The philosophical development in the 17th and18th century is spectacular.In France the development of rationalism, in England the development of a skeptical empiricism. In Fance as well in England we see the rise of materialism.
And then there is this bisshop.He is best known for his motto, esse is percipi, to be is to be perceived. He was an idealist: everything that exists is either a mind or depends for its existence upon a mind. He was an immaterialist: matter does not exist.
This may be one of the most disappointing lectures....I really dont know what to do with Berkeley. Just this weird theory: because all observations of the world are created in our mind, we can not be sure if our ideas really represent reality.
And then that move..that God is the one who creates our ideas. I really left this Deus ex Machina theory far behind. In my opinion Berkeley was the last straw of the clergy to hold. A lost cause..
Ok...Berkeley hits a nerve. In philosophy we hold the view that material objecs exist to us and independently of our sense experience.
Realism is thus opposed to idealism, which was Berkeley's position, which holds that no material objects or external realities exist apart from our knowledge or consciousnes of them, the whole universe depending on the mind or in some sense being mental.
To put it in more simple words...we perceive a real world....do we?...we only have perceptions...we only know the content of our mind. How can we deduce from that, that there exits something OUTSIDE our mind.
The big problem is...can things exist, when not perceived. There is an interesting analogy in relation to this debate. A baby of a two month old sees a red cude...he reaches for it. Then you put in front of his eyes a cloth over it, covering the object. He immediately has lost all interest in the red cube....it doesnt exist anymore.
Two months later you play the same trick with the little fellow...he cant be fooled then...After covering his nice red cube his hand grabs and seeks under the cloth to get the cube anyway.......he knows that, not even perceiving the object, it still exists..so go and get it.
I guess it is because I am mainly a materialist, that I really have little understanding for Berkeley. I think I reason, that we have knowledge is because there is matter that creates and generates our brain. I have difficulty with the view that there is our mind and we have to wonder about the question whether there exists a reality outside our brain or not.
We met the English, Bacon, Hobbes, Newton, Locke and Hume and Berkeley as a sidekick. Then there were the French...Descartes, Malebranche, Arnauld, Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot. A mix of materialism , rationalism and empiricism.
We are ready for something new...and this time the pendulum swings to Germany. Our next philosopher is definitely one of the most influential in his time and later: Immanuel Kant.
The Discussion
[13:20] Herman Bergson: So far on berkeley...:-)
[13:20] Herman Bergson: Shoot..^_^
[13:21] AristotleVon Doobie: I had an extreme difficulty with immaterialism. reading Berkly I thougth the matter may be abstract as long as you do not try to occupy its space.
[13:21] AristotleVon Doobie: then you see that it is real
[13:22] Osrum Sands: consider the nature of matter
[13:22] Herman Bergson: Helo Siena
[13:22] Herman Bergson: Have a seat
[13:22] Siena Masala: hi when I rez osrum
[13:22] hope63 Shepherd: i think the real problem is that there is confusion between understanding and existence..
[13:23] Osrum Sands: its just energy held in place by different forces / laws of nature
[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: he also advocated the size and shape were not parts of an object perceived
[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: to me that makes everthing the same
[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: does not make sense to me
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: i have a difficult time imagining how a person lives a life thinking there are not material objects around him
[13:24] Herman Bergson: Apart from all details..Berkeley really hit a philosophical nerve..
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: eating and drinking and taking care of the body
[13:25] Herman Bergson: Attacking the empiriscists ..he had a good cause in questioning the existence of a real matarial world..
[13:25] hope63 Shepherd: it would in a way if we acknowledge the fact that our perception is not an absolute perfect one.. far from it..
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: was it his desire to maintain the theological connection that gave him his credibility?
[13:26] Ze Novikov: and as a bishop his philosphy presents some interesting problems for protestant theology...
[13:26] Herman Bergson: Well Aristotle..that is why I cant deal with Berkeley..his Deus ex Machina...to justify reality and object permanence
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: I can only surmise that he was a loon
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: great
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: that settles that!!
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:27] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:28] Herman Bergson: But it is a real philosophical isssue, when you are an empiricist and claim that there is a real world out there
[13:28] Osrum Sands: Deus ex Machina ?
[13:28] Siena Masala: i am sorry but I missed the beginning of the lecture - however - are you talking about the quantum level of existance?
[13:28] Herman Bergson: The Deus ex Machina was a stage trick in 17 th century play..
[13:28] hope63 Shepherd: i forgot. but does he remind me of socrates'?
