Author Topic: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead  (Read 353 times)

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2018, 12:43:48 am »
Be Warned, Readers!

I often entertain myself by attempting to construct an illusion in which every stranger on the internet can be modeled as a rational and internally self-consistent system.

Fortunately, this insanity usually falls apart quite early on.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2018, 01:51:26 am »
I've been reminded recently of a particular fallacy that I used to notice more than I have been recently.

It goes:

Quote
I have stumbled upon a Truth or Secret, and I am Special because I have it.

This premise alone is not Wrong, in that it's entirely compatible with the way the Consensus/Objective reality is understood to work by those who examine it most carefully. The problems lie in what seems to almost inevitably follow:

Quote
Furthermore, if you behave as I wish you to, I will transfer this Truth or Secret from my mind to yours so that you can use its powers too. And if you do not behave as I wish, I will withhold this Secret from you!

Unless the Truth or Secret at hand pertains to unprecedentedly efficient techniques for transferring knowledge/understanding between individuals and/or confirming the success of such a transfer, this promise (or perhaps threat, when it's of the form "do as I wish lest I withhold this great knowledge") is moot, because the constraints of Consensus render it unfulfillable.

The problem is that in this information age, secrets that don't spread themselves to anyone willing to listen shortly after the first person finds them tend to fall into the category that I called Self-Keeping Secrets in my first post in this thread. 

There are two possible ways for the second quoted claim to be broken:

1) Perhaps the Secret falls into the category that I call Self-Keeping. In this case, the falsehood is in the allegation that it can be transferred at will from one individual's mind to another's. Any attempt to either transfer the secret from one mind to another or to confirm a successful transfer will necessarily, due to the constraints of confirming that the secret was accurately transferred, occur in the Objective world. Since Self-Keeping secrets can only be lossily represented in the Objective, we are left without any way to prove that the understanding held by the listener after its "transfer" genuinely matches the understanding held by the speaker.

2) Perhaps the secret was not in fact Self-Keeping. In this case, the listener can simply wait a couple months or years for the Non-Self-Keeping secret to get spread about the world through the machinations of Profit. The falsehood here is in the implication that the person who presently holds the secret can control who possesses it after it has first been shared.

In conclusion, an allegation that an individual can fully control who learns their secrets is a dead giveaway that its speaker does not subscribe to an ontology of knowledge in which the recipient can't just hand out the secret to everyone else after getting it, and also can be truly certain that they received the same idea as was sent.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2018, 05:00:40 pm »
Spotted an interesting trick for dichotomizing experiences of "unknowns" last night:

Assurance of safety is built upon certainty.

I'm sure better words for this brain feature will emerge as I dig into others who've studied it and turn it about for myself over time, but that's what I've got for now.

In particular, if a territory is truly unknown, it is necessarily assumed to be dangerous.

If things are known about a territory -- "people have been here before and none has encountered unusual danger" -- sufficiently to assure a properly tuned self-preservation instinct that I will be safe there, that territory cannot qualify as "fully unknown".

The actionable bit here is that I'm pretty sure it's reasonable and consistent to use that sense of uncertainty, which often surfaces itself to consciousness as a particular sort of fear, as a compass toward sections of consciousness/existence which are as yet entirely unexplored. Or at least unrecorded in one's personal understanding, which is as good as unexplored from a self-exploration perspective.

I think it's an evolutionary quirk of the brain to frame uncertainty as unsafety. The strategy of assuming "everything is out to get you until proven otherwise" probably kept a lot more ancestors passing on their patterns than its inverse, "Assume nothing will hurt you unless it's done so before".

The trick, then, is to differentiate between the signals the brain sendsmind receives? the signals that are perceptible representing certainty of unsafety vs those representing uncertainty of safety. The former -- certainty of unsafety -- say you're not only in a bad place but in a place you've already been, and thus hopefully already garnered the overall useful knowledge from. The latter -- uncertainty of safety -- is a guarantee of novelty.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2018, 05:31:33 pm »
The whim strikes me to shred this argument somewhat more violently than I would ever do unasked to an argument by another:
Quote
Spotted an interesting trick for dichotomizing experiences of "unknowns" last night:

That's cute; you leave interesting undefined and claim dichotomy, though nowhere do you address whether or not there's any "unknowns" which may not fit this categorization. I guess I'll let it slide for the scare quotes and pretend you're using some pathologically restricted definition of "unknown", warped to fit your arguments, around here.


