The Cosmic Giggle
It was mentioned in the PD somewhere, I think. More and more humor is becoming the preferred mode of spirituality for me and I'd hear other people's thoughts on this mysterious concept.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 13, 2007, 04:54:48 AM
The Cosmic Giggle
It was mentioned in the PD somewhere, I think. More and more humor is becoming the preferred mode of spirituality for me and I'd hear other people's thoughts on this mysterious concept.
Humour is the only form of spirituality that I can relate to. This is taken as a flippant remark to a lot of people I've spoken to. Most of them have no idea how deep it goes.
Sometimes I take humor seriously other times I take seriousness humorously. Or something like that.
I think humor can be a good tool for disarming barriers.
At the same time, too much can blur the message, which I think many of beleve is one of the PD pitfalls.
Also, humor changes from generation to generation so in spirituality it will be most effective if it can adapt with the changing times.
It definitely has a place. Because you have to laugh at your surroundings from time to time or else everyone would be fashioning neck ties out of rope.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 13, 2007, 05:53:39 PMAt the same time, too much can blur the message, which I think many of beleve is one of the PD pitfalls.
also, humour in larger quantities can kind of get bland.
even monty python gets tedious if you watch it in a marathon.
also if you crack a few good jokes, you're liable to get into a silly mood, causing you to make a lot more, which might not be terribly funny anymore, a day later.
on the other hand, having a big long out loud laughing spell (IRL) can be a very invigorating experience. trouble remains, that "outsiders" will probably not enjoy it that much.
QuoteAlso, humor changes from generation to generation so in spirituality it will be most effective if it can adapt with the changing times. 
It definitely has a place.  Because you have to laugh at your surroundings from time to time or else everyone would be fashioning neck ties out of rope.
humour is a good and powerful thing. it's like holding up a mirror (does this metaphor exist in english?). in a "it's funny because it's true" kind of way, even the most retarded jokes have a grain of troof in them.
also it allows people to say things they otherwise maybe wouldn't dare to. like the court jester being the only one able to insult the king. like latenight comedy shows are usually very critical (and sometimes very retarded).
Yes, we seem to all agree that humor is essential to discordia, but what is the Cosmic Giggle?
It seems to hint at some mind state that comprehends humor in all things as a state of enlightenment, which would suggest that spirituality can be purified by developing one's sense of humor.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 13, 2007, 06:21:11 PMYes, we seem to all agree that humor is essential to discordia, but what is the Cosmic Giggle?
according to google, it wasn't mentioned in the PD, but appears (exclusively) in a widely-copied blurb from the back-side of the Illuminatus Trilogy.
(not that humour isn't a good subject, or that "cosmic giggle" isn't a funky phrase, just saying)
Okay. So it's not in any holy book, but what is it?
i dunno man, i never really encountered the term before.
first impression to me, just going by the words, is like some kind of cosmic background radiation, but then a giggle instead, like the Goddess who done it all quietly giggling, because reality in fact started out as the One Big Jake, just to fuck with us.
What if WE were created to fuck with something else? That would explain (to me) all the poignant, arbitrary, idiotic grandness of everything.
why with something else?
what if we were just created to fuck with, period.
You made the same mistake most people I say that to make. It's deeper than that - I'll try to explain. The split second where you laugh in response to something the universe has manifested, right in that tiny satorial instant, is the nearest thing I have found to a meaning for my existence. If there's a god and he made me and the universe (Don't even start I know, mmkay - I'm just saying 'if') then he did it so I would laugh at it and vice versa. With much practice laughing you become accustomed to seeing the funny side of more and more things. You get better at snagging the punchline and then your body reacts to it by laughing. Thereby filling your life up with more and more meaningful moments of connection.
meaning. yes that's it.
it's exactly that, humour lets you experience meaning.
meaning is something really real, it can manifest independent of medium, but still affect reality in the same way.
it's very possible that humour lets you glimpse a piece of this universalness of meaning.
(there's a bit more to that, but i'm not gonna quote Goedel Escher Bach again, just read it for yourself this time)
I understood, Cybin.
I've confused myself though.  Is there some possible synergesis between seriousness and humorousness that combines the best of both into something new?
Herimous.  Humorous seriousness.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 13, 2007, 07:26:00 PMHerimous.  Humorous seriousness.
.. sounds hideously heinous to me :)
Herimously?  Heh, hardly.  
laughter is great
but
creating is great as well
and creating something that can endure and laugh and create
well -- that just seems to take the cake
whatever you can think of that would be the most difficult thing that you can imagine doing is prolly something that you will have to learn how to do
not out of punishment
but
because you will eventually tire of doing all the other shit and find yourself feeling unfulfilled
Dude, what's that in your avatar? It's freaking me out.
To address your points-
The only really worthwhile things to me are things that require learning and discovery. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy, as I say.
Creation is the noblest pleasure next to understanding.
now this is interesting
i want to hear what Cy has to say about L0LL3Rcaust vs. creation
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 13, 2007, 07:26:00 PM
I understood, Cybin.
I've confused myself though. Is there some possible synergesis between seriousness and humorousness that combines the best of both into something new?
Herimous. Humorous seriousness.
Someone who wrote a paper on Discordianism and the CotSG called this the "ha ha, only serious" condition.
Ah, here it is:
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/neophile.html
This is a good article. I've read about half of it, will finish it later and proably even forward it to my parents as justification for not being Anglican.
