LHX keeps f&%king around with MAYBE LOGIC

[LHX]

i guess the question at that point becomes

fall from where exactly?

and can this 'falling' be considered bad?
or
can it be considered inevitable?

Falling as a metaphor: falling away from the "heights" of philosophic thought. For the purpose of the metaphor, the "depths" refer to the worst of human thought.

For example, "I have this body because it is genetically superior and I am superior for understanding this and it is my responsibility to advance humanity via eugenics."

Another example: "God has endowed me with a mind and body capable of understanding his message and I must do his work and punish those who do not believe."

The answer to "Why do I have this body?" is close enough to "What is the meaning of life?" (or "Why am I alive?", since having a body == being alive, in most cases)

All Maybe Logic has done in this case is either (a) simplify the question to yeild a simple answer, or (b) obfuscate the question to make it harder to recognize your mistakes.

The "height" of philosophic thought is not some deep insight about the nature of things. Rather, it is the insight that there is nothing. At the peak of the metaphoric mountain, all thought comes to a point -- and, as geometry has taught us, a point has no length, width, or depth. It merely is.

And that is existance: there is no quality or property by which we can say "If X has or is Y, then it exists, else it doesn't."

Existance merely is.

As an excercise for the reader: Prove that Unicorns exist in the same sense that horses exist.

i found that post enjoyable to read
and
at the same time
insightful

[Chylde o' Kaos]

[/quote]
i enjoyed your 2 cents

i guess i owe at least a half-penny change -




you may need a map for yourself
but
it might not need to be big
or detailed
to get the job done







also -
maybe logic could be a coping mechanism
survival tool
symbol of evolution
or
just a technique used to gain added insight on a situation



LHX - has seen multiple uses for
razor blades
bananas
spoons
bodies
bricks
and some other things[/quote]


Naw, the map, methinks, doesn't need to be that big to get the job done...but, I for one kinda LIKE building a bigger map, even if I do find all this maybe logic shyt useful...the map, in and of itself, to me, is uesful (and just plain ol' fun) for really gettin' down and dirty when it comes to seein' the world from a really specific point o' view...and can have it's uses in terms of helpin' yerself out...like, if yer constantlly broke, changing the map ya use for viewing yerself in realation to money, and buildin' up an ego where ya consider yerself one that money comes easilly to, could go a long way in startin' to get a more readilly available cash flow commin' into yer pocket...that type of deal...ya gotta do more than just that, obviously, but it is a damned good start. And when I'm up there, in the occasional political protest I find myself in every now and again, screaming my views to the world, showin' them just exactly what sort o' map I use for relatin' to the world, it comes in handy, and is damned fun to use then!

But yeah, I'd nonetheless agree with ya that a big map's by no means needed...it just can be fun, nonetheless! But, e-prime, then, comes in useful to remind me, like Anonymous was sayin' that the deepest point of philosophical thought is that there really IS nothing, in the centre of it all, when ya get right down to it- and thus one viewpoint could really just be seen as being as good as another

Now....hrm...multiple uses for a banana, eh? *Arches eyebrow* Haha...just what sorta "multiple uses" have ya seen...my mind'z goin all kinds of places with THAT one...

~Chylde

[LHX]

The "height" of philosophic thought is not some deep insight about the nature of things. Rather, it is the insight that there is nothing. At the peak of the metaphoric mountain, all thought comes to a point -- and, as geometry has taught us, a point has no length, width, or depth. It merely is.

i really have no contention against this


in that perspective
i guess all the shit occurring on the planet right now
is some sort of adjustment?

having reached this peak
we get to watch everything fall away?

[LHX]

But yeah, I'd nonetheless agree with ya that a big map's by no means needed...it just can be fun, nonetheless! But, e-prime, then, comes in useful to remind me, like Anonymous was sayin' that the deepest point of philosophical thought is that there really IS nothing, in the centre of it all, when ya get right down to it- and thus one viewpoint could really just be seen as being as good as another

one viewpoint prolly IS as good as another
but
nobody seems to want to agree on a definition of what they are looking at





'fun' seems to have had its 15 minutes already

this 'global village' got my brain burnt
seriously
i cant ignore the existance of suffering enough to have the conventional 'fun' no more

like a burn victim with no pain-killers



but
thats just me being personal


the only thing that seem fun these days is the wrecking of foul shit
also
eating foods

[LMNO]

I figure the point is that Maybe Logic doesn't seem to be an answer.  It's a tool that can be used to define the point when the objective becomes the subjective.