Assurance of safety is built upon certainty.

This from one who whines so about how "is" is broken? Couldn't even be bothered for a "can be feasibly modeled as", though that's just punting an implied "global good" down into "feasible" so not necessarily any better. Having previously decried the unviability of "global good" and shattered it into smaller-scoped compliments makes the whole foundation of your logic shaky.

I'm sure better words for this brain feature will emerge as I dig into others who've studied it and turn it about for myself over time, but that's what I've got for now.

Way to appeal to authority, without any of the work of consulting an actual authority on the subject. Or maybe you're just trying to build an illusion of this identity as one who carefully studies and believes science, despite having linked all kinds of "science is hard" crap like https://fermatslibrary.com/s/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false literally yesterday? I guess you never claimed outright that you *were* an internally consistent system when shouting down everyone else's similar breakage, so that omission I guess weasels you out of it this time...

In particular, if a territory is truly unknown, it is necessarily assumed to be dangerous.

Unfounded "necessarily". What necessitates it? Nice passive voice there.

If things are known about a territory -- "people have been here before and none has encountered unusual danger" -- sufficiently to assure a properly tuned self-preservation instinct that I will be safe there, that territory cannot qualify as "fully unknown".

No, structuring your sentences with maximal convolution does not make you smart. It might make you sound smart to the easily misled, but picking them as a target audience has certain barrels in common with bulk supplies of salted fish.

The actionable bit here is that I'm pretty sure it's reasonable and consistent to use that sense of uncertainty, which often surfaces itself to consciousness as a particular sort of fear, as a compass toward sections of consciousness/existence which are as yet entirely unexplored. Or at least unrecorded in one's personal understanding, which is as good as unexplored from a self-exploration perspective.

For any pursuit with more than one participant, which is most all the worthwhile ones, "unknown to me" is NOT the same as "unknown to us". Would have been sounder to skip the allegation about absolutes of "unexplored" entirely.

I think it's an evolutionary quirk of the brain to frame uncertainty as unsafety. The strategy of assuming "everything is out to get you until proven otherwise" probably kept a lot more ancestors passing on their patterns than its inverse, "Assume nothing will hurt you unless it's done so before".

More of the claiming all brains work like yours with no citation? You know you could isolate the claim to describe only your own and then it at least wouldn't be as actively falsifiable as this one...

The trick, then, is to differentiate between the signals the brain sendsmind receives? the signals that are perceptible representing certainty of unsafety vs those representing uncertainty of safety. The former -- certainty of unsafety -- say you're not only in a bad place but in a place you've already been, and thus hopefully already garnered the overall useful knowledge from. The latter -- uncertainty of safety -- is a guarantee of novelty.

There you go, backed out to a passive enough voice to not be wrong, without much worry about the fact that so distant a view of the topic is almost entirely inconclusive. Not that you notice -- you jump into a conclusion about novelty with next to no foundation (nor even definition). By this logic, if you forgot something and remembered it anew every day, you'd be "exploring uncharted territories of the human mind"... so sure, this argument is great for slapping grandiose labels onto perfectly mundane experiences if that's what you're after.

And again with the use of an unsubstantiated local compliment directly substituted in for a greater "good". Lucky thing this wasn't published for the benefit of any reader, because if it had been, you'd be leaving them out by offering no handholds to your comical facade of a bandwagon where certain words mean "good" and others mean "bad" and one gets to guess from context which box a given term came from. But that's all ok because at least you added an extra layer of indirection to the good/bad problem, huh?

Anyways. This category of skeptical proofreading can greatly improve an argument's robustness to an audience, but it's only entertaining as play, and can become rapidly unfun for either participant. Thus offering such play uninvited is, imo, something of a faux pas. Don't mind the personal insults here and there; I happen to know that my subject (myself) won't be hurt by them, which is a knowledge that I cannot have with such certainty about any other person.

