Thread: The Law Of Attraction

Originally Posted by SolSkye

In an infinite rat race it can never have a beginning or an end, no direction and every direction matters. So, how exactly can one be ahead, or behind? You cant. As I said before, you just aren't where I am yet. To imply I said that thinking I was better than you, is just another assumption. Nothing more.

Now hold on. This really doesn't matter, but I'm not going to let you get away with this

To say that I am not where you are 'yet' clearly implies that someday I will be, and since you are older than me, it follows that there is an underlying notion: you are at a more 'advanced' point than I am, somewhere which I will eventually be after I gain experience/mature/whatever. You may not think you meant this, but you probably did. Wouldn't it sound odd to you if I claimed that you "just aren't where I am" yet?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The reason I see no point in debating it further is, I don't believe there is currently any way for you to have perspective enough to step back and see what I'm talking about. Willing or unwilling, you simply choose not to stare into the mirror at your implicit connection to all things.

See? There. You did it again.

You're implying that I am the only one who stands to gain understanding from this exchange. You think there's no way for me to understand what you're talking about. I ask you, do you truly understand what I am talking about?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

What do you see; Life, or lifelessness? Perhaps, both? Perhaps, neither?

I see the photons which have managed to find their way round to my eyes after rebounding from myself. Mirrors don't hold much meaning for me, really. I know that I am just a thing, a momentary conglomeration of atoms stolen from my surroundings. I also know that I am a specific type of thing - one of many. We all share the same basic needs, fears, and instincts. In this way, I am a part of the network. But I don't really see what a mirror has to do with this. They're no more revealing about our nature than smelling or touching ourselves is.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

On a different note, for you to disagree with appeals to authority or to find them anything other than poignant to driving a point home, is absurd.

It's really not. Like I said, I can also say 'most scientists think you're wrong.' It just doesn't mean anything. As for the Einstein quote, I didn't want to respond to it because I felt it was taken out of context and misconstrued. Einstein was not implying that non-physical things exist, he was simply stressing the idea that not everything can (or should) be quantized.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I post my thoughts for people to digest, not immediately argue against just for the sake of argument.

I have a high metabolism, alright? It doesn't take two hours to digest a post. In fact, it shouldn't, if it's written well enough. It's not that I'm trying to shoot down your ideas as fast as possible, it's just that I have opinions about them that I would like to express.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Due to your continued rash assumptions and resistance, I can tell you don't really take the time to internalize my posts and have been on the warpath from word one. I'd be happy to elaborate or discuss something with someone who is polite enough to give my post or any legitimate post the respect they deserve, but when you don't listen or imply things that I said which aren't true, it makes it kind of hard to continue. Something that, you and Carousoul, both need to grow up and learn not to do before any real discussion is had.

Resistance?! You need to realize that this is a discussion, not a classroom. We can both learn from each other - it goes both ways! You are acting as if your posts are lectures for us to study and take notes on. "Respect" does not entail withholding arguments. "Respect" means treating other forum members' opinions as valid counterparts to your own, and not as the inferior bumbling of children for you to teach your wisdom to

I also have not made any 'rash assumptions'. I've made some interesting conclusions about your self-image from your word choice and reaction to criticism, but those are hardly rash, or assumptions.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

To say that I am not where you are 'yet' clearly implies that someday I will be, and since you are older than me, it follows that there is an underlying notion: you are at a more 'advanced' point than I am, somewhere which I will eventually be after I gain experience/mature/whatever. You may not think you meant this, but you probably did. Wouldn't it sound odd to you if I claimed that you "just aren't where I am" yet?

Neither sound odd. "Where you are yet" can be clearly misinterpreted. So forget maturity, experience and advancement, it means you do not understand yet. It goes either way in terms of each other's viewpoints, but by the topic, try to understand for, rather than against. Otherwise you shouldn't be here.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

You're implying that I am the only one who stands to gain understanding from this exchange. You think there's no way for me to understand what you're talking about. I ask you, do you truly understand what I am talking about?

We can understand different things equally, as one understanding is just as another understanding. So you have every chance to understand something new, but are you willing to learn?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

They're no more revealing about our nature than smelling or touching ourselves is.

Are you so sure?


