An effort to classify the various types of people who believe in - or profess to believe in - "magick".
1. Fat smelly pagan women (FSPW). The thing to remember here is that there is no reason FSPW are the way they are...they spontaneously generate in the cracks of smelly old couches, and they cannot change. They think of themselves as "Earth Mothers", etc, or even "crones", and will wheeze endlessly about the Goddess they're "working with" this week.
2. Weedy guys who want to fuck FSPW. Nobody knows WHY they do, because any gratification they would receive must surely be offset by the horrible necessity of picking 6" pubic hairs out of your teeth afterward. Scientists don't know WHY they do what they do, they just know they do it.
3. Crazy people. Nuff said. This catagory includes the kind of fuckos that The History Channel is aiming at when they run 12 straight hours of Nostradumbass programming.
4. Fucked up monkeys that staggered out of the cave, discovered that the universe is really fucking big and complex, and staggered back into the cave to beat on a hollow log and pretend the universe isn't out there. But it is.
5. The Welsh. Horrible, horrible.
Did I miss anyone?
Pretty sure I fall under #2
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 29, 2009, 09:02:17 PM
Pretty sure I fall under #2
Please put the horribly long pubes in your pocket as you extract them from your teeth. We don't want them all over the carpet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:03:33 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 29, 2009, 09:02:17 PM
Pretty sure I fall under #2
Please put the horribly long pubes in your pocket as you extract them from your teeth. We don't want them all over the carpet.
Also, you can twist them into mystical braids to tie on to your medicine wand or whatever. :lulz:
The Chronically Unimaginative: These are people who study the occult because it's occult, and all mystical and mysterious and whatnot. These people are typically Ex-Catholic (or pumped up on jesus-juice in one way or another.), and have a hard time letting go to grooved, repetitive thinking. The "occult" offers a relatively secular, safely obscure*, and satisfyingly jargon filled means of Not Submitting To The Dominant Paradigm[tm].
I totally used to be one of these.
*And therefor an ego boost. "You mean, you don't know enochian by heart? GTFO out my life, please."
Quote from: Alty on December 29, 2009, 09:09:56 PM
The Chronically Unimaginative: These are people who study the occult because it's occult, and all mystical and mysterious and whatnot. These people are typically Ex-Catholic (or pumped up on jesus-juice in one way or another.), and have a hard time letting go to grooved, repetitive thinking. The "occult" offers a relatively secular, safely obscure*, and satisfyingly jargon filled means of Not Submitting To The Dominant Paradigm[tm].
I totally used to be one of these.
*And therefor an ego boost. "You mean, you don't know enochian by heart? GTFO out my life, please."
Yes, there's that too. Thanks.
Anyone else?
I'm a mixture of #3 and #4
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 29, 2009, 09:09:56 PM
The Chronically Unimaginative: These are people who study the occult because it's occult, and all mystical and mysterious and whatnot. These people are typically Ex-Catholic (or pumped up on jesus-juice in one way or another.), and have a hard time letting go to grooved, repetitive thinking. The "occult" offers a relatively secular, safely obscure*, and satisfyingly jargon filled means of Not Submitting To The Dominant Paradigm[tm].
I totally used to be one of these.
*And therefor an ego boost. "You mean, you don't know enochian by heart? GTFO out my life, please."
Yes, there's that too. Thanks.
Anyone else?
Knee-jerk reactionaries who are so threatened by an association with the aforementioned that they can only consider similar underlying concepts if they are carefully concealed in non-threatening semantic packages, like, "mind-hack"?
(And I will; readily confess to being pretty close to this subset. Oh. Yeah. And there may be some Welsh in the family lineage.)
Satanists: I think they really deserve their own niche.
Born-Again Atheists who are so repulsed by their deep love of a fatherly omnipotence , yet so attached to the funny hats that they have to take the most retarded aspects of that religion and shove into everyone's face to make themselves feel better.
Also, they enjoy using "Through Adversity, Strength" as an open door to racism, sexism, and other fucking stupid isms.
They use magic because they're lame and want to feel not so lame.
I've been reading some of the Order of the Nine Angels blogs recently, and that Satanism one rings so true.
They even refer to people who aren't in the ONA as "mundanes". Srsly.
Wow that is a pretty crap fest.
ONA are just pretentious snobs by the sound of it
Arent the ONA the ones who claim to use human sacrifice?
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 29, 2009, 09:09:56 PM
The Chronically Unimaginative: These are people who study the occult because it's occult, and all mystical and mysterious and whatnot. These people are typically Ex-Catholic (or pumped up on jesus-juice in one way or another.), and have a hard time letting go to grooved, repetitive thinking. The "occult" offers a relatively secular, safely obscure*, and satisfyingly jargon filled means of Not Submitting To The Dominant Paradigm[tm].
I totally used to be one of these.
*And therefor an ego boost. "You mean, you don't know enochian by heart? GTFO out my life, please."
Yes, there's that too. Thanks.
Anyone else?
Knee-jerk reactionaries who are so threatened by an association with the aforementioned that they can only consider similar underlying concepts if they are carefully concealed in non-threatening semantic packages, like, "mind-hack"?
(And I will; readily confess to being pretty close to this subset. Oh. Yeah. And there may be some Welsh in the family lineage.)
Threatened? :lulz:
Also, I didn't bring up "mind hack", nor was that what I was talking about. I am not referring to dressing up in funny clothes and doing silly things because that's the only way you can change your "reality tunnel". I'm talking about magic as in spells, etc.
Rat says mind hacks are not magic in the Harry Potter sense, and that was what I was talking about. Now you are saying mind hacks ARE Harry Potter bullshit? Am I reading this right?
Quote from: Z³ on December 29, 2009, 09:46:24 PM
Arent the ONA the ones who claim to use human sacrifice?
Yeah. And commune with the "Elder Gods"
a la Lovecraft. And one of their previous leaders, "Anton Long" is allegedly David Myatt, second in command of the Neo-Nazi Combat 18, one-time bodyguards for the BNP's leadership.
Any Army religion?
*note to self - use a different word, anyone have a problem with Beef Jerky? ... I think I do atleast*
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:47:14 PM
Threatened? :lulz:
Also, I didn't bring up "mind hack", nor was that what I was talking about. I am not referring to dressing up in funny clothes and doing silly things because that's the only way you can change your "reality tunnel". I'm talking about magic as in spells, etc.
Rat says mind hacks are not magic in the Harry Potter sense, and that was what I was talking about. Now you are saying mind hacks ARE Harry Potter bullshit? Am I reading this right?
No I am not. No you aren't. I mistook a coincidence for a pattern there and assumed a spurious correlation. My bad. Carry on.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 09:53:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:47:14 PM
Threatened? :lulz:
Also, I didn't bring up "mind hack", nor was that what I was talking about. I am not referring to dressing up in funny clothes and doing silly things because that's the only way you can change your "reality tunnel". I'm talking about magic as in spells, etc.
Rat says mind hacks are not magic in the Harry Potter sense, and that was what I was talking about. Now you are saying mind hacks ARE Harry Potter bullshit? Am I reading this right?
No I am not. No you aren't. I mistook a coincidence for a pattern there and assumed a spurious correlation. My bad. Carry on.
No, seriously...magic IS or IS NOT a tangible force that can be manipulated by humans?
Either:
1. Magic is a source of actual energy that can be used to do things, or
2. Magic is a set of mind tricks you play on yourself.
Which is it?
2.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 09:58:13 PM
2.
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
I mean, besides the whole getting laid with smelly pagans thing.
To me it seems like putting nice curtains on prison bars. May change something, but nothing that makes any conrete difference.
Quote from: Alty on December 29, 2009, 10:01:25 PM
To me it seems like putting nice curtains on prison bars.
Point. But you get to have a cool name like "Morgan Wolfshadow" or "Moonwolf Silverthorn", so it all evens out.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:57:06 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 09:53:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:47:14 PM
Threatened? :lulz:
Also, I didn't bring up "mind hack", nor was that what I was talking about. I am not referring to dressing up in funny clothes and doing silly things because that's the only way you can change your "reality tunnel". I'm talking about magic as in spells, etc.
Rat says mind hacks are not magic in the Harry Potter sense, and that was what I was talking about. Now you are saying mind hacks ARE Harry Potter bullshit? Am I reading this right?
No I am not. No you aren't. I mistook a coincidence for a pattern there and assumed a spurious correlation. My bad. Carry on.
No, seriously...magic IS or IS NOT a tangible force that can be manipulated by humans?
Either:
1. Magic is a source of actual energy that can be used to do things, or
2. Magic is a set of mind tricks you play on yourself.
Which is it?
Magic is a set of mind tricks you play on yourself. Sometimes those tricks can affect others. The source of energy is your own brain. The things you do with it are a result of successfully influenced beliefs. Did I leave anything out?
I'd like it to be noted, for the record, some college-age pagans are pretty cute, if you dig the Goth look.
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 09:49:11 PM
Quote from: Z³ on December 29, 2009, 09:46:24 PM
Arent the ONA the ones who claim to use human sacrifice?
Yeah. And commune with the "Elder Gods" a la Lovecraft. And one of their previous leaders, "Anton Long" is allegedly David Myatt, second in command of the Neo-Nazi Combat 18, one-time bodyguards for the BNP's leadership.
Also, seriously, why do I know shit like this? Why couldn't I just take up a normal hobby, like table-tennis or something?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 09:58:13 PM
2.
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
I mean, besides the whole getting laid with smelly pagans thing.
Because, for some, that's what makes it work. For others it's a different term, like mind-hack. It's whatever allows the temporary suspension of the present programming.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 09:58:13 PM
2.
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
I mean, besides the whole getting laid with smelly pagans thing.
Because, for some, that's what makes it work. For others it's a different term, like mind-hack. It's whatever allows the temporary suspension of the present programming.
Its also a way to differentiate different 'schools' of psychological tricks. NLP is not Magic, but they both are toolboxes of psychological tricks...
different psychological tricks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 09:58:13 PM
2.
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
I mean, besides the whole getting laid with smelly pagans thing.
There are many reasons, all lame. But, I ONCE believed very heavily I could peform Mystic Magic just reciting a few words when I was at the age of 14. Over time I realised how stupid it was, since I observed that I didn't get what I wanted - but I learnt something very important from it, the use Symboligy (Not Sigils, I have no reason to use those - but along the lines of the things I wear [eg Work Clothes, Casual Clothes], Computer Programs I use etc - each thing gets me into a different mood), the idea of 'Intent and Getting-Results' and just keeping things more mindful to the things I do. I find I can think clearly like this, it is like a 5-6 step-process.
I have my Intention/Will I want to achieve
I think of possible outcomes and possible consequences and which I would rather prefer
I find which 'Tools' I will use
I plan my process
I peform the Process and use the Tools
and results .. if I fucked up, its only because I screwed up with my selection choice or possibly my Process.
It may be a weird-way to think, but this is the whole experience I've taken from it. I find it useful to have. I don't believe in anything - hell I treat belief itself as a Tool, all I see is that I am living in this world, and work my way through it.
Also, I have no issue of calling it Mind-Hack, Brain Fuckery, Magic, and whatever those other terms were. But if the term kept changing, whilst being discussed, thats just a Brain Fuck itself. The terms itself have no meaning to me, but rather its the process - I have no idea what to label it as. But I don't really mind either way.
I think "paganism" for many is a step in the path. Kind of a gentler way to shift from something mainstream or even nothing at all to a state where you question everything, trust no one and hang out at places like PD just for the jollies!! :wink:
As for "magic(k)" so many want the fairy tale. Magic falls into the "Happily Ever After" category. Wicked stepmothers, witches and pretty princesses. It's a draw and a lot of people who want something, anything, try it on for size.
I did, and I was the whole walking talking goddess spouting freak show. You name it I tried it. The problem came when nothing happened. I learned to deal with my own shit and not even look for any "miracle/magical" cure.
So while I agree with much of the OP. I do think there is a transitional group out there on the "Magic(k) Scene" who are just passing through!!
I personally prefer to deal with people at the end of that journey as opposed to the begining of it! :evil:
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:03:36 PM
The things you do with it are a result of successfully influenced beliefs. Did I leave anything out?
Yeah. The part that explains what that means.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 10:03:07 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 29, 2009, 10:01:25 PM
To me it seems like putting nice curtains on prison bars.
Point. But you get to have a cool name like "Morgan Wolfshadow" or "Moonwolf Silverthorn", so it all evens out.
How about Wargwulf Wolfsson of Wolvenstein?
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 10:06:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 09:49:11 PM
Quote from: Z³ on December 29, 2009, 09:46:24 PM
Arent the ONA the ones who claim to use human sacrifice?
Yeah. And commune with the "Elder Gods" a la Lovecraft. And one of their previous leaders, "Anton Long" is allegedly David Myatt, second in command of the Neo-Nazi Combat 18, one-time bodyguards for the BNP's leadership.
Also, seriously, why do I know shit like this? Why couldn't I just take up a normal hobby, like table-tennis or something?
Because you've been in Britain too long. Sooner or later, you'll get yourself killed in some weird manner in some godforsaken wilderness. It's what the English do best.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 09:58:13 PM
2.
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
I mean, besides the whole getting laid with smelly pagans thing.
Because, for some, that's what makes it work. For others it's a different term, like mind-hack. It's whatever allows the temporary suspension of the present programming.
Seems overcomplicated.
Quote from: Regret on December 29, 2009, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 10:03:07 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 29, 2009, 10:01:25 PM
To me it seems like putting nice curtains on prison bars.
Point. But you get to have a cool name like "Morgan Wolfshadow" or "Moonwolf Silverthorn", so it all evens out.
How about Wargwulf Wolfsson of Wolvenstein?
I wanna be Silverfish Von Wolfundbear
It's my magical name, you can't have it. :argh!:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:03:36 PM
The things you do with it are a result of successfully influenced beliefs. Did I leave anything out?
Yeah. The part that explains what that means.
I thought you didn't want to talk about "that kind of magic" in this thread?
Here's a couple of simple stupid examples of "the things you do with it are a result of successfully influenced beliefs".
1) The sports star who cannot hit a home run unless he is wearing his "lucky socks".
2) The Voudun victim who actually has a heart attack because some magical practitioner cursed him by shaking a juju bag in his direction.
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:30:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:03:36 PM
The things you do with it are a result of successfully influenced beliefs. Did I leave anything out?
Yeah. The part that explains what that means.
I thought you didn't want to talk about "that kind of magic" in this thread?
Here's a couple of simple stupid examples of "the things you do with it are a result of successfully influenced beliefs".
1) The sports star who cannot hit a home run unless he is wearing his "lucky socks".
2) The Voudun victim who actually has a heart attack because some magical practitioner cursed him by shaking a juju bag in his direction.
Ah. Superstition.
With results.
Aye .. I Was having this discussion with a friend, she claimed her necklaces was cursed. So I told her 2 things immediately
1) If you believe it is cursed, then it is cursed.
2) You need to peform the "Banishing of Ulles Lesser Leer Syndrome of Human Invocation calling on Tetramong" ritual (Note how all the capitals spell Bullshit) [hehe got that idea from TCC, its an absolute gem]
She only thought I was mocking her at that point, but then I pointed out that you believe that a piece of Jewlerry which is cursed is having an influence on your life, atleast try do something which you find is symbolic in order to remove this. Whether it is leaving it under the moon, boiling it in tea water or accepting that it is just a piece of Jewlerry and it has no effect on you what-so-ever .. again she thought I was mocking her.
I forget how it ended, but it was with alcohol.
.. That was a useless tidbit of information :p
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 09:43:24 PM
I've been reading some of the Order of the Nine Angels blogs recently, and that Satanism one rings so true.
They even refer to people who aren't in the ONA as "mundanes". Srsly.
Never heard of these ONA folks before, but this reminds me of how nudists refer to non-nudists as "textiles."
Well... calling the mind-hack superstition will work well if you want to remove a "curse". But calling it a superstition won't work at all if you want your star hitter to actually nail that home-run.
And anyway, this is a bit of a thread-jack. TGRR wants this to be a thread mocking people who believe they can light a candle by thinking really hard at it... and I'm all about mocking the Pentagon.
i think #1 is a bit too closed off. You can have FSPM, after all.
What would you call the otherwise decent people who still believe in magic, and think theyre the reincarnation of morganna and merlin, or think they have a second personality that is tied to their ability to use magic? And by decent people, I mean they ahve jobs, and boyfriends/girlfriends, and even children? Do they fall under #4, or what?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on December 29, 2009, 11:56:43 PM
What would you call the otherwise decent people who still believe in magic, and think theyre the reincarnation of morganna and merlin, or think they have a second personality that is tied to their ability to use magic? And by decent people, I mean they ahve jobs, and boyfriends/girlfriends, and even children? Do they fall under #4, or what?
Yes.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on December 29, 2009, 11:46:00 PM
i think #1 is a bit too closed off. You can have FSPM, after all.
Point.
Wiccan
1. Fat chick that does a lot of recycling.
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 10:39:09 PM
Aye .. I Was having this discussion with a friend, she claimed her necklaces was cursed. So I told her 2 things immediately
I would have told her one thing: "Yep. You're fucked. Do you have a will drawn up?"
I told her she was fucked not long ago :D ... I'll besure to add in the Will part later :)
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:44:47 PM
Well... calling the mind-hack superstition will work well if you want to remove a "curse". But calling it a superstition won't work at all if you want your star hitter to actually nail that home-run.
And anyway, this is a bit of a thread-jack. TGRR wants this to be a thread mocking people who believe they can light a candle by thinking really hard at it... and I'm all about mocking the Pentagon.
Why? The Pentagon creates more chaos than anything other than law enforcement.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:20:41 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:44:47 PM
Well... calling the mind-hack superstition will work well if you want to remove a "curse". But calling it a superstition won't work at all if you want your star hitter to actually nail that home-run.
And anyway, this is a bit of a thread-jack. TGRR wants this to be a thread mocking people who believe they can light a candle by thinking really hard at it... and I'm all about mocking the Pentagon.
Why? The Pentagon creates more chaos than anything other than law enforcement.
All too true. But of course, that result is the exact opposite of their intent, so, mockery is mandatory. Well, maybe not mandatory, but lots of fun anyway.
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:12:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:20:41 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:44:47 PM
Well... calling the mind-hack superstition will work well if you want to remove a "curse". But calling it a superstition won't work at all if you want your star hitter to actually nail that home-run.
And anyway, this is a bit of a thread-jack. TGRR wants this to be a thread mocking people who believe they can light a candle by thinking really hard at it... and I'm all about mocking the Pentagon.
Why? The Pentagon creates more chaos than anything other than law enforcement.
All too true. But of course, that result is the exact opposite of their intent, so, mockery is mandatory. Well, maybe not mandatory, but lots of fun anyway.
Why would their intent matter?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 02:25:14 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:12:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:20:41 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:44:47 PM
Well... calling the mind-hack superstition will work well if you want to remove a "curse". But calling it a superstition won't work at all if you want your star hitter to actually nail that home-run.
And anyway, this is a bit of a thread-jack. TGRR wants this to be a thread mocking people who believe they can light a candle by thinking really hard at it... and I'm all about mocking the Pentagon.
Why? The Pentagon creates more chaos than anything other than law enforcement.
All too true. But of course, that result is the exact opposite of their intent, so, mockery is mandatory. Well, maybe not mandatory, but lots of fun anyway.
Why would their intent matter?
I don't know why. But it does. Someone who intends to do thing A and then indeed does accomplish thing A is not as mock-worthy to me as an entity who intends to do thing A but then actually does thing 6.
Quote from: Regret on December 29, 2009, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 10:03:07 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 29, 2009, 10:01:25 PM
To me it seems like putting nice curtains on prison bars.
Point. But you get to have a cool name like "Morgan Wolfshadow" or "Moonwolf Silverthorn", so it all evens out.
How about Wargwulf Wolfsson of Wolvenstein?
:mittens:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 02:25:14 AM
Quote from: singer on December 30, 2009, 02:12:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:20:41 AM
Quote from: singer on December 29, 2009, 10:44:47 PM
Well... calling the mind-hack superstition will work well if you want to remove a "curse". But calling it a superstition won't work at all if you want your star hitter to actually nail that home-run.
And anyway, this is a bit of a thread-jack. TGRR wants this to be a thread mocking people who believe they can light a candle by thinking really hard at it... and I'm all about mocking the Pentagon.
Why? The Pentagon creates more chaos than anything other than law enforcement.
All too true. But of course, that result is the exact opposite of their intent, so, mockery is mandatory. Well, maybe not mandatory, but lots of fun anyway.
Why would their intent matter?
Because it means they fucked up. We get to laugh at them for that, don't we?
I agree 100% that a person is not going to light a candle with their magic brain powers... unless they have magic brain powers AND a lighter.
Also, I don't think people can see the future or levitate objects.
I think It is impossible for a plain yellow pumpkin to become a golden carriage. It's as impossible as a plain country bumpkin and a Prince joining in marriage. And, honestly, four white mice will never be four white horses. That's just crazy!
This thread has transmuted into bullshit.
Quote from: Kai on December 30, 2009, 03:39:01 PM
This thread has transmuted into bullshit.
No, I started it as bullshit and painted it gold.
The paint came off.
It had a lot of potential. Before it died, that is.
At least I learned about the ONA. Thanks Cain.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 29, 2009, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
Why not?
Because it's not accurate.
Howzat? What kind of meaning are you giving the word? and who cares what words mindhackers use as long as we all get it? and fuck the people who don't get it.
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:12:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 29, 2009, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
Why not?
Because it's not accurate.
Howzat? What kind of meaning are you giving the word? and who cares what words mindhackers use as long as we all get it? and fuck the people who don't get it.
The one in the dictionary.
But since we're just going to make up new meanings for words, why limit ourselves to magic? Why not render the entire language into gibberish, like a pack of braindead pinealists?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:12:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 29, 2009, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
Why not?
Because it's not accurate.
Howzat? What kind of meaning are you giving the word? and who cares what words mindhackers use as long as we all get it? and fuck the people who don't get it.
The one in the dictionary.
But since we're just going to make up new meanings for words, why limit ourselves to magic? Why not render the entire language into gibberish, like a pack of braindead pinealists?
Quote from: Princeton2. an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
Quote from: Dictionary.com1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
...
6. any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.: the magic in a great name; the magic of music; the magic of spring.
These seem to work, Roger.
These magic threads are worse than the emo threads.
They are, in fact, worse than cake.
I was sitting here, spitting and cursing and trying to think of why I've gotten so angry over this. Simple really, we've left out a primary, all-encompassing, VERY IMPORTANT part of magic. No one even mentioned it.
Who does magic?
Unicorns do:
(http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab46/Altyvision/unicorn.jpg)
Why do they do magic?
Because if they don't, they'll die. So believe in magic folks, unless you hate unicorns. You don't...hate Jesus Unicorns, do you?
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:12:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 29, 2009, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
Why not?
Because it's not accurate.
Howzat? What kind of meaning are you giving the word? and who cares what words mindhackers use as long as we all get it? and fuck the people who don't get it.
The one in the dictionary.
But since we're just going to make up new meanings for words, why limit ourselves to magic? Why not render the entire language into gibberish, like a pack of braindead pinealists?
Quote from: Princeton2. an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
Quote from: Dictionary.com1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
...
6. any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.: the magic in a great name; the magic of music; the magic of spring.
These seem to work, Roger.
Socket wrench in the pie pan, Johnny Cash. Termites.
related: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/blog/cain/magickal-debates/
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:12:32 PM
Howzat? What kind of meaning are you giving the word? and who cares what words mindhackers use as long as we all get it? and fuck the people who don't get it.
The one in the dictionary.
But since we're just going to make up new meanings for words, why limit ourselves to magic? Why not render the entire language into gibberish, like a pack of braindead pinealists?
Quote from: Princeton2. an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
Quote from: Dictionary.com1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
...
6. any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.: the magic in a great name; the magic of music; the magic of spring.
These seem to work, Roger.
Socket wrench in the pie pan, Johnny Cash. Termites.
I accept your surrender.
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2009, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 06:12:32 PM
Howzat? What kind of meaning are you giving the word? and who cares what words mindhackers use as long as we all get it? and fuck the people who don't get it.
The one in the dictionary.
But since we're just going to make up new meanings for words, why limit ourselves to magic? Why not render the entire language into gibberish, like a pack of braindead pinealists?
Quote from: Princeton2. an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
Quote from: Dictionary.com1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
...
6. any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.: the magic in a great name; the magic of music; the magic of spring.
These seem to work, Roger.
Socket wrench in the pie pan, Johnny Cash. Termites.
I accept your surrender.
WEDNESDAY! UNDERPANCE BOMB! My parachute has many red shoes!
:digtbk:
This thread has reached "wtf r u guiz srsly srs" of sparkly vampire proportions.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on December 30, 2009, 07:06:16 PM
This thread has reached "wtf r u guiz srsly srs" of sparkly vampire proportions.
:horrormirth:
That's okay, Epimetheus wants to be a shitbird? Gibberish is all he gets, anywhere, out of me from this date forward.
EGREGIOUS LIMPID TOWELRACKS!
I admit the partial idiocy of my "use whatever words you want" point, but have you never heard of slang or inside jokes? To be used a word doesn't have to have a meaning recognized by literally everyone. And if you and a bunch of friends decided a meaning for "socket wrench in the pie pan," then you could go ahead and use it. Just don't use it with people outside of the "in"-group, or be ready to be called crazy. And I'll use "magic" to mean whatever I want, when I'm talking to the people who know what I mean by it. And I won't use it when I'm with people who'll think I mean supernatural mumbo-jumbo or who will think I'm crazy.
Make sense?
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2009, 07:27:05 PM
I admit the partial idiocy of my "use whatever words you want" point, but have you never heard of slang or inside jokes? To be used a word doesn't have to have a meaning recognized by literally everyone. And if you and a bunch of friends decided a meaning for "socket wrench in the pie pan," then you could go ahead and use it. Just don't use it with people outside of the "in"-group, or be ready to be called crazy. And I'll use "magic" to mean whatever I want, when I'm talking to the people who know what I mean by it. And I won't use it when I'm with people who'll think I mean supernatural mumbo-jumbo or who will think I'm crazy.
Make sense?
Smash box microwave Bob Hopes!
TOWELRACK! TOWELRACK OOB NIGHTCRAWLIST!
Knife dribble paper cut in a monsoon Wednesday? I muffle dope can't weasel.
Muffle dope pabst hoopskirt.
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2009, 07:44:58 PM
Muffle dope pabst hoopskirt.
Ebbing rod, "hoopskirt
pabst," spag. Alternate whiffle sponge; klepto murmur under network truffle. IN THA NADS!
Quote from: Cainad on December 30, 2009, 07:51:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2009, 07:44:58 PM
Muffle dope pabst hoopskirt.
Ebbing rod, "hoopskirt pabst," spag. Alternate whiffle sponge; klepto murmur under network truffle. IN THA NADS!
Personally, I gobble take a brown waffle lip.
:golfclap:
The past few threads have had some of the most intelligent statements on this topic.... by comparison, depending on how you interpret the terms...
:lulz:
FLOOG?
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2009, 07:59:55 PM
FLOOG?
Only on Sundays.....
with towelrack hooskirt mubath generalissimo :argh!:
Mubath? :fap:
Strictly prickers!