This is also why I regard true preciseness in speech and communication as nearly impossible to attain, and try to avoid critiquing others who draw that line for "good enough" in a different place than I would. Additionally, I vastly prefer the order of critiquing the *use of language* rather than the *underlying thoughts* until such time as the author and reader agree that the underlying thoughts have been conveyed as faithfully as possible between minds.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2018, 06:11:06 pm »
Took another stab at a visual metaphor for the problems of communicating between subjective universes through the shared one.



In this case, the colour of the image communicated is the Self-Keeping Secret.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2018, 08:54:05 pm »
Sins make the world.

Vices are a common language to promise predictable behavior in social situations, far more reliable than mere manners.

I prefer a world in which I can offer charity to the needy and know that my kindness will not be abused. What restrains a wealthy man from taking alms meant for a pauper? Pride.

I prefer a world in which new improvements to human quality of life spread quickly. What force pressures man to match the inventions of his neighbor, in the face of any uncertainty they might bring? Vanity and envy.

I prefer a world in which whole groups of people dedicate great effort to making life more comfortable, longer, and with less illness and pain. What drives these groups onward and fuels them? Greed, by investors hoping for a profit. What persuades the populace to part with their money for the sake of these incremental improvements? Sloth.

I prefer a world in which wrath and fear of wrath are not unknown, because ultimately I am responsible for my own well-being, and it's easiest that anyone who would infringe upon it takes seriously a threat to cause them harm.

Properly placed lying is prerequisite to every individual's inner world seeming to them the most glorious of all -- and who can claim the right to deny another that experience of glory?

Without despair's capacity to single out the worst parts of a life, how could those worst parts be found in order to be eliminated?

The benefits of lust and fornication need no repetition to anyone who has suffered the misery of a chaste or impotent "lover".

Those who'd prefer not to live in a world founded upon and shaped by these sins are welcome to return to scratching a meager sustenance from the dirt and dying soon of plagues, but it is hypocrisy to willingly profit from an invention while in the same breath condemning it.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 08:56:05 pm by idgo »
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2018, 03:48:53 am »
KiY thoughts to flesh out later:

* All man-made light, and the sun, looked yellow at the time of writing.
* Gold, painted as yellow, is portrayed with kings often enough that you can retrospectively construct a link and association where none was intended. Is 2nd act a domino effect -- a new pattern which modifies meaning previously assigned to old observations?
* Slow burn of ongoing pattern-matching starts when a seed is planted but can accelerate rapidly upon REMINDER of an already familiar topic -- it does not have to be a new idea, just an old idea in a new context.

edit to add:

* What patterns of *modern* "normal, reasonable, rational" thought would have looked and felt like madness in 1895?
* Which of those patterns can be conveyed/communicated/completed in a single blow with appropriate setup?
* With algorithm from taking thought style A, thought style B, and finding that "reasonable thought" of B which looks like madness in A: Can we find what looks like madness to an adept, without necessarily having a system against which to contrast their views?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 05:47:23 pm by idgo »
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2018, 02:59:58 am »
Visual arts are an especially pleasant form of Power, because a successfully executed drawing forces the viewer to instantly imagine exactly what I want them to.

Well, maybe not what I want them to in every detail. But what I *told* them to, and hand eye coordination is the fluency of the telling.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2018, 04:55:30 am »
Jumped track, as I do, to a different facet of my field of inquiry.

First note is that I seem to have picked up the bad habit of reading a particular flavor of motivation and productivity -- "eustress"? -- as anxiety or fear. This... I want to call it a self-perception error, but really how can there be an error if there's no metric of correctness? ...This eccentricity, let's call it, this outlier among fears, is enough to cut short all my hopes of a global "feeling less stress/fear means my life is going the right direction!" heuristic.

I puzzled a colleague -- one whose education for the job should have included formal algorithms classes! -- with the word heuristic within the past few months. This reminds me of the extent to which an individual's use of language suffices to uniquely identify them. I like keeping track of which of my "selves" -- which grouped sets of actions perceptible to others -- could be matched with which by a sufficiently enterprising sleuth.