I advise you, thegnome54, if you want to learn something new, something about your thoughts must change. Think outside the box. This is Philosophy.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

To say that I am not where you are 'yet' clearly implies that someday I will be, and since you are older than me, it follows that there is an underlying notion: you are at a more 'advanced' point than I am, somewhere which I will eventually be after I gain experience/mature/whatever. You may not think you meant this, but you probably did. Wouldn't it sound odd to you if I claimed that you "just aren't where I am" yet?

Actually, it wouldn't sound weird. "You just aren't where I am", doesn't imply anything other than that which is stated. That is, unless one begins to think from the ego to allow it to. It doesn't imply you haven't been there before, or you won't be back there again, it just means you aren't there now. So, from our differing perspectives we'll inevitably just continue going around in circles which, while admittedly engaging at first, makes the whole idea of debate kind of pointless from the get-go, don't you think?

About your thoughts that I have these underlying 'advanced' notions; that is partially opinion, and partially truth. In terms of having more life experience, unequivocally, yes, I am more 'advanced' than you. To think otherwise, would be a complete affront to those that been through the ringer, and an insult to the whole process of gaining and retaining experience and age. Essentially, residing yourself no better than a child throwing a temper tantrum about how, "Life's just not fair". Although, I hope we can agree on this much; age and experience matter, do they not? If you are at all like I was at your age, you probably still like to think you have much more figured out than I do, even though logic and reality tells you otherwise. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, and assume you think age and experience do matter...In which case, you can agree I am more 'advanced' in some regards.

The reason I brought up perspective in relation to age, is because I was at the exact same place at your age. Could that be mere coincidence? Perhaps. Is it likely? Probably not. I want you to understand that my perspective and way of thinking is in no one way better or inferring that your point of view is of less significance, because I don't feel that way. It's just one perspective, in a myriad of them.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

See? There. You did it again.

You're implying that I am the only one who stands to gain understanding from this exchange. You think there's no way for me to understand what you're talking about. I ask you, do you truly understand what I am talking about?

It's not that I think you don't know what your talking about. I just don't think this debate is going, or will go forward, if one fails to acknowledge certain things going in.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I see the photons which have managed to find their way round to my eyes after rebounding from myself. Mirrors don't hold much meaning for me, really. I know that I am just a thing, a momentary conglomeration of atoms stolen from my surroundings. I also know that I am a specific type of thing - one of many. We all share the same basic needs, fears, and instincts. In this way, I am a part of the network. But I don't really see what a mirror has to do with this. They're no more revealing about our nature than smelling or touching ourselves is.

Back in the day, I saw things in much the same light, pardon the pun. However, the one thing that way of looking at the world fails to see and answer is the why. It doesn't explain why there is need for a network, and why there are things that need explaining. It leaves no room for the experience and just rounds it off as an unexplainable radical. Eventually, one gains enough experience, and come into perspective to understand and see the why, whatever that may be to them. I'll say it again, you just aren't there, yet. If you think so, then for you to think you have reached pinnacle of understanding and perspective, at 16...is extremely arrogant in itself. Of course, I'm not there yet either, but I'm definitely further along in understanding than I was at 16.

As for the rest of your post, it came across to me as just argumentative noise. You passed over all my well-thought out points and took what little you could to argue with. You didn't digest them at all, and simply spat them back out on the table like a baby having trouble digesting baby food. I thoroughly explained how the proverb did fit the post, you still haven't explained how it didn't. By all means, continue this much ado about nothing. It's entertaining to read, if nothing else. I am, however, done debating with you. Peace.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Actually, it wouldn't sound weird. "You just aren't where I am", doesn't imply anything other than that which is stated. That is, unless one begins to think from the ego to allow it to. It doesn't imply you haven't been there before, or you won't be back there again, it just means you aren't there now. So, from our differing perspectives we'll inevitably just continue going around in circles which, while admittedly engaging at first, makes the whole idea of debate kind of pointless from the get-go, don't you think?

About your thoughts that I have these underlying 'advanced' notions; that is partially opinion, and partially truth. In terms of having more life experience, unequivocally, yes, I am more 'advanced' than you. To think otherwise, would be a complete affront to those that been through the ringer, and an insult to the whole process of gaining and retaining experience and age. Essentially, residing yourself no better than a child throwing a temper tantrum about how, "Life's just not fair". Although, I hope we can agree on this much; age and experience matter, do they not? If you are at all like I was at your age, you probably still like to think you have much more figured out than I do, even though logic and reality tells you otherwise. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, and assume you think age and experience do matter...In which case, you can agree I am more 'advanced' in some regards.

