Summa Dialectica. On Argument.

[luciferhorus]

On the Dialectic (Gr. Argument)

On what is argument and what is not.

http://wwhwww.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/socrates2.jpg

Comandante Lucifer
Aeon of Light, 2009.

Dialectic is the science of arguing well. ...St Augustine.

I'd Like to make a general response to this which I hope will improve the 'form' of debating.

I have a prewritten essay on this which I often post into Internet forums where I am debating.

I think that we have to imagine ourselves as philosophers debating at the 'Oxford debating society;' we have to imagine Socrates and his pupils; we have to imagine Jesus debating with his enemies and Bhuddah with his critics; none of these souls spoke to an exclusively passive audience who simply agreed with everything they said, and were entirely unafraid to adress their critics and would challenge the established beliefs and ideas of Archons of their age.

http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp230/uncknowledge/tributepainting.jpg

It is important not to suspend criticism of anyone, for this is not how the free thinker thinks, but it is also important to concede our own positions when shown to be errant.

If a Nazi states 99 truths which we agree with and one flasehood which we do not agree with; the advanced soul should concede the 99 points and only take up the point of disagreement.

We often learn as much from listening to and debating with our ideological enemies as we do with our allies.


How to test one's belief system.

Lucifer
The 1000 Year Revolution of Light.

I also have a metaphysical belief system which makes the most sense of reality to me; it cannot be proven empirically however, this being a statement of the obvious, since there will never be empirical (objective, scientific) proof for the non empirical (metaphsycial, subjective, non-scientific), just as we cannot empirically prove the existence of love or beauty, yet they form part of our reality just as our ideas and beliefs do.

Witgenstein's Tree does not explain 'all of philosophy (the study of knowledge);' it is merely all of empistemology (which asks the question, 'how do we know what we know?' and 'what is objective knowledge?). If I say 'I know objectively' that the universe has a Creator and that she is a black, militant, Communist, Jewish lesbian' then the term 'know objectively' is an 'epistemic fallacy,' but it does not make the latter half of the statement false; in metaphysics we speak of what we cannot and do not know by the evidence of the 5 senses, but rather of our interpretations of reality and beliefs, which we can then test out in the arena of debate.

There are numerous Greek words for knowledge and 'epistem' is only one of them.

When we speak of grand metaphysical systems, we are speaking of subjective understandings of the universe. My own understanding is a modern 'syncretism (a mixture)' based upon understandings and inner experiences gleaned from the Kabbalah, necromancy, ritual magick, Neo-Paganism, Crowleyanity, psychoactive usage, the study of all religions and shamanism / spiritualism in general etc., however unfortunately there is no scientific method of proving this or any other system.

So what are we left with? Since a scientific system of proving what is not scientific is not possible, we can only refer to the Socratic dialectic (see essay below); this is much better system of continuous non-scientific 'testing' than merely one person designing a ‘new’ Grand Metaphysical System and imposing that on every one else for the rest of history; or just sticking with the worn out systems; the dross of history.

Unfortunately the Socratic dialectic method requires a very open mind (a rarity among adults) and the willingness to test one's ideas, witness them being torn apart and to concede points in debate when shown to be errant.

However.. this method separates the intellectual and religious fascists (the Sophists) from the truly great souls of human history.

In the absence of a scientific method, there is simply no other way which does not lead to the abyss of dogmatism and religious extremism.

Narrow is the path...

Bear in mind of course that Socrates was sentenced to death for challenging and attacking the beliefs of the Archons (authorities) of his age. Using this system will not make you popular; for example any Christian priest who uses this simple method on his Bishops and their hierarchy is almost guaranteed excommunication. Try this in a Muslim country or as a CIA employee and await the lynch mob or the assassin.

The ‘only’ method for testing metaphysical ideas which in anyway parallels the continuous testing and experimentation methods of scientists is the Socratic method; this would be the only acceptable Anarchist model for considering non-scientific ‘truths’ in a future world.

The ’Cogers’

For some years when I lived in London I would attend the ’Coger’s Society’ which meets several times a month in a pub in different parts of London. All persons have 5 minutes to speak /debate on any subject they wish; mostly politics and religion.

There is always a moderator, however. Two of my Anarchist comrades were presidents (moderators) of the Cogers for a while, and no matter how extreme the views presented by Christians, Far-rightists, Muslims, Capitalists, whatever, no interruption or heckling was tolerated. A person could brutally atttack another speaker only during their ’5 minutes,’ or if the speaker took responses and questions from the floor.

That is why if you want to have an intelligent discussion with Christians, Nazis, Communists whatever, you need to either have a moderated discussion or the debaters need to follw certain ground-rules, since there are always those who confuse an argument between philosophers with an argument between drunks in a pub. As with the 'Cogers' the ideal 'moderator' however does not impose 'any' form of censorship of ideas, but rather is there to keep the 'rabble' at bay, to encourage debate and to cry 'order' if debate is confused with the hurling of ad hominems (lit 'against the man' as opposed to against the person's political and religious 'ideas' and 'beliefs;' i.e., personal abuse)'

I have been on the Internet almost since its beginnings; we know that it is a fact that there exists among us an army of professional spammers, bloggers and debaters, employed by the state terrorists, yet you will never find anyone who will admit to that; in addition we have to deal with children and others, lacking in education and whose intelligence is undeveloped, and who just like to make a lot of noise. Frankly most Americans are barely literate anyway and can just about read a cornflakes packet.

Anarchism.

Since Anarchism, unlike Marxism is a purely political solution, there is no rigid metaphysics; all beliefs may be considered as long as all forms of organised religion and the professional priesthood (authorites on ‘God’) are eradicated; the debates may thus continue until the end of the universe and the death of the soul, if such as thing be possible.

http://www.ricksiegel.com/images/hitler_cardinal4.jpg

If the day comes when a new ‘Great Leader’ convinces half the world that his form of political and religious truth is infallible, the revolution shall have to be begun all over again and rivers of blood shall flow. Few things are more offensive to the proponets of the Socratic method that a politician or religionist making a speech to an uncritical audience of psychopahants clapping incessantly at every sentence or crying out 'Amen;' for such is the sign of the psychophant, the gullible, the sheep, the lemming, the hypnotised and the soul who has suspended all criticism.

War

The point where all debates cease is the beginning of war and in the age we live in we can expect war like no other in human history, and this shall be the consequence of the few masters who refuse to listen to the will of the masses and who care not for their concerns or criticisms.


Love and Light.

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif


______________________________________

The Socratic Dialectic (Gr. Argument) 101

or:


‘Abuse, sophisty and contradiction (ASC) : the last cries of the desparate.’


What is ‘argument?
By Lucifer
For Anarchist Communism.

______________________________________

There are numerous groups on the Internet where debate is confused with 'exchanges' of abuse.

I was did not always think as I do, and in the future I expect my positions to modify as a consequence of study, debate, life experience etc.

Debate and discussion is always a good thing.

Our political and metaphysical beliefs must go through a dialectical testing process.

When tested, if they fail or are destroyed by superior arguments; the person who is intellectually honest should concede and modify his position.

That is how adults 'develop' intellectually, morally (the discernment of good and evil), spiritually, whatever.

Children just slag each other off.

______________

http://sorinplaton.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/skinheads.jpg

Thesis (idea), anti-thesis (opposing idea) and synthesis (a combination of two ideas).

An argument in the English language can mean a fight between two football hooligans but this has nothing to do with the Greek meaning of ‘dialectic, ’ with regards to the teaching and debating method Socrates. In Internet debates over the years I have often made many ‘arguments’ against the ‘ideas’ of other people who misunderstand the meaning of the term ‘dialectic, ’ and to simplify I have written the following explanation which I often post in response to my essays.


_____________________________________________

Abuse and contradiction are common and can be had from imbecile, football hooligan or a drunk at a bus stop and do not constitute argument.

Responses should follow certain standards or I will probably ignore you.
_________________________________

Argument (Gr. dialectic) according to Socrates, Hegel and John Cleese.


3 universally accepted ground rules of debating

1: Abuse.
Abuse does not constitute an argument.

2: Contradiction.
Contradiction is not an argument. ’I don’t agree with you’ is not an
argument. An Argument would state ‘why’ you disagree.

3: Sophistry (sophist: ’sophisticated / educated).

A Sophist generally avoids the question and rambles on about something else, often avoiding the argument made by the opponent and often utilising straw man arguments (attacking arguments and positions which the opponent does not hold) and creates confusion with language.

The use of the combination of 1, 2 and 3 is generally defined as ’arrogance’ and ‘avoidance of debate, ’ and by default ‘conceding the point to the opponent’

For those who do not understand the meaning of the term ‘argument, ’ for further information watch the 6 minute video on the ground rules of debate on:

http://www.scottberkun.com/wp-content/themes/scottberkun/images/40-1.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1

(Monty Python Argument Sketch)

Note that this only covers abuse and contradiction.

If you cannot understand this, I suggest the removal of your brain.

See

http://www.physd.amu.edu.pl/~magik/pics/gumby1.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIlKiRPSNGA

(Monty Python: ’My Brian Hurts)

’An argument is not contradiction (or abuse); it is a series of connected statements which establish a proposition; a debate is a dialectical intellectual process’

__________


The Socratic and Sophist method of education

Socrates: intellectual and spiritual development through a dialectical process.

