I truly believe incarnation is unnecessary.

[zenmaster]

There are only two faculties for determining experience: thinking and feeling. Feeling takes more of self into consideration when applied to an idea. Some of the necessary conscious exposure to self involved in feeling about something will cause anxiety due to lack of acceptance. So thinking can get around that anxiety by only allowing the acceptable parts of self to address the idea.

[Adonai One]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Both of you are free to address the actual proposition or continue a personal derision of my character that is irrelevant to the actual value of the thought at hand.

[Fastidious Emanations]

That this/these illusions are/is entirely unnecessary, a frivolous and silly set of hurdles and obstacles;
Could we really come to a fuller appreciation of infinite possibilities without experiencing raw finite expression ..?
I would think so. Certainly I see no reason to assume the contrary.
..Thought thought.

[Spaced]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Both of you are free to address the actual proposition or continue a personal derision of my character that is irrelevant to the actual value of the thought at hand.

who are you referring to exactly? I can't see anyone attacking you.

[Horuseus]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Both of you are free to address the actual proposition or continue a personal derision of my character that is irrelevant to the actual value of the thought at hand.

who are you referring to exactly? I can't see anyone attacking you.

I think it was the association made with Rie's/Xise statement on intellectualisation (Avoidance/Distraction and Imbalance with rays) and seeing that as an assessment made on Adonai himself. I didn't see it that way personally, though I can see how it may have come across as such.

[reeay]

Yeah I got a note here inviting me to join a 'dance' here. The music and movements are the same so I am familiar with this dance.

[Fastidious Emanations]

lol wow we are a bored idea how such things come about.
the whole thing is food for thought it thinks

[Bring4th_Austin]

I don't see any examples of ad hominem in this thread. An ad hominem attack would be something like "This premise is incorrect because it came from Adonai One who is *insert irrelevant association here*."

The key factor is that the actual idea is not addressed, only the person making the idea. It is impossible to make an ad hominem fallacy if the person it is against is not referenced directly.

I saw xise discuss the logic of the OP. To discuss the logic the person uses when making an argument is quite the opposite of ad hominem because it addresses the formulation of the argument itself and attempts to remove the factor of the actual person making the argument. That is, no matter who makes the argument, if the logic is faulty then the argument is too. No ad hominem. Rie responded to xise's point without any indication she was referring to any specific person.

I think this is a totally appropriate way to discuss ideas. Though, if I am overlooking a derision of character, please pinpoint it.

[Adonai One]

I perceive an implication my assertion is simply an expression of over-intellectualization and escapism, which would be an ad hominem and does not dismiss my point. It's a way of perceiving why my point is made but not a way of disproving it.

While this might be a hidden implication, it's the most relevant intention. They are not necessarily wrong, just irrelevant.

Feel free to discuss my imbalances; however, that will only discredit my voice and not what comes from it.

Austin, erroneous or imbalanced logic can still produce correct conclusions. What you speak of is exactly an ad hominem.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I understand that you feel there was an implication that your point was invalid because you are prone to over-intellectualization. What I see is an argument that, from our third density point of view, we are prone to this type of behavior, and that your original point can be viewed in light of this tendency. I see no reason to think this point is about you specifically at all. Am I missing something that you are drawing this implication from? Please be specific.

[Adonai One]

Since the situation has been objectively laid out, I don't believe there is anything else that needs to be said. I simply wanted the facts of this discussion to be clear.

Thank you.

[Alex Zachary]

Adonai, keep calm and Trucendum !