The reason I brought up perspective in relation to age, is because I was at the exact same place at your age. Could that be mere coincidence? Perhaps. Is it likely? Probably not. I want you to understand that my perspective and way of thinking is in no one way better or inferring that your point of view is of less significance, because I don't feel that way. It's just one perspective, in a myriad of them.



It's not that I think you don't know what your talking about. I just don't think this debate is going, or will go forward, if one fails to acknowledge certain things going in.



Back in the day, I saw things in much the same light, pardon the pun. However, the one thing that way of looking at the world fails to see and answer is the why. It doesn't explain why there is need for a network, and why there are things that need explaining. It leaves no room for the experience and just rounds it off as an unexplainable radical. Eventually, one gains enough experience, and come into perspective to understand and see the why, whatever that may be to them. I'll say it again, you just aren't there, yet. If you think so, then for you to think you have reached pinnacle of understanding and perspective, at 16...is extremely arrogant in itself. Of course, I'm not there yet either, but I'm definitely further along in understanding than I was at 16.

As for the rest of your post, it came across to me as just argumentative noise. You passed over all my well-thought out points and took what little you could to argue with. You didn't digest them at all, and simply spat them back out on the table like a baby having trouble digesting baby food. I thoroughly explained how the proverb did fit the post, you still haven't explained how it didn't. By all means, continue this much ado about nothing. It's entertaining to read, if nothing else. I am, however, done debating with you. Peace.

STFU with the whole "holier than thou" bullshit to Gnome.

It doesn't work as an argument to just say "Yeah, but Im older than you, so.. screw your logical reasoning, I've got age and patronisation!"

Do you deny that age and experience matter?

The thing is, I've been in both of your shoes already. You act as if your agnostic stance is something profound, and new. Sorry, but it's just a normal phase of growing up. It would be the same as you looking back at a 6 year old's behavior, and reflecting at how silly one behaved backed then. Unfortunately, some people get trapped at being a naive 6 year old, just as others get trapped at being a misunderstood 16 year old. One can only hope that you grow out of this phase you're in, so you can have perspective enough to admit that age and experience matter. It's okay, I remember being 16, too.

You're lumping age and experience together as if one equates the other. I'm 19 and I can tell you that almost every other 19-year-old I know is considerably more experienced than I am, despite having lived about as long as me. This is mostly a result of my choosing to live in a safe, comfortable, and unchallenging box for most of life, but it makes the point: age doesn't imply experience. Moreover experience isn't entirely quantitative; to say two people of equal experience are qualified to speak to each others as equals sort of ignores that one is a car mechanic and one is a Zen buddhist. You could argue that if we're talking about life as a whole then there's only one sort of experience that matters, all of it, life experience, but I can't abstract that far to think that any sort of experience deals with "living" as a whole, or that any discussion can juggle contentions focused on some fantastically platonic sense of "life" or "living" itself. It always funnels down to certain actions and certain experiences within the scope of life.

Your age is a prerequisite for experience, but maybe you haven't applied yourself enough nearly as much as others and so have less experience, and maybe what experience you have doesn't particularly qualify you for the discussion at hand. But unless you can think of a genius metric to measure those things by, then we're incapable of judging who gets the giddy privilege of being the stuffy teacher figure. Maybe the safest answer would be to approach everyone as a person both to be taught and (shock, horror!) be taught by, just to cover all the bases in the face of not knowing and never really being able to know your real station in relation to another human being.

Oh shit, I forgot, I'm younger than you. Sorry for trying. Guess I'll just have to lick your boots and wait my turn.

edit: about mirrors: I've tried staring at myself in mirrors for extended periods of time (an hour once, I think). All that happened was that it occurred to me I'm sort of ugly. Maybe your (really's) mystic faith in ordinary objects just doesn't translate over to some of us others.

As I said before and again in the last post, some get stuck or pushed forward in certain phases of life but to deny those phases of life exist is ridiculous.

Allow me to recommend a book that was recommended to me by my father when I was about 16 which, of course being a typical 16 year old, I immediately wrote off as ludicrous (I thought, How could anyone possibly claim to know me? ). It's called Passages: Predictable Crises of Adult Life by Gail Sheehy. She writes this book after researching into different accounts of many people and noticing patterns in their life development. Quite an interesting book... not to mention, befitting.