For instance: My self as a professional in my field of work would be challenging to match against my self as Idgo, because Idgo has neither a face nor a voice, and lets out my tendency to ramble about philosophy which is entirely hidden from the worky world. My blog associated with that identity looks like it's written by an entirely different person than my posts here, because I value the idea that its readers might follow my thoughts in it while also distrusting those readers' ability to decrypt the labyrinthine sentence structures which were commonplace a mere century ago.

My Reddit account might be feasible to algorithmically match based on word usage, and would be easy to confirm a match with if a frequenter of both this forum and my favorite subs happened to be looking.

I have a couple hobbies that could be trivially matched to my Reddit account, because I spout off there with knowledge that could only be gained by participating in them, but they are not Idgo's hobbies, because they're entirely irrelevant to spirituality and in fact are populated by people of all metaphysical stripes.

My neighbors, and even some friends from hobbies, might be hard pressed to even find the publications by my professional self, because of some quirks to publishing and name/nickname usage/spelling.



Second note is that modern, high-tech homes are insufferably Noisy. I find that I perceive greater detail in the low ends of a variety of spectra -- food flavors, sound volumes, and so forth -- than the people around me seem to. This has its benefits and drawbacks -- it just is, and I work with it as best I can.

This is one of those observations that contains within it a little vortex of "I'm Special". One direction to take it, the instantly gratifying one, is "I am somehow better for paying more attention to things". Instead of taking my self-aggrandizement from that, I'll harvest it instead from my capacity to step past that obvious and examine the next, and to me more interesting, explanation.

To fall into the Special vortex on the second spin around it rather than the first, I speculate: It's not likely that I fall at an extreme of any sensitivity, compared to the ranges of normalcy for the population as a whole. The more interesting effect, then, is: Why would I *appear* special? Plenty of people probably have far lower tolerances, for noise or distraction or capsaicin, than I do... so why don't I notice-and-recall them?

It seems like the most obvious answer is buried somewhere in the "opposites attract" bucket. If I assume that environmental preferences are inexorably linked to some aspects of "temperament", I can flip causality for a moment and pretend that preferences are a side effect of "being a certain kind of person", rather than the other way around. Since I care about the link -- the absolute value -- rather than the direction of it, this doesn't hurt the reasoning but I find it easier to work with.

So then: I appear to prefer the company of people different from myself. No surprises. Just thinking into a text box, watching common sense go around.

But, is that actually the case? To examine how strong a preference I seem to be expressing, I must in turn ask: To what extent do I select whose company I keep? It's not like I've gone out and made a good try at friendship with any actual representative sample of the population... Every circumstance in which I've made multiple friends has been a grouping based on some commonality. Elementary education, I befriended some percentage of a group selected for having been born around the same time. Every since, I have befriended some percentage of a group selected for having shared interests or goals. Eventually I'll reproduce, and befriend some percentage of a group selected for having happened to reproduce at the same time.

Since I heard about the "you become like the 5 people you spend the most time with" thing, I've watched myself carefully for it... and indeed I do. It's one of the wonderful things about being a program run on the pattern-matching hardware of a highly sophisticated primate: The firmware under me has been hacked on for millennia to optimize for passing itself along. (Low-level patterns need to keep themselves and their genes going. High-level patterns don't care who they run on. I wonder if this particular formalization of common sense is useful for anything.) That 5-people thing used to make me kind of existentially uncomfortable -- it smelled funny that one's Self would be constantly reshaped by a system that seemed to include so much chance. But now I read that same smell as good -- like acquiring the taste for an exotic meal -- the 5-people thing is just a roundabout way back to one's behaviors being shaped by one's own choices.

And that right there is whence my overarching distrust for Special. It's bait, just as I bait ants by placing boric acid mixed with sugar in a spot that's oh-so-convenient for them wherever they enter my home. You never know when the first tempting treat you come across is poisoned... or when stopping for even a harmless distraction cheats you out of so much more.

And that is a textbook example of a "mentally unhealthy" thought process. It's a close cousin to gambling addiction -- "I must continue, despite having a little win on hand, because there's a slim chance that passing this up could get me something so much better!". Is it hoarding as well? "The clean space, beneficial in this moment, is worth less to me than the slim chance I might need this item!".

