I've always been a terrible liar. Partly because when I was a kid I fucked up and believed it when I was told lying is bad and people shouldn't do it. I say I fucked up because, apparently, people THRIVE on bullshit and lies. It seems everyone is always plotting about what to say to somebody, which is either a lie, or includes an intentional omission of relevant truth. Everyone is in the business of making themselves look good all the time at any expense, and the only account anybody really has to withdraw from here is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - that is, banking on the fact that it will be impossible or too much hassle for other people to figure out they're being lied to, especially when all those people have their own webs of lies to maintain.
This kind of behavior, although I've tried (and failed) to engage in it myself, really really annoys my pants off. Honesty isn't just some high-minded morality thing, it's way the fuck simpler than making up lies all the time to make yourself look good. This, however, is lost on most people. They just don't understand that it's easier to be in control of a situation when you're not tied down by all the lines of bullshit you've tossed out there. And I've found that in everyday life, some of the most hilarious events is when somebody reaches the end of that line and their entire web of bullshit falls apart and everybody ends up hating them.
But people do it anyway, whenever they get a chance to. Everything from trying to cover up something they overlooked at work to who they were with Saturday night to fibbing about what is or isn't included in epic legislation that directly affects tens of millions of people. In all of these arenas, it is the Discordian within me that is dying to pull a string and have everything fall apart for these people, just for the lulz. Not because of a moral objection to lying, but because for some ethereal, supernatural reason, seeing people hang themselves on the lies they've told invokes pure laughter in my soul. That is the "chaos" I think Discordianism represents: the complete destruction of harmful bullshit, just so people can breathe a little easier, even if it's only to catch their breath before building their next web of deceit.
I don't know if I really have a direction with this.
I'm on the same page, except it doesn't unduly bother me to maintain my web of appearances.
But the people I know who are on the same page as me, I really prefer their company. I don't have to pretend I'm better than I am around them, which is a great way to stay sane these days.
Creating a web of lies like that is too much effort. So is pulling that thread, usually. I'm perfectly content letting the web get over heavy and suffocate them by itself in most cases (this isn't to say that'd I'd be adverse to assisting it sometimes).
Why tell the truth if you can make up something more interesting and entertaining?
I'm a story-teller. Coming up with lies and keeping up with them and making them believable and well under the stress level is an easy thing for me.
But fuck it if honesty isn't just so much more interesting. And I don't have to walk on eggshells around the people who are honest with themselves. And even metaphorical eggshells hurt like hell, and I don't like them!
And I really do try to be honest as much as I can. Although I don't mind little lies so much (unless they're pointedly made to hurt someone, which I hate), I SERIOUSLY dislike masks. And people trying to cover up who they really are. And ME trying to cover up who I really am. I can't stand living with a mask over my face all the time.
We all wear masks. It's how we manage to survive. Like it or not, it's the Human condition. Truth and Honesty are two different things. Truth is always relative. What was true for you when you were 5 years old, is no longer true today. But this doesn't mean that what you thought was true when you were 5, was a lie.
Lying is a lifeskill. It gets us through social situations with well used platitudes, and tried and tested niceties. We call these kind of lies ''Manners''. Then there are other kinds of lying. Diplomacy, that's lying. And we lie to children all the time. OK, it's for their own good, or our own peace of mind, but lies nonetheless. And all men lie to Women, the glib compliment, the "Of course I will always love you" the "No, you arse doesn't look fat in those shorts". And women lie to men, in the same ways. "No, of course size doesn't matter" . In fact, most of what we say is tempered with untruths, half truths, and evasive speech. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to tolerate living among such a bunch of lying, self serving bastards that we all are, in anything like a Society. Truth is an illusion. Absolute truth not even that. An Ideal. Honestly.
Then what would you prefer?
Quote from: BadBeast on September 18, 2010, 01:51:57 PM
We all wear masks. It's how we manage to survive. Like it or not, it's the Human condition. Truth and Honesty are two different things. Truth is always relative. What was true for you when you were 5 years old, is no longer true today. But this doesn't mean that what you thought was true when you were 5, was a lie.
Lying is a lifeskill. It gets us through social situations with well used platitudes, and tried and tested niceties. We call these kind of lies ''Manners''. Then there are other kinds of lying. Diplomacy, that's lying. And we lie to children all the time. OK, it's for their own good, or our own peace of mind, but lies nonetheless. And all men lie to Women, the glib compliment, the "Of course I will always love you" the "No, you arse doesn't look fat in those shorts". And women lie to men, in the same ways. "No, of course size doesn't matter" . In fact, most of what we say is tempered with untruths, half truths, and evasive speech. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to tolerate living among such a bunch of lying, self serving bastards that we all are, in anything like a Society. Truth is an illusion. Absolute truth not even that. An Ideal. Honestly.
You don't see any kind of contradiction there?
That there is no such thing as the truth?
I mean...
How can a statement like that be true, when one of its premises is that truth cannot exist?
Quote from: BadBeast on September 18, 2010, 01:51:57 PM
We all wear masks. It's how we manage to survive. Like it or not, it's the Human condition. Truth and Honesty are two different things. Truth is always relative. What was true for you when you were 5 years old, is no longer true today. But this doesn't mean that what you thought was true when you were 5, was a lie.
Lying is a lifeskill. It gets us through social situations with well used platitudes, and tried and tested niceties. We call these kind of lies ''Manners''. Then there are other kinds of lying. Diplomacy, that's lying. And we lie to children all the time. OK, it's for their own good, or our own peace of mind, but lies nonetheless. And all men lie to Women, the glib compliment, the "Of course I will always love you" the "No, you arse doesn't look fat in those shorts". And women lie to men, in the same ways. "No, of course size doesn't matter" . In fact, most of what we say is tempered with untruths, half truths, and evasive speech. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to tolerate living among such a bunch of lying, self serving bastards that we all are, in anything like a Society. Truth is an illusion. Absolute truth not even that. An Ideal. Honestly.
