Who am I ?

[Karli]

I do not need to control the thoughts of man and I need not fear the thoughts of God.

ps-  The only substance of immortal value to be gained from a mortal sense of existence is this very statement.

[ahinton]

I think that the answer to the question posed in your thread title simply has to be
"Karli".

That said, I should perhaps mention that, in another thread on this forum, you recently drew attention to your perception of a similarity between Karli and Mayla so, who knows? perhaps Mayla would agree with what I have written above (and perhaps she will accordingly tell us whether or not this may be the case)...

I'm off to make a salad and a dressing for a late-night (in UK) supper; a nice dry chilled sauvignon blanc of Pessac-Léognan was at the ready to accompany this but I've decided to pass it over for now in favour of a pinot gris from Oregon (and, in so saying, I realise that I'm in the wrong thread here!...)

Best,

Alistair

[chopininov]

It really bugs me when people ask OTHERS who they are.

[ahinton]

It really bugs me when people ask OTHERS who they are.

Then be duly bugged (and also presumably discouraged from contributing further to this thread).

Best,

Alistair

[general disarray]

I'm off to make a salad and a dressing for a late-night (in UK) supper; a nice dry chilled sauvignon blanc of Pessac-Léognan was at the ready to accompany this but I've decided to pass it over for now in favour of a pinot gris from Oregon (and, in so saying, I realise that I'm in the wrong thread here!...)

Best,

Alistair

In vino veritas . . . no matter the thread in which it appears.  Cheers!

[Karli]

It really bugs me when people ask OTHERS who they are.

Are you just stating a random opinion about your life as you know it or does this comment actually have some kind of relevance to the thread you have posted it in ? 

Taking that opinion for what it is, it would seem you wish for an individual to be somebody they are not, which is a bit ironic considering you also seem to believe that only the individual should determine just whom or what they are.  Chopininov, be a dear and don't bother forming opinions about other people, especially since those opinions are apparently utterly worthless .

[Petter]

Are you speaking about a communist liberal?

[maul]

You are Mayla. Question mark (space) ?

[Karli]

Are you speaking about a communist liberal?

I don't know !

You are Mayla. Question mark (space) ?

Well, yes.

[Karli]

Who am I ?

Piano playing is a human and instrumental endeavor. 

Playing music is transcendence beyond the human and the instrument.

[Karli]

If that which is unlimited is truly unlimited, would it then -- in its limitlessness -- be capable of including limitation ?


The only way I can see to work this out would be to consider the "nature" of each.  What is the nature of limitlessness and what is the nature of limitation, and would their essence, their nature, have to be the same ?  For some reason, I think they would need to share an identity, which would change the concept entirely.  Limitation would need to be born of limitlessness, and the nature of limitlessness is limitlessness...

Right now, I don't think that "limited" thought has a state of being nor a nature other than being limited.  So, it is not exactly a cause and its not even an effect since it does not have a state of being other than itself.  Once a higher intelligence is found, this intelligence or knowledge erases what was once considered to "be" -- which was only a limited sense.  That's all the further I am right now on that.

[Karli]

hmmm ... it just dawns on me that the entire concept of limitation is "born of" limited perception, which I guess means its not born of limitlessness, which I guess means that limitlessness does not include limitation ...

[frigo]

You'll never know what limitation is, because you and the concepts you use are limited. The things you say or think as words are very different from what nature is, each word you say has something of your own thought and vision of them. So, the truth will never come up... but, you can think that, as all things are your frontiers, start knowing your world in order to know yourself... once you find your limitations, you find you....


or so I think....

[concerto_love]

You are you!! who else...

[general disarray]

If that which is unlimited is truly unlimited, would it then -- in its limitlessness -- be capable of including limitation ?


The only way I can see to work this out would be to consider the "nature" of each.  What is the nature of limitlessness and what is the nature of limitation, and would their essence, their nature, have to be the same ?  For some reason, I think they would need to share an identity, which would change the concept entirely.  Limitation would need to be born of limitlessness, and the nature of limitlessness is limitlessness...

Right now, I don't think that "limited" thought has a state of being nor a nature other than being limited.  So, it is not exactly a cause and its not even an effect since it does not have a state of being other than itself.  Once a higher intelligence is found, this intelligence or knowledge erases what was once considered to "be" -- which was only a limited sense.  That's all the further I am right now on that.

For beginners, words are just symbols.  After sensation, words are only the poor substitute of perception. 

Everything you have written here is intellectualized nonsense.  The truest thoughts are those that are most clear, most understandable.  Yours are utterly unintelligible. 

You need to learn that the ambiguous is not virtuous or profound.  Only pompous.

[goldentone]

Piano playing is a human and instrumental endeavor. 

Playing music is transcendence beyond the human and the instrument.

Very nice.

[Karli]

For beginners, words are just symbols.  After sensation, words are only the poor substitute of perception. 

