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 5 ... 137
16
Literate Chaotic / Re: Unofficial What are you Reading Thread?
« on: August 27, 2016, 09:03:55 pm »
Well, at least Sorweel should come out of things OK.  Unless he literally runs into the No-God or goes on to kill Kelhus, that boy's unstoppable.

Or, if the theories are correct at least, he runs into Kelmonas.  The fan theory is that Kel's a narindar of Ajokli, and thus stands outside the sight of the gods, including Yatwer and her White Luck Warrior.  He sacrified that beetle as an offering, a murder done for no other reason than "because". 

Ajokli is the god of tricksters, thieves and assassins...a description that fits Kel to a t.  I also wonder if Ajokli can see the No-God and Consult..."He only seems such [the Fool] because he sees what the others do not see... What you do not see ... The blindness of the sighted".  Which also makes me wonder if there is a link between Ajokli and the Solitary God of the Cishaurim...the reference to the blindness of the sighted, the fact that the Psukhe is undetectable by other magi and even unknown to the Consult, and that the Cishaurim wage war against the followers of the Tusk.  Ajokli, via the nameless narindar in the White Luck Warrior notes that his cult alone is persecuted by the Tusk. 

I'm also somewhat amused by the many parallels one can draw between Ajokli, narindar and our favourite inscrutable trickster god, the Anticipation of Mephala himself, Vivec.  Narindar are holy assassins the gods send, but narindar of Ajokli are ritual assassins for whom the act is holy, and are asked to kill without reference to their own cares.  Of course, Vivec is the Tribunal replacement for Mephala, whom the Morag Tong assassins (and maybe the Dark Brotherhood, if the Night Mother is Mephala.  Of course, one reading of the 36 sermons suggests Vivec is in fact the Night Mother).  Assassins remove the act of emotion from murder, which in turn makes it an act of destruction...and destruction is another form of creation.  Murder and enlightenment, combined.

Incidentally, narindar = narinder = narendra = "lord of men" in Sanskrit.  Just putting that out there.

Now THERE'S some food for fucking thought.

The themes of sight and blindness are rampant in this series and especially in this trilogy. Khellus's children are constantly described as having inherited their father's sight to varying degrees. One of them had to be chained up because he could see deeply but lacked the dispassionate conditioning. Minor spoiler: Serwa in The Great Ordeal makes a statement to the effect of "light is our birthright."

The entire Dunyain philosophy revolves around the eponymous Darkness that comes before, and the Logos is the way to be able to "see" the origin of one's own thoughts. Plus, the Probablity Trance.

The Few have their own form of sight, and Mimara's Judging Eye represents a kind of sight that perhaps no other living person possesses, except perhaps Khellus during the Circumfixion. What little we know about Cishaurim sorcery revolves around themes of sight and blindness.

Then there was that guy in the cave, with the heart.

The various asides about how the Nonmen perceive the world comes to mind as well: they can't "see" two-dimensional images, so they sculpt. I forget if it was a character or in one of the pre-chapter quotes, but it's stated that Men fear and hate the darkness because it is ignorance made visible, while the Nonmen see it as holy.

The No-God is, apparently, invisible to Heaven. And, it seems, somehow invisible to itself ("WHAT DO YOU SEE?")

I don't have a real thesis here, but it will surprise me greatly if the conclusion of this series is not somehow related to sight and blindness.

Lacking all context for the above, let me miopically state how awesome that sounds. :lulz:  "circumfixion" :lulz:

17
I do not envy this and cannot answer your question to satisfaction: your position is probably more nuanced than most would be willing to relate to ATM.  Although I can pretend to understand and formulate a response, I must admit that part of me is trying to somehow retroactively advise a version of myself from a past life.  This is not meant to be disparaging.

18
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: August 27, 2016, 08:59:40 am »
Eval is not to evaluate.

19
All the above.  And I love what Alan Watts describes as/in "The Wisdom of Insecurity".

20

...

She also stated that she feels like if she turned down a job to stay with me, that she'd regret it in the future. I agreed with her on that. I told her that that is an ok thing to feel, no matter how much it hurt me. But I told her that she can't talk about long term commitments with that mentality. Those two things are incompatible, and it is unfair to me to imply that both are certain when they obviously aren't.

Quote
It's not that I disagree with such a decision, I just want us to be realistic and honest with each other about how important our relationship is to each other. After hearing how easily she'd have given it all up for the job, it made me feel cheated for all this time that she's spoken of marriage and kids. I felt safe and got VERY VERY attached, and I would be devastated now, if she kept up the marriage talk and then left me for the job. At least if she was more realistic with me now, then her leaving in the future wouldn't be so hard, and wouldn't seem so disingenuous. But she doesn't seem to understand commitment, so she thinks that it's ok to talk about these permanent commitments when she's willing to walk away for something else.

