without further adieu. I think thats case closed, Im open to arguments.
 
"Change is the only constant". What about the truth-value of that proposition itself? If it is subject to change, then it will at some time become false. If the truth-value is constant, then we ought to say that "Change (and the truth value of this proposition) are the only constants". Of course, then we have to go one level higher to preserve our truth, so we inevitably generate an endless set of meta-truths, and in fact end up with an infinite number of constants. The statement has always seemed like one of those obviously self-contradictory bits of nonsense that somehow gets percieved as profound. I think this illustrates a wider trend, OP; you're reading too deeply into things that are actually pretty trivial. There are all sorts of genuinely fascinating phenomena in the world, there's no need to manufacture your own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top