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: Who was that kicked a stone and siaid 'there, thats refutes Berkely'?
[13:29] Herman Bergson: Ah yes Ari..I know that one but not the name
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: and Berkely replied that the kicker probabley had an attack of arthritis when he felt the pain
[13:30] Herman Bergson: Just hold on for a sec...
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: anyway it sounded like a stand-up comedy routine
[13:31] Herman Bergson: a sec ..as I said...plz
[13:31] Herman Bergson: Siena..
[13:31] Herman Bergson: what is the quantum level of existance?
[13:32] Siena Masala: Herman - as I understand it material objects are 'frozen' immaterial energy forms - therefore this immaterialist fellow is correct
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: hmmm
[13:32] Osrum Sands: exactly nature of matter + material objects
[13:32] Siena Masala: quantum - 'quarks' are the theorectical matter that make up the protons within the atom
[13:33] Herman Bergson: Well..here we have a serious problem..
[13:33] Siena Masala: i say theorectical as they are not seen - however their effect is noticed
[13:33] Herman Bergson: slow down..:-)
[13:33] hope63 Shepherd: WE SHOUILD CALL CERN..
[13:33] Herman Bergson: The thing is...
[13:34] Herman Bergson: all these empiricists focused on what is in the mnd, caused by sensory stimuli
[13:34] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: is empiricism directly linked with phenomenology
[13:35] Herman Bergson: and Berkeley went one step further by saying it is only in the mind
[13:35] Herman Bergson: there is a relation Air
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: didnt he also believe in only 2 dimensions?
[13:36] Osrum Sands: 'only in the mind' then as Aris said "loon"
[13:36] Siena Masala: i attended a workshop held by a Cambridge Don - Dr Sheldrake who theorises that the mind is a 'field of energy' outside of the brain
[13:36] Siena Masala: :)
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: Yes, Siena I beleive that.
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: the mind and the brain are separate
[13:37] Osrum Sands: given
[13:37] Herman Bergson: a nice word..but to me these are just words Siena
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting
[13:37] hope63 Shepherd: come on.. the whole world is a field of energy.. thats no big statement..
[13:37] Herman Bergson: there is no emperical data that supports this view
[13:37] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: so Berkeley is a master of abstractions
[13:37] Herman Bergson: Yes he was..Air.:-)
[13:38] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: no concrete 'reality'?
[13:38] Siena Masala: words! his research centrers around the brain as a receiver and transformer which connects to the external field of information
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: yes but his abstaction reducing everything to 'vanilla'
[13:38] Osrum Sands: emperical data to support the world being a field of energy - is that what your saying Hermam?
[13:39] Herman Bergson: It i quite a different matter, but here we have the same philosphical problem
[13:39] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: 'matter' lol
[13:39] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: what is matter
[13:39] hope63 Shepherd: sienna.. the problem in philosophy is the transformation..
[13:39] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: you said it as abstraction
[13:40] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: i dont know what matter 'truly' is
[13:40] Herman Bergson: The neurologist looks at the brain..stimulate it or scan it..see areas activated when some one says I love you...
[13:40] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: neither did berkeley
[13:40] Herman Bergson: what do they see?
[13:40] Herman Bergson: Love..?
[13:40] Herman Bergson: braincells activated
[13:40] Herman Bergson: is love activated braincells?
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: I think Berkely embraced immaterialism so that God could remain at the center
[13:40] Ze Novikov: yes ari
[13:41] Herman Bergson: forget Berkeley Aristotle..:-)
[13:41] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: matter is perceived through subjective experience
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: materialisam which place the center in nature
[13:41] Herman Bergson: a lost case
[13:41] hope63 Shepherd: heramn.. i would say yes.. the braincells activating the body cells..
[13:41] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: but those experiencesd are not wholly trustworthy
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: especially if we all perceive differently
[13:42] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: yes
[13:42] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: that is the phenomenon of subjective experience
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: yet a hammer head to you thmb will feel the same to most
[13:42] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: is it a state of pain
[13:42] Osrum Sands: not necessarily Aris
[13:43] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: like a state of love
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: well it will caus material damage
[13:43] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: a figment
[13:43] Osrum Sands: consider pain thresholds
[13:43] Osrum Sands: ok
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: 'material'
[13:43] Herman Bergson: Ok..hold on
[13:44] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: you could be in pain before the hammer hits the thumb
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: Itsme
[13:44] itsme Frederix: ;)
[13:44] Herman Bergson: Hi Itsme
[13:44] Herman Bergson: But hold on..for we are discussing a few issues
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: but the disfigurement would still exist
[13:45] Siena Masala: yes let us keep to one topic
[13:45] Herman Bergson: first there is the philosophical question...how do we justify the existence of an external physical world, if knowledge is only derived from sensory experiences...sensations and ideas..
