Thanks everyone. That felt awesome.
Yes we're horrible toxic people, because this is 2020's Mental Illness Olympics, and the winners get a free pass on giving life-threatening advice with the bonus of having zero accountability for their shit behaviour.
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: McGrupp on February 27, 2013, 09:49:52 PMI think I understand what you were trying to tell me here, or at least I understand how silly my response was.Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2013, 05:43:56 PMAh, I see. For some reason I thought it could be a noun as well.
Discordia is a verb.
Quote from: Telarus on March 02, 2013, 06:49:17 AM
Welcome to the Illuminati (& you're right, we have much better parties )
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 01, 2013, 03:54:09 PMI can't believe I didn't make the connection between Emperor Norton and this until about 5 minutes ago. No wonder he's revered.Quote from: McGrupp on February 28, 2013, 10:07:41 PMQuote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 27, 2013, 10:24:42 PMThis helps clarify things. For some reason whenever I hear any theory about the subjective nature of reality I immediately try to apply it to walking through a solid wall, which I'm pretty sure is a missing the forest for the tree, type situation.
I agree with you about being wary of using it for a cop-out, which is what many do.
It is not so much that everything is true and false at the same time as that nothing is absolutely true or absolutely false, though they may be so close as to be true or false for practical purposes.
Likewise, reality may or may not be objective (the territory), but how we experience it is subjective (the map) which is why, for the map to be at all useful, we first have to agree on how we will describe features of our experience (consensus).
Also, because how we experience reality is subjective, everything matters a great deal. To someone. I prefer to choose to care about things that affect a great number of people a great deal (humanism), rather than to choose to care about things that affect myself (hedonism).
I am not using anyone else's philosophy for this, it's just my take on things, so please, no one go rattling on about circuits and other occult shit.
As has been said already, most of the people here consider the perception of reality as subjective, while accepting that there is likely an objective reality somewhere under all the subjectivity. The wall may exist, but an artist may see it as a canvas for their next mural, a construction worker may see it as an important load bearing structure, the revolutionary may see it as that thing to put people up against once the revolution comes.
There's a popular set of memes here: "The Map is not the Territory" or "The Menu is not the Meal" (from General Semantics). Or those with an eastern mystical bent will quote the Master "The road you speak of is not the road you walk on". All of them are basically saying that the thing we describe (or the thing our senses describe to us) is not exactly the actual thing. A Menu may say "Filet de Boeuf" but its not gonna taste like anything like beef. A Map may have a blue squiggle line, but no matter how hard you try, you won't catch any fish in the blue squiggle.
The reality we experience is processed through our neurological instruments, then filtered through our reality tunnel (the accumulation of beliefs, knowledge and experiences we have had so far in our life). The result is our subjective interpretation of whatever the hell it was that objectively existed before we got hold of it.
For me, I find Discordianism to fit very well with Absurdism. There can be a meaning to existence, but its one we create. Its value is the value we give it and it seems to require looking into the Void, accepting that Eris is there ordering and disordering things (in some sense) and our subjective reality is ours to experience, manipulate and control. Maybe we are humanist, maybe we are hedonist, maybe we bounce back and forth between them, but objectively, none of those options are "Right" or "Wrong".
Subjectively, other people might consider you to be an asshole though, depending on which options you decide on.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 27, 2013, 10:24:42 PMThis helps clarify things. For some reason whenever I hear any theory about the subjective nature of reality I immediately try to apply it to walking through a solid wall, which I'm pretty sure is a missing the forest for the tree, type situation.
I agree with you about being wary of using it for a cop-out, which is what many do.
It is not so much that everything is true and false at the same time as that nothing is absolutely true or absolutely false, though they may be so close as to be true or false for practical purposes.
Likewise, reality may or may not be objective (the territory), but how we experience it is subjective (the map) which is why, for the map to be at all useful, we first have to agree on how we will describe features of our experience (consensus).
Also, because how we experience reality is subjective, everything matters a great deal. To someone. I prefer to choose to care about things that affect a great number of people a great deal (humanism), rather than to choose to care about things that affect myself (hedonism).
I am not using anyone else's philosophy for this, it's just my take on things, so please, no one go rattling on about circuits and other occult shit.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2013, 05:43:56 PM
Discordia is a verb.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 27, 2013, 07:12:34 PM
I don't understand the differentiation you're making in option 2.