57 replies to this topic

[vava]

Sienfeldian wisdom can go a long way to explaining life's intricacies. Everything else you can probably learn from Homer. (Homer Simpson that is...) link.

[Anileve]

Sorry, you did not do a good job! Again, it is "amuse-gueule!"
Not even close! The idea of the provocation may be a trick of your mind! I gave the explanation to Vava.
There was no disguise, it was an overt criticism. Nothing personal. Let me spell it out for you, I hope that will help!
"Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion.
  Fun is but a constant denial of the Unhappy!"

That means:
1- Those who constantly look for excitement in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE passion. It is simply an ersatz. The "Philosophy" of excitement is simply the denial of  a much deeper misery.
2- Those who constantly look for fun are in fact unhappy and in denial of their misery,  displaying to the World a happy, fun loving face
Those who knew how to consume me felt otherwise!

You must be careful with your “each chosen word having a double meaning,” for the effort is so overworked that it attempts to strike but misses the target, evidently with more than one person. Unless of course you enjoy a solitary theatrical amusement….

I appreciate the clarification of the meaning behind your poetry, however, my views haven’t changed. I still believe that the statements are nonsensical. “Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion?”

It’s like saying “Education is but a desperate longing for Knowledge.” I think a logician may say “Duh! Have we discovered that the earth is round all over again?” but a presumptuous fictionist may say: “Those who are constantly looking for education in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE knowledge." That’s what I call a straw-man.

And believe me, I foster no desires of consuming you, or your rambunctious thoughts.

Ambivalent! I don't know what you have just touched and/or why you felt touched, but it was not me! Not even trying!

As for "touching" you, perhaps a little French lesson may help.
tou·ché
interj.
Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.

Apparently in your case, it was not a fitting comment.

[Siamanto]

You must be careful with your “each chosen word having a double meaning,” for the effort is so overworked that it attempts to strike but misses the target, evidently with more than one person. Unless of course you enjoy a solitary theatrical amusement….

The fact that you lack the humor and the mental agility to to comprehend anything that is beyond your rigid and narrowly focused and maybe overly rationalist mindframe, should not be a reason to cater my words, style and thoughts to what you would or may understand! This is a public forum and my universe and audience is not limited to you, even when I reply to your posts!
Are you telling me that one should constrain oneself and conform oneself to your - or someone else's - Mental World and Psyche? I wonder what happened to your speech about Passion, Individuality, non-Conformism and...?

I appreciate the clarification of the meaning behind your poetry, however, my views haven’t changed. I still believe that the statements are nonsensical. “Excitement is but a desperate longing for Passion?”

I understand! Nobody would be able to overcome such a deeply rooted denial in less than a day! It takes time, in many cases forever!

It’s like saying “Education is but a desperate longing for Knowledge.” I think a logician may say “Duh! Have we discovered that the earth is round all over again?” but a presumptuous fictionist may say: “Those who are constantly looking for education in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE knowledge." That’s what I call a straw-man.

First of all, Education is a means to bring Knowledge to us. Excitement is NOT a means to bring Passion into us.
Second of all, Knowledge IS NOT innate, Passion IS!
Most of all, the concept of Education is based on the awareness of a innate LACK of Knowledge! We wouldn't have Educational Institutions if we thought that we were already full of Knowledge!
There's no denial in this case. At the contrary, full awareness.

I think a logician may say “Duh! Have we discovered that the earth is round all over again?”

I think that a Logician would say: "Please consult a Dictionary! Logic is not concerned with empirical facts; Logic is merely concerned with the consistency and coherence of a thought process or a "Thought System" i.e. a set of inter-related statements!"
You may be confusing Mathematical Disciplines and Experimental Sciences.

but a presumptuous fictionist may say: “Those who are constantly looking for education in their life are, in fact, desperately trying to compensate for the lack of TRUE knowledge." That’s what I call a straw-man.

The Passion and Thirst for Knowledge are innate. There's no valid parallel. Do I need to draw a picture?
If you are so anxious to be logical, I recommend you Kleene's or Quine's "Introduction to Mathematical Logic." Any other Handbook would do it!
Considering your Rationalism, you desperately need to improve your Logical Thinking.

And believe me, I foster no desires of consuming you, or your rambunctious thoughts.

Should I take it as a compliment or a...? In any your choice and I have NO problem with it!

As for "touching" you, perhaps a little French lesson may help.
tou·ché 
interj.
    Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.

