[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl actually, Guille, being is being, not necessarily doing.

If we assume that being is being then being is boring and absurd. And I don't like the idea that my existence is boring and absurd. And actually saying that being is being is being boring and absurd, so your philosophy might be boring and absurd but mine isn't (I'm using your method of replying, isn't it? using relativism as a tool for escaping).

And by the way, if we leave the atemporal ideal we see that in this world being is doing. There are no facts, only interpretations, said Nietzsche, and it is correct. Mine is an interpretation (I believe correct) of the world. Stating that being is being is stating a fact, and that is forgetting why philosophy has un-metaphysicized itself. I believe the interpretation that being is having is what leads to all the negative things in our world, and that the interpretation that being is doing leads to all the positive things. Wasting time, energy and space is the product from believing that being is having, and producing creativity, feelings and union is the product of believing that being is doing. In that sense, time is the opposite to creativity, energy (ability to act, which is opposed to pasion) is the opposite of feeling and space (diversification) is the opposite of union.

[harmonygirl]

Guille, perhaps you interpret your being as boring and absurd, but I certainly don't. You may define yourself by your acts (what you do) but I define myself by who I am. Again, you missed the point of being, but I am not surprised. Try meditating and you may begin to understand the wonder of being and the irrelevance of doing.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Guille, perhaps you interpret your being as boring and absurd, but I certainly don't. You may define yourself by your acts (what you do) but I define myself by who I am. Again, you missed the point of being, but I am not surprised. Try meditating and you may begin to understand the wonder of being and the irrelevance of doing.

I understand it perfectly. But it is not a wonder, it is an intuitive reason. Our feelings tell us who we are, always, when we are being. The error of metaphysics is talking about the being, and not realizing that there is being and that there is a being. There are both forms, the spatial and the temporal, but not the substantial. The essence of the being is it's composition and it's space-time extension. The composition is the properties (representative) and atributes (expressive), and the space-time extension says where-when it is and where-when it is not, what it occupies and what it can (possibility to) occupy. This may seem to materialist, too pragmatic, but it is what there is. With your first sentence you did nothing but make clear what I said about your method of replying, of escaping. I already said that my being wasn't boring and absurd, and that yours might be, to copy what you always do when you 'reply' (I use '...' cause it isn't a reply, but an escape), and in fact it is exactly what you did, say that mine might be but yours not. This relativism as I said, is an escape, as I said, but an escape from what? Maybe from advancing with others. You are closed in your view and you will never think about the possibility of improving with others, probably because you feel superior because you'r older. No one in this forum has had prejudice about my age eccept you. In fact, many thought it would be easier to convince me into their theories than to convince an adult, and they ended up seeing that they didn't even convince themselves. I'm not modest (and modesty is stupidity) about my age. Talking less than you are is stupid, and that is why I talk as much as I do, and in fact I think I say things whiles I'll talk, not like others who talk and talk and say nothing. But talking more than what you are is also stupid, remember that. Your belief that you are superior automatically inferiorates you.

I'm in this forum because I like it, and I want to. Unless Robert bans me from the forums, I'm a friend of it, a part of it. And I come to it to be constructive. I have given it a lot, and it has given me a lot too. I do not see you willing to recieve anything from this forum apart from release from your life, you feel trapped by it perhaps, I don't know and I don't care, I'm not Freud, but if you have any problem go to the doctor or to the psicologist or the police or to the judge, but not the a forum for the quest of the theory of everything. You can invent things about me (like that I see the being boring and absurd) and say they are due to my age, but that won't make me weak. What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger. And you won't be the one to kill me, only I will be able to kill me. But until then, I am stronger with or without anything. With a member to discuss construcutivelly and harmonically (irony, your name, which is supposed to represent your being, contradicts your being), or without it. 'I'm a nihilist and a terrorist in the theoretical world' writes Baudrillard about himself, well I'm probably similar to him. And proud of it.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Guille, perhaps you interpret your being as boring and absurd, but I certainly don't. You may define yourself by your acts (what you do) but I define myself by who I am. Again, you missed the point of being, but I am not surprised. Try meditating and you may begin to understand the wonder of being and the irrelevance of doing.

HG, if you go to Marxist.org, you will find the philosopher Ludwig Feurerback's three short articles on "Being" and being. He explains this complex phenomanon the best of any... Start with the one about Principles of Future...

regards

[harmonygirl]

Guille, Guille, Guille, calm down! Why talk of killing? Maybe this is why balance is important! Really, try meditating, it might bring you peace. Hopefully you will understand being (as opposed to "a being" which you define spatio-temporally and, hence, inaccurately). You can draw whatever conclusions you want about my life, I know who and what I am. You can call me delusional and all of the other labels you need to attach to a way of being which is different than yours and which seems to threaten you. The difference between us (one of them!) is that I acknowledge other ways of being, you can't seem to. Pity.

[harmonygirl]

Thanks LG, I'll check it out, I used to be a Marxist way back!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Thanks LG, I'll check it out, I used to be a Marxist way back!

HG, Marxism has nothing to do with it. I am not a Marxist. I dislike Marxists. The point was about a place a short article could be found about a very important thinker of "Being" and being. Pay attention. Stop reading into people's posts what is clearly not there...

regards

[HappytheStripper]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Hey HtS, I think balance is important but also a question of perspective. As noted in other threads, equality in nature simply doesn't exist. I prefer the Mandelbrot notion of 'becoming' rather than 'equalling' as this appears to me to be more true (and ultimately balancing!)

I agree with this thank you HG

LG I will check out the site you mentioned thank you ...

Ashley

[harmonygirl]

LLoyd, the site you mentioned was addressed as Marxist, hence my comment. Thank you for your valuable input. I actually read into your post the information that was actually there, rather than the information you believed you posted (which was incorrect). Perhaps you could refrain from characterizing my reading (and incorrectly so, I might add)

[harmonygirl]

HtS, the correct website is:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...bach/index.htm
Cheers