sometimes my thought process goes like this:
1. there's a cup on my table
2. i can't prove there's a cup on the table because all i have to base that on is my sensory perception and not the inherent knowledge of the cup being on the table
3. do I know anything, then?
4. No. I believe a shitload of things, and I theorize a shitload of things.
5. Isn't what I just said a theory then?
6. Yes, it is.
7. So why am I so sure of myself?
8. I'm not.
9. Is there an authentic way to perceive?
10. Ideally, the authentic perception is to experience truly and not perceive.
11. Is that attainable?
12. I won't know unless I attain it.
13. Well, let's say there's an authentic, singular, true way to experience things... if I were to attain that ability, then (following the theory that everything is a theory) wouldn't I wonder if it was just me theorizing and I would actually inhibit myself from experiencing things authentically, because I was so skeptical of inauthenticity?
14. I'm too lazy to finish this train of thought.
BAI be barstoolin'.
please note, matthew (good name...), that this line of thinking is common enough around here that BAI's response has been distilled to a 'smiley'....
the barstool....
:barstool:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.0 And this
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 17, 2009, 09:40:57 AM
sometimes my thought process goes like this:
1. there's a cup on my table
2. i can't prove there's a cup on the table because all i have to base that on is my sensory perception and not the inherent knowledge of the cup being on the table
3. do I know anything, then?
4. No. I believe a shitload of things, and I theorize a shitload of things.
5. Isn't what I just said a theory then?
6. Yes, it is.
7. So why am I so sure of myself?
8. I'm not.
9. Is there an authentic way to perceive?
10. Ideally, the authentic perception is to experience truly and not perceive.
11. Is that attainable?
12. I won't know unless I attain it.
13. Well, let's say there's an authentic, singular, true way to experience things... if I were to attain that ability, then (following the theory that everything is a theory) wouldn't I wonder if it was just me theorizing and I would actually inhibit myself from experiencing things authentically, because I was so skeptical of inauthenticity?
14. I'm too lazy to finish this train of thought.
:barstool:
Fucking pseudo-intellectual garbage. Fucking smack yourself, then smack your mother for smoking while she was pregnant.
TGRR,
Wants his fucking bandwidth back.
:lulz: Ok, now that you have been pummeled by Barstools, lets take another look at your original premise and where you seem to have strayed. I would recommend reading this R.A. Wilson essay (http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html (http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html)), and then re-examine your bullet points.
So should I say the barstool didn't hurt when I was hit over the head with it? It just seemed to me that it hurt?
if it's all lines on a map, and i'm too fixated on the map to see the actual terrain, what do i need to do to see the terrain? or how do i know that there's a map if i have no frame of reference because i've never seen the terrain?
I'm not trying to be contrary and i probably sound like an idiot, maybe i am one, i'm just trying to get a grip of discordianism, I guess.
Either you've smoked too much weed or not enough. I can't decide yet.
i think i smoked too little. i got high and came down and wrote this after thinking hard about it, but i think it kind of makes sense, but i[m high, so i might be posting something nonsensical.
When one constructs a philosophy, he or she is making up a theory of how the universe works, and logical conclusions are mental tools that enable theories to work. If we didn't have mental theories we wouldn't be able to cope in an objective universe. As subjective-feeling creatures we are forced to theorize about "how we fit into the big picture" in order to operate objectively. There is no internal essence of things outside of what we give them, but because we give them meaning, they have meaning. This does not depreciate the value of these objects. They are important because we have the power to make them important, and it just happens that one of the theories we like to believe in is that objects must be valuable in-them-of-themselves in order for them to be authentically valuable. The only reason this value-system seems necessary to us is because it was logically concluded to after theorizing about how we fit into the world. It is like living in a world where everyone sees the color green differently. We then all agree to label it as the word green. So we can agree on it but that doesn't make us see the same thing. If we say that it looks the same for everyone, we're obviously speculating. But let's say the taste of oranges brought joy to everyone, but everyone's actual experience of the taste was different. Like we were programmed to taste goodness so that we could keep eating it, but the actual experience of what joyfulness was, was up to everyone's imaginations after absorbing the stimuli. Well does this mean the enjoyment is gone. As long as your saying it's a joyful experience, you will experience joy. So as long as you say that life is meaningful, you will experience meaning in the same way. Life is life. It doesn't have meaning or a lack of meaning. We create that. So to be bothered by this fact is like setting up a machine that has artificial intelligence and telling it to be unhappy.
To conclude that there is a god is just as much a theory as concluding that there is no god. Neither has more going for it or against it. The world working according to laws means that the world works according to laws. It does not mean there is no god, or there is a god. Take your best guess, but you do not know either way. Belief is different then religion. You can belong to a church and not believe in god, and you can believe in god and not go to church. When we choose to believe in god, we then create an image of him in our likeness. We make him reward and punish whatever our culture happens to tell us that he rewards and punishes. So we imagine god seeing murder bad, and that becomes one of the things he told us in the ten commandments, Over-active imaginations lead to crusades and things like that.
Lets say that you're right and there is no barstool.
Then what?
