>Your words are continually of no consequence
My words are at least consistent from paragraph to paragraph.
>I fear my posts have been too conversational, and there is an issue of comprehension
Considering incomprehensibility and self-contradiction are often stumbling blocks for comprehension, I agree.
>A nuetral stance is not aggressive.
I guess in whatever bizarro world you live in, neutrality means insulting the person you're talking to and implying they're wrong.
>You may be wrong, or you may be right.
As is true of virtually any statement about the world.
>Earlier you refered to me as some incorporeal ghost that you can't quite place. That ghost you have mouthing what you wish I was saying, or what's easily responded to. This is by definition a strawman. Sorry, thought that was funny.
All I'm asking is whether you have some specific dispute or you're just pissing in the wind. If you don't have any specific dispute, then I don't care. Where have I put words in your mouth? All my quotations have come from your posts.
>I never called you wise, but the very opposite.
So when you say "I don't doubt that you are" after calling me "wise and intelligent," it means precisely the opposite. That clears things up.
>I'm having trouble seeing how you came to that interpretation, as for intelligent, there too I thought the condescending and patronizing tone was clear.
"Yeah, uh, I was only joking about that...." Maybe the joke just wasn't discernible beyond the background noise of your usual supercilious tone. Besides, why are you treating "wise and intelligent" as separate items when they were connected in context? You would think that what's true for one is true for both, yet you have trouble with how I came to "wise" but what you meant by "intelligent" is "clear"? In other words, the "wise" part of "wise and intelligent" is utterly baffling to you but the "intelligent" part of that same phrase is obvious sarcasm. I'm starting to doubt you even read your own posts.
>Firstly, you backed your original thesis with feigned wisdom - this was a mistake.
And where did I claim this "wisdom" such that I could feign it? I certainly didn't back what I said with it. I only offered an opinion, and I said as much in my first response. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.
>Chances are you mispoke; spoke loosely, and didn't consider the weight of your words,
The chances of that are actually very low.
>so I've asked you look back at your posts, and reconsider whether or not you believe in entirety what you've written.
Considering you've so badly bungled your positions, this question is probably more pertinent to you. Or maybe you're used to holding contradictory positions simultaneously.
>And I don't want your concessions,
What? I haven't conceded anything, nor have I offered to concede anything. It's almost as if you're the Black Knight of arguments: no matter what I say, no matter how many times I show you've contradicted yourself, no matter how many times I ask you a basic question and receive no answer, you still think victory is at hand.
>it is of course your prerogative to posit whichever pet dogmas you collect; this thread is pranked with many such cases.
It is, so I don't see what you're disputing anymore. If you're allowing it to me as my prerogative, and there are other such cases in the thread, mine shouldn't have risen to much notice. It seems the only reason you posted was because you imagined me to be some sort of arch-egotist.
>But that you can speak with authority, because you've lived through similar experiences, or whatever other narrative you might rationalize your preach, this, and this alone, I take issue with.
I never said I spoke with authority. As a matter of the fact I said the exact opposite earlier:
>I only have as much authority as any other anonymous poster, i.e. none, nor do I claim more.
You should really try to remember what positions I hold, even if you can't remember what positions you hold.
>There is a very large distinction between believing something is true, because you believe in yourself, and believing something is true because you believe yourself to be wise.
When did I ever say that I was wise, let alone that I was right because of it? The closest thing I said was about how we necessarily believe ourselves to be right in some sense. It was a trivial statement. You should go back and read what I said if you're having a hard time understanding this.
>That is the crux of the matter.
But it's clearly not considering I never claimed wisdom. Are you sure you aren't arguing with someone else? Maybe someone on a different website?
>Soi-disant sagism is the antithesis of wisdom.
The only problem with "soi-disant" is the "soi" part. Right now, it's more "toi-disant."
>It truly denotes a shitty character, and considering what I can gather from your posts, if we were speaking on friendlier terms - understand that I don't consider us adversaries, but friends at odds with eachother because of a few misteps in conversation-, I think we might be able to agree on that note.
