W_L

Suffering is an eternal part of life; defining yourself through suffering is a both ascendant and destructive. The most famous example of defining oneself through suffering would be Buddha (Siddhattha Gotama, I will just call him Sid). Sid was basically your spoiled rich boy, who found out the world was not so perfect or nice as he originally thought it was. He went through the stage of finding himself and after a while came up with some interesting life lessons that basically say the following line about defining life. "Life is suffering, because people have desires." When you have a complex world, where everyone is out for themselves to seek the best possible outcome for themselves as individuals or groups of like minds; the ground is open for suffering, since one person's loss is another person's gain (a principle most western Buddhism seem to ignore in the New Age movement, Sid actually believed in a core principle of Adam Smith's Capitalist system as part of general life, "Scarce Resources"). Don't worry, I am not trying to convert, Me and Sid have issues on the ideals of stagnation philosophy for the portion of destructive context, but just want to point out "ascendant" definition, when some one wants to define themselves and life as suffering. James, keep on fighting and living through the suffering. My own life is based on this perpetual desire to keep fighting and challenging myself and my surroundings; You may never win the war, but you will have a life goal to aim for, which many others do not. Thus, channeling your suffering in such ways might help.

The defining element of a person is important and it establishes individuals from groups, man and woman from human, teen or elderly from age, and other. It goes to our concept of who we are? What we are? Why we are? When we are? and How We are? I am wondering about defining elements today; it's an odd thing to ponder.

It's official, I will be starting my job in the Massachusetts' governor office in about a month. How did this happen to me? It's an honor, but I was not thinking that they would choose me. I am a Republican, okay, more appropriately labeled as a Fiscal conservative. The state government is one of the most over bloated budgets in the land. This position is not something that I thought would be achievable. So what does this bode for my future, will I get so enamored with the trappings of government that I become a Democrat, a red dog, or maybe some kind of weird hybrid? Ugh, I have mixed feelings about entering the public sector. The private sector is too unstable for anyone to get a good job in this environment.

The next phase of philosophy is understanding the dynamics and functions: early Ethics ------------------ For early ethical development, the Babylonian Empire had begun the process to interpret the absolutes as a measure of law and organization for society around 1760 BCE through codified laws like Hammurabi code (Laws of retribution). These developments in Babylon will be repeated in the Hundred schools of thought within China during the spring and autumn period one thousand years later, which included the interpretative absolute rules of legalism. Ancient India also developed various forms of legal standards that formed the basis of ethics either in a moral or philosophical level. The Babylonian legal and ethical directive will enter Western culture through Greek contemplations on the matter of ethics. The importance of legalism (I will use the name to describe this belief in absolute principle for law) became the first elements of our current beliefs in justice. The idea is central to ethics; for the first time many civilization developed codes of law and created the first ideas of right and wrong from these laws. While the absolute laws were arbitrary and based on the authority i.e. kings, chiefs, and high figures, it began the process of ethical development. Here is a real world allegory in a smaller sense: your parents will set up a set of rules for you to follow as children, if you do not then you will be punished. ------------ Knowledge and Logic: Knowledge and logic are uniquely linked by how they meet each other in understanding the subject and object. During the early debates of absolute philosophy, it would be these areas that began the issues of absolute observation. In ancient China, Mohism developed the idea of empirical thinking. The idea is basically that all reality should be based on experiences through sight, smell, touch, and the physical presence. In logic, this idea in ancient China's Mohist philosophy translates to the concept of inference through the physical presence. Thus, it dispels the idea of supernatural concoction, but it still holds the possibility of supernatural beings such as ghosts and God/Gods. Almost like an early form of deism. Knowledge in ancient China is based on which school of thought you ascribe to; Mohism and certain areas of Daoism incorporate knowledge as components to knowledge acquisition through the inference on nature and experience. Later Daoist developed the early chemical sciences in China through this method of experience and experimentation with nature. Ancient Indian philosophy based on the Vedic tradition believed in the concept of unitary and absolute interpretation. It calls for the idea of universal truth. Several Indian philosophers stressed the truth as a matter of order and natural development. For Logic, the ancient Indian Vedic tradition is complex in its understanding of nature and order. The gaining of knowledge is achieved by four means: perception, inference, comparison, and testimony. While knowledge can be gained differently By this idea, logic is intricately linked to knowledge or Epistemology in India and China for the Far east. ----------------- (If you are wondering, why I did not mention Socrates or Greece. I need you to wait for the development of these ideas first in far east and middle-east as they preceded Greece by two centuries. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle created even more complex dimensions of thought in their interpretation of the absolute.)

You need a hug. :hug: :hug: :hug: I hope you can find happiness one day.

Happy Birthday Myr ! :great: Hope it is magical and everything you hoped it would be.

You can watch it on hulu for European folks. I like musical numbers; they don't have enough musical on TV other than American Idol.