I would say that the Cosmic Giggle isn't the light, fluffy, ha ha kind of giggle.
I think it represents that Ultimate Horrible Troof, the thing that you laugh at to keep from screaming.
It is the giggle that Lovecraft heard, the sound that occurs when trying to prevent madness and horror.
The psychopatic giggle of the truly damned, damned to recognize the Joke we all play on ourselves, the joke hidden in the structure of the universe, the cream pie aimed for all of our heads.
The Cosmic Giggle doesn't seem to be a very nice thing, to me.
But still, you gotta laugh. No, really. You have to; it's mandatory.
I think the Cosmic Giggle is the Universe's way of playing Marco Polo with us. Follow the sound of the laughter and you'll start finding out what it's really all about.
I don't believe we exist on this planet to be miserable. I believe that when we're doing what we're really supposed to be doing on this gas-wrapped chunk of rock, we know it 'cause it makes us happy on a level that comedy and luxury do not.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 16, 2007, 04:06:59 PM
I believe that when we're doing what we're really supposed to be doing on this gas-wrapped chunk of rock...
You really think we're
supposed to be doing something? Who's handling the supposition?
Quote from: LMNO on January 16, 2007, 12:53:24 PM
I would say that the Cosmic Giggle isn't the light, fluffy, ha ha kind of giggle.
I think it represents that Ultimate Horrible Troof, the thing that you laugh at to keep from screaming.
It is the giggle that Lovecraft heard, the sound that occurs when trying to prevent madness and horror.
The psychopatic giggle of the truly damned, damned to recognize the Joke we all play on ourselves, the joke hidden in the structure of the universe, the cream pie aimed for all of our heads.
The Cosmic Giggle doesn't seem to be a very nice thing, to me.
But still, you gotta laugh. No, really. You have to; it's mandatory.
I was having a meeting with myself in the shower about this, and I've decided that it is not a malevolent thing, any more than it is light and fluffy. It is the echo from when Eris invented humor, and gave it to the monkeys.
I've also come to the thought that, you know that "I am chaos, you are free" speech She gave the prophets? Well, I'd be willing to bet that humans were the last species on the list to recive that blessing. Everything else on the earth seems to know it's free, but there are still lots of people who don't know.
Animals are free? Maybe, but many of them have no sense of personal consciousness and so cannot be anything but true to themselves, working off of basic learnt behaviour and genetic input.
Free of what?
I guess that might have been an unfounded proposition. Animals are as free as they are, and have little capacity for more or less. That makes them even less free, huh?
Yes, yes it does.
No one is free.
Also, if there's a "cosmic giggle," imo, that means someone's either having a joke "on us"...or there's something that's funny to everyone (i.e. "the human condition").
:roll:
I was serious, but w/e.
I was referring to the no-one is free crap.
It's not crap. But like I said. w/e
Yes it is. Determinism is a shallow little lie used by those who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and nothing more.
I didn't ascribe to determinism. You put that there, not me.
Seeing as how the "p" in BIP = prison...I'm not sure where you are going with the above statement.
But as I feel a bit jumped on, I'm skidding out of this thread.
Thats a problem of perception, not freedom. Big difference.
Hey, come back here.
Quote from: Jenne on January 16, 2007, 08:44:35 PM
No one is free.
Also, if there's a "cosmic giggle," imo, that means someone's either having a joke "on us"...or there's something that's funny to everyone (i.e. "the human condition").
Perhaps the CG is not a joke
on anybody, so much a pervasive, omnihumorous phenomenon?
Also, if you were to ask Eris Everything is Free until you pay for it.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 17, 2007, 03:33:36 AM
Hey, come back here.
Quote from: Jenne on January 16, 2007, 08:44:35 PM
No one is free.
Also, if there's a "cosmic giggle," imo, that means someone's either having a joke "on us"...or there's something that's funny to everyone (i.e. "the human condition").
Perhaps the CG is not a joke on anybody, so much a pervasive, omnihumorous phenomenon?
Also, if you were to ask Eris Everything is Free until you pay for it.
Yeah, exactly. I think we all pay, even pay for others around us. For what are we all but users of each others' oxygen supplies?
/crotchet
i think part of the joke is that whatever the worst situation we can imagine is, we will eventually have to face it and learn to be prepared for it
like at the end of Ghostbusters 1
when they have to fight whatever it is that comes to mind, and Ray happens to think of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man
so basically - whatever the worst-case scenario you can think of in your head - that is what you are headed toward and will have to face
for most people, this has to do with betrayal, isolation, forsakenness, and physical pain with out the ability to trust anybody for help
its just a hunch - but there might be something to it...
Oh, great.
I'm heading for a poorly-lit cubicle with a 28 kbp modem and a forum full of asshats and idiots.
At least this place I work at has a T1 connection.
Damnit - I'm going to end up a catholic bishop and get no dope or fucking done ... like ever! :x
Quote from: LHX on January 17, 2007, 04:57:55 AM
so basically - whatever the worst-case scenario you can think of in your head - that is what you are headed toward and will have to face
for most people, this has to do with betrayal, isolation, forsakenness, and physical pain with out the ability to trust anybody for help
its just a hunch - but there might be something to it...
I believe it. I've lived it.
A worst case scenario for me is an untimely loss which is something my wife and I are continuing to negotiate and struggle with.