I also find that there are many people who like to consider themselves friends with charlatans, people they consider despicable, and people who they think have "shitty character."
>And this is why I attacked you, I insulted you because, for that moment, you were possesed with a character deserving of insult.
Once again, I don't care about the insults in themselves, but you shouldn't expect an interesting, reasonable conversation about the main topic to result when you begin with personal attacks.
>Second, I questioned your ego's prominence in your reasonings, or more for that matter the sole buttress; I suggested it has too much weight, and has lead you to error.
You need to say what you think the "error" is in order for me to address it. Is this really so difficult to understand? Also, considering I "may be right" or "wrong" based on one of the sentences above, is that including the error or is the error added on afterwards like a tax?
And, once again, I never justified my position by way of my ego; I never justified it at all, as you seem to recognize when it's convenient. I said that in my first response, so you should already know this. I don't see why you keep bringing back a point I already addressed earlier. If you found me wrong in that first response, you never addressed how I was wrong; rather, you've just been repeating yourself like a broken record on loop.
>My position was that your conclusion and said conviction, is not resolute of reason, but is the exclusive product of having an overbearing ego.
Keep that broken record playing.
>To be forthright, I have suggested answers to the the primordial question: how the hell do you deal with the perrenial boredom.
Based on your actions in this thread, your suggestions seem to be: write poorly, argue wretchedly, and walk back your statements until you come full circle.
>The topic has been the subject of all my replies. I havn't been blowing hot air for fun. I don't think they were entirely nebulous, and I don't doubt that you are equipped with the adequate acumen to decipher them.
You have to admit, deciphering contradictions is quite a task.
>But alas, they aren't answers, but at best currency for meditation.
Yes, like a koan.
>I'll delineate some points explicitly, and I look forward to your dissidence.
Maybe you'll finally be clear on what you're saying.
>And I did try to make these clear (blinded by pride? was this not obvious?).
Do you think I somehow don't understand what you're saying? Go back and read where I mentioned "blinded by pride," if you can. It's not a problem of comprehending the phrase itself but a problem of competing, contradictory descriptors.
>Consider the boredom, the true boredom described by posts of the thread, is the product of the ego at odds with selflesness; a duality of sorts. And the solution, is the absolute giving in to one side. Pure egoism, or true selflessness - via mindfulness, eHaruhieath, whatever and soforth. Well, such extremes are hardly necessary but they illustrate the point.
Given that you're the one who asked for proper arguments on my position, it's a strange strategy to do the exact same thing you criticized someone else for.
>The passive and sedantary days of a NEET, are more suited to the hermit, who isn't lead to depression or emptiness, or however else you might describe the unpleasentness, by their need for the self's aggrandizement (physical experiential, so on). The continued and prolonged interest in hobbies, is just that. Consider the artist who devotes his life to his work; its the ultimate act of the ego, making the exterior more like the interior.
Is it "the ultimate act of the ego"? There are plenty of artists concerned with changing the world for the better; that hardly strikes me as pure ego. Others are at least concerned with representing the world as it is; that doesn't seem egotistical either as it implies desiring one's work to have some relation to the world and the people in it, not total self-involvement.
It's not that I doubt some artists are egotistical, but I don't see mere egotism as the basis for great works of art. The works must have some resonance with the audience, something that rings true about the human condition, and being blinded to all concerns but your own isn't likely to lead to such insights about people in general.
And, based on the above, why are you condemning me for egotism when you're also offering it as the ultimate solution for boredom? And are great artists also incorrect or somehow in error, given that you think dedicating oneself to art is pure ego?
>There are plenty of other systems to abstract this troublesome dichotomey, but I think this one is simple enough to comprehend.
Please post again next time you descend from the mountains of madness to grace this thread.
Also, you condemn me for being too egotistical and proud while somehow typing that last sentence with a straight face and admitting you were being "condescending" and "patronizing" near the beginning of your post. Are these qualities usually associated with selfless people? They must be in whatever alternate universe you live in.