LMNO, you should read more Gurdjieff before making that assertion.
Skock your handle ligament purple starfish, urdle.
Quote from: Cainad on December 30, 2009, 06:58:02 PM
related: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/blog/cain/magickal-debates/
btw, this is a for realz contribution to the thread, and a recommended read for anyone interested in what this thread was originally about
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2009, 08:11:32 PM
Skock your handle ligament purple starfish, urdle.
hey now, no need to be rude. It's not my fault that happened to your momma.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:59:12 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on December 29, 2009, 09:58:13 PM
2.
Then why call it "magic", if it's a psychological trick?
I mean, besides the whole getting laid with smelly pagans thing.
Because calling it magic makes it a more effective psychological trick. (in my personal case, probably not in yours)
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
Quote from: Alty on December 30, 2009, 06:46:18 PM
They are, in fact, worse than cake.
Heyheyheyheyhey.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 04, 2010, 02:49:08 AM
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
lrn 2 dblthink spag.
see? i can type that and think it is lame and annoying to write like that and simultaneously like to do it.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 04, 2010, 02:49:08 AM
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
This is a good question.
I generally have a lot of trouble to trick myself if I already know it's a trick. Actually I cannot reliably do it, unless it's some kind of physiological phenomenon or an optical illusion.
Like the knee reflex thing. Works reliably.
Or grinning like a madman, laughing out loud and jumping around somewhat in order to forcibly improve my mood. Only works for short duration and the physical excercise (dancing to loud music) seems more important than the grinning, although both help.
Or having that trick with the disappearing coin from Derren Brown's book performed by a friend to me, after I did it a couple of times to them, and explained it. Even though I totally knew what was going on, it totally fooled me. Several times. So yeah there I knew I was being tricked and it still took me a good few concentrated stares to actually see that the coin was already gone before it (did not) went into the other hand. Amazing trick that one, btw. And so simple I could do it within the first try.
Anyway, those are the only (types of) instances I have ever reliably managed to trick myself while knowing fully well I was being tricked. Involuntary reflex, physiological reaction and optical illusion/misdirection.
Other kinds of tricks, like actual psychological tricks, while being aware that I am tricking myself, no.
I totally suck at placebo-ing myself too. We talked about this before. Valerian root, didn't do shit. Except for the shit part.
Even the timeframe within which it is supposed to work is unclear. Some personal accounts I heard people say they felt more relaxed within an hour or so. While on other websites there was talk of taking it over a longer period of time 1-2 pills a day like you'd do with anti-depressants.
Then someone said, was it Rat or LMNO maybe, that it might work better if I said out loud to myself "This will relax me" and tell all my friends it works and then pretend and basically "fake it till you make it". Of course I did not do this, because I don't wanna lie to my friends if it means spreading rumours about some stupid piece of homeopathic herb pills that are sold for way too much [price probably helps for people that dont know they're being tricked], that they actually work while in reality it's all placebo.
So I dunno if that could have worked.
But do that once, okay, but do it more often and it kind of borders on the pathological lying. Tell fairytale stories to your friends about untrue events that did not take place, continue until they believe it's true and yeah they will behave as if some part of it is true. The ex of one of my exes was like that. I never met the fuckhead, but he totally fucked with her head. Years later we stumbled upon stories that did not make sense if you looked at them clearly. Ok she was young and impressionable. And she got out without too much damage so all is good.
What I mean is, trick yourself while knowing you are tricking yourself, even if that's possible, you're only lying to yourself.
But trick others while knowing you are tricking them, is of course a lot easier, and you're lying to them, and depending on the situation it might make you harmless or a complete dickhead.
And of course there's tricking others while also believing your own bullshit. I think this is a big one for those mediums, psychics and the like. The small-time ones, the "real" ones [not the big ones that throw up big shows, they probably know really well what they're doing]. That's sad IMO. The fact that they let that happen to themselves without being aware of it shows to me they are not at all as perceptive as they claim to be.
Just in case the proponents of "magic" do not know, but the last two reasons are the main reasons for debunking that shit.
That's the reason why it's better to not call it all just "magic", but, depending on what you're really doing, mindhacks, psychological tricks, physiological tricks, optical illusions, misdirection, delusion, deluding yourself, or just plain straight out lying your face off and conning people. That's roughly on a scale from useful to harmless to bad.
Lumping it all under the category "magic" kind of loses those subtle distinctions. And there's no Karma, Rule of Threes or Light and Dark Energy stories that are gonna help you make those distinctions ANY better than plain and simple calling the stuff you're doing for what it really is. Makes things a lot more clearer too.
Oh, and on the subject of mindhacks, there is this O'Reilly book by that name which I thought was kind of boring, not much useful things in there. But there is a followup to that book called "Mind Performance Hacks" which is more about the practical side of those mindhacks, which does contain quite a number of useful tricks. So if you are into no-magic, no-bullshit tampering with your mind, check it out.
Magic is the Science and Art of causing openleggedness in cute, impressionable goth chicks with wilful bullshittery :evil:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 05, 2010, 09:29:52 AM
Magic is the Science and Art of causing openleggedness in cute, impressionable goth chicks with wilful bullshittery :evil:
Over here it only works if they weigh more than 400 pounds and have poor hygiene.
America obviously has an inferior "pagan community" last time I was involved in mystical sportfucking there were plenty of hawt. Heads full of bullshit and fuck all use at conversation but hey, when you just turned 25 and fresh out of divorce you've had as much conversation as you can stomach right? Wiccanist airheads fill that meaningless sex gap quite nicely thankew :fap:
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2010, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 05, 2010, 09:29:52 AM
Magic is the Science and Art of causing openleggedness in cute, impressionable goth chicks with wilful bullshittery :evil:
Over here it only works if they weigh more than 400 pounds and have poor hygiene.
They have "invisibility spells" for that, sometimes described as a "Somebody Elses Problem field" or simply stated, to ignore the fuck out of those.
...
I just looked up 400lbs ... 181 kilograms???? can they even WALK?
forget the ignore spell, just walk around the place a lot, they cannot keep up?
400lbs is considered dangerously underweight in america. They are a notoriously chubby nation.
This is true. For example, Mary-Kate Olsen is only 350lbs.
(http://www.aolcdn.com/red_galleries/skinny-mary-kate-olsen-400a100307.jpg)
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 05, 2010, 01:51:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2010, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 05, 2010, 09:29:52 AM
Magic is the Science and Art of causing openleggedness in cute, impressionable goth chicks with wilful bullshittery :evil:
Over here it only works if they weigh more than 400 pounds and have poor hygiene.
They have "invisibility spells" for that, sometimes described as a "Somebody Elses Problem field" or simply stated, to ignore the fuck out of those.
...
I just looked up 400lbs ... 181 kilograms???? can they even WALK?
forget the ignore spell, just walk around the place a lot, they cannot keep up?
400 pounds is nothing. I have seen 600 pound monstrosities that are confined to specially reinforced Rascal Scooters, like Captain Pike crossed with a Zeppelin.
you should post blurry pictures of those to UFO crankpot sites.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 04, 2010, 02:49:08 AM
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
Need? So that I can achieve magical results.
As to how I manage it, it's made a little easier by the fact that I do my best not to have a concrete world view. I'm sure there's one down there, underneath the bullshit, but I don't really know what it is, so it's relatively easy to slip into different ones depending on what is useful. I can go mystical pagan or materialist agnostic pretty easily.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 04, 2010, 02:49:08 AM
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
Need? So that I can achieve magical results.
you dont.
Quote from: Faust on January 05, 2010, 09:37:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 04, 2010, 02:49:08 AM
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
Need? So that I can achieve magical results.
you dont.
Seems like I do to me. Which is the important part for me.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 05, 2010, 09:37:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 04, 2010, 02:49:08 AM
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
Need? So that I can achieve magical results.
you dont.
Seems like I do to me. Which is the important part for me.
<insert Harry Potter pic here>
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 05, 2010, 09:37:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 04, 2010, 02:49:08 AM
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
Need? So that I can achieve magical results.
you dont.
Seems like I do to me. Which is the important part for me.
Delude yourself with as many simulacra as you want. What you are doing isn't magic and the importance you are placing on it is on the part that doesn't do anything.
The effect has different roots and just because you say "well I don't want to think about it" makes it the exact same as religious delusion.
Quote from: Faust on January 05, 2010, 10:09:34 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 05, 2010, 09:37:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 04, 2010, 02:49:08 AM
why do you need to trick yourself if you already know it's a trick?
how is that even possible without some serious cognitive dissonance?
Need? So that I can achieve magical results.
you dont.
Seems like I do to me. Which is the important part for me.
Delude yourself with as many simulacra as you want. What you are doing isn't magic and the importance you are placing on it is on the part that doesn't do anything.
The effect has different roots and just because you say "well I don't want to think about it" makes it the exact same as religious delusion.
Precisely. When all the sigils are drawn and the all the "love under will"s have been uttered, reality has not changed. It's still there.
Kipling wrote a funny poem about something like this once.
Damn it goes on doesn't it :lulz:
Quote from: NotPublished on January 05, 2010, 10:29:30 PM
Damn it goes on doesn't it :lulz:
I blame you for this shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2010, 10:32:02 PM
I blame you for this shit.
:oops:
Least the other one is about Quantum
Quote from: NotPublished on January 05, 2010, 10:37:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2010, 10:32:02 PM
I blame you for this shit.
:oops:
Least the other one is about Quantum
I'm not reading that, every time I see someone misunderstanding QM or warping to their own needs I feel horrible dismay.
I am avoiding it to, the whole thing pains me.
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:51:36 PM
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
THAT IS NOT MAGIC
THAT IS BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB
AND IF BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB MAKES YOU A DEAD NOOB
GOOD
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 11:59:11 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:51:36 PM
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
THAT IS NOT MAGIC
THAT IS BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB
AND IF BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB MAKES YOU A DEAD NOOB
GOOD
I think JohNyx may be my favorite new poster of 2009.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2010, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 11:59:11 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:51:36 PM
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
THAT IS NOT MAGIC
THAT IS BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB
AND IF BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB MAKES YOU A DEAD NOOB
GOOD
I think JohNyx may be my favorite new poster of 2009.
:lol: Ive learned to appreciate you too.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:27:35 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2010, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 11:59:11 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:51:36 PM
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
THAT IS NOT MAGIC
THAT IS BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB
AND IF BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB MAKES YOU A DEAD NOOB
GOOD
I think JohNyx may be my favorite new poster of 2009.
:lol: Ive learned to appreciate you too.
Not that I don't hate you or anything, it's just that I hate all the other new users so much more.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:51:36 PM
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
No.
Just no.
Psychology does not kill people. Ever.
Don't you think that if it were Fact people would be using this stiff to, oh I dunno, cure fucking cancer. Or MS? Or AIDS?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2010, 12:28:22 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:27:35 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2010, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 11:59:11 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:51:36 PM
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
THAT IS NOT MAGIC
THAT IS BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB
AND IF BEING A GULLIBLE NOOB MAKES YOU A DEAD NOOB
GOOD
I think JohNyx may be my favorite new poster of 2009.
:lol: Ive learned to appreciate you too.
Not that I don't hate you or anything, it's just that I hate all the other new users so much more.
What do you mean? You dont think the pinealism brought forth by our newcomer brethen brings new life to the forum?
It has taught me so many things i couldnt had come up on my own.
Quote from: Alty on January 06, 2010, 12:30:34 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:51:36 PM
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
No.
Just no.
Psychology does not kill people. Ever.
Don't you think that if it were Fact people would be using this stiff to, oh I dunno, cure fucking cancer. Or MS? Or AIDS?
Psychology kills people all the time. There is a correlation between suicide, and, say, depression. Continual stress plays havoc with your immune system. A psychological addiction to a physically harmful activity can be lethal. Impaired judgment can lead people to foolishly risk their lives, or make a normally risky (but manageable) activity much more dangerous.
And yes, remaining in good spirits does increase your chances of survival with any number of potentially lethal conditions. Placebos
work, too, when they're done right.
We are psycho-somatic beings... the mind can affect the body functions, just as the body can affect the minds function...
And although one shouldnt rely on psychological will to cure cancer, it sure can help in a matter of degree.
In other words, if you psychically give up on life, it WILL affect your immune system; the percentage that this affects the condition, do, is very variable, and i think, unmeasurable in a quantitative scale.
Your Heart Has Just Stopped.
I wish
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:15:03 AM
Your Heart Has Just Stopped.
Lol, yeah righ-gañkldddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuuuunngggghhh
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:58:46 AM
We are psycho-somatic beings... the mind can affect the body functions, just as the body can affect the minds function...
And although one shouldnt rely on psychological will to cure cancer, it sure can help in a matter of degree.
In other words, if you psychically give up on life, it WILL affect your immune system; the percentage that this affects the condition, do, is very variable, and i think, unmeasurable in a quantitative scale.
The effect of stress on the immune system is measurable on a quantitative scale. "Giving up on life" is a little trickier, however.
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 12:43:26 AM
Quote from: Alty on January 06, 2010, 12:30:34 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on January 05, 2010, 11:51:36 PM
Has anybody added argumentative smart-ass hairsplitters and nitpickers to the list of people who believe in magic (or at any rate believe in a certain specific and limited sense provided that there's an argument to be had by doing so)? Because i fall into that category.
Many practices which are commonly labeled as "magic" actually DO work, albeit not necessarily by the supernatural means that the sorceror claims them to work by. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that a Voodoo Curse CAN indeed kill you (provided that you sincerely believe that it can kill you). The actual mechanism by which death is caused, however, is not the intervention of vengeful spirits, but rather through psychological manipulation of the victim, resulting a combination of illness induced by the physiological symptoms of extreme stress and potentially self-destructive changes in emotion and behavior.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death) and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1593))
No.
Just no.
Psychology does not kill people. Ever.
Don't you think that if it were Fact people would be using this stiff to, oh I dunno, cure fucking cancer. Or MS? Or AIDS?
Psychology kills people all the time. There is a correlation between suicide, and, say, depression. Continual stress plays havoc with your immune system. A psychological addiction to a physically harmful activity can be lethal. Impaired judgment can lead people to foolishly risk their lives, or make a normally risky (but manageable) activity much more dangerous.
And yes, remaining in good spirits does increase your chances of survival with any number of potentially lethal conditions. Placebos work, too, when they're done right.
I started thinking about that after I posted it, that it was too broad a statement.
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 01:25:46 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:58:46 AM
We are psycho-somatic beings... the mind can affect the body functions, just as the body can affect the minds function...
And although one shouldnt rely on psychological will to cure cancer, it sure can help in a matter of degree.
In other words, if you psychically give up on life, it WILL affect your immune system; the percentage that this affects the condition, do, is very variable, and i think, unmeasurable in a quantitative scale.
The effect of stress on the immune system is measurable on a quantitative scale. "Giving up on life" is a little trickier, however.
OK so we go from "voodoo can kill you"
to "voodoo can give you cancer"
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 01:25:46 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:58:46 AM
We are psycho-somatic beings... the mind can affect the body functions, just as the body can affect the minds function...
And although one shouldnt rely on psychological will to cure cancer, it sure can help in a matter of degree.
In other words, if you psychically give up on life, it WILL affect your immune system; the percentage that this affects the condition, do, is very variable, and i think, unmeasurable in a quantitative scale.
The effect of stress on the immune system is measurable on a quantitative scale. "Giving up on life" is a little trickier, however.
Hyper-religious fanatics that get stigmatas is an physical manifestation of "believing hard enough".
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:31:30 AM
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 01:25:46 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:58:46 AM
We are psycho-somatic beings... the mind can affect the body functions, just as the body can affect the minds function...
And although one shouldnt rely on psychological will to cure cancer, it sure can help in a matter of degree.
In other words, if you psychically give up on life, it WILL affect your immune system; the percentage that this affects the condition, do, is very variable, and i think, unmeasurable in a quantitative scale.
The effect of stress on the immune system is measurable on a quantitative scale. "Giving up on life" is a little trickier, however.
OK so we go from "voodoo can kill you"
to "voodoo can give you cancer"
If you believe a voodoo curse can hurt you, it will.
Gullibility/Suggestion - not the voodoo itself, but the response that evokes from you
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 01:35:26 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:31:30 AM
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 01:25:46 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:58:46 AM
We are psycho-somatic beings... the mind can affect the body functions, just as the body can affect the minds function...
And although one shouldnt rely on psychological will to cure cancer, it sure can help in a matter of degree.
In other words, if you psychically give up on life, it WILL affect your immune system; the percentage that this affects the condition, do, is very variable, and i think, unmeasurable in a quantitative scale.
The effect of stress on the immune system is measurable on a quantitative scale. "Giving up on life" is a little trickier, however.
OK so we go from "voodoo can kill you"
to "voodoo can give you cancer"
If you believe a voodoo curse can hurt you, it will.
Gullibility/Suggestion - not the voodoo itself, but the response that evokes from you
If I had some asshole waving chicken bones and cats menstruation at me my stress levels would rise ->More susceptible to cancer.
Its just that the practitioners cause (magic) is not the actual cause, its the actual physical significance of the act.
For instance leaving a dagger on someones pillow to give them bad dreams, same deal, no magic. The actual Physical significance of what happened would effect my mental state and my nerves. I don't think gullibility has anything to do with this, its merely cause and effect.
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:43:10 AM
If I had some asshole waving chicken bones and cats menstruation at me my stress levels would rise I'd make him accidentally the whole thing.
Fixed for "The Terror of Dublin".
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:43:10 AM
its merely cause and effect.
Exactly that! Anything else is just overly worded and confusing for the sake of confusing
Quote from: NotPublished on January 06, 2010, 01:54:24 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:43:10 AM
its merely cause and effect.
Exactly that! Anything else is just overly worded and confusing for the sake of confusing
NO IT MUST HAVE CANDLES AND CHANTING AND MAGIC IN IT OR IT CHALLENGES MY WORDVIEW
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:55:32 AM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 06, 2010, 01:54:24 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:43:10 AM
its merely cause and effect.
Exactly that! Anything else is just overly worded and confusing for the sake of confusing
NO IT MUST HAVE CANDLES AND CHANTING AND MAGIC IN IT OR IT CHALLENGES MY WORDVIEW
Come to my healing bossom!
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:43:10 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 01:35:26 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 06, 2010, 01:31:30 AM
Quote from: GA on January 06, 2010, 01:25:46 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 06, 2010, 12:58:46 AM
We are psycho-somatic beings... the mind can affect the body functions, just as the body can affect the minds function...
And although one shouldnt rely on psychological will to cure cancer, it sure can help in a matter of degree.
In other words, if you psychically give up on life, it WILL affect your immune system; the percentage that this affects the condition, do, is very variable, and i think, unmeasurable in a quantitative scale.
The effect of stress on the immune system is measurable on a quantitative scale. "Giving up on life" is a little trickier, however.
OK so we go from "voodoo can kill you"
to "voodoo can give you cancer"
If you believe a voodoo curse can hurt you, it will.
Gullibility/Suggestion - not the voodoo itself, but the response that evokes from you
If I had some asshole waving chicken bones and cats menstruation at me my stress levels would rise ->More susceptible to cancer.
Its just that the practitioners cause (magic) is not the actual cause, its the actual physical significance of the act.
For instance leaving a dagger on someones pillow to give them bad dreams, same deal, no magic. The actual Physical significance of what happened would effect my mental state and my nerves. I don't think gullibility has anything to do with this, its merely cause and effect.
So we're right back to Arthur C. If you understand it, it ceases to be magic. If you don't then you become hilariously fleece/fuckable.
Did someone just equate the word "psychology" to the word "magic"?
Because now we're just talking about conciousness manipulation again, which we already covered, and we agreed that it's not "magic".
If you need props and chants and rituals to shift your perceptions, then you're using far too many crutches, and you might need to re-evaluate why you're still wearing robes and waving crystals. Because your brain doesn't actually need all that crap to do what it does.
On the other hand, we always seem to veer away from "magic as a non-local effect", probably because (1) that's what most people mean when they say magic, and (2) it's waaaay harder to justify or prove.
I always figured that the promise of non-local effect was what got people into magic. The ability to manipulate local psychology was what they got out of it.
Or maybe that was just me
It does not make sense to think of magic as the direct manipulation of objective reality by paranormal means, because there is no basis except hearsay. It always amuses me when people talk about REAL magic as the stuff that doesn't exist, and FAKE magic as the tricks, when the truth is quite the reverse. The real magic is all tricks, and for most people knowing how it works makes it less interesting. That's not very deep thought, because the fact that the tricks can have the appearance of "magic" (with scare quotes) provides an interesting window on human consciousness.
Quote from: LMNO on January 06, 2010, 01:27:38 PM
Did someone just equate the word "psychology" to the word "magic"?
Because now we're just talking about conciousness manipulation again, which we already covered, and we agreed that it's not "magic".
If you need props and chants and rituals to shift your perceptions, then you're using far too many crutches, and you might need to re-evaluate why you're still wearing robes and waving crystals. Because your brain doesn't actually need all that crap to do what it does.
On the other hand, we always seem to veer away from "magic as a non-local effect", probably because (1) that's what most people mean when they say magic, and (2) it's waaaay harder to justify or prove.
I'll disagree with the bolded section just to disagree with something. The mind processes abstract symbols on 2 levels. Abstract symbols can
connote something (reference by implication), and
denote something (explicit meaning, referencing a concrete phenomena), and most symbols in context do both at the same time. In today's information saturated era everyday objects automatically register as symbols which connote and denote multiple things to different people, most clothing has been 'branded', and everyday language has been emphemerated by Faux News and the 24 hour news cycle.
University of Montana Style Guide: http://www.umt.edu/urelations/style/c.htm
[b]connote, denote[/b] "Connote" means to suggest something beyond the obvious meaning: "Mother" connotes "love and caring." "Denote" means to indicate or refer to something explicitly: "Mother" denotes "female parent."Magic in practice, to me, seems the ability to redefine what symbols connote and denote, and to invoke both responses in the mind at will when appropriate. Doing this TO OTHER PEOPLE doesn't seem hard, and Pen and Teller remain an excellent example of magikians that tell you exactly how they tricked you with their bare face hanging out, expertly mixing crowlean magick and stage legerdemain. Back when we didn't have virtualized blood-sport entertainment of tv and video games, and burning a sorcerer was a good weekend picnic, the genuine practices grew sharp pointy bullshit-spines to survive. You had to converse wiht pervwerted Enochian Agels to learn these tricks, buddy. The ritual behavior mentioned (i.e. 'needing props') serves as an induction to a mind-state where the connotations of symbols get expereinced as Cathexis(i.e. direct, all-over-the-body-at-once feelings). Mentioning Alice, Dorothy Gale, and Wendy Darling to someone who has read Lost Girls creates a different bodily/chemical response than in some-one who has not read that semi-pornographic graphic novel. But the core of it boils down to the fact that every time you burst out in uncontrollable laughter at a WOMP you've failed you're savings throw vs the other spag's LULZray.
There's an old Sufi self-mindfuck where you go about everyday life as if every phenomena/event was a direct message from the Ineffable. I spent a month reading the hand of Eris into everyday events and accidental meetings, a month reading the squiggles of Cthulhu's pseudopods in the clouds, and a month receiving cosmic tx msgs from St. Gulik. I found this retraining of the connotations of things as they're happening, this breaking of your own Abstraction System useful. I 1) realize this is all bullshit and hilarious, which meant I could take it seriously as a psychological exercise and that rotating the diety/godform in question would only improve the exercise, and 2) I have learned what my mind and body does when others try to redefine my connote- and denotations for me. When marketing or an advertisement, or a friend or co-worker's narrative pulls up strong connotations or forges new ones, that's a slight re-organization of your whole personality and the body reacts with pulse and breath.
It's the mindful practice of mindfuck magic that lets you observe your own reactions in order to, just like any other martial art, refine and improve them. To exercise them yourself, and not to let your culture exercise them on you indiscriminately. Most genuine practices from East and West revolve around the shackles that your culture has placed on your mind via their own language patterns, and how to macgyver a useful tool out of those shackles once you break them.
I stand by my statement that if you need a stick, a knife, a bowl, and a geometrical figure scratched into the dirt during a full moon to enact brain change, you're seriously doing something wrong.
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 02:53:15 PM
I stand by my statement that if you need a stick, a knife, a bowl, and a geometrical figure scratched into the dirt during a full moon to enact brain change, you're seriously doing something wrong.
No shit. Give me a room full of deviants, and I'm there. I can even do it on my own, but that requires concentration and something (anything) to be enraged about.
:lulz:
"We decided it isn't Magic"
Sure LMNO, you and TGRR 'decided'. Crowley, Alli, Carroll, Hine, and dudes from as far back as at least the 1600's and as recent as books published in 2009 decided that it 'is magic'.
But, no... it's apparently much better for two people that don't make use of a system to define that system.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 04:15:22 PM
:lulz:
"We decided it isn't Magic"
Sure LMNO, you and TGRR 'decided'. Crowley, Alli, Carroll, Hine, and dudes from as far back as at least the 1600's and as recent as books published in 2009 decided that it 'is magic'.
But, no... it's apparently much better for two people that don't make use of a system to define that system.
:lulz:
How much would you charge me, for making a bottomless cup of coffee?
Btw, im also interested in shitting edible marshmallows, and that the ladies all desire me.
I pay well.
I said "agreed", not "decided".
For the purposes of this thread, there is a big difference, as well you should know.
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:25:04 PM
I said "agreed", not "decided".
For the purposes of this thread, there is a big difference, as well you should know.
So your agreed definition of Magic is based on fantasy RPG, Harry Potter books and the 'pinealist' equivalent of pagans...
Ok then, Magic is 100% bullshit*
* as defined in this thread.
Considering you have endorsed Crowley's definition of magic as "anything you want it to be," then yes.
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:25:04 PM
I said "agreed", not "decided".
For the purposes of this thread, there is a big difference, as well you should know.
That's not fair, LMNO, making him argue what you said, rather than what he WISHES you'd said.
Think of the strawmen, LMNO. They need jobs, too.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 04:15:22 PM
:lulz:
"We decided it isn't Magic"
Sure LMNO, you and TGRR 'decided'. Crowley, Alli, Carroll, Hine, and dudes from as far back as at least the 1600's and as recent as books published in 2009 decided that it 'is magic'.
But, no... it's apparently much better for two people that don't make use of a system to define that system.
:lulz:
Oh come on, are you trying to say casting a circle and buring the right herbs and chanting some gobbledy gook has changed something in your life? Healed someone? Gotten you a job, significant other, money, possesions? Anything?
Seriously?
It wasn't the fact that you had to repeat the "spell" 3 times a day for 30 days and by the time that was done you had put it in your own mind for whatever to happen? The rest was all trappings to make it seem all mystical and magical?
I've watched people in this thread who I have pretty much considered to be highly intelligent, well read, well spoken people turn into MW monkeys. WTF?
I've tried it all. In this instance, I prefer drugs to magic, at least with drugs I have an excuse for the stupidity.
If I'm going to perform nonsensical actions for the purposes of changing my percieved reality, I'm going to go clubbing.
It's a lot more fun; and before I got married, it was a much better way to meet girls.
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:54:00 PM
If I'm going to perform nonsensical actions for the purposes of changing my percieved reality, I'm going to go clubbing.