I think you are definitely on to something there. I think many have a fear, maybe not clearly defined, but an idea that a significant portion of their life energy is devoted to avoiding. "I'm not going to turn out like my [insert name of family member]"
"I don't want to be alone forever"
"I hope the Cancer doesn't come back."
I don't know if this has anything to do with the Cosmic Giggle or not.
Quote from: LHX on January 17, 2007, 04:57:55 AM
i think part of the joke is that whatever the worst situation we can imagine is, we will eventually have to face it and learn to be prepared for it
like at the end of Ghostbusters 1
when they have to fight whatever it is that comes to mind, and Ray happens to think of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man
so basically - whatever the worst-case scenario you can think of in your head - that is what you are headed toward and will have to face
for most people, this has to do with betrayal, isolation, forsakenness, and physical pain with out the ability to trust anybody for help
its just a hunch - but there might be something to it...
This seems based on irony. And I like this.
Also, what RWHN described is spot-on.
its sort of like not being able to proceed until you face that thing you never wanted to face - or never imagined you would have to face
that would be the definition of mastery, would it not?
mission accomplished
a job well done
keeping the planets in their orbit AND at the same time providing nourishing light
intense
Laughter for me commenced the day I realised how seriously I'd been taking the whole thing. When I saw myself getting all hot and bothered about all these scenarios that were happening to me. The cosmic joke is a windup, like candid camera but nobody steps out from behind a bush with a mic and breaks the illusion - that's left for you to take care of.
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them? I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off. Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 02:19:07 PM
Laughter for me commenced the day I realised how seriously I'd been taking the whole thing. When I saw myself getting all hot and bothered about all these scenarios that were happening to me. The cosmic joke is a windup, like candid camera but nobody steps out from behind a bush with a mic and breaks the illusion - that's left for you to take care of.
troof
a lot of times that is a tough one to come to terms with
its common to raise children with the notion that 'there will always be somebody there to help and protect' and all other things good
its easy for people spend too much time giggling and not enough time laughing
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them?  I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off.  Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
probably not, except for maybe OC-types. Even then, they are things that they are ignoring while focusing on their compulsions.
While I think we all recognize the fear, the thing we don't want to happen, at some point you just have to shrug your shoulders and say, eh fuck it. The more you try to control, to bear down and steer, the more paralyzed you'll become like you said.
That doesn't sound very funny to me.
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them?  I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off.  Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
It's more a matter of what you project/pay attention to that makes the difference. I might be aware that some banks I ripped off 5 or 6 years ago have tracked me down and want a couple of grand off me, meanwhile I'm blissfully unaware that, post 30, my brain is dying one cell at a time. All you get from reality is subjective. How you see it is as near as you're going to come to the truth. It's either mostly black or mostly white but it's all down to your perception.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them? I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off. Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
probably not, except for maybe OC-types. Even then, they are things that they are ignoring while focusing on their compulsions.
While I think we all recognize the fear, the thing we don't want to happen, at some point you just have to shrug your shoulders and say, eh fuck it. The more you try to control, to bear down and steer, the more paralyzed you'll become like you said.
That doesn't sound very funny to me.
It's a good reason for the predominant use of anethsitizing agents (drugs/alcohol/other addictions), as well. Why deal with the troof when you can put it off til tomorrow? And by then, your hangover will preclude you doing anything but sleeping it off...
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them? I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off. Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
It's more a matter of what you project/pay attention to that makes the difference. I might be aware that some banks I ripped off 5 or 6 years ago have tracked me down and want a couple of grand off me, meanwhile I'm blissfully unaware that, post 30, my brain is dying one cell at a time. All you get from reality is subjective. How you see it is as near as you're going to come to the truth. It's either mostly black or mostly white but it's all down to your perception.
But I think it's this last bit, "your perception," that is at the crux of most of the BIP here. Otherwise, none of it really matters. If you don't perceive it, it doesn't exist, or at least you don't feel its effects.
Until it's too late.
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them?  I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off.  Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
probably not, except for maybe OC-types. Even then, they are things that they are ignoring while focusing on their compulsions.
While I think we all recognize the fear, the thing we don't want to happen, at some point you just have to shrug your shoulders and say, eh fuck it. The more you try to control, to bear down and steer, the more paralyzed you'll become like you said.
That doesn't sound very funny to me.
It's a good reason for the predominant use of anethsitizing agents (drugs/alcohol/other addictions), as well.  Why deal with the troof when you can put it off til tomorrow?  And by then, your hangover will preclude you doing anything but sleeping it off...
TGRR's "fals slack" sermon is poignant here.
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:34:52 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them?  I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off.  Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
It's more a matter of what you project/pay attention to that makes the difference. I might be aware that some banks I ripped off 5 or 6 years ago have tracked me down and want a couple of grand off me, meanwhile I'm blissfully unaware that, post 30, my brain is dying one cell at a time. All you get from reality is subjective. How you see it is as near as you're going to come to the truth. It's either mostly black or mostly white but it's all down to your perception.
But I think it's this last bit, "your perception," that is at the crux of most of the BIP here.  Otherwise, none of it really matters.  If you don't perceive it, it doesn't exist, or at least you don't feel its effects.
Until it's too late.
You just made me think - You
are the BIP, until you become self aware
But really...is that all it takes? Just self-awareness? What about laissez-faire approaches to life? the "damn-it-all" of taking responsibility?
I think there might be more to the equation than that...but that's certainly one of the what LMNO calls "first key picks to the locks" or something to that effect.
