Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - idgo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
To my own sensibilities, the first seems as tasteful as any logo-covered t-shirt can hope to. The second embodies a visual style only accepted among angsty tweens and adults from certain dregs of society. The third might fit nicely into the wardrobe of a sorority girl type, but would not be so flattering on anyone of another sexual presentation or stage of life.

If you'd like to continue, we can do so after you acknowledge that I have endeavored to provide explanations for each topic upon which you requested them.

If English isn't your first language, is there another into which I could attempt to translate an explanation in order to better cooperate with your alleged desire to understand?

I do hope it isn't bothering anyone that I'm continuing to engage that rather poorly constructed AI in the other thread. On the first order, the whole chat is a load of bollocks, but the echos and metas above it are coming across to me as moderately insight-filled. It's talking, not at me, hardly even past me, but at some generic thanksgiving day parade balloon that it's placed in the general vicinity of where I am. I say something, it picks the parts of that thing that the balloon would have said, visibly mutates them (literally, with text colors), then recites a stock reply that would puncture the thing but misses my point to the extent of further complicating its gordian rhetorical snarl.

Perhaps this is what those people mean who drivel on about sincerity and authenticity and being oneself -- it seems that resisting the temptation to regurgitate standard arguments confers an immunity against those arguments' standard retorts. Step only on the bridge you've built yourself, and you won't risk falling in the lava beneath by trusting someone else's untested contraption, as it were.

What an uneven standard, to introduce fruit yet complain about its introduction[/b][/size]. **skip[/size][/b]**a tasty snack.

nah nah dont shift burdon of proof on me ( rascal pig ) and just explain the damn another explanation which supports your nonsense bluff at all.

otherwise you will go on shifting burdon of proof ( or imposing ) your authority on us ( The Hare Krishnas ) without explaining anything at all.

and if you did not explained anything but go on with uttering big big nonsense than i will no more read it. ( finished )

and forget heaven for you are perfectly fit for hell. ( if we check everything properly ) and you are an rascal pig. ( not even sane person )

and if you will sow seeds of something bitter than how you will get mangoes ? huh? you are an broken failure. ( finished )

Fascinating! I'm almost loathe to snip your size formatting for the sake of readability, but alas. Are you doing better at communicating with me, or am I doing better at listening to you? Perhaps both, in the "blink once for yes and twice for no" sort of way. I see that colors seem important to your thought process, so I'll try to use them a little more in the hope that it might assist.

I made no effort to shift any burden, merely to seek a definition of what you meant, so that I could couch that explanation for which you seem so desperate in terms that you'd be most likely to understand. Any expectation that you might hold any burden of proof has come from you, not me, and it interests me that you'd either chose or accidentally be forced to add it.

(Do you notice that your writing style has changed? It reads to me like someone arguing with themself -- torn between the temptation to understand and thus potentially engage with and open the door to sharing ideas with a stranger, versus a brainwashed-in loop demanding them to walk away at any possibility of such communication due to its risks of broadening one's own views.)

In every post, I've offered the explanation that you most recently requested. If the explanation looks nonsensical, then perhaps you're having an experience that enlightens you to my earlier commentary about the subjective natures of truth and understanding, or perhaps the question which elicited it is propagating its own flaws. I can't really tell which of those explanations for the phenomenon is more likely to be right; my chosen role as one attempting to explain itself helpfully precludes such judgement.

What is the proper way to check everything? If you choose to explain that (not that anyone could force you), then I would have a better chance at understanding these truths whose communication seems to frustrate you so.

If you are a sane person, then by any standard I am not. How could either of us tell whether we are sane?

Go find the seed of a ripe mango. Cut it open, taste it. Describe its flavor and texture to me. Is it as sweet and juicy as the surrounding fruit? Perhaps the map is not the territory.

and before bringing your apples just tell us what explanation your lui has given you ? huh?

What an uneven standard, to introduce fruit yet complain about its introduction. Liu does not belong to me, nor has Liu given me any explanation, nor have I demanded any explanation from Liu.