I don't immediately discount or write anyone off. If I hear something profound and new that I haven't already thought of at one phase or another, then I'll gladly entertain the thought. The thing is, these people are saying and doing the exact same agnostic things I said and did when I was younger. What is the point in entertaining a thought you had over 10 years ago? Will I gain a newfound appreciation of that thought that I didn't see the first time around? Sorry, but I bore easily of things that don't inspire or impress me.

This is philosophy, not science. Agnostically throwing around your blind faith in and knowledge of the material world doesn't count for much in a philosophical discussion which consists of ideas and insight... However, those without much experience to draw from might have problems being insightful.

The mirror reference isn't about staring into an actual mirror, but staring into the inner mirror of yourself. If you do it free from outside distraction long enough, you'll reach newfound awareness and realization of self. Most of the time, that awareness carries over into your normal every day observations and behavior of your environment and others which makes observing more interesting.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Do you deny that age and experience matter?

The thing is, I've been in both of your shoes already. You act as if your agnostic stance is something profound, and new. Sorry, but it's just a normal phase of growing up. It would be the same as you looking back at a 6 year old's behavior, and reflecting at how silly one behaved backed then. Unfortunately, some people get trapped at being a naive 6 year old, just as others get trapped at being a misunderstood 16 year old. One can only hope that you grow out of this phase you're in, so you can have perspective enough to admit that age and experience matter. It's okay, I remember being 16, too.

GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELF.

1. Why is this thread now about mirrors? Hijack?

2. Clearly your world view changes as you grow older but for me it wasn't much of everything turning upside-down at once, but rather all the pieces falling together and making sense. Like concepts aligning and such things. I am fanboy of science since I'm 15 and could say that looking in a mirror is like a bunch of photon-wave-particle-thingies entering my eyes, but certainly that was not the point of the whole metaphor in this thread. An agnostic-materialist position doesn't really interfere with thinking about the philosophical dimension that the metaphor is aiming at, which is to my understanding a kind of phenomenological or psychological dimension rather than a question of neurology or chemistry. So you always have to check with which kind of reference system you are going at something.

It's actually pretty simple. Viktor Frankl made it perfectly clear. You don't really have a problem if you say "The human is a biochemical machine", you have one if you say "The human is nothing but a biochemical machine". All these cool concepts (materialism, spirituality, skepticism, love, art, language, Darwinism, psychology, magic, music, mysticism) don't actually interfere with each other, you just have to make sure that you are using the right frame in the right context. Then the next step would be to align the results you get from looking at something from varying perspectives so that, for example, the concept 'love' makes sense from a human, psychological, biochemical, artistic, musical, linguistic, sociodynamic and evolutionary perspective.

To post about biochemical implications of falling in love in a thread about someone needing advice on getting their chick laid would be to miss the point altogether.

All I can say is that I tried.

You clearly think that you know better than me, that only your posts have any value to them, and that I should study them closely while you can skim over and ignore everything I say because I'm younger than you.

Age doesn't matter after a certain level of mental maturity is reached, only experience does. I don't "think", I know that my mental maturity is quite comparable to yours, whether you like it or not. And I'm fifteen. Deal with it - if you want to have a civil conversation between rational minds, I'm game. If you want someone to lecture at who will idolize you, you'll just have to look elsewhere.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

As for the rest of your post, it came across to me as just argumentative noise. You passed over all my well-thought out points and took what little you could to argue with. You didn't digest them at all, and simply spat them back out on the table like a baby having trouble digesting baby food.

Fuck you. I spent a lot of time on my post, and my points are just as valid as yours. You are a pompous ass. Try looking away from the mirror sometimes, eh?

Solskye, I think you really should be careful what you're saying. You may claim to be older than most here but you are actually acting in a "younger phase" yourself. You should know better, shouldn't you? No offense or anything. Please start posting more helpful information on what this concept is about, instead of waffling about minor issues.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

All I can say is that I tried.

Well don't give up.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I don't "think", I know that my mental maturity is quite comparable to yours, whether you like it or not.

This is where we have gone off topic, most of us. There is no comparison.

Accept people the way they are and get on with the topic, everyone.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You passed over all my well-thought out points and took what little you could to argue with. You didn't digest them at all, and simply spat them back out on the table like a baby having trouble digesting baby food.