:mittens:
@ Sigmatic, that's a really cute debating point ya got there, Sophistry ITT.
Quotesoph·istry (säf′is trē)
noun pl. sophistries -·tries
1. unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning; sophism
2. the methods or practices of the Sophistsomores :wink:
Origin: ME sophistrie < ML sophistria
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
@ MMIX, that's a really cute condescendingly dismissive post you got there.
Nevermind, nothing is true and reality is lies, la la la. All is maya.
;)
Fuckit Sig - I'm sorry, I didn't mean to condescend. Far from it, in fact. Its a constant tightrope around here - how to acknowledge the yucks without killing the underlying discussion - and read my sig tag - I DO realise how crap I am at it, but it ain't gonna stop me trying.
The serious point though and the reason I posted itt is that there is always a danger when bright people jam on ideas and vamp around concepts that the nature of "intellectual discussion" [- yeah note those big,bad, scare quotes,] will tend towards privileging the "discussion as game" aspect over the "discussion for enlightenment" thing. Sorry if that sounds pompous but I'm trying to be accurate in putting over my thoughts here. I wasn't being personal about you, but feel free to fling shit back or whatever
Okay, I see what you're saying and I think we're on the same page. But I was serious when I said that you can't truthfully argue against the existence of truth itself. It's axiomatic.
(Unless Beast was simply ignoring the rules, which is about as par for Discordian dialogue as The Capitalization Meme.)
I think BB was taking the same stance as I would [correct me if I'm wrong BB] that in a META-discussion you take an imaginary step backwards so that, for the purposes of argument, you are literally thinking outside the box.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 19, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
Okay, I see what you're saying and I think we're on the same page. But I was serious when I said that you can't truthfully argue against the existence of truth itself. It's axiomatic.
(Unless Beast was simply ignoring the rules, which is about as par for Discordian dialogue as The Capitalization Meme.)
Axiomatic means it is an assumed, unproven premise. Which means you can reject that premise and thus the system built upon it.
Quote from: MMIX on September 19, 2010, 07:58:34 PMthere is always a danger when bright people jam on ideas and vamp around concepts that the nature of "intellectual discussion" [- yeah note those big,bad, scare quotes,] will tend towards privileging the "discussion as game" aspect over the "discussion for enlightenment" thing
This is quite true and endlessly vexing.
I thought axiomatic meant something was Lawful-aligned? :? :? :? :? :?
Serious thought: I agree with what BB is saying, and I think he is right. This gives me an idea....
I know it's the wrong word, but I was hoping nobody would notice. I still can't think of the word I was looking for.
Anyway, I think people know what I meant. It's contradictory to say that "there is no such thing as truth" is true.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 20, 2010, 08:28:32 AM
I know it's the wrong word, but I was hoping nobody would notice. I still can't think of the word I was looking for.
Anyway, I think people know what I meant. It's contradictory to say that "there is no such thing as truth" is true.
"hoping nobody would notice" :lol:
anyhoo, axiomatic probably does mean what you thought it does - since you were going for the "it is an unquestioned basic truth" angle while AG picked up on the "unquestioned = unproven" thing and called it the way he saw it.
It is only contradictory in terms of the internal consistency (or otherwise) of language and language can be a limiting factor in terms of communication.
I am not so sure. I mean, what you're saying sounds true, but I subscribe to the wisdom that if you can't explain something in words, you don't understand it. Language may not be able to describe every idea imaginable, and what it does describe can never be conveyed completely by words alone, but words are still the best medium at our disposal for sharing some kind of truth, so it is kind of important that we say things that can be made sense of whenever possible.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 20, 2010, 05:26:20 PM
I am not so sure. I mean, what you're saying sounds true, but I subscribe to the wisdom that if you can't explain something in words, you don't understand it. Language may not be able to describe every idea imaginable, and what it does describe can never be conveyed completely by words alone, but words are still the best medium at our disposal for sharing some kind of truth, so it is kind of important that we say things that can be made sense of whenever possible.
But I understand many things which I could not explain to you, and I am sure the reverse is true. You admit as much when you say that
QuoteLanguage may not be able to describe every idea imaginable, and what it does describe can never be conveyed completely by words alone
hmm we seem to be back to the same intractable problem as before . . .
plus you seem to be dissing all artistic languages as not being as good as verbals for conveying "truth" which is not only a debate for a different thread but just doesn't sound right to me.
When I say 'good' I mean "effective at expressing exactly what was intended". Artistic expressions, while very good, tend to differ in meaning a great deal based on who interprets it, and what mood they were in, etc.
QuoteBut I understand many things which I could not explain to you, and I am sure the reverse is true.
I am actually trying to disagree. We may feel a certain way about some things that we can't explain, but can we be said to understand them? I think we need more than a vague inclination about something to really understand it. I may have certain feelings and thoughts about a person, but I don't necessarily understand them.
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
But I understand many things which I could not explain to you,
Then you don't understand them.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
But I understand many things which I could not explain to you,
Then you don't understand them.
No, actually I understand them just fine, I am doubting your inclination/ability to understand them. There are no words which can open a resolutely closed mind.
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
But I understand many things which I could not explain to you,
Then you don't understand them.
No, actually I understand them just fine, I am doubting your inclination/ability to understand them. There are no words which can open a resolutely closed mind.