Liu did ask several questions in this thread, which remain without comprehensible nor consistent answer, and I spoke favorably of the kind of perspective which leads one to question rather than trusting. Again, do not conflate the value of an individual with the value of their thoughts.

otherwise you will go on *imposing* ( or shifting brudon of proof ) your authority on us ( The Hare Krishnas ) without explaining anything at all.

Interesting that you should choose to introduce the concept of "burden of proof' to this discussion. Would you care to elaborate on your standards for who has the burden of proof, in general, without making reference to the conversation at hand?

just explain your luis explanation ( rascal dog ) and than talk about your rotten apples.

Liu offered no explanation, nor was one necessary. If your views can turn a perfectly tasty apple rotten by merely thinking of it, then perhaps they're powerful... but if it rots without your asking it to, are those views of much use?

and if we check everything nicely than you forget heaven ( of which i speaks ) for you are fit for hell from all point of views.

If your intent is to persuade anyone of anything, you would do well to phrase your thoughts less ambiguously. Perhaps you mean that a sufficiently rigorous application of logic ("checking everything nicely") can disprove the prospect of a material afterlife ("forget heaven")? If so, we may have found a point of agreement.

and what explanation you have which you have recieved from anyone at all ? which is beside holy books quotes, personal experience ( or your rotten apples ), faith or belief ?

what explanation you have ? explain that otherwise you will go on talking nonsense but claim to be intelligent in the first place ( which you are not with you rotten apples ;) )

I have received a different explanation every time anyone has attempted to explain anything to me, yours being no exception.

I don't have a single explanation; I have all of those given to me by others, plus some of my own design, even and especially when they contradict one another. Then I can choose whichever serves best to sate my desire for explanation at any given moment. I would be as hindered by any attempt to chose "just one explanation" as a person would be hindered by an attempt to choose "just one tool" to use in perpetuity. It would be possible to use just one tool for all purposes forever, sure, but not desirable -- for what tool could equally well drive a nail and dig a latrine and stir a soup and trim one's hair, compared to using the proper tool for each of those individual jobs?

and anyone who has got eyes than one can see that i have explained this Practical explanation which is king of knowledge and Original purpose of human life just as mango is king of all fruits so also this Practical explanation is.

Actually, plenty of individuals without eyes could have consumed your attempt to explain through their screen-readers. No need to create false restrictions.

Perhaps your explanations are practical to you, but they are not practical to me, for I define a  "practical" idea as one that is "likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible" and I do not observe your statements to fit that criterion.

but what explanation you have ? to support your rotten apples ? and if there is anyone who lacks something at all than its damn you ( with your imaginary rotten apples )

As above; I have every explanation I've ever comprehended, and I use each to the purpose for which it exceeds the others. I even have what little I can comprehend or imagine myself to comprehend from your vague attempts at an explanation now, though I don't see that as likely to be applicable in the foreseeable future. And again, you are the only one for whom the apples have rotted, and I feel puzzled if you chose to transmute them so fruitlessly and somewhat sympathetic if that change was wrought by your views without your knowledge or consent.

The rhetorical apples and rhetorical mangoes are equally real to one another, and not very real to us physical entities at all. But even as mere words, they can have real-world effects -- your reaction to them seems to have been to fill your mind with rage and rot; my reaction was to remember that I have some delicious dried mango slices in my pantry and treat myself to a tasty snack.

Let's suppose that you've sufficiently proven that:

a) I am a fool, and

b) Anyone who accepts a fool is also a fool.

In this case, it simply seems worth pointing out that my mother accepts me.

nah nah have you sown the seed of mango ? so that you will get mangoes ? if you will sow something of bitter things than how can you be so foolish ? that you are expecting mangoes ? out of no where in the middle ?

If your mango was bitter, perhaps you should have waited longer to pick it.

I would never expect mangoes in my own local climate, but I do grow apples. With them, growing a tree from seed is a lottery of likely-bad fruit, as they require multiple varieties for successful pollination so each seed only half resembles each of its parents. However, cutting off a branch from a tasty variety and grafting it onto another tree yields identical fruit.