It does seem that at some point, you have to make a leap of faith.  The "brain in a jar/matrix/demon-created illusion" gambit goes back as far, if not further, than Descartes.  Eventually, you just have to admit that, yes, there is a self-imposition of guesswork on whatever it is we term "reality".  ML tries to identify at which point we're just making shit up, and what's "really out there".

And let's not forget that the whole sliding scale of ML is essential to making it work.  You might not get to 100% true, but from 50% on up, you've got a pretty decent shot at making a correct guess.

Just remember that once you assign a value to something, it's not permanent.  The value can change in an instant.  Vigilance!

[LHX]

I figure the point is that Maybe Logic doesn't seem to be an answer.  It's a tool that can be used to define the point when the objective becomes the subjective.

It does seem that at some point, you have to make a leap of faith.  The "brain in a jar/matrix/demon-created illusion" gambit goes back as far, if not further, than Descartes.  Eventually, you just have to admit that, yes, there is a self-imposition of guesswork on whatever it is we term "reality".  ML tries to identify at which point we're just making shit up, and what's "really out there".

And let's not forget that the whole sliding scale of ML is essential to making it work.  You might not get to 100% true, but from 50% on up, you've got a pretty decent shot at making a correct guess.

Just remember that once you assign a value to something, it's not permanent.  The value can change in an instant.  Vigilance!

it may still be early
but
this gets my vote for 'post of the day'

[hooplala]

Before we make any hasty decisions we should probably consult Jean-Paul Fartre first.

[LMNO]

I figure the point is that Maybe Logic doesn't seem to be an answer.  It's a tool that can be used to define the point when the objective becomes the subjective.

It does seem that at some point, you have to make a leap of faith.  The "brain in a jar/matrix/demon-created illusion" gambit goes back as far, if not further, than Descartes.  Eventually, you just have to admit that, yes, there is a self-imposition of guesswork on whatever it is we term "reality".  ML tries to identify at which point we're just making shit up, and what's "really out there".

And let's not forget that the whole sliding scale of ML is essential to making it work.  You might not get to 100% true, but from 50% on up, you've got a pretty decent shot at making a correct guess.

Just remember that once you assign a value to something, it's not permanent.  The value can change in an instant.  Vigilance!

it may still be early
but
this gets my vote for 'post of the day'

[LHX]

Before we make any hasty decisions we should probably consult Jean-Paul Fartre first.

ohhhhhhhhh shit

how could i forget


fuck
will i get banned for that?

[Cain]

Nah.  Just a bullet in the head, then you can go back to posting.

[LHX]

Nah.  Just a bullet in the head, then you can go back to posting.

thats a relief

maybe that will dis-lodge some of the other material that is stuck in there

[hooplala]

Yeah, think of it as an enema.

[Iron Sulfide]

As an excercise for the reader: Prove that Unicorns exist in the same sense that horses exist.

if you only have to prove that it (either/or) exists in the same sense,
that should be fairly simple, since our senses (as is commonly agreed)
are our only personal tools for interpreting data about our surroundings.


i bet they both smell the same.

also, from my bouts with Maybe Logic, the most i can discern is that
the aim is to show that old school Aristotlian Either/Or Logic is mute in
a world of more than 2n permutations of circumstances.

though others would argue that even the most complex of situations,
circumstances and criterion can always be broken down into simple
binary with Yes or No, On or Off, etc.

neither is necessarily more of less right or wrong. and there's evidence
that the ambiguity is part of even the sub atomic structures throughout
the universe.  for example: particle or wave?

I, however, think that RAW and his cohorts mislabled the "Third Option"
wrong, resulting in the Misnomer "Maybe."

of was the misnomer "Logic"? it's difficult to keep up with these things.

so instead of elaborating, i'm going to leave again for a substancial amount of time.

my Personal Third Option to Yes/No is a portamantue of the words...

"Yo Logic"

[deet]

My neighbour owns a horse. The horse is not a dog.
This house is not a dog, therefore the horse and house are similar.

Maybe?

[LMNO]

Similar only in the sense that neither the horse nor the house are a dog.


Which really isn't saying that much.