The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Buffalo]

This seems to remind me of some covenants some of us have made.

Nah.

Who cares about giving our word to God?

I'd rather see that cool new flick.

Technically he's 100% correct and the more reasonable people in that thread are in error regarding the doctrine, but this is the kind of Mormon twerp who other Mormons avoid like the plague. You could put a piece of coal up his ass get a diamond from it, if you could ever extract it.

Unless I'm not picking up on sarcasm here.

[_Buffalo]

It's a two-fer!

The discovery that Church leaders are human shouldn't be such a traumatic experience for anyone, except for those who were raised in a particularly rigid and unrealistic environment.

Oh, like the LDS church for instance?

No do not go that way. We must take seriously any accusation but we must look at them with critical eyes. As I stated in post #7, as reported there are things, in this case, that do not add up in my mind.

If only he could apply this logic to the church. Anyway, give child molesters and the LDS church the benefit of the doubt, but look at victims of molestation with a critical eye. Nice.

[_Buffalo]

I have Ares permission to keep this thread open. Loran, you are going to be automatically banned from these threads. You do nothing but snipe at posters and are on your way to another board banning.

Ha ha, Droopy!

:D

[_moksha]

Fun Quote from Why me

Here is the point: men of god can not separate themselves from the culture of their times. We see this in Joseph Smith and his personal traits which come from puritan new england stock. He could not separate himself from those traits.

Now, how many of you are currently thinking of the Reverend Dimsdale? Raise you hands.

[_Buffalo]

I think one of socialism's most pernicious problems is that it seemingly lifts the "burden" of caring from the poor from individuals for whom giving charity would change hearts and bind communities, and gives it to governments which have no capacity to sanctify. Then individuals believe some else is responsible for the charity and that they only need to "give" what the government compels them to do so.

The first thing that sprang to mind here was tithing.

[_Tarski]

...experiences have nothing to do with brain states....-MfBukowski

[_mfbukowski]

...experiences have nothing to do with brain states....-MfBukowski

yeah I said that. I don't even believe that myself but somehow my fingers typed that. I figured it would end up here, and good old Tarski never disappoints.

I took it back too.
I learned one thing: don't post when you are half asleep.

[_ludwigm]

I learned one thing: don't post when you are half asleep.

But inside never sleeps, and

[_Tarski]

I learned one thing: don't post when you are half asleep.

Good you took it back. You are now absolved.

However, perhaps you might consider that it came out of your mouth because you are a bit too eager to put out these shocking "we all live in a dream" type statements.
Certainly there is a kernel of truth in contructivist, relativist sentiments and subjectivity is indeed puzzling and the topic demands that we be very careful and reexamine our intutitions and way of thinking to meet the challenge.

A good deal of what you say might be true in some metaphysically innocent sense.
In other words, I think you are quite often overreaching and in this case, the momentum just carried you right over the edge into silly land.

By the way, being half asleep is nothing compared to being on ambien. As I learned the hard way, that stuff can make a person post absolute dribble.

[_mfbukowski]

A good deal of what you say might be true in some metaphysically innocent sense.

Well I guess we shall see about that one. It's not like I am making this up- I wish it was, but it is all stolen from other people. The philosophy of subjectivity is pretty well established especially on the continent- I just like to use Nagel because he is obviously in the analytical tradition and more understandable to Americans, and James and Dewey are perceived as "old fashioned" because they are dead. Maybe I will do a thread on some of the phenomenologists to flesh out the subject- object distinction. Kevin I think was right that it I have been singing a one note song for a long time- but I do a lot of repeating because after all that's what preachers do. Not everyone reads the same thread.

The issue as I see it logically is that subjective and objective statements are different language games - any first person statement- a subjective statement- will never be logically equivalent to a second or third person statement. So "He has chemical x in his brain" (or any statement about observed phenomena) will never be logically equivalent to "He is feeling y".

So the point is, if they are not logically equivalent, there is some information contained in one statement that is not contained in the other. You could've course prove some inductive correlation - very strong correlation- but never equivalence. I think that is kind of the bottom line when philosophers talk about "qualia". For me "qualia" are what is NOT included in the physical description. I think. It is a logical, linguistic difference produced by a different point of view.

I mean even an empirical point of view implies an observer- a subject that makes the empirical observation which is subjective until he talks about it, and someone hears that, and now it is "out there". Every scientific discovery has a discoverer. It all starts in somebody's head first.

There is no observation without a point of view, and a brain to verbalize it. And once it is verbalized everyone else has access to that observation if they care to repeat it

I mean Tarski's comments come first from Tarski. What you are thinking about right now about how "wrong" this post is, is totally subjective and unique to your point of view. The fact that you think "Bukowski is wrong" is a subjective judgement- some will agree with it and others won't.

At least that is what I think at the moment.