The name 69ron always made me think the man was advanced in age.

(I excavated that saga for months before I got to the dramatic conclusion. No spoilers for anyone else, though...)

I always thought that it had something to do with octane ratings.

Another thing to take into account on this subject is how much time and energy is spent on mindful awareness of total experience- including lucid dreaming, psychedelic experience, and other non-ordinary states of consciousness that many people ignore or downplay.

A 20 year old that has been conscious of his/her lucid dreams every night can have many years of experience over a 40 year old that spends their sleeping hours unconscious/non-lucid every night. Plus, it should be considered that time can be experienced differently during lucid dreaming and psychedelic states of consciousness. Lifetimes can be lived. Bursts of awareness and wisdom are common while lucid/tripping. Conscious experience is not always linear. Theoretically, many lifetimes can be accumulated in a standard 80-90 years!

Reality is perception. And perception can take many forms.

Relevance, importance, what for?

offtopic:
Welcome to the nexus, KillaNoodles.

tseuq

Here, this is a perfect example of why I say you are posting in a trollish manner!

Allow me to demonstrate

So, I said:



To which you replied:



Now, if you actually read my words, it's clear that I said, "...in your mind, one who has capitalized on their opportunities is, in some sense, superior to someone who has not."

Yet, you replied with, "I maintain that I do not rank myself above two people, simply because I determine one to have lived a more rich life than another."

As I said in my last post, the fundamental issue at the heart of this--which would precede your feeling superior/not feeling superior to those you are judging--is your constructed ethic, where some people are superior to others.

The issue here is more foundational than whether or not you feel superior to other people (although, imo, your posting style is rather telling). The issue is that you believe, as pitubo pointed out, that some people are superior to others. Again, this is your own moral construct. The fact that some people believe that it naturally follows that you then feel superior to both parties you are judging, is incidental, in a sense. As far as I'm concerned, that's the underlying, problematic, foundational thought.


And honestly, a final point as to why you come off as trollish in your shifting engagements and posting style, look at this exchange.

You open this thread and state that:


But when I say:


You fire back that:


However, not only do we have an Attitude in place that lays out some structure for engaging with this community, you yourself have already engaged in the equation of individual "active/vetted members" with "the community."

So in this second case, you have literally talked it out both ways, therefore, when you tell me that individuals ≠ community, after your initial claim to have started this thread because individuals = community, it seems as if you are doing so solely to argue. By definition, this is trollish behavior.


I think you may have interesting contributions to make to this forum. That is precisely why I am attempting to help you see how your posts are coming across to myself and at least a couple of others. Flat text has a funny way of impacting words/thoughts/ideas and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said earlier, if this is an unintentional byproduct of your posting style, I'm trying to reflect to you how you are coming across, as communication is a two-way (at least) street, and flat text communication is even more challenging.

Please try to understand where I'm coming from and why myself and others have offered critiques about your posting style. This isn't just about a difference in opinions, but also an attempt to convey communal etiquette around how we try to interact, present opinions/arguments/data, etc.

---

---

now im lost.
i thought 69ron was a sex thing.

Except it's not...

Except in your opinion of course, which you're certainly entitled to. Just don't bandy it about and pretend you've got a logical fallacy every other post. Sure, we disagree, but it's just that, a disagreement, not a fallacy.

Avoiding morality denotations, passing judgement requires a legitimate (or illegitimate) vantage point from which to judge, no? What constructs create such a position? What implicit and explicit relationships are constructed between the judge and those judged? The very etymology of the word judge comes from the Latin of "law" + "speaker" (i.e. one who speaks the law). This implies that the one judging is inherently in a position of power over those judged (regardless of whether this is a "good" or a "bad" thing). So clearly, the word judgement carries a connotation of superiority by definition.

Or in other words, ignoring the moral questions of whether or not judging people is "good" or "bad," and simply focusing on the actual meaning, history, and connotations of the word in question, it still seems pretty clear that

---

I was born in the year 1976, and I am a fool

You admit that this is a totally unproven (and potentially unprovable) conjecture, and the best evidence is 'well, Noam Chomsky (who I think it's kind of overrated actually) believes that this is so,' but later on in this very thread, you're treating it as if it's an axiomatic truth.

There is no one 'true definition' of the word judge that can be taken as a certain, logically useful definition. It's entirely possible (and I would say, probable), that every person involved in this conversation has a different definition of 'to judge' and for some of us, 'to judge' may carry an implicit, heirarchial value, while yours may not. The idea that people have different definitions for the same word is not a hard pill to swallow.

Basically, you're trying to execute logical (or pseudo-logical, I'll get to that in a moment), processes on an undefined variable ('to judge' ), which is impossible.

It seems to me like what's happening here is that you are taking your preconceived notions and definitions, which are no more or less legitimate than anyone else's, and assuming that they embody some axiomatic, logical truth value.

That said, the whole idea that we're engaged in 'logical' or 'rational' debate is kind of absurd. Cognitive science has found so many cognitive biases and quirks of cognition that the idea that we're engaged in some kind of pure, rational discourse is almost impossible. I would say the entire idea of 'Philosophical Reason,' is patently useless, and more of a way to lend artificial weight to one's ideas than it is any useful path to truth. We all may as well be cave men hitting each other with sticks.

Now, formal, mathematical logic is valid (although really only in that it tells us how our brains process information), but we're not doing that here (we're not doing anything even remotely like that here), and to claim otherwise is, to use your word, a fallacy.

Blessings
~ND

---

I could be wrong. You could be right. Maybe it"s all three. Maybe 69ron is/was a 69 year old a pensioner with a penchant for mutual oral gratification and a predisposition towards pre-ignition.

Look what I found!


Come on man, have you even read the attitude?

Why did you even start this thread? Did you want to tell us how old you are?

This thread

Snoz and Nathaniel are some of the sharpest minds we have on this site. Rather then looking at this argument as pointless self gratification one should see it as an opportunity to use their minds as grindstones!

That's funny I was gonna say the same thing.



I personally think this thread is good. I learn so much from threads like this, especially about fallacies. It gets confusijh trying to learn the fallacies and how to spot them, threads like this are like a little crash course in fallacy 101. Debating is suppose to be fun and getting upset solves nothing.

Often times when one reads the text of another, they apply their own emotion to what they see. This usually causes issues and is just you getting offended by yourself.

Aw, shucks, that's really nice to hear from someone. Thanks

*Awkwardly shuffles feet*

Blessings
~ND