OT For joke lovers

[Lonnie Clay]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/ckETvke2mOE

Has some of my original jokes. Want more?

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[nominal9]

Yo Momma (Sarah Palin's) Ass is so big...... the National Parks
Service offers donkey rides down the sides of her Butt Crack....

[Lonnie Clay]

Yep, she is a Titan, though definitely not of intellect. You on the other hand appear to be a mite, exerting all of your might (utterly negligible) in an attempt to derail clean (more or less) humor onto the tracks of political dissent. That won't work (because I consider politics beneath notice) due to the entire topic being suffused with emotions which positively ooze testosterone, with very little concealing perfume or deodorant. Take a hike, or joust here, as you please.

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 4:28:51 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:

Yo Momma (Sarah Palin's) Ass is so big...... the National Parks
Service offers donkey rides down the sides of her Butt Crack....

[nominal9]

Ah... a man "above" getting his hands dirty.....with measly
politics...even the "ethics" (or lack) thereof... a man perched in a
gilded cage... in an ivory tower.... aloof.... elite.... superior and
refined.... wagnerian.... perhaps nazi-esque....

PS... I come here every so often.... to speak to some of the
locals.... don't recall seeing you here before....speaking of taking a
hike....

[Lonnie Clay]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/sYe16Qq5iTA

Perhaps you should read at the link above. I despise authoritarianism. My desires for government power border upon anarchy. I have been on the internet since 1997, active in 2001, 2007, 2010 until now. I dropped in on epistemology early this year, where I have contributed my bombast from time to time. If we are to engage in a flame war, then let's confine it to this thread, since the pathetic sight of otherwise reasonable persons slinging mud and feces will be in context...

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 7:56:37 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:

Ah... a man "above" getting his hands dirty.....with measly
politics...even the "ethics" (or lack) thereof... a man perched in a
gilded cage... in an ivory tower.... aloof.... elite.... superior and
refined.... wagnerian.... perhaps nazi-esque....

PS... I come here every so often.... to speak to some of the
locals.... don't recall seeing you here before....speaking of taking a
hike....

[nominal9]

I don't like slinging mud or fighting wars with other posters.... I
prefer to reserve my bile and vitriol for "Public figures".... or
points of argument...
No need to get personal with me... unless you want to.....
I like Anarchists.... don't like Libertarians... some say Libertarians
are anarchists.... couldn't be farther from the truth....Libertarians
like the State, to protect their Contract Rights..... A true
Anarchist..... thinks a "contract" IS THE STATE..... I prefer
individual rights... political, human, whatever.... any encroachment
on individual rights.....I look at very suspiciously....
Ever hear of "Nominalism"... as distinguished from Idealism...
Realism... or Phenomenology?... that's my take on
epistemologies....pretty much four branches to it (give or take
variations in all branches)... I prefer the Nominalist branch, but I
think I understand the others well enough.... at least to know what I
dislike about them....
Nice to meet you, maybe "we" can discuss "things".... without getting
"personal"....

[Lonnie Clay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

Hmm. I'm glad that we can agree to refrain from combat. Verbal jousting becomes tedious after repetition.

So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which the observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there exists a diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even if the observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The appearance of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the observation, creating the appearance of identical results. However, the need to go about one's business makes this irrelevant and a satisfactory performance of one's tasks can be attained by merely a casual glance at most observables, with the observation filed away along with similar inaccurate observations in one's memory. If some problem results due to that casual approach to life, then and only then do *I* take a closer look to see what went awry...

I guess that you could say that I am superciliously superficial, shallow even...

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:23:25 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:

I don't like slinging mud or fighting wars with other posters.... I
prefer to reserve my bile and vitriol for "Public figures".... or
points of argument...
No need to get personal with me... unless you want to.....
I like Anarchists.... don't like Libertarians... some say Libertarians
are anarchists.... couldn't be farther from the truth....Libertarians
like the State, to protect their Contract Rights..... A true
Anarchist..... thinks a "contract" IS THE STATE..... I prefer
individual rights... political, human, whatever.... any encroachment
on individual rights.....I look at very suspiciously....
Ever hear of "Nominalism"... as distinguished from Idealism...
Realism... or Phenomenology?... that's my take on
epistemologies....pretty much four branches to it (give or take
variations in all branches)... I prefer the Nominalist branch, but I
think I understand the others well enough.... at least to know what I
dislike about them....
Nice to meet you, maybe "we" can discuss "things".... without getting
"personal"....

