SELF

[h_k_s]

Subjecting Self to intellectual/logical exercises tends to fragment/obscure Self and thus impede/reduce its usefullnes

Not according to Aristotle, Jesus, or Descartes.

You think youre smarter than any or all of them?

Unlikely.

[h_k_s]

I think the question about 'self' that remains a bit tricky for me is this: is it primarily a survival tool that we then seek self-actualization, self-authoring, etc. through when environments and intellect allows or is that just what the formation of it looks like from the assembly line or thinking of it in evolutionary terms? One thing for certain - when we can't pin it to any larger teleological goal a lot of those questions seem like they're futile, so your really then just stuck with picking whatever story both works and does so with the least offence to one's need for truth or accuracy.

Too many run-on sentences in this to make any sense to me.

You should have paid more attention in elementary school when they were teaching you and other kids not to construct run-on's.

Subject, verb, object, period. New sentence. Subject, verb, object, period. Etc.

[Papus79]

Too many run-on sentences in this to make any sense to me.

You should have paid more attention in elementary school when they were teaching you and other kids not to construct run-on's.

Subject, verb, object, period. New sentence. Subject, verb, object, period. Etc.

None of the authors of any of my college textbooks paid much attention either. In fact I remember a handful of instances in tax books and the like where they got way worse than I think I've ever gotten.

[Waechter418]

As we have gathered now some quite remarcable manifestations of (the initialy mentioned) Self of Ego, lets find out how it functions and of what use it can be (other than bla-bla)

[Papus79]

As we have gathered now some quite remarcable manifestations of (the initialy mentioned) Self of Ego, lets find out how it functions and of what use it can be (other than bla-bla)

You need at most two or three people that you yourself selected or who showed up to a meditation or enlightenment-centered meetup with similar thoughts and ideas on the matter. Any open forum tends to be a pissing contest rather quick.

[Terrapin Station]

I think the question about 'self' that remains a bit tricky for me is this: is it primarily a survival tool that we then seek self-actualization, self-authoring, etc. through when environments and intellect allows or is that just what the formation of it looks like from the assembly line or thinking of it in evolutionary terms? One thing for certain - when we can't pin it to any larger teleological goal a lot of those questions seem like they're futile, so your really then just stuck with picking whatever story both works and does so with the least offence to one's need for truth or accuracy.

Too many run-on sentences in this to make any sense to me.

You should have paid more attention in elementary school when they were teaching you and other kids not to construct run-on's.

Subject, verb, object, period. New sentence. Subject, verb, object, period. Etc.

This should be a sticky. Or maybe we should just make it so that people receive a shock when they don't do it.

[Sculptor1]

I think the question about 'self' that remains a bit tricky for me is this: is it primarily a survival tool that we then seek self-actualization, self-authoring, etc. through when environments and intellect allows or is that just what the formation of it looks like from the assembly line or thinking of it in evolutionary terms? One thing for certain - when we can't pin it to any larger teleological goal a lot of those questions seem like they're futile, so your really then just stuck with picking whatever story both works and does so with the least offence to one's need for truth or accuracy.

Too many run-on sentences in this to make any sense to me.

You should have paid more attention in elementary school when they were teaching you and other kids not to construct run-on's.

Subject, verb, object, period. New sentence. Subject, verb, object, period. Etc.

Infantile basic sentences lead to more ambiguity, since they lack conditional breaks which mediate absolute meanings. It is widely regarded, amongst the teaching profession, that such simple sentences are indicative of minds that work at lower levels, whilst the inclusion of clauses and conditional modifiers indicate higher levels of thinking.

[Terrapin Station]

Too many run-on sentences in this to make any sense to me.

You should have paid more attention in elementary school when they were teaching you and other kids not to construct run-on's.

Subject, verb, object, period. New sentence. Subject, verb, object, period. Etc.

Infantile basic sentences lead to more ambiguity, since they lack conditional breaks which mediate absolute meanings. It is widely regarded, amongst the teaching profession, that such simple sentences are indicative of minds that work at lower levels, whilst the inclusion of clauses and conditional modifiers indicate higher levels of thinking.