I'm not too keen on saying this but, I agree with Solskye. Thegnome, you seem to leave a tell about yourself in your posts. You go from thread to thread (sometimes residing in a particular one while sharpening your sword awaiting the next poster that has thoughts different from yours) engaging others in a battle of wits. As far as I'm concerned you are a very smart young man, a bright mind that is rare indeed. But behind your expansive vocabulary is nothing more than a little boy looking for a place to point his finger and eagerly anticipating the moment to jump at the chance of telling someone they are wrong and why you are right. Relieve yourself from the need to be right "all the time" and let people save face. Though it's hard, I know you will make more friends that way. That will be a step up from the low number I presume you do have, IF that. At the end of the day, you're doing nothing but just looking for ways to inflate your ego while diminishing others.

p.s. Solskye, try...hard as it may be, to lower your level of assholery.

p.s.s. This thread SHOULD remain on topic. Whether you believe in the LOA or not, at least for the sake of staying on topic express WHY you disagree with it. This IS NOT a place for you to dump your ego-based fecal matter. A handful of you have shat on this thread and continue to do so.

I remember when I first found out about The Law Of Attraction. Check out this old thread: "Your views..."

Anyway I must say, the LOA is a very doubted one. I suppose one of the reasons it is not believed is because people think it is unbelievable. See? There it goes - not believed = unbelievable. I believe in it, so it works for me. There it goes again- believed = believable. Gee, that was so easy to explain. It's not obvious, but it's always there, true and working. It's one of those things, hah, almost a "Rozencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" styled notion.

Another reason why it has been put down is because of immaturity. Back to that "The Chasers" link - Immaturity, making a bunch of jokes about it brings nothing but the expected laughter to their audience.

Things which seem impossible are simply unknown to ability. You inevitably know that the necklace in the shop window will not appear magically on your neck. But the roads of thought can be built for that, but how? Doubt not they can.

I'll tell you another thing, what the hell, you may not even believe me - I don't blame you for that; this is the internet. But if you do believe me, good on you for that, it will be worth it and it's true. I've "used" the LOA, and seriously it's a wonderful thing. When everything works, when all your thoughts are manifesting in the world around you, you begin to feel warm and fuzzy. Everything becomes everything, as it already was. Akin to feeling no sensation of water in a pool that is your body temperature, you feel as if you're blending. You cannot tell the difference between your imagination and reality.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I'm not too keen on saying this but, I agree with Solskye. Thegnome, you seem to leave a tell about yourself in your posts. You go from thread to thread (sometimes residing in a particular one while sharpening your sword awaiting the next poster that has thoughts different from yours) engaging others in a battle of wits. As far as I'm concerned you are a very smart young man, a bright mind that is rare indeed. But behind your expansive vocabulary is nothing more than a little boy looking for a place to point his finger and eagerly anticipating the moment to jump at the chance of telling someone they are wrong and why you are right. Relieve yourself from the need to be right "all the time" and let people save face.

I really don't get you people. You're mad at me for having different opinions than you and posting them?!

I type very fast. I also leave DV open in a separate tab at almost all times (which is why you see me 'lurking' in a thread - I just leave the browser there, sheesh)

This is a forum - a place for discussion. How can you say that my frequent attempts to have a good exchange with someone reflect a need to 'be right all the time'?? And I'm getting really pissed off at all of this 'little boy' stuff. If I hadn't been careless enough to mention it, none of you would know my age, so please stop harping on it. All I ask is that you treat me like an equal, as I have been treating you (all of you). It's fine to disagree with me, even fine to completely destroy my arguments when they're clearly wrong - just don't go ad-hominem on me.

I'm sorry that so much thread space has been taken up by this, but I really think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm not trying to argue against everyone and everything to piss people of, I'm merely trying to challenge people's arguments to see if they stand up to the test. Is that so childish of me??

Originally Posted by Korittke

It's actually pretty simple. Viktor Frankl made it perfectly clear. You don't really have a problem if you say "The human is a biochemical machine", you have one if you say "The human is nothing but a biochemical machine". All these cool concepts (materialism, spirituality, skepticism, love, art, language, Darwinism, psychology, magic, music, mysticism) don't actually interfere with each other, you just have to make sure that you are using the right frame in the right context. Then the next step would be to align the results you get from looking at something from varying perspectives so that, for example, the concept 'love' makes sense from a human, psychological, biochemical, artistic, musical, linguistic, sociodynamic and evolutionary perspective.

To post about biochemical implications of falling in love in a thread about someone needing advice on getting their chick laid would be to miss the point altogether.