Socrates would encourage his students to ‘argue’ with him, but to restate, since the term ‘argue’ has a number of meanings in the English, we are speaking of a Socratic ‘dialectical’ process, not a punch up, nor the showering of abuse; we are speaking of challenging an idea (thesis) with another idea (anti-thesis) and in this way the ideas and debating skills of both parties evolve and develop.

This process is intended to produce an intellectually evolved and intellectually honest person who can admit points to the opponent when the opponent’s position seems to be better and who can also stand up for their own ideas when challenged by an authority whom they disagree with. This is how we evolve intellectually and spiritually; whereas an ‘arrogant; person engages in an argument (debate) in the same way that a boxer fights (to win). The purpose of dialectical argument is not to win even if one is shown to be errant, but to test and evolve (develop) ones’ ideas. This sometimes can involve using the ‘Devil’s advocate’ form of argument where one attacks the arguments of those one essentially agrees with in order to test them.

The Sophists: Intellectual fascism (Gr. Sophist: a sophisticated, educated, arrogant pseudo-intellectual).

The Sophist method of educating students, which has been taken up by the Catholic Church throughout it’s history, was to lecture them for hours, and if challenged by a student, the student might be told that they are arrogant, told off or burned at the state, tortured by the Inquisition’ or simply ‘murdered ’ and branded a heretic who dared to challenge authority. The Sophist method defines the term ‘arrogance. An arrogant person thinks that they are always correct, and even when shown to be incorrect, they will still hold fast to their position, since their purpose is to ‘win’ an argument by all means necessary. The Sophists of course despised Socrates as much as he despised them (he considered them to be educated fools) and like so many others who challenge existing authority, Socrates was martyred.

Lucifer
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
Light of the World.
Aeon of Lucifer 2008

___________________________


http://www.wgvu.org/wgvunews/images/2775_040609.jpg

Christopher Hitchens on 'debate' and freedom of expression, in defence of holocaust denialist David Irving.

Hitchens is referring to ’debate and discussion’ as an intellectual / philosopher.

The example he gives of his defence of the historian David Irving regards defending another intellectual’s right to make a dissenting argument.

What is occurring on many Interent forums however, is not a group of philosopher’s debating; on the contrary, there is an attempt to stop that and to interfere with this process.

I’m sure that while Hitchen would welcome debate with a person who denies the Holocaust (as he states in the video below), I am also sure that he would attempt to silence those who would attempt to silence the Holocaust denier and to drown him out with the noise of the rabble; that is not a debate.


http://www.youtube.com/v/X3Hg-Y7MugU&hl=en&fs=1




"My predecessors have invariably said, 'My belief is right and yours is wrong; my customs are worthy, yours are ignoble; my dress is decent, yours is not; think as I think, talk as I talk, do as I do, or you will be wretched, poor, sick, disgraced and dammed; besides which, I shall cut your head off, burn you alive, starve you, imprison you, ostracize you and otherwise make you sorry you did not agree to be a good boy.' The essence of every missionary message has been to assimilate the taught to the teacher; and it has always been accompanied by bribes and threats. My message is exactly opposed to any of this. I say to each man and woman, 'You are unique and sovereign, the centre of an universe........... My mission is, in short, to bring everyone to the realization and enjoyment of his own kingship.

Aleister Crowley.' Confessions.'

__________________

Arguement sketch
Monty Python


Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.

Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?

Man: No, this is my first time.

Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment.

Mr. Bakely's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory. No. Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.

Man: Thank you.

He enters room 12.

Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

Man: What?

A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE!

YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

M: Oh! Oh I see!

A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

M: Oh...Sorry...

A: Not at all!

A: (under his breath) stupid git.

The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.

Man: No you haven't!

Other Man: Yes I have.

M: When?

O: Just now.

M: No you didn't!

O: Yes I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I'm telling you, I did!

M: You didn't!

O: (breaking into the developing argument) Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.

O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.

Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not!

O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did! (very fast)

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

(pause)

M: It's just contradiction!

O: No it isn't!

M: It IS!

O: It is NOT!

M: You just contradicted me!

O: No I didn't!

M: You DID!

O: No no no!

M: You did just then!

O: Nonsense!

M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

(pause)

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is!

(pause)

I came here for a good argument!

O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an *argument*!

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process.

Contradiction is just the automatic naysaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!

M: It is!

O: Not at all!

M: It is!

>DING!< The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.

O: Thank you, that's it.

M: (stunned) What?

O: That's it. Good morning.

M: But I was just getting interested!

O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!!

O: I'm afraid it was.

M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....

(pause)

O: (dirty look) I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

M: WHAT??

O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: But that was never five minutes just now!

(pause... the Other Man raises his eyebrows)

Oh Come on!

Oh this is...

This is ridiculous!

O: I told you...

I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!

M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.)

There you are.

O: Thank you.

M: (clears throat) Well...

O: Well WHAT?

M: That was never five minutes just now.

O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Well I just paid!

O: No you didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: (unable to talk straight he's so mad) I don't want to argue about it!

O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!

M: Ah HAH!! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing???

Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!

O: (pause) No you haven't!

M: Yes I have!

If you're arguing, I must have paid.

O: Not necessarily.

I *could* be arguing in my spare time.

[luciferhorus]

De dialectica.
Augustine, (trans. J. Marchand)

http://www.epistemelinks.com/graphic/Phils/Augu.jpg

The Book of St. Augustine on Dialectic

https://images.efollett.com/books/902/770/9027705380.gif

I. Dialectic is the science of arguing well. As you know, we use words when we argue. Words, you see, are either simple or complex. Simples are those which signify one thing, as when we say `man, horse, argues, runs'. You should not be surprised that `argues', though it is composed of two things {argue + s, trans.}, nevertheless is numbered among the simples; for this is clear from the definition. We said that a word was simple when it signified one thing. Thus it (argues) is covered by the definition, but it is not covered when I say `loquor' (I speak), for though this is one word, it does not have a simple meaning, since it also designates the person who speaks. Hence it is from the first subject to being either true or false, since it can be affirmed or denied. Thus, all the verbs of the first and second person, although pronounced as one word, nevertheless must be counted among the complex words, since they do not have a simple meaning. Thus, whoever says `ambulo' (I walk) makes understood both the action of walking (ambulation) and that he himself does it, and anyone who says `ambulas' (you walk) likewise signifies both the action performed and the person performing it. But when a person says `ambulat' (walking is going on), he signifies only the action of walking, whence third person verbs are always numbered among the simples and can never be affirmed or denied, except when they are verbs such that there is of necessity attached to them the signification of person by usage, as when we say `pluit' (it rains) or `ninguit' (it snows), even when we do not add what rains or snows; since it (the subject) is understood, they cannot be put under the simples.

II. Complex words (coniuncta) are those which signify several things when put together, e.g. when we say `homo ambulat' (a/the/0 man walks) or `homo festinans in montem ambulat' (a/the/0 man walks, hurrying to the mountain), etc. There are some complex utterances which form sentences, like those which have been cited, and others which do not form sentences, but require something, like those we have just cited when you subtract the verb `ambulat' (walks) which we put there. Although `homo festinans in montem' forms a complex expression, the sentence is left dangling from it. Leaving aside, then, those complex expressions which do not form sentences, we are left with those which do. There are two species of these: 1. either they are made into sentences subject to affirmation or denial, e.g. `omnis homo ambulat' (all men walk/any man walks) or `omnis homo non ambulat' (no man walks), or 2. a sentence is formed which, though it presents a proposal to the mind, can neither be affirmed nor denied, as when we command, wish, curse, etc. E. g., if someone says `perge ad villam' (go to the town) or `utinam pergat ad villam' (I wish he would go to the town) or `Dii illum perduint' (may the gods damn him), it cannot be argued that he is lying or believed that he is telling the truth. For he is affirming or denying nothing. Thus these sentences are not brought into question and do not require disputants.

III. Those which are subject to disputation are either simple or complex. Those are simple which are pronounced without any connection with another sentence, e.g. `omnis homo ambulat' (every man walks). They are complex when judgment is made concerning their conjunction (Tr. when the truth or falsity of the connective is the question), e.g. `si ambulat, movetur' (if he is walking, he is moving / if walking is going on, movement is going on). But when judgment is given concerning the conjunction of sentences, it must wait until we come to the culmination (of the syllogism; a Stoic commonplace, tr.). The `summa' (conclusion) is that which is made up of concessions (results from ...) What I am saying is this: Whoever says `si ambulat, movetur' (if he is walking, he is moving) wants to prove something, so that when I concede that this is true, he needs only to say what walks and the conclusion will follow and now cannot be denied, that is, that he moves -- or he simply has to say that it does not move, so that the conclusion again follows and cannot be denied (not not be conceded), namely that he does not walk. And again in like manner if someone says `this man walks', it is a simple sentence; if I concede this one and he adds another, `Whoever walks, moves', and I likewise grant this one, from the conjunction of sentences, though uttered singly and conceded singly, the conclusion follows, which is now of necessity conceded, namely `Therefore, this man moves'.