You know Deleuze wrote an interpretation of Nietzsche; I realized his name now as I bought the book long, ago. I wrote a paper for my Psycho-analysis class on the connection of Freudian "Death of the Father figure" idea in psychology with Nietzschean interpretations of the "Death of God" idea. It's quite fascinating how closely related the two theories are. I actually like Nietzsche's ideas of surpassing the normative reality, but I would counter the concept of Deleuze's interpretation against history as in itself a view of historical bias. The problem with modern anti-rationalist thinkers; they use too many logical paradoxes aka the circular logic paradigm in order to make the point. If he was not objecting to the established discourse of historical interpretation, then he would not have created the new post structuralist school of thought. He said "objection has never contributed anything", I would disagree and say his entire concept is based around a grand objection that has spawned a new school of thought. While he may dislike the dialectic of rationalism; it is the dialectic that made Post structuralism. -------------------------- Now we should go back to philosophy 101: After Absolutism was held in esteem for thousands of years by human beings, we move forward to several branches of philosophy: Knowledge, Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, Politics, Linguistics, and Logic. Each branch had developed in their own independent way another idea on explaining things instead of simply absolutism. This change occurred after 2,000 BCE among the established civilizations. While each separate new philosophy was developed to create alternatives, several thoughts linked these early philosophies: placement of ideas, predicates, and conditions. Buckle your seat belts, because after this point there is no more easy answers.

Oh my some one found waldo!

I can see why: the dialectic was made by Kant, Fichte, and Hegel respectively in their endeavor to create rational philosophical ideas. There point would be countered if their notion for rationalism is eliminated as Deleuze from the writing I found seems to be pointing towards. Eliminating rationalism from their constructs of the dialectic, would not invalidate the dialectic though, since Deleuze is proving the dialectic right now. To be honest, Hegel used another set of words Abstract (Thesis), Negative (anti-thesis), and Concrete (Synthesis), but the principles he developed would become the antithetical model. Deleuze's ideas are pretty out there; he favors a very Nietzschean concept of philosophy, which is part of his philosophical post structural basis. Nietzsche is used to substitute Kantian rationalism with a moving doctrine against sustainable reason. Under a Deleuzean system, absolutes would become completely obsolete, but Deleuzean principles of singularity for individuals and moving ideals for society would in turn create an abstract absolute, aka he's instinctively creating a Hegelian/Kantian Absolute Idealist notion. Every form of relativism with a claim to relative views has some elements from the ancestral absolutism philosophy. It just to what degree, no one ever abandons an idea completely.

Absolutism has a set of ideas of how things "are" as an absolute. Don't even apply relativism, the concept would not come into play until much later. Some one in authority like a chieftain or a high priest would say "The Sun God shines today" and everyone accepted that as a fact. Nature would be what they say it is as "the rock is a rock". This idea was before Socrates and Plato, so nature by such definition is applied absolutely. Mythology is used as points of explanation of natural phenomenon like the landmarks of the Aegean with stories about Hercules, the flow of the Yellow river in China with the Yellow Emperor, and Gilgamesh in ancient Babylon explaining certain peculiarities on nature. Modern observers need to frame their thoughts to absolutes in order to understand the philosophy, which is very difficult as I said ealier after three thousand years of discourse. One reason why I would suggest all philosophers if they truly want to be multi-dimensional philosophers to study history before going into philosophy. History teaches you a basic skill of framing without going insane at how they think? I know you said post structuralism is very critical of history framing, but I think, since post structuralism, as it uses the idea of comparative origins, is a descendant philosophy of Hegelian philosophy; my point is part of your point. Framing is necessary in order to create a historical background to identify thoughts.

Now, absolutism is a big subject, does no one want to ask questions or make an observation on it? Interpreting it from post structuralism is very difficult, but questions on its nature are interesting. Mythology like why does the river only flow one way or another was made with figures like Hercules, Gilgamesh, the yellow emperor of China, and other noted figures. It was an interesting idea that had long term ramifications for all the other philosophies that followed it. This highlights a dimension of absolute knowledge. Then, you have the societal dimensions. Societies were built on absolutes like the idea such as absolute law, absolute place in society (caste systems and other limitations), and absolute obligations to a state. I will move on to the next stage, which is very large in each section from western to eastern philosophy dealing with and altering absolutism.

True, I can agree to that. Part of the synthesizing portion of Hegel's thesis means that every new idea has portions of the old one embedded within. However, absolutism has been synthesize a lot before reaching your philosophy, so the original idea is pretty much diluted. I am not into 19th century philosophy yet; we are still on absolutism. I wonder about the idea of absolutes in today's world, too; some of our beliefs in absolutes are cognitive and others are non-cognitive. In the past, people had a belief in the absolute as a functional way of explanation.

It's actually why I chose a progression method through history as it is how I work with subjects like philosophy through history. As to absolutism, interpreting it in a post structural way will be very difficult if not alien to the concept of post-structuralism, which has moved so far removed from that concept.