[13:46] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: what is the meaning of justice
[13:46] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: it is just as it is
[13:46] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: humans project meaning
[13:46] Herman Bergson: Second issue is the relation between the materail brain and the mind..
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: I submit that the skin is an excellent sensory device
[13:46] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: maybe the meaning is derived only in abstraction
[13:47] Herman Bergson: big issues..
[13:47] Siena Masala: herman - we know the existance of a physical world by the messages we recieve through our 5 senses
[13:48] Herman Bergson: No Siena....that is the problem
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: I think the sense of feeling is the proof for materialism
[13:48] Herman Bergson: the believe in a physical world is deduced from our sensory experiences
[13:48] Siena Masala: really ? explain to me herman how this is a problem
[13:48] itsme Frederix: sensory experiences are deduced from ..
[13:48] Herman Bergson: ok...
[13:49] Herman Bergson: common sense tells us there is a physical world ....
[13:49] Herman Bergson: sure..
[13:49] Herman Bergson: but epistemologically what do we really know
[13:49] itsme Frederix: individual sense
[13:50] Herman Bergson: The empiricists and later Russell and others said: we only have sense data...
[13:50] hope63 Shepherd: we know we are a phyical entity. otherwise we would not have a mind..
[13:50] Herman Bergson: like Berkeley did...we only have a conscious mind with sensattions nothing more
[13:50] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: is our mind limitless
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: unfortunately evolution is not egalitarian.
[13:51] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: what would berkeley have said
[13:51] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: in 'theory'
[13:51] Herman Bergson: dont interrupt me plz
[13:51] Siena Masala: we have earthly physical knowledge derived through the 5 senses - however I do acknowledge there is revealed knowledge (for the theological among us)
[13:51] itsme Frederix: there is no way out, if you're in you're stuck!
[13:51] Herman Bergson: again...
[13:52] Herman Bergson: we only have consciousness and a mind and ideas..to use Locke's word
[13:52] Herman Bergson: that is all..
[13:52] Herman Bergson: and Berkeley said too..it is all in the mind
[13:53] Herman Bergson: what you need is a logical deduction from what is all in the mind to a conclusion there is something outside the mind
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: ok ok so then when I die the universe ends.
[13:53] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: the blank slate
[13:54] itsme Frederix: Aristolre you're idea of the universe dies (do not know there is a universe)
[13:54] Herman Bergson: if you take it literaly Aristotle..yes..at least to your knowledge
[13:54] Herman Bergson: but all other minds continue to exist..so no universe dies..only yours
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: well I think not even If I think I am the center of the universe
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:54] hope63 Shepherd: but how do we know other minds exist..
[13:55] itsme Frederix: Herman what other mind, the one I imagine
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: because I am Hope thats how
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: I think
[13:55] Herman Bergson: Good question Hope..!!!!
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: therrfore I am
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:55] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: im out of my mind
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:55] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:55] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: im in someone else mind
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: I have to leave very soon!!
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: must stay in our minds LOL
[13:55] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: now i know other minds exist
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: which one of your 5 senses did you use to find out, Air..
[13:56] Herman Bergson: Wel..I dont know what you think...but again we really opened a closet of tons of philosophical problems
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: it takes no sensory perception to knowyou exist
[13:57] itsme Frederix: AIR you do not know, but its a convinient way of thinking
[13:57] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: our closet is full!!!!!
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: overflowing
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: that is the only thing I know that I am
[13:57] hope63 Shepherd: i'll put you into a coma ari.. :)
[13:57] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: i dont have a mind in the first place
[13:57] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: how do i 'know' if i have a mind
[13:57] Herman Bergson: Yes,,Gemma,,I agree..
[13:57] itsme Frederix: AR you killed us all!
[13:57] Osrum Sands: and you said Berkley had little to offer
[13:57] Ze Novikov: so thats the value then of Berkeley...