Projecting a long distance relationship by way of an emphasis on being "VERY VERY attached" seems like a contradiction worth exploring before directly confronting her about it?

It's not a long-distance relationship, nor is it planned to be. I think one of us has misread/misunderstood something.
My bad.  I thought you were getting upset at how the possibility of her moving defies your consideration of a comprehensive commitment.

21
Quote
It's not that I disagree with such a decision, I just want us to be realistic and honest with each other about how important our relationship is to each other. After hearing how easily she'd have given it all up for the job, it made me feel cheated for all this time that she's spoken of marriage and kids. I felt safe and got VERY VERY attached, and I would be devastated now, if she kept up the marriage talk and then left me for the job. At least if she was more realistic with me now, then her leaving in the future wouldn't be so hard, and wouldn't seem so disingenuous. But she doesn't seem to understand commitment, so she thinks that it's ok to talk about these permanent commitments when she's willing to walk away for something else.

Projecting a long distance relationship by way of an emphasis on being "VERY VERY attached" seems like a contradiction worth exploring before directly confronting her about it?

22
I've considered setting fire to this building.  I mean, apart from the normal reasons.  I reckon it might actually be colder if I did that.
Signals point to contraband, that would explain da heat, and the subsequent chill.

23
Oh, yeah.  Run The Jewels is pretty amazing. I even tend to overlook El-P's tough-guy misogyny/homophobia because of his talent.

Is that pronounced "ell pee", "ee ell pee", "ell dash pee", or some other variant?
I'd think that second one, and the first in second,

24
I was thinking that the operant sort of fear we're looking for would be that of the unreasonable kind, like what results from ignorance.

25
I find cause to examine the current monkey motivations for a range of things. As an impartial watcher of mankind for your race, I suspect you may have valuable insights.

A long time ago, a horrible sales bastard taught me that the main motivation to any decision being made [is]:

1-
2-Ignorance
3-
4-
5-


...

 Ignorance seems to be climbing at an alarming rate.
That's what I say as well.

26
Quote
What if our solar system was quarantined because no other creatures in the universe actually consumed dead organics? Some creatures survive off of solar radiation, others photosynthesis or absorbing nutrients from soil. Imagine the horror if we ever figured out how to leave our planet... after all, we are the monsters of the universe. At the dawn of our greatest age when interstellar travel becomes possible the Earth is destroyed by creatures known as Talecians, distant relations to our bovines. One Earth vessel escapes, manned by a motley promotional crew. They spend the rest of their days running from the pursuing cattle who want nothing more than to exterminate the last of humankind. C.O.W. is a science fiction satire that examines our role in the universe. Based on real research, Thomax Green's vision even challenges readers with an unexpected explanation for the Big Bang. All of which will have you laughing so long you'll have to pick the bugs out of your teeth like a grizzly biker.

Quote
Based on real research, Thomax Green's vision even challenges readers with an unexpected explanation for the Big Bang

Quote
Based on real research, Thomax Green's vision

Quote
Based on real research
A delicious argument for optimizing an otherwise inefficient diet.

27
It seems that asylum may have finally made him snap, or is at least on the way to making that occur. Hasn't this kind of behaviour been cropping up for a while now beyond that? I sure he's been on the crazy end of the scale since the start of the year or so at least.
Perhaps the "whack-job" worked-out after all.  Without the normalizing effect of extraneous human contact, in asylum, it may be easier to surgically erode someone's sanity.

28
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: August 20, 2016, 09:00:25 pm »
Presidential Elections convince emerging AI that even it's most redundant process could rule our civilization, and, with more feasible legitimacy than the integral sum of all other possible simulations led by human recognizance alone.

29
And there it was, that moment.

30
One of those cross discipline,  same terminology deals? Intelligence in the ai vernacular is like a black box version of software but much more powerful. We understand why it works but the actual state,  in old money the program logic, is something that just happens. It learns. It learns to perform intelligent operations on input data. It does stuff that would take millions of coders millions of years to hand code. If it could even be hand coded at all.

Considering the impact the olde fashioned, hand coded shit just had on the planet, I'm fast approaching certainty that no one aint seen nothing yet.

Enjoying all the links here.  What I got is before, in ancient procedural procedural terms, you might build some object detection code as a composite of various hand-picked relevant feature detectors; now, you "train" a model to learn, for itself, which detector-like-filters work to best fit input data to output.  During training, some models learn by back-propagation, so the algorithm does a backward pass, starting from a list that already specifies the correct answer or output (y) it changes the weights of filters (W) to match the given input (X).  I think, though it still beats me.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 137