IV. Now that these have briefly been set up, let us consider the individual parts. There are two first ones. 1. simple, as it were the material (building blocks) of dialectic; 2. those which are called conjuncts, where the finished product, as it were, appears. The section on the simplexes is called `De Loquendo' (on the utterance). The section on the complexes is divided into three parts: 1. those collocations of words being set aside which do not make a complete sentence, those which complete a sentence, so that a question is not raised or disputation is not called for is called `De Eloquendo' (on speaking). 2. When a sentence is completed so that it is judged (evaluated) as a simple sentence, that section is called `De Proloquendo' (on the sentence, on the statement). 3. That section in which a sentence is made in such a way that we judge concerning the connective itself until we come to the conclusion is called `De Proloquiorum Summa' (on the conclusion; on the syllogism). Let us more closely examine the various parts.

V. A word is the sign of some thing which can be understood by the hearer when pronounced by the speaker. A thing is whatever is felt (sensed) or understood or `latet' (is hidden, inapprehensible). A sign is something which presents itself to the senses and something other than itself to the mind. To speak is to give a sign in articulate voice. I call that articulate which is capable of being comprised in letters. Whether all these things have been defined correctly or whether they should be followed with other definitions, the section which deals with the discipline of defining will indicate. Now listen attentively to what is coming: Any word `sonat' (sounds; is sounded). Therefore, when it is written it is not a word, but the sign of a word; when the reader sees them, the letters impinge upon the mind, which breaks out in voice. For what else do written letters do but present themselves to the eye and beyond themselves voices to the mind, and we said a little earlier that a sign was something which presented itself to the senses and something other than itself to the mind. What we read then are not words but signs of words. But also, since the letter itself is the smallest part of articulate voice, we misuse this word (letter), when we also call it letter when we see something written, though it is totally silent nor is it a part of `vox' (voice), but appears as a sign of a part of the `vox' (voice). Likewise, we also call something written a word, although it is a sign of a word, that is, appears as the sign of significant `vox' (voice). Thus, as we had just begun to say, every word has sound. But sound (quod sonat) has nothing to do with dialectic. It is a question of the sound of a word when we investigate or pay attention to how vowels are softened in their disposition or how they lose hiatus when they come together, likewise, how consonants cluster by interposition or are made harsh by clustering, and how many or what kind of syllables (a word) consists of, where the poetic rhythm and accent, a matter for the ears of the grammarian alone, are treated. But when there is dispute concerning these things, that is not beyond dialectic. For it is the science of disputing. But since words concern things, when they assert something concerning themselves, it is with words that the dispute is carried on concerning them. Since we cannot speak of words unless we use words, and when we speak we necessarily speak concerning something, these words seem to the mind to be signs of things. For when the word goes out of the mouth, if it goes out concerning itself, that is, for example, it argues or asks something concerning itself, it is a thing undoubtedly subject to disputation and question, and then the thing itself is called `word'. That of the word which is not sensed by the ears but by the mind and is held enclosed in the mind itself is called `dicibile' (the expressible, the sayable; Stoic lekto/n). When the word is uttered not for its own sake, but to signify something about something, it is called `dictio' (an expression, a saying). That thing which is neither a word nor the conception of a word in the mind, whether it has a word with which it may be signified or not, is called by its proper name nothing other than `thing'. We then have four distinct things: `word, dicibile, dictio, thing'. What I have called `word' is both a word and signifies `word'. What I have called `dicibile' is a word, but it doesn't signify `word', but that which is understood in the word and contained in the mind. What I have called `dictio' is a word, but it signifies something similar to both the other two, namely, the word itself and what happens in the mind through the word. When I say `thing' it is a word which signifies that which is left over after those three which have just been mentioned. Let us see if we can illustrate this by examples: Let a boy be questioned by a schoolteacher in this manner: "What part of speech is `arma' (arms)?" `arma' is here said concerning itself (for its own sake), i.e. is a word concerning a word. The other parts, however, when he says `What part of speech ...' are either felt in the mind or pronounced by the voice, not for their own sake, but for the sake of `arma'. But since they were felt in the mind, `dicibilia' (sayables) came before voice; when they break out in voice concerning what I said, then they are `dictiones' (things said). `arma' itself, since it is a word, when it was pronounced by Virgil, became a `dictio', for it was not pronounced for its own sake, but that it might signify either the wars which Aeneas carried on, or the shield, or other arms which Vulcan made for the hero. These very wars or arms which were carried on or worn by Aeneas -- the same, I say, which were either carried on or existed, if they were now present could either be pointed out or touched with the finger, if they were not thought nor made for him, they are neither words nor `dicibilia' nor `dictiones', but things which are properly called `res' (thing) by name. We must thus in this part of dialectic treat words, `dicibilia', `dictiones', things. In all these things, where words are partly signified and partly things which are not words, there is nothing concerning which it is not necessary to dispute using words. Thus, we must first discuss these, since it is conceded that we must dispute concerning the others by use of them.

VI. Any word with the exception of its sound -- to dispute well concerning which pertains to the faculty of dialectic, not the discipline of dialectic, just as the defenses of Cicero are of the rhetorical faculty, but rhetoric itself is not taught in them -- thus any word beyond its sound brings up four things by necessity: origin, power, inflection, order.

We investigate the origin of a word when we ask whence it is said, a thing in my opinion of great curiosity and less necessity. Nor is it incumbent upon me to repeat what Cicero said (De nat. deor. 3.24), for who needs authority in such a clear matter? And even if were of great aid to explain the origin of a word, it would be silly (ineptum) to embark upon a project which would be impossible (infinite) to complete. For who can find out when something is said whence it is said? It amounts to this: Just as in the interpretation of dreams, the origin of words is judged by each mind (ingenium). `Verbum' (word) itself is sometimes said to be from the fact that it sort of reverberates in the ears. By no means, says another, anything other than air. But who cares? Ours is not a great argument, since both derive it from `verberando' (beating). But unexpectedly we see a third which causes an argument. For since it is said to be proper for us to speak truth and that the lie is odious by nature to the judge, `verbum' (word) is so named from `verum' (the true). Nor is a fourth lacking to ingenuity. For there are some who derive `verbum' (word) from `verum' (the true), but, the first syllable having received enough attention, they think it is wrong to neglect the second. For when we say `verbum' (word), they say, its first syllable signifies `verum' (the true), its second `sound'. They want this to be `bum', whence Ennius calls the sound of the feet `bombum pedum', and the Greeks say {Gk. boe:~sai} `to call out', and Virgil (Georg. 3.223) `reboant silvae' (the woods resound). Hence `verbum' (word) is something like from `verum boando' (sounding the truth). If this is true, this name forbids us to lie when we use a word, but I tell the truth, lest those who say these things lie (I am afraid they may be lying; Augustine likes to pun, Tr.). Thus you must judge whether `verbum' (word) comes from `verberando' (echoing) or from `vero' (the true) alone, or from `verum boando' (sounding the truth) or whether we should not worry about where it comes from, if only we understand what it means. This section having been covered briefly (i.e. on the origin of words), I want you to listen a little, so that no part of the work begun may be overlooked by us. The Stoics affirm, whom Cicero ridicules in this matter (as Cicero so well could), that there is no word whose origin cannot be explained with certainty. And since it was easy to press them in this matter, if you were to say that it is uncertain by which words you might interpret the origin of some word, they would answer you back that you should seek the origin until you arrive at the point at which the thing coincides harmoniously in some similarity with the sound of the word, as when we say `tinnitum aeris' (clinking of brass), the `hinnitum' (whinny) of a horse, the `balatum' (bleating) of sheep, the `clangor' (blare) of a trumpet, the `stridor' (grinding) of chains. For you see that these words make a sound such as the very things which are signified by them. But since there are things which do not make sounds, it is the effect which forms the similarity, e.g. whether they impinge harshly or softly on the senses, the harshness or softness of the sound as it affects our hearing gives them names. For example, the word `lenis' (soft) itself has a soft sound when we pronounce it. Who would not judge `asperitas' (harshness) by its very name to be harsh? It is soft to the ears when we say `voluptas' (pleasure) and harsh when we say `crux' (cross). So that the sense of the words (the feel of the words) and the things themselves have the same effect. `mel' (honey), as sweetly as it affects the taste, just as softly does it touch the hearing with its name. `acer' (acrid, strident) is harsh in both (Tr. taste and hearing). `lana' (wool) and `vepres' (thorn bush) have an effect like that of the words when they are heard. They (the Stoics) thought this to be somewhat like a `cunabula verborum' (cradle of words), where the sense of the thing concorded with the sense of the sound, and that the license of naming proceded from there to the similarity of the things among themselves. E.g., for the sake of the word itself crux `cross' was said (originated), since the harshness of the word itself concords with the pain which the cross brings about, but `crura' (limbs) not because of the harshness of pain, but because they, of all the members, are most similar to the wood of the cross in length and sturdiness. The go from there to `abusio' (catachresis), where the name is misused (usurped), not for a similar thing but for a sort of close one. For what do the meanings of `parvus' (small) and `minutus' (minute) have in common, since a thing can be `parvus' (small), which is in no way `minutus' (minute), but may even grow (Tr. a pun on `minutus', past participle of `minuo' [to diminish, grow smaller]). But this catachresis is in the power of the speaker, for he has `parvum', so that he does not have to use `minutum'. This has to do more with what we want to take up now: for example, when `piscina' (pool) is said of baths, in which there are no fish and which have nothing similar to fish, we see that it is named for fish because of the water in which fish live. If someone were to say that men were made for swimming similarly to fish and that `piscina' got its name from that, it is stupid to oppose (him), since neither is repulsive (contradictory) to the thing and both are unclear. From this one example, we should be able to judge as to what distinguishes word- origins deriving from vicinity from those taken from similitude. From these we go on to contraries. `lucus' (grove) is said to take its name from the fact that there is little light there (minime luceat), and `bellum' (war), because it is not a `bella' (pretty) thing, and the name of `foedus' (treaty), because it is not a `foeda' (ugly) thing. But if it is said to be because of the fierce aspect of the `porcus' (battle array) (Tr. play on `porcus' [pig] and `porcus' [caput porci `battle array']), as some would have it, the origin is from that type of vicinity by which that which is done is named for that for which it was done. Now this vicinity is extensively applied and can be divided into many parts: either by the cause, as this one by the fearful aspect of the battle array, by which a truce is effected -- or by the effect, as `puteus' (well), whose effect is potation -- or by that in which it is contained, as `urbs' (city), which some would derive from `orbis' (circle), since the place was accustomed to be circumscribed by the plow after the auspices were taken, a thing which Virgil (Aen. LV, 755) remembers, where Aeneas lays out the city with a plow -- or that which is contained, e.g. when someone affirms that `horreum' (granary) comes from `hordeum' (barley) by the change of a letter -- or by misuse when we say `horreum' and what is kept there is wheat -- or the whole from a part, as when we call the sword `mucro', which is the tip of the sword -- or a part from the whole, as `capillus' (hair, scalp) like `capitis pilus' (hair of the head). How much further shall I go? whatever else can be enumerated, you have seen that the origin of a word can be contained either in the similitude of things and sounds or the similitude of things themselves, or vicinity or contrary. We cannot pursue this beyond the similitude of sound, but we are not always able to use even this. For the words are innumerable whose origin or reason cannot be given, as I believe, because there is none, as the Stoics contend, because it is hidden (escapes us). Just take a glance at the means whereby they think they can arrive at those cradles or families or even the seed of words, beyond which they think it is impossible to go, in case someone thinks he can find something. No one denies that there are syllables in which the letter `v' has the value of a consonant, e. g. `vafer' (cunning), `velum' (sail), `vinum' (wine), `vomis' (ploughshare), `vulnus' (wound), a thick and rather strong sound. And usage approves our subtracting it from some words, lest they offend our ears. It is because of this that we say `amasti' (you have loved) more freely than `amavisti', and `nosti' (you knew) rather than `novisti', and `abiit' (he left) and not `abivit', and the like. Thus, when we say `vis' (power), the sound of the word when it is pronounced, being rather strong, is congruent with the thing it signifies. From the vicinity of that which they do, i.e. that they are violent, `vincula' (bonds) may be seen to be derived, and `vimen' (withe) by which something is bound. Hence `vites' (vines), because they hold he stakes to which they are tied with their tendrils. Hence because of similitude Terence (Eun. IV, 21) calls the bent old man `vietum' (shriveled, bent). Thus, the earth, which is flexible and ground by the feet of travelers, is called `via' (way). But if `via' (way) is thought to come more from the fact that it is ground by the `vi' (power) of the feet, then the origin is attributed to that vicinity. But let us say that it is by similitude to `vitis' (vine) or `vimen' (withe) that it is said, because of its winding. Someone will ask of me: Where does `via' (way) come from? I answer: from its winding, as bent old men are called `veteres', whence the rims which go around the wood of a wheel are called `vietos'. He will continue to ask whence `vietus' (rim) is said to be flexible or bent, and I will respond: "By similarity to `vitis' (vine)." He persists and asks whence this is the name of vine; I say: "Because it entwines itself around those things which hold it." He now wishes to know whence `vincire' (to bind) itself is said, and we say: "From `vis' (power)." He asks whence `vis' (power) is so called, and the reason is given: "The robust and rather strong sound of the word is congruent with the thing it signifies." There is nothing else to ask. By how many ways the origin of words is varied, then, by the corruption of voices, it is useless to pursue. They are both long and of less necessity than those which have been treated.

