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 - CBXTN

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: OOO
« on: August 09, 2016, 06:52:16 am »
It seems to me that using "object" to describe things that are not objects is less of a philosophy and more of a crime against language.

I'd be happy to test this idea, if you are willing.

but first, what exactly is not an object according to you?

2
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: OOO
« on: August 09, 2016, 06:49:25 am »


But your personhood is no more important than any other object in a universe of objects.

That's what I said.  It is the idea that we are basically a smear of infection on a rock orbiting a sun, and that's the only part that matters about us.

It is not a philosophy that improves anything at all.  It is nihilism in a funny dress.  It appeals to people who are afraid of being alive.

That's quite a fast assumption, haha. Did the reflection regarding "hyperobjects" not appeal to you?

3
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: OOO
« on: August 08, 2016, 07:59:27 pm »
There was some subjectivist stuff posted a while back which generated this rant:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=37764.0

Am I right in thinking this is a similar thing, or is OOO navel gazing in a completely different and equally obnoxious way?

yes, there is a moon, and it exists :P

OOO isn't any of that privileged transcendental "navel gazing", as you all call it hahah

4
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: OOO
« on: August 08, 2016, 07:42:29 pm »
To begin a more concrete subject for debate;

Last night I was reading how someone was describing environments and ecologies as objects; "Global warming is an example of what Timothy Morton calls “hyperobjects”—entities of such vast temporal and spatial dimensions that they defeat traditional ideas about what a thing is in the first place. "

Here's outline for what constitutes a "hyperobject":

They are "nonlocal": they do not manifest at a specific time and place but rather are stretched out in such a way as to challenge the idea that a thing must occupy a specific place and time.

Hyperobjects have a time-scale so different from current human ones that they force us to drop the idea of time as a neutral container.

Hyperobjects are unavailable to direct human perception. Computational prosthetics are required even to think them (mapping global warming requires huge amounts of computing speed, for instance).

Hyperobjects exist “interobjectively,” which is to say that they consist, of, yet are not reducible to, interactions between a large number of entities.



Essentially; Instead of inhabiting a world, we find ourselves on the insides of a number of hyperobjects.


**

It makes me curious how this type of viewpoint would challenge our anthropocentric view of the world that has dominated the West since at least the Greeks. The "Privileged Transcendental Sphere" of philosophy doesn't protect us from Ultra-violet rays or rising sea levels. The physical world is a vast system of objects operating beyond common human perception, but we humans are always trying to inject our own values into it; Ultimately, things like "Environmentalism" isn't any more natural than "Industrialism" - they are both objects working within a complex system beyond human control. I'm skeptical of Big Data and the Silicon Valley apostles who preach about the saving powers of Information.

Instead, I think such a viewpoint encourages us to be more humble about our places in this existence and among each other, to be more understanding of things we disagree with, and to restore a sense of awe about the world. Ultimately we have very little control in the grand schema of hyperobjects.


5
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: OOO
« on: August 08, 2016, 06:56:54 pm »
yeah, this is a newer branch of philosophy. I'm not terribly familiar with it, but I'd like to learn more and it seems fairly Erisian, since it places all things on equal footing. There is no object that is more valuable than any other object. It posits that humans are objects too, just like windows, dolls, space dust, sound, dogs, fire, and barstools. 


Yeah, that's called speculative reality.  I already have the news to tell me I dont' exist as a person.

This is exactly the sort of navel-gazing that makes everyone laugh at philosophers.

I don't think it is one of those anti-realist philosophies that state "we don't exist as a person", or "the universe only exists in the mind".
_
Rather, it's a type of thinking which says you are a person who exists - your body exists, your mind exists, the computer in front of you exists, the barstool exists, etc. But your personhood is no more important than any other object in a universe of objects. I suppose we could assume we are more important than other objects; we could apply our own set of values to objects, decree some events as right and others as bad (a mega-huge comet hitting the earth is usually assumed to be bad). But if we did that, it wouldn't be Object-Oriented thinking - it would be human oriented thinking.

And so, OOO is a type of lens to explore how things operate, setting aside human-oriented ontology as much as possible.

OOO is also very malleable, as long as it always posits all things as equal.

6
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: OOO
« on: August 08, 2016, 11:16:17 am »
I don't think it's as insane or mysterious as anything "quanta".

It's merely posing the question "What is X?" and asking that we refrain from applying a hierarchy of human values.


7
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: OOO
« on: August 08, 2016, 06:24:25 am »
yeah, this is a newer branch of philosophy. I'm not terribly familiar with it, but I'd like to learn more and it seems fairly Erisian, since it places all things on equal footing. There is no object that is more valuable than any other object. It posits that humans are objects too, just like windows, dolls, space dust, sound, dogs, fire, and barstools. 