It's a lot more fun; and before I got married, it was a much better way to meet girls.
But you're too old now. If you weren't married, you'd be the 30-something guy in the club.
Remember that guy?
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:48:08 PM
Considering you have endorsed Crowley's definition of magic as "anything you want it to be," then yes.
I have endorsed Crowley's definition of magic as "Any act of Will" which is not anything you want it to be, but... whatever.
Quote from: Khara on January 07, 2010, 04:51:44 PM
Oh come on, are you trying to say casting a circle and buring the right herbs and chanting some gobbledy gook has changed something in your life? Healed someone? Gotten you a job, significant other, money, possesions? Anything?
Seriously?
Nope, I'm saying that I have used rituals to make modifications to my perceptions, reactions, imprints etc. Which, is what Crowley claimed it could do, and Carroll etc.
And this year I made about $10,000 thanks to 'magic'.
Quote
It wasn't the fact that you had to repeat the "spell" 3 times a day for 30 days and by the time that was done you had put it in your own mind for whatever to happen? The rest was all trappings to make it seem all mystical and magical?
I didn't repeat the "spell" 3 times a day for 30 days. I evoked a sigil once on the topic.. which is designed specifically to "put it in my own mind".. or rather to get it past my consciopus mind and embed it in the subconscious mind... exactly as laid out by the various authors mentioned earlier.
ALL of it is trappings but they do more than make is seem mystical and magical. Those "trappings" are semantic symbols, connections between physical reality and ideas in the mind of the practitioner. They perform the same job that other semantic tools perform, they represent a concept. The mapmaker is not an idiot, he knows that the blue squiggle line he just drew is NOT the river, but it can represent the river. The little humpy bits aren't The Mountains, but they can represent the mountains.
The "props" in magic work in a similar fashion... they're symbols, representations, psychological handles which we use to modify our consciousness.
But of course, thats some other magic... not the magic we're discussing here... this magic is about throwing fireballs, going to sabbats on top of mountains and dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight... apparently.
Quote
I've watched people in this thread who I have pretty much considered to be highly intelligent, well read, well spoken people turn into MW monkeys. WTF?
I've tried it all. In this instance, I prefer drugs to magic, at least with drugs I have an excuse for the stupidity.
I like drugs and magic, drugs can be useful sometimes, magic can be useful sometimes, both can be useless sometimes.
Quote from: Khara on January 07, 2010, 04:51:44 PM
I've watched people in this thread who I have pretty much considered to be highly intelligent, well read, well spoken people turn into MW monkeys. WTF?
QFT.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:25:04 PM
I said "agreed", not "decided".
For the purposes of this thread, there is a big difference, as well you should know.
So your agreed definition of Magic is based on fantasy RPG, Harry Potter books and the 'pinealist' equivalent of pagans...
Ok then, Magic is 100% bullshit*
* as defined in this thread.
of course, the fact that 99% of the rest of the humans on earth subscribe to the same definition of magic as TGRR and LMNO are using ITT has no relevance, does it?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
And this year I made about $10,000 thanks to 'magic'.
There's this guy on late night infomercials who says he got rich putting ads in the paper. He didn't explain how, either.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
I didn't repeat the "spell" 3 times a day for 30 days. I evoked a sigil once on the topic.. which is designed specifically to "put it in my own mind".. or rather to get it past my consciopus mind and embed it in the subconscious mind... exactly as laid out by the various authors mentioned earlier.
ALL of it is trappings but they do more than make is seem mystical and magical. Those "trappings" are semantic symbols, connections between physical reality and ideas in the mind of the practitioner. They perform the same job that other semantic tools perform, they represent a concept. The mapmaker is not an idiot, he knows that the blue squiggle line he just drew is NOT the river, but it can represent the river. The little humpy bits aren't The Mountains, but they can represent the mountains.
The "props" in magic work in a similar fashion... they're symbols, representations, psychological handles which we use to modify our consciousness.
this is no different from, say, a professional baseball player who is convinced he can't throw his curveball effectively unless he brushes his teeth between innings.
in other words, needless superstition.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2010, 05:06:41 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
And this year I made about $10,000 thanks to 'magic'.
There's this guy on late night infomercials who says he got rich putting ads in the paper. He didn't explain how, either.
EXACTLY!!!
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 07, 2010, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:25:04 PM
I said "agreed", not "decided".
For the purposes of this thread, there is a big difference, as well you should know.
So your agreed definition of Magic is based on fantasy RPG, Harry Potter books and the 'pinealist' equivalent of pagans...
Ok then, Magic is 100% bullshit*
* as defined in this thread.
of course, the fact that 99% of the rest of the humans on earth subscribe to the same definition of magic as TGRR and LMNO are using ITT has no relevance, does it?
Loads of people in China and large portions of Africa still believe in magic. So they kill rhinoceri for spell ingredients, and kill their neighbors for being witches or for being possessed by demons. None of it works, and those areas of the world just keep getting worse and worse, because they rely on mumbo jumbo that doesn't work to deal with problems that are fucking them up royally.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2010, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:54:00 PM
If I'm going to perform nonsensical actions for the purposes of changing my percieved reality, I'm going to go clubbing.
It's a lot more fun; and before I got married, it was a much better way to meet girls.
But you're too old now. If you weren't married, you'd be the 30-something guy in the club.
Remember that guy?
A tango club is still a club.
LMNO
-gotta get classier as the joints begin to fail.
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 05:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2010, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:54:00 PM
If I'm going to perform nonsensical actions for the purposes of changing my percieved reality, I'm going to go clubbing.
It's a lot more fun; and before I got married, it was a much better way to meet girls.
But you're too old now. If you weren't married, you'd be the 30-something guy in the club.
Remember that guy?
A tango club is still a club.
LMNO
-gotta get classier as the joints begin to fail.
I stand corrected. Sorry, I know a guy who has maintained the club lifestyle for a few years too many, and it pains me.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 07, 2010, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:25:04 PM
I said "agreed", not "decided".
For the purposes of this thread, there is a big difference, as well you should know.
So your agreed definition of Magic is based on fantasy RPG, Harry Potter books and the 'pinealist' equivalent of pagans...
Ok then, Magic is 100% bullshit*
* as defined in this thread.
of course, the fact that 99% of the rest of the humans on earth subscribe to the same definition of magic as TGRR and LMNO are using ITT has no relevance, does it?
99% of Discordians think that Discordinaism is about OMGZ23PINEALFNORD!
QuoteSome hear about Discordia, and plot against the Machine™.
Some hear about Discordia, and think about it at great length.
Some hear about Discordia, and decide it means they should get high and doodle.
If it weren't for those spags, Discordia wouldn't be as interesting as it is.
Order appears calming and sensible.
Disorder appears unsettling and unstable.
Doubt appears ignorant.
Certainty appears true.
Agression appears confident.
Mirth appears uncaring.
Horror appears powerless.
All these are lies.
Uncertainty reveals itself as a narrow footbridge,
but with its heart in Chaos, the path is clear.
Quote from: Khara on January 07, 2010, 05:08:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2010, 05:06:41 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
And this year I made about $10,000 thanks to 'magic'.
There's this guy on late night infomercials who says he got rich putting ads in the paper. He didn't explain how, either.
EXACTLY!!!
I've explained how a number of times on this forum... but I'll do it again, in case it was missed.
1. Read several books on magic, occult, chaos magic, etc. including most of the authors I keep mentioning.
2. Decided to try the stuff out after understanding that all of them seemed to be treating it as "self-acutalized psychological metaprogramming"
3. Chose 'sigils' as they seemed like a pretty simple option.
4. Created a sigil which represented the intent that I would meet and speak to all of these various authors within a year.
5. Did the ritual.
6. Within 6 months I had stumbled into Maybe Logic Academy after a few weeks there they got hacked and while I normally would not have offered... the thought of that sigil kicked in and I decided to see if I could help them with their issue. Turns out they needed someone to manage the technical stuff and I was soon having phone conversations with Bob Wilson, Peter Carroll, Antero Alli and Phil Farber. In 2009 I made about $10,000 from he academy and it's new offshoots.
And then there was the time I invoked Therion and spent a good 20 minutes wandering around as a 7 headed wild beast.... that fucked me up for a bit.
Or the time I accidentally invoked Eris and chatted with her for awhile... it was more realistic than any hallucinogenic trip I've taken.
However, I don't think that these things happened outside of my head. I think it is certainly possible to achieve the level of metaprogramming that I have without those tools... but it requires more training in other areas (meditation, etc).
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 05:19:03 PM
QuoteSome hear about Discordia, and plot against the Machine™.
Some hear about Discordia, and think about it at great length.
Some hear about Discordia, and decide it means they should get high and doodle.
If it weren't for those spags, Discordia wouldn't be as interesting as it is.
Order appears calming and sensible.
Disorder appears unsettling and unstable.
Doubt appears ignorant.
Certainty appears true.
Agression appears confident.
Mirth appears uncaring.
Horror appears powerless.
All these are lies.
Uncertainty reveals itself as a narrow footbridge,
but with its heart in Chaos, the path is clear.
You see so well sometimes, then you forget to just swap the overlay.
Difference: Pinealists don't think they can achieve non-local effects.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 07, 2010, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:25:04 PM
I said "agreed", not "decided".
For the purposes of this thread, there is a big difference, as well you should know.
So your agreed definition of Magic is based on fantasy RPG, Harry Potter books and the 'pinealist' equivalent of pagans...
Ok then, Magic is 100% bullshit*
* as defined in this thread.
of course, the fact that 99% of the rest of the humans on earth subscribe to the same definition of magic as TGRR and LMNO are using ITT has no relevance, does it?
99% of Discordians think that Discordinaism is about OMGZ23PINEALFNORD!
LOL - Did someone on
this board really just use the old 99% of humans argument?
Holy fuck :eek:
Okay then, so I'll agree all magic is bullshit if we can agree that discordianism (especially the thinking for yourself part) is also bullshit and also that american idol is the pinnacle of the musical art :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 07, 2010, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 07, 2010, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2010, 04:25:04 PM
I said "agreed", not "decided".
For the purposes of this thread, there is a big difference, as well you should know.
So your agreed definition of Magic is based on fantasy RPG, Harry Potter books and the 'pinealist' equivalent of pagans...
Ok then, Magic is 100% bullshit*
* as defined in this thread.
of course, the fact that 99% of the rest of the humans on earth subscribe to the same definition of magic as TGRR and LMNO are using ITT has no relevance, does it?
99% of Discordians think that Discordinaism is about OMGZ23PINEALFNORD!
LOL - Did someone on this board really just use the old 99% of humans argument?
Holy fuck :eek:
Okay then, so I'll agree all magic is bullshit if we can agree that discordianism (especially the thinking for yourself part) is also bullshit and also that american idol is the pinnacle of the musical art :lulz:
well
... as defined in this thread.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:26:25 PM
Or the time I accidentally invoked Eris and chatted with her for awhile...
Oh my fucking God. :lulz:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 07, 2010, 05:08:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2010, 05:06:41 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
And this year I made about $10,000 thanks to 'magic'.
There's this guy on late night infomercials who says he got rich putting ads in the paper. He didn't explain how, either.
EXACTLY!!!
I've explained how a number of times on this forum... but I'll do it again, in case it was missed.
1. Read several books on magic, occult, chaos magic, etc. including most of the authors I keep mentioning.
2. Decided to try the stuff out after understanding that all of them seemed to be treating it as "self-acutalized psychological metaprogramming"
3. Chose 'sigils' as they seemed like a pretty simple option.
4. Created a sigil which represented the intent that I would meet and speak to all of these various authors within a year.
5. Did the ritual.
6. Within 6 months I had stumbled into Maybe Logic Academy after a few weeks there they got hacked and while I normally would not have offered... the thought of that sigil kicked in and I decided to see if I could help them with their issue. Turns out they needed someone to manage the technical stuff and I was soon having phone conversations with Bob Wilson, Peter Carroll, Antero Alli and Phil Farber. In 2009 I made about $10,000 from he academy and it's new offshoots.
And then there was the time I invoked Therion and spent a good 20 minutes wandering around as a 7 headed wild beast.... that fucked me up for a bit.
Or the time I accidentally invoked Eris and chatted with her for awhile... it was more realistic than any hallucinogenic trip I've taken.
However, I don't think that these things happened outside of my head. I think it is certainly possible to achieve the level of metaprogramming that I have without those tools... but it requires more training in other areas (meditation, etc).
You are actually for real serious aren't you? I mean you really truly believe this right? Not the technical stuff for the Maybe people, but the rest, you are serious?
Come on, you're just fucking with us yes?
Where's the camera? You got me!!
Quote from: Khara on January 07, 2010, 06:46:09 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 07, 2010, 05:08:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2010, 05:06:41 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
And this year I made about $10,000 thanks to 'magic'.
There's this guy on late night infomercials who says he got rich putting ads in the paper. He didn't explain how, either.
EXACTLY!!!
I've explained how a number of times on this forum... but I'll do it again, in case it was missed.
1. Read several books on magic, occult, chaos magic, etc. including most of the authors I keep mentioning.
2. Decided to try the stuff out after understanding that all of them seemed to be treating it as "self-acutalized psychological metaprogramming"
3. Chose 'sigils' as they seemed like a pretty simple option.
4. Created a sigil which represented the intent that I would meet and speak to all of these various authors within a year.
5. Did the ritual.
6. Within 6 months I had stumbled into Maybe Logic Academy after a few weeks there they got hacked and while I normally would not have offered... the thought of that sigil kicked in and I decided to see if I could help them with their issue. Turns out they needed someone to manage the technical stuff and I was soon having phone conversations with Bob Wilson, Peter Carroll, Antero Alli and Phil Farber. In 2009 I made about $10,000 from he academy and it's new offshoots.
And then there was the time I invoked Therion and spent a good 20 minutes wandering around as a 7 headed wild beast.... that fucked me up for a bit.
Or the time I accidentally invoked Eris and chatted with her for awhile... it was more realistic than any hallucinogenic trip I've taken.
However, I don't think that these things happened outside of my head. I think it is certainly possible to achieve the level of metaprogramming that I have without those tools... but it requires more training in other areas (meditation, etc).
You are actually for real serious aren't you? I mean you really truly believe this right? Not the technical stuff for the Maybe people, but the rest, you are serious?
Come on, you're just fucking with us yes?
Where's the camera? You got me!!
I don't believe anything when it comes to this sort of stuff... in my opinion, everything I described above has its root somewhere in my head, through altered brain states, psychological programming etc.
I don't believe that I really invoked a deity named Eris who exists in Real Real Reality (just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean that may not be true... I just don't think it is). I think I probably put myself in a mental state where my subconscious manifested the archetype and the concept I have of that archetype. Same for Therion... as for the Sigil think, I think I embedded the 'intent' in my head with that visual cue. So when the opportunity presented itself it poked that bit of programming and I acted on it.
As far as I've been able to tell, thats what most actual 'magic users' think is going on as well. However, there are plenty of nut jobs that also think it means you can levitate or throw fireballs.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 07:10:34 PM
As far as I've been able to tell, thats what most actual 'magic users' think is going on as well. However, there are plenty of nut jobs that also think it means you can levitate or throw fireballs.
99% percent by all accounts :lulz:
To be perfectly honest, if magic won't let me do any anything a D&D character can do, I'm not really interested.
You can't cheat at reality.
You can, however, scam the fuck out of psychology.
Agreed on Mind Hacks?
:lulz:
Always from my POV. Some damnably effective mind hacks at that. I wouldn't be who I am today if I hadn't built a good few bits using several of the tools available to anyone who cares to look.
I believe some people think they can do D&D stuff using these tools. I tend to mock and/or shag the arse off those.
I use certain tarot card spreads to induce* my state of mind.
*Not "induce" as in incite; "induce" as in induction.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 07, 2010, 10:37:33 PM
Always from my POV. Some damnably effective mind hacks at that. I wouldn't be who I am today if I hadn't built a good few bits using several of the tools available to anyone who cares to look.
I believe some people think they can do D&D stuff using these tools. I tend to mock and/or shag the arse off those.
Its why I am iffy to label it as Magic. Too much connotations attached, too many assumptions made. But all I see it as is Intent/Result, anything else is just the Tool. If someone wants to make another fall in love with them by waving a Puffer Fish ... It's not my fault I didn't do it! The most reasonable damn thing to do is get to know the person! Just some choose to use alternative measures to see what will happen.
All I know is if I have an Intent, I do/use whatever the hell I can to get a Result.
Whether I want to go for a walk, I will put my shoes on and use those, but if I want to run I will use my basketball shoes cause they are damn comfortable, or just for a stroll I will wear my converse (they hurt after awhile) cause they look cool.
I will choose my clothing, whether I am going out to work, going out with friends, visiting relatives etc - if I want to be a bitch I would wear bright happy colours to a funeral, wear shorts sandals and a singlet to work ...
Its all about thinking your actions through, making yourself aware to possible consequences and just going through with it.
And of course, using what ever tools you have if you want to get something done. Now when I say tools - I use it in the loosest sense, do not think they are the arcane athames or a Crystal of the Blood Moon. I'm talking about money, transport, speaking to another person, using your brain, using body parts etc
That would be the best definition for the Modern day Magician, but who is seriously bothered to call themselves that?
I think it would do good for those who think they can effect the world on the basis they spaketh and and commanded the universe to their own Whims. But this is what I have gotten from going into the depths of madness, where I once believed that I could recite a chant and get Gold for my Orc Army - reality turkey slapped me in the face and I learnt how to think for myself. Because it taught me, all I have is myself. I should only rely on myself to get things done.
From what I can observe - people turn to the idea that they are practicing magic as an alternate resource when they have nothing left in their Cue Cards.
Think I just rambled on a bit there.. fark I'm going to be annoying when I'm 70.
My problem is that if I know I'm tricking myself, it won't work. My bullshit filter is permanently set at the 11 button.
I just force myself to change the way I think. That and Death Coffee...enough of that, and you can do anything for about 3 hours.
It doesn't even have to involve self-trickery, thats for people who are bad at coping in certain situations.
Its almost like playing a game of Sodoku, gotta becareful where you put the numbers - sometimes you gotta plan a few steps ahead.
I might go as far to say that you have a similar paradigm - since you said you force yourself the way you think.
From my POV - All there is, is you - and you choose how to think, you apply the mould onto the cookie dough and cut off the excess and give it shape. You might have a mould of a bear, star, tree. You use which mould depending on what suits you best at the moment.
Why is magic restricted to self trickery? I thought the whole purpose of 'stage magic' was to trick other people, thereby altering their realities. Magic.
I think this self trickery stuff is getting misinterpreted a bit...
You only have to "fool yourselves" for a bit... the "moment of gnosis" if we used Carroll's language. It's sleight of mind, in that you are trying to distract your conscious mind from thinking too hard on the specific bits you're playing with.
I mean, most of the traditional means of achieving the state aren't really 'fooling' much at all. High Ritual Magic makes use of complicated rituals and props specifically to draw you into the process, completely involving your conscious mind in the matter at hand. Now often those props were specific symbols involved in the overall 'message'. The ritual is keeping your mind busy, while embedding the semantic connection between the physical visual cue and the ideas/concept associated with the visual cue. Tarot and Astrology 'work' ion a similar way (as far as I can tell)... I have never predicted the future with any accuracy at all with them... but I've had some incredible self-reflective moments of personal insight when using the mindset and understanding the the symbols (visual cues) involved.
I don't think 'magic' works for everyone because some of people have a Very very strong bullshit detector (aka Psychic Censor). In theory, that just means the person hasn't found the right type of 'gnosis' to overcome their block. (The right sleight of mind to sneak past).
Also, some forms of magic don't require self-trickery, just self-programming.
If I want to imprint something forcefully in my mind, I just DO it. I don't need to use sigils or tarot cards or chicken bones or any of that shit to help me decide and/or remember to do something I've decided to place particular importance on. And frankly, I don't see how it's productive to continue using that stuff when you're conscious of the fact that it's not necessary. You have more to gain by being in control of your own mind than you do by playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 06:34:32 AM
playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
I think FP just won the thread.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 06:34:32 AMYou have more to gain by being in control of your own mind than you do by playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
problem is that, in a lot of respects, thats exactly how your subconscious mind works and if you're not affecting/communicating directly with the subconscious then you're only scratching the surface of what can be achieved.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 01:54:09 AM
My problem is that if I know I'm tricking myself, it won't work. My bullshit filter is permanently set at the 11 button.
I just force myself to change the way I think. That and Death Coffee...enough of that, and you can do anything for about 3 hours.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 06:34:32 AM
If I want to imprint something forcefully in my mind, I just DO it. I don't need to use sigils or tarot cards or chicken bones or any of that shit to help me decide and/or remember to do something I've decided to place particular importance on. And frankly, I don't see how it's productive to continue using that stuff when you're conscious of the fact that it's not necessary. You have more to gain by being in control of your own mind than you do by playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
If you combine the above, with a lot of sticky notes to remind myself, I'm good.
I could never be an effective "magic" user, practicioner or whatever you want o call it even if it were a proven set in stone science. I can't remember shit. It's not pretty to be stirring the cauldron and cackling then having to grab your notes to remember the "Double double" shit.
When I want a change, it goes on my bathroom and bedroom mirrors and sometimes at work on sticky notes. After a couple of days (if I'm lucky) I remember, this is how or what I'm doing now.
Otherwise, eh, I still think it's mainly bullshit. The trappings are there so people can feel like they are "doing" something.
It would probably be better for many involved if the trappings were a sensible diet and excercise..... :D
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 01:54:09 AM
My problem is that if I know I'm tricking myself, it won't work. My bullshit filter is permanently set at the 11 button.
Same here.
Can I shut it off?
Should I shut it off?
If I do, can I easily switch it back on?
How?
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 08, 2010, 03:11:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 01:54:09 AM
My problem is that if I know I'm tricking myself, it won't work. My bullshit filter is permanently set at the 11 button.
Same here.
Can I shut it off?
Should I shut it off?
If I do, can I easily switch it back on?
How?
Yes, you can shut it off.
No you should never shut it off unless the next thing you might or might not hear is someone shouting "CLEAR"
Nothing is ever easy, YOU KNOW THIS!!
You really don't want to know how!!! :lulz:
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 08, 2010, 03:11:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 01:54:09 AM
My problem is that if I know I'm tricking myself, it won't work. My bullshit filter is permanently set at the 11 button.
Same here.
Can I shut it off?
Should I shut it off?
If I do, can I easily switch it back on?
How?
I like it left on. When I watch politicians, all I hear is static.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 08, 2010, 08:46:17 AM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 06:34:32 AMYou have more to gain by being in control of your own mind than you do by playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
problem is that, in a lot of respects, thats exactly how your subconscious mind works and if you're not affecting/communicating directly with the subconscious then you're only scratching the surface of what can be achieved.
thank you, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
now, anyone got any scientifically valid counterpoints to my post?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 03:41:21 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 08, 2010, 03:11:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 01:54:09 AM
My problem is that if I know I'm tricking myself, it won't work. My bullshit filter is permanently set at the 11 button.
Same here.
Can I shut it off?
Should I shut it off?
If I do, can I easily switch it back on?
How?
I like it left on. When I watch politicians, all I hear is static.
That's probably blood pressure rushing in your ears :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2010, 12:36:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 03:41:21 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 08, 2010, 03:11:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 01:54:09 AM
My problem is that if I know I'm tricking myself, it won't work. My bullshit filter is permanently set at the 11 button.
Same here.
Can I shut it off?
Should I shut it off?
If I do, can I easily switch it back on?
How?
I like it left on. When I watch politicians, all I hear is static.
That's probably blood pressure rushing in your ears :)
One or the other.
Yeah I like my filter left on at all times too. Saves me lots of otherwise wasted time.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 09, 2010, 02:29:52 AM
Yeah I like my filter left on at all times too. Saves me lots of otherwise wasted time.
Chevrolet banana big fucking hot dogs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:31:48 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 09, 2010, 02:29:52 AM
Yeah I like my filter left on at all times too. Saves me lots of otherwise wasted time.
Chevrolet banana big fucking hot dogs.
I can imagine this as a lyric in some stupid kid-punk music. That or a line from an Allen Ginsberg poem.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 09, 2010, 02:37:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:31:48 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 09, 2010, 02:29:52 AM
Yeah I like my filter left on at all times too. Saves me lots of otherwise wasted time.
Chevrolet banana big fucking hot dogs.
I can imagine this as a lyric in some stupid kid-punk music. That or a line from an Allen Ginsberg poem.
Rutubagas.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 08, 2010, 09:35:14 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 08, 2010, 08:46:17 AM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 06:34:32 AMYou have more to gain by being in control of your own mind than you do by playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
problem is that, in a lot of respects, thats exactly how your subconscious mind works and if you're not affecting/communicating directly with the subconscious then you're only scratching the surface of what can be achieved.
thank you, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
now, anyone got any scientifically valid counterpoints to my post?
I think theres something to be said for the usefulness of tapping into metaphor, visualisation, psychosomatics, and other methods to aid goal actualization and overall health. I've got no citations for that.
Quote from: Kai on January 09, 2010, 02:50:22 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 08, 2010, 09:35:14 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 08, 2010, 08:46:17 AM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 06:34:32 AMYou have more to gain by being in control of your own mind than you do by playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
problem is that, in a lot of respects, thats exactly how your subconscious mind works and if you're not affecting/communicating directly with the subconscious then you're only scratching the surface of what can be achieved.
thank you, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
now, anyone got any scientifically valid counterpoints to my post?
I think theres something to be said for the usefulness of tapping into metaphor, visualisation, psychosomatics, and other methods to aid goal actualization and overall health. I've got no citations for that.
I agree with this however...
1. The measure of effectiveness, especially when bringing out positive effects in other, is negligible. People have such messy minds and the challenge of going from (or correctly identifying) Desire and arriving at an outcome (which rarely looks like what you wanted) is beyond most people.
And
2. For people like me, the temptation to fall deeply into the illusion is too strong to be trusted.
Quote from: Kai on January 09, 2010, 02:50:22 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 08, 2010, 09:35:14 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 08, 2010, 08:46:17 AM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 06:34:32 AMYou have more to gain by being in control of your own mind than you do by playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
problem is that, in a lot of respects, thats exactly how your subconscious mind works and if you're not affecting/communicating directly with the subconscious then you're only scratching the surface of what can be achieved.
thank you, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
now, anyone got any scientifically valid counterpoints to my post?
I think theres something to be said for the usefulness of tapping into metaphor, visualisation, psychosomatics, and other methods to aid goal actualization and overall health. I've got no citations for that.
Pent's post appears to be saying that it is
necessary rather than being merely useful (which it is, in the same way a morning cigarette is "useful" in calming the nerves of a smoker).
FTR I never said anything was "necessary"
Fucking about with your own mental wiring is simply something you can do if the fancy takes you. My point about the subconscious was simply that in order to fuck around with that particular subsystem you need some kind of semantic interface in order to establish two way communication. The "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" thing you mentioned. Without that then you're driving the car rather than tuning the engine and setting up the suspension and brakes, ie. scratching the surface.
Most people are quite happy to not get inside the guts of their mind. Just like most people don't want to know how to program computers or cook haute cuisine. They're happy enough to just surf the web and use emails or order in a restaurant but, if they are serious about totally rewiring their head then there's no avoiding the subconscious.