I definitely feel you on that one. Science has it's place only when applied to one's experience. If you only leave room for the results of the latest bean counting experiment, that unfortunately doesn't ever bring us anything substantive about the mysterious experience of life... which Philosophy is all about.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

All I can say is that I tried.

You clearly think that you know better than me, that only your posts have any value to them, and that I should study them closely while you can skim over and ignore everything I say because I'm younger than you.

Age doesn't matter after a certain level of mental maturity is reached, only experience does. I don't "think", I know that my mental maturity is quite comparable to yours, whether you like it or not. And I'm fifteen. Deal with it - if you want to have a civil conversation between rational minds, I'm game. If you want someone to lecture at who will idolize you, you'll just have to look elsewhere.



Fuck you. I spent a lot of time on my post, and my points are just as valid as yours. You are a pompous ass. Try looking away from the mirror sometimes, eh?

I don't think I'm better than you as I've always said, but you must think your agnostic views carry more weight. I instantly caught wind of your condescending implications from the beginning and redirected them back at you, telling you to check the arrogance. And, instead of you trying to understand another person's ideas and insight into how they view the world (using rational means mind you), you keep beating the same dead horse of your agnostic view over and over again, about how the material world is the only thing we could possibly know. Sorry, but I've been there before, and that isn't Philosophy. That view will always fall one step short of it, because you fail to entertain or acknowledge the wisdom in a thought. Wisdom, comes from having practical knowledge, coupled with an understanding of life and the implicit connection between you and everything around you and searching for an order to it. Now, I don't think I'm perfect, but I do feel my point strongly enough to feel it worthy of being heard. The calculating world of science in and of itself isn't bringing any wisdom to the table, so unless you can contribute something as to what you intuitively feel life and the experience is about, you shouldn't even be in the Philosophy threads, in the first place.

As Korittke aptly contributed, Viktor Frankl made it perfectly clear. You don't really have a problem if you say "The human is a biochemical machine", you have one if you say "The human is nothing but a biochemical machine".

Age and experience go hand in hand. Experience, is knowledge or skill acquired by such means over a period of time, and Age, is the length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed. It's not like people reach profound understanding of themselves and others instantly through a series of well-timed epiphanies, it takes time...or age.

Of course, if one goes about their time on autopilot blindly forgetting to internalize what's happening around them, they won't gain experience, but to say those ideas aren't interwoven concepts is just being ill-informed and/or stubborn.

Originally Posted by really

Solskye, I think you really should be careful what you're saying. You may claim to be older than most here but you are actually acting in a "younger phase" yourself. You should know better, shouldn't you? No offense or anything. Please start posting more helpful information on what this concept is about, instead of waffling about minor issues.

I didn't say I was older than most here, just those two gentleman continually causing trouble. I simply explained to them how it is. Perhaps, it comes across antagonizing to constantly have your age thrown in your face, but to think those concepts don't have any pertinence to experience and wisdom is naive, at best.

I think, I adequately explained my thoughts on the thread before they got pulled out of context into a debate by people afraid to face to their own inadequacies.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I'm not too keen on saying this but, I agree with Solskye. Thegnome, you seem to leave a tell about yourself in your posts. You go from thread to thread (sometimes residing in a particular one while sharpening your sword awaiting the next poster that has thoughts different from yours) engaging others in a battle of wits. As far as I'm concerned you are a very smart young man, a bright mind that is rare indeed. But behind your expansive vocabulary is nothing more than a little boy looking for a place to point his finger and eagerly anticipating the moment to jump at the chance of telling someone they are wrong and why you are right. Relieve yourself from the need to be right "all the time" and let people save face. Though it's hard, I know you will make more friends that way. That will be a step up from the low number I presume you do have, IF that. At the end of the day, you're doing nothing but just looking for ways to inflate your ego while diminishing others.

p.s. Solskye, try...hard as it may be, to lower your level of assholery.

p.s.s. This thread SHOULD remain on topic. Whether you believe in the LOA or not, at least for the sake of staying on topic express WHY you disagree with it. This IS NOT a place for you to dump your ego-based fecal matter. A handful of you have shat on this thread and continue to do so.

Glad to see I'm not alone on this. I know I wasn't the only one that caught those condescending implications of his. I'd like to think myself a good judge of character so I knew I wasn't wrong about this. While I could bite my tongue and let people continually attempt to railroad my views, I decide not to, and push back. I only give what is given, to anyone. Initially, I give mutual respect to anyone, so I only expect the same in return. When I don't get that, the tone of my posts and attitude change to match theirs.