[nominal9]

So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of
Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing
specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every
observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which
the
observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there
exists a
diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even
if the
observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The
appearance
of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the
observation, creating the appearance of identical results.

Nominalism is a bit "shy" about granting any actual standing to
"universals".... beginning Scholasticism dealt in "universals"... then
came along William of Ockham... the "first" nominalist....(more or
less... mostly more)....
Anyway, Ockham says tht Universals do not actually "exist" in
reality... but that they are, at best, "abstracted thoughts" regarding
very similar (in many Physical senses "clone" identical) particular
things..... Ockhams' greatest contribution to Nominalism (to my
thinking) was distinguishing between levels of "Intention"... First
and Second....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First+intention
First intention
(Logic) a conception of a thing formed by the first or direct
application of the mind to the individual object; an idea or image;
as, man, stone.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Second+intention
Second Intention (Logic) a conception generalized from first
intuition or apprehension already formed by the mind; an abstract
notion; especially, a classified notion, as species, genus, whiteness.

Universals are... second intentions....

As to your observations about "appearance"... that smacks of what I
used to hear was called the "fallibilist" argument... which pretty
much amounts to the assertion that "one" can't trust one's own
senses....

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fallibilist
Fallibilism (from medieval Latin fallibilis, "liable to err") is the
philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in
principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that
absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible. As a formal
doctrine, it is most strongly associated with Charles Sanders Peirce,
John Dewey, and other pragmatists, who use it in their attacks on
foundationalism.

However, it is already present in the views of some ancient
philosophers, including Xenophanes, Socrates, and Plato.

In fact, it had a such a direct philosphical relationship with
Pyrrhonistic Skepticism, that Pyrrhonists of history are sometimes
referred to as fallibilists, and modern fallibilists as Pyrrhonists.[1]
[2]

Another proponent of fallibilism is Karl Popper, who builds his theory
of knowledge, critical rationalism, on fallibilistic presuppositions.
Fallibilism has been employed by Willard Van Orman Quine to attack,
among other things, the distinction between analytic and synthetic
statements.

Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our
knowledge - we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for
what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical
knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we
take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some
fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true
(such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain
fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these
axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of
error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans
Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty,
even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen
Trilemma.

Fallibilism will often discard absolute doctrines such as papal
infallibility, claiming that they are merely authority-based
arguments.


My quick reply to "fallibilism is.... That's what measurement or
other such observation "tools" are made for.....don't trust your
eyes?... get a telescope or a microscope... same goes for other
senses... can't remember right?... record it....In other words... you
can get around.... "apperances"....not a problem to actual
"knowledge"....But the Jack-ass Phenomenologists (like even Kant)....
make a big to-do about it.....

[Lonnie Clay]

My entire store of knowledge regarding philosophy was from reading some textbooks purchased from the clearance table at the used college textbook store when I was in college 1975-78. I buried all of that stuff and dogma long ago as nonessential baggage, so I can't intelligently discuss and pick at the topic of philosophical classification of thought processes with an entomologist's accuracy as you seem to be capable of doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

I "live in a world of my own" as a characteristic of my "insanity", rejecting commonly held beliefs of society in favor of my own hypothetical truisms. I accept that society has a right to defend itself from persons like me (up to a certain point), because otherwise we would have anarchy. I even accept that some of my own preferred notions regarding reality are so odious to those who live "normal" lives that they recoil in horror and strike back at me in various ways when I am sufficiently incautious as to attempt sharing my thoughts. What I despise and loathe is the assumption of authority by mental health professions to DICTATE what I am permitted to think in the sanctity of my own mind. So...

The question arises of the marginal utility of communicating my own world view's characteristics to others. Specifically, why should I even BOTHER to tell anyone at all what I might have discovered, due to the potential for retaliatory punishment by those whose only goal in life is enforcing conformity? I clung to that viewpoint for most of my life, but having reached one apparent minimum of acceptable life quality after another, only to find that it was indeed possible to be even worse off, I now ask myself a different question. That question is why I should even give a damn regarding the antagonistic responses of others because about the only thing worse that they could do to me is to put me in a straightjacket bound to a bed and force me to soil myself rather than give me the freedom to use a toilet. I had two trips to the psych ward at the VA hospital this year in which I explored the freedom which I could exercise as a patient, and have come to the conclusion that other than losing my ability to communicate on the internet (BFD,WGAD?), I actually am more free to influence others in the ward than I am when under house arrest at home.

