Crash

[AiA in Atlanta]

You have an understanding of what life is? LMAO

Everyone has an understanding of what life is (even a pessimist who believes he is a failure and is trapped in Atlanta) for life is what we choose to live. And make no mistake, it is our choice.

But not everyone has an understanding of what life can be.

Putting aside the idiot minimalism of the quoted post I will still give it a dignity it does not inherently have and throw out a few thoughts in response I know the poster has little chance of understanding.

Still, why not?

There are always certain blocks to life as possible rather than life as lived, personal fear, religious blocks, ideological or economic habits, personal narratives told to ourselves time and time again.

The way one finds the most possibilities is through experience of the world either through travel or intellectually from reading those who have pioneered possibilities then or now. So one sees what they thought were the limitations of life were simply self imposed limits.

For instance. T. Z. Suzuki was long dead when I traveled to Japan, but he still taught me much about the deeper aspects of Japanese culture as influenced by Zen, and so because I traveled to Japan with him I got more possibility out of Japan than someone say who just went to work, buy things and never left their cultural bubble.

Or from reading Raymond Carver and Bukowski I realised I may like to write poetry, did, and had some even published. That was not a possiblity for me ten years ago, because I did not believe it.

There is one other factor I think important, especially for the habituates of this forum, and that is a realization that a self-cultivation of pessimism is not really wisdom (though you may tell yourself this is so, it may be a comfortable self narrative) it is really a negation of life’s possibilities, a form of slow suicide.

One can never really know from an internet forum but from years on PA I have observed the definite plurality of posts were that of a pessimistic suicide cult on everything from Iraq, to domestic politics, to even art and culture.

The flow of the forum was woe is me look how wise I am to see how bad things are.

Not a way to make either your life or the world better.

I am being honest when I say that my understanding of Life is limited to what I know I know and what I know I don't know. The rest of Life is what I don't know I don't know.

What you and I know and don't know about Life is merely a speck of dust in the Cosmos, so excuse me when I laugh when someone says he "understands life."

Your personal comments about me are silly at best and stupid and pathetic at worst, you not knowing one single thing about what I am doing in Atlanta and why I decided to come here, or of my many years in Japan and what I did there. Or of Australia before that.

[JW Frogen]

There is a difference between understanding your life, or even human life and the cosmos, the latter being everything living not, indeed the Greek term means everything the was, is and will be.

Now it may be your life narrative that if you cannot understand everything you can understand nothing, a convenient narrative for cynicism or despair. But this does not make it the case.

The only way we can transcend self-narratives is by examining the cultural or individual narratives of others; this is more helpful if one does so with others who have done remarkable things one would like to do.

Life is what you live and think (some people do not like the personal responsibility involved in this concept and so say it can not be understood therefore they are not accountable for their own life), the reason for existence, or being rather than nothingness, is a different subject.

As to your particular life I did make it clear one can never know from a forum, but the tenor of your posts for the last year, from everything to your job, to your personal experience, to politics has been one of an inarticulate despair, that of a man who has really given up on possibility.

It may not in fact be the case, but I have no evidence to the contrary.

That you believe even your own life cannot be understood would then become a useful fire exit from the fact this is really how you chose to think, believe and hence live.

[AiA in Atlanta]

There is a difference between understanding your life, or even human life and the cosmos, the latter being everything living not, indeed the Greek term means everything the was, is and will be.

Now it may be your life narrative that if you cannot understand everything you can understand nothing, a convenient narrative for cynicism or despair. But this does not make it the case.

The only way we can transcend self-narratives is by examining the cultural or individual narratives of others; this is more helpful if one does so with others who have done remarkable things one would like to do.

Life is what you live and think (some people do not like the personal responsibility involved in this concept and so say it can not be understood therefore they are not accountable for their own life), the reason for existence, or being rather than nothingness, is a different subject.

As to your particular life I did make it clear one can never know from a forum, but the tenor of your posts for the last year, from everything to your job, to your personal experience, to politics has been one of an inarticulate despair, that of a man who has really given up on possibility.

It may not in fact be the case, but I have no evidence to the contrary.