Everything you have written here is intellectualized nonsense.  The truest thoughts are those that are most clear, most understandable.  Yours are utterly unintelligible. 

You need to learn that the ambiguous is not virtuous or profound.  Only pompous.

I was suspecting that somebody would comment as such.  Thanks for fulfilling my suspicions (though I actually don't believe you think that way  -- and I actually think your post is exactly as you described mine to be (as best as I can make out what you are all about in that post, anyway  )).  I decided, as you can see, to go ahead and post anyway since for me these are sincere thoughts.  I figure there will be perhaps the right people interested in the subject, or perhaps nobody at all.  In any event, I figured I would go ahead and let myself be expressed as she is .

Very nice.

Glad you like it.  It dawned on me as such right before I typed it -- even if that were all I realized for the day, I think it's a fruitful day.

[term]

Piano playing is a human and instrumental endeavor. 

Playing music is transcendence beyond the human and the instrument.

Oh god.
I understand that, but its abstract and philosophical and therefore beyond any practical meaning.

If that which is unlimited is truly unlimited, would it then -- in its limitlessness -- be capable of including limitation ?

If freedom is free, then it would be free even to be unfree.
Again, philosophical, abstract, and really without meaning. Of course the word itself, and its meaning (two sides of the medal, the "real thing") are seperate. In other words, self reference is not allowed.
Therefore, limitlessness means really without limitation, but the word itself has naturally just one identity and is as limited as the word freedom is unfree etc.
In other words, philosophical hairsplitting. 

[tds]

(though I actually don't believe you think that way  -- and I actually think your post is exactly as you described mine to be (as best as I can make out what you are all about in that post, anyway  )). 

omg double pairs of brackets

[tds]

You are you!! who else...

i think you got the best answer, concerto!

IQ estimate=189

[Karli]

Oh god.
I understand that, but its abstract and philosophical and therefore beyond any practical meaning.

Actually, I understand what you mean but disagree that it is entirely beyond any practical meaning (which is what your blanket statement implies).  It is quite practical for the right moment and the right circumstance, and obviously there are other things to be learned before that would be the case. 

Also, abstract and philosophical can be very practical for some people at the right time, however, I don't actually think of what I said as either of those.  It is just what was clearly before me, it was something tangible and still is -- I know how to aim for it, too -- and I would take it with me every time I sit at the piano or even think of the piano.  It's really no more abstract nor any more philosophical than saying something like sound governs motion.  That doesn't mean everybody will "get" it the moment it's said, but just because that is the case doesn't mean it's not useful and quite practical for some.

If freedom is free, then it would be free even to be unfree.
Again, philosophical, abstract, and really without meaning. Of course the word itself, and its meaning (two sides of the medal, the "real thing") are seperate. In other words, self reference is not allowed.
Therefore, limitlessness means really without limitation, but the word itself has naturally just one identity and is as limited as the word freedom is unfree etc.
In other words, philosophical hairsplitting. 

Again, I disagree.  I am a person with deep-inside-of-me questions, and my life tends to stop at them at times.  I try to address them one by one because I feel I have no other choice than to address them ... I have tried to ignore them or hide from them, but they don't go away ... etc. etc. etc..  So, I have been pondering this one particular question for a few days, perhaps a week.  Finding any answer is more than practical for me, it is progression as a person.  And, when I approach my day and the activities within it from a new perspective, my day and my individual activities are much more productive in every way -- those are actually the main points in taking up the questions.  I do find that some of my questions are "dead ends" of sorts in and of themselves, but others are definitely not.  This one here is not a dead end of any sort for me, but rather very vital to how I view life and how I live it. 

Impractical or philosophical hairsplitting ?  No, sorry, not for me. 

[term]

That doesn't mean everybody will "get" it the moment it's said, but just because that is the case doesn't mean it's not useful and quite practical for some.

Fine. I just wonder because i didn't see the relevance of that statement right now.

Again, I disagree. 

Alright, but why exactly do you disagree?
 I'm just saying that that kind of self-reference makes no sence. These are words. Their meaning has to be absolute. If freedom is so free that it's also unfree at the same time, what is it now?
Most illogic.

[Karli]

Alright, but why exactly do you disagree?

I disagreed that my considering these things are impractical and nothing but philosophical hairsplitting on the grounds that for me it is meaningful beyond words and beyond posting on an internet forum.

I'm just saying that that kind of self-reference makes no sence. These are words. Their meaning has to be absolute.

Yeah, I actually don't really get what you are referring to when you say "self-reference."  What do you mean, exactly ?  I am by no means trying to argue the meaning of words, so I don't have much to say on that subject, though I do understand that one must consider the limitations of words when using them.  If anything, I am aiming to get beyond them in understanding.

If freedom is so free that it's also unfree at the same time, what is it now?
Most illogic.

Well, I guess that is part of my question as I talked about in the post where I was considering the "limits" of limitlessness.  I think that peering at whatever its nature is would be an answer, however, I don't necessarily expect to come by this answer overnight.  'What is it now ?' is exactly along the lines of what I would like to figure out, and I would like to discover what is in fact possible vs. impossible.