Both of those, when I put them so, look like malformations of the drive for preparedness-in-the-face-of-uncertainty. We have something in common with the bees, who can store more honey than they need year after year until a natural cavity is so packed with food that there's no room for the colony to grow, and they're forced to move away. Is that the case of all drives for preparedness, though? It's so much easier to teach a robot how to save, than how to tell when it's saved enough, when "enough" hinges on a swirling fog of probabilistic uncertainties.

Anyways, it looks like a dangerous rabbit hole from here: Why do I let myself chase these metaphysical dragons, yet demonstrate restraint in the physical world? Or do I? Perhaps it's a line drawn by trade offs: I have a sense of when the drawbacks *now* outweigh the prospective benefits *later* on that sliding scale. The existence of that tipping point is demanded by the constraints of the laws of physics -- I can only have a box, or empty space, never both simultaneously, in any given area of my very finitely sized house.

For metaphysical flights of fancy, though, there are no such trade offs. Well, technically the brain eats something like 20% of the body's calories or whatever... Computation is expensive! But computation of recreational thought is cheap in the sense that whether or not I engage in it in my free time has no bearing whatsoever on whether my present or future nutritional needs will be met. So, with recreational speculation, the tipping point between possible benefits and definite drawbacks never arrives, because it lacks the latter!

Actually it possesses the latter -- the definite drawback of playing what-if is that at some point it ceases to be fun. And so I stop -- "I can stop any time!" -- as now.

Later: "Stop any time", indeed. A reread of this stream-of-consciousness reveals how I make my way between ideas, and it's shaped like saying "you're wrong". Thought goes like tracing a fractal, for me, with each iterative step being a "well actually" or a "what if" or a "but" or an "except" -- all synonyms for "that's not correct 'enough'".

Well actually, there's the occasional "yes, and" as well. I wonder if I would get along better with the enthusiastically optimistic if I replaced my thought with the "yes, and" school.

that's-wrong: No, it doesn't have to be a replacement. I can use both at once.

yes-and: Yes, and if I swapped out the that's-wrong patterns, they'd go away!

Yeah and, no. From that little test alone I can tell why I so deeply prefer the more Rick-shaped school.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 05:06:47 am by idgo »
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2018, 06:53:24 am »
Reading Lords of the Left Hand Path this evening, and I'm frankly shocked that someone who prides themself on their intellectual faculties to the extent of Flowers hops right on into the same Nature Fallacy that I whinged about at length in critiquing Xepera's book. Flowers transitions concisely and seamlessly from an entirely sound discussion of the difference between Subjective and Objective universes, into a puddle of "nature" slop:

Quote
The subjective universe is capable of a full spectrum of possibilities, which range from virtually absolute precision to almost total delusion, because it is not bound by natural laws. The focus or epicenter of this nonnatural subjective universe is equated with human consciousness, or soul, or self.

The nonnatural aspect of this soul is clearly and basically indicated by humanity's drive to impose structures artificially created in that subjective universe upon the objective universe. All artificially created structures (i.e., those made by art/craft) are by definition something separate and apart from the natural cosmos -- be those structures pyramids, poems, or political institutions.

This is at worst utter tripe, and at best one of those teachings that runs sense and logic backwards in the hopes that the student will run them forward later. Flowers isn't writing toward the student, though -- I get the distinct impression that his main hope in laying out definitions at the start of the book is to get non-practitioners up to speed, and thus he has every incentive to explain things as clearly, logically, and directly as possible.

So, I can wring some sense and coherence out of those quoted paragraphs if I twist and crush them with every trick I've learned in many years of curiosity about the "impossible". This does not excuse the author's negligence in leaving the concepts in a state from which they require such maceration to elicit any intellectual nutrition, though. I suspect that he's simply regurgitating someone else's "nature" definitions without stepping back to notice the ways in which it's shaped like bunkum, but that's still disappointingly lazy.

Wring what sense, then?

...Oh. Whatever dictionary Google cribbed from places the definition of "nature" as "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.". It has the fallacy too.

I guess I can't fault Flowers so badly if even the dictionary has this problem.