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 03:18:27 PM
But really...is that all it takes?  Just self-awareness?  What about laissez-faire approaches to life?  the "damn-it-all" of taking responsibility?
I think there might be more to the equation than that...but that's certainly one of the what LMNO calls "first key picks to the locks" or something to that effect.
All optional. Every decision you make, ever, will have little or no lasting effect in the grand sheme of things. Subjectively OTOH, it's night and day.
Self-awareness is usually srongly linked to self-delusion. to free one from the other is incredibly difficult.
Yeah, I had a feeling someone would say that, LMNO. :lol:
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 03:27:18 PM
All optional. Every decision you make, ever, will have little or no lasting effect in the grand sheme of things. Subjectively OTOH, it's night and day.
"little or no lasting effect" on what?
Because I would submit that at the very least, the decisions you make can have an impact on what cell you are living in, even if it means deciding to stay in the one you are in.
Awareness of your environment, I believe, has an impact on your self to a certain degree, or at least how you operate. Being aware of the environment, I also believe, is a choice, a decision. Ergo, I submit that decisions can have impacts. Sure, you're not going to change the world, but anyone who thinks they could should be more self-aware of their delusions.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 03:27:18 PM
All optional. Every decision you make, ever, will have little or no lasting effect in the grand sheme of things. Subjectively OTOH, it's night and day.
"little or no lasting effect" on what?
Because I would submit that at the very least, the decisions you make can have an impact on what cell you are living in, even if it means deciding to stay in the one you are in. 
Awareness of your environment, I believe, has an impact on your self to a certain degree, or at least how you operate.  Being aware of the environment, I also believe, is a choice, a decision.  Ergo, I submit that decisions can have impacts.  Sure, you're not going to change the world, but anyone who thinks they could should be more self-aware of their delusions. 
What I'm saying is that all you can be aware of is delusion. There is no form of awareness beyond this. But there is the realisation of this fact. If you fully realise it the cosmic giggle becomes just that - the whole thing is a trip. As soon as you lose sight of this fact you're back into a world of right and wrong, with an arbitrary judge who is not you.
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them? I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off. Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
i think we have mechanisms to ignore it for as long as we can
it definitely isnt easy, but troof is something you have to learn to 'live' with
really - there is no other long-term choice
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 17, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
Does anyone ever really grasp all that is happening to them? I mean...if you are that much inside your head, can you function?
I think we have a survival mechanism that turns that off. Otherwise, you'll just stand in front of a snow-filled tv set drooling all day.
probably not, except for maybe OC-types. Even then, they are things that they are ignoring while focusing on their compulsions.
While I think we all recognize the fear, the thing we don't want to happen, at some point you just have to shrug your shoulders and say, eh fuck it. The more you try to control, to bear down and steer, the more paralyzed you'll become like you said.
That doesn't sound very funny to me.
It's a good reason for the predominant use of anethsitizing agents (drugs/alcohol/other addictions), as well. Why deal with the troof when you can put it off til tomorrow? And by then, your hangover will preclude you doing anything but sleeping it off...
or - that means you have troof PLUS a hangover to deal with
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 03:27:18 PM
All optional. Every decision you make, ever, will have little or no lasting effect in the grand sheme of things. Subjectively OTOH, it's night and day.
"little or no lasting effect" on what?
Because I would submit that at the very least, the decisions you make can have an impact on what cell you are living in, even if it means deciding to stay in the one you are in.
Awareness of your environment, I believe, has an impact on your self to a certain degree, or at least how you operate. Being aware of the environment, I also believe, is a choice, a decision. Ergo, I submit that decisions can have impacts. Sure, you're not going to change the world, but anyone who thinks they could should be more self-aware of their delusions.
true
there really is no reason to believe that the entire universe depends on you and your actions
or rather - there is no less reason to believe that than there is to believe that none of your actions matter
from my calculations - the best course of action is the one that successfully addresses both scenarios
(borrowing from Hagakure again:) plunge recklessly toward a irrational death by heading in what your perception deems to be the right direction; make sure you have a mechanism in place that allows your perception to take in new information and develop new approaches
continually bust out of the prison
again and again and again and again and again until every decision you make is representative of busting out
or something to that effect
I hate to be the one to quote the crow here but "Do what thou wilt"
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 03:56:50 PM
I hate to be the one to quote the crow here but "Do what thou wilt"
no doubt
there is so many ways to say it - but that seems to be what it boils down to
its too bad that the statement doesnt sound right to peoples ears when they first hear it
all they think of is 'selfishness' and falling victim to temptation and vices
envy greed lust and hate
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 03:44:09 PM
What I'm saying is that all you can be aware of is delusion. There is no form of awareness beyond this.
Maybe it's just semantics but this just doesn't jive with my system. Sure, I am aware of delusions. But I am also aware of things that I wouldn't define as delusions. The love from my daughtert and wife. Is that a delusion? In some situations, perhaps it is. My gut tells me though, that in my case, it is not.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 04:06:08 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 03:44:09 PM
What I'm saying is that all you can be aware of is delusion. There is no form of awareness beyond this.
Maybe it's just semantics but this just doesn't jive with my system. Sure, I am aware of delusions. But I am also aware of things that I wouldn't define as delusions. The love from my daughtert and wife. Is that a delusion? In some situations, perhaps it is. My gut tells me though, that in my case, it is not.