Then you are placing the fault on someone else for failing to understand something well enough to explain it. If he doesn't accept your explanation that is different.
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
But I understand many things which I could not explain to you,
Then you don't understand them.
No, actually I understand them just fine, I am doubting your inclination/ability to understand them. There are no words which can open a resolutely closed mind.
Yes, I'm actually quite stupid.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 20, 2010, 09:53:17 PM
When I say 'good' I mean "effective at expressing exactly what was intended". Artistic expressions, while very good, tend to differ in meaning a great deal based on who interprets it, and what mood they were in, etc.
and are you trying to tell me that exactly the same caveats could not be used in relation to written/spoken language?
QuoteBut I understand many things which I could not explain to you, and I am sure the reverse is true.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 20, 2010, 09:53:17 PMI am actually trying to disagree. We may feel a certain way about some things that we can't explain, but can we be said to understand them? I think we need more than a vague inclination about something to really understand it. I may have certain feelings and thoughts about a person, but I don't necessarily understand them.
I suspect that very few of us, myself included, actually "understand" much about anything. Furthermore if the validity of my "understanding" is to be judged by its accurate transmission to a third party, well fuck that. I refuse to spend the rest of my life trapped in what could be described as the viva voce exam from hell.
Okay.
If you can't explain it, then you can't communicate it. If you can't communicate it, it dies with you.
But I am unable to understand anything anyway, so there's no real loss.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 11:14:44 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
But I understand many things which I could not explain to you,
Then you don't understand them.
No, actually I understand them just fine, I am doubting your inclination/ability to understand them. There are no words which can open a resolutely closed mind.
Yes, I'm actually quite stupid.
Its not an issue of bright/stupid, but then you know that don't you? As an aside, I used to be very bright but then I gave it up. It was easier than giving up smoking, now I come to think of it . . .
So, its ok to be stupid because there ain't nobody here but us stupid people
So being as how I am stupid I am going to shoot myself in the other foot by pointing out that when I used to be bright I used to teach anthro 101 students about the differences between the ways that different cultures "see" the world and the limitations which language amongst other factors put on our perceptions. You've probably come across some of this sort of stuff. e.g. "Inuit have 30 words for snow" that kind of thing. e.g. The ways in which colour perception is measurably affected by the ways in which the native language deals with colour differentiation words - does your language have a word for blue AND a word for green. e.g. Culturally specific syndromes, particular ailments which only manifest in certain cultural contexts like piblotoq, Arctic hysteria where patients rip off their clothes run around madly, roll in the snow, suffer from glossolalia. I somehow doubt that one ever happens on Tucson though I'm sure there may be something akin? My old boss did her early research on non-first language English speakers in Eire, and she was permanently frustrated by the fact that there were even sounds in their speech that she was not able to hear. You are looking for simple answers where there are none. It is a fucking miracle that we can communicate at all since language is such a dubious medium. And then you have body language, which on some levels offers a better chance of getting at the "truth" than straight spoken language.
Yes, usually language is our best bet for getting our truths across but there are some things which just aren't simply amenable to translation, and hence understanding. Language is a heuristic we use for communication. But that's all it is a heuristic, if you could actually make yourself understood in plain language then we would never have developed poetry, which may or may not be a good thing.
Hwyl Howl, hwyl
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 11:45:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 11:14:44 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 20, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
But I understand many things which I could not explain to you,
Then you don't understand them.
No, actually I understand them just fine, I am doubting your inclination/ability to understand them. There are no words which can open a resolutely closed mind.
Yes, I'm actually quite stupid.
Its not an issue of bright/stupid, but then you know that don't you? As an aside, I used to be very bright but then I gave it up. It was easier than giving up smoking, now I come to think of it . . .
So, its ok to be stupid because there ain't nobody here but us stupid people
So being as how I am stupid I am going to shoot myself in the other foot by pointing out that when I used to be bright I used to teach anthro 101 students about the differences between the ways that different cultures "see" the world and the limitations which language amongst other factors put on our perceptions. You've probably come across some of this sort of stuff. e.g. "Inuit have 30 words for snow" that kind of thing. e.g. The ways in which colour perception is measurably affected by the ways in which the native language deals with colour differentiation words - does your language have a word for blue AND a word for green. e.g. Culturally specific syndromes, particular ailments which only manifest in certain cultural contexts like piblotoq, Arctic hysteria where patients rip off their clothes run around madly, roll in the snow, suffer from glossolalia. I somehow doubt that one ever happens on Tucson though I'm sure there may be something akin? My old boss did her early research on non-first language English speakers in Eire, and she was permanently frustrated by the fact that there were even sounds in their speech that she was not able to hear. You are looking for simple answers where there are none. It is a fucking miracle that we can communicate at all since language is such a dubious medium. And then you have body language, which on some levels offers a better chance of getting at the "truth" than straight spoken language.
Yes, usually language is our best bet for getting our truths across but there are some things which just aren't simply amenable to translation, and hence understanding. Language is a heuristic we use for communication. But that's all it is a heuristic, if you could actually make yourself understood in plain language then we would never have developed poetry, which may or may not be a good thing.
Sorry. Went right over my empty little head.
Well, I am an asshole about this sort of thing because I care about it. If I was talking to something that was not obviously human like me, and I was trying to determine if it was sentient and intelligent, I would try to determine whether it understood the things I wanted to express to it. I would do so with language, preferably, and much lower on the list would be impressionistic painting and interpretive dance.