That you believe even your own life cannot be understood would then become a useful fire exit from the fact this is really how you chose to think, believe and hence live.

Ah, you go into personal comments once more when I simply found laughable your pronouncement of life as "rational." And again you give lengthy commentary, when again, I simply commented on your pronouncement of life as "rational."

And my brief comment on Life has been spun in an alarming matter that makes me wonder Frogen.

I could make similar assumptions regarding you Frogen based on what I have read here at PA but I do not (unlike your detractors) because how could I possibly know anything about you at all? I do recall having a chuckle at your expense over the English House episode however. It was classic PA.

[White Indigene]

There is a difference between understanding your life, or even human life and the cosmos, the latter being everything living not, indeed the Greek term means everything the was, is and will be.

Now it may be your life narrative that if you cannot understand everything you can understand nothing, a convenient narrative for cynicism or despair. But this does not make it the case.

The only way we can transcend self-narratives is by examining the cultural or individual narratives of others; this is more helpful if one does so with others who have done remarkable things one would like to do.

Life is what you live and think (some people do not like the personal responsibility involved in this concept and so say it can not be understood therefore they are not accountable for their own life), the reason for existence, or being rather than nothingness, is a different subject.

As to your particular life I did make it clear one can never know from a forum, but the tenor of your posts for the last year, from everything to your job, to your personal experience, to politics has been one of an inarticulate despair, that of a man who has really given up on possibility.

It may not in fact be the case, but I have no evidence to the contrary.

That you believe even your own life cannot be understood would then become a useful fire exit from the fact this is really how you chose to think, believe and hence live.

This sounds like someone I know.

Trouble is, while he/she is a quasi-religious zealot, he/she is certain that the predicament is pre-ordained. Or at least, life is configured in certain ways, with a set of minimal criteria that befits human types. the argument si roughly like this:-

That there are a certain number of 'types' of humans, that is they also have characters that are finite, as is the physical appearance. So, the morphic features might amount to about seven, and we know there is a distinctive scientific basis for the number, all proven. The argument offered is that there are also a set number of characters, that is persons with sets of human traits, all which can be categorised within in reason, and might also fit into seven categories. 'Choice' is not involved in what we are adorned with when born; or at least that is the metaphysical argument, put lightly here.

So, here we appear, all worm and and gooey, and again without 'choice'; for if we had a choice would we aboprt the day, to avoid some emminent life disaster such as crippleness, either of the physical or the mind?

See, my freind contests the notion of 'choice', and born out here is the rational and logical argument in support of randomness, not of evolution, but of a creator being in command. (relapsing, sorry Agnostics!)

So, my friend argues that 'choice' is a limited offering, and is indeed a controlled matter, not one that is hard and fast, available to everyone for possibble matters to be 'chosen'. Like the weather, lifes' cisrumstances changes, and so, we get sometimes to choose what we can do for or against the changes, buit only on a limited basis, if we get a 'choice' at all.

It is thus the argument, that when it comes to lifes' circumstances, we dont all have a 'choice'. Some are locked into a set of random circumstances which seem to repeat adnausioum, and those stuck with a limited caharcter set, or minimilalist IQ, or spastic body developement, seem to be enveloped in a revolving door of random circumstances which the subject has not 'chosen'.

It is therefore argued, that whilst indeed some have choices, others do not. My problem is convincing my otherwise normal freind, that there is a 'choice' out there, and that what is offered above can be avoided in whole in part, by the simple act of one correct 'choice', or by a serious of fortuitious correct 'choices'.

[helian]

So many words on the meaning of life.... gives credence to the maxims that 'those who say don't know and those who know don't say' and 'wisest is he who knows he does not know'.

In the immortal words of Rumsfeld Stiltskin "... There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things we do not know."

[AiA in Atlanta]

So many words on the meaning of life.... gives credence to the maxims that 'those who say don't know and those who know don't say' and 'wisest is he who knows he does not know'.

In the immortal words of Rumsfeld Stiltskin "... There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things we do not know."

Guess that makes me pretty darn wise then.

[White Indigene]

We ought factor in the Fascinators & the Frustrators.

