Principia Discordia > Think for Yourself, Schmuck!


(1/3) > >>

I was just wondering what you thought of the concept of extelligence and how it can be used both in breaking down and keeping a certain concept of reality:

I suppose it's the sample of the pool you take from.

That is, if all your time-binding intelligence (books, etc) agree with each other, your reality will stay pretty static.  If they all contradict each other, your reality will be much more interesting.

Well, I might have read it entirely wrong, and it might have all flown right over my head, but here is what I picked up:

Since they acknowledge that there is an objective world, I think it can't say there is any way to break down "reality".  I heard them mention a subjective world, where perceptual influences could alter things, and that would certainly be subject to collapse and deterioration.

Since that subjective world is unreal (given their postulated existence of an objective world) it can be seen as only a bastardization of that real objective world, and would be thus something to work away from. 

It all sounds a LOT like Plato's forms.

Did we read the same wikipedia article?

Because I didn't get that at all.

That's why it has a disclaimer  :cry:
I've never come across the phrase before, probably didn't read it thoroughly enough either.

I misread the stuff that was actually being attributed to Popper as being attributed to Stewart and Cohen.  I'll have to compose another message when I'm feeling less careless.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version