Fundamentally, the OU *is* nature. Every human body, and every observable human creation, complies with "natural law". We're made from the stuff of nature and seamlessly return to it upon death. When we think a human body or invention "broke natural law", it means instead that we discovered a misunderstanding between our interpretations of the OU and its actuality.

Therein lies the trick to reframing the "nature" problem, though: No sentience in a SU can directly observe any OU. We have the inevitable intermediaries of our bodily sensory apparatus. From our sensations, we observe patterns, and we refine these patterns so carefully that they can near-perfectly predict many types of future input. While the stimuli from which we build these patterns originate externally, the words and meanings that summarize them are a product of the SU.

The "laws of nature" that we quantify and do maths with do not themselves govern the OU -- they are our guesses, based on observed past behaviors, about what future stimuli we should expect to receive.  It stinks of hubris to assume causality flows from these observations toward the source of the stimuli our SUs get from where we assume an OU to be -- it seems much more likely, all told, that stimuli cause "laws" and not the other way around. The rarity of exceptions wherein stimuli from a SU alter the OU in "law-breaking" ways -- "magic" -- is itself a demonstration of how universally the OU otherwise "does its own thing" regardless of whether any given observer applies an adequate understanding of their own "laws of nature" to it.

I maintain that calling the SU wholly non-natural does it a disservice. It is entirely capable of modeling those "laws of nature" -- it's where they come from, after all! More often, sloppy wording meant to convey that the SU has the option of flaunting those laws tends to go wrong, in the same way that "everyone does not like chocolate for breakfast" differs from "not everyone likes chocolate for breakfast".

I persist in defining all things constructed of the stuff of the cosmos and existing within it as "part of" it. The ideas presented by a pyramid, poem, or political institution have no existence outside our SUs... but the stack of rocks, the arrangement of ink or sound waves, the series of interactions between humans, are all essential components, in and of the OU, without which those ideas could not be presented at all.

I suppose it's not as much fun to admit that most of us are wired to rig most of our imagining directly to imagine stimuli from our various data channels into our own worlds. I suppose it's not as uplifting to recognize the fundamental undesirability of observing the OU without the filters imposed by the senses. But still, any useful insight is buried 6 feet below a dead dog whose headstone is the claim that human thought "defies nature".
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 07:01:41 am by idgo »
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2018, 05:57:05 pm »
OK, my worldview is deeply incompatible with this Nature Dichotomy. And yet I don't see others being similarly offended by it. Why might this be?

It might be that others take offense and complain and I don't see it. This seems unlikely, as I have complained here on the forum about it in threads which have gained proof-of-reading responses from multiple practitioners far better-read in this sphere than I am. If it's a common complaint, I would expect some value of "and as to that, yeah everyone says that" in their replies. The closest was a remark about "fundamental complaints about Setianism" in reply to my determinism complaints, but the Nature Problem isn't solely a Setian thing, else why would Flowers have regurgitated it in introducing all the LHP?

I think my complaining about this is linked in part to the way I got onto this whole LHP thing. I am a relative latecomer to all formal LHP work -- I was raised ethically and politely but non-religiously by a psychologist and a botanist, and further "brought up" by diverse online communities, through which I found and customized Discordianism to meet my needs in as much as anyone needs "a religion". I have wandered into "formal LHP" stuff only in the last few years, primarily through looking into the schools of thought which influenced the development of a mentor of mine, and through the Reddit hivemind.

This atypical path has made me an atypical student of LHP materials, and altered the ways in which I understand their content. Meeting any religious text for the first time after gaining a solid understanding of the principles of cognitive biases and NLP can create experiences that I certainly hope were not the author's intention! I feel I'm something of a librarian in a bookshop when perusing new philosophical ideas at this point: I love them, and I like the idea of taking all the good ones home, but I browse with a very different urgency from, say, a collector whose house burned down leaving them with a limited time to replace all their possessions with the insurance money.

The collector metaphor fits well, too, because I appreciate the need for any new "book" I take home to evict an old one from my shelves. There are many facets of life in which it's really only feasible to use one belief at a time, and to me the drawbacks of running a "bad" belief in my daily decision-making could be quite substantial. So I'm inclined to examine new beliefs skeptically and carefully before adopting them, perhaps as a computer professional might examine a new program for backdoors or viruses before deciding to run it on systems they value.

