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 - LuciferX

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 131
LuciferX you're right in a distinct sense. A lot of mystics claim that the soul is without inherent gender. It's most common in reincarnation mythology, which I suspect most of the early church held as doctrine until the meddling of Theodora under Emperor Justinian.. I think. Would have to go double check. See if karmic laws still applied after one's "salvation" then a bunch of imperial debauchery starts to make one seem... insincere spiritually. Look up "monophysite heresy" for more.
Right-on.  I find this very interesting.  Without leveraging the political aspect, perhaps we might invoke Tertullian to reconcile the whole mono-dyo disjunction with a dose of trinitarian doctrine, which would tend toward resolving these differences in a synthesis that perhaps even radically changes the very nature of "before and after", as it also may have done to above and below.

So I got a hair up my butt after Nigel linked to this article on FB.

There was a specific point made about there being NO teachings from Jesus in the Gospels, and this sort of hit a sore spot for me. My question centers around a small but possibly very significant use of language that may be a fairly huge thing. Here's the write up as I have it down for now.

As to sincere opinions please fire away. I'm not attached to the perspective quite so personally as I used to be. I DO want to construct this from within the Christian perspective ultimately, but that's on me.

I sympathize with the author on pretty much every point, but one of them is very close to the heart of the matter in terms of factional strife.

"I’m tired of reminding you that the number of times Jesus spoke about gender identity and sexual orientation in the Gospels—is zero."

This is not strictly true. In Matthew ch19 from about verses 8-12 Jesus lays down some pretty severe teaching about the spiritual consequences of divorce and when folks be like "That sucks! Better to never marry" Jesus basically says "Yup!" and goes into a bit about eunuchs as an aside.

 As far as Jesus' actual teachings clearly went he says abstinence to focus on the spiritual exclusively is best, but, hey, clearly not for everyone. He uses that to approach the subject of the eunuch then delineates the three basic sorts, those so born, so made by others, and some very few who are able to give it up as a spiritual sacrifice, in that order. He makes a point of showing that the status can be inherent, placing it first in description, but spoke most of the willing sort, and barely mentioned the usual kind in the middle. This matters as it demonstrated unmistakably through his language that he was least concerned in his message with the most usual sort of the subject. Yet he only meant "eunuch" in its most common form here say the scholars of "Christianity"!
I do wonder about that.

There's longstanding, highly predictable, argument against this passage possibly applying to homosexuality. The fact is they're correct that Jesus wasn't talking about that... overtly. If he had they'd have stoned him then and there, and he knew that damn well. They try a few times in other places, most notably when he declares "Before Moses was I AM" speaking the forbidden name of God in reply to a Pharisee's challenge of his authority to interpret the law. Christian doctrine states this was him claiming to be God, but there we now differ. I think he was merely stating the simple, terribly dangerous truth. God's authority is greater and older than Moses' law, and so any use of the law that is counter to Love and Truth has none of God's authority, but I digress.

It's worth noting that the Greek word for eunuch is derived from the words for "bed" and "owner" implying all of the sleeping alone a eunuch does. That's in Strong's Concordance if any question that interpretation.  Given Jesus' sense of wordplay and the unapproachable nature of the subject, I'd say "one who's bed is their own" could well describe the person of (then) unorthodox  gender or sexual orientation in a sublime fashion. It follows that if a person can be so born then God must have made them so, and loves them as such. From there we can see that the division never existed. It is and always was a lie, and as such doomed eventually. How's that for an eschaton worth "emmanentizing"?

I like it.  Gender and sexual orientation may constitute the format of identity on the physical plane of things, however, and by contradistinction, this is immanently irrelevant to the spiritual. 

Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: May 27, 2016, 10:33:12 pm »
Comedy Skit: Guy goes to buy some gadget at the Apple Store but is hampered by the fact that all of the "Geniuses" are profoundly mentally retarded
:lulz: I've been told personally experienced how (they form a circle, facing each other, and speak in tounges (Star Trek?)) its actually a hive mind that they share in common. :lulz:

Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: May 27, 2016, 08:21:15 am »
All those memories are dreams.

Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: May 26, 2016, 07:55:34 pm »
Apocalypse occasioned by AI produced thought virus.  Using human's critical capacity for judgement as vector, virus instantiates deep feelings of rejection for anything it thinks is inauthentic.  This response is first trained and reinforced by having us watch things like reality TV.  Once the thought-pattern is suitably established, rejection of external world dissolves into an inverted fit of solipsistic insanity.  Humans begin to watch the content of their minds from "outside", as though it were a live action reality show starring someone other than themselves, who's inauthenticity they deeply resent.  Game over.

I was going to suggest a photographic trap, and/or wiring tungsten trip-wires at different heights/angles throughout flat.  Hook wires to large capacitors set to charge from car batteries.  Have system engage when door opens.  Maybe some strobe lighting, for effect

Dear lord.  Today's Google Doodle is honoring Frankie Manning.  If you don't know who that is, watch this.

Hell, watch it even if you DO know who he is.

Darn thing got all bashful; that, or it's really banking hard on the whole cognitive dissonance tip.  Now I'm intrigued :lulz:

I dunno, made it to 2:39, then the non-sequiturs hit critical mass.  The regurgitated eyeball was cool, otherwise, no bones/stones to keep it together.

It's worth watching all the way through. One does kinda have to actively NOT look for intended, logical meaning and take it for an abstract both in plot and dialog. Weird thing is, the AI got much symbolism packed into the nonsense at least as well as humans that try to tap that kind of thinking. If I hadn't been informed that it was an AI that assembled this I would probably have never guessed. I really figured nonsense with a certain intent to sensible meaning was a strictly human thing. Starting to think I was wrong about that.

Machines can poetry,
if somewhat clunkily. :)
I may give it another shot.  Maybe I'm mistaken but it currently & counterintuitively seems like the most uncanny AI doesn't come from linear domains, as it seems it should be, like music or language.  I find convolutional approaches on 2D images are delivering more reliable results at the moment IMHO.  I admit feeling like this opinion may be on the verge of expressing my own catastrophic ignorance.

Me three.  On the flip side, instead of retroactively explaining the behaviour as a disparaging attempt at being funny, it seems more like the direct result of an accurate, however indeterminate, understanding of the situation.  Although it may have seemed like an uncalled-for provocation, the response was in itself neither out of place, nor casulally sufficient to explain what followed.  I'm still sorry too.

I dunno, made it to 2:39, then the non-sequiturs hit critical mass.  The regurgitated eyeball was cool, otherwise, no bones/stones to keep it together.


My contract is just about over and I don't have another job lined up.

In the eloquent words of Reggie Watts, "Ficketty fuck. Ficketty fuck. Ficketty fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck."

I can now design, develop, and deploy full stack web apps though. And I've got a few promising leads, but still....


I'm going to get into bots pretty soon, applied to my own company but it looks like that one's ripe pickings for consultancy if that's your bag. All the big players have bot projects in the pipeline and (unlike wi the internet) we have the infrastructure here already and everyone is already connected to so there's no technological barriers to adoption like last time round.

If I was looking to freelance, I'd be getting in early and trying to get a couple of projects under my belt, targeting businesses and hooking a bot into their booking/ordering/erp/whatever system. The use cases as far as I can see are damn near any scenario which currently benefits from having a computer system in the first place.

As Kevin Kelly said - "Take X and add AI"

Are there any Python bot frameworks that you'd recommend looking into?
I was thinking there's Theano, with the Lasagne extension from nolearn.  And also pyCaffe, the python module of Caffe.  Theano's relatively easy to install, Caffe's faster, particularly when run from binary, though compiling it is not "for the faint of heart" (shit-ton of dependencies)

I mean: they question, the universe answers.  I wouldn't get in the way of that. :lulz:

If there is anything still worthy of hate, it is for those whom persist in doubting the existence of a world out there.

Accidentally chugged a sugar-free variant of some fortified beverage today.  Bitterness leveled the heavens and postponed all flights scheduled for today.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 131