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 07:17:40 AM
So should I say the barstool didn't hurt when I was hit over the head with it? It just seemed to me that it hurt?
if it's all lines on a map, and i'm too fixated on the map to see the actual terrain, what do i need to do to see the terrain? or how do i know that there's a map if i have no frame of reference because i've never seen the terrain?
I'm not trying to be contrary and i probably sound like an idiot, maybe i am one, i'm just trying to get a grip of discordianism, I guess.
No no, reality is there. Our senses filter reality, but its still out there, real and whole. Our maps are the concepts we form to understand our reality. You can't ever see the real terrain directly, only through your filters.
Okay, so, for your questions.
If you're really fixated on your personal maps right now, and this doesn't seem to be helping your overal sense of wellbeing, then perhaps you need to alter your maps better to suit the reality of whatever situations you're going through. Again, you can't see the actual territory, just a small portion of it, but since everyone else has the same problem it's not something you should worry too much about. Make your maps based on the imput that is at hand, and collaborate with others to clarify and enhance them.
You do have a frame of reference, you have your eyes, and ears, and your other senses. You have people around you that you can ask "hey, do you see that purple monkey over there?" and "can I run this past you to see if it bears any relation to your reality or if its way off?" This is what you have to work with so work with it. You have what your central nervous system tells you and you have others to
ground you. Sure, we might ALL be crazy, but then crazy is normal and there's no way to isolate it anyway. You work with what you have.
Also, get off the pot. It makes you foggy headed, screws with your circuitry so you can't think straight. Its no different than being tired or hungry or drunk. Maybe it helps make weird connections, but to /understand/ those connections you need to be sober and physically healthy.
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 03:14:30 PM
Also, get off the pot. It makes you foggy headed, screws with your circuitry so you can't think straight. Its no different than being tired or hungry or drunk. Maybe it helps make weird connections, but to /understand/ those connections you need to be sober and physically healthy.
I think of it in terms of periods of theory and practice - spending too much time on either has its own rewards, but neither in isolation seems to bring tangible progress. For a long time though, it was the only way I could taste Leary's sixth circuit.
Try one month on, one month off. If you see no improvement, increase the period size.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 20, 2009, 11:35:29 AM
Lets say that you're right and there is no barstool.
Then what?
you have to stand, or sort of lean while ordering your drink?
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 07:17:40 AM
So should I say the barstool didn't hurt when I was hit over the head with it? It just seemed to me that it hurt?
What difference does it make whether the barstool actually hurt or only seemed to hurt, if the barstool was indistinguishable from a barstool and the feeling was indistinguishable from pain?
What does it matter whether or not the cup was there if you are incapable of determining whether or not the cup is really there or simply seems to be there, and the cup acts indistinguishably from a cup that would be there were the cup there?
In other words, it's an artificial problem. A good one for wanking, but still not useful in the least.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 03:39:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 03:14:30 PM
Also, get off the pot. It makes you foggy headed, screws with your circuitry so you can't think straight. Its no different than being tired or hungry or drunk. Maybe it helps make weird connections, but to /understand/ those connections you need to be sober and physically healthy.
I think of it in terms of periods of theory and practice - spending too much time on either has its own rewards, but neither in isolation seems to bring tangible progress. For a long time though, it was the only way I could taste Leary's sixth circuit.
Try one month on, one month off. If you see no improvement, increase the period size.
Bullshit. First of all, you don't need external doping mechanisms to actualize any of the circuits, in fact, I think they would probably hinder your progress as the more you use, the more you rely on them to reach a state of mind. Most of the talk about the upper circuits is just drug addled stupidity. Psychic powers, my ass. Completely distracting you from the very real ability to alter your perception of the world on your own. BTW, if you weren't doing it on your own, then you didn't reach it. Its not satori, you don't 'taste it'. The higher circuits are states of being that you reach after building up to them from below. You don't just say, hey, I think I'll enjoy a little 6th circuit experience right now and down some
Psilocybin cubensis. Thats not intelligence, thats not ANYTHING except getting you fucked up. Random firings of neuropathy by externally induced hallucinogenic substances = a random uncontrolled hallucinogenic experience. There's nothing about "reality selection" involved, except that you just selected to get fucked up and rationalized it would "make you smarter", when in reality it just made you temporarily catatonic and randomly stupid.
Second, what the fuck are you doing suggesting ANY drugs to a person who so obviously can't think straight? He needs to get the fuck off the pot and get his lower circuits in order. Jesus.
Fucking drug addled hippy shitnecks.
Here's a really broad brush Kai, care to use it moar?
Leary seemed pretty convinced that some drugs did key on some of the higher circuits. After experimentation, Wilson did as well. From what I've played with, I think its possible... or at least some kinds of drugs seem to interact with the brain in such a way that it appears easier for the individual to interact with stuff generally modeled in the 5-8 range. (How's that for a generalized statement? ;-) )
I find that, for me, drugs can be a useful tool. Huxley pointed out that hallucinogens, for him, appeared to break down the built-in mental processes that ignored the 'unimportant' aspects of reality. In his opinion, the brighter, shiner, more intoxicating reality was probably real, and the more calm, flat, washed out reality is our brain editing out the distracting stuff in real time. He thought it was a evolutionary sort of thing... After all, sitting around all day staring at the very very pretty and shiny colors is a good way to get eaten by a grue or any other critter wandering around on this planet with the slightly evolved primates. ;-)
I think that one should never rely solely on drugs to play with their brain. However, I also think that drugs occasionally, act as useful and possibly powerful tools for consciousness change and, of course, recreation.