Short of direct mind-to-mind interface, which I would not do under almost any circumstance, I cannot find out what is known to myself and others beyond all doubt, but the use of language used properly can remove much doubt. Enough to be carrying on with, anyway.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 21, 2010, 01:20:03 AM
Well, I am an asshole about this sort of thing because I care about it. If I was talking to something that was not obviously human like me, and I was trying to determine if it was sentient and intelligent, I would try to determine whether it understood the things I wanted to express to it. I would do so with language, preferably, and much lower on the list would be impressionistic painting and interpretive dance.
OK, so the Creature from the Black Lagoon turns up and your first reaction is to try and hold a conversation with it? My bet is that pantomime actions, you know - interpretive dance without all the arty farty social underpinnings, grunting and pointing really, would be one of your first gambits. And scratching in the sand, the mother and father of the graphic arts, would probably be useful. You would be hard pressed to communicate with someone who was obviously human but did not share your cultural/linguistic heritage, are you really going to base your assessment of this alien's sentience on whether it speaks english? [or any recognisable human language, like they do in the movies]
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 21, 2010, 01:20:03 AM
Short of direct mind-to-mind interface, which I would not do under almost any circumstance, I cannot find out what is known to myself and others beyond all doubt, but the use of language used properly can remove much doubt. Enough to be carrying on with, anyway.
see, that's what I said earlier, its a useful heuristic. Half the time I don't understand what the flying fuck people on the net are saying [yes Howl, if you are still bothering to read, I realise that its because I'm stupid,] sometimes it is generational, sometimes its because we don't all share the same interests/knowledge base, and often it is based in national/cultural difference.
Proper use of language can indeed remove much doubt, but not all, and sometimes it is just enough to go with the flow and to understand that you don't understand and more to the point, to not actually give a damn. If the penny drops eventually that's great, if it doesn't, well it doesn't, que sera sera.
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:13:09 AM
OK, so the Creature from the Black Lagoon turns up and your first reaction is to try and hold a conversation with it?
I'd shoot the bastard. Humans are bad enough.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 02:13:54 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:13:09 AM
OK, so the Creature from the Black Lagoon turns up and your first reaction is to try and hold a conversation with it?
I'd shoot the bastard. Humans are bad enough.
Damn, Howl, you are implacable
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 02:13:54 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:13:09 AM
OK, so the Creature from the Black Lagoon turns up and your first reaction is to try and hold a conversation with it?
I'd shoot the bastard. Humans are bad enough.
Damn, Howl, you are implacable
He's a biped, and it wouldn't count as murder.
BOOM. One less
Warwick native gilled freak stinking the place up.
Speaking of fish people, where the fuck is Dimo, anyway?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 02:17:36 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 02:13:54 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:13:09 AM
OK, so the Creature from the Black Lagoon turns up and your first reaction is to try and hold a conversation with it?
I'd shoot the bastard. Humans are bad enough.
Damn, Howl, you are implacable
He's a biped, and it wouldn't count as murder.
BOOM. One less Warwick native gilled freak stinking the place up.
Speaking of fish people, where the fuck is Dimo, anyway?
Maybe he's the one that got away . . .
thank you and good night :rimshot:
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 03:07:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 02:17:36 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 02:13:54 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:13:09 AM
OK, so the Creature from the Black Lagoon turns up and your first reaction is to try and hold a conversation with it?
I'd shoot the bastard. Humans are bad enough.
Damn, Howl, you are implacable
He's a biped, and it wouldn't count as murder.
BOOM. One less Warwick native gilled freak stinking the place up.
Speaking of fish people, where the fuck is Dimo, anyway?
Maybe he's the one that got away . . .
thank you and good night :rimshot:
Why would you do such a thing?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 02:17:36 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 02:13:54 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 21, 2010, 02:13:09 AM
OK, so the Creature from the Black Lagoon turns up and your first reaction is to try and hold a conversation with it?
I'd shoot the bastard. Humans are bad enough.
Damn, Howl, you are implacable
He's a biped, and it wouldn't count as murder.
BOOM. One less Warwick native gilled freak stinking the place up.
Speaking of fish people, where the fuck is Dimo, anyway?
I'm a WEST Warwick native, FFS. Stop grouping me in with those filthy Warwickites.
But, really, what the hell is this topic about?
It was about the tragedy of machiavellian social protocols in society until I shat and now it's about the nature of knowledge between intelligences. I think.
Oh right, adding to the discussion.
MMIX: In that extreme example I would try to figure out the language it spoke, if any. If it didn't, I'd lose interest in it's ideas and capture it with my pokeball.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 19, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
Okay, I see what you're saying and I think we're on the same page. But I was serious when I said that you can't truthfully argue against the existence of truth itself. It's axiomatic.
(Unless Beast was simply ignoring the rules, which is about as par for Discordian dialogue as The Capitalization Meme.)
I wasn't arguing about truth, (small 't'') per se, just the concept that it can ever be absolute.
language isn't always the best way to convey information.
for that matter, some types of information are better transmitted non-linguistically.
Like if I wanted to teach you how to paint, or how to turn a clay pot, or how to fight, it's better to demonstrate it than to write the information.
maps and diagrams convey more information, and can often better illustrate the relationship between things than a verbal description
art transmits tons of information nonverbally. Like if I wanted to tell you about what it was like when X happened, sometimes a photograph or a painting is better able to capture it than a written narrative.
you can even convey information simply by juxtaposing certain symbols. Look at Banksy for example - some of his work is a really nuanced critique of things. a lot of meaning is wrapped up into a juxtaposition between an image and the space it's in
Quote from: BadBeast on September 22, 2010, 11:16:44 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 19, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
Okay, I see what you're saying and I think we're on the same page. But I was serious when I said that you can't truthfully argue against the existence of truth itself. It's axiomatic.