There is no science here unless you count psychology (which I don't) and it's not required. If you want proof - go have a look. Truth is it's all in your head and that's where the science thing breaks down. That's where the rational falls apart. Most people say "oh, it's all in your head. Well fuck that it's bullshit then." I'd have to agree - yes, it's bullshit but that doesn't make it any less fun for a lot of people. Quake3 is just a computer game, it's not real nobody actually dies but what the fuck it's fun if you like that sort of thing. Regardless of whether science can explain rocket jumping or not.
I just don't believe that I need smoke and mirrors and self-deceit to interact and/or tinker with my subconscious.
Assuming the subconscious even exists.
yes, assuming that.
and frankly, if it does exist and won't talk to me until I placate it with some arcane bullshit, I don't want to be friends with it anyway.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 05:14:55 PM
yes, assuming that.
and frankly, if it does exist and won't talk to me until I placate it with some arcane bullshit, I don't want to be friends with it anyway.
Only one's own bullshit works with one's own mind.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
I just don't believe that I need smoke and mirrors and self-deceit to interact and/or tinker with my subconscious.[...] and frankly, if it does exist and won't talk to me until I placate it with some arcane bullshit, I don't want to be friends with it anyway.
You cannot simply write off the efficacy of "magic" by calling it "smoke and mirrors and self-deceit." Self deception implies that there is an objective truth to begin with. Again assuming that the subconscious exists, it's folly to think that you can sit your sub-conscious down and talk things over with it like an adult.
And really no assumptions need to be made: even if a Freudian subconscious doesn't actually exist as such, the question is the effectiveness of certain methods, not whether or not the methods are distasteful. Just because these methods distort or modify the thing-in-itself does not mean the result in unreal (or at least that the unrealness is no less valid, depending on your definition of reality).
:barstool:
I feel it necessary that I intervene here, lest we all begin to agree.
There is a scientific basis for the existence of a subconscious mind.
Wikipedia:
Unconscious processing of information about frequency
For example, an extensive line of research conducted by Hasher and Zacks[39] has demonstrated that automatically (i.e., outside of conscious awareness and without engaging conscious information processing resources), individuals register information about the frequency of events. Moreover, that research demonstrates that perceivers do that unintentionally, truly "automatically," regardless of the instructions they receive, and regardless of the information processing goals they have. Interestingly, their ability to unconsciously, and relatively accurately tally the frequency of events appears to have little or no relation to the individual's age, education, intelligence, or personality, thus it may represent one of the fundamental building blocks of human orientation in the environment and possibly the acquisition of procedural knowledge and experience, in general.
ETA: Same article: "...there is an extensive body of conclusive research and knowledge in the contemporary cognitive psychology devoted to the mental activity that is not mediated by conscious awareness."
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
I just don't believe that I need smoke and mirrors and self-deceit to interact and/or tinker with my subconscious.[...] and frankly, if it does exist and won't talk to me until I placate it with some arcane bullshit, I don't want to be friends with it anyway.
You cannot simply write off the efficacy of "magic" by calling it "smoke and mirrors and self-deceit." Self deception implies that there is an objective truth to begin with. Again assuming that the subconscious exists, it's folly to think that you can sit your sub-conscious down and talk things over with it like an adult.
And really no assumptions need to be made: even if a Freudian subconscious doesn't actually exist as such, the question is the effectiveness of certain methods, not whether or not the methods are distasteful. Just because these methods distort or modify the thing-in-itself does not mean the result in unreal (or at least that the unrealness is no less valid, depending on your definition of reality).
1. yes, I most certainly can. because it's NOT fucking "magic" at all. I'm not writing off the efficacy of tinkering with your own mental programming and subroutines, I'm saying that you don't need to trick yourself into being able to interface directly with your own mind. You can just decide to do it and then, y'know, DO it. Without rituals, incantations, sigils, or any of the other crutches of the weak-minded.
2. snorting crystal meth (as opposed to using your own willpower) is an effective, if distasteful, method of staying awake all night to study/work/whatever. Just because this method turns you into a raving tweak zombie does not mean the result of staying awake all night is unreal or less valid.
Oh, I wont deny the unconscious mind can do things, but the subconscious in a pseudo-Freudian sense is a very uncertain proposition. In fact, even most Freduian psychoanalysts think it is bullshit term. That was more what I was taking aim at.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
I just don't believe that I need smoke and mirrors and self-deceit to interact and/or tinker with my subconscious.
At which point did "need" enter into this discussion?
You don't need it. But you do need some method. Personally smoke and mirrors and dressing up and chanting and shit does fuck all for me either but some of the symbolic shit I do use would probably fall under the description "magic"
Certain Symbols and archetypes which I and (as far as I care) I alone find useful/rewarding/interesting.
But you demanded science earlier ITT so lets go there. Ask a psychologist or psychiatrist or whichever peer accredited snake oil salesman you care to pick and ask them - What would you need to make changes in your subconscious and/or ego.
I'm pretty sure the answer would be in the form of "something" probably something really sciency and educated -sounding.
I'm pretty sure, by the same token, it wouldn't be - just, yknow, decide there and then.
Stuff is generally accepted to be needed. Several methods of "stuff" are broadly collected under the heading "magic"
Other such "stuff" would be hypnosis (self or assisted), meditation, nlp ...
Plus you can mix 'n' match but I never heard of anyone getting results by "just decide[ing] to do it and then, y'know, DO[ing] it"
Mybe you're the first. Or maybe you're what those mystical wiccan fuckheads would call "naturally gifted eclectic" :lulz:
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 07:27:35 PM
1. yes, I most certainly can. because it's NOT fucking "magic" at all. I'm not writing off the efficacy of tinkering with your own mental programming and subroutines, I'm saying that you don't need to trick yourself into being able to interface directly with your own mind. You can just decide to do it and then, y'know, DO it. Without rituals, incantations, sigils, or any of the other crutches of the weak-minded.
I don't think it's really useful to keep the exchange going without a definition of "magic" since you maintain that "magic" isn't magic at all (an interesting paradox!).
It's not that I disagree with you that sigils, etc. are not necessarily needed to, as you put it, "tinker with your own mental programming and subroutines." But I have to wonder if sigils are so problematic, then what technique is acceptable? Yoga? Hypnotism? Sheer willpower? You may be right that sigils are a crutch for the weak minded, but I think you make a mistake in the assumption that any of us are somehow strong-minded.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 07:27:35 PM
2. snorting crystal meth (as opposed to using your own willpower) is an effective, if distasteful, method of staying awake all night to study/work/whatever. Just because this method turns you into a raving tweak zombie does not mean the result of staying awake all night is unreal or less valid.
I agree, but your analogy is not very apt. The problem with crystal meth is that it's very bad for your health, the costs are generally considered to outweigh the benefits. This detriment to your health does not render the result of staying up for a week "less valid" but the costs to your health, social life, etc certainly do render it less valid. You can make the same sort of argument about sigils, but they aren't going to rot your teeth. I would say that to a true believer, sigils may offer enough comfort to outweigh the cost (whatever social stigma is attached to practicing magic, e.g. Mr. Hustle thinks you're weak minded). But in the end it's really just a cost-benefit analysis.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 07:27:35 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
I just don't believe that I need smoke and mirrors and self-deceit to interact and/or tinker with my subconscious.[...] and frankly, if it does exist and won't talk to me until I placate it with some arcane bullshit, I don't want to be friends with it anyway.
You cannot simply write off the efficacy of "magic" by calling it "smoke and mirrors and self-deceit." Self deception implies that there is an objective truth to begin with. Again assuming that the subconscious exists, it's folly to think that you can sit your sub-conscious down and talk things over with it like an adult.
And really no assumptions need to be made: even if a Freudian subconscious doesn't actually exist as such, the question is the effectiveness of certain methods, not whether or not the methods are distasteful. Just because these methods distort or modify the thing-in-itself does not mean the result in unreal (or at least that the unrealness is no less valid, depending on your definition of reality).
1. yes, I most certainly can. because it's NOT fucking "magic" at all. I'm not writing off the efficacy of tinkering with your own mental programming and subroutines, I'm saying that you don't need to trick yourself into being able to interface directly with your own mind. You can just decide to do it and then, y'know, DO it. Without rituals, incantations, sigils, or any of the other crutches of the weak-minded.
2. snorting crystal meth (as opposed to using your own willpower) is an effective, if distasteful, method of staying awake all night to study/work/whatever. Just because this method turns you into a raving tweak zombie does not mean the result of staying awake all night is unreal or less valid.
CRYSTAL METH MUST BE MADE OF MAGICAL CRYSTALS THEN 1!111
Subconcsious seems to be an outdated term and some of my teachers frown upon it.
Im gonna look into it.
Quote from: WikipediaThe idea of the 'subconscious' as a powerful or potent agency has allowed the term to become prominent in the New Age and self-help literatures, in which investigating or controlling its supposed knowledge or power is seen as advantageous. The 'subconscious' may also be supposed to contain (thanks to the influence of the psychoanalytic tradition) any number of primitive or otherwise disavowed instincts, urges, desires and thoughts.
Quote from: Sigmund Freud, "The Question of Lay Analysis" (Vienna 1926; English translation 1927)
If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically -- to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness -- or qualitatively -- to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious.
I assume he meant unconscious?
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 07, 2010, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
I didn't repeat the "spell" 3 times a day for 30 days. I evoked a sigil once on the topic.. which is designed specifically to "put it in my own mind".. or rather to get it past my consciopus mind and embed it in the subconscious mind... exactly as laid out by the various authors mentioned earlier.
ALL of it is trappings but they do more than make is seem mystical and magical. Those "trappings" are semantic symbols, connections between physical reality and ideas in the mind of the practitioner. They perform the same job that other semantic tools perform, they represent a concept. The mapmaker is not an idiot, he knows that the blue squiggle line he just drew is NOT the river, but it can represent the river. The little humpy bits aren't The Mountains, but they can represent the mountains.
The "props" in magic work in a similar fashion... they're symbols, representations, psychological handles which we use to modify our consciousness.
this is no different from, say, a professional baseball player who is convinced he can't throw his curveball effectively unless he brushes his teeth between innings.
in other words, needless superstition.
Except that if he doesn't brush his teeth he doesn't throw that curve ball. So it's not needless, it's practical.
Shame for him that he shackled himself in that way.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 08, 2010, 09:35:14 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 08, 2010, 08:46:17 AM
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 06:34:32 AMYou have more to gain by being in control of your own mind than you do by playing what amounts to an elaborate game of "make the baby eat its food by pretending it's an airplane" with yourself.
problem is that, in a lot of respects, thats exactly how your subconscious mind works and if you're not affecting/communicating directly with the subconscious then you're only scratching the surface of what can be achieved.
thank you, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
now, anyone got any scientifically valid counterpoints to my post?
*giggling because that's the guru that is the whole reason I grew up on a commune. A bunch of people left to follow him, thus making room for my parents*
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 07:27:35 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
I just don't believe that I need smoke and mirrors and self-deceit to interact and/or tinker with my subconscious.[...] and frankly, if it does exist and won't talk to me until I placate it with some arcane bullshit, I don't want to be friends with it anyway.
You cannot simply write off the efficacy of "magic" by calling it "smoke and mirrors and self-deceit." Self deception implies that there is an objective truth to begin with. Again assuming that the subconscious exists, it's folly to think that you can sit your sub-conscious down and talk things over with it like an adult.
And really no assumptions need to be made: even if a Freudian subconscious doesn't actually exist as such, the question is the effectiveness of certain methods, not whether or not the methods are distasteful. Just because these methods distort or modify the thing-in-itself does not mean the result in unreal (or at least that the unrealness is no less valid, depending on your definition of reality).
1. yes, I most certainly can. because it's NOT fucking "magic" at all. I'm not writing off the efficacy of tinkering with your own mental programming and subroutines, I'm saying that you don't need to trick yourself into being able to interface directly with your own mind. You can just decide to do it and then, y'know, DO it. Without rituals, incantations, sigils, or any of the other crutches of the weak-minded.
2. snorting crystal meth (as opposed to using your own willpower) is an effective, if distasteful, method of staying awake all night to study/work/whatever. Just because this method turns you into a raving tweak zombie does not mean the result of staying awake all night is unreal or less valid.
Care to share some methods?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 09, 2010, 09:23:43 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 07, 2010, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 07, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
I didn't repeat the "spell" 3 times a day for 30 days. I evoked a sigil once on the topic.. which is designed specifically to "put it in my own mind".. or rather to get it past my consciopus mind and embed it in the subconscious mind... exactly as laid out by the various authors mentioned earlier.
ALL of it is trappings but they do more than make is seem mystical and magical. Those "trappings" are semantic symbols, connections between physical reality and ideas in the mind of the practitioner. They perform the same job that other semantic tools perform, they represent a concept. The mapmaker is not an idiot, he knows that the blue squiggle line he just drew is NOT the river, but it can represent the river. The little humpy bits aren't The Mountains, but they can represent the mountains.
The "props" in magic work in a similar fashion... they're symbols, representations, psychological handles which we use to modify our consciousness.
this is no different from, say, a professional baseball player who is convinced he can't throw his curveball effectively unless he brushes his teeth between innings.
in other words, needless superstition.
Except that if he doesn't brush his teeth he doesn't throw that curve ball. So it's not needless, it's practical.
Shame for him that he shackled himself in that way.
yeah, but he COULD still throw the curveball if he weren't a weak-minded and superstitious dupe, so it IS needless.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 09, 2010, 09:31:51 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 07:27:35 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
I just don't believe that I need smoke and mirrors and self-deceit to interact and/or tinker with my subconscious.[...] and frankly, if it does exist and won't talk to me until I placate it with some arcane bullshit, I don't want to be friends with it anyway.
You cannot simply write off the efficacy of "magic" by calling it "smoke and mirrors and self-deceit." Self deception implies that there is an objective truth to begin with. Again assuming that the subconscious exists, it's folly to think that you can sit your sub-conscious down and talk things over with it like an adult.
And really no assumptions need to be made: even if a Freudian subconscious doesn't actually exist as such, the question is the effectiveness of certain methods, not whether or not the methods are distasteful. Just because these methods distort or modify the thing-in-itself does not mean the result in unreal (or at least that the unrealness is no less valid, depending on your definition of reality).
1. yes, I most certainly can. because it's NOT fucking "magic" at all. I'm not writing off the efficacy of tinkering with your own mental programming and subroutines, I'm saying that you don't need to trick yourself into being able to interface directly with your own mind. You can just decide to do it and then, y'know, DO it. Without rituals, incantations, sigils, or any of the other crutches of the weak-minded.
2. snorting crystal meth (as opposed to using your own willpower) is an effective, if distasteful, method of staying awake all night to study/work/whatever. Just because this method turns you into a raving tweak zombie does not mean the result of staying awake all night is unreal or less valid.
Care to share some methods?
methods of what? deciding to do something and then doing it?
:lol:
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 09:33:44 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 09, 2010, 09:31:51 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 07:27:35 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
I just don't believe that I need smoke and mirrors and self-deceit to interact and/or tinker with my subconscious.[...] and frankly, if it does exist and won't talk to me until I placate it with some arcane bullshit, I don't want to be friends with it anyway.
You cannot simply write off the efficacy of "magic" by calling it "smoke and mirrors and self-deceit." Self deception implies that there is an objective truth to begin with. Again assuming that the subconscious exists, it's folly to think that you can sit your sub-conscious down and talk things over with it like an adult.
And really no assumptions need to be made: even if a Freudian subconscious doesn't actually exist as such, the question is the effectiveness of certain methods, not whether or not the methods are distasteful. Just because these methods distort or modify the thing-in-itself does not mean the result in unreal (or at least that the unrealness is no less valid, depending on your definition of reality).
1. yes, I most certainly can. because it's NOT fucking "magic" at all. I'm not writing off the efficacy of tinkering with your own mental programming and subroutines, I'm saying that you don't need to trick yourself into being able to interface directly with your own mind. You can just decide to do it and then, y'know, DO it. Without rituals, incantations, sigils, or any of the other crutches of the weak-minded.
2. snorting crystal meth (as opposed to using your own willpower) is an effective, if distasteful, method of staying awake all night to study/work/whatever. Just because this method turns you into a raving tweak zombie does not mean the result of staying awake all night is unreal or less valid.
Care to share some methods?
methods of what? deciding to do something and then doing it?
:lol:
Yes, when that something is interfacing directly with your own mind.
OK, serious answer: my personal method is a combination of willpower and self-discipline. no need to trick myself into anything, just making a decision to alter the way I think about/perceive/react to whatever the relevant subject is and being constantly mindful to follow through on that decision. I guess if you need me to invent a term for it I'd call it self-reinforcement, but there's certainly no bullshit or trickery involved and I have always been able to effect the change of mindset that I desire provided I use my will and self-discipline to do so. I've also found that, as with most everything, it gets easier with repetition.
My methods are similar, but I call it bloody-mindedness.
Willpower is one of the most effective faculties to possess. No end of "genuine" magical literature will agree with this very fact. The tarot for example has a whole suite dedicated only to swords or willpower as the symbol represents.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 09:44:27 PM
[M]y personal method is a combination of willpower and self-discipline. no need to trick myself into anything, just making a decision to alter the way I think... but there's certainly no bullshit or trickery involved and I have always been able to effect the change of mindset that I desire provided I use my will and self-discipline to do so.
You're just using different words. Trick/alter, what's the difference? The point is that your method of self-reinforcement is no different than a sigil (incidentally, I have no idea what a sigil is, like a circle or something?).
You call it self discipline, other people call it the Holy Spirit, other people call it sigils. You call those other people weak minded, but they are no more weak minded than you are. You rely on your "Self" and that Self's discipline, and this is a nice and tidy piece of bullshit in its own right. What is a self anyway?
You have your illusions, and people who do magic have their own. It all does get easier with repetition, sure. But when patting yourself on the back like you're some kind of John Galt self-made wunderkind that figured out something that is eluding the rest of us, that's just your own special brand of self-deception. Enjoy!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 09, 2010, 09:51:35 PM
Willpower is one of the most effective faculties to possess. No end of "genuine" magical literature will agree with this very fact. The tarot for example has a whole suite dedicated only to swords or willpower as the symbol represents.
I think my point is that if you develop your willpower sufficiently, you don't
need symbolism. Hence I find the idea of the tarot deck placing such an emphasis on willpower quite ironic.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 10:03:14 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 09:44:27 PM
[M]y personal method is a combination of willpower and self-discipline. no need to trick myself into anything, just making a decision to alter the way I think... but there's certainly no bullshit or trickery involved and I have always been able to effect the change of mindset that I desire provided I use my will and self-discipline to do so.
You're just using different words. Trick/alter, what's the difference? The point is that your method of self-reinforcement is no different than a sigil (incidentally, I have no idea what a sigil is, like a circle or something?).
You call it self discipline, other people call it the Holy Spirit, other people call it sigils. You call those other people weak minded, but they are no more weak minded than you are. You rely on your "Self" and that Self's discipline, and this is a nice and tidy piece of bullshit in its own right. What is a self anyway?
You have your illusions, and people who do magic have their own. It all does get easier with repetition, sure. But when patting yourself on the back like you're some kind of John Galt self-made wunderkind that figured out something that is eluding the rest of us, that's just your own special brand of self-deception. Enjoy!
you honestly don't understand the difference between tricking yourself and willfully altering your own mindset?
seriously?
because that's kind of sad.
ETA: the entire POINT is that I'm NOT laboring under illusions when I choose to effect a change within my own mind, and I'm certainly not patting myself on the back over anything. That would be like seeing a room full of retards and congratulating myself because I can tie my own shoes. That so many people ITT are, apparently, the "retards" in that metaphor gives me no cause to celebrate.
And FWIW, there are no shortage of people here who feel the same way about this subject that I do, they've just gotten tired of this tired argument, whereas I am bored and jobless and have nothing better to do with my time than argue with idiots such as yourself.
as an addendum, I'd like to point out that when you don't use trickery and self-deception to effect changes in your own mind, you drastically lower the risk of becoming one of those deluded morons who begins to think they can cause non-local effects with their crutch ritual/sigil/channeling of the holy spirit/whatever.
The swords represent thought or pure intellect. The wands represent will.
A wand is supposed to direct your intent, harness your desire into a straight line.
Personally, I prefer money, skill, or education.
No wand is going to keep the horrors of life away, and if they can't, what then is the point?
In fact, what is the point? Satisfaction? Growth? Control?
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
you honestly don't understand the difference between tricking yourself and willfully altering your own mindset?
seriously?
because that's kind of sad.
Of course I understand the difference. What's shocking is that you can't see the similarities. I'm not trying to shit on your parade, I sincerely hope that you enjoy feeling like your particular illusions are superior to those of others. That's not to say that one of them is right and one is wrong, or that both are right. Each person defines "right" for themselves. But I'm not going to roll over and start saying that your "self reliance" bullshit is any better than a magician's bullshit, especially when you can't give any cogent argument to that effect, just ad hominem fallacies and straw men.
I realize some people might be bored of this thread but I just started on page 15 and am ready to go. In my view this is not an argument about right or wrong but about tolerance and acceptance of others worldviews, seeing that they are all fundamentally equal. If you can prove me wrong I'd like to see it, but you'll have to show me how your self programming through "self-reliance" is somehow fundamentally different from self-programming through a sigil. Your method is not "true" just because you do not use certain methods that are categorized as "magic." In fact you keep using an analogy to you mind as if it is some sort of computer, like you can think thoughts in binary and program yourself with if-then statements. How exactly is this true? How is it more true than using the metaphor of a sigil, etc. You use the language of science to dress up your bullshit illusions and call them Truth, others use the language of magic you call them weak minded. Do you see the incongruity there?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:04:08 PM
Each person defines "right" for themselves.
In my view this is not an argument about right or wrong but about tolerance and acceptance of others worldviews, seeing that they are all fundamentally equal.
aaaand....we're done having a serious conversation.
here's an ad hominem attack for you: the parts of your post that I quoted are fucking retarded. please take your relativist bullshit elsewhere.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 11:12:19 PM
here's an ad hominem attack for you: the parts of your post that I quoted are fucking retarded. please take your relativist bullshit elsewhere.
And here's one for you, you have no capacity to have a logical argument. If you did, you really wouldn't have any problem when somebody like me comes along to play devil's advocate. Honestly, you have a much easier position to defend than I do, but have made only precious few intelligent comments and not enough to add up to an intelligent argument. Glad we're done talking about this, anybody else have something worthwhile to say?
I might.
I don't particularly follow the "all worldviews are equal" point of view. Maybe in the sense that all worldviews are worldviews. But in what terms are they equal? Which parts align?
I can see the usefulness of possibly looking at various worldviews and trying to determine an underlying thread of commonality but equal?
I have a hard time swallowing that one without more information.
Quote from: Burns on January 09, 2010, 11:24:21 PM
I might.
I don't particularly follow the "all worldviews are equal" point of view. Maybe in the sense that all worldviews are worldviews. But in what terms are they equal? Which parts align?
I can see the usefulness of possibly looking at various worldviews and trying to determine an underlying thread of commonality but equal?
I have a hard time swallowing that one without more information.
Thanks Burns! I agree, thats sounds pretty tough to defend and I didn't really make that point very thoroughly. My point there is that all worldviews are arrived at in the same way. Whether you're a stone cold rationalist or a mystic, the interaction between your mind and the world is equally predicated on your worldview. Does that make sense?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:19:45 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 11:12:19 PM
here's an ad hominem attack for you: the parts of your post that I quoted are fucking retarded. please take your relativist bullshit elsewhere.
And here's one for you, you have no capacity to have a logical argument. If you did, you really wouldn't have any problem when somebody like me comes along to play devil's advocate. Honestly, you have a much easier position to defend than I do, but have made only precious few intelligent comments and not enough to add up to an intelligent argument. Glad we're done talking about this, anybody else have something worthwhile to say?
that's not an ad hominem attack, it's a critique of my writing style. an ad hominem attack is when I tell you you're a fucking idiot for actually thinking that all worldviews are equal.
as for your critique of my writing style, you may be right. It's difficult for me to formulate a point-by-point argument to counter an argument that I view as not only worthless, but so obviously worthless that it should hardly need to be articulated why. It's like trying to form a point-by-point argument as to why child pornography is wrong.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:29:10 PM
Quote from: Burns on January 09, 2010, 11:24:21 PM
I might.
I don't particularly follow the "all worldviews are equal" point of view. Maybe in the sense that all worldviews are worldviews. But in what terms are they equal? Which parts align?
I can see the usefulness of possibly looking at various worldviews and trying to determine an underlying thread of commonality but equal?
I have a hard time swallowing that one without more information.
Thanks Burns! I agree, thats sounds pretty tough to defend and I didn't really make that point very thoroughly. My point there is that all worldviews are arrived at in the same way. Whether you're a stone cold rationalist or a mystic, the interaction between your mind and the world is equally predicated on your worldview. Does that make sense?
Right, because all worldviews are merely reactions to our fears and desires and everybody creates fairylands to have solace.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:34:20 PM
Right, because all worldviews are merely reactions to our fears and desires and everybody creates fairylands to have solace.
Well said! :mittens:
[Edit: Even if it is your evil alter ego, I stand by it!]
This thread was started to mock people who put on funny hats and chant enochian to get laid, not attack or defend any particular worldview. Whatever that is.
Just sayin'.
Meanwhile:
PLEASE CONTINUE.
/
:fishhook:
Quote from: Alty on January 09, 2010, 11:36:41 PM
This thread was started to mock people who put on funny hats and chant enochian to get laid
That's why I take it so personally! I am all about the funny hats.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:36:04 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:34:20 PM
Right, because all worldviews are merely reactions to our fears and desires and everybody creates fairylands to have solace.
Well said! :mittens:
Im sorry, that was sarcastic.
We all know we are gonna die, and i think the majority fears it.
Religion is a rationalization for that fear (when we die, we go to this big garden with candy and sluts).
And i only get this big fucking anxiety that fuels my cigarrette addiction and hedonistic behaviour.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:38:50 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 09, 2010, 11:36:41 PM
This thread was started to mock people who put on funny hats and chant enochian to get laid
That's why I take it so personally! I am all about the funny hats.
How's that working for you?
I've used magicxyz to get laid. Never was worth it.
he was being sarcastic, Guy. It was an illustration of how ridiculous that concept actually is.
as for a concise logical argument against the need to use self-deception and trickery to interface with your own mind, I believe that if you read this entire thread you will find that I and several other people have put forth such arguments already, and there are several other threads over the last couple years that have dealt with identical or similar subjects. my inability to continue to lay everything out as a logical argument at this point stems from my frustration and anger at seeing otherwise intelligent and rational people acting as proponents of superstition and needlessly fantastic trappings, a mindset which seems to be dangerous to the overall health of human society when applied on a large scale.
apologies for calling you an idiot, since I have no idea whether you are, in fact, an idiot, but you shoulda caught me a few pages ago. Invective is pretty much all I have left for this subject at this point.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:40:14 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:36:04 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:34:20 PM
Right, because all worldviews are merely reactions to our fears and desires and everybody creates fairylands to have solace.
Well said! :mittens:
Im sorry, that was sarcastic.