Apparently in your case, it was not a fitting comment.

No kidding! What do you think I understood?
You seem to have a quite low opinion of others, and a flatteringly high one of yourself!
I believe that your thought process is too rigid and rational - yet poorly logical - to comprehend certain things! It's not a criticism and nothing personal!

[Armat]

Ed,I am waiting for your input

[Anileve]

The fact that you lack the humor and the mental agility

You’ve used this expression before, try something different it’s getting rather old.

...to to comprehend anything that  is beyond your rigid and narrowly focused and maybe overly rationalist mindframe, should not be a reason to cater my words, style and thoughts to what you would or may understand! This is  a public forum and my universe and audience is not limited to you, even when I reply to your posts!

Where I exceeded at rationality you have certainly balanced it out by lack of. It is a public forum and I would hope that your universe is not limited to my posts or me, otherwise I would really have something to worry about.

Are you telling me that one should constrain oneself  and conform oneself to your - or someone else's - Mental World and Psyche? I wonder what happened to your speech about Passion, Individuality, non-Conformism and...?

I don’t believe that I stated such nonsense in anyone of my posts. In fact, it is you who seems to clamor my beliefs by imposing your own in an overly righteous manner. Don’t worry all of those attributes are still visible to those willing to open their eyes.

I understand! Nobody would be able to overcome such a deeply rooted denial in less than a day! It takes time, in many cases forever!

Surely if you keep muddling equivocal meanings in your trite statements it may indeed take a lifetime to formulate them into coherent statements.

First of all, Education is a means to bring Knowledge to us. Excitement is NOT a means to bring Passion into us.
Second of all, Knowledge IS NOT innate, Passion IS!
Most of all, the concept of Education is based on the awareness of a innate LACK of Knowledge! We wouldn't have Educational Institutions if we thought that we were already full of Knowledge!

This is irrelevant, don’t indulge yourself in such banalities. A knowledgeable person may still crave for education to enhance her intelligence, that doesn’t mean that she is deprived of it. Just as a passionate person may turn to excitement to beef up the supply. Therefore your argument is invalid. And you are wrong once again, passion is not innate, it’s acquired through experience and excitement, thus one is intertwined with the other.

No kidding! What do you think I understood?

From your response regarding “touching” it’s highly doubtful that you did, but I am not going to argue your ad hoc defense attempt.

You seem to have a quite low opinion of others, and a flatteringly high one of yourself!
I believe that your thought process is too rigid and rational - yet poorly logical - to comprehend certain things! It's not a criticism and nothing personal!

I had no idea that you’ve nominated yourself as the spokesperson of my opinion.

I believe that your thought process is too rigid and rational - yet poorly logical - to comprehend certain things! It's not a criticism and nothing personal!

You’ll be making accurate accusation if you were to reduce it to one person in particular. Most of your views are judgmental, tactless and condescending and most importantly lack the necessary formula to be considered seriously. Moreover you have managed to completely vitiate this thread. Perhaps a deflation of that self-amplified tumescence may help the situation.

P.S. This is not a criticism and nothing personal!

[ED]

Ed,I am waiting for your input

I know Armat, and wile reading passion filed and articulate aggressive posts by our respected members in this topic suddenly I remember an age old wisdom.

Rage and arguments are the most effective aphrodisiacs, so I remember, not in so distant past.

[Siamanto]

I know Armat, and wile reading passion filed and articulate aggressive posts by our respected members in this topic suddenly I remember an age old wisdom.

Ed, It is true that we have generated some tension and I sincerely apologize for it. Unfortunately, humans are such that, from time to time, they have to go through such tense moments when expressing themselves!
I'm doing my best to auto-censor - as much as possible??? - and I'll continue my effort!

Rage and arguments are the most effective aphrodisiacs, so I remember, not in so distant past.

That may or may not be the case, but it is surely not my style. I don't believe in whips. I prefer the world of Sacher-Masoch to Marquis de Sade's. (Of course, based on their literary works.)
In any case, that is certainly not how I feel it!

[Siamanto]

You’ve used this expression before, try something different it’s getting rather old.

Previously, you have suggested that
1- I should be careful with my choice of words
2- Moderate my words when I address you
3- Reconsider my style
4-...
Now, you are suggesting that I should not repeat - at least - certain expressions!
Shall I, in the future, PM you each an every post in order to get your permission and blessing?
How do you explain this urge to give orders?