(Unless Beast was simply ignoring the rules, which is about as par for Discordian dialogue as The Capitalization Meme.)
I wasn't arguing about truth, (small 't'') per se, just the concept that it can ever be absolute.
Oh, in that case I agree absolutely.
Tee hee. :D
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2010, 12:16:56 AM
language isn't always the best way to convey information.
for that matter, some types of information are better transmitted non-linguistically.
Like if I wanted to teach you how to paint, or how to turn a clay pot, or how to fight, it's better to demonstrate it than to write the information.
maps and diagrams convey more information, and can often better illustrate the relationship between things than a verbal description
art transmits tons of information nonverbally. Like if I wanted to tell you about what it was like when X happened, sometimes a photograph or a painting is better able to capture it than a written narrative.
you can even convey information simply by juxtaposing certain symbols. Look at Banksy for example - some of his work is a really nuanced critique of things. a lot of meaning is wrapped up into a juxtaposition between an image and the space it's in
This is true, but I was saying language was the "best" form of communication for its versatility and it's accuracy. If I told you "red gears go in the brown box and blue gears go in the trash", or some other kind of information, idea, instruction, or description, or any kind of abstraction at all, it's less open to interpretation than a diagram.
I suspect the important difference is that language is optimal for objective facts, and nonverbals are better suited to subjective states that have ambiguous or sub-lingual content.
with caveats, and "non-lingual" instead of "sub-lingual", and I agree
shit, that may be the spaggiest sentence I've ever typed
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2010, 02:47:38 AM
with caveats, and "non-lingual" instead of "sub-lingual", and I agree
shit, that may be the spaggiest sentence I've ever typed
We should be so lucky. :lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 23, 2010, 05:49:14 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2010, 02:47:38 AM
with caveats, and "non-lingual" instead of "sub-lingual", and I agree
shit, that may be the spaggiest sentence I've ever typed
We should be so lucky. :lulz:
and just what was that supposed to mean? /tongueincheek
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 20, 2010, 08:28:32 AM
Anyway, I think people know what I meant. It's contradictory to say that "there is no such thing as truth" is true.
that may be right, but AleisterGrowley's remark about axioms is correct. afaik.
I pondered about this for a while myself.
Just like you can place questionmarks by the existence of "Real" numbers (hell, even numbers and counting in general though I forgot how that reasoning went), I also came to wonder about our system of formal logic, that indeed starts out by defining TRUE and FALSE as axioms, and a bunch of rules for logical operators as other axioms. From there you can derive the whole of logic.
While you cannot of course say "there is no such thing as truth" is TRUE, you can still (theoretically) reject those axioms, and thereby formal logic. It'd be useful to replace them with something else though.
OTOH, I could be talking out of my ass.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 22, 2010, 11:16:44 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 19, 2010, 08:40:44 PM
Okay, I see what you're saying and I think we're on the same page. But I was serious when I said that you can't truthfully argue against the existence of truth itself. It's axiomatic.
(Unless Beast was simply ignoring the rules, which is about as par for Discordian dialogue as The Capitalization Meme.)
I wasn't arguing about truth, (small 't'') per se, just the concept that it can ever be absolute.
It's always absolute.
I blame the Sya-Dasti or whatever mythos. Discordians are taught that anything can be true-ish.
I absolutely don't believe in absolute truth, but I think we've been over this in 1230597120357 threads already
ahhahahah! related----
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100923.gif)
Isn't just saying that nothing can be proven true weak logic in and of itself? It undermines any attempt to actually FIND truth, or even if truth exists.
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 24, 2010, 03:48:34 AM
Isn't just saying that nothing can be proven true weak logic in and of itself? It undermines any attempt to actually FIND truth, or even if truth exists.
IMO
it's not like things are absolutely "true" or "false"
things can have degrees of truth
and I do think that truth is relative to the observer
some facts are true to a wide range of observers. But a things "fact-hood" can change over time as the framework which supports the "explanation" changes. Sometimes this can only be seen in scales of time larger than our lifetimes.
this doesn't mean that one should give up the quest for truth - far from it! But it does mean that you have to treat the truths you find with a degree of skepticism. This helps you let go of them when they are eventually overturned.
Tao Te Ching ch5:
Heaven and Earth do not have human sentiments.
Ten-thousand things (everything) have the importance of a straw dog.*
The sages are not sentimental, thus they act toward the hundred families (everyone) as if they are straw dogs.
The space between Heaven and Earth is like the space inside of a flute!
It is hollow, yet does not get exhausted.
The more active it is, the more it produces.
Too many words bring about exhaustion.
It is better to hold your center.
*Straw dog: A sacrificial straw sculpture in the shape of a dog that was carefully maintained until it was used and then it was discarded.
our work the Chao Te Ching puts it thusly in ch15:
The wise spags understand Chaos,
in that it cannot be understood.
Because of that, they must use metaphors,
which are piss-poor ways of communicating.
Surfing the waves of Chaos;
Attempting a jailbreak;
Preparing for aftermath;
Changing their filters;
Making their own luck.
Makes sense.
How do we go about defining the degrees of fact-hood of a thing though? Or is this impossible for the English language?
Start here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-valued_logic)
Quote from: vexati0n on September 17, 2010, 07:06:37 PM
I've always been a terrible liar. Partly because when I was a kid I fucked up and believed it when I was told lying is bad and people shouldn't do it. I say I fucked up because, apparently, people THRIVE on bullshit and lies. It seems everyone is always plotting about what to say to somebody, which is either a lie, or includes an intentional omission of relevant truth. Everyone is in the business of making themselves look good all the time at any expense, and the only account anybody really has to withdraw from here is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - that is, banking on the fact that it will be impossible or too much hassle for other people to figure out they're being lied to, especially when all those people have their own webs of lies to maintain.