From now on, let's all take a minute to relax, and attempt to think outside the box enough to internalize another point of view before we post from now on, k? It's not that hard...
Afterall, everything is right where it belongs

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I know I wasn't the only one that caught those condescending implications of his. I'd like to think myself a good judge of character so I knew I wasn't wrong about this.

Please show me what gave you these notions. I really feel like you're coming out of nowhere with this.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

As Korittke aptly contributed, Viktor Frankl made it perfectly clear. You don't really have a problem if you say "The human is a biochemical machine", you have one if you say "The human is nothing but a biochemical machine".

I don't understand what more you could want than a biological machine. A biological machine can have feelings, all of the depth and beauty of the human psyche, and more nuances and intricacies than you or I could dream of. Isn't it enough?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The calculating world of science in and of itself isn't bringing any wisdom to the table, so unless you can contribute something as to what you intuitively feel life and the experience is about, you shouldn't even be in the Philosophy threads, in the first place.

To me, philosophy is not about 'intuition' and 'feelings'. That's not philosophy, it's daydreaming. Philosophy is an extended period of hypothesizing, where different ideas are tested on the mental field of battle until the rest of science advances far enough to test them properly.

But that's besides the point. This thread is and was originally about the "LAW" of attraction. The scientific law.

I don't remember switching over to discussing the meaning of life.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Please show me what gave you these notions. I really feel like you're coming out of nowhere with this.

Is this really relevant?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I don't understand what more you could want than a biological machine. A biological machine can have feelings, all of the depth and beauty of the human psyche, and more nuances and intricacies than you or I could dream of. Isn't it enough?

Hah! When one lives his whole life in his closet, what more could be dreamed of it? Surely the closet is enough - Yes? No.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

To me, philosophy is not about 'intuition' and 'feelings'. That's not philosophy, it's daydreaming. Philosophy is an extended period of hypothesizing, where different ideas are tested on the mental field of battle until the rest of science advances far enough to test them properly.

Daydreaming is hypothesizing. Daydreaming is thinking. It isn't a matter here, actually. What is the matter is that this forum, Philosophy, requires a different method of thinking.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

But that's besides the point. This thread is and was originally about the "LAW" of attraction. The scientific law.

Well I think you already mentioned that it wasn't a scientific law. But that's besides the point.

Originally Posted by really

Is this really relevant?

Yes. He's justifying his insults with more insults, and I really don't know what the hell set him off.

Originally Posted by really

Hah! When one lives his whole life in his closet, what more could be dreamed of it? Surely the closet is enough - Yes? No.

Come now, don't dismiss this with a generic metaphor. I'm honestly asking you a question. What is there which makes you think that there needs to be something more than the biological machine?

Originally Posted by really

Daydreaming is hypothesizing. Daydreaming is thinking. It isn't a matter here, actually. What is the matter is that this forum, Philosophy, requires a different method of thinking.

Daydreaming is not hypothesizing, it's daydreaming. A hypothesis is based on prior knowledge and experience, and it's a prediction. They have nothing to do with each other. I strongly object to the idea that philosophy abides by different laws than science, too. If your philosophy doesn't 'fit' properly into your experiences, it's clearly wrong, right? That's a scientific approach of testing and comparing with past experiences.

Are you really implying that you can just make anything you want up and no one can argue against it, because you have to 'think differently'? New philosophy needs to include current scientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by really

Well I think you already mentioned that it wasn't a scientific law. But that's besides the point.

How is that besides the point? If it's not a scientific law, then it's not a law at all. This is the sort of thing you can only test scientifically. You can't just make conclusions from baseless conjecture (which is what I'm gathering some of you expect from a philosophy forum).

Philosophy and science are extremely closely related, do you agree with me there?

Prickles and Goo

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Prickles and Goo

I just watched that before i read this thread's new posts

It emphasizes our vain efforts.


Cynical behaviour, can't be disguised under the illusion of skepticism.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Prickles and Goo

I've seen that before, I love that guy

Personally, I am a sort of slightly gooey prickle I see and understand the gooey point of view, but gooey is really just an emergent property of the prickles. Like the guy said, if you look closely, it's all prickles. To me, the prickles are more beautiful than the goo (which, it could be argued, is a slightly gooey outlook).