The fact that you lack the humor and the mental agility to to comprehend anything that  is beyond your rigid and narrowly focused and maybe overly rationalist mindframe,

Where I exceeded at rationality you have certainly balanced it out by lack of. .

You seem to have an extremely high opinion of yourself!
If a Rationalist should be considered as a rational person, then an Idealist should be considered an ideal person!
I find you to be a Rationalist, but not necessarily rational. For the record, I even mentioned the poor Logic of your arguments. With the same token, rejecting Rationalist thinking does not mean being irrational or illogical!
Your over confidence is not helping you!

It is a public forum and I would hope that your universe is not limited to my posts or me, otherwise I would really have something to worry about.

I understand the validity or value of such a questioning, but I don't understand the intent or value of your question. You have access to all threads of the forum and could have easily answered the question yourself!
For the record, I'm simply replying to your posts! If you don't like the effects, don't produce the cause! (Funkadelic)

Are you telling me that one should constrain oneself  and conform oneself to your - or someone else's - Mental World and Psyche? I wonder what happened to your speech about Passion, Individuality, non-Conformism and...?

I don’t believe that I stated such nonsense in anyone of my posts. In fact, it is you who seems to clamor my beliefs by imposing your own in an overly righteous manner. Don’t worry all of those attributes are still visible to those willing to open their eyes.

Nobody said you did!
An interrogative statement does not assert a fact! It does not provide an answer, it raises a question!
For the record, the intent of the question was to bring attention to the fact that those "attributes" seem to matter only when it's about you!
A bon entendeur Salut!

Surely if you keep muddling equivocal meanings in your trite statements it may indeed take a lifetime to formulate them into coherent statements.

Your reaction is so emotional that you're not even ready to discuss it. You prefer to conveniently discard them as "trite statements" or "nonsensical" or...

This is irrelevant, don’t indulge yourself in such banalities. A knowledgeable person may still crave for education to enhance her intelligence, that doesn’t mean that she is deprived of it. Just as a passionate person may turn to excitement to beef up the supply. Therefore your argument is invalid. And you are wrong once again, passion is not innate, it’s acquired through experience and excitement, thus one is intertwined with the other.

IT IS RELEVANT! You, based on poor Logic, drew an analogy between:
"Excitement is but a depurate longing for Passion."
"Fun is a constant denial of the Unhappy."
and
“Education is but a desperate longing for Knowledge.”

I replied, explaining that the analogy is only illusive. Below was my response:
First of all, Education is a means to bring Knowledge to us. Excitement is NOT a means to bring Passion into us.
Second of all, Knowledge IS NOT innate, Passion IS!
Most of all, the concept of Education is based on the awareness of a innate LACK of Knowledge! We wouldn't have Educational Institutions if we thought that we were already full of Knowledge!
There's no denial in this case. At the contrary, full awareness.

A knowledgeable person may still crave for education to enhance her intelligence, that doesn’t mean that she is deprived of it. Just as a passionate person may turn to excitement to beef up the supply. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Your argument is viciously circular! It assumes that "excitement" and "Passion" are comparable and of similar nature to prove that "excitement" and "Passion" are comparable and of similar nature!
I really recommend you to improve your knowledge of Logic. For a rationalist, you really lack Logic!
Also, it is Passion that drives a person towards more knowledge, not knowledge itself!

And you are wrong once again, passion is not innate, it’s acquired through experience and excitement, thus one is intertwined with the other.

You are confusing "acquiring a taste" and "being passionate" or "having a passion."
In my world Passion is fundamental and essential. I don't need your passion made of plastic or some other synthetic material, even when they're more colorful.

Edited by Siamanto, 25 November 2004 - 09:46 PM.

[Siamanto]

Continuation! [Too many "quotes" in the original message!]

From your response regarding “touching” it’s highly doubtful that you did, but I am not going to argue your ad hoc defense attempt.

This is becoming a bit too silly!
Let me put it differently: considering that almost every English speaking member of this forum knows what the French "touché" means, then what is the likelihood that a person from France would not recognize the word?
I will let you figure it out! A good exercise in Logic!

I had no idea that you’ve nominated yourself as the spokesperson of my opinion.
You’ll be making accurate accusation if you were to reduce it to one person in particular. Most of your views are judgmental, tactless and condescending and most importantly lack the necessary formula to be considered seriously. Moreover you have managed to completely vitiate this thread. Perhaps a deflation of that self-amplified tumescence may help the situation.
P.S. This is not a criticism and nothing personal!