Yeah, I noticed that a little too late, c'est la vie.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:40:14 PM
And i only get this big fucking anxiety that fuels my cigarrette addiction and hedonistic behaviour.
Sounds like fun, where's the problem?
A reminder that language and expression is already one step removed from your true identity (your mind) and that adding stupid names and rituals to get an effect is adding another redundant layer.
When I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.
Quote from: Alty on January 09, 2010, 11:41:13 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:38:50 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 09, 2010, 11:36:41 PM
This thread was started to mock people who put on funny hats and chant enochian to get laid
That's why I take it so personally! I am all about the funny hats.
How's that working for you?
I'm still waiting for fedoras to come back in fashion, too bad the only people that wear them anymore are pabst drinking hipsters.
Quote from: Alty on January 09, 2010, 11:41:13 PM
I've used magicxyz to get laid. Never was worth it.
I don't dabble in magic myself, I prefer the cold comfort of rationalism. Of course, when it comes to getting laid I suppose you have to make some sacrifices.
Quote from: Faust on January 09, 2010, 11:54:43 PM
When I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.
That's the sort of thing I take issue with, Faust. Certainly it's your business who you pity, but how can you say that when the very sentence before you talk about narrating your own life to yourself, something equally absurd as magic. If that's not redundant ritualistic fluff, nothing is! I mean, you seriously narrate to yourself, or am I missing the sarcasm again?
It may very well be a redundant layer, but then again maybe it isn't redundant at all for some people. Maybe for some people magic is like Dumbo's magic feather, without which they can't fly. Sure, in the end Dumbo learned how to go without, but life isn't like a Disney movie, and people sometimes
need those feathers. I don't pity them, any more than I pity you for your personal narration. But that's your own business.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:52:09 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:40:14 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:36:04 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:34:20 PM
Right, because all worldviews are merely reactions to our fears and desires and everybody creates fairylands to have solace.
Well said! :mittens:
Im sorry, that was sarcastic.
Yeah, I noticed that a little too late, c'est la vie.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:40:14 PM
And i only get this big fucking anxiety that fuels my cigarrette addiction and hedonistic behaviour.
Sounds like fun, where's the problem?
The problem is that you fail to see, that this is an example between building your worldview around
fears and reactions compared to buildint your worldview around what most likely is true (in other words, that were most likely turning into worm food, rather than go play with puppies in a garden).
In a simpler fashion: not all worldviews are the same.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 12:02:29 AM
The problem is that you fail to see, that this is an example between building your worldview around fears and reactions compared to buildint your worldview around what most likely is true (in other words, that were most likely turning into worm food, rather than go play with puppies in a garden).
I don't fail to see
that, you're putting words in my mouth. To my infinite regret I took your words at face value, but nonetheless they were not mine. I never said the illusions that give rise to a particular worldview are always based on fear. In fact they are often based on much more useful emotions, like a desire to do good.
And you say yourself, we can only ever know what is "most likely" true. That's a matter of opinion, where reasonable (and unreasonable) people can disagree. The people that I pity are the ones who think they have a monopoly on Truth.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 12:04:23 AM
In a simpler fashion: not all worldviews are the same.
Again, my point is not that they are all the same, but that they are all acquired in the same way and thus susceptible to the same fallibility.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 12:01:46 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 09, 2010, 11:54:43 PM
When I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.
That's the sort of thing I take issue with, Faust. Certainly it's your business who you pity, but how can you say that when the very sentence before you talk about narrating your own life to yourself, something equally absurd as magic. If that's not redundant ritualistic fluff, nothing is! I mean, you seriously narrate to yourself, or am I missing the sarcasm again?
It may very well be a redundant layer, but then again maybe it isn't redundant at all for some people. Maybe for some people magic is like Dumbo's magic feather, without which they can't fly. Sure, in the end Dumbo learned how to go without, but life isn't like a Disney movie, and people sometimes need those feathers. I don't pity them, any more than I pity you for your personal narration. But that's your own business.
Shhh its not supposed to be YOU who springs that trap, the word pity was loaded.
But yes I agree with what you are saying, there is no distinction between what I do other then my self delusion is closer to the bone. And I don't narrate my life, I narrate what I want to happen in the short term, its a really useful study method. "All the distractions left my mind" and such.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 12:06:25 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 12:02:29 AM
The problem is that you fail to see, that this is an example between building your worldview around fears and reactions compared to buildint your worldview around what most likely is true (in other words, that were most likely turning into worm food, rather than go play with puppies in a garden).
I don't fail to see that, you're putting words in my mouth. To my infinite regret I took your words at face value, but nonetheless they were not mine. I never said the illusions that give rise to a particular worldview are always based on fear. In fact they are often based on much more useful emotions, like a desire to do good.
And you say yourself, we can only ever know what is "most likely" true. That's a matter of opinion, where reasonable (and unreasonable) people can disagree. The people that I pity are the ones who think they have a monopoly on Truth.
I know you didnt mean only fear gives rise to these illusions, i just found it the best example.
Did you read this entire fread? Im thinking we are going at least the second time around some of the arguments that have already been said.
he said he came in at page 15, and clearly has not read the rest of the thread or is willfully ignoring it.
Quote from: Faust on January 10, 2010, 12:07:41 AM
Shhh its not supposed to be YOU who springs that trap, the word pity was loaded.
But yes I agree with what you are saying, there is no distinction between what I do other then my self delusion is closer to the bone. And I don't narrate my life, I narrate what I want to happen in the short term, its a really useful study method. "All the distractions left my mind" and such.
Haha, sorry if I messed up your gambit. But I'm glad we can agree. And I actually don't think the self narration is absurd, it sounds like a pretty cool idea to help keep your mind in the present. Kind of like the focus on breathing in Zen meditation, if I may put on my funny buddhist hat.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 11:41:42 PM
as for a concise logical argument against the need to use self-deception and trickery to interface with your own mind, I believe that if you read this entire thread you will find that I and several other people have put forth such arguments already, and there are several other threads over the last couple years that have dealt with identical or similar subjects. my inability to continue to lay everything out as a logical argument at this point stems from my frustration and anger at seeing otherwise intelligent and rational people acting as proponents of superstition and needlessly fantastic trappings, a mindset which seems to be dangerous to the overall health of human society when applied on a large scale.
also, Guy, still waiting for a response to this.
In my various mind/body experiments and exercises in which I've performed over the years I've found one of the most common obstacles I always seem to fall into is the fact that the me who is attempting to make a change is the same me who needs to be changed. Sort of a double-bind situation.
I've found that most techniques attempt to try and not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing. All meditations, rituals and such are traps that if done correctly should cancel themselves out. IOW, you don't take the raft with you after you cross the river.
I'm currently undertaking the A.'.A.'. curriculum which, although not by my preference or style, does include ritual. I try to see ritual as moving meditation and to always bring a skeptical EYE to the experience as well as a ton of humor. I'm a hardcore skeptic despite my trying to be otherwise and as such I find that I don't believe in anything. I don't think, at this point, that will ever change. It's really the experience of self analysis in its many forms itself that draws me in.
The so-called 'magic' (awful term nowadays) involved in various experiments isn't in the folklore or non-local sense but rather in various forms of union between the self and environment or the objective and subjective. The various practices in the curriculum relate to various forms of yoga, i.e. hatha, gnana, bhakti, karma. and they are designed to reconcile opposites.
I guess what I'm getting at is that my approach to this sort of thing is and has always been try it, see if it does anything and if not dispose of it. I love working with imagination and creativity and, in a lot of ways, that's exactly what all this brain change business is all about.
What killed this stuff for me, after years of study, was my belief that my imagination had better uses, like creating fiction. I find that going deeply into fiction allows me to explore any notion or philosophy or magicqual theory to my complete satisfaction.
Ironically, what led me to that point was entering, or toying with, or pretending to live with/learn about Malkuth, the root, the bottom.
Which, also just turned out to be:
:barstool:
EDIT: Blahrg.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 12:17:09 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 11:41:42 PM
as for a concise logical argument against the need to use self-deception and trickery to interface with your own mind, I believe that if you read this entire thread you will find that I and several other people have put forth such arguments already, and there are several other threads over the last couple years that have dealt with identical or similar subjects. my inability to continue to lay everything out as a logical argument at this point stems from my frustration and anger at seeing otherwise intelligent and rational people acting as proponents of superstition and needlessly fantastic trappings, a mindset which seems to be dangerous to the overall health of human society when applied on a large scale.
also, Guy, still waiting for a response to this.
still waiting.
To summarize this thread, while there may be methods and tools useful in aiding metaprogramming, they do not require layers and layers of external devices to work. In fact, external devices such as mythic thought systems, silly hats and sigils probably hinder progress more than help it.
And, for the record, simpler is better. Parsimony simply (heh) works better than excess assumptions. A breathing exercise works better than some complex system of Tibetan chants, writing down ones goals in action oriented statements works better than drawing and forgetting a sigil.
And I like simple, because it's easier to keep track of.
Quote from: Alty on January 10, 2010, 01:14:01 AM
What killed this stuff for me, after years of study, was my belief that my imagination had better uses, like creating fiction. I find that going deeply into fiction allows me to explore any notion or philosophy or magicqual theory to my complete satisfaction.
Ironically, what led me to that point was entering, or toying with, or pretending to live with/learn about Malkuth, the root, the bottom.
Which, also just turned out to be:
:barstool:
EDIT: Blahrg.
It's interesting...Practically speaking I dont' really see much difference between the creative use of imagination (creating fiction for instance) and what most refer to as magic. Its just that the term magic, just sucks ass now.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 03:26:31 AM
To summarize this thread, while there may be methods and tools useful in aiding metaprogramming, they do not require layers and layers of external devices to work. In fact, external devices such as mythic thought systems, silly hats and sigils probably hinder progress more than help it.
I would speculate this to be true (as it's certainly most convenient) but since I've never adorned a silly hat or sigil in the name of metaprogramming so I can't say for sure if this is or isn't true.
What I can say is that processes of self introspection like meditation or mindful activity, raising children, listening to the wife or what have you has benefited me greatly. I can't offer anything but anecdotal evidence of my progress. (Unless of course one would accept my overcoming various personal obstacles as proof. Although I don't particularly care either way.)
So if it takes a silly hat or sigil to raise another's self awareness then that's fine with me..but a silly hat is still a silly hat and forgive me if I laugh and if one insists on jacking off to a doodle...just don't get any on my skin.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 03:26:31 AM
To summarize this thread, while there may be methods and tools useful in aiding metaprogramming, they do not require layers and layers of external devices to work. In fact, external devices such as mythic thought systems, silly hats and sigils probably hinder progress more than help it.
:cn:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 10, 2010, 11:11:04 AM
:cn:
posting THAT in this thread is a terrible idea. It should be affixed to every post in the thread.
Quote from: Faust on January 10, 2010, 12:12:35 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 10, 2010, 11:11:04 AM
:cn:
posting THAT in this thread is a terrible idea. It should be affixed to every post in the thread.
Exactly.
Cute :D
The bottom line, tho is that (despite the detractors seeming to think so) there is no proving this endeavor. One way or another. That means you can't disprove it either. Largely due to the fact that what we're dealing with is rooted in the subjective imagination of the people claim to be doing it.
Now the ones who answered the OP and said - yes we use it (or words to that effect) have all, pretty much made it as clear as possible that we're not claiming to be able to manifest physical shit like floating unicorns and turning people into frogs which would be testable. Rather we're claiming it can cause changes in specific mental constructs or states and some people find this interesting to explore.
Unfortunately the detractors are stuck in this "but you can't make a house appear so it's bullshit" tack. Despite having it repeatedly spelled out to you in simple terms. More so you'll throw a whole bunch of utterly bullshit statements like "they do not require layers and layers of external devices to work. In fact, external devices such as mythic thought systems, silly hats and sigils probably hinder progress more than help it." about as if you had the slightest fucking idea what your talking about in the hope that what?
The ones who are actually studying and fucking about with this shit will admit "oh yeah, you obviously sound authoritative - we admit we're wrong and we wont do it again?" All we are essentially describing is things that we do with our imagination. None of it is "needed" and there are a million and one ways to skin the proverbial cat vis a vis any outcome you would like to effect but most people who actually do this shit (as opposed to people who just want to argue it doesn't exist, as if to satisfy some deep rooted denial prerogative) agree that using what is tantamount to a system or language can be helpful/interesting/fun.
I find it fascinating that this issue, above almost any other, always becomes so polarised when no other form of recreation seems to divide us so. When one reads a novel one may see the events described in ones imagination. Prove this? Disprove it? Decry it as ungodly and against science and wave a big pointy stick at it? No. But exploring consciousness, via imagination for anything from personal improvement to shits and giggles? Yeah that'll start a flamewar every time :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 10, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
Cute :D
The bottom line, tho is that (despite the detractors seeming to think so) there is no proving this endeavor. One way or another. That means you can't disprove it either. Largely due to the fact that what we're dealing with is rooted in the subjective imagination of the people claim to be doing it.
Q.E.D.
:mittens:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 12:11:45 AM
Im thinking we are going at least the second time around some of the arguments that have already been said.
I still haven't read it but I don't find that surprising considering that we went through the same argument a couple of times since I've been posting. I don't want to go round and round about this, the kind of magical thinking I'm defending is a fair bit watered down from the sort of "light a candle with your mind" magic this thread was originally intended to mock. But then again, if you sincerely think you can do
that I don't really have a problem with it either.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 03:33:28 AM
And, for the record, simpler is better. Parsimony simply (heh) works better than excess assumptions. A breathing exercise works better than some complex system of Tibetan chants, writing down ones goals in action oriented statements works better than drawing and forgetting a sigil.
I agree with you Kai, but there is no objective reason for believing that simpler is better. It depends on what you mean by "simple." To a Tibetan, breathing exercises aren't going to help at all, because there is a lifetime of association between enlightenment and complex chants and esoteric mythology. That's just how Tibetans are. To a Zen practitioner this is needless, when a simple breathing exercise will do just as well, and in fact all those layers seem like a distraction. But to a Tibetan that is just as simple as it gets, anything more simple and you lose something
vital.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 10, 2010, 01:59:37 PM
But exploring consciousness, via imagination for anything from personal improvement to shits and giggles? Yeah that'll start a flamewar every time :lulz:
Was this a flamewar? I thought this was just par for the course around here.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 01:38:01 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 12:17:09 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 11:41:42 PM
as for a concise logical argument against the need to use self-deception and trickery to interface with your own mind, I believe that if you read this entire thread you will find that I and several other people have put forth such arguments already, and there are several other threads over the last couple years that have dealt with identical or similar subjects. my inability to continue to lay everything out as a logical argument at this point stems from my frustration and anger at seeing otherwise intelligent and rational people acting as proponents of superstition and needlessly fantastic trappings, a mindset which seems to be dangerous to the overall health of human society when applied on a large scale.
also, Guy, still waiting for a response to this.
still waiting.
Ok, Hustle, that was a thoughtful response and I appreciate it. I can't say that I disagree with you here, superstition can be a very, very destructive thing. My beef, however, is that I see the same sort of dangerous tendencies present in the scientific/rationalist mindset that is so pervasive today. I've always been one to defend the underdog. For the vast majority of human history the underdog was reason, but that has switched, and I truly think we're witnessing the same thing with science. I see people putting way too much faith in the scientific method. Not that it isn't useful, probably the most useful tool we've got to get near the Truth. Maybe even very near the Truth. But getting at the truth is an infinite regress, and we can never get there, so it's an equally dangerous mistake to think scientific thinking will get us there any better than magical thinking. Maybe more useful for whatever our purposes may be, but not objectively better. Anyway, glad we're talking again, I can never stay mad at somebody with such great taste in avatars.
That people feel the need to say derogatory things about other people's intellectual/spiritual/emotional practices is pathetic, and more a reflection of their own insecurity and grasping need to feel a sense of superiority over others than of anything else.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 01:38:01 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 12:17:09 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 11:41:42 PM
as for a concise logical argument against the need to use self-deception and trickery to interface with your own mind, I believe that if you read this entire thread you will find that I and several other people have put forth such arguments already, and there are several other threads over the last couple years that have dealt with identical or similar subjects. my inability to continue to lay everything out as a logical argument at this point stems from my frustration and anger at seeing otherwise intelligent and rational people acting as proponents of superstition and needlessly fantastic trappings, a mindset which seems to be dangerous to the overall health of human society when applied on a large scale.
also, Guy, still waiting for a response to this.
still waiting.
Ok, Hustle, that was a thoughtful response and I appreciate it. I can't say that I disagree with you here, superstition can be a very, very destructive thing. My beef, however, is that I see the same sort of dangerous tendencies present in the scientific/rationalist mindset that is so pervasive today. I've always been one to defend the underdog. For the vast majority of human history the underdog was reason, but that has switched, and I truly think we're witnessing the same thing with science. I see people putting way too much faith in the scientific method. Not that it isn't useful, probably the most useful tool we've got to get near the Truth. Maybe even very near the Truth. But getting at the truth is an infinite regress, and we can never get there, so it's an equally dangerous mistake to think scientific thinking will get us there any better than magical thinking. Maybe more useful for whatever our purposes may be, but not objectively better. Anyway, glad we're talking again, I can never stay mad at somebody with such great taste in avatars.
There is absolutely no reason not to have confidence in the scientific method, aka hypothesis testing. If people misuse a tool out of misunderstanding that is not a fault of the tool. It's pretty damn stupid to blame a knife for a stab wound. Likewise, it's pretty damn stupid to blame the scientific method for people's misunderstanding of such things as hypothesis, falsifiability, experiment, correlation and causation. Not that the human element can ever be removed from the method and render it completely objective (Cf. Karl Popper), but it can be accounted for. Hypotheses can be tested and retested.
Scientific understanding has gotten us pretty far, btw. Where did magical thinking get us? Oh right, the European Dark Ages. Just think if the Library of Alexandria had survived and the Catholic church had not taken over Europe, where would we be today. Exciting, that. Reality is cool enough, special enough, amazing enough without layering on extra bullshit.
To quote:
"To gild refined gold,
To paint the lily,
To pour perfume on the violet,
Is just fucking silly."
----Tim Minchin,
StormNote, I don't really care what you do in your spare time to fulfill your spiritual practice. I do care you have the wrong idea about science, however, and thats why I felt the need to address your statement. It sounds similar to something Depak Chopra would say, and that's not a compliment.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 05:18:34 PM
That people feel the need to say derogatory things about other people's intellectual/spiritual/emotional practices is pathetic, and more a reflection of their own insecurity and grasping need to feel a sense of superiority over others than of anything else.
or it's possible that those people genuinely view the use of self-deception and the attachment of needless ritual to the idea of internal self-improvement as a dangerous and destructive force in human society and it has nothing at all to do with childish power games or ego trips.
just saying.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
There is absolutely no reason not to have confidence in the scientific method, aka hypothesis testing.
Ok, perhaps this is where we diverge, but I need some further clarification from you. What sort of confidence are you talking about? 100% certainty? High degree of probability? Where do you get these ideas from?
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
If people misuse a tool out of misunderstanding that is not a fault of the tool. It's pretty damn stupid to blame a knife for a stab wound.
It's also pretty damn hard to stab somebody without a knife. Just sayin.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Likewise, it's pretty damn stupid to blame the scientific method for people's misunderstanding of such things as hypothesis, falsifiability, experiment, correlation and causation.
I don't recall that I did this. I do blame people's inherent stupidity for the misunderstanding of the scientific method though. I suppose it's inevitable.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Not that the human element can ever be removed from the method and render it completely objective (Cf. Karl Popper), but it can be accounted for. Hypotheses can be tested and retested.
Popper and all that sort of positivism notwithstanding, we can never surmount Cartesian doubt. For all we know, an evil deceiver might be stringing us along the whole way, or maybe just stringing us along sometimes. Science is based on the hypothesis that the universe isn't messing with us, that there are consistent rules that we can ascertain. I like this and hope it's True, but man, I just don't
know.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Scientific understanding has gotten us pretty far, btw. Where did magical thinking get us? Oh right, the European Dark Ages. Just think if the Library of Alexandria had survived and the Catholic church had not taken over Europe, where would we be today.
How very Eurocentric of you. Magical thinking also brought us thousands of years of Asian civilization, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Averroes and the Islamic golden age that took place concurrent with the European dark ages and without which we wouldn't even have science. Not to mention that superstition had nothing to do with the burning of the library at Alexandria, that was just a regular old war. Also, without the Catholic Church we would have lost much of the corpus of classical texts. Superstition is, in fact, good for something, even under your definition of good.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Exciting, that. Reality is cool enough, special enough, amazing enough without layering on extra bullshit.
My point remains that whatever you think Reality is, is your own particular illusion about it. It's not about what is cool or exciting, but what is useful to you, whatever you happen to find convincing. This says more about you than about Truth.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Note, I don't really care what you do in your spare time to fulfill your spiritual practice. I do care you have the wrong idea about science, however, and thats why I felt the need to address your statement. It sounds similar to something Depak Chopra would say, and that's not a compliment.
I'm not really familiar with Chopra, but don't worry, I wasn't expecting any compliments. I don't know where you get off telling me I have the wrong idea about science, because that's patently incorrect. I couldn't have a better understanding, because I always keep its limitations at the forefront of my mind. It's folly to do otherwise.
I also think it says something that so many of the proponents of this sort of thinking, when confronted with reasonable arguments against it, withdraw to a position of "you just think you're so fucking special, you big jerk" rather than respond with reasoned counter-arguments in defense of their position.
that's not really directed at this board or this thread (though there is some of it going on here), but it is a tendency I have noticed in general anytime this sort of thing is discussed.
sorry, folks, but all peoples' beliefs, views, and methods are NOT equally valid. We may all be idiot monkeys, but there's a separation between those who at least WANT to get as close to objective truth as possible and those who see value in untruth that makes them feel comfortable.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 06:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 05:18:34 PM
That people feel the need to say derogatory things about other people's intellectual/spiritual/emotional practices is pathetic, and more a reflection of their own insecurity and grasping need to feel a sense of superiority over others than of anything else.
or it's possible that those people genuinely view the use of self-deception and the attachment of needless ritual to the idea of internal self-improvement as a dangerous and destructive force in human society and it has nothing at all to do with childish power games or ego trips.
just saying.
I took what she said as meaning just
insulting the practices is stupid, whereas discussing them, intelligently and openly, to expose stupidity (on either party's part) is fine.
If someone I care about believes something I think is stupid, I will try to discuss/argue with them about it.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 06:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 05:18:34 PM
That people feel the need to say derogatory things about other people's intellectual/spiritual/emotional practices is pathetic, and more a reflection of their own insecurity and grasping need to feel a sense of superiority over others than of anything else.
or it's possible that those people genuinely view the use of self-deception and the attachment of needless ritual to the idea of internal self-improvement as a dangerous and destructive force in human society and it has nothing at all to do with childish power games or ego trips.
just saying.
or it's possible that those people genuinely view homosexuality and the practice of gay sex with the idea of emotional attachment as a dangerous and destructive force in human society and it has nothing at all to do with childish power games or ego trips.
just saying.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 06:15:27 PM
We may all be idiot monkeys, but there's a separation between those who at least WANT to get as close to objective truth as possible and those who see value in untruth that makes them feel comfortable.
My contention is that those who follow the scientific method unquestioningly fall into the latter category. Sure, it feels nice to think we have some sort of a tool that can actually lead us to objective Truth. Wow, what a comforting sensation that must be, but the fact is the thing-in-itself will always be behind a veil that science cannot penetrate. Science also cannot say anything about the subjective, "qualia" if you will. This is a domain where science cannot trespass, and we haven't got a tool to tell us about the complete Truth of the matter. We have something that is very useful, but you're just an idiot monkey looking for comfort if you think it comes anywhere nearer the Truth than magic. That's because being "near" the truth is a totally arbitrary distinction, predicated on usefulness. Unless you've actually arrived at Truth, what good is it to be "near" it? How can you tell? What the fuck does that even mean?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 05:15:33 PM
Ok, Hustle, that was a thoughtful response and I appreciate it. I can't say that I disagree with you here, superstition can be a very, very destructive thing. My beef, however, is that I see the same sort of dangerous tendencies present in the scientific/rationalist mindset that is so pervasive today. I've always been one to defend the underdog. For the vast majority of human history the underdog was reason, but that has switched, and I truly think we're witnessing the same thing with science. I see people putting way too much faith in the scientific method. Not that it isn't useful, probably the most useful tool we've got to get near the Truth. Maybe even very near the Truth. But getting at the truth is an infinite regress, and we can never get there, so it's an equally dangerous mistake to think scientific thinking will get us there any better than magical thinking. Maybe more useful for whatever our purposes may be, but not objectively better. Anyway, glad we're talking again, I can never stay mad at somebody with such great taste in avatars.
We could rephrase this statement as "But getting at the truth is an infinite regress, and we can never get there, so it's an equally dangerous mistake to think
objective thinking will get us there any better than
subjective thinking."
Again I think it depends on the situation. See you could even merge the two. Take memory techniques.
The Loci Method where one takes an imaginary walk around one's house (for instance) and then say you wanted to remember a grocery list and you attribute each item on the list with each room. That particular mind hack involves a subjective experience that culminates in practical objective results.
This type of trick or hack could easily be argued as "magical thinking"--but when you find out the trick, there's nothing really
magical about it at all. I'd for dropping that word all together.
The tools of the scientific method could be easily adapted for the personal subjective experience. But due to the subjective nature of the situation you'll never get successfully peer reviewed which is why a rational degree of skepticism is essential. The problem I've found is that most
magicians on forums I've found never bother and feel it necessary to barf their 'truth' all over anybody who will listen.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 06:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 05:18:34 PM
That people feel the need to say derogatory things about other people's intellectual/spiritual/emotional practices is pathetic, and more a reflection of their own insecurity and grasping need to feel a sense of superiority over others than of anything else.
or it's possible that those people genuinely view the use of self-deception and the attachment of needless ritual to the idea of internal self-improvement as a dangerous and destructive force in human society and it has nothing at all to do with childish power games or ego trips.
just saying.
or it's possible that those people genuinely view homosexuality and the practice of gay sex to the idea of emotional attachment as a dangerous and destructive force in human society and it has nothing at all to do with childish power games or ego trips.
just saying.
I don't see how that's even remotely a valid analogy.
So this board is essentially the equivalent of venganza.org, now. Just a facade for atheism.
Peedee forums; where open disparagement of anything resembling religion or spiritual practice is A-OK!
Peedee forums: Where if you're not an atheist like Faust and ECH, we will call you names. Because we are awesome and enlightened, and you are a monkey.
Peedee forums: Be just like us, or else!
Also, I think the 'buying it' part of the OP is another key point. Just because a person might attain certain results (whatever that happens to mean to him) that doesn't necessarily mean that the results are REALLY real. But 'results' happen whether it's coincidence, or Lo5s or whatever and someone thinks "WOOT! i'm a wizard now!" and they focus on the results and forget the process.
I suspect that Faust is the only Really Real Discordian in the universe.
Probably the only Really Enlightened Human, as well.
Eris knows he's better than those pitiful people he feels sorry for.
It's awesome that we can have this clubhouse where we're all so superior. Over those monkeys. Wouldn't want to be them, would we?
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 06:31:56 PM
Peedee forums: Where if you're not an atheist like Faust and ECH, we will call you names. Because we are awesome and enlightened, and you are a monkey.
this board is just a message forum that people post on.
some people have some views, some have others, and thankfully, whoever is in charge here has decided that nobody will be singled out of in any way oppressed by whatever piddling authority those who are "in charge" here have to wield.
this way, arguments stand on their own merits or lack thereof. If you feel that atheistic thought (which really has nothing to do with what this thread is about, but I digress) is overwhelming the discourse, you are free to balance that out with whatever you see fit and just like the atheistic ideas, your ideas will be discussed and picked apart and possibly found to have merit or not depending on your skill at communicating your ideas. I can't speak for anyone else, but at the end of the day, I, as a poster (and your friend), will still respect YOU as a person and as someone who raises the level of discourse here, regardless of what I may think of this or that idea that you have put forth.
YMMV.
ETA: I wrote this post before I read the quoted post, which I think is both shitty and unfair. Please point out where I or Faust has ever oppressed you or anyone else for not being in lockstep with our views (which are not in lockstep with each other).
Quote from: Burns on January 10, 2010, 06:26:46 PM
We could rephrase this statement as "But getting at the truth is an infinite regress, and we can never get there, so it's an equally dangerous mistake to think objective thinking will get us there any better than subjective thinking."
Yeah, I totally agree with you there, Burns. I think we're on the same page about this, and I like your ideas about combining the subjective/objective.
I think science is a lot like magic, insofar as it's just something that's in vogue with the monkeys right now. At some point in the future it will be replaced by something unimaginably better, an future monkeys will be all like, "Wow, look how stupid those scientists were, think they can observe and repeat experiments." And then after that another model will come along to make
them look equally stupid, and so on. Until the singularity!
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 06:25:45 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 06:15:27 PM
We may all be idiot monkeys, but there's a separation between those who at least WANT to get as close to objective truth as possible and those who see value in untruth that makes them feel comfortable.
My contention is that those who follow the scientific method unquestioningly fall into the latter category. Sure, it feels nice to think we have some sort of a tool that can actually lead us to objective Truth. Wow, what a comforting sensation that much be, but the fact is the thing-in-itself will always be behind a veil that science cannot penetrate. Science also cannot say anything about the subjective, "qualia" if you will. This is a domain where science cannot trespass, and we haven't got a tool to tell us about the complete Truth of the matter. We have something that is very useful, but you're just an idiot monkey looking for comfort if you think it comes anywhere nearer the Truth than magic. That's because being "near" the truth is a totally arbitrary distinction, predicated on usefulness. Unless you've actually arrived at Truth, what good is it to be "near" it? How can you tell? What the fuck does that even mean?
The scientific method means dealing with the empirical world logically.
Just cut to the chase, Guy. Are you claiming there is no objective reality?
So what if this is an illusion and the search for knowledge is masturbation? What else are we supposed to do in such a world? It makes sense to want to find out all we can about this world, and that'll only work by a logical progress.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 06:45:43 PM
The scientific method means dealing with the empirical world logically.
Yes, but science does not have a monopoly on the use of applying logic to the world. And limiting your investigations to the empirical world is a severe limitation indeed.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 06:45:43 PM
Just cut to the chase, Guy. Are you claiming there is no objective reality?
No, what I am claiming is that the answer that question is unknowable in principle. But let's start defining our terms here. What do you mean by "objective reality?" How are we supposed to prove that there is one?
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 06:45:43 PM
So what if this is an illusion and the search for knowledge is masturbation? What else are we supposed to do in such a world? It makes sense to want to find out all we can about this world, and that'll only work by a logical progress.
I agree that it makes sense to learn all you can about the world. But you have to recognize when you are working within a framework and what about that framework is arbitrary.
:barstool:
Guy, while I think I understand what you're getting at, I just don't see the validity of it as applied to everyday life, whatever value it may have when applied to discussions about "the true nature of things".
since this thread is ostensibly about practices and their application and relation to everyday life, the barstool applies.
Yeah, I was sort of trying to get at that.
Sorry for being a dick.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 07:11:28 PM
For you, Guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s
I've already heard the song of which you speak
By that tedious and condescending cockney geek
His arguments are as spurious as his rhyming is weak
And of self satisfaction the whole thing does reek.
His shoehorned quotation from Hume is pathetic
And demonstrates that he really just doesn't get it.
Science might work, and that just happens to be his aesthetic,
But for some religion works, for others a joint,
And that chick in his song makes a good point.
I wasn't linking it as an argument or to change your mind. I just thought it was a nice little poem. :cry: But you have to go and be a meanie like that...
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 07:31:43 PM
I wasn't linking it as an argument or to change your mind. I just thought it was a nice little poem. :cry: But you have to go and be a meanie like that...
Just funnin', it is an entertaining poem:)
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 07:16:25 PM
Guy, while I think I understand what you're getting at, I just don't see the validity of it as applied to everyday life, whatever value it may have when applied to discussions about "the true nature of things".
since this thread is ostensibly about practices and their application and relation to everyday life, the barstool applies.
I had to think about this one for a minute, because I really am inclined to go with you on this. The idea that science is some sort of unflinching way of looking at "everyday life" is a very appealing notion. But I just can't go that extra step and declare that it is better than religious or magical ways at approaching everyday life.
Let me give you an example: there is a Evangelical Calvinist minister whose blog I read, and whenever he goes off the deep end I like to post and chastise him about it. I used to tell myself that it would do him good to bring him down to earth, or whatever. Anyway, whatever I told him usually would roll right off his back.
Then recently this guy did a post about the historicity of Jesus, and how he thinks there is no parallel between Jesus and Mithras, Jesus and Osiris, etc. I just couldn't contain myself, so I wrote a huge comment detailing how his history was shoddy, point by point. I was shocked when he came back like two weeks later with a huge blog post trying to prove me wrong. Apparently I struck a nerve, and it occurred to me that this guy really needs his illusions. So I've since sworn off trying to bring him down to earth.
Because what good could possibly come of this? This is a man who sincerely believes that without a big bearded guy living in the sky and watching over him like some sort of eternal jailer there is no reason to be good. What would happen if I succeeded in convincing him that there probably was no historical Jesus? It would pull the rug out from under him, he'd go off his nut, he'd see no more reason for morality.
I'm not saying it's necessary to have a divine foundation for moral principles, but it is necessary to have some sort of foundation. For a lot of people, their magical thinking provides this, and they can't even conceive of anything else, the only alternative is sheer moral anarchy. It keeps them grounded and productive and happy and even sane. So if that's not a day to day use for magical thinking I don't know what is.
Actually, if I said rational behavior was the only way to go about everyday life, I'd be a bit of a hypocrite. When people do irrational things that I think are funny, or do it in a certain way, I'm okay with it. Emperor Norton (although i don't know what he was really like), Wonko the Sane types of people. I'll think about it more and maybe post when I can phrase my ideas better.
[edit: It probably has something to do with the fact that I consider having fun such an important thing in life, more important than being rationally or scientifically correct.]
On another note, who I am friends with has never been decided by their beliefs. When I argue with people I know, at the end of the day I still care about them, they're my friends and that's most important to me. Kind of what ECH was saying.
Quote from: Faust on January 09, 2010, 11:54:43 PM
A reminder that language and expression is already one step removed from your true identity (your mind) and that adding stupid names and rituals to get an effect is adding another redundant layer.
When I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.
This is the post that set me off, BTW.
I love how it manages to simultaneously be smugly superior, AND mock every non-lily-white-academia culture's spiritual practices from the dawn of humanity.
Hey, so one of my ancestral cultures induces a mentally altered state through chanting, burning sage, wearing costume, dance, and storytelling? Faust PITIES us!
It's so nice to know.
FUCK YOU, FAUST. EAT A BONE AND DIE.
So I have been thinking about this and I think it may simply come down to the question of models for me.
When I want to play with the "magic" models and props, I do. When I want to play with "NLP" stuff, I do. When I want to think "rationally" about the world, minus any props or silly words or superstitions, I do. I don't think that any of them are objectively true, or that one will give me 100% the best way to see things. They're all different ways to look at the world and the Universe. Between the metaphors we intentionally use and the metaphors that are so deeply ingrained that we often confuse them for real... I don't have an issue with metaphors about Holy Guardian Angels or Eris or whatever...
If we truly exist in a Universe of Absurdity, if the 'meaning' to life is so occluded that it either doesn't exist, or can't be determined accurately (or is whatever we make up for ourselves)... then I have no problem playing with Magic or anything else if it seems interesting. The experiences which have helped shape the life I currently have include some of the experiences I've had playing with Magic. Fakery, Psychology, Occult or Lies... what matters to me are the experiences and results.
I don't use Magic to find Truth...
Quote from: The Right Reverend NigelQuote from: FaustWhen I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.
:lol: Faust realizes that magic and ritual are just about feeling melacholy or concentration, and these superstitious people are just adding a bunch of useless fluff in their ignorance!
Joking btw.
Its one of the hardest things to discuss, since people just take the term by the sides and try to fuck it deep but they ignore the rest of the body ... ok shit analogy.
There was a BEAUTIFULLY written concept in the PD, and which I will now refer to -
GOBBLE, GOBBLE, GOBBLE, GOBBLE, GOBBLE
"We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use differnt grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate tit to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID."
....
"The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos apepars ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered."
I am beggining to believe that Omar and Mal-2 were once Chaotees themselves, but thats a can of worms I refuse to touch.
Again,
You have your Will/Intent, and you get your Results. Anything leading up to your Results is your Process and anything USED in the process are your tools.
Say for example, the practioner will want to find and meet new people, but they are generally nervous people because they lack self-confidence. So they do a spell to boost their own self-confidence.
They may begin by focusing on a single object clearing their mind, then they will light a red candle because symbolicly it means new things/love to them, then they will chant the words that symbolicly have meaning to them - To some; they will feel empowered and strong enough to believe in themselves that they can do it, where as others will continiously question themselves and feel stupid about it and may possibly sink further into the lack of self-confidence. The difference here - one person truly believes in it, the other is full of doubt. It doesn't work for everyone, they have to find their own ideas. Heck, some might snap out of their lack of confidence entirely because their sick of it, whatever works - Works. Sometimes the set out intent will fail, but could be because the process wasn't well-thought through (Or maybe it was something really retarded set out to be done)
It MAY seem whacky, and silly to do - but for the person who sets out to meet new people and successfully does it, will thank their own spell/ritual for the success. I will probably regret using that example aswell.
But it doesn't even have to involve candles or chanting or things like that. The way I accept it is, as long as you have the Intent/Will to manifest your Results, and you go about the steps in doing it; that is smart thinking. Whether you want to call it Magic or not - Kudous to you. Would you prefer to call it Mind Hack instead?
Here is an example from my own life -
I was nervous about meeting a particular person, so on the inside I gave myself a bit of a slap and I made an imaginary mask with the idea to hide my nervousness. And I ended up being my charming self, whether it was because the imaginary Mask that gave me this edge or it was a pre-learned 'habbit' has little to no meaning to me, because what I set out to do worked. I just didn't question myself, I set out to do something and I did it.
The trouble I have with all of this is that it isn't real.
When it's all said and done, it doesn't change anything...it's just another way to lie to yourself. And there's enough ways to do that already.
'Nothing is true, everything is permitted.'
The way I take that belief is best accepted as a use as a tool.
(Ok this analogy may be a bit out there but here I go - I dont even know why I'm writing it :lulz:)
I will use my screwdriver to screw in screws, I will user hammers to hammer in nails. But if I use a screw driver to hammer in a nail I might bend the nail.
I don't see it as a lie. I am not lieing to anyone, but I am bringing out a side of myself that would of been held back by another part of me.
Of course I could just cut the nonsense and go full in, in the past I know I wouldn't of been able to do that - but now days it doesn't effect me that much anymore of what people think of me.
IMO, that could possible be one of the biggest forces that hold people back - what others think of them. So they turn to all of these systems in order to get around it, possibly without tackling the root of the problem.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 10:49:27 PM
'Nothing is true, everything is permitted.'
Everything?
(http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/galleries/auschperiod/Auschwitz%20gate%201940.jpg)
:lulz: It is my fault for bringing out random quotes.
I have always taken that quote to deal with self-constructed truths. Nothing physically (thankfully)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2010, 10:53:09 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 10:49:27 PM
'Nothing is true, everything is permitted.'
Everything?
That's why I, for one, am more interested in objective morals than objective truth.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
There is absolutely no reason not to have confidence in the scientific method, aka hypothesis testing.
Ok, perhaps this is where we diverge, but I need some further clarification from you. What sort of confidence are you talking about? 100% certainty? High degree of probability? Where do you get these ideas from?
I have complete confidence in the scientific method to test any hypothesis which is able to be falsified. And I mean any and every. There is not one falsifiable hypothesis that I would not be confident in using the scientific method to test.
QuoteQuote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
If people misuse a tool out of misunderstanding that is not a fault of the tool. It's pretty damn stupid to blame a knife for a stab wound.
It's also pretty damn hard to stab somebody without a knife. Just sayin.
Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? Is this yet another argument of proximate versus ultimate? If you know what I mean, I'm talking about the ultimate and not the proximate level.
QuoteQuote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Likewise, it's pretty damn stupid to blame the scientific method for people's misunderstanding of such things as hypothesis, falsifiability, experiment, correlation and causation.
I don't recall that I did this. I do blame people's inherent stupidity for the misunderstanding of the scientific method though. I suppose it's inevitable.
You obviously misunderstand it and blame it. That was implicit in the statement of yours I bolded.
QuoteQuote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Not that the human element can ever be removed from the method and render it completely objective (Cf. Karl Popper), but it can be accounted for. Hypotheses can be tested and retested.
Popper and all that sort of positivism notwithstanding, we can never surmount Cartesian doubt. For all we know, an evil deceiver might be stringing us along the whole way, or maybe just stringing us along sometimes. Science is based on the hypothesis that the universe isn't messing with us, that there are consistent rules that we can ascertain. I like this and hope it's True, but man, I just don't know.
This is why we use PARSIMONY. Science is also based on testing of physical evidence, and unless you can provide physical evidence to test, whatever "evidence" you have is scientifically meaningless. But I digress, you're being needlessly hypothetical with no evidence.
QuoteQuote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Scientific understanding has gotten us pretty far, btw. Where did magical thinking get us? Oh right, the European Dark Ages. Just think if the Library of Alexandria had survived and the Catholic church had not taken over Europe, where would we be today.
How very Eurocentric of you. Magical thinking also brought us thousands of years of Asian civilization, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Averroes and the Islamic golden age that took place concurrent with the European dark ages and without which we wouldn't even have science. Not to mention that superstition had nothing to do with the burning of the library at Alexandria, that was just a regular old war. Also, without the Catholic Church we would have lost much of the corpus of classical texts. Superstition is, in fact, good for something, even under your definition of good.
Believe it or not, I don't live in Asia. My culture and civilization falls within the western tradition. The librarians at Alexandria were great scientists, and unfortunately that knowlege was pushed into a dank corner for nearly 1000 years while people entertained magical ideas like the world being flat. Maybe you're from some Asian culture but I'm pretty sure you aren't, so quit pretending you are, and like you actually know what you are talking about.
QuoteQuote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Exciting, that. Reality is cool enough, special enough, amazing enough without layering on extra bullshit.
My point remains that whatever you think Reality is, is your own particular illusion about it. It's not about what is cool or exciting, but what is useful to you, whatever you happen to find convincing. This says more about you than about Truth.
I want you to think really hard and believe you can fly, and see if you are willing to jump out a 12th story window.
If you want to get caught in this stupid existentialism, I have a barstool waiting for you.
QuoteQuote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 05:49:31 PM
Note, I don't really care what you do in your spare time to fulfill your spiritual practice. I do care you have the wrong idea about science, however, and thats why I felt the need to address your statement. It sounds similar to something Depak Chopra would say, and that's not a compliment.
I'm not really familiar with Chopra, but don't worry, I wasn't expecting any compliments. I don't know where you get off telling me I have the wrong idea about science, because that's patently incorrect. I couldn't have a better understanding, because I always keep its limitations at the forefront of my mind. It's folly to do otherwise.
Except you don't understand, thus you throw around bullshit comments about the scientific method.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 10:57:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2010, 10:53:09 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 10:49:27 PM
'Nothing is true, everything is permitted.'
Everything?
That's why I, for one, am more interested in objective morals than objective truth.
Pfffft. That's just as bad. Ayn Rand mushy-headed bullshit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2010, 10:38:26 PM
The trouble I have with all of this is that it isn't real.
When it's all said and done, it doesn't change anything...it's just another way to lie to yourself. And there's enough ways to do that already.
People can lie to themselves, no matter what models and symbols they use. People can also see models as models and symbols as symbols.... then there's no lie at all.
For all their faults, the Wiccans have one thing right: "Do what ye will, an it harm none".
I would go one step further and say that the only thing that makes living worthwhile is improving the lives of other beings.
'Cause I'm a damn hippie.
I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?
Things that make sense.
No, I'm not going to clarify that.
Knowing what you're deluding yourself with is a delusion, and still deluding yourself with it, is even weirder than being deluded honestly.
i.e. Lying to yourself is even weirder than being an honest fuckwit.
All the existential wishy washies in this thread really SUCK. Just sayin.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 11:09:27 PM
I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?
Morals tend to be tied to religion and culture.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:23:21 PM
All the existential wishy washies in this thread really SUCK. Just sayin.
That's me, huh. :D
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 11:19:56 PM
Knowing what you're deluding yourself with is a delusion, and still deluding yourself with it, is even weirder than being deluded honestly.
i.e. Lying to yourself is even weirder than being an honest fuckwit.
It is self-delusion when you tell yourself that your skinny when you have a beer belly
It is self-delusion when you remind yourself constantly that you are good at something when you are not
-- along those lines
Those things are dangerous, that is when someone is living in a fantasy land. Once you share them with others its only got room to get shot down
But, how is say my example - making an imaginary mask to hide my feelings of nervousness; a self-delusion? At the time, it was one of the best coping things. Now days, it won't do anything for me. I guess it'd be a self-delusion if I tried to do it when it has no possible effect
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 11:23:46 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 11:09:27 PM
I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?
Morals tend to be tied to religion and culture.
That makes sense. But that would mean that everyone finds killing wrong. But there are some people who clearly love to kill. Is there a view which is out of reach of culture and religion?
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
I have complete confidence in the scientific method to test any hypothesis which is able to be falsified. And I mean any and every. There is not one falsifiable hypothesis that I would not be confident in using the scientific method to test.
A hypothesis can is only as good as the tests you can run on it. I'm glad you have such confidence in the scientific method, but it's misplaced. This is a naive and almost childlike trust in science. As Heisenberg said, the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned on, each other.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
You obviously misunderstand it and blame it. That was implicit in the statement of yours I bolded.
And you obviously misunderstand what I've been saying. We haven't got a better tool than the scientific method right now, in my opinion. But I am not blithely ignorant of its limitations as you seem to be. Think about it, where do you derive your assumption that the universe has laws that are consistent?
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
This is why we use PARSIMONY. Science is also based on testing of physical evidence, and unless you can provide physical evidence to test, whatever "evidence" you have is scientifically meaningless. But I digress, you're being needlessly hypothetical with no evidence.
Get your head out of your ass for a minute and listen to yourself. Evidence for a hypothetical? STFU.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
Believe it or not, I don't live in Asia. My culture and civilization falls within the western tradition. The librarians at Alexandria were great scientists, and unfortunately that knowlege was pushed into a dank corner for nearly 1000 years while people entertained magical ideas like the world being flat. Maybe you're from some Asian culture but I'm pretty sure you aren't, so quit pretending you are, and like you actually know what you are talking about.
Do you even think before you type? If it wasn't for the Asia cultures that you so casually dismiss none of the Western advancements that you prize could ever have transpired. Interesting how you haven't got anything to say about the usefulness of the Catholic Church in preserving literature... maybe you're all right with superstition if it can be of use to you, just like every other existentialist you're criticizing.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
Except you don't understand, thus you throw around bullshit comments about the scientific method.
Clearly you need to read a bit more on philosophy of science. Science is great, but it's limited, it's within a framework. That framework itself is something that science can't say anything about, and may very well be flawed.
I hate to go ad hominem on you, but you aren't giving me much choice. Read a book, Kai. BTW the parts of your post I didn't respond to are too dumb to warrant a response.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2010, 11:04:08 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 10:57:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2010, 10:53:09 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 10:49:27 PM
'Nothing is true, everything is permitted.'
Everything?
That's why I, for one, am more interested in objective morals than objective truth.
Pfffft. That's just as bad. Ayn Rand mushy-headed bullshit.
What's mushy-headed is equating objectivity with Objectivism. There's nothing in my posts that can be construed as any sort of Randian egoism, which I'm not interested in at all. What I am getting at is the importance of things being objectively right and wrong; that things like genocide are always wrong all the time, irrespective of context or culture. But you're probably too mushy-headed to understand that.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 11:32:50 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 11:23:46 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 11:09:27 PM
I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?
Morals tend to be tied to religion and culture.
That makes sense. But that would mean that everyone finds killing wrong. But there are some people who clearly love to kill. Is there a view which is out of reach of culture and religion?
That most certainly does not mean that everyone finds killing wrong.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 11:47:11 PM
What's mushy-headed is equating objectivity with Objectivism. There's nothing in my posts that can be construed as any sort of Randian egoism, which I'm not interested in at all. What I am getting at is the importance of things being objectively right and wrong; that things like genocide are always wrong all the time, irrespective of context or culture. But you're probably too mushy-headed to understand that.
Is negligent homocide always wrong?
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 11:49:16 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 11:32:50 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 11:23:46 PM
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 11:09:27 PM
I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?
Morals tend to be tied to religion and culture.
That makes sense. But that would mean that everyone finds killing wrong. But there are some people who clearly love to kill. Is there a view which is out of reach of culture and religion?
That most certainly does not mean that everyone finds killing wrong.
I guess I'll understand it one day, I can't fathom the thought of anything untouched by culture and religion.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2010, 11:56:13 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 11:47:11 PM
What's mushy-headed is equating objectivity with Objectivism. There's nothing in my posts that can be construed as any sort of Randian egoism, which I'm not interested in at all. What I am getting at is the importance of things being objectively right and wrong; that things like genocide are always wrong all the time, irrespective of context or culture. But you're probably too mushy-headed to understand that.
Is negligent homocide always wrong?
What I said is that I'm interested in objective morality, I never said I had all the answers. It depends on the facts, if you seriously want to talk about it, it's not a bad question. But I feel like an objective morality is an important thing to aspire to, otherwise everything is permissible, as you pointed out earlier.
[Edit: but even if negligent homicide isn't always wrong, just wrong under certain circumstance, this doesn't undermine the idea that morality can be objective. It's just that the objectivity is contingent on circumstances. Maybe a certain level of negligence is required to rise to the level of being immoral. Or maybe all negligence is always immoral even when not resulting in homicide.]
I'm trying to wrap my head around objective morality.
I got my sense of Morals from my Mum,
She taught me its wrong to hurt others.
She taught me its good to take care and be nice to others.
Anything else I've picked up is because its based of what I think nice/good/useful is. For instance - I know I will not physically harm another person unless I am attacked.
Is this an objective view? Or was it derived from religion/culture I grew up around?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:00:10 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2010, 11:56:13 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 11:47:11 PM
What's mushy-headed is equating objectivity with Objectivism. There's nothing in my posts that can be construed as any sort of Randian egoism, which I'm not interested in at all. What I am getting at is the importance of things being objectively right and wrong; that things like genocide are always wrong all the time, irrespective of context or culture. But you're probably too mushy-headed to understand that.
Is negligent homocide always wrong?
What I said is that I'm interested in objective morality, I never said I had all the answers. It depends on the facts, if you seriously want to talk about it, it's not a bad question. But I feel like an objective morality is an important thing to aspire to, otherwise everything is permissible, as you pointed out earlier.
[Edit: but even if negligent homicide isn't always wrong, just wrong under certain circumstance, this doesn't undermine the idea that morality can be objective. It's just that the objectivity is contingent on circumstances. Maybe a certain level of negligence is required to rise to the level of being immoral. Or maybe all negligence is always immoral even when not resulting in homicide.]
Just because civilization works by the assumption of moral codes doesn't mean that there are objective moral codes.
The only thing I see is objective is life, we all gotta play by its rules.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:00:10 AM
What I said is that I'm interested in objective morality, I never said I had all the answers.
So objective morality is unworkable, like communism or the free market?
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 12:08:20 AM
Just because civilization works by the assumption of moral codes doesn't mean that there are objective moral codes.
I agree, but I can still try, can't I?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:10:23 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:00:10 AM
What I said is that I'm interested in objective morality, I never said I had all the answers.
So objective morality is unworkable, like communism or the free market?
That doesn't follow from what I said. Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:13:43 AM
That doesn't follow from what I said. Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.
So who do you trust to set up objective morals for you to live by?
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to comprehend an objective morality. The problem is, humans aren't actually very good at being objective; not even in science. (See Luca Turin's work on the mechanics of scent, for example).
I would of once believed that in order to maintain an objective view, it would have to be set up by an external observer. But the more I think of it - its more so possible when it comes to a massive Hive/Herd mentality .. or a single sole conscious controlling everything.
I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:16:28 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:13:43 AM
That doesn't follow from what I said. Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.
So who do you trust to set up objective morals for you to live by?
Well, I hope I'll figure it out for myself one day, by means of my own intellect. Until then I have my conscience, as most people do, which is usually the best we can get.
Is this Socratic method or are you just setting me up for a massive take down?
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 12:18:09 AM
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to comprehend an objective morality. The problem is, humans aren't actually very good at being objective; not even in science. (See Luca Turin's work on the mechanics of scent, for example).
Well said Nigel, that's precisely the sort of thing I've been trying to say about the limitations of science.
When it comes to objective morality, I'm not sure that it's granted that you can boil it down to a convenient list of do's and don't like the ten commandments, but I think it is still objective in some sense. At least I really want it to be :|
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:16:28 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:13:43 AM
That doesn't follow from what I said. Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.
So who do you trust to set up objective morals for you to live by?
Well, I hope I'll figure it out for myself one day, by means of my own intellect. Until then I have my conscience, as most people do, which is usually the best we can get.
So it IS unworkable, for the forseeable future?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:22:57 AM
Is this Socratic method or are you just setting me up for a massive take down?
Absolutely.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:28:09 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:16:28 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:13:43 AM
That doesn't follow from what I said. Just because I'm too dumb to figure it out doesn't mean it's utterly unworkable.
So who do you trust to set up objective morals for you to live by?
Well, I hope I'll figure it out for myself one day, by means of my own intellect. Until then I have my conscience, as most people do, which is usually the best we can get.
So it IS unworkable, for the forseeable future?
People have done it before. Kant has an interesting system. Just because I'm not convinced by it doesn't mean it isn't right, and just because I haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not really sure about what you mean by unworkable. Please clarify.
Quote from: Immanuel Kant
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Do you agree with him?
LMAO synchronicity.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 12:32:09 AM
LMAO synchronicity.
Gave me the jibbilies:)
In answer to your question, yes and no. I think the categorical imperative, when applied narrowly, is to restrictive and leads to counter-intuitive outcomes, for example Kant himself says that stealing bread to feed your starving family is wrong because the maxim "It's ok to steal" can't be applied universally. But I think if you alter Kant's theory a bit and make the maxim more specific, like "It's ok to steal to feed someone who would otherwise starve" then you get something "workable" but maybe not what Kant intended.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:31:24 AM
People have done it before. Kant has an interesting system. Just because I'm not convinced by it doesn't mean it isn't right, and just because I haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not really sure about what you mean by unworkable. Please clarify.
If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.
Unworkable: Not possible to put into practice in the forseeable future.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:35:17 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 12:32:09 AM
LMAO synchronicity.
Gave me the jibbilies:)
In answer to your question, yes and no. I think the categorical imperative, when applied narrowly, is to restrictive and leads to counter-intuitive outcomes, for example Kant himself says that stealing bread to feed your starving family is wrong because the maxim "It's ok to steal" can't be applied universally. But I think if you alter Kant's theory a bit and make the maxim more specific, like "It's ok to steal to feed someone who would otherwise starve" then you get something "workable" but maybe not what Kant intended.
We should pillage all supermarkets, and send the supplies to Africa.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:31:24 AM
People have done it before. Kant has an interesting system. Just because I'm not convinced by it doesn't mean it isn't right, and just because I haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not really sure about what you mean by unworkable. Please clarify.
If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.
Well I'm not discounting the possibility that I could be wrong.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:36:08 AM
Unworkable: Not possible to put into practice in the forseeable future.
That's just it, we put it in to practice every day when we make moral decisions. Codification is one thing, practice is another. I'm of the opinion that you judge the success of an ethical system by how well it jives with intuition. So is objective morality workable? Yes, absolutely. Is my personal codification of objective morality workable? No.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 08:24:54 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 09, 2010, 11:54:43 PM
A reminder that language and expression is already one step removed from your true identity (your mind) and that adding stupid names and rituals to get an effect is adding another redundant layer.
When I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.
This is the post that set me off, BTW.
I love how it manages to simultaneously be smugly superior, AND mock every non-lily-white-academia culture's spiritual practices from the dawn of humanity.
Hey, so one of my ancestral cultures induces a mentally altered state through chanting, burning sage, wearing costume, dance, and storytelling? Faust PITIES us!
It's so nice to know.
FUCK YOU, FAUST. EAT A BONE AND DIE.
lol
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 06:34:55 PM
I suspect that Faust is the only Really Real Discordian in the universe.
If you had read any more of the thread or even the next three posts, in which Incognito responded to it, you would have seen that I was looking for a knee jerk reaction. The post was facetious, and you still didn't get that even when it was exposed before you ever responded.
I'm going to go ahead and ignore the comments about the ancestral heritage, both sets of mine separated by half a continent did the same things fyi.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: Immanuel Kant
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Do you agree with him?
So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:41:10 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 12:31:24 AM
People have done it before. Kant has an interesting system. Just because I'm not convinced by it doesn't mean it isn't right, and just because I haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not really sure about what you mean by unworkable. Please clarify.
If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.
Well I'm not discounting the possibility that I could be wrong.
If it's objective, it should be testable, yes?
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 12:57:49 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 08:24:54 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 09, 2010, 11:54:43 PM
A reminder that language and expression is already one step removed from your true identity (your mind) and that adding stupid names and rituals to get an effect is adding another redundant layer.
When I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.
This is the post that set me off, BTW.
I love how it manages to simultaneously be smugly superior, AND mock every non-lily-white-academia culture's spiritual practices from the dawn of humanity.
Hey, so one of my ancestral cultures induces a mentally altered state through chanting, burning sage, wearing costume, dance, and storytelling? Faust PITIES us!
It's so nice to know.
FUCK YOU, FAUST. EAT A BONE AND DIE.
lol
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 10, 2010, 06:34:55 PM
I suspect that Faust is the only Really Real Discordian in the universe.
If you had read any more of the thread or even the next three posts, in which Incognito responded to it, you would have seen that I was looking for a knee jerk reaction. The post was facetious, and you still didn't get that even when it was exposed before you ever responded.
I'm going to go ahead and ignore the comments about the ancestral heritage, both sets of mine separated by half a continent did the same things fyi.
Oh, it's just that I'm stupid.
I get it.
IT WAS A SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 01:07:05 AM
IT WAS A SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT.
not really, it was trolling, would have thought you of all people would have realized it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:00:53 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: Immanuel Kant
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Do you agree with him?
So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?
My point was to see how far Guy Incognito was willing to take the objective morals viewpoint.
Kant's system is shitty because it does not take into account intention nor consequence.
So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:01:28 AM
If it's objective, it should be testable, yes?
Of course. I've already suggested a method of testing: by checking against intuition. But naturally, that's problematic because people can have different intuitions, or at least different interpretations of the same intuitive forces. There are ways of doing neurological tests to see what areas of the brain light up when exposed to certain moral situations, but that's problematic too. So I'd say testable in theory, but not easily testable in practice.
What are you thoughts, Roger? I gather that you're are some sort of free for all moral relativist, correct? So where do you get your morals from?
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:13:15 AM
So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.
Yeah, Kant can lead to backwards results like that. But the major contribution Kant made was rigorous systemization of moral philosophy, not necessarily how he implemented that system.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:15:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:01:28 AM
If it's objective, it should be testable, yes?
Of course. I've already suggested a method of testing: by checking against intuition. But naturally, that's problematic because people can have different intuitions, or at least different interpretations of the same intuitive forces. There are ways of doing neurological tests to see what areas of the brain light up when exposed to certain moral situations, but that's problematic too. So I'd say testable in theory, but not easily testable in practice.
What are you thoughts, Roger? I gather that you're are some sort of free for all moral relativist, correct? So where do you get your morals from?
Nope. I am a misanthrope and a Rain God. My morals are programmed in (you get that when you hire on as a Mexica God), and mostly have to do with being an absolute shit to almost all humans.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:17:57 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:13:15 AM
So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.
Yeah, Kant can lead to backwards results like that. But the major contribution Kant made was rigorous systemization of moral philosophy, not necessarily how he implemented that system.
So, again, it's like communism or free market bullshit. Looks really nice on paper, or while you're sitting around at Starbucks solving the world's problems, but not so good in application.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:13:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:00:53 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: Immanuel Kant
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Do you agree with him?
So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?
My point was to see how far Guy Incognito was willing to take the objective morals viewpoint.
Kant's system is shitty because it does not take into account intention nor consequence.
So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.
Kant is basically just another jackoff like Plato, then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:21:20 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:13:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:00:53 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: Immanuel Kant
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Do you agree with him?
So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?
My point was to see how far Guy Incognito was willing to take the objective morals viewpoint.
Kant's system is shitty because it does not take into account intention nor consequence.
So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.
Kant is basically just another jackoff like Plato, then.
Yup! The favourite two of burguoise pretentious pricks.
I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention. Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:19:50 AM
My morals ... mostly have to do with being an absolute shit to almost all humans.
Congratulations on being a roaring success! You're an inspiration to us lesser mortals:)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:20:43 AM
So, again, it's like communism or free market bullshit. Looks really nice on paper, or while you're sitting around at Starbucks solving the world's problems, but not so good in application.
It's a mistake to think that moral philosophy is limited to sitting around at Starbucks. There's a guy named Leon Kass who's an ethicist that didn't take the time to listen to your erudite critique of how much of a waste of time moral philosophy is. And he's also some big muckymuck on some sort of National Bioethics commission, and so he spends his time convincing the president that cloning and stem cell research were too immoral to justify their benefits. But if we have it the way you seem to want it, the people who actually have decent ideas about morals shouldn't waste their time at Starbucks, so we'll have nobody to stand up when people like Kass fuck things up for all of us. Is this an unfair assessment?
I take the Aristotelian position that happiness is the higher good. That said, I enjoy the hell out of being an asshole.
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 01:27:33 AM
I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention. Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.
Id like to make a differentation between "objective morality" and a "group contract".
Objective morality referes to "THE TRUTH" that everyone should stick to.
While a "group contract" like constitutions or laws are just what a group of people find more convenient and pragmatic (supposedly).
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:33:34 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 01:27:33 AM
I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention. Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.
Id like to make a differentation between "objective morality" and a "group contract".
Objective morality referes to "THE TRUTH" that everyone should stick to.
While a "group contract" like constitutions or laws are just what a group of people find more convenient and pragmatic (supposedly).
Yes that is why I have trouble grapsing what Objective Morality actually is
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 01:27:33 AM
I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention. Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.
I think this is a very interesting point. I think there could very well be something about morality that is inherently tied to the species, if I'm reading you right. I recall reading something in evolutionary theory about how morality developed along with religion as a means of promoting survival through cooperation. Maybe there is some sort of objective morality hardwired into our brains? Perhaps I'm getting to speculative here.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 01:31:44 AM
I take the Aristotelian position that happiness is the higher good. That said, I enjoy the hell out of being an asshole.
Your take is more like Max Stirner's.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:35:11 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 01:27:33 AM
I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention. Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.
I think this is a very interesting point. I think there could very well be something about morality that is inherently tied to the species, if I'm reading you right. I recall reading something in evolutionary theory about how morality developed along with religion as a means of promoting survival through cooperation. Maybe there is some sort of objective morality hardwired into our brains? Perhaps I'm getting to speculative here.
1. I'm never not speculative. (i don't think)
2. you read me right.
4. JohNyx, I hear that. I posited this in attempt to attempt to steer away from an absolute point of view yet retain the sense of morality....hence "piece of the foundation" and "not mutually exclusive".
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:33:34 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 01:27:33 AM
I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention. Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.
Id like to make a differentation between "objective morality" and a "group contract".
Objective morality referes to "THE TRUTH" that everyone should stick to.
While a "group contract" like constitutions or laws are just what a group of people find more convenient and pragmatic (supposedly).
Yes, that's it, the social contract is something totally separate and distinct from morality, in fact the two have nothing to do with one another. Morality cannot possibly inform the social contract, and while we're at it let's just say the end's justify the means as well.Italics are for my evil alter ego, too.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 11, 2010, 01:34:10 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:33:34 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 01:27:33 AM
I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention. Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.
Id like to make a differentation between "objective morality" and a "group contract".
Objective morality referes to "THE TRUTH" that everyone should stick to.
While a "group contract" like constitutions or laws are just what a group of people find more convenient and pragmatic (supposedly).
Yes that is why I have trouble grapsing what Objective Morality actually is
Objective Morality: what some noob by his "superior knowledge" claims to be THE TRUTH about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:38:09 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:33:34 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 01:27:33 AM
I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention. Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.
Id like to make a differentation between "objective morality" and a "group contract".
Objective morality referes to "THE TRUTH" that everyone should stick to.
While a "group contract" like constitutions or laws are just what a group of people find more convenient and pragmatic (supposedly).
Yes, that's it, the social contract is something totally separate and distinct from morality, in fact the two have nothing to do with one another. Morality cannot possibly inform the social contract, and while we're at it let's just say the end's justify the means as well.
Italics are for my evil alter ego, too.
You were doing well, until you added the "ends justify the means" because that is not at all related.
Dont crap up my style.
And you are twisting my words, because i was talking about "objective morality" not morality in itself.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:38:27 AM
Objective Morality: what some noob by his "superior knowledge" claims to be THE TRUTH about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.
Why do I think this is directed at me? n00bzor though I may be, I have no place claimed to have superior knowledge, expect as opposed to the odd asshat who doesn't bother with thinking. Also, my criteria for objective morality throughout these posts, is that it be accessible to all equal, by means of conscience or intuition. Or maybe it wasn't direct at me after all, since it seems to be so absurdly unapt (apart from my reckless noobitry).
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:43:05 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:38:27 AM
Objective Morality: what some noob by his "superior knowledge" claims to be THE TRUTH about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.
Why do I think this is directed at me? n00bzor though I may be, I have no place claimed to have superior knowledge, expect as opposed to the odd asshat who doesn't bother with thinking. Also, my criteria for objective morality throughout these posts, is that it be accessible to all equal, by means of conscience or intuition. Or maybe it wasn't direct at me after all, since it seems to be so absurdly unapt (apart from my reckless noobitry).
I was speaking on a general note, it wasnt a jab at you.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:41:46 AM
You were doing well, until you added the "ends justify the means" because that is not at all related.
Dont crap up my style.
Just having some fun, and getting even for taking your evil persona literally earlier. By the way, I love the gimmick and wanted an excuse to steal it since I first read it:)
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:41:46 AM
And you are twisting my words, because i was talking about "objective morality" not morality in itself.
Intriguing, then what is morality in itself, if not objective? I would argue that non-objective morality isn't morality at all.Isn't subjective morality tantamount to "taste?" But I am interested to hear what you have to say.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:36:24 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 01:31:44 AM
I take the Aristotelian position that happiness is the higher good. That said, I enjoy the hell out of being an asshole.
Your take is more like Max Stirner's.
Well, Stirner is bad, but he isn't nearly as bad as Rand.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:45:45 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:43:05 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:38:27 AM
Objective Morality: what some noob by his "superior knowledge" claims to be THE TRUTH about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.
Why do I think this is directed at me? n00bzor though I may be, I have no place claimed to have superior knowledge, expect as opposed to the odd asshat who doesn't bother with thinking. Also, my criteria for objective morality throughout these posts, is that it be accessible to all equal, by means of conscience or intuition. Or maybe it wasn't direct at me after all, since it seems to be so absurdly unapt (apart from my reckless noobitry).
I was speaking on a general note, it wasnt a jab at you.
Ok, my bad. Withdrawn.
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Quote from: Wiktionary
morality (countable and uncountable; plural moralities)
1. (uncountable) Recognition of the distinction between good and evil or between right and wrong; respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct; the mental disposition or characteristic of behaving in a manner intended to produce morally good results.
When old bonebags say of the younger generations "these kids have no morals", its a lack of recognition that these "kids" have different appreciations of what is right and wrong.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:49:26 AM
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Now you're just being glib. I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological. You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste. You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones." Are they all equally valid?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:49:26 AM
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Now you're just being glib. I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological. You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste. You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones." Are they all equally valid?
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:
:facepalm:
[Edit: This is just nihilism. Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:29:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:19:50 AM
My morals ... mostly have to do with being an absolute shit to almost all humans.
Congratulations on being a roaring success! You're an inspiration to us lesser mortals:)
Yes, that's part of the job. When I'm not drowning you or laughing while your corn withers in the fields.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:29:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:20:43 AM
So, again, it's like communism or free market bullshit. Looks really nice on paper, or while you're sitting around at Starbucks solving the world's problems, but not so good in application.
It's a mistake to think that moral philosophy is limited to sitting around at Starbucks. There's a guy named Leon Kass who's an ethicist that didn't take the time to listen to your erudite critique of how much of a waste of time moral philosophy is. And he's also some big muckymuck on some sort of National Bioethics commission, and so he spends his time convincing the president that cloning and stem cell research were too immoral to justify their benefits. But if we have it the way you seem to want it, the people who actually have decent ideas about morals shouldn't waste their time at Starbucks, so we'll have nobody to stand up when people like Kass fuck things up for all of us. Is this an unfair assessment?
I haven't seen any decent ideas yet. Just speculation about ideas and what form they should take.
I'm sensing something....it's yet another BA in Philosophy. How quaint. Armchair insights. More existentialism.
A less edgy rehash of DK.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:49:26 AM
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Now you're just being glib. I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological. You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste. You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones." Are they all equally valid?
Quote from: Wiktionarytaste (countable and uncountable; plural tastes)
1. One of the sensations produced by the tongue in response to certain chemicals.
2. (countable and uncountable): A person's implicit set of preferences, especially esthetic, though also culinary, sartorial, etc.
Yes, it is like taste; although from my subjective perspective, a lot of people's "taste" sucks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:49:26 AM
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Now you're just being glib. I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological. You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste. You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones." Are they all equally valid?
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
So the conflict between peoples moral system can have a positive outcome on one person and a negative on the other. As soon as notions of power play or the realization that we are all trapped in a fish bowel, ideas of all morality being equal get thrown out the window.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:
:facepalm:
[Edit: This is just nihilism. Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]
Not unless my belief system is based on nihilism. It's actually just snobbery and an inability to trust humans with anything more complex than string.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:00:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:49:26 AM
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Now you're just being glib. I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological. You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste. You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones." Are they all equally valid?
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
So the conflict between peoples moral system can have an outcome a positive outcome on one and a negative on the other. As soon as notions of power play or the realization that we are all trapped in a fish bowel, ideas of all morality being equal get thrown out the window.
As the Judge once told me, back in the bad old days, "Wrong is poor and weak; Right is rich and powerful."
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 01:58:59 AM
I'm sensing something....it's yet another BA in Philosophy. How quaint. Armchair insights. More existentialism.
A less edgy rehash of DK.
Easy pal. Can't a guy just be a philosophy enthusiast without being accused of being a philosophy major? I have a real degree thanks very much, not a philosophy BA!
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 01:58:59 AM
I'm sensing something....it's yet another BA in Philosophy. How quaint. Armchair insights. More existentialism.
A less edgy rehash of DK.
But at least you don't have to take any math, right?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:01:52 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 01:58:59 AM
I'm sensing something....it's yet another BA in Philosophy. How quaint. Armchair insights. More existentialism.
A less edgy rehash of DK.
Easy pal. Can't a guy just be a philosophy enthusiast without being accused of being a philosophy major? I have a real degree thanks very much, not a philosophy BA!
How does one get enthusiastic about philosophy?
It's about as exciting as stamp collecting.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:
:facepalm:
[Edit: This is just nihilism. Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]
How can one be self-centered and a nihilist at the same time?
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:03:41 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:
:facepalm:
[Edit: This is just nihilism. Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]
How can one be self-centered and a nihilist at the same time?
I am neither. As a Mexica Rain God, the normal rules do not apply to me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:01:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:00:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:49:26 AM
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Now you're just being glib. I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological. You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste. You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones." Are they all equally valid?
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
So the conflict between peoples moral system can have an outcome a positive outcome on one and a negative on the other. As soon as notions of power play or the realization that we are all trapped in a fish bowel, ideas of all morality being equal get thrown out the window.
As the Judge once told me, back in the bad old days, "Wrong is poor and weak; Right is rich and powerful."
Whenever I see these discussions the power play of morality is always ignored, and its probably the most important part because it is the reality and the actualization of morality.
Its shaking the shit out of it and seeing does it still work afterward.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:05:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:01:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:00:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:49:26 AM
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Now you're just being glib. I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological. You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste. You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones." Are they all equally valid?
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
So the conflict between peoples moral system can have an outcome a positive outcome on one and a negative on the other. As soon as notions of power play or the realization that we are all trapped in a fish bowel, ideas of all morality being equal get thrown out the window.
As the Judge once told me, back in the bad old days, "Wrong is poor and weak; Right is rich and powerful."
Whenever I see these discussions the power play of morality is always ignored, and its probably the most important part because it is the reality and the actualization of morality.
Its shaking the shit out of it and seeing does it still work afterward.
Yep. Any philosophical model that ignores brute force is nothing more than mental masturbation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:04:56 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:03:41 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:
:facepalm:
[Edit: This is just nihilism. Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]
How can one be self-centered and a nihilist at the same time?
I am neither. As a Mexica Rain God, the normal rules do not apply to me.
You don't have to like me or what I have to say, Rog, but I'm here to talk about stuff that interests me, not kowtow to somebody who doesn't care about human morality. Keep your masturbation to yourself like a polite Rain God, don't spew it all over me. Morality actually matters, whatever the fuck you think.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:04:56 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:03:41 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:
:facepalm:
[Edit: This is just nihilism. Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]
How can one be self-centered and a nihilist at the same time?
I am neither. As a Mexica Rain God, the normal rules do not apply to me.
You don't have to like me or what I have to say, Rog, but I'm here to talk about stuff that interests me, not kowtow to somebody who doesn't care about human morality. Keep your masturbation to yourself like a polite Rain God, don't spew it all over me. Morality actually matters, whatever the fuck you think.
No corn for you, fucker.
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:36:24 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 01:31:44 AM
I take the Aristotelian position that happiness is the higher good. That said, I enjoy the hell out of being an asshole.
Your take is more like Max Stirner's.
I like Stirner. I don't necessarily totally agree with him, but I too am strongly individualistic. Why did you think we're similar?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:08:12 AM
Morality actually matters, whatever the fuck you think.
I don't think he was saying that, if anything I think he was goading you into discussing it on a realistic level. As with the brute force comments above.
(I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth roger).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:04:56 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:03:41 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:
:facepalm:
[Edit: This is just nihilism. Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]
How can one be self-centered and a nihilist at the same time?
I am neither. As a Mexica Rain God, the normal rules do not apply to me.
Yes i know oh Rain God, all dualisms and parallels become One in you!
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:10:56 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:08:12 AM
Morality actually matters, whatever the fuck you think.
I don't think he was saying that, if anything I think he was goading you into discussing it on a realistic level. As with the brute force comments above.
(I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth roger).
Hush. It's funnier this way. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 02:10:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:36:24 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 01:31:44 AM
I take the Aristotelian position that happiness is the higher good. That said, I enjoy the hell out of being an asshole.
Your take is more like Max Stirner's.
I like Stirner. I don't necessarily totally agree with him, but I too am strongly individualistic. Why did you think we're similar?
The part that completely disregards others. :wink:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:04:56 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:03:41 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
I hate to facepalm twice in one thread but:
:facepalm:
[Edit: This is just nihilism. Sorry, but I don't swing that way.]
How can one be self-centered and a nihilist at the same time?
I am neither. As a Mexica Rain God, the normal rules do not apply to me.
Yes i know oh Rain God, all dualisms and parallels become One in you!
Yeah, but I have to wear this to work every day:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Tlalocbraziercentered.jpg/765px-Tlalocbraziercentered.jpg)
FML.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
Why, thank you for explaining how forums work, Little Dickey! :lulz:
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:10:56 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:08:12 AM
Morality actually matters, whatever the fuck you think.
I don't think he was saying that, if anything I think he was goading you into discussing it on a realistic level. As with the brute force comments above.
(I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth roger).
He should have said it then. He thinks it's fun, so do I. Nothing personal meant to any of you.
Same goes for you Roger, I hope you don't take my posts as a personal attack or anything, I'm just responding in kind. It's a game, it's why I come to the discordian boards.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Johnyx, you weren't here for DK or any of the other philosophical geniuses. Watch as hilarity ensues.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:14:25 AM
Why, thank you for explaining how forums work, Little Dickey! :lulz:
Seems like you need it! Now why don't you go someplace else and bitch about how Wiccan chicks wont have sex with you.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:14:31 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:10:56 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:08:12 AM
Morality actually matters, whatever the fuck you think.
I don't think he was saying that, if anything I think he was goading you into discussing it on a realistic level. As with the brute force comments above.
(I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth roger).
He should have said it then. He thinks it's fun, so do I. Nothing personal meant to any of you.
Same goes for you Roger, I hope you don't take my posts as a personal attack or anything, I'm just responding in kind. It's a game, it's why I come to the discordian boards.
Of course. It's almost a...
sociological experiment, right? And JohNyx reacted
just the way you expected him to. :lulz:
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:15:35 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:14:25 AM
Why, thank you for explaining how forums work, Little Dickey! :lulz:
Seems like you need it! Now why don't you go someplace else and bitch about how Wiccan chicks wont have sex with you.
Okay, you get a C- for debating skills, and a solid F for comprehension. :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:15:29 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Johnyx, you weren't here for DK or any of the other philosophical geniuses. Watch as hilarity ensues.
Now thats not fair, I've read this guys comic and from the look of his posts he is a really mellow guy, dk was a horrid little ball of rage masked as conceit.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:17:23 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:15:29 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Johnyx, you weren't here for DK or any of the other philosophical geniuses. Watch as hilarity ensues.
Now thats not fair, I've read this guys comic and from the look of his posts he is a really mellow guy, dk was a horrid little ball of rage masked as conceit.
Could have fooled me.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:17:43 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
Well, you certainly have the passive/aggressive thing down pat.
QuoteQuote from: Guy Incognito on January 10, 2010, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
I have complete confidence in the scientific method to test any hypothesis which is able to be falsified. And I mean any and every. There is not one falsifiable hypothesis that I would not be confident in using the scientific method to test.
A hypothesis can is only as good as the tests you can run on it. I'm glad you have such confidence in the scientific method, but it's misplaced. This is a naive and almost childlike trust in science. As Heisenberg said, the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned on, each other.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
You obviously misunderstand it and blame it. That was implicit in the statement of yours I bolded.
And you obviously misunderstand what I've been saying. We haven't got a better tool than the scientific method right now, in my opinion. But I am not blithely ignorant of its limitations as you seem to be. Think about it, where do you derive your assumption that the universe has laws that are consistent?
Do you have any evidence that the "laws" are not consistent? What would it look like if these "laws" you speak of were inconsistent?
QuoteQuote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
This is why we use PARSIMONY. Science is also based on testing of physical evidence, and unless you can provide physical evidence to test, whatever "evidence" you have is scientifically meaningless. But I digress, you're being needlessly hypothetical with no evidence.
Get your head out of your ass for a minute and listen to yourself. Evidence for a hypothetical? STFU.
No evidence for a hypothetical, IOW, you're pulling ad hoc assumptions out of your ass because you like fapping to armchair philosophy.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
Believe it or not, I don't live in Asia. My culture and civilization falls within the western tradition. The librarians at Alexandria were great scientists, and unfortunately that knowlege was pushed into a dank corner for nearly 1000 years while people entertained magical ideas like the world being flat. Maybe you're from some Asian culture but I'm pretty sure you aren't, so quit pretending you are, and like you actually know what you are talking about.
Do you even think before you type? If it wasn't for the Asia cultures that you so casually dismiss none of the Western advancements that you prize could ever have transpired. Interesting how you haven't got anything to say about the usefulness of the Catholic Church in preserving literature... maybe you're all right with superstition if it can be of use to you, just like every other existentialist you're criticizing.
I don't have anything to say about usefulness of the catholic church, no. Not after sitting on papal infallacy for the last 500 years, while attempting to shut down ever scientific study that interfered with their dogmatic bullshit.
QuoteQuote from: Kai on January 10, 2010, 11:03:08 PM
Except you don't understand, thus you throw around bullshit comments about the scientific method.
Clearly you need to read a bit more on philosophy of science. Science is great, but it's limited, it's within a framework. That framework itself is something that science can't say anything about, and may very well be flawed.
Please tell me, if you will, how hypothesis testing is flawed. Please tell me how the scientific method is unable with confidence to test and retest every falsifiable hypothesis provided the technology is available. Because this bullshit is getting on my nerves, and you continue to say science is flawed over and over without providing any evidence of how the scientific method is unable to be used with confidence.
The rest of your post doesn't even bear a response.
What this comes down to is, you are unable to support your initial claim, but you never wanted to. This whole exercise is simply a fapfest, just like all existential bullshit.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:17:43 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
:crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:20:01 AM
Please tell me, if you will, how hypothesis testing is flawed. Please tell me how the scientific method is unable with confidence to test and retest every falsifiable hypothesis provided the technology is available. Because this bullshit is getting on my nerves, and you continue to say science is flawed over and over without providing any evidence of how the scientific method is unable to be used with confidence.
