bullshit on stilts

"Don't post anything racist/misogynistic/pornographic, loli images, or any animated GIFs and you should be fine, haha!" The Raytownian

Moderator: xome

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:14 am

make me feel bad for being schizophrenic. afaik you've never even pointed out something i've misunderstood...

oh yeah adrian complained that i didn't draw from enough sources :roll: :roll:
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
fire
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:15 pm
Location: noritual unformation

Post by fire » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:21 am

clemon!09. wrote:afaik you've never even pointed out something i've misunderstood...
NOW THATS JUST SAD, MAN. CMON, REALLY?
broadcasting from the post-internet wasteland

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:54 am

never learnt a thing i feel like i am at war i feel like shellshocked, they already got sleep...
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
timdrage
Posts: 5528
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:08 am
Contact:

Post by timdrage » Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:40 pm

jliat wrote:
timdrage wrote:c) Philosophy attempts objectivity - so words like "harsh" should be avoided.

Why - what is wrong with saying "Harsh terrain" or that coarseness being much the same IS measured in science/technology. The application of one discipline's measurement methodology being nothing new in science.
My now very old and never refuted point with this is that science would define 'harshness' or 'noise' anything subjective or stick to and specify one known definition not, as you do, refuse to define it and change the definition you are using every few posts to make it contradict whatever anyone comes at you with.
jliat wrote:But I was measuring HNW and HN - not harshness.
out of the frying pan into the fire.

I bet the STDEV of black metal songs would strongly correlate to kvltness, and the STDEV of grime tracks to denchness or "a madness"ness

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:06 pm

clemon!09. wrote:so you're threatening to beat me up now??


look, i mean you no harm - did i hurt your feelings?? maybe you need to check into the priory for a bit, yourself.
Me - no. I'm not the one starting derogatory threads, calling people douche bags and fucking dumb.

I'm saying that you do not understand Adorno by reading only 30 pages, and not having much of an idea about the philosophers he is discussing. Hence your mistake with Bergson, only one of many, means until you've read some more its unlikely you will.

Elsewhere Tim's angry again. But all he is saying that I can't do X, when I can. He hasn't - no one has said where I'm wrong - just that I am. Ergo Niallll just calls me a cunt. But cant show why the graphs - now many - are wrong.

You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
timdrage
Posts: 5528
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:08 am
Contact:

Post by timdrage » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:16 pm

I'm not angry ^__^

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:25 pm

timdrage wrote:
jliat wrote:
timdrage wrote:c) Philosophy attempts objectivity - so words like "harsh" should be avoided.

Why - what is wrong with saying "Harsh terrain" or that coarseness being much the same IS measured in science/technology. The application of one discipline's measurement methodology being nothing new in science.
My now very old and never refuted point with this is that science would define 'harshness' or 'noise' anything subjective or stick to and specify one known definition not, as you do, refuse to define it and change the definition you are using every few posts to make it contradict whatever anyone comes at you with.
jliat wrote:But I was measuring HNW and HN - not harshness.
out of the frying pan into the fire.

I bet the STDEV of black metal songs would strongly correlate to kvltness, and the STDEV of grime tracks to denchness or "a madness"ness

Basically Tim your just saying I'm wrong - but you are unable to prove it.

My point is that HN and HNW isn't like music as in is so NOISY its impossible to carry meaning. Something absolutely understood in communications. I've argued this point, but I'm using accepted methods to show this.

Why it annoys you - I don't know. If its crazy, then let it go.

I'm trying to theorize about noise - and maybe lots of people don't like that as they feel it does express their personal feelings. Just as Clemon thinks it did.

OK - fine. But it cant communicate that. Why = because a Vomir is just like certain static - meaningless. Not only can you hear this - the arithmetic shows it.

Finally art an music might be about HUMAN communication - noise is not. Its part of a much bigger thing called the REAL WORLD outside of the human correlation.

Perhaps again you either don't want to or cant understand the last bit. Fine.

If you want noise to be your own personal expressive thing - fine - again.


As for a scientific definition of harshness - the car industry used subjective tests as an objective ones couldn't be found. But they were making cars for PEOPLE.

Coarseness can be measured - and Harshness and coarseness are much the same. But - even if some objective test could be found for measuring what HUMANS think is Harsh or Noisy or A WALL, it would be of no interest to ME. As that again is limited to the Anthropocentric view of reality.

I use the computer / information processing definition of Noise - and show that this relates to what is called HN and HNW, in being not only subjectively identical, but statistically also.
And have now published this and presented this. I know noise boards are just places to shout down people - but fine. Some people have raised issues - and were food for thought - zombra if I remember. But not yours I'm afraid. Your so called refutation is a rock thrown in the wrong direction.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

RJMyato
Posts: 4652
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:14 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RJMyato » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:47 pm

philosophy is a hell for syphilitic mutants apparently

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:45 pm

jliat wrote:
clemon!09. wrote:so you're threatening to beat me up now??


look, i mean you no harm - did i hurt your feelings?? maybe you need to check into the priory for a bit, yourself.
Me - no. I'm not the one starting derogatory threads, calling people douche bags and fucking dumb.
i didn't mean to hurt your feelings, i was not singling anyone out in the scum post and you have been a COMPLETE douchebag in your distortions of what i say.