Amen.

For the record, it takes two to tango! Please be mature enough to assume responsibility of your acts! Thank you!

P.S. This is not a criticism and nothing personal!

I'm fine with that! Freedom of expression does not disturb me!

[Azat]

es shat eq sharnakelu sireli Anileve yev Siamanto?

[Anileve]

Continuation! [Too many "quotes" in the original message!]
This is becoming a bit too silly!
Let me put it differently: considering that almost every English speaking member of this forum knows what the French "touché" means, then what is the likelihood that a person from France would not recognize the word?
I will let you figure it out! A good exercise in Logic!

25 is the number I got when I began counting your exclamation marks, after 25 I lost count. For someone who has a lot to say about excitement indicating lack of passion, with the multitude of exclamations you certainly exude lots of excitement. And according to your theory you must be longing for passion. Hence this extensive public display of foreplay.

I prefer the world of Sacher-Masoch to Marquis de Sade's. (Of course, based on their literary works.)

Yes, yes, you can be my slave. All you had to do is ask directly instead of flooding this thread with your flatulence.

[Anileve]

es shat eq sharnakelu sireli Anileve yev Siamanto?

I am also curious.

[Armat]

Eve jan kareli e es el c@ struk@ linem?

[ED]

Eve jan kareli e es el c@ struk@ linem?

du et avatarov djvar te darnas Rubo jan

[Anileve]

Eve jan kareli e es el c@ struk@ linem?

Armat jan, kneres buyt qo glxarkov yev bexerov yes djvarutyun kunenam im mtraka oktagortsem. Ho parav papikin chem xpi, erevuma vor vraz kngni, heto ira xexch xochkarnera inch kanen?

du et avatarov djvar te darnas Rubo jan

Ahahaha! Edo jan, yes hents etey mtatsum.

[Siamanto]

es shat eq sharnakelu sireli Anileve yev Siamanto?

Short and sweet: sorry!

[Siamanto]

Yes, yes, you can be my slave. All you had to do is ask directly instead of flooding this thread with your flatulence.

Sometimes a sign warns us of an danger or a hazard. Usually, little intellectual effort is required to recognize the warning sign and manage to avoid the hazard. However, some - overconfident of their steps - ignore and/or "filter out" - as they may say - the sign and march proudly into the hazard, maybe the trap.
The hazard - maybe the trap - was:

I don't believe in whips. I prefer...Sacher-Masoch to Marquis de Sade's.

The warning sign was:

I prefer the world of Sacher-Masoch to Marquis de Sade's.(Of course, based on their literary works.)

At this point, it is very likely that the reader already guessed who fell in the pit, maybe the trap!
The most valuable lesson I've learned on Wall Street is that both overconfidence/hope and fear are the trader's - or investor's - worst enemy! The same is true in life!

I see that you totally ignore the works of Sacher-Masoch and Marquis de Sade, yet, you seem to think that you understand what it is about!
To understand how and why the "world of Sacher-Masoch" has nothing - or little - to do with the commonly accepted understanding of "masochist" and/or how and why the "world of Marquis de Sade" has nothing - or little - to do with the commonly accepted understanding of "sadist," I recommend the 150 page excellent introduction of Gilles Deleuze to "Venus In Furs." Considering the reputation of Deleuze, it's very likely that it has been translated into English!
In French, "masocheen" is opposed to "masochiste" - the English "masochist." In a similar way, "sadiste" is opposed to "sadique" - the English "sadist."
The point is that a "masocheen" does NOT complement a "sadiste" - in French. The "world of Sacher-Masoch" is exclusive of the "world of Marquis de Sade." They are NOT opposites, they do not meet!
It seem that your overconfidence - AGAIN - played a trick on you!

As for the proposition of us having a "relationship," no matter it's nature:
First of all, no thanks!
Second of all, I don't think you have what it takes: you can't even whip without hitting yourself and bleed. I believe in higher standards! Ter shad hats abour gouzek! Furthermore, I don't enjoy the sight of someone bleeding!
Most of all, I wouldn't be interested in a relationship with such dynamics!

25 is the number I got when I began counting your exclamation marks, after 25 I lost count. For someone who has a lot to say about excitement indicating lack of passion, with the multitude of exclamations you certainly exude lots of excitement. And according to your theory you must be longing for passion. Hence this extensive public display of foreplay.