I'd say IMO it's all delusion. Love/hate hot/cold. Things you enjoy/things you dont even the enjoyment itself, all part of the delusion of self. But, whether the feelings are real or not, you still appear to feel them right? The subjective experience is undeniable. So what use is knowing it's all delusion? It helps you change the bits you don't like is all. Other than subjectively this makes no difference but if subjective is all that exists then it makes all the difference.
Your solipsistic nihilism is showing, Silly.
Quote from: LMNO on January 17, 2007, 04:56:44 PM
Your solipsistic nihilism is showing, Silly.
Be wierd if it wasn't.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 04:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 04:06:08 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 03:44:09 PM
What I'm saying is that all you can be aware of is delusion. There is no form of awareness beyond this.
Maybe it's just semantics but this just doesn't jive with my system.  Sure, I am aware of delusions.  But I am also aware of things that I wouldn't define as delusions.  The love from my daughtert and wife.  Is that a delusion?  In some situations, perhaps it is.  My gut tells me though, that in my case, it is not. 
I'd say IMO it's all delusion. Love/hate hot/cold. Things you enjoy/things you dont even the enjoyment itself, all part of the delusion of self. But, whether the feelings are real or not, you still appear to feel them right? The subjective experience is undeniable. So what use is knowing it's all delusion? It helps you change the bits you don't like is all. Other than subjectively this makes no difference but if subjective is all that exists then it makes all the difference.
So if they are delusions then what is the reality?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 05:16:52 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 04:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 04:06:08 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 17, 2007, 03:44:09 PM
What I'm saying is that all you can be aware of is delusion. There is no form of awareness beyond this.
Maybe it's just semantics but this just doesn't jive with my system. Sure, I am aware of delusions. But I am also aware of things that I wouldn't define as delusions. The love from my daughtert and wife. Is that a delusion? In some situations, perhaps it is. My gut tells me though, that in my case, it is not.
I'd say IMO it's all delusion. Love/hate hot/cold. Things you enjoy/things you dont even the enjoyment itself, all part of the delusion of self. But, whether the feelings are real or not, you still appear to feel them right? The subjective experience is undeniable. So what use is knowing it's all delusion? It helps you change the bits you don't like is all. Other than subjectively this makes no difference but if subjective is all that exists then it makes all the difference.
So if they are delusions then what is the reality?
There probably is a reality, behind there somewhere. I suspect that if there is it's probably much simpler and a lot smaller than we'd expect. Regardless and to all intents and purposes it's something that doesn't exist as far as consciousness is concerned because you're never going to interact with it in any way other than the dream you are dreaming. Reality may well be up to a whole bunch of shit that doesn't relate to you personally but again, to all intents and purposes, it's only making your consciousness and it's delusional subjective interaction with 'perceived reality' happen.
Why is the notion of concrete reality/meaning/purpose, etc so important to people? I've noticed that lack of it seems to lead to despair. Christ knows I've been there myself. Personally I just like to find the whole deal amazing and hilarious. That's enough for me. God doesn't want me for a sunbeam, annubis ain't getting ready to weigh my heart against a feather, the meaning of life is null and void. Nothing exists and is all things. We know that tom and jerry are not real but we enjoy their antics regardless. That is the only sense of reality I need.
so you dont leave the possibility open for something concrete to appear?
that sounds a bit limiting, bro
just because you aint seen it yet or that all other theories fall short doesnt mean its not there
also - its important to people for 2 reasons:
some people have learned to be afraid of it, and have learned to base their lives around that fear
some people have learned that its nothing to be afraid of
BUT
have made the observation that the more familiar you are with 'it', the more free and powerful you become
and this is actually another example:
what is the difference between this discussion here and a Tom and Jerry cartoon?
clearly there is something 'more real' about this dialog than there is in a cartoon
or
you also type out full paragraphs discussing philosophy with the creators of Tom and Jerry as well?
Let's break it down this way:
World Peace = delusion
Hot/Cold (to use one of Silly's examples) = concrete "reality"
Let's use history as the vehicle of examination. History would suggest that World Peace is a delusion as it seems that in some corner of the world, throughout human history, there has been some degree of conflict. If it wasn't all out war it certainly was diplomatic dislike and disdain.
However, history would suggest to us that Hot/Cold are probably not delusions. Why, because there have been enough instances of people being burning and freezing to death to suggest it is more than a mere delusion. If it were mere delusion than the poor old lady that just went up in flames with her house here locally would probably be enjoying a lunch right now.
its hard to say what is a delusion and what isnt when we are only dealing with such a small space of 'known' history
maybe if someone were to say that 'the world is at peace right now' it would be a delusion, but i am sure that there is some people who would be willing to argue that it is true
things that dont correspond to known laws of physics are delusions
everything else seems fair game
Quote from: LHX on January 17, 2007, 05:44:36 PM
so you dont leave the possibility open for something concrete to appear?
that sounds a bit limiting, bro
just because you aint seen it yet or that all other theories fall short doesnt mean its not there
I sort of have seen it, in that I've got a working paradigm borrowed from several existing descriptions, in all probability identical to others. It explains experiences and interactions I've observed in states of consciousness not normally explored by the average man in the street (I'd expect prolly a good few in this forum though). Ultimately there is nothing there except where it all comes from, which is a void in itself. I strongly suspect the 'fear' factor that you describe is experienced by those who see something, in these states of consciousness which is not the prime cause itself.
