prawdziwy hardkor?

Deva

nie ;< ja podbijam teraz Very Happy

muszę gdzieś na impre jechać ale nei mam kasy ;/

ZeKe

z taką twarzą chcesz podbijac?

Modern

Deva

a wjeb byś nie chciał skurwielu? ;d

ZeKe

ja czy modern?

Deva

ty lowQ

ZeKe

jak ja jestem low to ciebie sie juz nie kwalifiukuje ;D

Deva

ZeKe

Deva

ok nabie hl pw: hlpro pisz na xf

ZeKe

[23:40] ^ZeKe.' inactiv: ok nabie hl pw: hlpro pisz na xf
[23:40] ^ZeKe.' inactiv: haha xD
[23:40] ^hArD`Life +Deva & Lz;: xd
[23:40] ^hArD`Life +Deva & Lz;: jutro
[23:40] ^hArD`Life +Deva & Lz;: nie idzs
[23:40] ^ZeKe.' inactiv: pff
[23:40] ^ZeKe.' inactiv: xD
[23:41] ^ZeKe.' inactiv: jutro ja nie bede wstanie grac
[23:41] ^ZeKe.' inactiv: na winko idzimet

Deva

boisz się. nie gram o takich porach jak 24 wiec won

ZeKe

Deva

jebaj się dawaj teraz 1v1

ZeKe

Conversation started between ^ZeKe.' inactiv and ^hArD`Life +Deva & Lz;: Tue, Jul 20 13:00:30 2010
[13:00] ^ZeKe.' inactiv:
jebaj się dawaj teraz 1v1
Conversation ended: Tue, Jul 20 13:00:34 2010
Conversation started between ^ZeKe.' inactiv and ^hArD`Life +Deva & Lz;: Tue, Jul 20 13:00:36 2010
[13:00] ^hArD`Life +Deva & Lz;: fw mam
[13:00] ^ZeKe.' inactiv: znowu uciekasz ;<

Sonnyyy

a moze ze mna 1v1 ktos?

Deva

za słaby

Nate · Gość

nothing of the ontological stuats of "the truth" or "the principle." We may for that reason call this the epistemological interpretation. The more ambitious, and also for some the more appealing, interpretation attempts, on the other hand, to give an existential priority to "the truth" or "the principle": it is no longer a mere epistemological condition, but a truly ontological entity (permit me to use this troublesome word) which in some way infuses the potential knower, so as to make him capable of knowing the truth. Not only an ontological entity: but also a self-conscious and self enacting one. Otherwise we can very well fancy that it were nothing but Energy. Some prefer calling it God, some prefer calling it Geist: the name matters not. At the heart of this ontological interpretation of the proposed view seems to be an urge to see the self as part of a larger self: the self is "enabled" to know not because of some past training or experience (all which seems to point back to the self--its will in particular--as the ultimate cause), but because of a prior self, a larger self, that has realized its inherent capability to know in this particular instance, viz. through this particular self. On the first interpretation, the self need not submit to anything; but on the present one, it is already (in a sense) in submission to that larger self. Karl Barth, inspired by a reading of St. Anselm, came to recognize that the ontological must be prior to the epistemological. God is, and man can only start thinking about God by putting himself already in God. Yet in a way his impassioned arguments in the Church Dogmatics for this point seems to intimate little more than the common observation that "If you believe, you believe; if not, no one can lead you thereto by arguments."Of course, the broader thought that the capacity to know always presupposes (or requires) something prior has long been a major theme in philosophy. The Holy Trinity of Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger all play with this thought in one way or another. The hard part is, nevertheless, to describe clearly and meaningfully what that "prior" is (so for instance, what is Sittlichkeit? or Horizon? or Sein?) What, moreover, is the relationship between my little self and that "prior," and how am I to "know myself" in relationship thereto, and live in the light, or pale, of it?If ĺćľˇĺ meant to favor the ontological interpretation (and I think he did), echoed in zeke's allusion to the notion of Emanation in antiquity, it may be proper to say, then, that they take the injunction "Know Thyself" not as an injunction to know the peculiarities of the little self, as are frequently and meticulously investigated by psychological tests in pop magazines; but as an injunction to look beyond the self and to see it--to recognize it--in the light or pale of that larger self. To know thyself becomes to know the limits of an isolated, unencumbered self (to adopt Sandel's nice phrase against Rawls): to know that there is more to know, and more urgently to be known, than the vagaries of this I. On a day to day level, this may point to one's friends and relatives, communities, etc.; more elevatedly, it may point to transcendence, the desire to reconnect oneself to the Beyond and the Before, and the aspiration to look back, from that position, at this humble little self. Some say that this desire is deeply rooted in the complicated neural network of human beings, the complexity allowing them to enter trance experiences, the remnant--or recollection--of which well sedimented as the desire of transcendence in certain moments of everyday life. But for the present discussion, let me go no further into this controversial subject.