VII. Let us now briefly consider the power of words, insofar as the thing is open to investigation. The power of the word is that by which we know how much it is worth. Its value is the extent to which it is able to move the hearer. It either moves the hearer by itself or by what it means or by both. When it moves him by itself, it either pertains to the sense alone or to art or to both. The sense is moved either by nature or by custom. Nature was violated, if it is offended when someone names King Artaxerxes, or soothed, if it hears Euryalus. For who, hearing nothing else of these men whose names these are, would not notice in the former the great harshness and in the latter the softness? The sense is moved by custom when it is offended if someone is called for the sake of the word (supposition of the grammarians) Motta, and not offended if it hears Cotta. For this does not depend on the sweetness or non-sweetness of the sound, but they affect the innermost parts of the ear when they hear the sounds going through them as guests who are known or unknown. The hearer is moved by art when he attends to a word pronounced to him, as to what part of speech it is, or if he perceives anything which has to do with the discipline which treats of words (grammar). But words are judged by both, i. e. sense and art, since the reason notes that which the ears transmit and gives it a name, e.g. when we say `optimus' (best), as soon as the one long and two short syllables of this adjective strike the ear, the mind by art immediately recognizes a dactylic foot. The word moves our knowledge not only by itself, but by that which it signifies, when, the sign having been agreed upon (Stoic commonplace; or: perceived by the ear), the mind intuits nothing other than the thing itself of which that sign is perceived. For example, when Augustine is named nothing else than I myself am thought (a lovely solecism) by the one to whom I am known, or some other man comes to mind if someone perchance hears this name and doesn't know me or knows someone else who is named Augustine. For when at the same time the word moves the listener by itself and by that which it means, both that which is enunciated and that which is referred to by it are attended to. Whence is it that the chastity of our ears is not offended when it hears (Sall. Cat. 14) `manu ventre pene bona patria laceverat' (he squandered the goods of his father by hand, belly, penis)? For it would be offended if the obscene part of the body were called by a sordid and vulgar name, since the thing of which both are the vocable is the same, were not the turpitude of the thing signified hidden by the seemliness of the signifying word, for then the ugliness of both would strike the sense as well as the mind. Just like `meretrix' (prostitute), who looks, however, different in that garb with which she is accustomed to stand before the judge and in that in which she lies in her luxurious bedroom. Since the power of words seems to be so manifold, we touch upon it briefly and lightly for the time being. There arises here a twofold sense upon reflection: partly for the explanation of truth, partly for the preservation of seemliness. It does not behove disputation to be inept nor eloquence to be fallacious, but often or almost always slight notice is taken of the delight of the hearer in one desirous of learning, whereas the more inexperienced multitude thinks that that which is said ornately is said truly. Accordingly, though it clear what is proper for each, it is obvious that the disputant, if he wishes at all to please, must use the colors of rhetoric, and the orator, if he wishes to persuade someone of the truth, must be fortified by dialectic, as by bones and sinew, which by nature cannot be subtracted from our bodies for the sake of bodily firmness, lest it be permitted to lie in offense to the eye.

VIII. Now for the judging of truth, let us see what profit there is to dialectic from this power of words whose seeds we have just sown, and what impediments arise. The listener is hindered from seeing the truth in words by obscurity and ambiguity. The difference between the ambiguous and the obscure is that in the ambiguous many things are exhibited, of which one is unsure as to which one to take; in the obscure, however, nothing or not enough appears. But where it is too little which appears, the obscure is similar to the ambiguous: e.g. as if someone beginning a trip is faced by a fork in the road or a three-way road or even a multi-way road, where nothing lights up the road, say, because of the density of a fog. He is first kept from continuing by obscurity, but when the fog begins to lift a little, something is seen which may be either the road or the ground itself, since the color is not quite clear enough. This is an obscurity which is like ambiguity. When the sky has brightened and it is light enough for the eye and the view of all the roads is clear, it is not obscurity but ambiguity which makes him doubt as to which one to take. Thus, there are three types of ambiguity: 1. Open to the senses, closed to the mind: If someone sees a picture of a pomegranate who has never seen one before nor heard what one is, it is not the eye, but the mind, which does know what the picture is of. 2. Open to the mind, closed to the senses, e.g. a picture of a man in darkness. When it appears to the eye, the mind does not doubt that a man is pictured. 3. Both hidden from the sense and not at all clearer to the mind, the greatest obscurity of all, e. g. if an inexperienced person were required to recognize that painted pomegranate in the dark.

Now turn your mind to the words of which these are similitudes. Constitute in your mind some teacher, his students having been called together and silence having been invoked, who says in a low voice `temetum' (booze). Those sitting close hear well enough, those further removed poorly, the furthest removed are reached by no sound at all. For some reason, those who are somewhat remote partly know what `temetum' is, partly do not, and those who heard the teacher's voice immediately did not know what it was. All were thus hindered by obscurity. Those who were sure about what they heard are like our first type, i.e. those ignorant of the pomegranate even when painted in the light. Those who knew the word but perceived the voice poorly or not at all with the ear are of the second type, similar to the image of a man in an unclear or dark place. Those who were privy neither to the significance of the word nor the voice of the teacher involve themselves in the blindness of the third type, which is the worst of all. You can see that that which has been called obscure is similar to the ambiguous by the example of those to whom the word was known but who did not perceive the voice well or with any certainty. For he avoids all kinds of obscure speech who speaks in a clear enough voice, not kept from the ear, and makes use of known words. See now by the example of the same teacher what a distinction there is between ambiguity and obscurity in words. Let those who were there (the aforementioned group, Tr.) both perceive well by sense the voice of the teacher and let him pronounce a word known well by all -- e.g. have him say `magnus' (big) and no more. Note what uncertainties are attached to this noun (`nomen' is used both for noun and adjective in Latin, Tr.) which has been heard. For example, one might ask: What part of speech is it? Or ask concerning the meter: What foot is it? Or about the story: How many wars did `magnus' (great) Pompey wage? Or if one of his admirers were to say for the sake of the poem: Virgil is a great poet almost without equal. Or someone scolding the negligence of students erupts in these words: A great torpor has invaded your study. Do you see after the cloud of obscurity has been lifted that that which has been said almost clears up the manifold way? For that one thing which was said, i.e. `magnus' is both a noun (Latin did not distinguish between noun and adjective, Tr.) and a foot and Pompey and Virgil and the torpor of negligence, etc., or even innumerable things which we did not mention, which nevertheless can be understood in the pronunciation of this word.

