Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (49131)	5/23/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: lorrie coey	Respond to of 67261

-might=dominion...both being ephemeral and transient...see, COLUMBINE, THURSTON...HERITAGE, etc. Women are THE Essence of Nature. ...and did I mention that everything is relative?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (49131)	5/24/1999 2:11:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<You claim there exists an objective essence to things. I agree, and that essence is Might and it exists by varying degrees in all things. >> We can definitely observe and measure the effects of the forces of nature. In so doing we are permitted the luxury of our brains which transmit the possibility of illusion in all things and a separate reality of greater clarity. <<This notion of essence is really meaningless coming from you. You just can't say “It just Is.”>> Oh, contrair. I can and have many times. <<Who or What is It? >> It was you, who from the beginning challenged me by saying not to use an ultimate label. I am following the rules. <<If something declares every moral action Right or Wrong, and yet those moral actions occur without regard for the declaration, it is really nothing at all. It is completely irrelevant.>> Making declarations is irrelevant unless referencing the authority, I agree. I have made no such declaration. <<What is relevant is the action that takes place without regard for anything but itself.>> Absolutely <<It is Might, and as such it is possesses authority to declare itself Right.>> Ah breach, if you are refering to the relative Might as you have described earlier then it is not Right except in the natural sense. This is a declaration of transience and the limitations of temporality. I don't think Might defines right in this sense in any way. Might declares it self to us in a very surperficial and controvertible manner. Hardly a declaration of right that no one can refute, as you claim. <<Hehe. The problem is, brees, no one can even declare the thing is a chair or anything else. Surely we all know what a chair is. Even so, the attribute of “chairness” is no objective ultimate thing, and I here speak of such ultimate things.>> A simple matter and at the heart of my claims on the essence of rightness. A chair is known by its form, not by substance. The form of a chair is "something that represents a seat." As you said, "we all know what it is." For example I could hollow out the seat of my grandfathers wooden rocker and place a pot there. In the pot I could place a cactus or something. No longer is it clearly a chair. It would best be described as a potted plant. We have a common experience with the topics of this thread. The human beings here can definitely put their finger on what is right and it rarely lines up with might. Many of these spokes persons have no more to go on than, "Surely we all know what a chair/right is." Because of the complex nature of our temporal existence we are bound to struggle with the application of what is right. <<You have not shown that nature governs an essential rightness that objectively measures all things with authority.>> Nor did I try to, as that is not my contention at all. Rightness is a form that measures. It neither governs nor is it governed by other forms. Definitely not by a transient and relative Might. <<Were Absolute Might not to exist, then Whatever exists directly beneath Absolute Might is by definition the Greatest Might, and just as was the case for Absolute Might (which now does not exist), It is Right. “…the mere fact that its will is implemented gives it more meaning than anything else.”>> Total nonsense as you have breached the context of our discussion to include a relative hierarchy. I give you this, greater force conquers lesser force in nature. Nothing to do with what is right. <<Surely “Might makes Right” sounds offensive to some, but I believe it describes reality.>> A narrow definition of survival of the fittest. << You believe otherwise. Very well, I would certainly like to better understand this natural essence of yours that “just is” and that judges all things meaningfully. You claim it “just is,” a thing that is certainly not objectively apparent in my opinion.>> I'm doing the best I can. Have Peace