Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
The ability to think for oneself and to question is to our cultural linguistic programming like a virus embedded inside the reality construct itself. It sits inside us waiting for the chance to start working, a loose strand of thread here or an open crevice there. It deconstructs the construct with its own rules and semantics, ultimately deleting whole algorithms and routines at the code level and freeing ourselves from the constraints of the absolute and given. To open up a corridor or portal into a whole new level of lucid deprogrammed being.
If there is no such thing as infinity, why is there a word for it? And how did such an inconceivable property come to be conceived to begin with? It is the conceptual extrapolation of any endlessly increasing magnitude. The antinomious corollary of bounded or finite being. Somehow it is mysteriously intertwined with the property of "thisness" or hacciety, being the sense-making contrast with absolute immeasurability that defines the singularity of the here/now. It is a fact that I am because I simultaneously do not exist in all the vast stretches of possibility. A decision is made. A point is defined. An in-itselfness that absolutely excludes infinity on all sides.
A book is only good insofar as it makes us forget we are sitting there reading the words of a book. A movie is only good insofar as it makes us forget we are sitting in a theater watching a screen of projected light images. And conversation is good only insofar as we forget we are talking to and listening to another person. Imagination and thought dislocates and frees us from the tyrranical immediacy of our physical being. It is the ultimate out-of-body experience.
(Yesterday 09:04 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]And conversation is good only insofar as we forget we are talking to and listening to another person. Imagination and thought dislocates and frees us from the tyrranical immediacy of our physical being.
Only if your conversations have no intent to connect with another person. If they don't, sounds like the height of solipsistic narcissism. You're only engaging for what they can provide to you and your experience.
No...identifying with the words and images of the speaker is not narcissism. It's really listening and empathizing with their speaking. A narcissist would only be interested in how what they're saying relates to them and so not really entertaining what is being said.
'Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation.'---Mark Twain
(Today 12:23 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]No...identifying with the words and images of the speaker is not narcissism. It's really listening and empathizing with their speaking.
(Yesterday 09:04 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]And conversation is good only insofar as we forget we are talking to and listening to another person.
What is it about identifying with their speaking do you not understand?
"Identifying with" someone you "forget [you] are talking to."
No moron..identifying with their speaking, and forgetting you're listening to someone. Happens all the time when you are really into what is being said.
See, you're always the first to insult... even over completely innocent questions. Here, merely quoting you was enough to provoke you.
You said, "we forget we are talking to and listening to another person." That doesn't seem to imply any kind of empathy.
Quote:You said, "we forget we are talking to and listening to another person." That doesn't seem to imply any kind of empathy.
It's not. We're not empathizing with the person speaking at all. We are solely into imagining what is being said, just as we are when watching a movie or reading a book. If you weren't so fixated on trying to trip me up on something all the time you would've grasped this in the thought this was used as an example of.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15