A Can of Worms . . .

[JumpOff]

Clarification

To say that someone's idea is ignorant, uninformed, wrong, dangerous, etc.. is acceptable.

To say that a person is ignorant, in a state of ignorance, etc... is a slur.

Even if it is true, we don't go that route on these boards. It is simply a matter of civility.

Feel free to vigorously attack any idea with which you disagree or know to be incorrect.

I realize this is sometimes a subtle distinction, - I mean- saying that someone's ideas are idiotic, and doing so on a regular basis would seem to be in essence the same thing as saying the person has an idiotic way of thinking. However, because of our culture, the former is not seen as a person attack, while the latter is very insulting.

And so dear posters, I leave you to ponder your verbs and their possessors.

JO

(nothing in my post above should be construed as a judgement of peto's state of mind, or the validity of his interpretation of the motto on the cannon barrel. I ain't got a hound in this hunt.)

 

[Charlton]

Shamed or Punished - perhaps the theme of this thread ?

You are far better to check any on-line resource and of course those sources which have stood the test of time and are accepted as being correct.

It is 'shame' or possibly 'evil' to he who evil thinks.

You are quite correct Bramble, honi should be translated as "Shamed" from which is derived the modern French equivalent for the noun Shame - La Honte. The verb to punish is punir, so punished would be puni.

Charlton

 

[Splitlink]

To say that someone's idea is ignorant, uninformed, wrong, dangerous, etc.. is acceptable.

To say that a person is ignorant, in a state of ignorance, etc... is a slur.

Even if it is true, we don't go that route on these boards. It is simply a matter of civility.

Feel free to vigorously attack any idea with which you disagree or know to be incorrect.

I realize this is sometimes a subtle distinction, - I mean- saying that someone's ideas are idiotic, and doing so on a regular basis would seem to be in essence the same thing as saying the person has an idiotic way of thinking. However, because of our culture, the former is not seen as a person attack, while the latter is very insulting.

And so dear posters, I leave you to ponder your verbs and their possessors.

JO

(nothing in my post above should be construed as a judgement of peto's state of mind, or the validity of his interpretation of the motto on the cannon barrel. I ain't got a hound in this hunt.)

Of course not, although it would appear that we are about to be pounded by a load of old balls with latin inscribed on them or, at least, the cannon used to fire them. I never knew that I was in the company of such a cultured lot of gents although there seems to be some discrepancy in the translation which may lead to misunderstands at times.
Split

 

[starspacer]

We would do well to ponder that aggression (whether verbal or physical) results as a psychological defense against threats of fragmentation. That is, as infants, we are just a jumble of diverse biological processes over which we have no authority, and our first task in life is to develop a coherent identity which “pulls together” this fragmented confusion.

This identity may give the appearance of a unified personality, but it really is just a psychological illusion that hides our essential human vulnerability and weakness. And when anything, or anyone, threatens us with the truth of our essential fragmentation, the quickest and easiest defense available—to hide the truth of weakness and give the illusion of power—is aggression. As a result, some persons will fly into a rage about almost anything. But some persons, don't get any closer to anger than apathy. And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger because, like all anger, apathy, even though it achieves its goal through passive indifference, ultimately wishes harm on another person.

And that is why, in this case, I believe Socrates is correct .

 

[SOCRATES]

We would do well to ponder that aggression (whether verbal or physical) results as a psychological defense against threats of fragmentation. That is, as infants, we are just a jumble of diverse biological processes over which we have no authority, and our first task in life is to develop a coherent identity which “pulls together” this fragmented confusion.

This identity may give the appearance of a unified personality, but it really is just a psychological illusion that hides our essential human vulnerability and weakness. And when anything, or anyone, threatens us with the truth of our essential fragmentation, the quickest and easiest defense available—to hide the truth of weakness and give the illusion of power—is aggression. As a result, some persons will fly into a rage about almost anything. But some persons, don't get any closer to anger than apathy. And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger because, like all anger, apathy, even though it achieves its goal through passive indifference, ultimately wishes harm on another person.

And that is why, in this case, I believe Socrates is correct .

Thank you for vindicating me, and thank yourself for your good fortune in being yourself.

 

[peto]

And that is why, in this case, I believe Socrates is correct .[/size]

Which case is that then?

i.e. that the Naval gun was French? Or that I am "slur deleted"?. Or that he has the right to say so? Or that honi should be translated as punished?.

Or perhaps that when he " makes any statement on these boards, you can be absolutely guaranteed it is correct".... at least that one has been conclusively disproved anyway!

Bless him

 

[SOCRATES]

Which case is that then?

i.e. that the Naval gun was French? Or that I am "slur deleted"?. Or that he has the right to say so? Or that honi should be translated as punished?.

Or perhaps that when he " makes any statement on these boards, you can be absolutely guaranteed it is correct".... at least that one has been conclusively disproved anyway!