This kind of behavior, although I've tried (and failed) to engage in it myself, really really annoys my pants off. Honesty isn't just some high-minded morality thing, it's way the fuck simpler than making up lies all the time to make yourself look good. This, however, is lost on most people. They just don't understand that it's easier to be in control of a situation when you're not tied down by all the lines of bullshit you've tossed out there. And I've found that in everyday life, some of the most hilarious events is when somebody reaches the end of that line and their entire web of bullshit falls apart and everybody ends up hating them.
I'm right with you there. Blame it on youthful innocence, stupidity, whatever, I always in life found telling the truth to be more convenient, and felt like shit when I wasn't. IMO there's no real smile at the end of that rope though. It makes it moderately more difficult to play the social game, participate as "normal" folk do, and for me, drives me fucking nuts when I notice others around me engaging in this tomfoolery. On the positive side, at least the energy saved can be used for more "healthy" activities. "When ya always tell the truth, you never have to lie"
For the record, I didn't mean the masks people wear in different situations or the selves we project that depend on the situation or the people we're around. I was only referring to the little "white lies" people are always telling each other, "I was doing X" when they were really doing Y, for whatever reason, or "I think you're super!" when they're really talking shit about you to everybody else (people who do this tend to do it to everybody though). The whole clusterfuck you create when you have to lie more to maintain the false realities you've invented with lies, and the precarious place you put yourself in when the slightest slip of the tongue could collapse your little house of lies.
It isn't a moral judgement I'm making here, it's just that it seems to me that it's such a waste of energy and time. I see a lot of people worrying about what might happen if somebody finds out they're lying, or what to say to cover something up, even when they're covering up innocuous things because telling the truth in one area might lead to the truth being discovered in another area. People get trapped and lost inside their worlds, keeping track of so much meaningless information that they have no ability to think about anything important.
And to address the "absolute truth" bit, some things are absolutely true - events, actions, actual things that happened. These are indisputable, even if we don't know anymore how or why they happened, it doesn't have an effect on whether they actually did or did not happen. The Holocaust, for example, was a literal event that absolutely happened, for sure, 100%, no matter how future generations might interpret or dismiss it. Ideas aren't 100% true, because they are only approximate representations of reality. Reality itself is true regardless of how flawed or misinformed or ignorant our approximations of it might be.
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 24, 2010, 02:39:26 PM
Makes sense.
How do we go about defining the degrees of fact-hood of a thing though? Or is this impossible for the English language?
Building on LMNO's referece to Multi-Valued Logic, and if you really want to get into the meaning behind the Chant of Sri Syadasti, read my thread here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18260.15) (bumped for ease of reference).
He won't.
Research is hard. [pout]
Anyone who believes that there are no facts, and that nothing can be true, should drive their car into a bridge abutment with no seatbelt.
The nature of the universe will instantly become completely clear, for a very brief period of time.
Ah but I did read all of it. :)
Quote from: Telarus on October 27, 2008, 06:33:01 AM
QuoteThus, we have the seven categories of knowledge which when taken separately lead to fallacy. But we can use these categories to ask questions about the object we investigate, giving us a large body of knowledge that we then want to unify. The task of this rational unification is done by the theory of Syadvada.
The theory of Syadvada holds that for any proposition, there are three main modes of assessment, namely, (1) A positive assertion, (2) A negative assertion, (3) Not describable. The Jaina prefix each of these expressions with the term "Syat", meaning approximately, "May be, possibly, in some sense", in order to consciously avoid an absolute position. Let us look at these modes of assessment, and their seven combinations, which are called the sapta bhangi (seven modes). These are the seven terms that make up the full name of the Apostle of Confusion.
* syadasti - asserting that something "is", in some sense.
* syatnasti - asserting that something "is not", in some sense.
* syadasti nasti - asserting that something "is" and "is not", in some sense. This can usually be taken as occurring in linear time, i.e. "it is now, but soon it is not" or that some other change in context happens.
* syadavaktavyah - asserting that, in some sense, it is indescribable, indeterminate, inexpressible, or meaningless. For example, the whole experience of eating an apple, from texture to taste to emotions generated cannot be totally described in human language. The closest you could come to it is to eat an apple yourself, but that experience would be different from some-one else eating an apple. Also stating that the stone is black, and not black _at the same time_.
* syadastyavaktavya - asserting that it "is" in some sense, and that it "is indescribable, indeterminate, inexpressible, or meaningless" in some sense. For example stating that violence is indeed sinful under certain circumstances, but no positive statement of this type can be made for all times and under all circumstances.
* syatnasti ca avaktavyasca - asserting that it "is not" in some sense, and that it "is indescribable, indeterminate, inexpressible, or meaningless" in some sense. For example, the stove I touch is not hot, but if it will be hot in an hour is indeterminable.
* syadasti nasti ca avaktav-yasca - asserting that it "is" in some sense, that it "is not" in some sense, and that it "is indescribable, indeterminate, inexpressible, or meaningless" in some sense. For example, light behaves as a wave when measured with a certain instrument, light behaves as not a wave when measured by another instrument, but if you don't know what instrument was used the results are meaningless.
All these seven modes can be expressed with regard to every proposition, from every category on Naya. The Jaina philosophers have applied them with reference to self, its eternality, non-eternality, identity and character. In fact this approach of Anekanta permeates almost every doctrine which is basic to Jaina philosophy.