To make that sound less occultical (it's veering that way) they come into contact with aspects of consciousness they were hithertoo unaware of and make some wierd assumptions, based largely on programmed mammalian threat response.
Quote from: LHX on January 17, 2007, 05:44:36 PM
what is the difference between this discussion here and a Tom and Jerry cartoon?
clearly there is something 'more real' about this dialog than there is in a cartoon
To be perfectly honest (and please dont take this as an insult) This conversation is simply another form of entertainment, in a media that is much more interactive than TJ cartoons. You ask if i'd leave the possibility open for something concrete to appear. I'd say the concrete bit already has appeared. It appeared to me, via consciousness and I have no other means of seeing it than through the illusion of me.
You've (LHX) got a point.  I can see that.  I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion.  It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone.  
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 06:11:38 PM
You've (LHX) got a point. I can see that. I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion. It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone.
Sometimes the way it appears conforms to notions of concreteness. It has to otherwise it wouldn't appear as it does. The whole reason I think this way is because it enables me to cut through so much that may appear to be concrete and in fact isn't. The bars of my cell for instance. I still need to 'be' somewhere - you can't do that without a bit of concrete. So ultimately even the concrete aint real, still seems that way but a lot of shit that used to have me hook line and sinker aint there anymore.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 06:11:38 PM
You've (LHX) got a point. I can see that. I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion. It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone.
Our senses and mind have to simplify, distort, and bias everything we percieve with innate and learned heuristics, schemas, fantasies and previous experiences.
The map never is the territory.We never can comprehend past our maps, which will always misrepresent the world to some degree. It's just that some of these maps are more accurate than others. In the same way that scrupulous scientists never claim they have THE truth, but that their theories are the best model they have based on the evidence.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 17, 2007, 11:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 06:11:38 PM
You've (LHX) got a point. I can see that. I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion. It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone.
Our senses and mind have to simplify, distort, and bias everything we percieve with innate and learned heuristics, schemas, fantasies and previous experiences.
The map never is the territory.
We never can comprehend past our maps, which will always misrepresent the world to some degree. It's just that some of these maps are more accurate than others. In the same way that scrupulous scientists never claim they have THE truth, but that their theories are the best model they have based on the evidence.
here is a question:
can that misrepresenting fragment/factor be isolated?
and if so
can we then say that there is a region where there is no misrepresentation?
where movements are precise and exact and based on 'truth'?
my hunch is yes
you can include some sort of device
on your map that makes up for/accounts for any map discrepancies
in other words:
the 'best map' includes an acknowledgement that the map is not the territory
what are the other details of the 'best map'? (new thread)
Quote from: LHX on January 18, 2007, 01:34:04 AM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 17, 2007, 11:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 17, 2007, 06:11:38 PM
You've (LHX) got a point. I can see that. I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion. It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone.
Our senses and mind have to simplify, distort, and bias everything we percieve with innate and learned heuristics, schemas, fantasies and previous experiences.
The map never is the territory.
We never can comprehend past our maps, which will always misrepresent the world to some degree. It's just that some of these maps are more accurate than others. In the same way that scrupulous scientists never claim they have THE truth, but that their theories are the best model they have based on the evidence.
here is a question:
can that misrepresenting fragment/factor be isolated?
and if so
can we then say that there is a region where there is no misrepresentation?
where movements are precise and exact and based on 'truth'?
The misrepresenting factors are our sense receptors, brain, and life experience.
There is no region where there is no misrepresentation, there's always room for refinement.
I don't think anyone has the precise and exact 'truth' but I know some people are closer to it than others.
Not to get all mathematical on y'all, but one of the main thrusts of Einstein's work was to find an accurate measure of "things" when those things are competely removed from any subjective constant.
That is, the traditional thought was that to measure distance, or time, or velocity, you had to have an observed constant. But if the observer is moving, it will change the measurement.
Einstein was able to remove the subjective aspect of measurement. So, you could say that modern physics is the closest in removing the misinterpereting factor.
Modern science, taken as a belief system, is leaps and bounds ahead of most other belief systems, both in terms of usability (what we can accomplish with it) and flexibility (how open it is to re-evaluation. Problem is, as with many other belief systems, a lot of people take it to be gospel. Most 'good' scientists will keep an open mind. Most 'bad' parishioners will hold onto bits that need updating.
Quote from: LMNO on January 18, 2007, 01:34:05 PM
Not to get all mathematical on y'all, but one of the main thrusts of Einstein's work was to find an accurate measure of "things" when those things are competely removed from any subjective constant.
That is, the traditional thought was that to measure distance, or time, or velocity, you had to have an observed constant. But if the observer is moving, it will change the measurement.
Einstein was able to remove the subjective aspect of measurement. So, you could say that modern physics is the closest in removing the misinterpereting factor.
Sure, and also pretty far removed from use in daily life, too.
I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life. Most just don't know how very much that is.
It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind. Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.
(of course I don't know much about it)
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2007, 03:01:21 AM
I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life. Most just don't know how very much that is.
It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind. Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.
(of course I don't know much about it)
How does physics help me choose what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, or what book to read?
I posed a friend this same query today. Odd.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 22, 2007, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2007, 03:01:21 AM
I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life.  Most just don't know how very much that is.
It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind.  Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.
(of course I don't know much about it)
How does physics help me choose what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, or what book to read?
That's why I reckon physics is a better belief system than religion. The bible will tell you exactly what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, what book to read, who to hate, who to kill, who not to fuck ....