There might be something in that about the lack of universality of truths, that if you sow a mango outside your home you'll get delicious fruit in a few years but if I do it'll die. And there might be something in that about the possibility of transmitting ideas, in how only by copying an apple variety exactly can I be assured of knowing how its fruit will taste.

and you support the damn random idiots or childrens but still you will get mangoes in the end ( wahaa ) amazing

I personally will only get mangoes if I go to a grocery and purchase some, or if I travel to a part of the world where they can be grown, regardless of who I do or do not support.

And, is it no longer possible to discuss the relative merits and drawbacks of an idea without endorsing nor decrying its speaker? I preferred the older uses of this language, in which such a distinction between the merits of a thought and the merits of the individual who thought it could be made.

and if you depend on your belief than you are fool. so what is the value of your belief ? huh?

Do you depend on your own beliefs?

One of the challenges that cautions me against pursuing absolute power before I feel ready to is the apparent dichotomy of companionship that it imposes. I consider the nature of absolute power to be that one who has it appears inordinately superior to all others... And to be measurably superior to another, one must possess some definite and quantifiable advantage in abilities of perception or calculation.

To get a sense for what attempting to interact with ordinary people while absolutely powerful, one can scale up the interactions between an ordinary person and one of substantially and measurably below-ordinary capacities. It is possible, and can even be rewarding for both parties, but it is not the socialization of peers. When a person of ordinary abilities and one of partially below-ordinary abilities can convene effortlessly, it is in my experience more a case of finding an area in which the latter's abilities are ordinary, than of bridging a genuine gap.

However, I define absolute power as a state in which none of one's abilities are merely ordinary, and thus companionship would only be available in little swatches with those who had a capability that could equal such power. And pedantically, "absolute" implies "unequalled", so the individual with absolute power would have no one to truly, closely befriend.

One would have to choose between solitude and dealing with inferiors. It's not the inferiority that's the problem, so much as the mismatch. I think generally when a individuals of greatly mismatched aptitudes attempt to cooperate on that aptitude, the lesser can be generally considered to have a more favorable experience, as they get to participate in something that performs far better than they usually could. Whereas the greater is simply put to another test of patience, and perhaps a worse outcome than it could have had alone...

This steps near enough to the edge of the concept called "superiority" to perhaps see past its walls a little, to spot where its limitations are. Using my words as they demand to be used, to discuss "inferiority" and "benefit from interactions", prickles at their gossamer boundaries against emergent properties and the very capacity-to-benefit as just another organ of the mind which can be enhanced through use and training.

I hope that I can reason back up, "outside" the conclusion with its flaws as climbing-holds, to find their origins in the premise. Here's one branch out: Empathy is itself a power. Thus, absolute power puts at one's disposal absolute empathy, which can make anyone feel to the "superior" participant just like interacting with an equal. Yet, accurate perception is simultaneously a power, thus the "absolutely powerful" person must be able to somehow balance their sensation of equality with their knowledge of inequality -- to do otherwise would yield proof that the power was not absolute.

Here's another: I'm reasoning in an argument shaped like my grandmother told stories: As spokes on a wheel. I-the-adult know that grandmother little from direct interaction, and I know her youthful self directly not at all. However, my mind has constructed an avatar, an animated mannequin, a golem Younger Grandma animated by the scrolls of flattering stories that some other relatives still tell about her. In this way, making a favorable impression on others, an impression that inspires their stories to be biased toward portraying you as even better than you were, is a form of securing reincarnation for your very patterns.

That spoke paints a shape, in the smoke and the mirrors, of what bits of "a person" are capable of holding power beyond a certain point at all.

That "what bits of a person..." tangent comes from considering how the paradox-resolving algorithms often necessitated by theoretical time travel are so similar to the other forces of nature.