I hope Sri Syadasti is pleased with the confusion that this post will ultimately generate, and I will conclude with the Sri Syadastina Mysteree Chant:
A POEE MYSTEREE RITE - THE SRI SYADASTIAN CHANT
Written, in some sense, by Mal-2
Unlike a song, chants are not sung but chanted. This particular one is much enhanced by the use of a Leader to chant the Sanskrit alone, with all participants chanting the English. It also behooves one to be in a quiet frame of mind and to be sitting in a still position, perhaps The Buttercup Position. It also helps if one is absolutely zonked out of his gourd.
RUB-A-DUB-DUB
O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Hung Mung.
SYA-DASTI
O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Mo-jo.
SYA-DAVAK-TAVYA
O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Zara-thud.
SYA-DASTI SYA-NASTI
O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Elder Mal.
SYA-DASTI KAVAK-TAV-YASKA
O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Gu-lik.
SYA-DASTI, SYA-NASTI, SYA-DAVAK-TAV-YASKA
O! Hail Eris. All Hail Dis-cord-ia.
RUB-A-DUB-DUB
It is then repeated indefinitely, or for the first two thousand miles, which ever comes first.
EDIT:: So, I was pretty tired after 6 hours of scanning through (sometimes very badly translated) Jaina texts, and forgot to list my sources (thanks, [info]mathiastck). Here, in NO PARTICULAR ORDER are the websites that I cobbled the above together from:
http://www.jaintirths.com/general/anek.htm (Theory of Anekantavada)
--
First Steps To Jainism Part-2:
http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/firstep-2/sspredication.htm (The Syadvada System of Predication, By J. B. S. Haldane)
http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/firstep-2/indianjaina-1-1.htm (The Indian-Jaina Dialectic of Syadvad in Relation to Probability I, By P.C. Mahalanobis)
--
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/jainism/naya.asp ( Jainism and the theory of stand points, by Jayaram V)
--
http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/arhat/plurrealsm.htm (THE PATH OF ARHAT, PLURALISTIC REALISM, by Justice T.U.Mehta)
--
http://www.jainstudy.org/jsc1.04-QfromS.htm (Selections From Acharya Umaswati's TATTVAARTH SUTRA)
This is all really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. I just wish there were words in English that described the same sense that are in the seven words listed above.
Ok...this whole thread is really about OP's psyche. OP bluntly admits that he cannot effectively tell a lie and thus is simply prompting for the community to discuss the nature of truth and falsehood so that he can fell good about himself while he commands a community to debate an argument which serves no purpose. Tl;dr, OP is mad because he can't lie (and thus acquire goods in a society where lying is a valuable skill) and therefore wants you all to discuss the nature of truth and lies in order to feel the gratification of having social strokes come his way...
Who was the OP, anyway?
Sig/Lys.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on December 02, 2011, 09:25:23 AM
Ok...this whole thread is really about OP's psyche. OP bluntly admits that he cannot effectively tell a lie and thus is simply prompting for the community to discuss the nature of truth and falsehood so that he can fell good about himself while he commands a community to debate an argument which serves no purpose. Tl;dr, OP is mad because he can't lie (and thus acquire goods in a society where lying is a valuable skill) and therefore wants you all to discuss the nature of truth and lies in order to feel the gratification of having social strokes come his way...
necromatic internet psychology!
Whoops. My bad.
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Dunno.
He had it out for me for years. I can't remember what he was like before that, if he wasn't always like that.
He's in Phoenix, now, which I think is all the punishment he deserves.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2011, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Dunno.
He had it out for me for years. I can't remember what he was like before that, if he wasn't always like that.
He's in Phoenix, now, which I think is all the punishment he deserves.
They can run, but they can't hide?
People who claim they can't lie are lying.
So, yeah... pointless thread is pointless.
Quote from: Jasper on September 20, 2010, 05:26:20 PM
I am not so sure. I mean, what you're saying sounds true, but I subscribe to the wisdom that if you can't explain something in words, you don't understand it. Language may not be able to describe every idea imaginable, and what it does describe can never be conveyed completely by words alone, but words are still the best medium at our disposal for sharing some kind of truth, so it is kind of important that we say things that can be made sense of whenever possible.
I definitely think you can understand something without being able to explain it. Languages can be very bad at describing certain things, and I'm sure there are many people with English as a second language who would have no idea how to describe something in English, but could describe it perfectly well in their own language. One example would be emotions. English and German have very few words for describing emotions, and I often have a lot of trouble explaining them. It would take me ages to describe all the memories and experiences that contribute to the way I'm feeling, and even then you probably wouldn't get a very good understanding. Explaining in a reasonable amount of time usually sounds like some ridiculous haiku that makes not a lot of sense to most people (though not always). Maybe I'm just crap at describing emotions, but I don't think that means per se that I don't understand my feelings, or else everyone's understanding would correlate exactly to their oratory skills. And that sounds like bullshit. There are a lot of very intelligent people who are not incredibly great at speaking and writing.
Another example would be spiritual experiences. I can have some success explaining these, but it takes a very long time and I fuck up a lot and end up going around in circles. I'm sure that someone else could explain it better than me, but that doesn't necessary reflect superior understanding.
I think mystical experience is very unsuited to words in general, but English seems to be particularly bad at it. I've heard that Tibetan languages are much better at describing these things, containing many word-concepts that don't exist in English, and some that many Europeans would have a lot of trouble understanding. Therefore a Tibetan could describe certain things much better than we could, which probably means they have a better understanding of them because they come from a culture that recognizes these things. But I definitely don't think that is a rule. Someone else could have greater understanding, but have no way of communicating it, while someone with lesser understanding has better tools to communicate.
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Didn't he go completely batshit shortly (4-6 months shortly) before CU did, had a couple of failed flounces, and then one last and final flounce?
