"Impermissible Questions":

[abe smith]

How about a list of these? I think this stuff in my standard middle-of-the-night time; and can't now remember them at noonday.

"Do words mean anything??Do any of us ever agree about what words refer to?"

"Does anything matter except getting the kids washed, fed, put to bed?"

....... "How do you know? = anything? for certain?"

"Would anything be much different if we did our decisions by casting dice (Lots of ancient people have done this, or the equivalent.) instead of acting according to 'reason"?"

"Do males act more (or less) rationally than females do?"

"Would the World be a "better" place (for whom?) if, say, 'the Pope' were able to abolish human choice(s) and make everyone obey his rules?"

"let's do away w/ sex & all-that."

Add your favorites ad lib... Doing this may be better for you than smoking.

[Amos]

I don't know abe but the bible tells us that "it is an evil age when old men have dreams." I think this means that your mind is trying to tell you something but since you won't listen when you are exposed to the light of common day (your lymbic orientation) your higher mind (the BVM here) is trying to tell you something.

If smoking blurrs your lymbic vision it may redirect your thoughts to your higher mind and that may even be good for you. It would be equal to your own hot-line to heaven and you could by-pass the Pope that way. What do you think?

[abe smith]

(not going to take Amos's bait.).

[John Page]

Hi abe!
Originally posted by abe smith
"Do words mean anything??Do any of us ever agree about what words refer to?"
jkasdqkkjwj, and "We think we do."
Originally posted by abe smith
"Does anything matter except getting the kids washed, fed, put to bed?"
No, Freud was right...
Originally posted by abe smith
....... "How do you know? = anything? for certain?"Feminine intuition.
Originally posted by abe smith
"Would anything be much different if we did our decisions by casting dice (Lots of ancient people have done this, or the equivalent.) instead of acting according to 'reason"?"
We are dice with memories.
Originally posted by abe smith
"Do males act more (or less) rationally than females do?" By male standards, yes.
Originally posted by abe smith
"Would the World be a "better" place (for whom?) if, say, 'the Pope' were able to abolish human choice(s) and make everyone obey his rules?"
Yes, better for the Pope.
Originally posted by abe smith
"let's do away w/ sex & all-that."
and replace it with electrodes?

[chestercopperpot]

Originally posted by abe smith
How about a list of these? I think this stuff in my standard middle-of-the-night time; and can't now remember them at noonday.

"Do words mean anything??Do any of us ever agree about what words refer to?"


Sure. Words are understood by people who agree, through common usage, as to the definition of those words (whether correct or not). Or we can just look them up in a dictionary.


Originally posted by abe smith
"Does anything matter except getting the kids washed, fed, put to bed?"


Considering that I don't have any kids, everything matters except getting the kids washed, fed, and put to bed.


Originally posted by abe smith
....... "How do you know? = anything? for certain?"


I guess we don't know anything "for certain", but we make good guesses, based upon our experience, and most of the time these are good guesses (e.g. catching a fly ball, knowing where it is going to land). When new observations occur that causes us to change our guesses, we act accordingly.


Originally posted by abe smith
"Would anything be much different if we did our decisions by casting dice (Lots of ancient people have done this, or the equivalent.)


Yes, random decisions would have worse consequences than if we carefully think about them (e.g. should I go to work today? *shake, shake, shake* "My sources say no." Ok, no work for me today!)


Originally posted by abe smith
instead of acting according to 'reason"?"


There is a religion joke to be made there, but, well, ok, since when is the decision to go to church (except possibly to meet some hotties) or use the "rhythm method" of birth control "acting according to 'reason'"?


Originally posted by abe smith
"Do males act more (or less) rationally than females do?"


No comment, but some more than others in both cases, and it's probably close enough to 50/50 to be statistically insignificant.


Originally posted by abe smith
"Would the World be a "better" place (for whom?) if, say, 'the Pope' were able to abolish human choice(s) and make everyone obey his rules?"


Hmmm, let's see . . . lower education level for everyone, way more unintended pregnancies due to lack of sex education and access to birth control methods, fewer science breakthroughs, little religious tolerance (especially for "us"), lesser chance of women succeeding outside of the kitchen, shall I go on?


Originally posted by abe smith
(for whom?) if, say, 'the Pope' were able to abolish human choice(s) and make everyone obey his rules?"


Well, due to more pregnancies, that would mean more little boys, well, nevermind!


Originally posted by abe smith
"let's do away w/ sex & all-that."


No thank you.


Originally posted by abe smith
Add your favorites ad lib... Doing this may be better for you than smoking.


Let's give it a try . . .


How do we know that our memories aren't implanted and our beings are no more than seconds old?


How do we know that each one of us (including ourselves) is an "independent" being, outside of some other entity's control?


How do we know that this whole known universe isn't just taking place inside of an atom in a much bigger universe?


How do we know that we are not in heaven right now?


How do we know that we are not in hell right now?


How good can "heaven" be if you get "whatever you want (or eternal happiness)"?


Can "eternal suffering" in hell be that bad, since at least you are "existing"?


Is a constant state of orgasm a good thing?


Why are the (American) football positions, wide receiver and tight end, called as such? ("Wide" receivers are usually skinny, while tight ends are usually wider and bulkier.)