IX. Thus, it is most correctly said by the dialecticians that any word is ambiguous. Do not let it dissuade that Hortensius sneers at them in Cicero: "They say that they dare explain the ambiguous clearly. They also say that any word is ambiguous. Then how were ambiguous things explained by ambiguous things? That is like bringing an unlit torch into the darkness." Elegantly and cleverly said, but in that same Cicero we read that Scaevola said to Antonius (De Orat. I, 10, 44): "So that you may seem to speak well to the wise and truly to the stupid." What indeed did Hortensius do in that place but gloss over the darkness of the ignorant with sharpness of wit and pleasantness of speech as if with a pure and sweet drink? For when it is said that any word is ambiguous, this is said of single words. Ambiguous things are explained to the disputant, and no one disputes by using single words. So no one explains ambiguous things by ambiguous words, and, though any word is ambiguous, no one explains the ambiguity of words except by words which are joined and (are then) not ambiguous. E.g. if I were to say that every soldier was two-footed, it would not follow from that the whole company of soldiers was two-footed. Just as, when I say that any word is ambiguous, I do not say sentence or disputation, though these are made up of words. Thus any ambiguous word my be explained by non-ambiguous disputation.

Let us now look at the types of ambiguity: There are firstly two of them, one of which causes doubt concerning that which is spoken, the other in that which is written. For if anyone hears `acies' (point, dot), and if anyone reads it, he may be uncertain, unless it is cleared up by a sentence, as to whether it is the point of the army, or of iron, or the pupil of the eye which is written or spoken of. If someone finds the writing of just the word `leporem', and there is no sentence in which it is placed, he is immediately cast into doubt as to whether the penultimate syllable of this word is pronounced long because it comes from `lepos' (charm) or short because it is from `lepus' (hare), an ambiguity which certainly is not felt when the accusative case of this noun is perceived from the spoken voice. But if someone speaks poorly, it is not by ambiguity but by obscurity that the listener is hindered, obscurity of the type which is similar to ambiguity because words pronounced badly in Latin do not lead the mind into diverse notions, but impel it toward whatever it seems to be. Therefore, there are many distinctions between these two types. The first of these is again divided into two. If something is said and several things can be understood, these several things must be comprised not only in one word but one and the same definition, or they will have the same vocable in common, but be explained in various definitions. Those which one definition can contain are called univocal (= polylexic, Tr.). Those which, though under one designation, must have different definitions are called equivocal (polysemic, Tr.). Let us first consider the univocal, and, since they are clear from the definition, let them be illustrated by examples. When we say `man', we say boy as well as youth, as well as old man, stupid or wise, big or little, citizen or pilgrim, city-dweller or farmer, he was as well as he who is, sitting as well as standing, rich as well as poor, beginning something or ending it, being happy as well as mourning, or neither. But in all these `dictiones' there is nothing which receives the name of man which is not included in the definition of man. The definition of `man' is rational mortal animal. Now who can say that a youth, not at the same time a boy and an old man, not both wise and stupid, is not a rational mortal animal? These and all the others which were set down above are contained in the name `man' and the same definition. If there is anything which is a boy or stupid or poor or even sleeping, if it is not a rational mortal animal, it is not a man, for that is what a man is. They must be contained in the same definition, and there is nothing ambiguous about the rest of them. One may be in doubt concerning a little boy, or a stupid or fatuous person, or a sleeping person or a drunk or a madman as to whether they are rational animals. This can be defended, but it takes a long time for anybody who is in a hurry. As far as that is concerned, this definition of man is thought by some to be incorrect and ill thought out, unless all men are contained in it and nothing except man. Well, these are the `univoca' which are included both in one designation and one definition, although among them they _can_ be distinguished by proper names and definitions. For the names of boy and adolescent, rich and poor, free and slave, are diverse, as are other kinds of distinctions. So diverse things have proper definitions, but their one common name is `man', just as the definition `rational mortal animal' is common to all.

X. Now let us take up the `equivoca', in which the perplexity of ambiguity grows like wild flowers into infinity. I shall try to divide them into certain genera. Whether my faculties are sufficient to the attempt, you shall judge. There are first three types of ambiguity which come from equivocation: 1. by art, 2. by use, 3. by both. I say art for the sake of the names which are imposed upon words in the discipline of words. What is equivocal is defined one way by the grammarian, another by the dialectician. The single utterance which I make, `Tullius' (Cicero), is a name and a dactylic foot and an equivocal. And if someone presses me to define what `Tullius' is, I shall answer with an explanation of any of these notions. For I can say correctly: "Tullius is a name by which a man is signified, a great orator who as a consul suppressed the Catiline Conspiracy." Watch closely now as I define the name. If I could point out that very Tullius, if he were living, with my finger, and if I then had to define him, I would not say: "Tullius is a name which signifies a man"; I would rather say: "That man is Tullius", and then I would add the other things. I can also answer in this way: "Tullius is a dactylic foot consisting of these letters ... (for what need is there to enumerate the letters?)" Perhaps one might say: "Tullius is a word by which all those things mentioned above are equivocal and any other similar ones you can make up." Since I then have to define `Tullius' in so many ways according to the terminology of the arts, how can we doubt that this type of ambiguity comes from equivocation, which is properly said to occur by art. For we say that those things are equivocal which can be contained in one name and not one definition. Now look at the next type, which, as you remember, comes from usage. We call that usage through which we know words. For who seeks out and collects words for the sake of words? Let someone hear something who knows nothing of the parts of speech nor is interested in meter or any kind of verbal discipline. Nevertheless, he can be disturbed by the ambiguity of equivocation when `Tullius' is said, for by this name the great orator and his picture or statue and the codex in which his letters are contained and whatever is left of his body in the tomb may be signified. For we say in diverse sentences: "Tullius saved the fatherland from ruin" "A golden Tullius stands in the Capitol" "All of Tullius is to be read" "Tullius is buried in this place". For the name is one, but all these are to be explained in different definitions. For this is the type of equivocation in which the ambiguity does not originate from the discipline of words, but from the very things which are signified. But if it either confounds the hearer or the reader, if it is either from art or usage that it comes, what happened to the third type which was named? Its example will appear more clearly in a sentence: "Many wrote in the dactylic meter, e. g. Tullius." Here it is uncertain as to whether `Tullius' is cited as an example of a dactylic foot or a dactylic poet, of which the first is perceived by art, the second by usage. But in simple words it happens when the teacher pronounces the word to his students, as we have shown above.

These three types differ among themselves by manifest reasons. The first is again divided into two parts. Whatever makes an ambiguity through the art of words can partly be an example and partly not. When I define what a noun is, I can cite (supponere) it itself as an example (idempotency, Tr.). For the `nomen' (noun) which I pronounce is itself a noun, and is so inflected, when we say: `nomen, nominis, nomini', etc. Likewise when I define what a `dactylus' is, it itself can be an example. For when we say `dactylus', we pronounce one long syllable and then two short ones. But when we say what `adverb' means, we cannot cite it as an example. When we say `adverb' this very enunciation is a noun. Thus, according to one way of understanding it is adverb and a noun is a noun, according to another `adverb' is not an adverb, since it is noun. Also `creticus' (a type of foot), when we define it, cannot be given as an example (of itself). When we pronounce it, `creticus' consists of one long syllable followed by two short ones, but what it signifies is a long, a short, and a long. Thus, according to one way of understanding `creticus' is nothing other than a creticus, according to another, it is not a creticus, because it is a dactylus.