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:40:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Didn't he go completely batshit shortly (4-6 months shortly) before CU did, had a couple of failed flounces, and then one last and final flounce?
Yeah, he suddenly dumped on me & exploded. I am like a walking piece of litmus paper, I swear to fucking God.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 12, 2011, 08:41:41 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:40:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Didn't he go completely batshit shortly (4-6 months shortly) before CU did, had a couple of failed flounces, and then one last and final flounce?
Yeah, he suddenly dumped on me & exploded. I am like a walking piece of litmus paper, I swear to fucking God.
I think you are. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 12, 2011, 08:41:41 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:40:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Didn't he go completely batshit shortly (4-6 months shortly) before CU did, had a couple of failed flounces, and then one last and final flounce?
Yeah, he suddenly dumped on me & exploded. I am like a walking piece of litmus paper, I swear to fucking God.
True story, man.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 12, 2011, 08:41:41 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:40:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Didn't he go completely batshit shortly (4-6 months shortly) before CU did, had a couple of failed flounces, and then one last and final flounce?
Yeah, he suddenly dumped on me & exploded. I am like a walking piece of litmus paper, I swear to fucking God.
If I could bottle you, I would.
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:40:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Didn't he go completely batshit shortly (4-6 months shortly) before CU did, had a couple of failed flounces, and then one last and final flounce?
Wait. Was he Mr. Arial?
No, that was someone else. And I don't recall the particulars of what lead Vex to leave. But I didn't have an abnormal amount of negative encounters with him so as far as I'm concerned he's still a good Joe and I think it would be cool to have him around again.
Yeah i thought vex was pretty cool too but i remember him making quick and subtle jabs at roger and then all of a sudden boom. I think at this point its sacrifice for the board god. It seems to happen every 4 to 6 months that someone has some sort of meltdown with roger and then leave. And the board god uses roger as a magnet for the sacrificial victim.
Vex rocked. He wrote some awesome pranks (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24155965/Big-Mac-End-User-Licence-Agreement), and he was the first one to run with the Intermittens idea. He edited one of my favorite Intermittens issues (http://www.discoflux.com/images/imittens_v2_lossless.pdf), and had a big role in creating OMGASM. Vex has an amazing talent for taking a joke and turning it into a slick graphic. I miss his presence here.
When Vex decided to stick a fork in it, he wrote a goodbye (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27296.msg962563#msg962563) to the community which talked about how he didn't feel like he was cliquing with us anymore. There were a lot of hostile reactions to it, but I don't think it was really about Roger.
Quote from: My Lady is a Cantaloupe on December 13, 2011, 12:58:52 PM
No, that was someone else. And I don't recall the particulars of what lead Vex to leave. But I didn't have an abnormal amount of negative encounters with him so as far as I'm concerned he's still a good Joe and I think it would be cool to have him around again.
I talk to him on Facebook now and again. He's in Phoenix now, which explains his absence from the board.
I thought he was fucking hilarious most of the time, but he had a habit of pulling a "rong" when he was fucked up (either inebriated or fucked in the head, not sure which).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 13, 2011, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:40:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
What was the deal with Vex, anyway? I always liked him, but then it seemed like something went awry.
Didn't he go completely batshit shortly (4-6 months shortly) before CU did, had a couple of failed flounces, and then one last and final flounce?
Wait. Was he Mr. Arial?
I'm flattered you mixed me up with Vex, but no, I'm the Arialtard.
I don't have a fraction of his caustic writing skills.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 13, 2011, 02:31:13 PM
Vex rocked. He wrote some awesome pranks (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24155965/Big-Mac-End-User-Licence-Agreement), and he was the first one to run with the Intermittens idea. He edited one of my favorite Intermittens issues (http://www.discoflux.com/images/imittens_v2_lossless.pdf), and had a big role in creating OMGASM. Vex has an amazing talent for taking a joke and turning it into a slick graphic. I miss his presence here.
Second all of this. Dude really did bring the thunder when he put stuff together. There's a lot of talent in that one.
I liked him too, and then at some moment he could suddenly become really different, like depressed or something, and get into arguments (about his own rants mostly). He was on PD for quite some time before that started happening and I think it happened like 2 or 3 times before he actually left. I have no idea what was up with that.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 14, 2011, 08:49:15 PM
I liked him too, and then at some moment he could suddenly become really different, like depressed or something, and get into arguments (about his own rants mostly). He was on PD for quite some time before that started happening and I think it happened like 2 or 3 times before he actually left. I have no idea what was up with that.
The last one was really serious, like someone close to him keep an eye on him for his own safety type serious. Perhaps that was CU, but I'm pretty sure it was Vex.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 13, 2011, 02:31:13 PM
Vex rocked. He wrote some awesome pranks (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24155965/Big-Mac-End-User-Licence-Agreement), and he was the first one to run with the Intermittens idea. He edited one of my favorite Intermittens issues (http://www.discoflux.com/images/imittens_v2_lossless.pdf), and had a big role in creating OMGASM. Vex has an amazing talent for taking a joke and turning it into a slick graphic. I miss his presence here.
When Vex decided to stick a fork in it, he wrote a goodbye (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27296.msg962563#msg962563) to the community which talked about how he didn't feel like he was cliquing with us anymore. There were a lot of hostile reactions to it, but I don't think it was really about Roger.
I remember reading the OP before the edit, it wasn't near as nice as the one you quoted when you first responded in that thread. It was pretty douchey, and it was a dick move to delete it after a few people responded to his douchebaggery with hostility, and from there it sort of went downhill. So it wasn't, you know, completely unwarranted.