I don't think he was using a broad brush rat but talking about something specific. In which I agree with him, but possibly not as passionate.
It's science, not bullshit, if it produces repeatable results. If I thought there was only one form intelligence could take, then very likely I would agree with you.
Secondly, I've rarely seen cold-turkey recommended for getting off cigarettes - the cutting down technique seems to produce better results. You can smoke just _one_ less per day, right? Okay - repeat.
Being self-righteous actually makes it less likely that someone will listen to you. See - I told you so! Etc.
Are we talking quitting cigarretes or pot? Because one might require professional help, depending on the severity and frequency of use.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 20, 2009, 09:09:14 PM
Are we talking quitting cigarretes or pot? Because one might require professional help, depending on the severity and frequency of use.
Agreed! Tobacco is a horribly addicting product.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 20, 2009, 09:09:14 PM
Are we talking quitting cigarretes or pot? Because one might require professional help, depending on the severity and frequency of use.
Pot. I brought up cigarettes. Point only being that telling someone to give up something completely which they get a lot of pleasure from, seems likely to generate less successful results than an approach of reduction.
the two are not even close to being in the same category ( being consumed by smoking is about the only similarity).
i couldn't find any statistics but i suspect for long term quitting of cigarettes cold turkey would have a high if not the highest success rate.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 20, 2009, 09:09:14 PM
Are we talking quitting cigarretes or pot? Because one might require professional help, depending on the severity and frequency of use.
Pot. I brought up cigarettes. Point only being that telling someone to give up something completely which they get a lot of pleasure from, seems likely to generate less successful results than an approach of reduction.
Not if it is done by a professional. And any drug addict who goes through treatment is sure to relapse. It is pretty much a built-in expectation by treatment professionals. But a relapse =/= failure. If the addict sticks with it, and is committed, there is no reason they can't completely quit using substances.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 20, 2009, 09:25:25 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 20, 2009, 09:09:14 PM
Are we talking quitting cigarretes or pot? Because one might require professional help, depending on the severity and frequency of use.
Pot. I brought up cigarettes. Point only being that telling someone to give up something completely which they get a lot of pleasure from, seems likely to generate less successful results than an approach of reduction.
Not if it is done by a professional. And any drug addict who goes through treatment is sure to relapse. It is pretty much a built-in expectation by treatment professionals. But a relapse =/= failure. If the addict sticks with it, and is committed, there is no reason they can't completely quit using substances.
Correct Motorcycle.
If people want to quit any habit (particularly addictive ones), they have to assume there will be occasional slip-ups and not allow that to thwart their determination.
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 09:18:16 PM
i couldn't find any statistics but i suspect for long term quitting of cigarettes cold turkey would have a high if not the highest success rate.
Well the current meme goes something like "if you quit cigarettes, you can't even have a single one, otherwise you'll relapse and are sure to end up injecting pure nicotine into your eyeballs". That's bullshit. Had a couple here and there in the year after I quit (~10 with random spread), enjoyed them immensely, and felt a minor urge to keep going (because smoking is fun), but no other symptoms when I didn't. That was 2-3 years ago now, haven't had (or really wanted) one since.
But if your metric is "I must never ever smoke another cigarette again", then yes - at some point you have to go cold turkey. But it's a lot easier going cold-turkey from 5-a-day, than 40-a-day. And it's a lot easier to get down to 5-a-day if you do it gradually.
Next time you see a nicorette advert (or for other quit-aids), remember that it's in their best interest to repeat to you this "it's so hard" meme in various ways. They have no interest in helping you quit, and they are some of the effective advertisers out there.
But back to the original point. If you're chronic already, then you can't imagine the high you'll get after a few months off. You can't really see much of anything until you start breaking a few ingrained habits.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 20, 2009, 08:57:47 PM
Here's a really broad brush Kai, care to use it moar?
I wasn't painting a broad brush, I was speaking specifically on this situation. Actually, before editing it several times, I did have several statements about possible uses in creativity, but I really don't think this is relevant right now. What IS relevant is someone is drug addled and obviously can't think straight, and needs to get sober. What is also relevant is that the best thing right now is NOT to suggest the usefulness of drugs. "Get your act together before getting high", remember?
Also, I'm really not looking into Leary's original perspective on these things, because frankly I don't find it that useful. If you can't do it sober, then you can't process it correctly. Really.
Okay, fine, I /will/ paint a broad brush. I really don't care for drug use. I don't do any of it myself, I don't even smoke tobacco or drink alcohol anymore. You know why? Its fucking distracting thats why. I can't hold a coherent conversation with myself when I'm hyped up on caffeine or dumbed down on alcohol. It all comes out muddled and confused, like I haven't been sleeping enough or eating right. You all want to go off and enjoy yourselves getting stoned and enjoying your random drug induced neural firings I don't have any care to stop you, but I find it completely ridiculous when it gets rationalized as anything more than recreational masturbation and 'cheap thrills'. And I find people that do this shit all the time as simply making themselves more /stupid/, either from brain damage, addiction (physical or psychological), or just simply staying in a nonsense useless state of mind all the time (and then you come out of it and forget everything you just did). Those people are distracting themselves from doing real things and making lasting changes. I'll take sobriety and self induced "highs", thank you.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:37:12 PM
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 09:18:16 PM
i couldn't find any statistics but i suspect for long term quitting of cigarettes cold turkey would have a high if not the highest success rate.