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[13:57] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: sorry
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: see you all next week
[13:58] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: we are all mindless im mindful of that all the time
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gem
[13:58] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:58] Herman Bergson: Yes..amazing...I really believed ths lecture would be less interesting
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: well it has proved to be diff
[13:58] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: how do i know that door is real for me to walk out of
[13:58] itsme Frederix: Herman I always thought this is the most exiting lecture you could give
[13:58] Herman Bergson: yes..very stimulating
[13:58] hope63 Shepherd: thanks to sienna.. she really got it started..
[13:59] Ze Novikov: yes ty siena
[13:59] Siena Masala: i want to return to this topic Herman
[13:59] Herman Bergson: Yes she did...^_^
[13:59] Siena Masala: you held it together very well i feel
[13:59] Herman Bergson: thnx..
[13:59] Herman Bergson: I am a philosop[her of mind
[14:00] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: was that a twinkle in the eye i 'sensed'
[14:00] Siena Masala: fhahha AIR stop being frivolous
[14:00] Siena Masala: hahhaha
[14:00] herman Bergson smiles
[14:00] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: frivolity is essential to all philosophers
[14:01] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: when they are not thinking
[14:01] Herman Bergson: Oh...good to know...thnx Air..
[14:01] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: im not using my mind now
[14:01] Osrum Sands: Herman some time back to said that all Philosophy is based on an untested propersition -
[14:01] Ze Novikov: lol
[14:01] AristotleVon Doobie: Siena, can you explain your 'revealed knowlege'?
[14:01] Osrum Sands: That being the sace how do you know he is wrong
[14:01] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: its a revelation
[14:02] Osrum Sands: or is his thought simply challenging your world view ?
[14:02] itsme Frederix: Ossum ;)
[14:03] itsme Frederix: Herman I think Ossum is right, each of us has to get clear with Berkeley's conclusion - in a way -
[[14:03] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: is the problem with berkeley is that he leaves us with no conclusions
[14:04] Herman Bergson: Well I think we have to make a clear distinction between common sense and analytucal epistemological discourse
[14:04] Osrum Sands: maybe there are no conclusions
[14:04] Siena Masala: 'revealed knowledge' is knowledge that cannot be assessed by any of the 5 senses - but is the product of a synergy and/or an external input from a superior intelligence
[14:04] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: accesile to scientific laws etc
[14:04] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: can we only have utter conclusions with material stuff
[14:04] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: immutable laws
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: so some supernatural intervention
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: ?
[14:05] itsme Frederix: Herman, but in that way you are wiping out a lot of philosophy
[14:05] Siena Masala: ok - i am working now on AI in SL and RL - in time to come will that AI think it made itself
[14:05] itsme Frederix: at least the value for life
[14:06] Siena Masala: that is a philosophical question that can be discussed hahaha
[14:06] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: alan turing set the benchmark
[14:06] AristotleVon Doobie: yes
[14:06] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: AI is dependent on reaching 'consciousness'
[14:06] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: the dilemma is what the definition of consciousness is
[14:07] AristotleVon Doobie: you speak of artificial Intelligence?
[14:07] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: herman do you think consciousness and intelligence are inseparable
[14:07] Ze Novikov: which takes us back to herman 's
[14:07] Osrum Sands: and what is thought
[14:07] Ze Novikov: point
[14:07] Siena Masala: yes
[14:07] AristotleVon Doobie: is there anything 'artificial' or 'manmade'?
[14:07] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: daniel dennett is an important philosopher in this area
[14:07] itsme Frederix: "off what thou can not speak remain silent"
[14:07] Herman Bergson: As a philosopher of Mind I love Ai
[14:08] AristotleVon Doobie: dont we just rearrange
[14:08] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: the AI in my namesake is the abbreviation of it
[14:08] Herman Bergson: But it doest answer the real philosophical issues
[14:08] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: so i love you too lol
[14:08] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: whatever love is
[14:08] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: can AI ever love
[14:08] AristotleVon Doobie: ahhh love, another dicussion
[14:08] Siena Masala: hahahah ok AI stop grandstanding
[14:08] Siena Masala: hahahha
[14:08] Herman Bergson: that is the point Air...how to program love in Prolog..