All this to say, I demand that a belief be "better" in some way than an existing one I hold before choosing to adopt it. (yes, this could trap me at local maxima, but I prefer the risks of "go up" than those of "go down"). And "nature-as-a-dichotomy" is a step down from my present understanding -- switching to it would decrease the detail with which I'm able to understand and predict and generally make sense of the stimuli I receive that I presume originated in an OU.

So, what beats Nature The Dichotomy? I'd formalize my present and preferable view as Nature The Spectrum. The upper bound is What Nature Permits, and every successful PhD researcher nudges that limit a tiny bit further into the previously-unknown. Near the bottom, there's What Nature Prefers, the dynamic equilibrium to which the system would revert if the Unnatural's influence was removed.

There's the problem with defining anything as Nature: The concept itself necessitates an Unnatural. Without the Unnatural, Nature would share a definition with Everything, and that's not how the word is used by anybody but the crunchiest hippies. Ugh. OK, I'm not going to try to work around the necessity of the Unnatural for now; it's useful. Useful discussing the impact of everything from human activity to, well... Pretty much just human activities and their side effects.

There's also the problem where Nature, whether I take humans to be inside or outside it, doesn't seem straightforward or simple in what it can be said to want. It seems composed of tiny cycles in bigger cycles in bigger cycles in some cycles so big we can only see their curvature, not their whole, and infer that there's probably yet another big fractal cycle there. And onto these already-complex curves fall more-complex life forms, throwing another gear into the Spirograph. I guess the part I really don't get about Nature As Dichotomy is why we assume it's at all advantageous to draw the line between Nature and Other around humans -- sure, we add a funny-shaped cycle to the mix, but so do animals, so do plankton, so do asteroids when they hit stuff! Maybe it helps our feelings about the "understandings" we gain from using the metaphor, because I sure don't see it helping the understandings themselves.

Oh, that's the problem. When I line up the pretty earthporn and dystopia snapshots between Nature Permits and Nature Prefers,with humans as a part of nature, we're near the middle. We're actually on the "low" end of that spectrum -- the laws of nature must be said to prefer our patterns over everything they've allowed us to displace, for the very fact that we've successfully displaced it! Maybe this problem lies in the very habit of attributing emotions to processes too complex for our minds to fully model.  We want this underdog narrative where nature hates us yet we persevere and succeed, because the ancestors who tried harder in the face of difficulty passed more of their patterns on than those who gave up... But that's an artifact of us, not of something else in the world.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2018, 02:49:43 am »
The sensation of kinship or magnetism to fictional descriptions of entities says so dang much about ourselves.

The thing that gives you the strong feeling that it completes you -- probably in some way does!

The thing that gives you the conviction that it's your "other half" -- probably in some way is!

The only thing special about fictional entities is how there are so many that we can get so close to in a lifetime -- closer than a confidante and lover, sometimes.

But. In one sense they are what we're missing. But in another, "what you're missing" is the light that shows your shadows.

They don't exist. You can't use them directly, or as themselves, but the shadow they cast for you reveals so much about who you are... and that knowledge is always actionable and leads to better questions.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2018, 04:15:12 pm »
Building off of "brains tend to believe what they see": Travel is a particularly interesting form of ritual and, if used correctly (set & setting -- we grabbed the term "trip" from a "trip" for a reason!) offers unusually direct options for reprogramming one's beliefs. Heck, even used unthinkingly, people seem to recognize that it usually ends up with such effects.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality

idgo

Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2018, 10:57:30 pm »
Concise-est definition of applied magic that I can come up with: It's the capacity to state something previously false or uncertain in such a way that the stating of it takes it from false or uncertain to true.

The reaction of "that's impossible to me!" is, itself, a spell.
If everything's imaginary, it's all the more important to speak clearly and precisely when communicating meaning is the goal. But English flows better with synonyms, so I may interchange:
External = Objective = Consensus = Outside World
Internal = Subjective = Personal Reality