TESTEMONAIL: Right and Discordianism allows room for personal interpretation. You have your theories and I have mine. Unlike Christianity, Discordia allows room for ideas and opinions, and mine is well-informed and based on ancient philosophy and theology, so, my neo-Discordian friends, open your minds to my interpretation and I will open my mind to yours. That's fair enough, right? Just claiming to be discordian should mean that your mind is open and willing to learn and share ideas. You guys are fucking bashing me and your laughing at my theologies and my friends know what's up and are laughing at you and honestly this is my last shot at putting a label on my belief structure and your making me lose all hope of ever finding a ideological group I can relate to because you don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about and everything I have said is based on the founding principals of real Discordianism. Expand your mind.
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.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 04, 2015, 08:43:46 PMQuote from: Karapac on March 04, 2015, 07:42:10 PMQuote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 28, 2015, 10:41:20 AMConsider that your critical thinking and analytic skills may differ from mine, so much that what for you takes little effort to see is not the same for me, rather than me being in denial or too precious to question myself. Because I'd like to understand what you're getting at, but I really don't.
But you're still not actually going to put any time or thought into taking apart your own questions and critically examining the assumptions behind them, are you?
I'm going to be completely honest here, and say that I flat-out assumed from the beginning that my critical thinking and analysis skills are different from yours. The reason for that is because they ARE skills, learned skills that don't come especially easily or naturally to most people, and I've been working on them for a long time.
As Howl said, it takes practice. I keep asking you questions because that's where you start; if you can't come up with your own critical questions, answering other people's gives you a good launching-off point.
But you don't seem to want to ask or answer questions about your assumptions or the validity of your statements, so I can't help concluding that you aren't interested in improving your critical thinking skills. Which is too bad, really, because you don't seem stupid, but ultimately it means that you and I will probably have little to talk about, and I love a good conversation.
Quote from: Emo Howard on March 04, 2015, 06:02:41 PMThis.
This should win some kind of Picture of the Year award. Time Magazine, National Geographic, Boys Life, don't care.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2015, 10:04:50 PMI know, I'm doing my best.
Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill. It takes practice.
Quote from: axod on February 27, 2015, 08:25:46 PMHrrm. Tough. But I'd say yes, the very fact that we're discussing it means it can and is perceived, and as such can be judged. What do you suppose this ground of similarity is, exactly, though? Men can have vastly different outlooks, for many reasons, even on things as seemingly basic as "pain is bad" or "eating is good". Or do you mean a more general basis, higher-tier so to speak?Quote from: Karapac on February 26, 2015, 12:43:20 PMAha, so, is it possible, for the ground of similarity, which enables said distinction, to then also be itself both part and parcel of the percieved? Or, does the set of all sets contain itself?Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PMHuh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PMSay the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm. What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you? Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PMI think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with
Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on. Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle? Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete. Funny business.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 28, 2015, 10:41:20 AMConsider that your critical thinking and analytic skills may differ from mine, so much that what for you takes little effort to see is not the same for me, rather than me being in denial or too precious to question myself. Because I'd like to understand what you're getting at, but I really don't.
But you're still not actually going to put any time or thought into taking apart your own questions and critically examining the assumptions behind them, are you?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:47:19 PMWe're talking about two that I have asked this. And you're confusing not getting an answer with not getting a response. I did get the latter, and it amounted to a shrug and "I dunno, it's just weird." I'm not generalizing about human beings based on this, it's just another little thing adding to how mystified I am about them.Quote from: Karapac on February 22, 2015, 08:53:09 PM
Oh but I did, I just didn't get an answer.
All of them? How many people are we talking about, here? Are we talking about enough people to allow you to generalize about human beings, or about enough people for you to have asked them why they think it's weird to go for a walk in the woods, and for them all to have, for some reason, ignored your question?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:47:19 PMHow else am I to understand other people? There's three methods, basically - try to do it based on what I already know; ask them, which isn't always possible and not always reliable; or ask others' opinion and contrast their thoughts and experiences with mine, which I'm doing now or IRL or when I read stuff. Is there any other way?Quote from: Karapac on February 22, 2015, 08:53:09 PM
What other motivations can they be then? Honest question, I really have no idea.
That is the thing, isn't it? That you don't know their motivations, so you're making up stories that fit within your own experience to explain other people's reaction. The problem with this is that it's more revealing about you than revealing about them; it doesn't say anything at all about them.
This seems like a good place to tell a fairly boring story.
When I was in my early 20's I thought that middle aged people were really boring. They weren't interested in having conversations about any of the deep topics my friends and I were into, like the problems with capitalism and how fucked up the school system is or the oligarchy or social justice any of those big, brand-new, world-changing ideas. If the conversation turned in that direction, they would often act kind of bored or just walk away. So boring! Come on old people, why don't you care about important stuff? And then one day I said something to a co-worker who was an older guy, and he just said "How many times can I have that conversation?" and I suddenly realized that it wasn't them who was boring. It was me. They were having far more interesting conversations than I was even able to understand because I was just then picking up the foundational information, having the foundational conversations with my peers that they had with their peers 20 years ago.
Do you need to re-learn how to read every time you pick up a book?
Once you learn something, you have already explored it. Therefore, when you go back to it, it is no longer exploring, it is visiting.
I could be wrong, but it sounds as if you are in a very exploratory mental place. many things are wondrous and new to you. That's great, keep doing it; exploratory behavior generates new neurons and keeps you healthy and resilient. But when you are exploring something and feeling good and see people who don't seem to think that what you're doing is interesting, rather than pitying them as poor uncurious monkeys, it might be wise to wonder whether they already know what you are just discovering.
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 05:49:37 AM?
Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PMHuh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PMSay the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm. What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you? Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PMI think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with
Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on. Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle? Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete. Funny business.