That raises the question once again of why bother spewing my "nonsense" such as :

1) All taxation should be voluntary, tax wealth not economic activity.

2) All representation should be by transferrable and revocable proxy, eliminate elections and districts

3) Abolish fiat money and forbid government issuance of debt instruments.

etc etc etc

With views like those, you can see why I have been under house arrest in the U.S.A. since 1997, certified cuckoo from cloud cuckoo land.

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[Serenity Smiles]

I am glad you raised the subject of senses, in buddhism the calculation of
actual senses within the mortal vehicle is 6 but, of course, that is not the
end I submit this article for consideration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana. I am interested in how it compares
with a nominalists viewpoint.

Universals are... second intentions....

even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the M�nchhausen
Trilemma.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.

[Lonnie Clay]

Welcome to the thread SS! For nominal9 and others who might lack familiarity with my outburst upon the internet which got me certified insane in 1997, see :

https://sites.google.com/site/lonniecourtneyclay/home/tc5526ataoldotcom

Lonnie Courtney Clay

even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the M�nchhausen
Trilemma.

Fallibilism will often discard absolute doctrines such as papal
infallibility, claiming that they are merely authority-based
arguments.

My  quick reply to "fallibilism is.... That's what measurement or
other such observation "tools" are made for.....don't trust your
eyes?... get a telescope or a microscope... same goes for other
senses... can't remember right?... record it....In other words... you
can get around.... "apperances"....not a problem to actual
"knowledge"....But the Jack-ass Phenomenologists (like even Kant)....
make a big to-do about it.....

[nominal9]

Hello Serenity Smiles...
We may have talked before
I really would like to reply to your post in detail, but I am very
pressed for time just now... so I must put you on "hold"... please
forgive me... I have a "big thing" in the morning to prepare for...

On Jun 8, 5:27 pm, "Serenity Smiles" <gentle.esse...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> and Second....http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First+intention

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lonnie Clay]

I'll talk wit' ya sweetie! Whatya wanna jaw about? Done any yoga pretzel twists lately?  Any interestin' mental leaps of intuition? Please avoid dogmatic jargon, since I lack technical terms, and looking up references is such a bore. Let's chatter chat chat!

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 5:06:32 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:

Hello Serenity Smiles...
We may have talked before
I really would like to reply to your post in detail, but I am very
pressed for time just now... so I must put you on "hold"... please
forgive me... I have a "big thing" in the morning to prepare for...

On Jun 8, 5:27 pm, "Serenity Smiles" <gentle....@hotmail.co.uk>

[Lonnie Clay]

I read the text and examined the diagrams at the link provided below. My understanding was limited because I lack the context of Budda's teachings. So I will take a stab at reinventing Budda.

1) Through introspection, become *aware* of your thought processes, following trains of thought from original stimulus down the track of your thoughts, at each stage asking yourself why you thought what you thought, and what was implied by that justification of your thought. Learn to recognize cultural conditioning.

2) Become *aware* of your senses, starting with low stimulus environments and working towards highly stimulating environments, honing your focus so that you are able to isolate and detect *in context* sensory impressions formerly lost in the *noisy* environment. Learn to prioritize sensory impressions.
3) Exercise your thought tools, in the same manner as a mathematician can derive books full of indeterminate integrals from a few basic rules. In other words, develop logical reasoning tools for *learning* the answers rather than learning dogmatic answers provided by others. Check yourself by examining the texts of your chosen teachers to see how well your conclusions agree with theirs. BE AWARE that every teacher has their own cultural conditioning which only exceptional teachers are able to overcome. You can see their conditioning from the manner in which they *choose* to describe their insightful conclusions, and their chosen tools used to reason toward attaining those conclusions. Learn to detect inconsistencies.

4) Develop your own custom brand of thought tools which are most useful within your own society. *USE THEM*! See :

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/epistemology/0dEXdUe4jXQ

Good Luck!

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:27:42 PM UTC-7, Serenity Smiles wrote:

even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the M�nchhausen
Trilemma.

Fallibilism will often discard absolute doctrines such as papal
infallibility, claiming that they are merely authority-based
arguments.