Well the current meme goes something like "if you quit cigarettes, you can't even have a single one, otherwise you'll relapse and are sure to end up injecting pure nicotine into your eyeballs". That's bullshit. Had a couple here and there in the year after I quit (~10 with random spread), enjoyed them immensely, and felt a minor urge to keep going (because smoking is fun), but no other symptoms when I didn't. That was 2-3 years ago now, haven't had (or really wanted) one since.
But if your metric is "I must never ever smoke another cigarette again", then yes - at some point you have to go cold turkey. But it's a lot easier going cold-turkey from 5-a-day, than 40-a-day. And it's a lot easier to get down to 5-a-day if you do it gradually.
Next time you see a nicorette advert (or for other quit-aids), remember that it's in their best interest to repeat to you this "it's so hard" meme in various ways. They have no interest in helping you quit, and they are some of the effective advertisers out there.
But back to the original point. If you're chronic already, then you can't imagine the high you'll get after a few months off. You can't really see much of anything until you start breaking a few ingrained habits.
statistics =/= current memes
We're talking about chemical balances in the brain? You think the one our DNA saddles us with is the only "valid" one? Really? Because it did nothing for you, it can't do anything for anyone else? Really? The house of reality has only one window?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
statistics =/= current memes
Then show your statistics and how they are disassociated from current memes, or you have no argument.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:37:12 PM
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 09:18:16 PM
i couldn't find any statistics but i suspect for long term quitting of cigarettes cold turkey would have a high if not the highest success rate.
Well the current meme goes something like "if you quit cigarettes, you can't even have a single one, otherwise you'll relapse and are sure to end up injecting pure nicotine into your eyeballs". That's bullshit. Had a couple here and there in the year after I quit (~10 with random spread), enjoyed them immensely, and felt a minor urge to keep going (because smoking is fun), but no other symptoms when I didn't. That was 2-3 years ago now, haven't had (or really wanted) one since.
But if your metric is "I must never ever smoke another cigarette again", then yes - at some point you have to go cold turkey. But it's a lot easier going cold-turkey from 5-a-day, than 40-a-day. And it's a lot easier to get down to 5-a-day if you do it gradually.
Next time you see a nicorette advert (or for other quit-aids), remember that it's in their best interest to repeat to you this "it's so hard" meme in various ways. They have no interest in helping you quit, and they are some of the effective advertisers out there.
But back to the original point. If you're chronic already, then you can't imagine the high you'll get after a few months off. You can't really see much of anything until you start breaking a few ingrained habits.
cold turkey and willpower method are not necessarily the same thing, i quit cold Turkey but it took little or no willpower, changing the programing in your mind first changes how you experience withdrawal, by cutting down you don't change anything in your mind or body your addiction is still there you just deprive your self, which in some ways is reinforcing the need by repeatedly making you experience it.
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 09:42:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 20, 2009, 08:57:47 PM
Here's a really broad brush Kai, care to use it moar?
I wasn't painting a broad brush, I was speaking specifically on this situation. Actually, before editing it several times, I did have several statements about possible uses in creativity, but I really don't think this is relevant right now. What IS relevant is someone is drug addled and obviously can't think straight, and needs to get sober. What is also relevant is that the best thing right now is NOT to suggest the usefulness of drugs. "Get your act together before getting high", remember?
Obviously can't think straight? Cause of a couple posts on an Internet forum questioning reality? That seems a bit broad to me, Kai. Maybe this cat is perfectly normal but is trying to work through the same issues many of us have to... when we first realize that our reality, just might not be Reality. Maybe he's not unable to think straight, or at least not any moreso, less so than any other human.
Quote
Also, I'm really not looking into Leary's original perspective on these things, because frankly I don't find it that useful. If you can't do it sober, then you can't process it correctly. Really.
So you're using his model to discuss this, but you don't want to look at his perspective on it?
Quote
Okay, fine, I /will/ paint a broad brush. I really don't care for drug use. I don't do any of it myself, I don't even smoke tobacco or drink alcohol anymore. You know why? Its fucking distracting thats why. I can't hold a coherent conversation with myself when I'm hyped up on caffeine or dumbed down on alcohol. It all comes out muddled and confused, like I haven't been sleeping enough or eating right. You all want to go off and enjoy yourselves getting stoned and enjoying your random drug induced neural firings I don't have any care to stop you, but I find it completely ridiculous when it gets rationalized as anything more than recreational masturbation and 'cheap thrills'. And I find people that do this shit all the time as simply making themselves more /stupid/, either from brain damage, addiction (physical or psychological), or just simply staying in a nonsense useless state of mind all the time (and then you come out of it and forget everything you just did). Those people are distracting themselves from doing real things and making lasting changes. I'll take sobriety and self induced "highs", thank you.