The second type, which pertains not to verbal discipline, but to usage, has two forms. Equivoca are either of the same origin or of different origins. I mention those of the same origin which are contained in one name (designation), but not one definition, but derive as it were from one source, e.g. when `Tullius' can be understood as a man and a statue and a codex and a cadaver. For these cannot be contained in one definition, but they have one single source, i.e. the real man himself, whose statue, books, cadaver they are. But when we say `nepos', it signifies from a quite diverse origin, both the son of the son and the spendthrift (Tr.: According to Isidore `nepos' (spendthrift) comes from a kind of scorpion). Let us keep this distinct and look at that type which I call of the same origin, which is again divided. It is divided into two, one of which occurs in `translatio' (usual Latin word for metaphor; the examples given are of metonymy, Tr.), the other in inflection. I call that `translatio' when either because of similitude one name is give to many things, e.g. `Tullius' means both a great orator and his statue -- or when the part is called by the whole, e.g. when his body is called `Tullius' -- or the whole by one of its part, e.g. when a house is called `roof' -- or a species by a genus. Words are in general all things spoken, but those things are properly called `verba' (words, verbs) which we inflect for mood or tense -- or the genus by the species: `scholasticus' (schoolboy, scholar) was not only properly but first applied to those who were in school, but this name is now corrupted for all who live by letters -- or the effect from the cause, as `Cicero' for Cicero's work -- or the person causing it from the effect, e. g. `terror' for the person who causes terror -- or the thing contained from the container, e.g. `house' for those who are in the house -- or vice versa, e.g. when we call the tree a `chestnut' -- or anything else of a like kind which you can find called from the same origin by a kind of transfer. You see, I think, what an ambiguity it brings about in words. Things of the same origin, but ambiguous because of inflection are like this: Let someone give this as an example: `pluit' (it rains), and let it be diversely defined. Likewise if someone says `scribere' (write) it is uncertain as to whether it is an active infinitive or a passive imperative. `homo' (man), though it is one noun and one utterance, is either the nominative or the vocative, like `doctus' (learned) and `docte' (O learned one), where the utterance is different. `doctius' (more learned) is different when we say `doctius mancipium' (a more sensible contract' or when we say `doctius illo iste disputavit (this one argued more learnedly than that one). The ambiguity arose thus from inflection. We call that inflection which occurs either by voice or signification in inflecting a word. `hic doctus' (this learned man) and `o docte' (O learned man!) are inflected by the voice, `hic homo' and `o homo' solely by meaning. But to follow this type of ambiguity minutely is almost infinite. It is sufficient for you to note this section for now, especially for your mind. Now look at those which come from diverse origins. They are also divided into two principal forms, one of which comes about because of the diversity of languages, e.g. if we say `tu' it means one thing to the Greeks (gen. sg. masc. article), another to us (you, 2d sg. pers. pron.). This type should have been taken into consideration a great deal; it is not prescribed for anyone, however, how many languages he knows or in how many languages he might argue. Another form is that which makes ambiguities in the same language, but of diverse origin; they are signified by one term, similar to what we said above concerning `nepos'. Again, this is divided into two: 1. it is either the same part of speech - - `nepos' is a noun when it means son of a son and when it means spendthrift -- or under different ones: for it is not only different when we say `qui' (rel. pron. & interrogative), as it is said (Ter. Andr. III, 3, 33) `qui scis ergo istuc nisi periculum feceris' (how can you tell if you don't make the trial?), for that is a pronoun, this is an adverb.

By both, i.e. by art and usage, which we have set up as a third type of equivoca, as many forms of ambiguity may exist as we have named in these two.

There remains the type of ambiguity which is found in writing alone, of which there are three types. Such an ambiguity is made either by the length of a syllable or by its accent, or by both, e.g. when `venit' (comes, came) appears, its length is uncertain because of the unknown nature of the first syllable; by accent, as when `pone' (place, behind) is written either from `pono' (I put) or as is said (Virgil Georg.IV, 487): `pone sequens namque hanc dederat Proserpina legem' (following behind, for Proserpina had imposed that condition), where it is uncertain because of the hidden place of the accent, or it happens because of both, e.g. as we mentioned above in the case of `lepore', for not only is the penultimate syllable of this word to be lengthened, but also to be accented if it is derived from `lepos' (charm), not from `lepus' (hare).
___________


http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ap_britain_abuse3_050119_ssh.jpg

[grandsecretary]

With your obvious intellectual advantages, would you know what a windbag is?

[luciferhorus]

With your obvious intellectual advantages, would you know what a windbag is?

Yes but I have reminded you on more than one occasion in the most simple language that 'abuse and contradiction' do not constitute an argument, since this appears to be a method you commonly use, and further which is also used against you by others.

http://images-2.redbubble.net/img/art/size:large/view:main/1087726-3-dunce.jpg

Having debated on the Internet for many years, I do understand that most Americans have little more than the sufficient education and literacy required to respond with anything other one-liners of contradiction and abuse; however we Europeans do not have that excuse and most certainly you do not have that excuse yourself.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/Dunce_Cap.jpg

I recall from my youth, that at my school, students were commonly asked to write out 100 times Plato's 'The wise man speaks because he has something to say. The fool speaks because he has to say something.' Obviously some people here did not have the advantage of having that drilled into them. Contradition and abuse are just expressions of a fool blowing wind through his mouth (i.e., a windbag), and on the Internet this is rather like a monkey banging on a keyboad, and thinking that he is Shakespeare.

http://www.maniacworld.com/george-bush-dunce.jpg

I recall my days as a student teacher in probably one of the worst and most violent schools in London (Ernest Bevin Secondary School in Tooting). My days were spent merely responding to a rabble of noise and abuse and I quickly realised that I was not there to 'teach' anything or discuss anything which would be to their educational benefit, but rather merely to act a security guard and to stop them from killing each other. The Internet is also full of such 'rabble;' I no longer wish to be such a security guard whose purpose is to merely break up fights and stop children abusing each other, and my essay above is a reminder of what 'debate' is; and frankly you are one of the debaters here who is quite capable of understanding this, however thus you have failed to show that you do.

http://www.conspiracyculture.com/images/dunce.jpg

It is not my intention to merely berate anyone, rather I only seek to encourage intelligent debate.

For example, the essays I posted here on 'The Grand Lodge of All England' thread are polemics by your opponents attacking your Lodge. I would have thought that would give you ample opportunity to respond intelligently; particularly since you are on a 'friendly' forum to the extent that most people here seem to despise your opponets, the regular UGLE Masons. However your response was merely to state that it was propaganda, and then later you told me that you had not even read these critiques. Frankly to respond to such critiques with one-liners expressing contradiction and abuse would get you a 'fail' by any academic standard, and further that you have not even bothered to read such critiques shows that you are unwilling to even to do your homework.

You are of sufficient maturity that I cannot merely tell you to go and sit in a corner, but I would suggest that you change your attitude and your debating strategy if you wish to be taken seriously.

I might also add that the Original Post was not specifically directed at you, though it is entirely relevant to your debating strategy, but rather due to the current exchanges on the 'Kabbalah Simplified' which the moderator is justifiably complaining about, and futher in order that I may 'bump' this thread at times when such exchanges occur rather than just endlessly posting this into threads.

LL

Lux

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CsIl1c93_p4/ScP_m9-fb4I/AAAAAAAAAkk/MsfeV2Oc62A/s400/dunce.jpg

[kasalt]

Yes but I have reminded you on more than one occasion in the most simple language that 'abuse and contradiction' do not constitute an argument, since this appears to be a method you commonly use, and further which is also used against you by others.

I think his point was that you could say as much, but with fewer words.

[grandsecretary]

“He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument”

[luciferhorus]

I think his point was that you could say as much, but with fewer words.

http://www.fraryforcongress.com/images/DunceCap.jpg

I have frequently said as much in fewer words to the Grand Secretary, but apparently he fails to understand me irrespective of whether I express myself in few words or in many.

LL

Lux

http://eehard.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/dunce-778614.jpg

[grandsecretary]

It is important not to suspend criticism of anyone, for this is not how the free thinker thinks, but it is also important to concede our own positions when shown to be errant.

[luciferhorus]

..it is also important to concede our own positions when shown to be errant.

I entirely concede that I originally misunderstood the nature of your lodge and I have already conceded as much; since I now understand that your lodge is considered entirely heretical by the Duke of Kent's United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), but you have yet to establish whether you are sufficiently heretical and blasphemous, anti-Christian, anti-Capitalist and Anarchist enough to accord with my rather high standards, and frankly I very much doubt it, and thus far it seems that you are just another competing cult of Capitalists.

My objections to Masonry are to do with their financial and military power; they are evangelical, genocidal, militant Capitalists committed to Capitalist imperialist revolution and the total enslavement of humanity; that is Icke's position and that is my position; I am entirely unsure if your members represent the same kind of opposition to regular Masonry, since you are rather vague about the matter and indeed on your site you appear to recognise and welcome UGLE Masons, though their position with regards to your lodge is certainly not mutual.

I should point out that since your lodge claims allegance to the British Monarch and demands that it's members be 'law abiding citizens,' that such statements are anti-thetical to anti-Monarchism (anti-tyranny), Anarchism and anti-Capitalism in general; however I think it appropriate not to show you the same contempt as the UGLE cultists; any group considered so blasphemous and heretical by UGLE must at least deserve some consderation and further study; however based upon statements made on your Internet site I doubt if you are sufficiently blasphemous and heretical enough to meet entirely with my approval; unless of course you are keeping such matters to yourself.

I am quite concerned that the list of 'famous Masons' on your site is rather similar to that found on the sites of 'regular' Masonry and includes a number of tyrants (Monarchs) which seems to suggest that you may not be as heretical as alleged.

Generally I tend to recognise the spirit of absolute heresy, blasphemy, anti-Christianity and anti-Masonry (as in UGLE Masonry); and you don't quite come up to my very high standards; you will have to try much harder but I will give you few points for effort.

Lucis Rex.
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
High Priest of all manner of Blasphemy and Heresy.

[grandsecretary]

I am entirely unsure if your members represent the same kind of opposition to regular Masonry, since you are rather vague about the matter and indeed on your site you appear to recognise and welcome UGLE Masons, though their position with regards to your lodge is certainly not mutual.