My  quick reply to "fallibilism is.... That's what measurement or
other such observation "tools" are made for.....don't trust your
eyes?... get a telescope or a microscope... same goes for other
senses... can't remember right?... record it....In other words... you
can get around.... "apperances"....not a problem to actual
"knowledge"....But the Jack-ass Phenomenologists (like even Kant)....
make a big to-do about it.....

[nominal9]

Only 5 senses for nominalists... the "standard" number...
The mind... for the nominalist... is where the "CONCEPTUS" (Idea or
concept) is formed usually (or in the first instance) from an
examination by the "senses" of something outside of the mind... the
"something " outside of the mind is called the "RES" ( or thing)
Reference FIRST INTENTION...this happens through direct experience or
empirical contact with the RES but the mind can also deal in
"conceptus" (idea or concept) all on its own... without having the RES
(thing or reference) before it SECOND INTENTION this happens through
memory or abstraction....
anyway, the operations of the mind, which can either be mistaken in
its First or Second Intentions or which can (mind) itself Choose" to
fantasize or lie... gives rise to varuious possibilities in
"ontology".... is some Speoh=ken of or communicated "Res" or
Conceptus... whether orFIRST OR SECOND INTENTION.... REAL OR NOT?...
WHICH IS TO SAY, IT IF FACTUAL OR IS IT FICTI0NAL....
BUT IT GETS A BIT MORE COMPLICATED WHEN YOU START TO ASK... WELL. HOW
OR IN WHAT WAYIS IT fACTUAL OR FICTIONAL

Let's say that a person sets out to lie about something that he or she
wants to communjcate.... what are the range of possiblitities of the
realm of lies?

also, what are the possible ways in which the communication can be
received by the person addressed?

there are "language" level ontological questions to answer... is the
person sending the message telling the truth (as the person
understands it) and what about the person receiving it... does that
person receive the message as the truth?

fact vs fancy(in mind)..... manifest vs. conceal (as
communicated).....

if I have the fact... stone in mind... do I communicate it manifestly
as stone or do I communicate it in a concealed manner as
marshmallow... biting into a stone is different from biting into a
marshmallow...
what about the person receicving the message... does the "addressee"
see the manifest stone as a stone o does the "addresssee" the manifest
stone and think it is a marshmallow...

same goes for a fancy... unicorn... do I communicate the message
manifestly as a unicorn.. or do I communicate it in a concealed manner
as a horse... the addressee person receiving the manifest message
unicorn... does he or she recognize that the unicorn is a fancy or
does the addressee think the manifest unicorn is a fact..... what if
the addressee thinks that the manifest unicorn is really a horse that
is being concealed by the message sender.....and on and on.... ru
through all the various permutated combinations of fact vs fancy
combined with manifest vs. concealed from the standpoints of both the
sender and the address... keep in mind that one or the other or both
could be ignorant as to what they are talking about (which complicates
things greatly)... and consider that maybe there are some paradoxes
involved if people happen to mix up certain specific fact vs fancy or
manifest vs. conceal "expectations"....

I tried to figure the "finite" but still fairly extensive range of
possibilities.... it's daunting....

anyway.... how about some of the things that your Buddhism article
posits or hypothesizes....how old are they?....given your modern-day
knowledge... do you think that they are fact or fancy... manifest or
concealed?

On Jun 8, 5:27 pm, "Serenity Smiles" <gentle.esse...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> and Second....http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First+intention

> ...
>
> read more »

[nominal9]

Hi Lonnie... same question for you... the things that you sopeak of in
your post... do you yourself think that they are fact or fancy...
manifest or concealed?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lonnie Clay]

Hmm...

I have attempted to stay close to the truth lately in my posts on this Google group. I have (by implied irony and sly humor) sought to raise awareness of things not implicitly stated in my posts, such as the question of what value we should place upon the categorizations of "mental disorders" which are judged to exist by mental health professionals. So the short answer to your question regarding "fact or fancy" is that deceit was not intended with the facts presented, but misunderstanding is possible due to lack of shared cultural and experiential background. In response to your query "manifest or concealed", you will find if you look over my writings upon the internet that although I have jabbed at the "Doctors" from time to time, this recent discussion of my internal mental landscape is new material. Some of it might have been deduced from information in my government dossier, but probably was buried to such an extent that it was definitely concealed and in no way manifest up until now. Bon appetite Spooks Inc.!

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Thursday, June 9, 2011 1:33:40 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:

Hi Lonnie... same question for you... the things that you sopeak of in
your post... do you yourself think that they are fact or fancy...
manifest or concealed?