I went back to the James Maynard Keenan forum... it has been almost a year that I hadn't posted. My last post was towards a member that responded with very explicit demands: "I'll wait a few years before I explain it to you. In the mean time , it would probably be best if you 'stay away' from me."
I tried waiting a few years, but, oh well, I only could wait 1... let see where this goes......
Notes before reading:
*For an explanation on how this rant is organized, please: read this.
*This [not a] rant is posted in a message board inside the hi5 network. You need to register and find the group in which this message board resides which is Phylosophy with comments beginning with "Share your philosophical ideas with others? This is the place to be!".
*The discussion started when a member called Kelly asked if someone knew what this next phrase meant:
"For words are wise mens counters, they do but reckon by them: but they are the money of fools, that value them by the authority of an aristotle, a cicero, or a thomas, or any other doctor whatsoever, if but a man."
Various others came in trying to explain it... here are some that I think explained it better:
Eugene:
"Wise men can express themselves through their own wise words; but the unwise cannot, they can only quote words from the wise. The mere fact that one quotes from a "wise man" proves that one a fool."
Kelly (yeah, she answered herself):
"Wise men use words to keep track and build wise thoughts, and fools use wise men's words to acheive their own foolish or devious ends. The last three words, "if but a man", throws me off totally."
Mona:
"The implication in saying "if [but] a man" [...] perhaps the author is saying that we should not accept "wise words" on the basis that they were said by a "wise man" because that "wise man" is but a man for doing such a thing would make us fools. I think basically what he's saying is that we need to be critical of the words of "wise men" and not fall into the trap of being in awe of the emperor's new clothes. We need to use such words to think, not to marvel because ironically that is what wise men themselves would have done. Aristotle, given the chance would have been critical of cicero and vice versa because these men were critically minded which is what gave them their reputations as "wise men" in the first place. So i guess we need to be critical of this author too ;)"
-This was a friendly discussion, so it may not be treated as a a rant per se. But the topic was interesting nevertheless.
-"Threading" is how I called how a forum works: someone begins a discussion by starting a thread with an initial post, in which anyone can reply to about that topic. This unencourages another discussion to creep in the one being discussed in the thread (if you want to talk about something else, just start a new thread about that). The way that hi5 works is the "message board" way in which anyone can message everyone about anything, so a discussion is quite difficult to follow having many messages of different topics in the same page.
[Not a] Rant:
I was reading the "thread" (which I would think that this type of discussion could be followed much easier if hi5 would use that type of system for messaging: "threading") and I was about to post something very similar to what Mona posted.
Coincidentally, the conclusion at which I was about to get to was the very same reason for me responding until I've read every message of the discussion: no opinion is holy from being discussed or challenged, because of which every opinion is valid from it's birth and may only be brought to it's death or glory by discussion not by deaf ears nor by indulgent eyes. Thus, an opinion (or "wise words") can't be taken as a dogma just because of the person that spoke it; ironically (because of the reference to Aristotle) this is a rule of Greek logic: the truthfullness of a statement may only be judged by the logic of other statements (or discussion), not by it's precedence. E.g., if a drunk came to me and demanded that I should stay away from alcohol because it's bad for me, even though his statement is hypocritical, the fact still remains that alcohol is bad for me.
B.T.W. This was my first post in this group. Hi!
I've "broken up" with Bere... that's gota be the shortest in my life. Almost two days, but it's ok: what I wanted was some company not a relationship and I was forcing myself to see her as something more than a friend. The great thing about everything is that she understood; she seemed hurt, obviously, but we talked quite a lot after the news, so I'm guessing she'll be alright.
Now that I think about it, I never actually said that was going out with her here, did I? Ja, well yeah: she sought me out and confronted me like she always is (tenderly) and subtly swept in the subject. I thought about it and it seemed like a very good idea, so we went for it; but when I got home I kept feeling more and more... well... nothing. I realized that I didn't have feelings for her, at least not in that way: she send me messages, I replied forcing myself to see her as a girlfriend, but nothing came out as such, and only replied like friends do.
This is for the best, anyway. I'm doing my best to go to England around summer this year, so this relationship would've been very short (well, it was anyway, jaja) and probably very hurting, for both of us. It's weird, it's the first time that I brake up with someone but not feel anything, a sign that it would've been even worse for her than I originally thought.
Look at me: I'm sitting here at Mexico's Airport, going home for Spring Break (yeah, I'm all backwards, I know), with nothing to do... and what do I do? Read ZDNet, Google Technology News, etc.
Probably I'm looking for a good rant, although I did the one for this week in advanced (or probably I could compensate for that week in which I didn't do one).
Oh well, good sign, nevertheless.
In other news, Manchester responded to my petition for a signature in a form that I needed to include in my scholarship petition to CONACYT... THAT I SEND A MONTH AGO!!! I put an equivalent paper in to replace it, but geez: couldn't that being done a little quicker? The thing that's worries me is that in the form they crossed the amount and put another one about 250 euros higher, I hope that doesn't provoke any problems with CONACYT as the amount that I'm asking for is not exactly the right one.
Nice widget, a little bit slow but it probably is my connection.
That last post was testing the use of HTML code to make the title link to another site, but apparently Blogger cut it off.
Although it's very robust, I think is taking too much space. Probably because I'm used to DashBlog that just uses the space of it's toolbar until it's used for real.
It also gives the ability the handle various blogs at the same time (as Dashblog). But it's very odd for it have the title as “optional”: I always put a title in my posts (except for the last one). And all the blogs I've read have them as well: why not put the URL for which the title is linked as optional? That's something that I wish DashBlog had (I always have to go to the Blogger Post Editor to add this). Or maybe I'm missing something.
I like the idea of having it to grow as the post becomes bigger than the widget, but for long posters like myself: it grows until is out of the screen. Add to that the fact that there's isn't way (at least not an obvious one) to resize the widget. The combinations is very frustrating, for example, right now, I have to move the widget up to keep typing, even though I put this widget in the middle of the screen.
All and all it does it's job very well, so I do recommend it for small, hobby posters. But I think I'm sticking to DashBlog. Sorry Google.