Bless him

Make a really big effort, and think deeply about all this, as deep as you can go, and see what conclusion you are able to arrive at, and whether you can arrive at a conclusion which is patently obvious to the great majority of members with long memories.

 

[starspacer]

Which case is that then?

i.e. that the Naval gun was French? Or that I am "slur deleted"?. Or that he has the right to say so? Or that honi should be translated as punished?.

Or perhaps that when he " makes any statement on these boards, you can be absolutely guaranteed it is correct".... at least that one has been conclusively disproved anyway!

Bless him

You must of course know peto that it is best that I do not answer that question. The power and benefit of the Socratic method (in its purest form) is that the teacher allows students to use their own deductive reasoning to see things for themselves solely through a series of questions.

This gives the students a chance to experience the attendant joy and excitement of discovering (often complex) ideas on their own. And it gives teachers a chance to learn how much more inventive and bright a great many more students are than usually appear to be when they are primarily passive

 

[peto]

Make a really big effort, and think deeply about all this, as deep as you can go, and see what conclusion you are able to arrive at, and whether you can arrive at a conclusion which is patently obvious to the great majority of members with long memories.

Ha...of course.

I see it now

Unfortunately to actually write it down would be to break the rules of this forum by negatively addressing your personal characteristics, and I would draw back from such an infringement even where you might be so bold!

 

[fxmarkets]

evening all, hmmm, but are we not evolving from feeling threatened, I mean I can see starspacers point about defence, but this human quality of "Feelings" isnt that a gift ? a weakness , i wouldn't put it there. Some will knowingly or not attack maybe to hurt others at times, but are we not edging out of that swamp ?

now then imagine how life would be if everyone when arguing were to sing their differences to each other

 

[peto]

You must of course know peto that it is best that I do not answer that question. The power and benefit of the Socratic method (in its purest form) is that the teacher allows students to use their own deductive reasoning to see things for themselves solely through a series of questions.

This gives the students a chance to experience the attendant joy and excitement of discovering (often complex) ideas on their own. And it gives teachers a chance to learn how much more inventive and bright a great many more students are than usually appear to be when they are primarily passive

Evasion is often the best policy. Background in politics?

 

[SOCRATES]

Evasion is often the best policy. Background in politics?

No. This is because the subconscious mind is what man is, whereas the conscious mind is only what man knows (or puts his attention on).

 

[starspacer]

No, no peto, you misunderstand.
As Socrates says, "[m]ake a really big effort, and think deeply about all this, as deep as you can go, and see what conclusion you are able to arrive at..."
Ask yourself, "how far does the Truth admit of being learned?"

To paraphrase "Christian Thought Sown in a Greek Field" by Eric Verhine
Consider the possible modes through which one comes, or may come, to know the Truth. To quote Socrates in the Meno: "[O]ne cannot seek for what he knows, and it seems equally impossible for him to seek for what he does not know. For what a man knows he cannot seek, since he knows it; and what he does not know he cannot seek, since he does not even know for what to seek".
The basic metaphor of the Socratic mode of knowing is that the Truth is sought, but this metaphor deconstructs itself because the nature of seeking implies some sense of prior possession. If one is to find the truth, one must find it already in one's possession.

I think that Socrates' postings help he who is ignorant (or who launch verbal assaults) as a reminder to help him come to himself in the consciousness of what he knows.

Again, Verhine points out that from the standpoint of the Socratic thought every point of departure in time is eo ipso accidental, an occasion, a "vanishing moment". The phrase "point of departure in time," or "temporal departure," refers simply to the moment in which one learns the truth, when one departs--in time--from the flow and flux of time and sees the eternal; in a literal sense, a point of departure in time is "a moment of Truth”.
The teacher therefore is no more than... accidental and vanishing. With regard to getting hold of the Truth, no man owes thanks to any other man... . The teacher plays a forgettable role, which anyone with similar training might have played.
One's eternal truth does not come into being in the moment; one simply realizes that it has always been. Since one's eternal truth does not come into being at "temporal departure," the moment of departure lacks significance.

So, peto, I’m afraid that I cannot concur with you and must agree with Socrates.

 

[SOCRATES]

Ha...of course.

I see it now

Unfortunately to actually write it down would be to break the rules of this forum by negatively addressing your personal characteristics, and I would draw back from such an infringement even where you might be so bold!

No, not of course....

You don't see it. Leave yourself out of it.

Look again, this time really deeply, see if you spot it.

If you are really stuck, I may decide to give you a clue later.

But I want to see you trying first...really trying, and acting within a framework of morality and reason, not guesswork.

 

[fxmarkets]

Is the subconscious mind a part of the spirit energy within a person ? is it totally that or is it a link between the 2 perhaps.

hmm thinking of it I'd have to say a link rather than the pure energy or spark of an individual maybe.
any thoughts on this , anyone?

 

[SOCRATES]

No, no peto, you misunderstand.
As Socrates says, "[m]ake a really big effort, and think deeply about all this, as deep as you can go, and see what conclusion you are able to arrive at..."
Ask yourself, "how far does the Truth admit of being learned?"

Consider the possible modes through which one comes, or may come, to know the Truth. To quote Socrates in the Meno: "[O]ne cannot seek for what he knows, and it seems equally impossible for him to seek for what he does not know. For what a man knows he cannot seek, since he knows it; and what he does not know he cannot seek, since he does not even know for what to seek".
The basic metaphor of the Socratic mode of knowing is that the Truth is sought, but this metaphor deconstructs itself because the nature of seeking implies some sense of prior possession. If one is to find the truth, one must find it already in one's possession.

I think that Socrates' postings help he who is ignorant (or who launch verbal assaults) as a reminder to help him come to himself in the consciousness of what he knows.

From the standpoint of the Socratic thought every point of departure in time is eo ipso accidental, an occasion, a "vanishing moment". The phrase "point of departure in time," or "temporal departure," refers simply to the moment in which one learns the truth, when one departs--in time--from the flow and flux of time and sees the eternal; in a literal sense, a point of departure in time is "a moment of Truth”.
The teacher therefore is no more than... accidental and vanishing. With regard to getting hold of the Truth, no man owes thanks to any other man... . The teacher plays a forgettable role, which anyone with similar training might have played.
One's eternal truth does not come into being in the moment; one simply realizes that it has always been. Since one's eternal truth does not come into being at "temporal departure," the moment of departure lacks significance.

So, peto, I’m afraid that I cannot concur with you and must agree with Socrates.

Quite so, very good indeed, yet once again.

My compliments to you.

 

[dbphoenix]

And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger because, like all anger, apathy, even though it achieves its goal through passive indifference, ultimately wishes harm on another person.

Interesting viewpoints. Do you have any evidence to support either ot them?

 

[SOCRATES]

Is the subconscious mind a part of the spirit energy within a person ? is it totally that or is it a link between the 2 perhaps.

hmm thinking of it I'd have to say a link rather than the pure energy or spark of an individual maybe.
any thoughts on this , anyone?

Yes it is.

A link exists in developed individuals to access the subconscious at will, on command, by subduing the conscious mind, in order to be able to access it without let nor hindrance.

The conscious mind acts as an override.

But it is not the real mind and the source of all cognition.

It is just that it is taken for granted that all thought emanates from it, which is wrong.

For example, intuition, precognition, etc., emanate from the subconscious mind and then become manifest in the conscious and appear as thoughts, conscious thoughts, that is.

 

[fxmarkets]

hmmm, I see what DB is asking , and again on starspacers point apathy , individuals like the Dahli Lama surely have/are transcended/ing the primitive (in terms of mans evolution) the I want to hurt you stage. I mean if a person wants to be agression, then live that, its all experience of your life, if thats what you expect or want for yourself. But of course there will be reactions to your actions, but not everyone wants to hurt back.

 

[peto]

No, no peto, you misunderstand.
As Socrates says, "[m]ake a really big effort, and think deeply about all this, as deep as you can go, and see what conclusion you are able to arrive at..."
Ask yourself, "how far does the Truth admit of being learned?"

Consider the possible modes through which one comes, or may come, to know the Truth. To quote Socrates in the Meno: "[O]ne cannot seek for what he knows, and it seems equally impossible for him to seek for what he does not know. For what a man knows he cannot seek, since he knows it; and what he does not know he cannot seek, since he does not even know for what to seek".
The basic metaphor of the Socratic mode of knowing is that the Truth is sought, but this metaphor deconstructs itself because the nature of seeking implies some sense of prior possession. If one is to find the truth, one must find it already in one's possession.

I think that Socrates' postings help he who is ignorant (or who launch verbal assaults) as a reminder to help him come to himself in the consciousness of what he knows.

From the standpoint of the Socratic thought every point of departure in time is eo ipso accidental, an occasion, a "vanishing moment". The phrase "point of departure in time," or "temporal departure," refers simply to the moment in which one learns the truth, when one departs--in time--from the flow and flux of time and sees the eternal; in a literal sense, a point of departure in time is "a moment of Truth”.
The teacher therefore is no more than... accidental and vanishing. With regard to getting hold of the Truth, no man owes thanks to any other man... . The teacher plays a forgettable role, which anyone with similar training might have played.
One's eternal truth does not come into being in the moment; one simply realizes that it has always been. Since one's eternal truth does not come into being at "temporal departure," the moment of departure lacks significance.

So, peto, I’m afraid that I cannot concur with you and must agree with Socrates.

1. Socrates, Athenian philosopher born 469 bc
2. Socrates, also known as Bertie, regular poster on T2W

I'm afraid you are confusing the two quite separate entities. I always worry when people start spelling Truth with a capital letter..