Ah, and that is the broad brush I was seeing strokes of in your previous post. You have had bad experiences with drugs or useless experiences with drugs... So you take your experience as How It Is, and apply it everywhere. Most of my friends that use pot aren't stupid, brain damaged or stuck in a nonsense state of mind.
Some of them are.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
statistics =/= current memes
Then show your statistics and how they are disassociated from current memes, or you have no argument.
The way you use language shows you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about outside your own head.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:48:19 PM
We're talking about chemical balances in the brain? You think the one our DNA saddles us with is the only "valid" one? Really? Because it did nothing for you, it can't do anything for anyone else? Really? The house of reality has only one window?
it's false slack jack. :wink:
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 10:46:32 AM
When one constructs a philosophy, he or she is making up a theory of how the universe works, and logical conclusions are mental tools that enable theories to work. If we didn't have mental theories we wouldn't be able to cope in an objective universe. As subjective-feeling creatures we are forced to theorize about "how we fit into the big picture" in order to operate objectively. There is no internal essence of things outside of what we give them, but because we give them meaning, they have meaning. This does not depreciate the value of these objects. They are important because we have the power to make them important, and it just happens that one of the theories we like to believe in is that objects must be valuable in-them-of-themselves in order for them to be authentically valuable. The only reason this value-system seems necessary to us is because it was logically concluded to after theorizing about how we fit into the world. It is like living in a world where everyone sees the color green differently. We then all agree to label it as the word green. So we can agree on it but that doesn't make us see the same thing. If we say that it looks the same for everyone, we're obviously speculating. But let's say the taste of oranges brought joy to everyone, but everyone's actual experience of the taste was different. Like we were programmed to taste goodness so that we could keep eating it, but the actual experience of what joyfulness was, was up to everyone's imaginations after absorbing the stimuli. Well does this mean the enjoyment is gone. As long as your saying it's a joyful experience, you will experience joy. So as long as you say that life is meaningful, you will experience meaning in the same way. Life is life. It doesn't have meaning or a lack of meaning. We create that. So to be bothered by this fact is like setting up a machine that has artificial intelligence and telling it to be unhappy.
To conclude that there is a god is just as much a theory as concluding that there is no god. Neither has more going for it or against it. The world working according to laws means that the world works according to laws. It does not mean there is no god, or there is a god. Take your best guess, but you do not know either way. Belief is different then religion. You can belong to a church and not believe in god, and you can believe in god and not go to church. When we choose to believe in god, we then create an image of him in our likeness. We make him reward and punish whatever our culture happens to tell us that he rewards and punishes. So we imagine god seeing murder bad, and that becomes one of the things he told us in the ten commandments, Over-active imaginations lead to crusades and things like that.
Does anybody have thoughts on that. I'm sure it's been talked about before, but it was the first time I thought it, i guess, I'm curious to see if people wanna build off that. Like life being an onject that we experience subjectively.
Its a wall of text, buddy. Also, you were high when you wrote it, so it probably needs a massive amount of editing to make sense to people other than you.
it's intelligible. give it a shot at least.
Who really is the Great Magician that makes the grass green?
I think you'll find we've discussed this a number of times... it can be a tricky area of discussion. Personally, I tend to take an absurdest approach:
I highly doubt there is some objective meaning to "Life, The Universe and Everything". However, I think that I can create subjective meanings and they're just a useful... maybe more so. At the very least, it appears to keep life interesting.
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
statistics =/= current memes
Then show your statistics and how they are disassociated from current memes, or you have no argument.
The way you use language shows you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about outside your own head.
basically formentor made a a statement where he said he suspected the statistics went one way (a statement I don't agree with) and fictionprick counter with some meme crap... and he just can't understand these are not the same.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 20, 2009, 10:10:18 PM
Who really is the Great Magician that makes smokes the green grass ?
fixed
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 10:15:23 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 20, 2009, 10:10:18 PM
Who really is the Great Magician that makes smokes the green grass ?
fixed
Old joke is old and hoary my friend ;-)
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
statistics =/= current memes
Then show your statistics and how they are disassociated from current memes, or you have no argument.
The way you use language shows you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about outside your own head.
Entirely possible :-) And you shouldn't discount the possibility that I have no idea about what's going on inside my own head either.
I haven't sourced my claims, other than my own personal experiences with addictive substances. But for you to have a workable hypothesis, you should be providing cases which would prove it to be true as well as cases (which if true) which would prove your hypothesis wrong. Else it's just wank.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 10:14:40 PM
basically formentor made a a statement where he said he suspected the statistics went one way (a statement I don't agree with) and fictionprick counter with some meme crap... and he just can't understand these are not the same.
What are not the same, and why, or are you just here for the ad hominem?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
statistics =/= current memes
Then show your statistics and how they are disassociated from current memes, or you have no argument.
The way you use language shows you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about outside your own head.
basically formentor made a a statement where he said he suspected the statistics went one way (a statement I don't agree with) and fictionprick counter with some meme crap... and he just can't understand these are not the same.
i went looking to see if i could find stats for this before i spoke, but every pitch Artist selling a quit method claims to be the most successful and i couldn't be bothered to figure out how to eliminate the millions of sales offers from the search..
fiction feline does seem confused or unable to communicate what he means i am not sure which yet.