I am quite concerned that the list of 'famous Masons' on your site is rather similar to that found on the sites of 'regular' Masonry and includes a number of tyrants (Monarchs) which seems to suggest that you may not be as heretical as alleged.

recognise and welcome UGLE Masons? Not with you here. Please explain.

Famous freemasons page includes all types of freemasons from all types of jursidictions. Just a bit of fun and general information for the public. Only a few of them are "ours".

[luciferhorus]

recognise and welcome UGLE Masons? Not with you here. Please explain.

Famous freemasons page includes all types of freemasons from all types of jursidictions. Just a bit of fun and general information for the public. Only a few of them are "ours".

It is possible I may just have misunderstood you.

With regards to:

"Grand Lodge at York recognises all regularly made Fellows of the Craft irrespective of nationality, ethnic origin, political affiliation, religious observation or social background. "

This appears to suggest that you recognise all 'regularly made' Masons, but I might ask you what you consider to be a 'regularly made' Mason, since it would appear to contradict the following statement?

"The Grand Lodge of all England does not accept the bogus and un-Masonic doctrine known as "Grand Lodge Recognition".

http://www.outlawjournalism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3315&sid=72663d543f943649c8f6470751e7ad12


I am rather curious as to why you 'split' from the "Regular Grand Lodge of England."

"From a statement by the United Grand Lodge of England - 16 February 2006
There has been a split in the “Regular Grand Lodge of England" (see below for statement about RGLE). Two of their members were unhappy at the direction the RGLE is taking and have “revived” the old Grand Lodge of All England, known to Masonic historians as the York Grand Lodge.

The Grand Master of this new Grand Lodge is one John Gordon Graves and the Grand Secretary is Peter J. Clatworthy.

Like all irregular bodies they are claiming an ancient pedigree. They claim to be acting by “the original Constitutions granted by Prince Edwin at the General Assembly of Masons held in York AD 975”. This is one of the oldest legends connected with Freemasonry and was shown to be a legend more than one hundred years ago!

They also claim that the York Grand Lodge was the first Grand Lodge in England and predates the premier Grand Lodge formed in London in 1717. An independent Lodge existed in York, for which records survive from 1705. It was simply a private Lodge, which in 1725, because of the success of the premier Grand Lodge, began to call itself the Grand Lodge of All England and, in the same year, adopted “Nineteen Articles” to govern the Craft.

The Grand Lodge of All England worked until 1740 when it became dormant. It was revived in 1761 and over the next thirty years constituted about thirteen daughter Lodges in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire. It ceased working circa 1791, since when nothing more was heard of it until its “revival” in January 2006. The records of the York Grand Lodge exist and are in the custody of the present York Lodge No. 236 meeting in York.

The Grand Lodge of All England (which appears to have only two members at present) claims to be the “regular authority governing the Craft in England, Wales, the Channel Island and Districts Overseas”. A General Assembly, which all Master Masons are invited to attend, was to be held in York on 20 February 2006 to plan the way forward. Needless to say the new body is entirely irregular, and any member of the United Grand Lodge of England who gets involved in it will become subject to our disciplinary process.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From a report to the Quarterly Communication of the United Grand Lodge of England - 9 March 2005
(Full text: Statement by President of the Board of General Purposes to Grand Lodge)

It has come to the Board's attention that there is an irregular body styling itself the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" which is governed by something called "the Masonic High Council for England and Wales". It claims a number of members and at least one Lodge. Whilst this body appears to draw its members from Brethren of other Constitutions rather than our own, I must remind members of the Craft that any Freemason under this Grand Lodge who does in any way become associated with it, as with any other irregular self-styled Masonic body, must resign from the Craft or render himself liable to Masonic disciplinary proceedings."


http://www.surreymason.org.uk/index.php?PageID=archive_news_ugle_new_grand_lodge


LL

Lux

[luciferhorus]

Bumping this thread due to the outpouring of abuse, homophobia and slander from the Grand Secretary.

______________
Google links:
peter clatworthy

[grandsecretary]

What ARE you talking about? You silly little man.

[luciferhorus]

I am afraid that I am amazed that this self-confessed homosexual, because that is what a man is who rear ends little boys, and a drug addict is allowed anywhere near our children.

.

Look, we know that you are a self-confessed homosexual, a sexual deviant and a drug addict. That is on record on this forum. No child is safe with you around and if I had your name I would be making sure that your CRB clearance is revoked forthwith.

....... I am amazed that you haven't been slaughtered by those on here who, like me, believe that men who do what you do to little boys and girls should be strung up from the nearest lamp post.

We all know what you expose. I would cut it off.


Well I am afraid that I do not take such accusations from a sexual pervert and a child molester such as you luciferwhoreass.

and I know that if I was vicious I could get him run off the forum with his tail firmly between his legs because this type of manipulation is so easy. Too easy.

I am currently subscribed to over 500 discussion groups and I have been subscribed to many times that figure during my 15 years on the Internet. I probably have some kind of an all time record of being expelled from discussion groups, particularly of the Christian variety and I am well used to being showered with hatred, homophobia, abuse etc; those of your own ilk are entirely all too common.

I would remind you that this is the David Icke forum and that his position is entirely anti-Masonic and that you are here as a defender of your own particular brand of Masonic cultism, whereas I generally have a great deal more in common with Icke's position on Freemasonry than you have. I entirely suspect that nobody is thrown off this forum unless it is for their own misbehaviour; I entirely engage in debates in the same way that I would conduct myself on the debating floor of the Oxford debating society. I have been a participant for many years prior to leaving London in London's oldest public debating society, the Cogers; two of my close friends are former Cogers presidents, both are Anarchists; it is forum for debate where even the proponents of the most extreme religious and political views of all spectrums are offered freedom of expression; however I can assure you that in such a environment your libel and abuse would simply not be tolerated and you would be shown the door. Debating skills and adherence to the philosopher's dialectical craft should not be confused with the kind of arrogant abusive behaviour which you have chosen to represent here.

I really only engage you as this is a public forum which is picked up by search engines all over the world, and if you wish to portray Masonry by your own example, that is entirely to the advantage of your opponents.

You entirely flatter yourself if you think that you are my competition here, you simply portray yourself here on this public forum as a pompous, arrogant, abusive, homophobic slanderous old fool, and unfortunately you are entirely common in the world.


Now I do not believe for one second that because luciferhorus is bi-sexual that he is, therefore, a danger to children, but then I am not a prejudiced person. I do not label people, I try to treat people as individuals, and I judge them accordingly.

Neither do I believe that because he has rather unusual religious views that he is a Satanist.

What I have demonstrated here is how wrong it is to accuse people of wrong doing by "joining up" so-called "dots" that are merely placed by malicious people who make false anonymous accusations, in order to hurt people, and for no other reason.

There's no smoke without fire you know?

Ask any fireman. There is plenty of smoke without fire and it is a killer.

I have not accused you of anything illegal; it is entirely legal in the to sell Masonic "degrees" to your gullible cult victims for any price you wish to extract. Anyone can start a religious cult in England and charge anything they wish such "knowledge;" that is the nature of the religoius business in the UK. In America you can even buy a mail order PhD for $59.95 http://www.noveltydegree.com/ and yes it is a "phoney" degree, just like the "degrees" sold by the Duke of Kent's cult, your cult and indeed any Masonc cult are phoney "degrees" and they are merely for novelty purposes only, to be boasted of by fools who think themselves somehow enlightened; however it is all entirely legal.

"Moral" and "Legal" are not synonymous however, I have made it clear as to why I consider you a morally worthless individual and that is my "moral judgement;" it is not a legal judgement which the courts of Capitalism will accept.

I apologise to you luciferhorus for giving you some uncomfortable moments. I hope that you learn a lesson, but I doubt it.

You are simply being entirely insincere. Your "apology" is not an apology at all; it is simply followed by a justification; I would no more accept your apology than I would from anyone who both apologised for their behaviour "and" justified their behaviour in the same paragraph. Even devoid of any justification, repentance without penance ( a change of behaviour) is simply meaningless and insincere. You will continue to be described by me as an abusive slanderer, a liar, and that is entirely factually descriptive of you.

The Christian view of "loving one's enemy" and of "turning the other cheek" and of "forgiveness" which is irrespective of the attitude and behaviour of the unrepentant is almost universally considered to be ridiculous by Communists and Satanists such as myself. I do not love my enemies and I do not expect them to love me. I curse my enemies to Hell and I make no secret of it.


No mercy upon those who deserve none.

http://cdn3.ioffer.com/img/item/117/288/191/9EqS5KgGfDs5Ve8.jpg
Blasphemy, heresy, revolution, etc.

__
Google keywords:
peter clatworthy

[grandsecretary]

Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V

[luciferhorus]

I am afraid that I am amazed that this self-confessed homosexual, because that is what a man is who rear ends little boys, and a drug addict is allowed anywhere near our children.

.

Look, we know that you are a self-confessed homosexual, a sexual deviant and a drug addict. That is on record on this forum. No child is safe with you around and if I had your name I would be making sure that your CRB clearance is revoked forthwith.

....... I am amazed that you haven't been slaughtered by those on here who, like me, believe that men who do what you do to little boys and girls should be strung up from the nearest lamp post.

We all know what you expose. I would cut it off.


Well I am afraid that I do not take such accusations from a sexual pervert and a child molester such as you luciferwhoreass.

and I know that if I was vicious I could get him run off the forum with his tail firmly between his legs because this type of manipulation is so easy. Too easy.