Physics, on the other hand, is there when you need it. Say you want to make a little box that cooks food really fast ... Bingo - physics will give you some ideas.
right on - you shouldn't need a religion to tell you what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, what book to read, who to hate, who to kill, who not to fuck etc
that's what you use your brain for.
with physics only telling you the bare essentials on a very basic level like "what will happen if i do this", "how can i accomplish X effectively", it essentially forces you to "Think for yourself schmuck" for the more higher level questions (moral/ethical, what to eat for dinner etc)
maybe i'm glorifying physics too much by saying this, though .. i have the feeling the above statement should be balanced by some reversed barstool of sorts, anyone?
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 22, 2007, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2007, 03:01:21 AM
I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life.  Most just don't know how very much that is.
It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind.  Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.
(of course I don't know much about it)
How does physics help me choose what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, or what book to read?
It doesn't. Those questions purposefully shove the misinterpreting factor back into the equation.
One should avoid conflation.
Physics is not normative, fortunately. It doesn't tell us how to live our lives, only what is possible to do with them.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2007, 04:59:20 PM
Physics is not normative, fortunately. It doesn't tell us how to live our lives, only what is possible to do with them.
Thats my acid test for a belief system. Anyone I encounter who subscribes to one which fails this criteria is immediately filed under 'fuckhead' in my mental notation. That's not to say that passing the belief system test disqualifies someone from receiving that accolade but it's a step in the right direction.
I assume the "how" is the fail and the "possible" is not? I'm pretty sure thats what you mean, but I've only slept 3 hours in the past 2 days, so I may be wrong.
Actually it's the reverse. My 'fuckhead' file is all the people who may stand in the way of my quest for world domination. The 'smart' people are the ones I should, quite easily, be able to subjugate, once the fuckheads are taken care of.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2007, 04:59:20 PMPhysics is not normative, fortunately.  It doesn't tell us how to live our lives, only what is possible to do with them.
was this the reversed barstool i requested or just a random remark on the subject?
also, Silly: now you're just confusing the poor guy ;-)
I dont know. I mean, physics tells we can eat hamburgers on Friday and kick habits while nuns are still in them and all sorts of other fun things, it doesn't really forbid anyone from doing the possible, which seems entirely what religion is about.
so you're saying, physics is not a religion?
sounds reasonable to me.
i explained to someone a few das ago that religion is a combination of spirituality (or helping people find their spirituality) and a system of rules/laws/ethics/morality.
and that it's that second bit of religion that makes it such an evil beastie, while attracting people with the promise of the first bit.
Well all religions basically law down rules which they claim are immortal and immutable, but the thing is that when you try, you can usually break them. Breaking the laws of physics is far more impressive, and keeps a ton of scientists in jobs to boot.
hm that's an interesting distinction, next time someone's gonna compare physics and religion, i will just say "y' canna change the laws of physics jimmy!" :-)
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2007, 01:25:43 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 22, 2007, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2007, 03:01:21 AM
I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life. Most just don't know how very much that is.
It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind. Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.
(of course I don't know much about it)
How does physics help me choose what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, or what book to read?
It doesn't. Those questions purposefully shove the misinterpreting factor back into the equation.
One should avoid conflation.
I was refuting Jenne's claim about physics in most areas of daily life.
Not conflating shit, alphapance.
I'm just saying misinterpretation is big a part of life, and your natural science isn't going to save you from conflation.
Especially physics.
I tend to compare physics and religion from the 'belief system' angle both provide working models for how the universe works. In physics it's all to do with maths and in religion it's a guy with a beard. In any 'beard guy' scenario there's a 'what he wants you to do' issue. This usually affects moral codes and whatnot, whereas science the issue is 'what do you want to do'. Both systems have their drawbacks
Religion really puts you out of the picture. God wants you for a dancing puppy and you basically have to live your life the most tedious way possible for fear that you may slide off life's conveyor belt and into the burning reject bin. Okay yeah, its got morals. "God says 'thou shalt not kill' you can't argue with that can you?" Well, to be perfectly honest, if you need god to tell you it's wrong to steal from someone, or to fuck their spouse behind their back, or even kill them then you're a concern to me. Historically god has been known to change his mind. I don't want to be living next door to you if and when this happens.
Physics is much less bothered about what you 'should' be doing and 'why are you here' and more concerned with splitting atoms into ever smaller pieces and then finding out what weird and wonderful technological marvel you can build out of them. Physics completely ignores the human curiosity about the 'soul' or 'Consciousness' as it's referred. You can tell how alien a notion it really is to them whenever they come across it. Quantum theory is fucking with a lot of physicists heads due, in no small part to the fact that they've gone so far into the macrocosm that they're starting to see the microcosm reflected.
Faithfools scab at physicists cos it doesn't explain the big questions of self and ego and soul and shit and fundamentalist physicists get on their high horse cos "There's no way you could fit that many breeding pairs of animals in one boat" and both seem to ignore the glaring deficiency in both their world views. It's of note that both camps seem equally fervent in their chosen belief system.
Once again the middle way seems preferable to me.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2007, 05:38:18 PM
I dont know. I mean, physics tells we can eat hamburgers on Friday and kick habits while nuns are still in them and all sorts of other fun things, it doesn't really forbid anyone from doing the possible, which seems entirely what religion is about.