Puff, puff, give! Pppffffffffffffttttttt! Whooooooohhhh! *cough, cough* Damn, that's some good shit!

[Hit & Miss]

Originally posted by abe smith
"Do words mean anything??Do any of us ever agree about what words refer to?"
Most words do, e.g., frog, blind, forceps, and screw. Each word has multiple definitions, but each means something. I find that there is at least general agreement about words that refer to actual objects—geometrically extended bodies. There is an indeterminacy in definition about even these words, but there is enough common agreement to get by. However, when words refer to abstract concepts there is such an indeterminacy that the gap may be insurmountable for meaningful dialogue.

"Do males act more (or less) rationally than females do?" I can only judge from my experiences, and I haven’t seen enough evidence either way to make an accurate generalization on who acts more rationally. However, I can confidently say that male irrationality tends to be more destructive towards others while female irrationality tends to be more self-destructive. Of course, this is from my own experiences and is far from any valid universal statement.

"Would the World be a "better" place (for whom?) if, say, 'the Pope' were able to abolish human choice(s) and make everyone obey his rules?"
I understand your question this way: if everyone in the world were on the same page ethically, then would the world be a better place? Only abolition of choice would force everyone on to the same ethical page. And if this ethical page were moderate Christianity that genuinely embraced the teaching of Christ, then would this world be a better place? I would have to say it would be without any doubt. But such a scenario is idealistic and, therefore, meaningless. It will never happen and not worthy of serious contemplation.

[sophie]

chestercopperpot : How good can "heaven" be if you get "whatever you want (or eternal happiness)"? Perhaps the thing would be to create your own experience and enjoy the wash of emotions. May be quite fascinating. . .

[abe smith]

Glad to see the foregoers's responses, AND additions to the qq list. keep the juices flowing, eh?

Should I now (dredged-up from the night's bottom ;) ) ask another long-standing obsessive's qy? >>>
Define "male" and "female".
(N.B. So far as I've been able to ascertain, there hasn't BEEN EVER any legal definition of these terms.....)

...... And, carry-on.

[Amos]

Originally posted by abe smith

Define "male" and "female".


That is easy if we go by appearances but since human reality is an illusion what we see is not always what it appears to be.

[abe smith]

then, "Is there any reality which is not an illusion?" and perforce, "Is there any reality apart from "human" reality? and , If there were/weren't, how would we know?"

[Amos]

Originally posted by abe smith
then, "Is there any reality which is not an illusion?" and perforce, "Is there any reality apart from "human" reality? and , If there were/weren't, how would we know?"

That's a good question, abe, and I would say that if illusions are reflections of reality there must be a reality somewhere of which we see the illusion. But if that which we see clearly defined as male or female can have a gender identity that is different from the appearance it may be the case that both sexes are illusions that have been created by the human condition and now we are forced to arrive at the neuter position as the reality from which both male and female are deviants. To be sure, if our sex was real our sexual identity would be the same and if our sexual identity was real our sex would be what it was mean to be.

Up until recently Human Rights protected these illusions as if they were sacret and more recently they are protected as if they are a matter of human choice but not sacret. I suppose the difference is that in the former it was recognized that they were an illusion and in the latter they are just as nature would have it without the sacret component that created them.

How would we know? Natural law would have it that there is 'peace in the valley' (without chaos), and on its own would remove the opposites that set us appart as male and female. Hence the psycholgical neutering of both males and females is the handiwork of nature without an ideal.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by abe smith
Define "male" and "female".
(N.B. So far as I've been able to ascertain, there hasn't BEEN EVER any legal definition of these terms.....)

...... And, carry-on.
Biologically, they are simple to define (at least for those species that can't change their sex). The male carries the sperm, and the female carries the egg. And I suppose there needs to be a third category for hermaphrodites. Also, note that sterile males and females would still fall into this category as their natural state would be as I defined it.

But when referring to gender roles, things become more difficult. It's my belief that gender itself is social construct, and I believe that trying to force peole into artificial roles based on their sex has resulting in much harm. Gender cannot be genetically determined, otherwise the cognitive dissonance between sex and gender wouldn't afflict some men and women. Also, hermaphrodites often choose one gender that they identify with, regardless of their sex organs.

[abe smith]

see how much fun thinking -up/about "impermissible/ unanswered/ unanswerable" questions can be? And so much healthier for ya than ingesting harmful alkaloids.... ;)

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by abe smith
see how much fun thinking -up/about "impermissible/ unanswered/ unanswerable" questions can be? And so much healthier for ya than ingesting harmful alkaloids.... ;)
Ah, but some of my most satisfying thoughts about "impermissibles" have been during the ingesting/inhalation of those wonderful alkaloids

[abe smith]

:p :p :p ex-xian.... Whatevuh turns ya awn.... I couild argue that alkaloids are not as much "fun" as (verbal) arguments, given that they (alkaloids) lack the nice, tightly-nice specificities we can do with words ( = if we believe in words). It's not EXACTLY that I'm getting too old (at 78) for the rough&tumble of the jolly old Nonverbal. It is the case tho that by now verbaliage has more variables. YEAH! that's it. Gimmmee gimmmeee what I cry foah; more variables! Fill, upppp, my Toybox; start filling it NOW.