For me so far, I find what some people are saying to be quite impractical for me because I don't really know what I am supposed to do with them.  Also, I am not even sure what is being "argued" against with reference to me as I am asking actually a question, not making a statement.   I can comprehend on a surfacey level how the words limitlessness or freedom do not mix with limitation or bound (unfree), but I am thinking of more than just those things as I am pondering these subjects. 

[term]

Yeah, I actually don't really get what you are referring to when you say "self-reference."  What do you mean, exactly ? 

For example, you say freedom itself has to be free. (Works the same with limitlessness). Freedom is obviously not free to be one thing: not itself. You have to keep the identity of the meaning, otherwise you're ambiguous.
This 'trick' is only possible with a few words anyway. It's a language curiosity, not a relevant question, because such attributes always refer to other things than themselves.

[Karli]

For example, you say freedom itself has to be free. (Works the same with limitlessness). Freedom is obviously not free to be one thing: not itself. You have to keep the identity of the meaning, otherwise you're ambiguous.

er... you are the one who brought up "freedom" and it is not "I" who is being ambiguous then, but the language  -- which is perhaps your point all along though it wasn't clear to me until just now.

This 'trick' is only possible with a few words anyway. It's a language curiosity, not a relevant question, because such attributes always refer to other things than themselves.

Okay, I can get this as it relates to the language, but there is still something of substance behind the concept for me, though seeing the point about the language helps matters.  I find it interesting that people have chosen to think that I am for some reason just trying to "philosophise" about a subject that I genuinely had questions over...  All in all, that critique in a personal way is not helpful for me because there is nothing I can do with it until something actually becomes clear for me regarding the subject.

[term]

er... you are the one who brought up "freedom" and it is not "I" who is being ambiguous then, but the language  -- which is perhaps your point all along though it wasn't clear to me until just now.

Well it's the same with your word, just substitute. It's you who is ambiguous if you say limitlessness includes limits. So the answer to the question must be no, limitlessness does not include limits, because it would not be what it is.
There is little substance btw because we're talking about imaginary ideas here. Freedom as such doesn't exist anyway. This is just a theoretical, abstract concept if you don't link it to real things.

[Karli]

It's you who is ambiguous if you say limitlessness includes limits.

And it's you who is being a pain since you didn't bother to read what I wrote about and have decided to be the pain you are being instead.  I will happily just go back to my own private world, thank you very much.

[term]

And it's you who is being a pain since you didn't bother to read what I wrote about and have decided to be the pain you are being instead. 

I said "if", in case you answer with yes. I understand you were just asking the question.
And I happily am a 'pain' if i, hopefully, can convince you to get back to the realms of logic...
I bothered to read your comments, but they barely make sense:

Right now, I don't think that "limited" thought has a state of being nor a nature other than being limited.  So, it is not exactly a cause and its not even an effect since it does not have a state of being other than itself.  Once a higher intelligence is found, this intelligence or knowledge erases what was once considered to "be" -- which was only a limited sense.  That's all the further I am right now on that.

I was always convinced that an insightful comment is one that makes complex things understandable, not one that obfuscates through far fetched associations.
You just fell into the trap philosophers sometimes fall into. No problem, sh*t happens. 

[Karli]

I was always convinced that an insightful comment is one that makes complex things understandable, not one that obfuscates through far fetched associations.

And it is my impression that those whom aim to complicate and confuse matters because they have nothing better to do and can't be more creative than that, they are not worth my time nor energy; please feel free to officially play with yourself.

[term]

I have no need nor desire to run circles trying to explain myself to you

I've heard that a lot. I rather think, you can't even if you wanted. From what i've read, you're doing that abstract, vague, i-don't-know-why-but-i-feel-it kind of talk in which you're adressing complex things but don't know the basics, like an architect who's building a skyscraper on randomly chosen terrain - if it happens to be solid enough, you're lucky, but chances are that it's going to collapse.
No offense, but thats how you sound.

[Karli]

*gives 'term' a delicious little doggy treat and lovingly pats him on the head*

[Karli]

I've heard that a lot. I rather think, you can't even if you wanted. From what i've read, you're doing that abstract, vague, i-don't-know-why-but-i-feel-it kind of talk in which you're adressing complex things but don't know the basics, like an architect who's building a skyscraper on randomly chosen terrain - if it happens to be solid enough, you're lucky, but chances are that it's going to collapse.
No offense, but thats how you sound.

Once again, this is a perfectly useless "critique" for me.  There is nothing in there that has actual substance in terms of me building something of value in my life, therefore, your words are actually not even a critique at all (or at least of no true pertinence to my life, other than me realizing this very fact), but are only the babbles (whimpers and whines ?) of an under-informed person whom likes to "hear himself speak."  

*holds out a new doggy treat*

[term]

Re: Who am I ?