Samuel Dravis

No, sorry to disappoint Avery! It's from a another forum entirely. I guess I must "sound" the same everywhere; very monotonous, lots of dashes.

Oh, you might enjoy this:

"You know how people love to talk about how you become an angel or a spirit when you die? Like in It's a Wonderful Life - 'Every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings.' Well, when someone says this to you, tell them:

I'm not an angel I'm a human being, AND YOU'RE A HERETIC!"

Interesting development in that my mum got me the Summa of the Summa book. Since you had talked about it I had kinda wanted it, but not as much as other things, and now it just comes free! Sweet deal.

Allow me to clarify, Darathy.

"The body, in fact, only the body, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine." - Karol Wojtyla, Theology of the Body 19:4

"As a being at once both body and spirit, man expresses and perceives spiritual realities through physical signs and symbols." - CCC 1146

"Biblical miracles, for example, might be accepted as "given" supernatural events in a religion, but that does not mean that what is called "evidence of God" in a religion will be necessarily supernatural." - Me

And a small tidbit from a favorite author of mine just for kicks:

"The human body is the best picture of the human soul." - Wittgenstein

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2602785&postcount=18

praps of interest

My take on it is this: Russel has an idea, and the idea is that there's a world of sense-data and a "real" world supposedly hidden from us. This shows up in Kant also; it's essentially the phenomenon-noumenon distinction. Because of this, Russel says that the existence of the sense-data of a chair does not necessarily indicate the existence of a "real" chair, which supposedly underlies the sense-data chair (and may cause it, although such things would be impossible to show one way or another).

I take issue with the word "seems" here because it is the direct result of this idea of Russel's. Frankly, I can't make sense of what "sense-data" is supposed to be, even with Russel's explanations (and by that I mean that I don't see how it can be asserted meaningfully). Since that's the case, how could a skeptical doubt about the chair perhaps being a not-chair possibly arise? Grounds for doubting the chair's existence simply aren't there.

>>>

"In a story I read a few years ago, there were fake men, insect-men. They looked like men, walked like men, bought groceries like men, but were not-men. The interesting thing about the not-men was that they were demonstrably different from men; they were just disguised insects. They were discovered and flew away with their insect-wings. But Russel, here, seems to be suggesting that it is possible that there would never be a discernible difference between a real-chair and (ostensibly) a not-chair. A strange point! Are we just playing with names here? "A" = A, "B" = A, but "A" =/= "B", because it's "A"! In any case, a chair by any other name is just as comfortable."

Here's a small bit of the post I was threatening you with the other day. I'll be talking about Russel's book, The Problems of Philosophy. This is a partial commentary on the first chapter.

"...The way that Russel poses these apparent truths is odd. It "seems" to him that he is sitting in a chair; it "seems" that he is sitting at a table of a certain shape; it "seems" that he sees papers with writing on them. Why use the word 'seems'? No one disagrees that your chair could be, in fact, a fake chair; suppose it was a fake chair, an insect that looked like a chair?"

Continued >>>

Devon if you have anything resembling a soul and even if you don't I'd suggest watching the watchmen so that you can see Rorsarch, he is your hero.

oh and also, i would forget the first two, i would like to continue pestering darathy ad infinitum

don't be so glum darathy

GLUM

LUGMUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUM

hey, new avatar anna! awesome.

Oh, Darathy, that bit about coptic monks in the books thread was interesting. I looked on wiki and found this:

A hermit saw someone laughing, and said to him, "We have to render an account of our whole life before heaven and earth, and you can laugh?"

Which reminded me of:

"I read: 'No man can say that Jesus is the Lord God, but by the holy ghost.' [1 Cor 12] - And it is true: I cannot call him Lord; because that says nothing to me. I could call him 'the paragon', 'God' even-- or rather, I can understand it when he is called thus; but I cannot utter the word 'Lord' with any meaning. Because I do not believe that he will come to judge me; because that says nothing to me. And it could say something to me only if I lived completely differently." (Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, 33e)

It seems to me the first quote is just that kind of distinction: the hermit says "Lord" and means it; the other could not mean "Lord" even if he wanted to...

I don't even understand what it means to have "one will and two natures"! How could I possibly be a monothelitist?!

Maybe it's something like psychology's talk of the subconscious and the conscious. Are all psychologists monothelitist, or is that title reserved mostly for the heretical sect variety?

You'll like.

Darathy it is true. I have a suggestion which will fulfill the primal argumentative urges while allowing you to divest yourself of our company so that the timely completion of those things both peculiar and obligatory: appoint a firm schedule so that you only spend XX minutes on the Skype.

hey bob it looks like igyman wants into the Malkavian Playground group, just FYI

hey ender, it's too bad we weren't able to talk shop in the thread, but here's my contribution:

http://www.texascooking.com/features/sept2005_titos_vodka.htm

Qliveur, I'd like to make the same invitation that I did to Adavardes: If you'd like to see exactly what's going on with the "in-crowd", why don't you join us on Skype? Just add me ("samueldravis") as a contact and I'll add you to the main chat. Hopefully this will help defuse some tension regarding this "clique" issue. Thanks.

Hey, things got off on the wrong foot somehow with the whole clique-argument thing. If you'd like to see exactly what's going on with the "in-crowd", why don't you join us on Skype? Just add me ("samueldravis") as a contact and I'll add you to the main chat.

Pavvy, remember when you told me to read Othello? Well, I finally got around to it. It's pretty awesome so far. I've read up to the third act. Iago is a knave and no gentleman!

BOB

I

CUS

<3

I'm doing well Darathy, nothing much going on here. Just want to quit my job and mmmmmmmmmmoooooooooooveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

but that's neither here nor there!

I heard that you deleted the skype because of a chat with avery, must have been some chat. How come I never get invited to these things? MASSIVE ATTACK

sorry I've been listening to them a lot lately, I like how they sound

now if I could just...

Watching the show "Angel" right now - I almost like it better than the original show it spun off from. There was one episode, I liked it a great deal, called "I Will Remember You". Probably the best episode in the series.

I posted something you'd be interested in. You'll be entertained.

"The Earth could just as easily be the result of goddess Tiamat's body split in half to form the sky and earth by the god Marduk. Or it could be the ejaculate of Ptah after all." - Skinwalker

I'm happy to see that others know I am capable of such amazing feats of astroengineering!