The Glory of God in Nature

every sentence is like this.

ok....

you lost me. Plug God? ...plug God? what!? ...for the image? what image?

It's a joke. How the fuck can you expect anyone to understand what the shit you are talking about.

What is the realism of failing.

And look how twisted your expressions are.

"plug God for the image in the values of succeeding in the realism of failing"

You could have just said 'Plug god to succeed' to the same effect, except if the 'realism' is 'failing' than you still fail regardless.
....a horrible use of language.

Don't try and admonish me for misunderstanding this, it's not reasonable construed.

 

Fruity and sensual are totally vague and how much is slightly. How sweet.

Our names for one.

If it is worthless why invest your comment. I have learned things from trying to figure out what he said. I don't suggest you are unworthy but you are coming to conclusions based on an insufficient sampling.

It might be a translation issue.

 

Pseudo-gurus stand up for each other, I see. Kinda touching.

 

It really is SO easy to break things down into a childish foray into semantics. Anyone can do it, but it's not contextually relevant or useful.

If you're up for a challenge, why don't you explain what you have learnt in concise, comprehensible, syntactically correct and understandable english.

Then a proper discussion can take place.

 

I learned for one just recently that you are frustrated by the fact that you can't make sense of what he says and it is that frustration that causes you to complain, not the words themselves.

Semantics by the way are the study of meaning in language: the study of how meaning in language is created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases, and sentences.
The study of symbols: the study of the relationship between symbols and what they represent
The study of logic: the study of ways of interpreting and analyzing theories of logic.

Your previous post was a study in semantics.
Your whole rant is about semantics.

 

And you really are a psuedo nice guy, despite what your other posts may indicate.

 

Love this thread. Apology in advance if this post didn't help to advance humanity.

 

But yeah, nature is the grandest cathedral. Always tastefully arranged.

 

So, are you going to extrapolate meaning from the poorly written, schizophrenic scrawl?

Or just shift the spotlight on to me?

so what makes you think my reaction has any significance?

Yes.. I am annoyed by poor illogical statements with no reasoning behind them.

just look at that sentence. It's horrendous.

I'm assuming 'plug' is the slang for 'endorsement'.

what Image. God's Image? Our Image?
'the image' implies there is only one image. And we must 'endorse' God to obtain it.
ha! ok! whatever? any evidence? any reasoning why this might be atleast philosophically viable?

Why use 'values of succeeding'
Succeeding would work fine. Succeeding IS a 'value'.
It doesn't need to have subvalues.

Realism of failing? Well that's a negative presumption isn't it! Why is the realism failing?

Do you see how the lack of supporting evidence really bugs me?
Without it, everything is insubstantial, meaningless grunting.

anyway

Granted that 'failing' is the curren't 'realism', then the mere values of succeeding are negated.

Succeeding HAS no value if the reality is failure.

MY GOD.
AND THIS IS JUST ONE SENTENCE.

Why is this forum filled with this jibberish?

Everyone here is like a redneck pastor on LSD.

There's so many posts of just wild rambling that looks like computer code mixed with conservative propoganda.

lol.

 

Values of succeeding are negated, and that will mean difference to an Oil Man, for instance. In all of his personal privacy he might just take up a concernful deal in environmentalism with the property development.

 

No I don't mean to shift the spotlight on you. I thought it a little over the top to conclude that the poster is trying to be pretentious.

It was a knee jerk reaction on my part. I have this thing about the tendency of people to find solace for their own emotional states by assigning guilt to someone else.

I have asked this person before about the way he writes. I had wondered if English were perhaps a second language for him. He is not forthcoming on this point and I think this phenomena may be of some personal embarrassment to him. I hope I haven't been rude in saying this.

Despite the grammar, he uses a lot of metaphor relating to established philosophical systems and philosophers, and also the current big moral issues of the day, like environmentalism. He uses these metaphors with competence
and that makes me think he may be a philosophy teacher or at least seriously academic. It is for this reason I say he is no slouch.

I don't know what supporting evidence he would provide relative to the things he is saying but yes, I understand your frustration. You could ask for the clarification you need instead of concluding that there is an attempt being made to befuddle.

In many cases there are people taking drugs, people who have difficulty in social situations, thoughtful people, artistic people, autistic people. All kinds
that are held together by a sense of communal tolerance.

As stupid as some things appear there are other things that are very bright.

 

Thanks for the difficult to follow pantheism of the scertained difficulty for continuing on this web site. I, however, didn't notice your responses until now enk, do you question then that I hide behind a facade? It fails a lot, too; as I am sure yours does too.

 

No I don't think you are hiding behind a facade. =)

I'd just appreciate it if you typed your messages more clearly.

Try reading out your messages aloud to hear how they sound.

For example, this sentence is very complicated.

It doesn't flow easily, you should consider rewording it.

"difficult-to-follow pantheism" could become "complicated panthiesm"
or perhaps "illegible pantheism"

Also, I would question the word pantheism. It doesn't sound like what you are describing is actually a pantheism.

but anyway, all the best.

well that's a good point. I'm sorry for the harshness.

I will mention one thread that XsameXoneXotherX created called 'So basic for us right ones'. - in the philosophy and religion forum.

It contained alot of broken english, symbols and nonsensical stuff

But one line read

just what is this supposed to mean.
I wasn't aware that homosexuality is 'attacking' anything, or 'missing out', or necassarily 'acting bitchy'.

When it comes to these types of statements about people's sexuality -- I that's crossing a line from 'mentally challenged' into a kind of subtle malice that i don't appreciate.

 

Its all nature. Including us. There is no separation.