[14:09] AristotleVon Doobie: cant couch love
[14:09] AristotleVon Doobie: touch
[14:09] itsme Frederix: with a turtle
[14:09] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: what did Berkeley have to say about love
[14:09] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: he was celibate i suspect being a bishop
[14:09] Herman Bergson: I dont know..I dont love him
[14:09] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: no beating the bishop as it were
[14:10] AristotleVon Doobie: if anything is immaterial it is love
[14:10] Ze Novikov: lol
[14:10] Ze Novikov: an Anglican bishop
[14:10] Ze Novikov: no he was married
[14:10] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: love is but the illusion of the sexual instinct
[14:10] AristotleVon Doobie: hmmm
[14:10] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: he was irish
[14:10] Ze Novikov: indeed he was
[14:10] Herman Bergson: was he or was it only in his mind, Ze??? ^_^
[14:10] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[14:10] Ze Novikov: of the Church of ireland
[14:11] Ze Novikov: anglican
[14:11] Ze Novikov: not roman
[14:11] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: thats for the theologists to answer
[14:11] AristotleVon Doobie: I think Berkely existed to arouse us.
[14:11] Ze Novikov: yes
[14:11] itsme Frederix: I know its after class but I still think Berkeley makes a point!
[14:12] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: to awakens us as does all good philosophy
[14:12] AristotleVon Doobie: I think he does.
[14:12] itsme Frederix: and its not that amusing as it seems
[14:12] Siena Masala: you speak of love in the 'eros' sense but there are many types of love
[14:12] AristotleVon Doobie: an irrational point
[14:12] Siena Masala: filial - agape - philo - maternal etc
[14:12] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: but the idea still; holds
[14:12] itsme Frederix: well we got irrational values Aristotle
[14:12] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: yes you are right actually i concede that
[14:12] AristotleVon Doobie: best to get rid of those
[14:13] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: maybe the term love is so stretchable it it almost indefinably meaningless
[14:13] itsme Frederix: mmm what about pi, e ... aetc. very handy in real life / physics
[14:13] AristotleVon Doobie: no no affection is a marvelous gift
[14:13] Herman Bergson: Friends...this is ending up in a debating club..:-)
[14:13] Siena Masala: love is an emotion that is strechable - and does not lose its potency
[14:14] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: so 'says' the brain
[14:14] Herman Bergson: the subject today was Berkeley..
[14:14] AristotleVon Doobie: you are right Herman
[14:14] Ze Novikov: must dash ty all for a very interesting disscussion today...
[14:14] Siena Masala: thank you herman
[14:14] Siena Masala: i must go now
[14:14] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Ze cu
[14:14] Siena Masala: thanks so much
[14:14] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: Herman its been a pleasure
[14:14] Osrum Sands: cheers
[14:14] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Siena
[14:14] Herman Bergson: and while I thought he was a non issue..he shows to be a big stimulation for debate
[14:15] itsme Frederix: Herman because the guy raised an issue!
[14:15] Siena Masala: how do i joint this group
[14:15] Herman Bergson: so ..class dismissed and really thnx for this great discussion again
[14:15] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: he 'raised' it in our minds
[14:15] Herman Bergson: and allow me a special word of thnx for Siena..as Osrum said..it was all her fault
[14:16] Siena Masala: hahahah
[14:16] Herman Bergson: She started it..^_^
[14:16] Osrum Sands: was she the origional cause
[14:16] itsme Frederix: thx Siena for getting the issue!
[14:16] Siena Masala: yw
[14:16] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: i let loose once siena started the trouble
[14:16] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: siena was the troublemaker
[14:16] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: we like trouble dont we herman
[14:16] Siena Masala: :)
[14:16] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: its an interesting topic is trouble
[14:16] Osrum Sands: get the matches and burn her at the steak for dearing to think
[14:17] Herman Bergson: we are trouble Air..:-)
[14:17] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: philosophy troubles us all
[14:17] AristotleVon Doobie: did you get my IM Seina?
[14:17] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: religion to name but one example
[14:17] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: its conscious raising
[14:17] Herman Bergson: hey..no secret IM-ing in my class Air!!!
[14:17] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: whatever that means
[14:18] Osrum Sands: sorry
[14:18] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: oh sry
[14:18] Herman Bergson: Leave the girls alone
[14:18] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: it was a letter of apology
[14:18] Osrum Sands: Iming has been happening all the time
[14:18] itsme Frederix: o we do it all the time Herman
[14:18] Osrum Sands: you never set that as a class 'rule'
[14:18] itsme Frederix: like to join?
[14:18] Herman Bergson: just kidding..lol
[14:18] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: can we have a new amendment
[14:18] AIRevolvingEvolutionsDoorBY Schism: do we study the philosophy of law
[14:18] itsme Frederix: well we might IM in group-chat /!
[14:18] Siena Masala: yes thanks Aristotle i have joined now thanks for your IM and help
|
|