I'm saying that you do not understand Adorno by reading only 30 pages


we agree.

Hence your mistake with Bergson,

i didn't make any mistake with bergson, he is often grouped together with phenomenologists, and not just cos he's french. and i provided a quote from THAT preface that pretty much said exactly what i claimed for him

only one of many

oh really, what are these. and repeating that i haven't read much isn't going to cut it as a reply,.

You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.

and i am used to yours. didn't you say that i had the intellect of the average 14 year old, at best?
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:48 pm

Merleau-Ponty was also coming to realize that Bergson's criticism of negation is philosophically important; for Merleau-Ponty, the criticism seemed to function like Husserl's "phenomenological reduction," and perhaps re-opened what Heidegger would call the question of being
would you like a quote from M-P? he's a far superior philosopher to deleuze IMHO.

Bergson as well as Husserl... shrank away from it back into traditional metaphysics.... Bergson oriented himself... towards the... immediate facts of the consciousness... Husserl likewise towards the phenomena of the stream of consciousness.... The former as well as the latter remained frozen in the demesne of subjective immanence. What is to be insisted on against both is what each tries to conjure up in vain; pace Wittgenstein, to say what cannot be said
and my "precis" that was so wrong according to you - in a number of ways
Bergson and husserl tried but withdrew it to traditional metaphysics.
Bergson created... [snip]... Husserl did manage to distinguish cognitive mode apprehending essence and generalizing abstraction, but the essence referred to did not actually differ at all from familiar general concepts.
Both fail to utter the unutterable [countering wittgenstein] but that goal must be insisted upon
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:16 am

clemon!09. wrote:
look, i mean you no harm - did i hurt your feelings?? maybe you need to check into the priory for a bit, yourself.
you haven't hurt my feelings - all the name calling just undermines any serious claims you make. Now you seem to be insinuating that I'm the one with the mental illness, again a smear tactic. Poor show.

clemon!09. wrote:
i didn't mean to hurt your feelings, i was not singling anyone out in the scum post and you have been a COMPLETE douchebag in your distortions of what i say.
Sorry clemon - I've quoted what you said - and you deny it - here
clemon wrote: the sad thing is i did a philosophy degree, and DO understand adorno...

things i've been right about so far:
1. i can follow most of his philosophical work
clemon!09. wrote:
jliat wrote:
I'm saying that you do not understand Adorno by reading only 30 pages
we agree.
No we do not - read your own post above - YOU CLIAM you DO understand and can follow most of his philosophical work - but you've read very little.

jliat wrote:
Hence your mistake with Bergson,
clemon!09. wrote:
i didn't make any mistake with bergson, he is often grouped together with phenomenologists, and not just cos he's french.
Sorry - often grouped with them - and what is being French to do with this - you conflated him mistakenly with Husserl - who wasn't French.
clemon!09. wrote:
and i provided a quote from THAT preface that pretty much said exactly what i claimed for him
No - you did not. You made a bad précis which makes it looks like Adorno thought him a phenomenologist. And showing without more reading you simply cant read Adorno.
clemon!09. wrote: oh really, what are these. and repeating that i haven't read much isn't going to cut it as a reply,.
jliat wrote:
You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
clemon!09. wrote:
and i am used to yours. didn't you say that i had the intellect of the average 14 year old, at best?
No I didn't….
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:20 am

i at no point said that bergson was a phenomenology, i have read a book on him! i claimed overlaps.

anyway, not sure what you're getting about my claim RE understanding most of what i've read. maybe you have a personality disorder, i don't really get it you seem to be bright enough to know the difference between the two concepts.
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:21 am

all the name calling just undermines any serious claims you make
who to?

look, you're the one who brought up the term "mental illness" jliat... i don't mind that you're using it as a hasty excuse to look clever, but yeah :)
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:01 am

clemon!09. wrote:
all the name calling just undermines any serious claims you make
who to?

look, you're the one who brought up the term "mental illness" jliat... i don't mind that you're using it as a hasty excuse to look clever, but yeah :)
I wasn't name calling - you were - now your trying to say what?
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:02 am

I'm sorry trying to make Adorno say Bergson was a phenomenologist is stupid. Prior to this he shows clearly their different concerns.

"Bergson… invented a different type of cognition to embrace the non-conceptual…"

"Husserl, in contrast, [to Bergson] a logician, had a method for penetrating to essences that was completely at odds with that of a generalizing abstraction…"

That they both based their work on consciousness - is stated - but each had completely differing systems… and unlike you Adorno states this.

Vitalism is not to be confused or conflated with phenomenology.

Cited from Adorno's Towards a theory of Intellectual Experience.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests