Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Collapsing upon abstraction

The clip below is interesting. It is relatively easy for me to think abstractly, which also makes it very easy for me to compartmentalize. As a child I used to practice abstract thinking all time. I always liked to keep in mind the big picture. Even when I was very young, I wanted to know what was going on, and I kept a mental map of where i was at all times. In school when we discussed a new concept, I would constantly flash between the forest and the trees. Visually I would practice finding diamonds in chain link fences, trying to build bigger and bigger diamonds by forcibly expanding my vision. This facility with abstract thought allows me to hold two opposing viewpoints because, as the video clip makes clear, at a certain level of abstraction it all collapses.

When I first learned about the distortions that occur on maps of the world vs. globes, I found it fascinating: you take three dimensional concepts and try to represent them in a two dimensional world, but it never looks quite right. Similarly, I don't think I have ever believed that there is such things as a completely accurate truth for anything. It is not that I believe that truth is relative because I do think there is absolute truth. We just have a flawed ability to perceive it or completely comprehend it.

90 comments:

  1. pretty cool. it reminds me of Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott.

    ReplyDelete
  2. it is not that i believe that truth is relative because i think there is absolute truth, we just have a flawed ability to perceive it or completely comprehend it.

    the flawed ability being that we are not god. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. If this absolute truth cannot be absolutely perceived, then how can we know it is absolutely true? Or is this one of those truths that can only be perceived thru the eye of faith? In other words, we can only see it if we believe it first?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is reality, whatever it might be, and it does not depend on whether you perceive it or not. For example, imagine there is a God, you can believe on his existence though you don't have proves (faith) or can not believe in his existence, neither nor would change the fact that he exists (The same if he doesn't exist). We refer to "reality" as "absolute truth", if you don't like the article "absolute" because it awakes your esoteric side, call it reality...

      Again you are mixing perceiving thru the eye of faith with being ignorant on something. Think about the times where the Sun was thought to be a god, could it be perceived only thru the eyes of faith?






      Delete
  4. yes! but it's still a relative truth. we can perceive only relative truths.

    only god can perceive absolutely. we're limited by our points of reference. if i watch the sun setting, and you watch it rising, which is the absolute truth?

    following the same logic, if we were to meet, you would form your own truth about me, which might be different from my friend's or neighbour's. but only i know the absolute truth of me.

    or maybe not, ha.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "only god can perceive absolutely. we're limited by our points of reference. if i watch the sun setting, and you watch it rising, which is the absolute truth?"

    That's cool Zoe:)

    Grace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was poetic but dumb. Are you a teen?

      Delete
  6. Zoe said, “only god can perceive absolutely.”

    Well I say god doesn’t perceive absolutely. So there!!!

    You see? You can declare one thing about god and I can declare the opposite and there is no real way to determine which of us is accurate. For all practical purposes, there is no objective reality to which either of us can refer to settle the matter. It’s like calling nothing something and then arguing about nothing’s unique qualities. Funny how god behaves as if he/she didn’t exist… ;-)

    That was my point about perceiving absolute truth. If, by definition, absolute truth is beyond all human perception, then for all practical purposes, it is non-existent. We can only know something exists by perceiving it in some way, shape or form. I say for all practical purposes because I acknowledge that things like god and absolute truth might indeed exist beyond human perception. I cannot say in all honesty that I am certain there is no kind of god out there, somewhere or that absolute truth does not exist. I can’t be certain of that, can I? But if we can in no way interact with them via perception and experience, then we can safely behave as if they don’t exist because practically speaking, they don’t.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "For all practical purposes, there is no objective reality to which either of us can refer to settle the matter."

      I thought there was gravity....

      "I acknowledge that things like god and absolute truth might indeed exist beyond human perception"

      Well, then I acknowledge the opposite. So there!!

      With you, Birdick, human beings will still be in the caves...

      Delete
    2. "I acknowledge that things like god and absolute truth might indeed exist beyond human perception"

      Well, then I acknowledge the opposite. So there!!


      BJ, the very definition of a closed mind. I’m an atheist. But I admit that I could be wrong. Granted, the odds that any of the gods of any of man’s religions exist are extremely small, to the point of being vanishingly insignificant. In fact, it’s logically impossible for the god of the Big 3, Yahweh-Trinity-Allah, to exist, by definition. But here’s the thing. I. Could. Be. Wrong. Even I acknowledge that possibility, however remote. You don’t. There’s not enough flexibility in your mind for that. Could it be Asperger’s?

      Delete
    3. Why did this become a debate about the existence of God? I have no clue whether God (in whatever shape/form/name exists or not.

      What I meant, though, is "I acknowledge that things like god and absolute truth might indeed exist NOT beyond human perception"

      I insist, you have a tendency to say that what you don't know today is beyond human perception, and those are two very different things. Could it be your closed-mindedness?

      Delete
    4. I knew you were inflexible. And now you’re incoherent. I’d make allowances because I believe you said English was not your primary language. Yet, your other comments leads me to believe that no, it’s not a language barrier problem. You really are just inflexible and incoherent, with occasional lapses of lucidity thrown in for shits and giggles.

      Delete
    5. I know you are long winded but it could have taken you less words to point out where my inflexibility and my incoherence lay.

      Delete
    6. Wrong again BJ. It’s a wonder that you never tire of being wrong. It would take me WAY too long to point out your exact points of inflexibility. I just don't have that much interest. Close mindedness is common and boring.

      Delete
    7. I am not very interest at what you consider inflexibility, actually, so please tell me about the incoherence, since that is not subjective.

      Delete
  7. It's fun to shift your perspective but you need to be careful where you set the default. If you look at yourself in the scope of the visible universe, nothing you do matters at all. If you look at yourself in the scope of the room you're in, the smallest descision can re-writing your entire existence.

    The interesting part about all this is that your sense of self, not of how you deine yourself but of existing, is the only real constant.

    Classical physics has C, metaphysics has I.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I worry that this guy is selling bs theories to the YouTube community, but it does look scientific. However, it does make you wonder quite a bit. On the flip side, it seems to have no practical use besides mental masturbation. Which, you know, is fun and all.. But meh.

    I'm actually much more interested in this discussion about absolute truth, so here I shall input:

    DB:"Well I say god doesn’t perceive absolutely. So there!!!"

    You sound like a little kid with the last part. Lol.

    This sounds like a very very overcomplicated argument you're spinning, DB.

    It comes down to basically:

    1. There may or may not be OT.
    2. There is ST.
    3. We cannot determine OT.
    4. Therefore, we must use ST.

    OT = Objective Truth
    ST = Subjective Truth

    Objective truth and absolute truth are interchangeable terms. Subjective truth and relative truth are also interchangeable. I prefer subjective truth and objective truth as terms because they give a much cleaner contrast between each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " On the flip side, it seems to have no practical use besides mental masturbation."

      Join the caves with Birdick!

      Delete
  9. Deux said, This sounds like a very very overcomplicated argument you're spinning, DB.

    Not really. At this stage in my life, I believe that the only “truths” that matter are the ones that I can make use of, or the ones that have a real, demonstrable impact on my life. I can safely ignore the rest. I used to enjoy mental masturbation myself, but alas, I no longer find it as stimulating as I once did. Perhaps that’s why it sounded overcomplicated to you. I wasn’t just giving an argument. I was also providing my own personal reasons for thinking that way.

    I agree with your summation for the most part. I’d only say that I wouldn’t necessarily equate OT with AT. When I think of objective truth, I think of those facts that are real (meaning operative and consistent) and therefore as true for you as they are for me. Like the effects of gravity for instance. If you step off of a roof, you will not go up. You will go down. That would happen to me and Peter Pan and Zoe and M.E. and Ukan and Grace and… That’s true for all of us, regardless of how any of us feel about it. When I think of absolute truth, I think of religion and philosophy and metaphysics. I also think of morality, divine commands from on high, karma and the like.

    But in one sense, that’s just semantics. What matters is what does and does not work and why. On that we are agreed.

    So there!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK. So it was really your personal trauma with the word "absolute".

      Delete
  10. DB:"What matters is what does and does not work and why. On that we are agreed.

    So there!!!"

    YEAH. SO THERE!

    (You should start ending your posts with that, it makes me lol.)

    But eh, it was overcomplicated because you seemed to be using a lot of words to articulate a simple point. This is a minor point for me to make, though, so meh.

    TL;DR of the discussion:
    "What matters is what does and does not work and why."

    ReplyDelete
  11. But eh, it was overcomplicated because you seemed to be using a lot of words to articulate a simple point.

    What can I say dude? I’m the son of a preacher man. Verbosity runs in the genes.

    SO THERE!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Birdick always is long winded. My trick is to take his first two sentences from each paragraph, and use that as his point. That's a absolute truth. So there.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your mom doesn't have any complaints about my "long windedness."

    :-)

    SO THERE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. You know I don't feel so bad about being hurt by a sociopath considering how you guys treat each other. I don't take it personally anymore:)

    I can't say much about the topic without sounding like an idiot and giving myself a headache. I understand it more than I can communicate it. I will say that our consciousness seems to be the only thing that's constant..not in thinking but in being.

    I think Cake said the same thing if I understood him/her right.

    Grace

    ReplyDelete
  15. Grace: "You know I don't feel so bad about being hurt by a sociopath considering how you guys treat each other. I don't take it personally anymore:)"

    We're having a verbal orgy, can't you see?

    Ukan: "My trick is to take his first two sentences from each paragraph, and use that as his point."

    Dang, I would have never noticed you were being short-sighted. Impressive. Tell me more, Ukan B. Short-sighted.

    DB: "Your mom doesn't have any complaints about my "long windedness.""

    OH NO YOU DIDN'T.

    Watch, Ukan will use his perceptive lens on you. Wait.. You're not a nutty ex-girlfriend of a sociopath.

    My bad, my bad.

    ReplyDelete
  16. People here seem to have made a habit of taking the thoughts and ideas of more knowledgeable thinkers and passing them off as their own. Or, even more absurd, combining two contradictory concepts in order to sound deep but only manage to sound sophomoric.

    Currently, this is specifically directed at Zoe. You might want to take something beyond entry-level Philosophy. Your "teachings" might actually acquire some depth.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lua said, "OH NO YOU DIDN'T.?

    OH YES I DID!!!

    Grace, 2 and UK telling me I'm long winded is accurate. It's true. I am. I wasn't offended in the slightest.

    As for my YO MOMMA joke, well I hope it is obvious that I switched from making semi-serious comments to making stupid jokes. That's what we do in America sometimes. Go figure.

    And yes 2, I am Zan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound cheerful. What made you go to the playground today?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Wrong place.

      Btw BJ, I must have been feeling goofy way back when.

      Delete
  18. DB:"As for my YO MOMMA joke, well I hope it is obvious that I switched from making semi-serious comments to making stupid jokes. That's what we do in America sometimes. Go figure."

    BIRDICK BEING NORMAL? OH MY GOD.

    I thought us sociopaths weren't capable of that.

    DB:"And yes 2, I am Zan."

    What?!

    I never knew...

    Side-note: I'm guessing Lua is 2 in another language, yet again?

    ReplyDelete
  19. no one said...
    People here seem to have made a habit of taking the thoughts and ideas of more knowledgeable thinkers and passing them off as their own. Or, even more absurd, combining two contradictory concepts in order to sound deep but only manage to sound sophomoric.


    deep down i'm really shallow

    Currently, this is specifically directed at Zoe. You might want to take something beyond entry-level Philosophy. Your "teachings" might actually acquire some depth.

    currently??

    ReplyDelete
  20. Daniel Birdick said...
    Zoe said, “only god can perceive absolutely.”

    Well I say god doesn’t perceive absolutely. So there!!!


    no fair!!!!!! this may be stretching the limits of my entry-level grasp of philosophy but by definition wouldn't god have to perceive absolutely being god and all? otherwise he wouldn't be god would he?

    but i agree, for all practical purposes, absolute truth is non-existent. but doesn't the fact that our relative truths overlap enough for us to communicate require the existence of some absolute truth? or is our communication an illusion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at most of the gods in the world. Very few of them are purported to possess absolute truth, therefore to be god does not require a perception of absolute truth.

      Delete
  21. I will say that our consciousness seems to be the only thing that's constant..not in thinking but in being.

    yeah everything else is just thoughts, not real.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 2: Lua is 2 in Hawaiian.

    Zoe: Without an external referent that all of us can “objectively” experience, god can be whatever I say he is.

    Your second question is the reason I said to 2 that I wouldn’t conflate objective truth with absolute truth. Objective truth=collective reality, practically speaking. It is too easy to get all metaphysical when you bandy about terms like absolute truth. Too much intellectual baggage.

    ReplyDelete

  23. deep down i'm really shallow


    At least you're willing to admit it.


    currently??


    An unintelligible comment usually doesn't say much about a person as a whole or whatever changes they may undergo. You're probably just experiencing that pseudo-intellectual phase that all adolescents undergo in an attempt at establishing their individuality.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Even with the passive agressive snipes, sporadic flaming, and the chip on UKan's shoulder, you guys are the most collectively intelligent and wellspoken group of people I've come across. Granted Mr. Birdick and M.E. (and recently Zoe, 2 and Grace) seem to be the most consistent about it, to the point where I wonder if Birdick is M.E., but everyone contiributes a higher percentage of above average content than the general population would to this discussion.

    I often notice empaths shy away from conversations like the ones that usualy take place on this site. They get squeamish when you discuss or question their morals and personal beliefs. It's a shame because those things are so fun to talk about and debate.

    And yes UKan, Mr. Birdick is longwinded, but it's a rare occasion when he's simply blowing smoke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I often notice empaths shy away from conversations like the ones that usualy take place on this site."

      Change friends.

      Delete
  25. good job sucking cock, Cake. you do a marvelous job of it!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Zan!!
    Is that really you Zan? I don't trust these people.

    Cake, don't believe the hype from the above...it's cool to be nice sometimes...I'm sure by tomorrow you'll be back to your normal self.

    See my empath stuff comes out...I don't like to see people's feelings hurt.

    Grace

    ps watching Through the Wormhole on the Science Channel...They say God might be a mathematician. I believe it! In a parallel universe I could be a sociopath and either one of you turkeys could be an empath..imagine that~

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And in another parallel universe we could all be toads, or ghosts, or any such nonsense. What of it?

      Delete
  27. I could be a god and you could be a sociopath and I could throw you in a blackhole, imagine that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Imposter!

    Grace.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Daniel Birdick said...

    Zoe: Without an external referent that all of us can “objectively” experience, god can be whatever I say he is.


    so we're making the same point really though you seem to object to my use of the word god. :)

    Your second question is the reason I said to 2 that I wouldn’t conflate objective truth with absolute truth. Objective truth=collective reality, practically speaking. It is too easy to get all metaphysical when you bandy about terms like absolute truth. Too much intellectual baggage.

    maybe so. i see objective truth as shared reality, like you, but it's still skewed by perception. i see absolute truth as what is really there. we think of one reality but there are really two.. perceived reality and an absolute one.

    if we can't sense it in anyway or interact with it, then it doesn't exist, as you already pointed out. so only perceived reality can exist for us. and since we each perceive uniquely there is no absolute truth, only a shared reality based on whatever beliefs we subscribe to.

    we experience reality through our senses so we know that there is something out there, but what we experience is limited by our senses so we don't what it actually is. we are part of absolute reality but exist mentally as individuals in perceived reality. i guess that's where it gets all weird and metaphysical. we don't really know how we're a part of absolute reality. but we're in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " i see objective truth as shared reality, like you, but it's still skewed by perception."

      Go study science. It won't hurt you.

      Delete
  30. no one said...

    An unintelligible comment usually doesn't say much about a person as a whole or whatever changes they may undergo. You're probably just experiencing that pseudo-intellectual phase that all adolescents undergo in an attempt at establishing their individuality.


    are you old and jaded, no one? it must suck to die before you're dead.

    ReplyDelete
  31. are you old and jaded, no one? it must suck to die before you're dead.

    I appreciate your concern, Zoe, but better to be old and jaded than young and ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you are constantly creating your own reality aren't you susceptible to self-delusion? Might you think you are in a good situation because you "feel" it is right? Can't you be making a mistake and get screwed by your own self? I'm only asking because I'm sure I've done it and felt foolish after realizing that my amazing truth, which was enjoyable in the moment, came to fuck me in the ass when the real truth reared its head.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lol, all these comments debating objective/absolute truth VS subjective truths. I can't wait to see what kind of crap jessi spews onto this thread

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Khan, after reading Jamie's "I do think there is absolute truth. We just have a flawed ability to perceive it or completely comprehend it." I don't care about what all this teenager say. Jamie, I begin to have some hope for you, get going.

      Delete
  34. This is unrelated to anything anyone here has said, I'm assuming because I didn't bother reading this post. I just clicked on the comments section of the latest post because I want to ask this before I forget it.
    I was just reading about the MBTI personality types.
    Considering the idea that they don't have a "self", what sort of characterization could be done of sociopath personality types?
    Would a sociopath turn up a different personality type depending on what role they're playing at that point or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would also like to know Jamie’s and company MBTI personality types. Maybe they could do the test twice: 1. Answering considering the way they want to be perceived in the general public 2. Answering being sincere. It would be funny to compare.

      Delete
    2. have fun with that. perhaps you will use myers briggs to crack the code of bad romance. you could be famous!

      Delete
  35. I love a good analogy.

    I think of relative and absolute truth as being comparable to Newtonian and quantum physics. We live in a macroscopic world where repeated experience and observation allow us to determine physical laws that govern reality. However, there is a microscopic reality that is, frankly, very weird.

    Quantum entanglement allows you to link two particles in such a way that observing one particle instantaneously collapses the function of another particle. Even if the particles are hundreds or thousands of miles apart, this holds true. This 'property' is faster than the speed of light. You can also link particles that don't exist at the same time.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/physicists-create-quantum-link-b.html

    In 99.999...% of our daily lives, quantum physics does not have a noticeable effect. However, its effects certainly exist. Birdick chooses to focus on Newtonian physics, the reality we experience, rather than quantum physics, the reality that is pervasive but largely irrelevant.

    On a side note, does anybody not do that with chain link fences? Or floor tiles? I do it all the time, but I've never paid much mind to it. As for holding two opposing viewpoints, I am often simultaneously rational and irrational. I take in certain situations and events and transform them through faulty logic into a misrepresentation of reality. At the same time, on some level, I am aware of these delusions and can act counter to them.

    Is it good to be entirely rational all the time? A totally rational person would never gamble, because they understand that the house always wins. Risky ideas, though, can lead to great achievements. That is the very basis of scientific inquiry. Putting time and effort into a project with an uncertain outcome can lead to great success, great failure, and the mere path of exploration could lead you to a great discovery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it good to be entirely rational all the time?

      Unfortunately none of us are or can be anyway. The human brain comes standard equipped with inconsistency and irrationality, as the prevalence of cognitive biases indicates.

      I don’t think rationality = eliminating all possible risk either. You’re right; nothing would get done if we waited until we found perfect, risk free solutions for every problem we faced. We can manage risk, but we can't eliminate it.

      I think being rational boils down to trying to be as reasonable as possible and trying to get as accurate and reliable an understanding of reality as possible. I know we can get into abstruse philosophy at this point… But meh, why bother?

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Mental masturbation, like its corporeal counterpart, is never fruitful. Even if you happen upon a novel idea, it only amounts to a shit-splatter plastered onto an already immense dungheap of idealist philosophical bullshit.

      Delete
  36. "Birdick chooses to focus on Newtonian physics, the reality we experience, rather than quantum physics, the reality that is pervasive but largely irrelevant."

    Birdick's world is limited by his senses and apparently you share his views if you think that quantum physics is largely irrelevant.

    "Is it good to be entirely rational all the time? A totally rational person would never gamble, because they understand that the house always wins. Risky ideas, though, can lead to great achievements. That is the very basis of scientific inquiry."

    So, scientific reasearch is comparable to the idiot who plays thinking on the average he is going to win? This might be the results of your simultaneously rational and irrational logic. Congrats.

    I guess I am the only one who gets utterly bored by twisted logic.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me how quantum physics impacts your life in a way that Newtonian physics cannot explain.

      Scientific research requires you to understand and accept that 95% of what you do will fail completely. Fortunately, funding agencies recognize this and provide money for research anyways. Trial and error (and error and error and error) is the only way advancements are made.

      Why are you so antagonistic? Do you need a hug?

      Delete
    2. Quantum physics do have practical applications and will have more. If you would have been a friend of Newton you would have told him you didn't care about the acceleration of an apple when falling because what you do with apples is eating them.

      Why are You so antagonistic?

      Delete
    3. I have yet to see Jessi come up with a clever comeback.

      What a shame - her hostility combined with a modicum of cleverness would be a pleasure to behold...