Those members of society who have large IQ's, and their hands on the social levers. Not the Movers and Shakers, but the power brokers of society who make a concerted difference, both negative and positive, and each to their own.

Although the notion of 'choice' exists as concept and practice, my freind proffers it is but within confines and parameters as explained a little above. But the Fascinators & Frustrators (F&F) are the ones that ultimately determine general outcomes. Whilst life might be random or controlled (depending upon ones perception) nonetheless the F&F do play a large part in the ultimate outcomes of an individuals' 'choice/s'.

Hence, if a choice made by one, is not to the liking of another, the F&F can -and will likely- act, to a certain degree, in accordance with their social belief system. Some are quite religious about their activities, and stick soundly to their positions throughout their life's existence, no matter what the circumstances, or outcomes maybe.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything" said Alexander Hamilton.

The problem comes when absolute power (even in a relative micro-social context) corrupts. The F&F, just like any autocracy, goes mad and gets power drunk, and drinks to its own perfunctory conclusions. This is true throughout the ages.

[White Indigene]

Title related:-

http://austrianenginomics.com/WhyisEcon ... ntRevA.pdf

[JW Frogen]

In the immortal words of Rumsfeld Stiltskin "... There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things we do not know."

Of course AIA life is what you know, that is my point oh simple one, what YOU know is simply the problem here, hence your whiney-pussy protest about getting personal (whining being the guiding principal of your life) and your inability to understand the boundaries of a modern city like Westminster (stupidity being the principal behind your guiding principal).

So your posts, as I suspect your life (when not simply vulgar retarded frat boy slogans) are full of crying about the impossibility of possibility. Which is, I have little doubt, your experience.

I will take the Helian quote at face value, even if it is not quite in response to what I wrote. (Rumsfeld being as wrong about human interaction as he was about prosecuting a pretty easy war.)

But he is correct in one aspect, no human can ever be entirely known.

But humans can be known to significant degree, and our personal experience can be transformed from informing ourselves about their personal experience either directly, through travel or even after they have died through books.

Indeed this is a prerequisite to a meaningful life, learning from people who have demonstrated more potential than we currently have.

To say this is impossible is to throw oneself into a black hole, a narcissistic void of meaningless isolation.

As I said, life is what you choose to live, which is dependent on your belief in it's possiblities.

If you do not believe that you may end up in that empty black hole, and you do not want to be there, just ask AIA.

He is still trying to figure out where Westminster is.

[AiA in Atlanta]

In the immortal words of Rumsfeld Stiltskin "... There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things we do not know."

Of course AIA life is what you know, that is my point oh simple one, what YOU know is simply the problem here, hence your whiney-pussy protest about getting personal (whining being the guiding principal of your life) and your inability to understand the boundaries of a modern city like Westminster (stupidity being the principal behind your guiding principal).

So your posts, as I suspect your life (when not simply vulgar retarded frat boy slogans) are full of crying about the impossibility of possibility. Which is, I have little doubt, your experience.

I will take the Helian quote at face value, even if it is not quite in response to what I wrote. (Rumsfeld being as wrong about human interaction as he was about prosecuting a pretty easy war.)

But he is correct in one aspect, no human can ever be entirely known.

But humans can be known to significant degree, and our personal experience can be transformed from informing ourselves about their personal experience either directly, through travel or even after they have died through books.

Indeed this is a prerequisite to a meaningful life, learning from people who have demonstrated more potential than we currently have.

To say this is impossible is to throw oneself into a black hole, a narcissistic void of meaningless isolation.

As I said, life is what you choose to live, which is dependent on your belief in it's possiblities.

If you do not believe that you may end up in that empty black hole, and you do not want to be there, just ask AIA.

He is still trying to figure out where Westminster is.

My, the assumptions you make! If those English House posts still exists somewhere you would see that I never commented on the specifics regarding the location of your house (I am clueless on the boundaries of London). I simply stated (see above) that I had a chuckle over the affair. It was entertainment. Pure PA Gold. You should be proud.

I am not disagreeing with the value of creating possibility in one's life. I am thinking, however, what tedious reading your make-believe account of my stance in life must make for other Political Animals.