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 10:23:24 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
statistics =/= current memes
Then show your statistics and how they are disassociated from current memes, or you have no argument.
The way you use language shows you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about outside your own head.
basically formentor made a a statement where he said he suspected the statistics went one way (a statement I don't agree with) and fictionprick counter with some meme crap... and he just can't understand these are not the same.
i went looking to see if i could find stats or this before i spoke but every pitch Artist selling a quit method claims to be the most successful and i couldn't be bothered to figure out how to eliminate the millions of sales offers from the search..
fiction feline does seem confused or unable to communicate what he means i am not sure which yet.
he could have caught a bad case of DK fever... that shit is contagious
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 10:23:24 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
statistics =/= current memes
Then show your statistics and how they are disassociated from current memes, or you have no argument.
The way you use language shows you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about outside your own head.
basically formentor made a a statement where he said he suspected the statistics went one way (a statement I don't agree with) and fictionprick counter with some meme crap... and he just can't understand these are not the same.
i went looking to see if i could find stats or this before i spoke but every pitch Artist selling a quit method claims to be the most successful and i couldn't be bothered to figure out how to eliminate the millions of sales offers from the search..
fiction feline does seem confused or unable to communicate what he means i am not sure which yet.
he could have caught a bad case of DK fever... that shit is contagious
Is this paranoia on a wiki somewhere? What is a DK?
Look - statistics describe a very narrow view of reality. Trying to take into account both statistics and the memes which support them looks to be a superset, but even so, not necessarily correct - and definitely open to more than one interpretation. I gave you my interpretation based upon my _personal_ experiences.
Why does this have to be more than it is?
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 10:31:00 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 10:23:24 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
statistics =/= current memes
Then show your statistics and how they are disassociated from current memes, or you have no argument.
The way you use language shows you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about outside your own head.
basically formentor made a a statement where he said he suspected the statistics went one way (a statement I don't agree with) and fictionprick counter with some meme crap... and he just can't understand these are not the same.
i went looking to see if i could find stats or this before i spoke but every pitch Artist selling a quit method claims to be the most successful and i couldn't be bothered to figure out how to eliminate the millions of sales offers from the search..
fiction feline does seem confused or unable to communicate what he means i am not sure which yet.
he could have caught a bad case of DK fever... that shit is contagious
Is this paranoia on a wiki somewhere? What is a DK?
Look - statistics describe a very narrow view of reality. Trying to take into account both statistics and the memes which support them looks to be a superset, but even so, not necessarily correct - and definitely open to more than one interpretation. I gave you my interpretation based upon my _personal_ experiences.
Why does this have to be more than it is?
A) You're new
B) You pushed some memes that have recently become old and funky (happenstance)
C) This is PD.com, welcome to it.
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 09:57:14 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 10:46:32 AM
When one constructs a philosophy, he or she is making up a theory of how the universe works, and logical conclusions are mental tools that enable theories to work. If we didn't have mental theories we wouldn't be able to cope in an objective universe. As subjective-feeling creatures we are forced to theorize about "how we fit into the big picture" in order to operate objectively. There is no internal essence of things outside of what we give them, but because we give them meaning, they have meaning. This does not depreciate the value of these objects. They are important because we have the power to make them important, and it just happens that one of the theories we like to believe in is that objects must be valuable in-them-of-themselves in order for them to be authentically valuable. The only reason this value-system seems necessary to us is because it was logically concluded to after theorizing about how we fit into the world. It is like living in a world where everyone sees the color green differently. We then all agree to label it as the word green. So we can agree on it but that doesn't make us see the same thing. If we say that it looks the same for everyone, we're obviously speculating. But let's say the taste of oranges brought joy to everyone, but everyone's actual experience of the taste was different. Like we were programmed to taste goodness so that we could keep eating it, but the actual experience of what joyfulness was, was up to everyone's imaginations after absorbing the stimuli. Well does this mean the enjoyment is gone. As long as your saying it's a joyful experience, you will experience joy. So as long as you say that life is meaningful, you will experience meaning in the same way. Life is life. It doesn't have meaning or a lack of meaning. We create that. So to be bothered by this fact is like setting up a machine that has artificial intelligence and telling it to be unhappy.
To conclude that there is a god is just as much a theory as concluding that there is no god. Neither has more going for it or against it. The world working according to laws means that the world works according to laws. It does not mean there is no god, or there is a god. Take your best guess, but you do not know either way. Belief is different then religion. You can belong to a church and not believe in god, and you can believe in god and not go to church. When we choose to believe in god, we then create an image of him in our likeness. We make him reward and punish whatever our culture happens to tell us that he rewards and punishes. So we imagine god seeing murder bad, and that becomes one of the things he told us in the ten commandments, Over-active imaginations lead to crusades and things like that.
Does anybody have thoughts on that. I'm sure it's been talked about before, but it was the first time I thought it, i guess, I'm curious to see if people wanna build off that. Like life being an onject that we experience subjectively.