      Delete
    4. Why do you consider yourself a machavellian empath?

      Delete
    5. Because she has four kids and makes them eat brocoli.

      Delete
  37. @Mach
    That was very sweet of you to e mail me. That was a fake Monica as you will learn my tone if you have been around for awhile. When people don't have an account, people imitate them for the heck of it, in this crazy place~

    ReplyDelete
  38. I had no idea that sociopaths are such intellects. I only had some
    college. There was a book that came out many years ago called The Best And
    The Brightest" about the J.F.K. administration. I don't doubt that many
    sociopaths ARE the best and the brightest-at least on paper. But there are
    many types of intellegence, and sociopaths can rate low on some.
    Americans in particular are low on S.Q. (Spiritual Quotient) Most Americans
    to the extent they think of Spiritual things at all, relie on theologians
    as thier "tour guides" for the "spiritual world." They are inculcated from
    youth to believe the fictional sabbiloths of thier particular religion.
    Freedom means shedding all the accumulated disinformation from religious
    authourites and living in the now!

    ReplyDelete
  39. How much abstract thought can go intp cutting yourself M.E.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. is this a particularly striking issue for you? When I listen to you on this I have the feeling that what Jamie did was a disgrace for the sociopaths!

      Delete
  40. I liked how M.E. re-posted an old post with a lot of activity to give the illusion that the comments section isn't dead. Is this the master come back plan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have never said that. You got that "low activity thing" from someone else. Bad parody.

      Delete
  41. Jessi-
    I think you are singlehandedly trying to destroy this forum. Your not so subtle identity changes are not quite as clever as you may think. A couple of times I have been provocative with you and the intensity of your responses to jabs nowhere near as nasty as the regular character assassination you deliver is impressive.
    My hunch about you is that you fancy yourself as a sort of avenging angel. You got burned by your "spath" and now are seeking revenge by projecting your rage onto ME and the SW community. While it's good to fight evil in the abstract, I have to give Andy credit for calling you Batman, because I feel as if you are trying to pull a one man(woman) takedown of an evil empire.
    But here's the thing. SW isn't an empire. It's a community of people- some who have also been hurt. For whatever reason, they've found a place to speak about things they need to get off their chests for 4 years. When I first logged on after reading ME's book, I thought I'd find a bunch of creeps. There are some creeps, but mostly big talkers, I think. But not everyone here is as malevolent as you make them out to be.
    Some people have urges they have to work through, and I don't think they are being urged to take them to the next level. The more sinister personas are courteous and answer questions for those of us trying to make sense of experiences foreign to us. SW may be crude at times, and there may be a small minority of true ASPD individuals on here, but so what? They, like everyone else are human beings, deserving of respect.

    For all of your posturing as a righteous individual, you seem to miss out on the most important rule of all. The golden one. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    For this reason, I am going to make you a promise that is very much related to the golden rule. Because I never want to interact with you again, I will extend the courtesy of never deliberately engaging with you (the Jessi persona). Of course, you make mock me from a different alias or go anonymous, but that's up to you. I do not flatter myself to think that you care about losing the right to have a conversation with me, but given that I don't want to converse with Jessi anymore, I think it seems fitting.

    Goodbye and good luck. Living well is the best revenge, Jessi. I encourage you to try it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Your not so subtle identity changes are not quite as clever as you may think.”

      I know that the fact that there are some "impersonators" among us might not help your paranoia, but I don't change identity.

      By the way, this was the answer to something or just random rambling?

      "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
      I fully agree.

      Jesus! You are going to create a trauma to this poor woman! Nest of wasps...

      Delete
  42. PS, that also goes for your alter ego Misanthrope. You two are the same person. You had to make up an imaginary friend to support you in your fight against evil. So- adios to Misanthrope as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mach, really, Misanthrope is not me.

      Delete
    2. She wanted my attention, bit when i turned on everyone here she got jealous and now has intense feelings of rejection and paranoia. She would much rather me attack you and now takr your side. She feels alone now.

      Delete
    3. I know she doesn't like me but she thinks I have multiple personalities and that I fake being myself and then talk to my false self. She is taking her "dislike" much too far.

      Delete
    4. Mach didnyou get my email i sent jus now? Its regardong jessi

      Delete

Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.