The mechanics of life do not have to be ugly or dry. The mechanics are the closest we, as human beings, can get to truly understanding the nature of this world. They are beautiful. A 'gooey' person might speak of the beauty of spring, the blossoms and the warm sunlight, etc.

Though I agree that it is quite pleasant, even more wondrous to me are the biological changes which occur within the plants to cause this budding, the changes which have evolved so delicately to allow the plants to weather the harsh winter climate. More wondrous still are the mysterious connections within our brains which cause the sight of these buds to make us happy. The neurological basis for the concept of beauty is much more intriguing and awe-inspiringly elegant to me than just speaking of the concept itself. That is the difference between a slightly gooey prickle like me and real gooey people.

There is obviously a balance.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Bah, you know what I mean. People with money to burn who will gladly throw it at some gimmick (e.g. horoscopes). I wish I had thought of mass-marketing horoscopes .

haahaha

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Yes. He's justifying his insults with more insults, and I really don't know what the hell set him off.

Sorry but that is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Don't worry about Solskye.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Come now, don't dismiss this with a generic metaphor. I'm honestly asking you a question. What is there which makes you think that there needs to be something more than the biological machine?

I haven't dismissed your question, I have only asked it in a new way for new emphasis. The answer to your question: The reason for my existence, from the very beginning. Hang on, is that relevant to this particular thread?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Daydreaming is not hypothesizing, it's daydreaming. A hypothesis is based on prior knowledge and experience, and it's a prediction. They have nothing to do with each other. I strongly object to the idea that philosophy abides by different laws than science, too. If your philosophy doesn't 'fit' properly into your experiences, it's clearly wrong, right? That's a scientific approach of testing and comparing with past experiences.

Daydreaming to me is simply thinking. I've already stated that. Daydreaming is a way to hypothesize. How are 'intuition' and 'feelings' not part of hypothesis - which is based on "prior knowledge and experience, and it's a prediction"?

Philosophy to me is a personal system. It may draw inspirations from science but it does not run fully from them.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Are you really implying that you can just make anything you want up and no one can argue against it, because you have to 'think differently'? New philosophy needs to include current scientific knowledge.

No, but making anything up is good for thinking about. The LOA isn't made up for the hell of it, if that's what you're saying. It is evident in so many ways, yet cannot be proven scientifically.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

How is that besides the point? If it's not a scientific law, then it's not a law at all. This is the sort of thing you can only test scientifically. You can't just make conclusions from baseless conjecture (which is what I'm gathering some of you expect from a philosophy forum).

It's beside the point of science through that The LOA is not about science, it's about how we can experience the universe. It's a law other than science than, obviously. Politics and games, are not part of science, but they have laws.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Philosophy and science are extremely closely related, do you agree with me there?

No. See above.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Prickles and Goo

Lol, a great analogy of the members in this thread. Nice videos by that guy.

Originally Posted by really

Daydreaming to me is simply thinking. I've already stated that. Daydreaming is a way to hypothesize. How are 'intuition' and 'feelings' not part of hypothesis - which is based on "prior knowledge and experience, and it's a prediction"?

Philosophy to me is a personal system. It may draw inspirations from science but it does not run fully from them.

I did not mean to say that intuition was not a part of a hypothesis. What I mean is that if your intuition goes against prior knowledge and experience, it shouldn't be a part of your hypothesis. Whatever intuition you experience still has to fit in with past scientific knowledge - the science underlies the intuition.

Originally Posted by really

No, but making anything up is good for thinking about. The LOA isn't made up for the hell of it, if that's what you're saying. It is evident in so many ways, yet cannot be proven scientifically.

Sure, it's good to think about, but the problem arises when you make things up and then believe them without thinking about how they fit into past scientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by really

It's beside the point of science through that The LOA is not about science, it's about how we can experience the universe. It's a law other than science than, obviously. Politics and games, are not part of science, but they have laws.

Laws of games and politics are laws which govern the actions of conscious beings, who choose to comply with the laws. This 'law' of attraction is presented as a law which always works, cannot be broken, and was not invented by humans. In other words, it's presented as a natural law - a scientific law.

The way I approach the Law of Attraction is the same philosophically or scientifically - I ask what sort of explanations there could be for its apparent functioning, and then conduct (mind-or-real) experiments to see if I can verify my hypothesis.

If you deny that philosophy is scientific, how do you go about thinking about this law? Do you just say 'yeah, sounds good'? I really don't see any other way of properly thinking about it.