You had me (and were pretty well on) up until "oranges tasting of joy".
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 20, 2009, 10:44:51 PM
A) You're new
B) You pushed some memes that have recently become old and funky (happenstance)
C) This is PD.com, welcome to it.
Ah - thanks. Yeah, I'm not whining - I'm here because I'm not able to call myself out on my bullshit concepts as... efficiently... as this group can.
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 10:23:24 PM
i went looking to see if i could find stats for this before i spoke, but every pitch Artist selling a quit method claims to be the most successful and i couldn't be bothered to figure out how to eliminate the millions of sales offers from the search..
Advanced Search tip: Put a -minus before a word to exclude it from search results. "-.com" cuts out most of the fat from info searches. If there's a topic that's confounding your results, -minus that too.
/off topic
For instance http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=cramulus+-moustache&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq= finds me a picture of Cram without his moustache, thus rendering his mystical powers useless and making him vulnnerable to being killed.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/DSC00550.jpg
For example.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 21, 2009, 02:35:34 AM
Quote from: fomenter on July 20, 2009, 10:23:24 PM
i went looking to see if i could find stats for this before i spoke, but every pitch Artist selling a quit method claims to be the most successful and i couldn't be bothered to figure out how to eliminate the millions of sales offers from the search..
Advanced Search tip: Put a -minus before a word to exclude it from search results. "-.com" cuts out most of the fat from info searches. If there's a topic that's confounding your results, -minus that too.
/off topic
good to know i didn't find any good stats, but cram w/o mustache the info has paid for itself already....
Quote from: Kai on July 20, 2009, 11:25:23 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 09:57:14 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 10:46:32 AM
When one constructs a philosophy, he or she is making up a theory of how the universe works, and logical conclusions are mental tools that enable theories to work. If we didn't have mental theories we wouldn't be able to cope in an objective universe. As subjective-feeling creatures we are forced to theorize about "how we fit into the big picture" in order to operate objectively. There is no internal essence of things outside of what we give them, but because we give them meaning, they have meaning. This does not depreciate the value of these objects. They are important because we have the power to make them important, and it just happens that one of the theories we like to believe in is that objects must be valuable in-them-of-themselves in order for them to be authentically valuable. The only reason this value-system seems necessary to us is because it was logically concluded to after theorizing about how we fit into the world. It is like living in a world where everyone sees the color green differently. We then all agree to label it as the word green. So we can agree on it but that doesn't make us see the same thing. If we say that it looks the same for everyone, we're obviously speculating. But let's say the taste of oranges brought joy to everyone, but everyone's actual experience of the taste was different. Like we were programmed to taste goodness so that we could keep eating it, but the actual experience of what joyfulness was, was up to everyone's imaginations after absorbing the stimuli. Well does this mean the enjoyment is gone. As long as your saying it's a joyful experience, you will experience joy. So as long as you say that life is meaningful, you will experience meaning in the same way. Life is life. It doesn't have meaning or a lack of meaning. We create that. So to be bothered by this fact is like setting up a machine that has artificial intelligence and telling it to be unhappy.
To conclude that there is a god is just as much a theory as concluding that there is no god. Neither has more going for it or against it. The world working according to laws means that the world works according to laws. It does not mean there is no god, or there is a god. Take your best guess, but you do not know either way. Belief is different then religion. You can belong to a church and not believe in god, and you can believe in god and not go to church. When we choose to believe in god, we then create an image of him in our likeness. We make him reward and punish whatever our culture happens to tell us that he rewards and punishes. So we imagine god seeing murder bad, and that becomes one of the things he told us in the ten commandments, Over-active imaginations lead to crusades and things like that.
Does anybody have thoughts on that. I'm sure it's been talked about before, but it was the first time I thought it, i guess, I'm curious to see if people wanna build off that. Like life being an onject that we experience subjectively.
You had me (and were pretty well on) up until "oranges tasting of joy".
ehy does the oranges part throwe you off?
Quote from: Cain on July 21, 2009, 02:39:39 AM
For instance http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=cramulus+-moustache&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq= finds me a picture of Cram without his moustache, thus rendering his mystical powers useless and making him vulnnerable to being killed.
Im not clicking that out of fear that seeing this would cause the walls of my reality to come crumbling down
sorry to threadjack again, but did you see this on the results for that cram -moustache search?
http://accessing-website-in-progress.info/omgasm.com/ :?
Quote from: Cramulus on July 21, 2009, 01:08:17 PM
sorry to threadjack again, but did you see this on the results for that cram -moustache search?
http://accessing-website-in-progress.info/omgasm.com/ :?
My bet is TazerKitten.
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 09:57:14 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 20, 2009, 10:46:32 AM
When one constructs a philosophy, he or she is making up a theory of how the universe works, and logical conclusions are mental tools that enable theories to work. If we didn't have mental theories we wouldn't be able to cope in an objective universe. As subjective-feeling creatures we are forced to theorize about "how we fit into the big picture" in order to operate objectively. There is no internal essence of things outside of what we give them, but because we give them meaning, they have meaning. This does not depreciate the value of these objects. They are important because we have the power to make them important, and it just happens that one of the theories we like to believe in is that objects must be valuable in-them-of-themselves in order for them to be authentically valuable. The only reason this value-system seems necessary to us is because it was logically concluded to after theorizing about how we fit into the world. It is like living in a world where everyone sees the color green differently. We then all agree to label it as the word green. So we can agree on it but that doesn't make us see the same thing. If we say that it looks the same for everyone, we're obviously speculating. But let's say the taste of oranges brought joy to everyone, but everyone's actual experience of the taste was different. Like we were programmed to taste goodness so that we could keep eating it, but the actual experience of what joyfulness was, was up to everyone's imaginations after absorbing the stimuli. Well does this mean the enjoyment is gone. As long as your saying it's a joyful experience, you will experience joy. So as long as you say that life is meaningful, you will experience meaning in the same way. Life is life. It doesn't have meaning or a lack of meaning. We create that. So to be bothered by this fact is like setting up a machine that has artificial intelligence and telling it to be unhappy.
To conclude that there is a god is just as much a theory as concluding that there is no god. Neither has more going for it or against it. The world working according to laws means that the world works according to laws. It does not mean there is no god, or there is a god. Take your best guess, but you do not know either way. Belief is different then religion. You can belong to a church and not believe in god, and you can believe in god and not go to church. When we choose to believe in god, we then create an image of him in our likeness. We make him reward and punish whatever our culture happens to tell us that he rewards and punishes. So we imagine god seeing murder bad, and that becomes one of the things he told us in the ten commandments, Over-active imaginations lead to crusades and things like that.
Does anybody have thoughts on that. I'm sure it's been talked about before, but it was the first time I thought it, i guess, I'm curious to see if people wanna build off that. Like life being an onject that we experience subjectively.
The first paragraph seems disjointed. "There is no internal essence of things outside of what we give them, but because we give them meaning, they have meaning" seems to conflate a few separate ideas with a flash of solipsism.
The second paragraph creates an "either/or" system, and then chooses door C. "When we choose to believe in god, we then create an image of him in our likeness" doesn't explain all the non-human gods mankind has belived in.
Quote
The first paragraph seems disjointed. "There is no internal essence of things outside of what we give them, but because we give them meaning, they have meaning" seems to conflate a few separate ideas with a flash of solipsism.
The second paragraph creates an "either/or" system, and then chooses door C. "When we choose to believe in god, we then create an image of him in our likeness" doesn't explain all the non-human gods mankind has belived in.
Objects don't have any meaning beyond what we give them. A knife, for example, could be used to cut things if I gave it that purpose. But i could also look into it in order to see my reflection, and suddenly it's purpose has changed. If I view life as an object also, then just because the meaning isn't intrinsic, it doesn't mean it's not functioning if I allow it to. So that's what I was saying with the first paragraph, if it's similar to other philosophies, it wasn't entirely intentional.
In the second paragraph, I'm saying that if we choose to believe in god, we then develop an idea about it. We never know god, only our ideas about god. and those ideas develop according to what we're taught, or even what we reject.
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 22, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
In the second paragraph, I'm saying that if we choose to believe in god, we then develop an idea about it. We never know god, only our ideas about god. and those ideas develop according to what we're taught, or even what we reject.
So what should we do about it in the here and now?
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 22, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
In the second paragraph, I'm saying that if we choose to believe in god, we then develop an idea about it. We never know god, only our ideas about god. and those ideas develop according to what we're taught, or even what we reject.
So what should we do about it in the here and now?
Partake joyously of a hot dog and commune
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 22, 2009, 09:48:59 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 22, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
In the second paragraph, I'm saying that if we choose to believe in god, we then develop an idea about it. We never know god, only our ideas about god. and those ideas develop according to what we're taught, or even what we reject.
So what should we do about it in the here and now?
Partake joyously of a hot dog and commune
Or not. Or whatever. Since the only meaning we can discern from life is the one we give it, we're free to give it any meaning we want. :)
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 09:52:09 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 22, 2009, 09:48:59 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 22, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
In the second paragraph, I'm saying that if we choose to believe in god, we then develop an idea about it. We never know god, only our ideas about god. and those ideas develop according to what we're taught, or even what we reject.
So what should we do about it in the here and now?
Partake joyously of a hot dog and commune
Or not. Or whatever. Since the only meaning we can discern from life is the one we give it, we're free to give it any meaning we want. :)
True, but I'm genuinely curious which stream matthewsquires is trying to lead this horse to.
Kant, I presume.
Actually, sounds pretty Via Negativa.
I gladly admit that you would know better than I. It just seemed he was going down the "thing-in-itself" route.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 22, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
In the second paragraph, I'm saying that if we choose to believe in god, we then develop an idea about it. We never know god, only our ideas about god. and those ideas develop according to what we're taught, or even what we reject.
So what should we do about it in the here and now?
Cross the road!
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 23, 2009, 06:03:41 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: matthewsquires on July 22, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
In the second paragraph, I'm saying that if we choose to believe in god, we then develop an idea about it. We never know god, only our ideas about god. and those ideas develop according to what we're taught, or even what we reject.
So what should we do about it in the here and now?
Cross the road!
Hail Yes!
EASY! COMPARE IT TO CRAM'S MOUSTACHE!!