Neuroscience and Wittgenstein

Liar42 liar42 at
Mon Oct 29 09:57:30 EST 2001


Yes? All ears ...

(Which literally imagined might look a bit odd,
though I am not sure if one were to make it "all eyes", because this is more
reading a text, that that would look any less weird. ;-)

> I never agree with you on anything<

Shall I be arrogant and call it your lack of good taste 
or a lack of self-criticism?

>> So you don't know anything about Wittgenstein (...).
Thats great, why didn't you just write that instead?<<

> You are just too stupid to understand the meaning of the words "me not".<

One might not assume that you wish to agree to the too stupid, but if I write
"me not", then to put it like I did not write that, sounds like you are too
stupid to understand what you are reading,
and what did you expect me to answer to that,
a ginger suggestion to buy some reading glasses as if I thought it were your

(I'll scramble your post.)

>You strike me as annoying
most of the time<

Has it occurred to you that there and in other texts I might actually have
quite a good time to be exactly that?

But maybe you haven't read me yet if I wish to get real annoying, I guess,
these are actually the harmless levels.

If not out for scoring slime points with others, what would be the advantage to
censor out what one really wishes to write 
to go instead for some softienicyslimearound that is less sincere, even if it
might offend less?

As a barbarian I might enjoy to e-club around, and if you were to believe it
was totally off-shot I guess you might find some intellectual or other way to
express that.

> (well, almost never),< 

The trick to make lots agree is to stay in the shallow medium of opinions, to
stick a lot with scientifically proven opinions, 
and to get less enemies to avoid all personal quarrels, maybe to leave enough
slime tracks, that are not too obvious, to people ,
to be soft-spoken, considerate and polite at all times, ...

however not everyone might be after that.

That you do not like to agree to that I called you stupid there,
and are not off the rocker from delight over that does amaze me little.

However I might find myself at times rather stupid, too, so if it is any solace
for you, that is still the harmless level.

That was not yet mind-bogglingly stupid there,
nor if stupidity would scream you'd hurt 
nor any of the other stronger verbal expressions that I might use if I am
commenting someone whom I consider to be some inane idiot.

So all in all for my calibers that was still fairly harmless in comparison to
when I start out for serious to comment someone's lack of intellect.

>and I usually have no idea what you are talking about.<

Never mind.

That might take several years of LSD brain studies 
(and if not brain damaged there might be limits to how far one can get there
with some stuff, like some sector discernings)
in combination with a bunch of vocabulary 
that might be from different sources, so maybe me, magic and neuro,
and partially maybe for some stuff I comment texts from the last years that I
commented here 
(and partially not even here, but I bunch got commented here in the past, like
quite a while ago, not meaning the last months).

That means something like those from magic tend to fail at the neuro terms,
those from neuro tend to fail at magic and my terms,
and about the only who tend to follow to an extent are either those from within
LSD where we were some times on trip 
so they know well enough what means what with various, and might also use
various terms there,
or those who for some reason bothered to follow various of my texts far enough
to get used to my terminology, not that that is so tricky, to start to get
neuro terminology I regard as way more difficult,
but most never bother, and as a consequence when I make a reference they do not
tend to get it, either.

Also I lost interests with a bunch to repeat it yet again.

Like after writing several pages about something, and then again, and then
again, there comes a time where one might just not feel to do it again.

If there is stuff popping up in square brackets it tends to mean usually that
it is a reference to stuff that I do not wish to explain yet again, for

Might look something like


[own I, eg.3, eg.1, seq. & brain base] 

If such a string makes no sense to you, never mind, 
that is like my steno for data that repeated might span several pages, maybe
even for some of them each if I were in an extensive babble mode,
and partially verbal data not even being regarded as the best transfer medium
for data about such for such, including the sequencer,  eg.1 and to an extent
and also when it comes to magic own I and brain base,

and when such stuff pops up in square brackets it tends to mean that I do not
feel like making a long version on that.

So if you ever spot a square bracket and then some garble in the square bracket
that fails to make any sense whatsoever, do not assume that for you it is meant
to make sense nor that I wish to make a long version on that.

I am used to that people do not understand my stuff.

Apart from that there is various about which I usually do not wish to make

To that belong exact I s positions in the brain,
and magic instructions for various tunings.

> but besides all of that I liked reading your posts.<

I doubt you particularily enjoyed this one.

The header mentioned "students": Do you study anytning and if so what and
towards what goal?

> But this is just offensive.<

"So you don't know anything about Wittgenstein (...).
Thats great, why didn't you just write that instead?"

"You are just too stupid to understand the meaning of the words "me not"."

Would you say that you were not offensive there at all?

And if you have to admit you were, what does it bother you if I am, too?

> I know you as much more poetic than that.<

In German I might occasionally write a poem (that few or no people might come
to see), but in English that is very rare, and all in all I might not regard me
that poetic, even if on and off I might be.

I'll think about if I e-mail you an English poem that I once wrote.

> I may be somewhat disappointed (and you may not care).<

What do you expect from me, that I turn from some barbarian, who is not a fan
of science and dislikes hollow-bla from so-called philosophers (though I am fan
of Socrates and found Diogenes not completely uninteresting and regard also
partially Douglas Adams as one of the philosophers of our age and love his
making fun of philosophy when two philosophers try to prevent the questioning
of Deep Thought),
into some nicy-nicy diplomatic slime producer?

I'm rather remaining a monkey shooting e-coconuts over the net
and giggling around here merrily 
than turning into some serious sapiens chimp who is an artist in diplomacy.

Now, I'll smurf off and think if I send you that poem ... if I still find it.

It is like a dictionary to my vocabulary.

(Maybe then you have more ideas what I am talking about. 
... And maybe not.  ;-)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list