It is a realist philosophy - it assumes that this reality we inhabit is concrete and acts in certain laws; i.e. you throw a barstool at me, and it does hurt. 

But if all of humanity went extinct, what would happen to the barstool? Would it still remain a "barstool" after humanity? OOO says it's only a barstool in relationship to us, but outside of ourselves what is it? What exactly is the barstool made of? We can say it is an assemblage of dead pine tree cells, but what are those pine tree cells made? Is the gunk underneath the barstool also part of the barstool? Could an object be more than what it is made of? What is the barstool's relationship to other non-human objects?

These are just a few questions~ many more further down the rabbit hole I suppose


8
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: OOO
« on: August 08, 2016, 05:30:25 am »
I found this online as a good stepping stone:

Quote
Ontology is the philosophical study of existence. Object-oriented ontology (“OOO” for short) puts things at the center of this study. Its proponents contend that nothing has special status, but that everything exists equally—plumbers, DVD players, cotton, bonobos, sandstone, and Harry Potter, for example. In particular, OOO rejects the claims that human experience rests at the center of philosophy, and that things can be understood by how they appear to us. In place of science alone, OOO uses speculation to characterize how objects exist and interact.

I think the point is that humans prescribe values, narratives/histories, and uses to objects. But how is the nature of objects if it were to step outside human value systems? How do these objects relate to each other with all things being equal? (Of course we can never step outside our nervous system, so all of this would be speculative debate).     

9
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / OOO
« on: August 08, 2016, 04:43:49 am »
Anyone interested in Object-Oriented Ontology?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology


10
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« on: August 03, 2016, 04:54:21 am »

Don't get me wrong, we definitely should be respectful of everyone's humanity. I'm just prodding and poking around for different types of viewpoints rather than a humanist one.


Try the republicans and/or libertarians.

hahaha

***

I'm kinda veering more into the object-oriented ontology direction

11
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« on: August 03, 2016, 04:16:04 am »
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.
My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

Yeah, the cells don't care. Because they don't have feelings. But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person. And when that happens, other "squirming towers of molecular animals" will beat you to a pulp with bar stools, or put you in the fucking ground if you actually hurt someone.

As someone who's known many people to go down that road and live that life, and stray temporarily down that path myself, I assure you it is a mistake. And let me explain why that is, in a morally blank manner:

You go down that path, you die in prison, or worse. Pretend to be some emotionless observer-being of logic all you want, it doesn't make a difference to people. Your logic will die with you, bloody and alone. Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.

This is a great example of clarity of thought and conciseness of writing. Laying the smack down; boom. Well done.

Yeah, that was a pretty good explanation~! very concise and clear 

Don't get me wrong, we definitely should be respectful of everyone's humanity. I'm just prodding and poking around for different types of viewpoints rather than a humanist one.

On another note,
My question about if you eat meat was regarding the sexual abuse of animals in the meat industry.

12
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« on: August 02, 2016, 02:54:43 am »

Quote
Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

Mr. Fernando Poo - do you eat meat? And if so, who makes your meat?

13
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« on: August 02, 2016, 02:46:01 am »
My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

I wouldn't say "randomly". Cells and organelles, small though they may be, are still much larger than the scale at which physics becomes largely non-deterministic. Furthermore evolution has its patterns and courses that it follows, much like the weather and the movements of the stars and planets, and any number of meaningless natural phenomena. It is arbitrary but not necessarily "random".

Ah, yes! A world of complex biological patterning. I should always be more mindful of that. Arbitrary beauty :D

14
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Futurism up for discussion.
« on: August 01, 2016, 05:49:10 am »
You are right, the rate of inflation will always be proportionate to the population, but wouldn't the value of a product or resource stay the same? I think the ability to make one's own Jenkem might contain too many economic variables (like counterfeit bills).

In order for human shit to be a viable currency, we would need to figure out a system in which people do not own the shit they expunge - It needs to be redistributed according the values of products and services people sell.

Well, the process of turning poop into jenkem is unpleasant and I expect most people would prefer to outsource it.

Also unicorns.  Outsourced and just as real.

Not being real is probably a plus, as far as basing a currency on it goes.

I agree! We should find more people that agree with us, then the more valuable the idea will become. just like real currency

15
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Futurism up for discussion.
« on: August 01, 2016, 05:17:37 am »
All absolute beliefs are stupid.

This sounds like a zenarchist's koan

Only if it's the kind of zen where you get to beat on fuckers with a stick.  Zazzen or some shit like that.

*bows*

Pages: [1] 2 3