I am currently subscribed to over 500 discussion groups and I have been subscribed to many times that figure during my 15 years on the Internet. I probably have some kind of an all time record of being expelled from discussion groups, particularly of the Christian variety and I am well used to being showered with hatred, homophobia, abuse etc; those of your own ilk are entirely all too common.

I would remind you that this is the David Icke forum and that his position is entirely anti-Masonic and that you are here as a defender of your own particular brand of Masonic cultism, whereas I generally have a great deal more in common with Icke's position on Freemasonry than you have. I entirely suspect that nobody is thrown off this forum unless it is for their own misbehaviour; I entirely engage in debates in the same way that I would conduct myself on the debating floor of the Oxford debating society. I have been a participant for many years prior to leaving London in London's oldest public debating society, the Cogers; two of my close friends are former Cogers presidents, both are Anarchists; it is forum for debate where even the proponents of the most extreme religious and political views of all spectrums are offered freedom of expression; however I can assure you that in such a environment your libel and abuse would simply not be tolerated and you would be shown the door. Debating skills and adherence to the philosopher's dialectical craft should not be confused with the kind of arrogant abusive behaviour which you have chosen to represent here.

I really only engage you as this is a public forum which is picked up by search engines all over the world, and if you wish to portray Masonry by your own example, that is entirely to the advantage of your opponents.

You entirely flatter yourself if you think that you are my competition here, you simply portray yourself here on this public forum as a pompous, arrogant, abusive, homophobic slanderous old fool, and unfortunately you are entirely common in the world.


Now I do not believe for one second that because luciferhorus is bi-sexual that he is, therefore, a danger to children, but then I am not a prejudiced person. I do not label people, I try to treat people as individuals, and I judge them accordingly.

Neither do I believe that because he has rather unusual religious views that he is a Satanist.

What I have demonstrated here is how wrong it is to accuse people of wrong doing by "joining up" so-called "dots" that are merely placed by malicious people who make false anonymous accusations, in order to hurt people, and for no other reason.

There's no smoke without fire you know?

Ask any fireman. There is plenty of smoke without fire and it is a killer.

I have not accused you of anything illegal; it is entirely legal in the to sell Masonic "degrees" to your gullible cult victims for any price you wish to extract. Anyone can start a religious cult in England and charge anything they wish such "knowledge;" that is the nature of the religoius business in the UK. In America you can even buy a mail order PhD for $59.95 http://www.noveltydegree.com/ and yes it is a "phoney" degree, just like the "degrees" sold by the Duke of Kent's cult, your cult and indeed any Masonc cult are phoney "degrees" and they are merely for novelty purposes only, to be boasted of by fools who think themselves somehow enlightened; however it is all entirely legal.

"Moral" and "Legal" are not synonymous however, I have made it clear as to why I consider you a morally worthless individual and that is my "moral judgement;" it is not a legal judgement which the courts of Capitalism will accept.

I apologise to you luciferhorus for giving you some uncomfortable moments. I hope that you learn a lesson, but I doubt it.

You are simply being entirely insincere. Your "apology" is not an apology at all; it is simply followed by a justification; I would no more accept your apology than I would from anyone who both apologised for their behaviour "and" justified their behaviour in the same paragraph. Even devoid of any justification, repentance without penance ( a change of behaviour) is simply meaningless and insincere. You will continue to be described by me as an abusive slanderer, a liar, and that is entirely factually descriptive of you.

The Christian view of "loving one's enemy" and of "turning the other cheek" and of "forgiveness" which is irrespective of the attitude and behaviour of the unrepentant is almost universally considered to be ridiculous by Communists and Satanists such as myself. I do not love my enemies and I do not expect them to love me. I curse my enemies to Hell and I make no secret of it.


No mercy upon those who deserve none.

http://cdn3.ioffer.com/img/item/117/288/191/9EqS5KgGfDs5Ve8.jpg
Blasphemy, heresy, revolution, etc.

__
Google keywords:
peter clatworthy

[grandsecretary]

.

[lightgiver]

Bumping this thread due to the outpouring of abuse, homophobia and slander from the Grand Secretary.

______________
Google links:
peter clatworthy

Thats all he does.

[bluehorseman]

Fair enough and good for you luciferhorus, call him out he does like to dish out the abuse.
This needs to be said; after reading his words you have quoted he sounds just like the bigots he claims everyone else is - I am surprised though as I thought he was a homosexual as on numerous occasions he has been libeled with that tag and not refuted it so I assumed it was true and that is the paradox of this situation as well -he gets it as much as he gives.:confused:

I think that for you personally he has resorted to these basal remarks as the captain on a sinking ship shakes his fist at the sky. I noticed that those insults were directed at you after you had scored more than a few points bamboozling him on a couple of threads so although they might have had some psychic sting to them you should feel content to know that you owned him intellectually.

Live and let live, karma will sort it out.

[rodin]

Summa (Soma?) of Lurve

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixqbc7X2NQY&feature=related

[bluehorseman]

^ I don't get this post what does it mean?

[luciferhorus]

^ I don't get this post what does it mean?

If you have read the OP and cannot understand it's meaning, I would suggest a few basic literacy classes.

I am just bumping this thread as the Grand Secretary has returned to his usual tactics of general abuse.

Lux

[bluehorseman]

Settle down boy - I was referrring to the previous post "the summer(soma) of lurve" and its relevence to the thread. As a side issue your average person would need more than a few basic literacy classes to understand some of the shit you rant on about.

[luciferhorus]

Settle down boy - I was referrring to the previous post "the summer(soma) of lurve" and its relevence to the thread.

Oh my apologies for the misunderstanding.

As a side issue your average person would need more than a few basic literacy classes to understand some of the shit you rant on about.

Well I bumped this thread specificallyt due to the Masonic Christian and alleged ordained priest Peter Clatworthy (Grand Secretary) who when his hypocritical Capitalist Christian faith is challenged resorts to abuse, mockery and general tantrums and is unable to form a proper argument.

Lux

[bluehorseman]

Oh my apologies for the misunderstanding.


Well I bumped this thread specificallyt due to the Masonic Christian and alleged ordained priest Peter Clatworthy (Grand Secretary) who when his hypocritical Capitalist Christian faith is challenged resorts to abuse, mockery and general tantrums and is unable to form a proper argument.

Lux

I'm sorry too, it's not all shit.

As I have said in this thread before he gives it but can't take it (at least not on the chin). We (him and especially me) all need to know and admit when we are wrong sometimes because that is good for your personality to do so and because the only one who isn't wrong is his capitalist Christian God - we are not Gods. The slanderous things he said about you and children and the innuendos he uses to imply things are intolerable and he needs to acknowledge that as he would demand it is acknowledged if someone said those things to him.

And then we all need to forgive don't you think?

[luciferhorus]

And then we all need to forgive don't you think?

Forgiveness.

Probably among the most unnatural statements allegedly made by Jesus were his "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" statements.

Christians anway do not love their enemies; they bomb them with depleted uranium, enslave them, take over the countries and exploit their resources.

If Christians "turned the other cheek" the entire criminal justice system would simply fall apart.

It is simply not human nature to love our enemies and just unconditionally forgive them.

I despise my enemies and expect them to despise me; neither do I forgive them.

In the human world people tend not to forgive evil unless there is genuine repentance followed by a life of penance (a change of behaviour), and I don't use terms such as repentance and penance in any religious way at all.

So too it shall be in eternty where the myraids of victims of Capitalism, tyranny and organised religion await their slavemasters and enemies; even they who fill their inkwells; there shall be judgement and vengeance.

Lux

[bluehorseman]

Forgiveness.

Probably among the most unnatural statements allegedly made by Jesus were his "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" statements.

Christians anway do not love their enemies; they bomb them with depleted uranium, enslave them, take over the countries and exploit their resources.

If Christians "turned the other cheek" the entire criminal justice system would simply fall apart.

It is simply not human nature to love our enemies and just unconditionally forgive them.

I despise my enemies and expect them to despise me; neither do I forgive them.

In the human world people tend not to forgive evil unless there is genuine repentance followed by a life of penance (a change of behaviour), and I don't use terms such as repentance and penance in any religious way at all.

So too it shall be in eternty where the myraids of victims of Capitalism, tyranny and organised religion await their slavemasters and enemies; even they who fill their inkwells; there shall be judgement and vengeance.

Lux

Come on people forgive all the time.
I would say that in the human world a life cannot continue without compromise, a modification of behaviour based upon a reflection of how oneself affects another person, and hence a modicom of forgiveness.

[luciferhorus]

Come on people forgive all the time.
I would say that in the human world a life cannot continue without compromise, a modification of behaviour based upon a reflection of how oneself affects another person, and hence a modicom of forgiveness.

It is only acceptable to forgive someone if they are penitent (if they modify their behaviour). For example for the Communists to forgive the Christian Capitalist state terrorists, the terrorists would have to modify their behaviour and indeed completely reverse their behaviour and commit to Communist revolution and global collectivisation; otherwise forgiveness would be futile.

Similarly if a tyrant enslaves your family, it is simply pointless to forgive him; the only real solution is to attempt to exterminate him and all who collaborate with him. This is just human nature, just as a mother will resort to violence against those who attempt to harm or enslave her children.

Lux
No mercy or quarter to they who deserve none.