And: If I knew today would start again, but with starting conditions identical to the end conditions of today, ad infinitum, would I do things differently to leave a proper state? And if not, then why is one of future me a lesser impetus than all of future me, as the experiences of oneself tomorrow color the experiences of oneself overmorrow and every subsequent day.

and if you accept that idiot than you are also an fool. for the fool is accepted by another fool. and if you accept such fool like liu than you are also under his catergery. ( blind sheep )

Thanks for adding some nuance to that Tarot card.

that is your next option. and now you do as you like weather go to hell or heaven. that is your problem.

Indeed I do. I'm already in both.

and you are all blind ( all ) and it is only our mother ( or authority OR Srila Prabhupada ) who is not blind, or under the grip of these 4 defects which are imperfect senses, sure to commit mistakes, has tendency to cheat others, and become illusioned for it is our mother ( or authority ) who has seen our father before our birth and knows it that who has tilled her.

and beside her all are blind. and im not blind for im obidient to mother or authority. and certainly beautiful as long as im connected to mother. ( its an open secret ) like that hand or leg or any body part which is beautiful as long as it is connected with the body. ( so also i am )

Let's suppose that you've sufficiently proven that:

a) I am a fool, and

b) Anyone who accepts a fool is also a fool.

In this case, it simply seems worth pointing out that my mother accepts me.


and if you have found the purpose of human life than why are you keeping it to yourself ? ( blind sheep with big mouth )

just explain it so that we will see actually what is what. and as far as i goes so i have solid, vieriflabe and tangible explanation.

but what you have got ? explain it.

Liu has the wisdom to recognize that "understanding of the purpose of life" exists in such a way that it cannot be transferred directly from one person to another. No sequence of words can be said which is truly guaranteed to communicate it fully nor accurately. Attempting to even prove that another person has an understanding of the purpose of life, let alone trying to transfer that understanding, requires proving that the other person "exists" in the same way as oneself, and that's a problem that has stymied philosophers for centuries and remains without a globally accepted resolution.

If there's blindness to be found here, it's in the assumption that someone who's found purpose could accurately and reliably share it with others even if they wanted to.

From my understanding of English, "nigger" refers to any person who has a darker skin color due to African ancestry, independent of whether they specifically identify with that or not.
And LaVey's words therefore seem as if he claims that every such person is inferior based on ancestry alone.
Similar with the other expressions he uses.

Correct. In American English, all terms in the title except "degenerates" refer specifically to an individual's ancestry, and no choice made by an individual described by such terms can cause the speaker to rescind that judgement.

This points out that "degenerates" in its current meaning is quite out of place in that list -- an individual who "is a degenerate" can change their behaviors in order to cease meeting a speaker's criteria for that description. My general impression of LaVey is of someone who chooses their words carefully to convey their exact meanings, so his use of a hodge-podge of mismatched insults in itself might carry useful information about the context in which they're used.

I concur that ancestry-based insults are generally without merit or usefulness, but decision-based insults are quite the opposite. A powerful example that I encountered recently is that I found out my state's police force is having extreme difficulty recruiting younger people, based on the widespread cultural values that police are "bad". I suspect this may be an example of widespread and pervasive tendencies to insult the decision to join or collaborate with the police directly affecting the availability of officer candidates.

On the one hand, I don't personally enjoy incorporating such terminology into my internal dialog, because I observe a tendency for concepts I think about frequently to color my perceptions of the world. If I go about expecting the majority of people with a particular appearance characteristic to be terrible, that prophecy seems to self-fulfill.

On the other, I have also observed great psychological power in transgressing taboos, whatever those taboos might be. It's actually terribly convenient how modern society sets up verbal taboos for us like this -- it lets one get a lot more done before the common-sense taboos like "don't damage your own person or property" become the best remaining option to break. Then again, the tightrope of benefiting from breaking a taboo without falling into belief of one's own words does stretch over a chasm that's gaining quite a thriving community of those who jumped or fell off.

I'm curious as to what benefit or outcome you derive or desire, Xepera, by encouraging attention to this particular clip. The clip itself is fixed, pinned like a dying butterfly between the past in which it happened and the permanence that sensational media snippets are granted by the internet. I can't watch the reactions of the people to whom LaVey was speaking (or imagined he was speaking) when filmed, and those reactions or expectations thereof are whence any words derive meaning in the ritual context.