I don't think he's saying to only write "Jack fell down." "Jill ate an apple." etc. He's saying to not write sentences such as "Faith is just this paradox, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal, is justified before the latter, not as subordinate but superior, though in such a way, be it noted, that it is the single individual who, having been subordinate to the universal as the particular, now by means of the universal becomes that individual who, as the particular, stands in an absolute relation to the absolute," because that's just horrible writing. And unfortunately there have been a number of posters on this board who have a tendency to write like that.

[Papus79]

On a side note - how often does anyone say 'You know - I wholeheartedly agreed with everything you just said, in fact what you were saying was music to my ears, but could you cut back on the run-on sentences?'.

[Steve3007]

I wouldn't worry about it Papus79. They're not run-on sentences. In the post there were two of them:

I think the question about 'self' that remains a bit tricky for me is this: is it primarily a survival tool that we then seek self-actualization, self-authoring, etc. through when environments and intellect allows or is that just what the formation of it looks like from the assembly line or thinking of it in evolutionary terms?

One thing for certain - when we can't pin it to any larger teleological goal a lot of those questions seem like they're futile, so your really then just stuck with picking whatever story both works and does so with the least offence to one's need for truth or accuracy.

Their length is pretty reasonable. I've seen much worse. Their grammar could be improved to make them a little bit clearer, but not much. As far as I can see there's just one spelling mistake ("your" instead of "you're" in the second sentence). Again, I've seen worse, and probably written worse myself. Certainly don't let h_k_s, of all people, beat you up about it.

[Papus79]

Steve3007 - I didn't know it was weighing on me emotionally but TY for the support nonetheless.

[Sculptor1]

Infantile basic sentences lead to more ambiguity, since they lack conditional breaks which mediate absolute meanings. It is widely regarded, amongst the teaching profession, that such simple sentences are indicative of minds that work at lower levels, whilst the inclusion of clauses and conditional modifiers indicate higher levels of thinking.

I don't think he's saying to only write "Jack fell down." "Jill ate an apple." etc. He's saying to not write sentences such as "Faith is just this paradox, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal, is justified before the latter, not as subordinate but superior, though in such a way, be it noted, that it is the single individual who, having been subordinate to the universal as the particular, now by means of the universal becomes that individual who, as the particular, stands in an absolute relation to the absolute," because that's just horrible writing. And unfortunately there have been a number of posters on this board who have a tendency to write like that.

That's not what he said.
ANd you are exaggerating.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't think he's saying to only write "Jack fell down." "Jill ate an apple." etc. He's saying to not write sentences such as "Faith is just this paradox, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal, is justified before the latter, not as subordinate but superior, though in such a way, be it noted, that it is the single individual who, having been subordinate to the universal as the particular, now by means of the universal becomes that individual who, as the particular, stands in an absolute relation to the absolute," because that's just horrible writing. And unfortunately there have been a number of posters on this board who have a tendency to write like that.

That's not what he said.
ANd you are exaggerating.

In other words, you're being too literal about what he said.

The sentence I put in quotation marks is from Kierkegaard, by the way. That's in Fear and Trembling.

[Sculptor1]

That's not what he said.
ANd you are exaggerating.

In other words, you're being too literal about what he said.

The sentence I put in quotation marks is from Kierkegaard, by the way. That's in Fear and Trembling.

I tell you what. Let's face the facts. You f*cked up with your grammar. His response was overwrought; rather than take the time to understand what you were saying, he tried to reduce you to a school boy. I defended you by suppotring the need for complex sentences with clauses and condition, since they tend to reduce the ambiguity of short snappy sentences. What I should have done is correct your bad text.

[Terrapin Station]

In other words, you're being too literal about what he said.

The sentence I put in quotation marks is from Kierkegaard, by the way. That's in Fear and Trembling.

I tell you what. Let's face the facts. You f*cked up with your grammar. His response was overwrought; rather than take the time to understand what you were saying, he tried to reduce you to a school boy. I defended you by suppotring the need for complex sentences with clauses and condition, since they tend to reduce the ambiguity of short snappy sentences. What I should have done is correct your bad text.

Wait--he was responding to Papus, not me. I agree that what he quoted from Papus wasn't that convoluted, but there are tons of examples of bad, continental-style writing on the board.