Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr. Sammi · 09-21-2002, 06:30 AM

Ierrellus was correct when he asked the question what would the meteor mission specialists do when faced with failure? as he himself replied with a "would they consult their PIKi manual?". They would have to consult their PIKi models, and I would hope they have a working model of doubting.

Even as we speak, if those mission specialists, never hear of PIKi, they would eventually end up consulting their own natural PIKi model. Why would I postulate such an idea if I did not believe all humans have their own natural PIKi models.

It is certain this is true because in our growth out of the womb, the black box in our head supplies us with natural consequences of facing existence. These natural consequences which must be a priori to our own consciousness is the natural service provider for the natural PIKi model.

What philosophy terms as knowledge through justifiable beliefs is a terminal interpretation of the information previously presented to a human. This philosophical knowledge builds a pseudo understanding or a collection of related information. It is this collection of related information which can be viewed as a mathematical group with a resulting topology. The relations which keep the group in bounds is directly related to the crieteria which allows the collection of information to exist as knowledge. Some relations within the group especially the relations which allow corroboration of information in order to fully justify the belief may only be related to the group through its entanglement with the information elements within the group.

Where does the previous paragraph delineate the difference between PIKi knowledge and philosophical knowledge? Firstly we remember our definition of perceptions as representations, Information as lucid representations and Knowledge as specifics related to the Information. Secondly philosophical knowledge is a collection of justifiable specifics related to itz information. From all this it seems as if PIKi knowledge is a change in information, where the change in the information obtained the specific concerning the information. Further we understand this as a collection of changes tied together perhaps by several relations which gives the "I KNOW" clause itz grand effect.

So with Ierrellus being correct in consulting the PIKi model, one now wonders, whether a conscious PIKi model is the correct path for humans to trod.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi · 09-21-2002, 07:15 AM

Keith Russell, sometimes redundancy must be used as an effect. I did not know you were around to comprehend the logic of those who sold the Emperor his new clothes. Share it with me some time.

There is the idea of folk philosophy which resounds on every scholastic philosopher's lips as there is the idea of pure philosophy which falls from the pen of the same.

Consuming a model of philosophy means being able to effectively utilise the philosophical ideas brought forward by various philosophers. For example to live the life of an existentialist is remarkably different from a "normal" life. A normal life is intended to mean, a life unaffected by philosophy. Do you want to life like a Stoic? If you do then you would have to be able to consume the philosophical ideas behind being Stoic.

In the Domain of Discourse, which has itz own life so to speak, there are the perceptions which give the Domain its existential reality. These are the encodings found in the Brain. This is one difficulties I mentioned earlier. There are 2 levels of comprehension to be discovered in this particular section. These 2 levels of comprehension are : (1) what it is, and (2) how it is what it is.

The restrictions on any Domain of Discourse in the quest for knowledge within the domain can make the domain grow further, or it can shrink the domain. To obtain the specifics one may need to make reference to another Domain of Discourse hence the domain grows. Specifics can also be obtained by zooming in on a small part of the domain which in reality shrinks the immediate reference to the domain.

Concerning the circular arguments, if you think what was written was circular, wait until Knowledge and Intelligence become Perceptions and the full circle will really become confusing. All knowledge has its information and perceptions. The simultaneity of knowledge and intelligence and my ideas concerning their co-operation and co-existence does make their interactions slightly vague.

So you think I have been calling you names?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Feather · 09-21-2002, 07:17 AM

If a hen and a half could lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long would it take a blind monkey to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle? (And would he have to consult his PIKi model manual to do so?)

Cosimo · 09-21-2002, 09:01 AM

That just may have been the longest koan I have ever read.

Autonemesis · 09-21-2002, 09:53 AM

Mr. Sammi, you should really take up reading Gurdjieff, especially Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson. I think you would find it very intriguing and illuminating:

Quote:

ALL THE BEINGS OF THIS PLANET THEN BEGAN TO WORK in order to have in their consciousness this Divine function of genuine conscience, and for this purpose, as everywhere in the Universe, they transubstantiated in themselves what are called the �being-obligolnian-strivings� which consist of the following five, namely:
The first striving: to have in their ordinary being-existence everything satisfying and really necessary for their planetary body.
The second striving: to have a constant and unflagging instinctive need for self-perfection in the sense of being.
The third: the conscious striving to know ever more and more concerning the laws of World-creation and World-maintenance.
The fourth: the striving from the beginning of their existence to pay for their arising and their individuality as quickly as possible, in order afterwards to be free to lighten as much as possible the Sorrow of our Common Father.
And the fifth: the striving always to assist the most rapid perfecting of other beings, both those similar to oneself and those of other forms, up to the degree of the sacred �Martfotai� that is up to the degree of self-individuality.

BEELZEBUB'S TALES, PP. 385-6

Some exceprts - the first several chapters, really - are published at <a href="http://www.gurdjieff.org/" target="_blank">http://www.gurdjieff.org/</a>.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Keith Russell · 09-21-2002, 12:02 PM

Mr. Sammi:

No, you did not employ ad hominem in your response to me, which I appreciate.

But, neither did you offer an explanation for your claims; you simply made additional claims, again without support.

Both the audience and the speaker share responsibility for understanding the ideas presented, but the majority of the responsibility belongs to the speaker, not to the audience.

Before your audience can understand your ideas, you have to present them in a way in which they can be understood.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi · 09-23-2002, 10:06 AM

Kind Bud, you must have misread me completely, the short excerpt you gave did not interest me in any way. Should I feel bad because of this? OR should you feel disappointed? Perhaps you misread me the same way most people cannot seem to understand what I am writing. IT SEEMS A COMPLETE MATCH.

* * *

Keith Russell, a problem could arise when people start acting dumb. Take for example if I need to repeat something for effect, some could call it rhetoric and unnecessary, while the intelligent humans call it brilliant expositive writing.

I do believe if you Keith Russell, or anyone else cannot understand what I am saying, then philosophy is not your business, you should stich to your a,b,c's which your professors showed you.

I am really crushed that the great world-power Americans cannot understand simple thinking, or they feign ignorance. In my opinion Keith, what I am presenting is too complex for your mind. I cannot make changes directly in your head, neither is what I am presenting suitable for high school reunions, what I am presenting is for decision makers and PHILOSOPHICAL THINKERS.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Sammi ]</p>

Autonemesis · 09-23-2002, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
Kind Bud, you must have misread me completely, the short excerpt you gave did not interest me in any way. Should I feel bad because of this? OR should you feel disappointed? Perhaps you misread me the same way most people cannot seem to understand what I am writing. IT SEEMS A COMPLETE MATCH.

I suggested Gurdjieff because his admonition to his readers sounds a lot like yours:

Quote:

�Read each of my written expositions thrice:

Firstly�at least as you have already become mechanized to read all your contemporary books and newspapers.

Secondly�as if you were reading aloud to another person.

And only thirdly�try and fathom the gist of my writings.�

I thought maybe if you read his writings, you'd get inspiration for how to make your own writings more lucid, since Gurdjieff went to great pains to make his writings, and translations of his writings, worded just so, so as to convey the subtleties of his ideas with precision.

Clutch · 09-23-2002, 10:45 AM

Google-search on "writing a good philosophy paper" produced many useful results. I like this one -- notice, from an actual philosopher's website:

Quote:

A note on writing a good philosophy paper:

It�s easy. Honest.

1) Have a point. Your paper must be organized around a thesis.

2) Say, with absolute clarity, what your point is. Do this in the first paragraph. (The last sentence of the first paragraph is often used for expressing the thesis.)

3) If you are writing on an assigned topic, answer the question directly.

4) Now just make the series of points that support your thesis. Make each point in a separate paragraph. Make comments that show, clearly and explicitly, how each point supports the thesis.

5) Anticipate objections. If you think that one or two challenges to your point are quite obvious, and you have good replies to them, you can briefly try to defuse the objections in advance.

6) Conclude by summarizing how you really did what you said you were going to do.

7) Write simply, directly, and grammatically.

8) Spell-check the darned thing. Make sure you spell everyone�s names correctly!

Now, all of that seems utterly, mind-bogglingly obvious. But virtually every Philosophy essay that goes seriously awry does so by failing to follow one or more of these obvious instructions.

�
What not to do:

Do not begin your essay with "Since the dawn of time", or any remotely similar dreck that sounds like it came from "Mysteries of the Unexplained". Besides being stylistically absurd, it almost always ends up being false, e.g., "Since the beginning of the universe, humans have wondered about Descartes� methodological scepticism."

Do not try to be profound. The greatest stylistic virtue for a philosophy paper is clarity. Technical terms, once you�ve defined them, are very useful; they help you to avoid awkward or repetitious phrases. But superfluously using arcane or abstruse words (like "superfluous, "arcane", and "abstruse") simply for the purpose of appearing profound is (i) not profound and (ii) never successful. Simple and direct writing is what shows genuinely clear thought and a mastery of the relevant concepts.

Do not be afraid to delete. Perhaps the hardest lesson to learn is that those hard-earned words, which you wrote � wrote! � with your very own fingers, are not sacred. If you�ve written down something that does not clearly, explicitly, directly support your thesis, get rid of it. Yes, even if you really like the sound of it. Even if it uses some word or phrase that seems terribly clever. Even if it�s the paragraph that puts you over the minimum word-count! Delete it, hold a memorial service, then write something better.

Mr. Sammi · 09-23-2002, 11:17 AM

Kind Bud, I accept your advice. Sometimes it seems it takes a few passes before information can be accurately accumulated. In the light of your most recent wordings I can make an acceptable representation.

* * *

Clutch, what your professors told you or what you read on the web will never apply to me. I am out for blood, fresh goouey blood, that has not as yet been spilled.

When a thesis has simultaneous aspects, like a huge topology along with various levels of interaction, all current trends in presentation end up in the great garbage can. Our language is linear and it is very difficult to express non-linear thoughts linearily (lecture). The linear ordering of a non-linear subject WILL not be suitable to everyone, because to some I did not begin at their beginning. Again I wish to underline the lack of comprehension, to suitably grasp the immensity of what I speak, otherwise, the contents of this paragraph would have been evident.

I know there are communication problems, but I am pioneering them, in a simultaneous fashion.

Sammi Na Boodie (hope u can follow)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-21-2002, 06:30 AM	#51
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Ierrellus was correct when he asked the question what would the meteor mission specialists do when faced with failure? as he himself replied with a "would they consult their PIKi manual?". They would have to consult their PIKi models, and I would hope they have a working model of doubting. Even as we speak, if those mission specialists, never hear of PIKi, they would eventually end up consulting their own natural PIKi model. Why would I postulate such an idea if I did not believe all humans have their own natural PIKi models. It is certain this is true because in our growth out of the womb, the black box in our head supplies us with natural consequences of facing existence. These natural consequences which must be a priori to our own consciousness is the natural service provider for the natural PIKi model. What philosophy terms as knowledge through justifiable beliefs is a terminal interpretation of the information previously presented to a human. This philosophical knowledge builds a pseudo understanding or a collection of related information. It is this collection of related information which can be viewed as a mathematical group with a resulting topology. The relations which keep the group in bounds is directly related to the crieteria which allows the collection of information to exist as knowledge. Some relations within the group especially the relations which allow corroboration of information in order to fully justify the belief may only be related to the group through its entanglement with the information elements within the group. Where does the previous paragraph delineate the difference between PIKi knowledge and philosophical knowledge? Firstly we remember our definition of perceptions as representations, Information as lucid representations and Knowledge as specifics related to the Information. Secondly philosophical knowledge is a collection of justifiable specifics related to itz information. From all this it seems as if PIKi knowledge is a change in information, where the change in the information obtained the specific concerning the information. Further we understand this as a collection of changes tied together perhaps by several relations which gives the "I KNOW" clause itz grand effect. So with Ierrellus being correct in consulting the PIKi model, one now wonders, whether a conscious PIKi model is the correct path for humans to trod. Sammi Na Boodie ()

09-21-2002, 07:15 AM	#52
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Keith Russell, sometimes redundancy must be used as an effect. I did not know you were around to comprehend the logic of those who sold the Emperor his new clothes. Share it with me some time. There is the idea of folk philosophy which resounds on every scholastic philosopher's lips as there is the idea of pure philosophy which falls from the pen of the same. Consuming a model of philosophy means being able to effectively utilise the philosophical ideas brought forward by various philosophers. For example to live the life of an existentialist is remarkably different from a "normal" life. A normal life is intended to mean, a life unaffected by philosophy. Do you want to life like a Stoic? If you do then you would have to be able to consume the philosophical ideas behind being Stoic. In the Domain of Discourse, which has itz own life so to speak, there are the perceptions which give the Domain its existential reality. These are the encodings found in the Brain. This is one difficulties I mentioned earlier. There are 2 levels of comprehension to be discovered in this particular section. These 2 levels of comprehension are : (1) what it is, and (2) how it is what it is. The restrictions on any Domain of Discourse in the quest for knowledge within the domain can make the domain grow further, or it can shrink the domain. To obtain the specifics one may need to make reference to another Domain of Discourse hence the domain grows. Specifics can also be obtained by zooming in on a small part of the domain which in reality shrinks the immediate reference to the domain. Concerning the circular arguments, if you think what was written was circular, wait until Knowledge and Intelligence become Perceptions and the full circle will really become confusing. All knowledge has its information and perceptions. The simultaneity of knowledge and intelligence and my ideas concerning their co-operation and co-existence does make their interactions slightly vague. So you think I have been calling you names? Sammi Na Boodie ()

09-21-2002, 07:17 AM	#53
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	If a hen and a half could lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long would it take a blind monkey to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle? (And would he have to consult his PIKi model manual to do so?)

09-21-2002, 09:01 AM	#54
Cosimo Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 8	That just may have been the longest koan I have ever read.

09-21-2002, 12:02 PM	#56
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Mr. Sammi: No, you did not employ ad hominem in your response to me, which I appreciate. But, neither did you offer an explanation for your claims; you simply made additional claims, again without support. Both the audience and the speaker share responsibility for understanding the ideas presented, but the majority of the responsibility belongs to the speaker, not to the audience. Before your audience can understand your ideas, you have to present them in a way in which they can be understood. Keith.

09-23-2002, 10:06 AM	#57
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Kind Bud, you must have misread me completely, the short excerpt you gave did not interest me in any way. Should I feel bad because of this? OR should you feel disappointed? Perhaps you misread me the same way most people cannot seem to understand what I am writing. IT SEEMS A COMPLETE MATCH. * * * Keith Russell, a problem could arise when people start acting dumb. Take for example if I need to repeat something for effect, some could call it rhetoric and unnecessary, while the intelligent humans call it brilliant expositive writing. I do believe if you Keith Russell, or anyone else cannot understand what I am saying, then philosophy is not your business, you should stich to your a,b,c's which your professors showed you. I am really crushed that the great world-power Americans cannot understand simple thinking, or they feign ignorance. In my opinion Keith, what I am presenting is too complex for your mind. I cannot make changes directly in your head, neither is what I am presenting suitable for high school reunions, what I am presenting is for decision makers and PHILOSOPHICAL THINKERS. Sammi Na Boodie () [ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Sammi ]</p>

09-23-2002, 11:17 AM	#60
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Kind Bud, I accept your advice. Sometimes it seems it takes a few passes before information can be accurately accumulated. In the light of your most recent wordings I can make an acceptable representation. * * * Clutch, what your professors told you or what you read on the web will never apply to me. I am out for blood, fresh goouey blood, that has not as yet been spilled. When a thesis has simultaneous aspects, like a huge topology along with various levels of interaction, all current trends in presentation end up in the great garbage can. Our language is linear and it is very difficult to express non-linear thoughts linearily (lecture). The linear ordering of a non-linear subject WILL not be suitable to everyone, because to some I did not begin at their beginning. Again I wish to underline the lack of comprehension, to suitably grasp the immensity of what I speak, otherwise, the contents of this paragraph would have been evident. I know there are communication problems, but I am pioneering them, in a simultaneous fashion. Sammi Na Boodie (hope u can follow)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.