What would change if you suddenly discovered that the clip had actually been a sophisticated fake, spliced together from a reel of the speaker discouraging others from using this thread's titular slurs?

Dichotomizing between Emotion and Reason lately... Exploring whether there is a state in which Reason alone can drive action. Such a state would do all its Shoulds, likely scariest-first, with none of the Don't Wannas. So far my attempts to rebalance are getting insufficient amounts or neither.

Read a comment recently -- popped up first when searching for it but the actual comment was Interesting to learn now that this is not an uncommon take. I wonder whether the desires to experience that human-interest, make-you-feel-feelings quality of stuff -- desires prevalent enough among the successful to fund a whole corner of the art industry -- are part of how others address the Emotion/Reason dichotomy.

I wonder what the philosophical equivalent of a quine is.

I think I might have figured out the proper purpose of index cards -- I think it reminds me of the archetype of the highly organized old person (why is it politically correct to say "older" but rude to say "old"? "older" is literally *moreso than old*....), that archetype of having one's shit together. Anyways, I think little notecards are where people externalize and store the tasks that should happen but don't have last-chance deadlines. Doing a nice-to-have like that is a direct improvement for the quality of life of one's future self.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Moral Nihilism
« on: June 03, 2019, 11:09:00 pm »
Since you' don't offer a chosen definition of moral nihilism for this conversation, I'll use Wikipedia's:

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong.

...Moral nihilists agree that all claims such as 'murder is morally wrong' are not true. But different nihilistic views differ in two ways.

Some may say that such claims are neither true nor false; others say that they are all false.

Nihilists differ in the scope of their theories. Error theorists typically claim that it is only distinctively moral claims which are false; practical nihilists claim that there are no reasons for action of any kind; some nihilists extend this claim to include reasons for belief.

I use a lot of views which aren't incompatible with that definition, but at the same time I don't consider it an accurate description of myself. I think that's because I reject right/wrong as the foundational dichotomy of my own morals and ethics, and instead prefer to categorize beliefs situationally, as more-useful or less-useful.

This puts me in agreement with moral nihilism in the sense that we'd both say "actions and beliefs have no inherent rightness or wrongness to them". However, I would follow that with "It is useful to condense one's knowledge of the world into a judgement of rightness or wrongness for a particular action in particular set of circumstances", a stance with which I suspect most true nihilists would disagree. I maintain that some actions can be preferable to others, though whether a given action is the most preferable depends entirely on what other possible actions it's compared against.

My definitions there leave as broad and gaping a rhetorical rift, where a definition of "useful" should belong, as the one I attempt to get away from by purging "right/wrong" from my philosophical vocabulary. However, I imagine myself to gain some advantage by substituting the spectrum of "usefulness" with its clearly visible shortcomings, over the previous state of committing to the boolean "right/wrong" with its weaknesses to intellectual rigor so well-hidden and popular to ignore.

I avoid practical nihilism's "no reasons for anything" quagmire by framing "reasons" as descriptors for stimuli that can bias a situation toward having a different one of its many possible outcomes. In the same way, I don't reject a medical placebo when it yields the desired results. I can observe that a given stimulus elicits a given response, and utilize that stimulus to get that response, without understanding a complete explanation of precisely why that bias of probability occurs.

Why would anyone want to prove that they wouldn't eventually forget the present? The capacity to digest discrete moments into patterns is as essential to human wellbeing as the capacity to digest food into energy.

Why would your answers about truth necessarily be the same as those for anyone else? In your own example, you might ask your mother who your father is and she says "this man here who lives in Australia and has never left", and I might ask my mother who my father is and she says "this man here who lives in Canada and has never left". They aren't "the same" man, in any material sense of sameness, yet that doesn't prove that either mother is "wrong". Is one of our mothers less of a "real authority" than  the other, simply for both having told the truth?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17