First of all, an exclamation is not necessarily the expression of excitement. You need to consult a dictionary.
Second of all, I thought that my theory made no sense and was useless, why are you using it to "whip?"
Most of all, your reasoning is based on unfounded and wrong premises. AGAIN!
You desperately need a Handbook of Logic! It seems that more you whip, more you hit yourself!

By the way, why 25? You can't count higher?

[Siamanto]

Eve jan kareli e es el c@ struk@ linem?

Stroke? Why do want to hurt her? That is not nice!

Edited by Siamanto, 26 November 2004 - 10:40 PM.

[Anileve]

I see that you totally ignore the works of Sacher-Masoch and Marquis de Sade, yet, you seem to think that you understand what it is about!
To understand how and why the "world of Sacher-Masoch" has nothing - or little - to do with the commonly accepted understanding of "masochist" and/or how and why the "world of Marquis de Sade" has nothing - or little - to do with the commonly accepted understanding of "sadist," I recommend the 150 page excellent introduction of Gilles Deleuze to "Venus In Furs." Considering the reputation of Deleuze, it's very likely that it has been translated into English!
In French, "masocheen" is opposed to "masochiste" - the English "masochist." In a similar way, "sadiste" is opposed to "sadique" - the English "sadist."
The point is that a "masocheen"  does NOT complement a "sadiste" - in French. The "world of Sacher-Masoch" is exclusive of the "world of Marquis de Sade." They are NOT opposites, they do not meet!
It seem that your overconfidence  - AGAIN - played a trick on you!

First of all let’s clarify one thing here, unless the reading was part of your Literature course, lewd sexual endeavors must have inspired you to read those works. I don’t believe for a second that a disinterest in a certain subject would provoke one to pick up works of men who relished in such unconventional libertine existence.

Second of all, let’s cut the semantics here, it is because of Sacher-Masoch and Marquis de Sade terms such as “masochist” and “sadist” were coined. The point here is that you have chosen to identify with the world of someone who preferred to be in the power of women who tortured him as opposed to the one who was a misogynist. That’s stated loud and clear in your response to Armat. And hey, that's alright with me, no need to live in denial.

As for the proposition of us having a "relationship," no matter it's nature:
First of all, no thanks!
Second of all, I don't think you have what it takes: you can't even whip  without hitting yourself and bleed. I believe in higher standards! Ter shad hats abour gouzek! Furthermore, I don't enjoy the sight of someone bleeding!
Most of all, I wouldn't be interested in a relationship with such dynamics!

Your continuous arguments with me prove otherwise, unless you are on a holistic mission to somehow reform me, in which case I have to warn you that it’s an impossible task.

As high as your inflated ego carried you, I would hate to burst it but I have to be frank. I never proposed a “relationship” for it would be much of an effort on my behalf and hardly an exciting one, for you seem to hold yourself in the highest regard and it would be an impossible task for me to enter into such a contract, since evidently you have already formed a very strong relationship with yourself.

The most valuable lesson I've learned on Wall Street is that both overconfidence/hope and fear are the trader's - or investor's - worst enemy! The same is true in life!

Oh, I should have known! Wall Street explains this overbearing affair with your flatulence. You must be a stockbroker.

First of all, an exclamation is not necessarily the expression of excitement. You need to consult a dictionary.
Second of all, I thought that my theory made no sense and was useless, why are you using it to "whip?"
Most of all, your reasoning is based on unfounded and wrong premises. AGAIN!
You desperately need a Handbook of Logic! It seems that more you whip, more you hit yourself!

Exclamation marks were invented to express excitement, to emphasize a point. I am afraid it is you who should seriously consider an investment into a good dictionary, you know the one which doesn’t cater to your selective understanding of a subject.

Perhaps the financial world is not your true calling, since you appear to be such an expert in logic, a pseudo Logician would be more of an appropriate career. Just think how the world is in such urgent need of yet another flake like Dr. Phil.

By the way, why 25? You can't count higher?

25 is when I lose the interest in counting your endless punctuation marks which give off a stench of condescendence and vile grunt of gastrointestinal excretion you consider a “opinion.” Do everyone a favor, fall out of love with yourself.

[Armat]

Eve there is that danger that once you do have an affair with this guy and this poor creature gets all emotional and commits himself to you like a slimy bloodsucker that would not let go and become a pest then you’ll have no choice then to quite your job. Number one rule is never mess with coworkers.