Since I saw some people did not have a good understanding of philosophy or the terms from the discussion on war in the soapbox, I guess we need a Philosophy 101. As the title suggest, Philosophy can range from a very simple to complex subject depending on interpretations. I have studied it, but I understand various philosophical points due to my knowledge of history: American, Asian, and European (I want to study Africa later on, too ). So in essence, I have a historical point of view, when talking about philosophy. That is why I am adherent to Hegelian Thesis. As Asian and Eastern philosophies are intermix with various spiritual studies, I have an understanding of source Taoism, Buddhism, a few forms of Hinduism (there are many schools of hinduism), a bit on Jainism, Mohism (Basically, Eastern Empiricism), and various schools of legal, ideological, and cultural philosophies. Certain eastern philosophies are not moralistically based; though, eastern adherents have chosen to make them moral as religious practices, i.e. Buddhism is not really a religion under the original ideas, but certain groups made it a religion in the far east and the western world sees it as a religion. Daoism is the same way; luckily, the western world has not tried to create shrines for Laozi. As to the basis of philosophy: I don't want to pin them down to categories, because some believe in post structuralism as a philsophy arguing against categorization. However, if I do not organize them; other people will not understand it. So I will try what I know best, an historic first step to philosophy by introducing concepts and discussing them one at a time: Absolutism (Oddly I started with an "A" philosophy, don't kill me for being semantically categorical)- One of the earliest philosophical thought. Basically, it believes that everything has meaning and everything is the way it is by its nature. This is a simple way of describing Absolutism, but it works with how the view goes with concepts of absolute constructs. Example: A rock is a rock. The early idea of absolutism created the concepts of religion and divine absolutes to explain everyday phenomenon and meanings. It is particularly interesting to think about how this philosophy is still affecting the world with defined notions of morality and human societal beliefs. Some descendant philsophies with applications from philosophy: Legalism (Eastern philosophy for government) and Moral absolutism (Western/Middle Eastern philosophy for ethics)

You're 46 years young in my book!!!! Happy Birthday, my favorite GA Porcupine

Come on, Gov. Lynch, you can do it. L-Y-N-C-H, is the five letters we need to endorse the document in a week.

New York state passed it through assembly: Reuters on first stage of gay marriage in new york If New York successfully passes, then it will come to New Jersey. I hope it will pass!

I just looked up an interesting philosophical and religious conception of death in Theosophy, the blending study of multiple religious ideals seeking a spiritual plurality. It's interesting blending of various religious ideals and human growth through life and death. I guess, my first posting on death was dealing more with the detail of death, but there is much more to it. Through death, we grow and understand our surroundings by cherishing those things we have in our temporal state. I was just reminded of the dichotomy of life and death by the movie: What Dreams may come It poses a lot of questions about loss and growth for both human beings dead and living. Does the death of another aspire creative impulse or destructive deconstruction? Are human trapped in a tragic spiral merely, because we can not forgive ourselves over incidents that were not our faults? Or Can human beings leap beyond such fates and create our own worlds of hopes through a belief held in our heart?

Happy Birthday Mark, the biggest cat of GA!!! Joe you're still big cheese.

Damn, I actually enjoy the cold appetizers.

Interesting in about four days, I will receive my Master's degree at the age of 21. I worked hard to get it, but I don't feel any sense of accomplishment. There was nothing in my studies that surprised me or challenged me enough to above and beyond. Perhaps, the truth is my desire for a challenge was never met in my educational choice. Friends, I have made plenty over the years, but I have no defining moment in my college life as it comes to a close. I prevented a flood in the library, argued for change and reforming of the Republican Party, and just was myself. A bit quirky, a bit confrontational, and a bit non-comformist ideologue that seeks to understand everything. You know I realize why I like the TV Show House M.D now. Other than the psychotic break that Gregory House had in the season finale; we are very much a like in our desire to seek the answers to life. I look at in the grand scheme of things, while House just seeks medical puzzles. Perhaps, why I don't feel joy is that there was no puzzle for me to solve or understand. Education in my case is training without the challenge. ------- As for the Bankruptcy, My mother had to declare it after the recent economic downturn forced most of her businesses to operate a significant losses. She is the model of the American Dream, college educated manager turned entrepreneur. With the loss of her interests, I basically have lost my inheritance from her. I am fine with that. She left my father, when I was 12 and married rich. The middle class life style was not her favorite choice, so she took her young looking appearance and beauty to pursue a wealthy man. She divorced him and got another wealthier husband, ending with number 3 right now, who had significant interests in real estate and restaurants. I had flat out told her I wanted nothing to do with her money when I was a kid and did not go live with her out of loyalty to my father, but her bankruptcy is creating a strange feeling in me. It's ironic, I don't care for her money, but I feel strange at knowing its gone. ------ Life is strange mixture of fighting and realization. It's a complicated mess of emotional truths and the occasional silver lining. I don't know where to go next, but I feel like reaching out and moving beyond my current position. I want to journey and seek the answer of life: Why are here? What do I want? Who am I? It's an emotional and personal journey; I wish that I had companion to share it with, but if I am alone, then so be it. It is a question that must be sought.

Veto or passing without a signature (aka placid acceptance or silent protest depending on the polls, hehe) I love American politics, so double edged.

Kevin remember, when you break up with me let me down easily. Vegetarians are fun, but I got to ask do you eat cheese and use other processed animal stuff, which is not meat or murder. Do you wear wool, eat eggs, and other stuff. I know this is more a vegan question, but it's also something interesting. I hope you find a guy right for Joe.

Happy Birthday dude! :D