"No truth is what I hold to be truth"
sounds specific and as uncertain as we've already made it...
where as in "there exists an absolute truth"
well that's specific, no more than what you said though. and it sure is a lot less uncertain.
if you have no view of reality, well thats cool.
but I believe now we are kinda in a different thing. with BM, we're discussing something rather specific for reality, where if you say you believe in none, we will have to kind of start something totally different.
And I'm sorry guys, Im really tired and Im sure you guys are too.
If you don't mind, we can continue this tomorrow, or end it here as this and contemplate on it.
I never meant to change anyone's minds, because this goes much deeper and time is not something we have.
But i do hope you think about what i've written, especially you, BM, because I would hope that you are not basing your life on something so uncertain and confusing.
thanks for the fun guys, I'm off to bed.
godnabit, I can't be certain, (well that's not certain)
I need to be uncertain (it helps me keep an open mind)
But I'll argue this tommorow
I guess you could say ambivalence has a way of creating possibility.
Now I'm completely out of pennies for the night.
Actually back in the olden days his ideas weren't accepted but you can see his work in other psychologist work that they claim as their own, but since his idea were mostly sexually focused it can't really apply to the modern times. Not that i actually believe the whole oedipal complex thing.
I still say Jung for the win.
he is a sex maniac who covers it with his so-called-works and blames this sex habits on "oh boo-boo i had a papercut" accident he had when he was a child.
pavlov owns freud, end of discussion.
I wish I knew what thisthread was about...
then I could post...
Naughty UberAlles. Go sit at the children's table.