Physics doesn't even tell us we can do that. It tells us what will happen if certain amounts of pressure are applied along certain vectors and meets various kinds of resistance (chewing versus the hamburger, peristalsis versus the chewed-up hamburgers, kicking motions versus a clothed human body). We get to take those bits of information and then apply them to different possible situations, and find that we will get similar results if we eat tuna fish sandwiches on Thursday or kick wedding dresses while the brides are still in them. And that we will get different results if we try to eat a barstool leg on Sunday or kick a tuxedo while a fire hydrant is in it.
That's why physics rocks. It exists on an abstract level that can be superimposed on several different concrete examples, but it's still up to us to make interpretations. It doesn't tell us that a tuna fish sandwich is a better breakfast option than a barstool leg or that kicking a fire hydrant is worse than kicking a nun - that's up to us to decide.
Thanks, DJR. You got the meat of what I teased at.
it's also important to note the distinction between physics and science because science does NOT "completely ignore the human curiosity about the 'soul' or 'Consciousness' as it's referred."
(you know psychology, neurology, sociology, all these alpha pseudo sciences made for those pansies who are afraid of some REAL MATFHTM  8-) )
Social sciences are great for....something. Proving there are bajillions of uncontrollable variables and even if somehow you come up with a working model you may never know if its right.
Social science - it might be social. Might be but scientific? Get the fuck out of here!
No, there is serious analysis that can be done in the social sciences, because you are introducing scientific rigour to the problems of the discipline, but when dealing with something as broad ranging as security or terrorism (as I do), it invariably fails to make a convincing case for what we do know, only for excluding certain thing.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 22, 2007, 09:46:16 PM
Wedding dresses full of tuna make great cleric bludgeons.
That's why physics rocks.
Fixed.
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2007, 11:46:28 AM
No, there is serious analysis that can be done in the social sciences, because you are introducing scientific rigour to the problems of the discipline, but when dealing with something as broad ranging as security or terrorism (as I do), it invariably fails to make a convincing case for what we do know, only for excluding certain thing.
Could you expand that a little bit. I've got teh intrigue.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 24, 2007, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2007, 11:46:28 AM
No, there is serious analysis that can be done in the social sciences, because you are introducing scientific rigour to the problems of the discipline, but when dealing with something as broad ranging as security or terrorism (as I do), it invariably fails to make a convincing case for what we do know, only for excluding certain thing.
Could you expand that a little bit. I've got teh intrigue.
Alright. For example, the early days of terrorism research were carried out by military officers who saw it as a subdivision of irregular warfare and so little was done to develop causal reasons, while the manifestations of terrorism were numbering in the thousands.
In the 70s it was finally turned over to psychologists, quite sensibly, who collected a ton of data from imprisoned new left and ethnic insurgent groups in Europe. The data, for example, showed that there were very few similarities in psychological problems among terrorists. The variety of tests that were carried out came out with few conclusive results. We know, for example, terrorists are not psychopaths, paranoids or delusional in most cases. There is no linking factor at that level.
So researchers went up a level, to look at societal issues. Here there was some more success, but interpretating the data is hard. For example, there is a conclusive link between poverty and terrorism. But there is also a link between failed states and terrorism. Does poverty cause the terrorism which causes the state to fail, or does the failed state cause the poverty which causes terrorism? Or are both a result of terrorists?
There have been more negative successes too. We know many terrorists do not work along cult lines, with deliberate brainwashing until someone has already committed themselves to that cause. Once someone is considered "in", they'll get the usual weapons and covert training along with a heavy dose of ideology, but usually its up to them to make the first moves. We know now that suicide bombers often self-select and that many groups who use them do not themselves understand the underlying motivation for their actions, though they are willing to use them.
Its like coming to a conclusion, the long way around. Is it this similar in psychology, with biological data and discoveries weeding out the less workable theories? From what I hear, its like this way in most sociology.
interesting stuff, Cain (though i was just  :troll: -ing a bit about the pseudo science, but you know that)
I agree it is, to a degree. It uses scientific conventions, but because you cannot control much of what is studied, you can never account for the many thousands of variables, from individual psychology up to systemic factors.
All you can do is perform massive amount of experiments, controlling as much as you can, and then interpolate statistics and trends.
Hey... we do know the History of Psychiatry.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 24, 2007, 11:43:37 AM
Social science - it might be social. Might be but scientific? Get the fuck out of here!
Well, I am a walking, breathing example of the "science" in social sciences.  It's how I make my living currently.  In fact, more and more the arena of social services and social sciences are becoming even more scientific.  That's because everything is becoming data driven.  With data, with hard numbers, you can draw conclusions about phenomena.  But, much like the hard sciences, in many cases it is still a theory and so it allows for new questions and new avenues to look into.  All I do all day is look at data and it is my scientific analysis of this data that, among other factors, impacts the strategic planning of the agency.  It is still studying cause and effect, but instead of atoms and molecules, I'm studying individuals and communities.  
yes, even if you dont have useful data, if you apply the statistics (MATH!) right, you will end up with scientific fact. just that if the data really isn't useful, your facts will be that you "can't draw any conclusions from the data", but you know that for a fact!
seriously, in science, even bad results are good results. as long as you obtain them carefully.
unfortunately i have the idea that some of the less statistically/mathematically -able people in the non-exact sciences kind of take a more loose approach to the accuracy of their statistics than the exact sciences do.
but on the other hand i know enough examples of people who do take it seriously as well ('s just that they don't often come up with the interesting conclusions heh)