This I GOTTA see.
Guy's argument --->:buttsecks:<--- Guy's ability to communicate.
Not really, I just wanted to use the new emoticon.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:18:33 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:17:43 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
Well, you certainly have the passive/aggressive thing down pat.
Look, I can either take it on the chin like a bitch or give it right back to you guys. What's with the do as I say not as a I do thing? Oh, right, your morality is more valid than mine.
Why don't I start a new thread about the morality thing, maybe we can have a more manageable discussion.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:22:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:18:33 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:17:43 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
Well, you certainly have the passive/aggressive thing down pat.
Look, I can either take it on the chin like a bitch or give it right back to you guys. What's with the do as I say not as a I do thing? Oh, right, your morality is more valid than mine.
Why don't I start a new thread about the morality thing, maybe we can have a more manageable discussion.
Bump it its in the top forum I think, but for gods sake read it first.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:22:33 AM
Look, I can either take it on the chin like a bitch or give it right back to you guys. What's with the do as I say not as a I do thing? Oh, right, your morality is more valid than mine.
False dilemma. You could also formulate and put forward a workable or at least testable hypothesis concerning objective morality.
Or you could, you know, just ride this shit down in flames.
(Also, I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to. You shouldn't be either, if you can avoid it.)
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:25:08 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:22:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:18:33 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:17:43 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
Well, you certainly have the passive/aggressive thing down pat.
Look, I can either take it on the chin like a bitch or give it right back to you guys. What's with the do as I say not as a I do thing? Oh, right, your morality is more valid than mine.
Why don't I start a new thread about the morality thing, maybe we can have a more manageable discussion.
Bump it its in the top forum I think, but for gods sake read it first.
I like this thread. It's funnier when he gets a simple argument from the OP completely backwards.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:22:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:18:33 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:17:43 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
Well, you certainly have the passive/aggressive thing down pat.
Look, I can either take it on the chin like a bitch or give it right back to you guys. What's with the do as I say not as a I do thing? Oh, right, your morality is more valid than mine.
Why don't I start a new thread about the morality thing, maybe we can have a more manageable discussion.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/Primate_bucket/hamadryascartoon.jpg)
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:20:27 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:17:43 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
:crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
Maybe that needed a smiley face on it or something, I was just kidding around. Is there something about me that I can't say fuck you to people? I'm just trying to get in with the spirit of things! It's a fun debate, but I like and respect each one of you, even when I'm calling you a fuckhead. I don't spare myself the same sort of criticism, if you notice. Sure I'm sounds like a fourth year liberal arts student with too much time on my hands (and I'm actually too long past college for that to be true or charming) but I am enjoying sharpening my argument against this sort of assault.
Let me right now personally apologize to Hustle, Nyx, Kai and Rog for anything that I said that offended you, didn't mean anything by it, all in good fun and so on. And a big fuck you to all of you for not agreeing with me!
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:20:27 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:17:43 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:09:38 AM
ETA: You may also notice that I was responding to JohNyx, Sparky.
Get a room them. Once you say it, it's out there for us all to tear apart.
A room with me? Fuck you, at least i was trying to be civil and have a constructive argument.
Sorry, didn't mean anything against you by it! I appreciate your civility, it makes for a more productive debate. Oh, and fuck you too for taking it too seriously.
:crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
Relax. He's going to walk away from this mess and restart the conversation elsewhere, where you will be expected to pretend that the hilarious collection of preceding unprovoked insults toward yourself never occurred.
It's all good.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:21:12 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:20:01 AM
Please tell me, if you will, how hypothesis testing is flawed. Please tell me how the scientific method is unable with confidence to test and retest every falsifiable hypothesis provided the technology is available. Because this bullshit is getting on my nerves, and you continue to say science is flawed over and over without providing any evidence of how the scientific method is unable to be used with confidence.
This I GOTTA see.
The result will be some statement about how humans are so fatally flawed with subjectivity that even when a falsifiable hypothesis is tested millions and millions of times we'll have no clue.
Which is, of course, some of that "NOTHING IS REAL WE (may) LIVE IN THE MATRIX" stupid drivel.
None of these idiots ever provide any evidence for alternatives. They just like to give their imagination a good stroking and rudely spew their intellectual semen over bystanders.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:27:08 AM
It's a fun debate, but I like and respect each one of you, even when I'm calling you a fuckhead.
And I like and respect you when I call you a pseudo-intellectual twat. :)
Just, gawd, when im in the middle of arguing seriously with someone i dont break out into pinealistic gibberish or monkey behaviour, it wrecks the whole atmosphere.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:28:52 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:21:12 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:20:01 AM
Please tell me, if you will, how hypothesis testing is flawed. Please tell me how the scientific method is unable with confidence to test and retest every falsifiable hypothesis provided the technology is available. Because this bullshit is getting on my nerves, and you continue to say science is flawed over and over without providing any evidence of how the scientific method is unable to be used with confidence.
This I GOTTA see.
The result will be some statement about how humans are so fatally flawed with subjectivity that even when a falsifiable hypothesis is tested millions and millions of times we'll have no clue.
Which is, of course, some of that "NOTHING IS REAL WE (may) LIVE IN THE MATRIX" stupid drivel.
None of these idiots ever provide any evidence for alternatives. They just like to give their imagination a good stroking and rudely spew their intellectual semen over bystanders.
Sure. But let's let him answer for himself. Maybe he'll surprise us.
Protip: Do not hold your breath.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:29:28 AM
Just, gawd, when im in the middle of arguing seriously with someone i dont break out into pinealistic gibberish or monkey behaviour, it wrecks the whole atmosphere.
Yes, but you're not an enthusiast.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:27:08 AM
It's a fun debate, but I like and respect each one of you, even when I'm calling you a fuckhead.
And I like and respect you when I call you a pseudo-intellectual twat. :)
I don't.
I'm also the only person on this forum that gets told FUCK YOU whenever it comes up in the news.
Also, fuck you Guy.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:32:03 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:27:08 AM
It's a fun debate, but I like and respect each one of you, even when I'm calling you a fuckhead.
And I like and respect you when I call you a pseudo-intellectual twat. :)
I don't.
I'm also the only person on this forum that gets told FUCK YOU whenever it comes up in the news.
Also, fuck you Guy.
Now, now, Kai. His view of the universe is an alternate,
equally valid theory.
:lol:
TGRR,
Making bad situations
worse better since the Johnson administration.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:29:28 AM
Just, gawd, when im in the middle of arguing seriously with someone i dont break out into pinealistic gibberish or monkey behaviour, it wrecks the whole atmosphere.
I'm having trouble keeping track of this conversation at this point.
But look, all joking aside this time, for the unprovoked insults by myself to Hustle, Kai, Nyx and Rog, again, I apologize. It was poorly thought out on my part, maybe I took it too far, I'm still getting a feel for this place. I do value this debate, so I wouldn't want to alienate any of you because of a joke gone wrong.
And did I hear pseudointellectual twat? Sounds like somebody's read my comic.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:27:08 AMIs there something about me that I can't say fuck you to people?
Say it when you mean it. It's a personal attack, and that's how some people will take it. Wah, wah, wah :fap:.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:34:03 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 02:29:28 AM
Just, gawd, when im in the middle of arguing seriously with someone i dont break out into pinealistic gibberish or monkey behaviour, it wrecks the whole atmosphere.
I'm having trouble keeping track of this conversation at this point.
But look, all joking aside this time, for the unprovoked insults by myself to Hustle, Kai, Nyx and Rog, again, I apologize. It was poorly thought out on my part, maybe I took it too far, I'm still getting a feel for this place. I do value this debate, so I wouldn't want to alienate any of you because of a joke gone wrong.
And did I hear pseudointellectual twat? Sounds like somebody's read my comic.
I'm not taking anything personally. We Gods can't do that, or we'd never get ANYTHING done. I just want to hear what flaws you have found with the scientific method.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:33:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:32:03 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:27:08 AM
It's a fun debate, but I like and respect each one of you, even when I'm calling you a fuckhead.
And I like and respect you when I call you a pseudo-intellectual twat. :)
I don't.
I'm also the only person on this forum that gets told FUCK YOU whenever it comes up in the news.
Also, fuck you Guy.
Now, now, Kai. His view of the universe is an alternate, equally valid theory.
:lol:
TGRR,
Making bad situations worse better since the Johnson administration.
Roger, you are awesome and I love you and all, but if you ever use the word theory like that again, I will send Aput to snow you out of Tuscon. Okay? :argh!:
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:20:01 AM
Please tell me, if you will, how hypothesis testing is flawed. Please tell me how the scientific method is unable with confidence to test and retest every falsifiable hypothesis provided the technology is available. Because this bullshit is getting on my nerves, and you continue to say science is flawed over and over without providing any evidence of how the scientific method is unable to be used with confidence.
Yes, im eager to hear that too.
Guy, apology accepted, but for today im done arguing about morality.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 02:35:12 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:27:08 AMIs there something about me that I can't say fuck you to people?
Say it when you mean it. It's a personal attack, and that's how some people will take it. Wah, wah, wah :fap:.
No argument there, like I said, it was a poorly thought out on my part.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:39:46 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 02:35:12 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:27:08 AMIs there something about me that I can't say fuck you to people?
Say it when you mean it. It's a personal attack, and that's how some people will take it. Wah, wah, wah :fap:.
No argument there, like I said, it was a poorly thought out on my part.
Alright then. I join everyone clamoring for some explanation about the flaws of science.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:38:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:33:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:32:03 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:27:08 AM
It's a fun debate, but I like and respect each one of you, even when I'm calling you a fuckhead.
And I like and respect you when I call you a pseudo-intellectual twat. :)
I don't.
I'm also the only person on this forum that gets told FUCK YOU whenever it comes up in the news.
Also, fuck you Guy.
Now, now, Kai. His view of the universe is an alternate, equally valid theory.
:lol:
TGRR,
Making bad situations worse better since the Johnson administration.
Roger, you are awesome and I love you and all, but if you ever use the word theory like that again, I will send Aput to snow you out of Tuscon. Okay? :argh!:
Hey, hey, I was only following the advice of my friend Charles B Thaxton. He has always had good advice for me, with the exception of playoff bets. On that, he is useless.
QuoteCharles B Thaxton
:crankey: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:32:03 AM
Also, fuck you Guy.
Thanks Kai, glad we're still the best of friend as ever we were. And listen, since I'm done being a dick, I agree with you about a lot of that stuff, I said some shitty things, but didn't mean them. You've got a good head on your shoulders, and you don't have to like me, but I still think you're good people. You will get no more insults from me. To answer your question:
Quote
Please tell me, if you will, how hypothesis testing is flawed. Please tell me how the scientific method is unable with confidence to test and retest every falsifiable hypothesis provided the technology is available. Because this bullshit is getting on my nerves, and you continue to say science is flawed over and over without providing any evidence of how the scientific method is unable to be used with confidence.
The scientific method is certainly able to test and retest every hypothesis provided the technology is available (and that last part about technology is a big if that I by no means grant, but let's go with it).
What I've been trying to get at, and my poor arguing skills are to blame for this not coming across, is that the hypothesis on which science is based, namely that the universal is self consistent, is itself an untestable hypothesis even in principle. Think about it, what sort of a test can you use to test the hypothesis that the laws that govern the universe will work every time? It would take an infinite number of trials to prove that. You can talk all you like about parsimony, but that is only a useful short hand. The fact is that science can only ever be highly probably, never certain. High probability is a matter of opinion, not an objective truth.
I'd be very interested in your response, maybe we can call a truce with the insults though?
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 02:49:02 AM
QuoteCharles B Thaxton
:crankey: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
That's kinda like saying nice things about Benedict Arnold on Independence Day, isn't it?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:49:17 AM
What I've been trying to get at, and my poor arguing skills are to blame for this not coming across, is that the hypothesis on which science is based, namely that the universal is self consistent, is itself an untestable hypothesis even in principle. Think about it, what sort of a test can you use to test the hypothesis that the laws that govern the universe will work every time? It would take an infinite number of trials to prove that. You can talk all you like about parsimony, but that is only a useful short hand.
(http://www.dan-dare.org/FreeFun/Images/TheMatrixWallpaper1024.jpg)
Yes, Roger, just like the matrix. Ooooh.
Got any argument, or just pretty pictures and pop culture reference? :D
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:52:01 AM
Yes, Roger, just like the matrix. Ooooh.
Got any argument, or just pretty pictures and pop culture reference? :D
I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make. I am waiting to hear an actual flaw in the scientific method, not an appeal to ignorance.
Actually, I don't see how the matrix relates. That was a scientific film. it was based on quantum i think.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 11, 2010, 02:56:34 AM
Actually, I don't see how the matrix relates. That was a scientific film. it was based on quantum i think.
DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN ALPHAPANCE. :argh!:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:54:58 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:52:01 AM
Yes, Roger, just like the matrix. Ooooh.
Got any argument, or just pretty pictures and pop culture reference? :D
I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make. I am waiting to hear an actual flaw in the scientific method, not an appeal to ignorance.
You're attacking a straw man. The flaw is that it cannot get to objective truth, but there is no problem when it comes to day to day use. You don't even care about objective truth, nothing I say about it is ever going to look like a flaw to you. But rest assured, it is a flaw.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:54:58 AM
I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.
You're being disingenuous here, the picture implied an argument.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:57:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:54:58 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 02:52:01 AM
Yes, Roger, just like the matrix. Ooooh.
Got any argument, or just pretty pictures and pop culture reference? :D
I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make. I am waiting to hear an actual flaw in the scientific method, not an appeal to ignorance.
You're attacking a straw man. The flaw is that it cannot get to objective truth, but there is no problem when it comes to day to day use. You don't even care about objective truth, nothing I say about it is every going to look like a flaw to you. But rest assured, it is a flaw.
Sure. So an object dropped on Earth does NOT NECESSARILY begin "objectively" accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, right?
It's all subjective and shit.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:00:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:54:58 AM
I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.
You're being disingenuous here, the picture implied an argument.
No, actually, that was pure mockery.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:01:41 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:00:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:54:58 AM
I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.
You're being disingenuous here, the picture implied an argument.
No, actually, that was pure mockery.
Ok, I guess I gave you too much credit. Anybody else?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:02:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:01:41 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:00:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:54:58 AM
I didn't make the assertion, so the argument is not mine to make.
You're being disingenuous here, the picture implied an argument.
No, actually, that was pure mockery.
Ok, I guess I gave you too much credit. Anybody else?
Anyone else what? You're expecting people to line up to prove your notion?
Sorry, pal, you're the one attacking the ruling paradigm*, you get to make the argument.
* I feel dirty using that word, but in this case it actually applies.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:04:16 AM
Anyone else what? You're expecting people to line up to prove your notion?
By that I meant anyone else wanna respond with, y'know, an argument. I'm done trying to squeeze blood from a Rain God. Have a nice night, Rog:)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:04:16 AM
* I feel dirty using that word, but in this case it actually applies.
That word NEVER applies.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:06:18 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:04:16 AM
Anyone else what? You're expecting people to line up to prove your notion?
By that I meant anyone else wanna respond with, y'know, an argument. I'm done trying to squeeze blood from a Rain God. Have a nice night, Rog:)
Again, you made the assertion, you back it up. If you had taken any real courses (ie, requiring math) at all during your college years, you'd know that.
But, hey, if you feel the need to run away from your own flawed argument with that "goodnight, Rog" appeal to ridicule bullshit (you don't know me well enough to truncate my name), it's okay. Most of the sissies do.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:06:18 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:04:16 AM
* I feel dirty using that word, but in this case it actually applies.
That word NEVER applies.
Objectively speaking, it just did.
Im a humanities major, and i think that hard sciences arent "king" in my field.
But oh, when it comes to medicine and technology, i do not wish to, nor i can, argue against it.
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
Rog, you need to chill out. I mean it, have a good night, I wish you all the best.
Let me say to everyone, I'm not running away from the argument, which may or may not be flawed. I'm not afraid to have my flaws sussed out, properly. I haven't found out yet because nobody has come at me yet with a counter argument. I'd happily answer to anybody including Roger, but I'm going to objectively say that that doesn't seem like it's going to happen:) Where did everybody else go?
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
Im a humanities major, and i think that hard sciences arent "king" in my field.
But oh, when it comes to medicine and technology, i do not wish to, nor i can, argue against it.
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
I can give a counter-example.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
Off the top of my head, I disagree with you about chemicals because of my whole thing with the scientific method, which is still in the aether right now. I'm also not sure I'd agree with you about numbers, although my inclination is that direction. Numbers sure seem objective. What's your basis for that?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:14:10 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
Im a humanities major, and i think that hard sciences arent "king" in my field.
But oh, when it comes to medicine and technology, i do not wish to, nor i can, argue against it.
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
I can give a counter-example.
:buttsecks: <--- the awesomeness of this?
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:13:42 AM
Rog,
Stopped reading right there.
If that's how you want things to be, that's how they will be.
I am nothing if not responsive to mortals.
TGRR,
Always willing to fuck with someone non-stop, when they DEMAND it.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:15:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:14:10 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
Im a humanities major, and i think that hard sciences arent "king" in my field.
But oh, when it comes to medicine and technology, i do not wish to, nor i can, argue against it.
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
I can give a counter-example.
:buttsecks: <--- the awesomeness of this?
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE2l6CPna4M <---watch all the way through.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:15:51 AM
Always willing to fuck with someone non-stop, when they DEMAND it.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I'd like to talk with you, but I just can't walk that fine line between insult comedy and pissing everybody off that talking to you requires. Haven't got the energy.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:15:17 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
Off the top of my head, I disagree with you about chemicals because of my whole thing with the scientific method, which is still in the aether right now.
Still in the what? 1913 wants its textbook back.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:17:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:15:51 AM
Always willing to fuck with someone non-stop, when they DEMAND it.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I'd like to talk with you, but I just can't walk that fine line between insult comedy and pissing everybody off that talking to you requires. Haven't got the energy.
That's a damn shame. You know, I would expect a 5 year old to be able to process that when I say "you don't know me well enough to truncate my name", I meant "you don't know me well enough to truncate my name". Since you insisted on making it personal after I dropped a 5 ton hint, I am operating under the impression that you want to have a huge, never-ending flame war that will leave a smoking ruin of every thread that you (and thus I) pass through.
Well, sir, let me assure you that when it comes to this sort of thing, I am your man.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:17:44 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:15:17 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
Off the top of my head, I disagree with you about chemicals because of my whole thing with the scientific method, which is still in the aether right now.
Still in the what? 1913 wants its textbook back.
Bully!
Posts like this are why I actually look up to TGRR.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:20:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:17:44 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:15:17 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
Off the top of my head, I disagree with you about chemicals because of my whole thing with the scientific method, which is still in the aether right now.
Still in the what? 1913 wants its textbook back.
Bully!
Posts like this are why I actually look up to TGRR.
You have a funny way of showing it, Guy. I mean, being as deliberately and personally offensive as possible doesn't usually convey that.
If all you have is an appeal to ignorance, then you have no support for your argument.
WE CAN'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET!
Yes, I can't disagree with that. But what does it even tell me? What significance does it have? It's a completely meaningless statement, a naive childish phantasmagoria. It doesn't provide any evidence, simply, something might happen, someday, that's never happened before, but we won't know until it happens. I can't think of any way to falsify that statement.
Guess what? That means that it falls outside the scientific method. It means, that it means nothing. It's, in a word, meaningless.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:20:07 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:17:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:15:51 AM
Always willing to fuck with someone non-stop, when they DEMAND it.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I'd like to talk with you, but I just can't walk that fine line between insult comedy and pissing everybody off that talking to you requires. Haven't got the energy.
That's a damn shame. You know, I would expect a 5 year old to be able to process that when I say "you don't know me well enough to truncate my name", I meant "you don't know me well enough to truncate my name". Since you insisted on making it personal after I dropped a 5 ton hint, I am operating under the impression that you want to have a huge, never-ending flame war that will leave a smoking ruin of every thread that you (and thus I) pass through.
Well, sir, let me assure you that when it comes to this sort of thing, I am your man.
My fault, and I sincerely apologize about truncating your name. I didn't mean to assume familiarity, just internet shorthand and I won't let it happen again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:16:28 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:15:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:14:10 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
Im a humanities major, and i think that hard sciences arent "king" in my field.
But oh, when it comes to medicine and technology, i do not wish to, nor i can, argue against it.
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
I can give a counter-example.
:buttsecks: <--- the awesomeness of this?
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE2l6CPna4M <---watch all the way through.
Ah, yes, the virtues of long-distance biker love. I cant argue with that.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:22:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:16:28 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:15:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:14:10 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 03:12:09 AM
Im a humanities major, and i think that hard sciences arent "king" in my field.
But oh, when it comes to medicine and technology, i do not wish to, nor i can, argue against it.
One can be objective about numbers and chemicals, but not about meaning and values.
I can give a counter-example.
:buttsecks: <--- the awesomeness of this?
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE2l6CPna4M <---watch all the way through.
Ah, yes, the virtues of long-distance biker love. I cant argue with that.
That mullet is objectively glorious.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:22:02 AM
If all you have is an appeal to ignorance, then you have no support for your argument.
WE CAN'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET!
Yes, I can't disagree with that. But what does it even tell me? What significance does it have? It's a completely meaningless statement, a naive childish phantasmagoria. It doesn't provide any evidence, simply, something might happen, someday, that's never happened before, but we won't know until it happens. I can't think of any way to falsify that statement.
But it's not just something that might happen that hasn't happened yet. It could be happening all around us right now, we just aren't testing for it, or maybe it used to happen all the time and changed.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:22:02 AM
Guess what? That means that it falls outside the scientific method. It means, that it means nothing. It's, in a word, meaningless.
I think that sums up exactly what I'm getting at. If the scientific method can't account for it, does that really mean it doesn't exist? Or just that it falls outside the purview of science.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:21:32 AM
You have a funny way of showing it, Guy. I mean, being as deliberately and personally offensive as possible doesn't usually convey that.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
It means that in this physical reality, it is a meaningless hypothesis. Only what our hands can touch, or what our eyes can see at great distance, Guy. If, even indirectly, you have no evidence of anything different...for FUCKS SAKE, its just MASTURBATION. And it's frustrating talking with you, since you are obviously intelligent but unable to grasp how stupid your words sound. Its like asking the question, "Is there a god?" Current company excluded of course. I can't think of any possible way I could ever falsify the existence of an invisible being I can't sense in any way and shows no direct or indirect activity in this universe. If I can't see it, if I can't touch it or taste it or measure it in some way, subjective or objective or WHATEVER, does it even really matter? Its like making up stories of invisible giant neon pink lagomorphs. If it doesn't have any effect on or in the universe, it, for the sake of anything we can ever know, doesn't exist. And thats all I can work with.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:38:54 AM
It means that in this physical reality, it is a meaningless hypothesis. Only what our hands can touch, or what our eyes can see at great distance, Guy. If, even indirectly, you have no evidence of anything different...for FUCKS SAKE, its just MASTURBATION. And it's frustrating talking with you, since you are obviously intelligent but unable to grasp how stupid your words sound. Its like asking the question, "Is there a god?" Current company excluded of course. I can't think of any possible way I could ever falsify the existence of an invisible being I can't sense in any way and shows no direct or indirect activity in this universe. If I can't see it, if I can't touch it or taste it or measure it in some way, subjective or objective or WHATEVER, does it even really matter? Its like making up stories of invisible giant neon pink lagomorphs. If it doesn't have any effect on or in the universe, it, for the sake of anything we can ever know, doesn't exist. And thats all I can work with.
Kai, I'm not trying to talk about things with great import. It's philosophy, I've already copped to that. Might as well just say it's masturbation, so what? I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have scientists. It's just a limitation. I feel like we're really close to agreeing actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_unicorn)
And i leave you with an image of a spotting of it:
Because if we cant test for the existance of something, we should default to assuming that it does.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:40:33 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:38:54 AM
It means that in this physical reality, it is a meaningless hypothesis. Only what our hands can touch, or what our eyes can see at great distance, Guy. If, even indirectly, you have no evidence of anything different...for FUCKS SAKE, its just MASTURBATION. And it's frustrating talking with you, since you are obviously intelligent but unable to grasp how stupid your words sound. Its like asking the question, "Is there a god?" Current company excluded of course. I can't think of any possible way I could ever falsify the existence of an invisible being I can't sense in any way and shows no direct or indirect activity in this universe. If I can't see it, if I can't touch it or taste it or measure it in some way, subjective or objective or WHATEVER, does it even really matter? Its like making up stories of invisible giant neon pink lagomorphs. If it doesn't have any effect on or in the universe, it, for the sake of anything we can ever know, doesn't exist. And thats all I can work with.
Kai, I'm not trying to talk about things with great import. It's philosophy, I've already copped to that. Might as well just say it's masturbation, so what? I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have scientists. It's just a limitation. I feel like we're really close to agreeing actually.
It's not a limitation though, it's a benefit, because it helps to figure out what sorts of hypotheses are actually meaningful and which aren't. It limits...*sigh* it limits the amount of bullshit I have to consider on a daily basis for survival and on up the hierarchy of needs. And I'm okay with that.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:51:51 AM
It's not a limitation though, it's a benefit, because it helps to figure out what sorts of hypotheses are actually meaningful and which aren't. It limits...*sigh* it limits the amount of bullshit I have to consider on a daily basis for survival and on up the hierarchy of needs. And I'm okay with that.
I get that, and I'm not disagreeing with you there either. We need a filter for bullshit. But there is a time and a place for considering bullshit, like this thread for instance.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:51:51 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:40:33 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:38:54 AM
It means that in this physical reality, it is a meaningless hypothesis. Only what our hands can touch, or what our eyes can see at great distance, Guy. If, even indirectly, you have no evidence of anything different...for FUCKS SAKE, its just MASTURBATION. And it's frustrating talking with you, since you are obviously intelligent but unable to grasp how stupid your words sound. Its like asking the question, "Is there a god?" Current company excluded of course. I can't think of any possible way I could ever falsify the existence of an invisible being I can't sense in any way and shows no direct or indirect activity in this universe. If I can't see it, if I can't touch it or taste it or measure it in some way, subjective or objective or WHATEVER, does it even really matter? Its like making up stories of invisible giant neon pink lagomorphs. If it doesn't have any effect on or in the universe, it, for the sake of anything we can ever know, doesn't exist. And thats all I can work with.
Kai, I'm not trying to talk about things with great import. It's philosophy, I've already copped to that. Might as well just say it's masturbation, so what? I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have scientists. It's just a limitation. I feel like we're really close to agreeing actually.
It's not a limitation though, it's a benefit, because it helps to figure out what sorts of hypotheses are actually meaningful and which aren't. It limits...*sigh* it limits the amount of bullshit I have to consider on a daily basis for survival and on up the hierarchy of needs. And I'm okay with that.
Some of us like bullshit... it makes the flowers grow. We don't need flowers, but they're pretty and smell nice and the Universe is better with Honey.
Yes, i dont want to live in a world where love, god and magic dont exist - and if that means i have to make pretend every second of my life, so be it.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 03:58:12 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:51:51 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:40:33 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:38:54 AM
It means that in this physical reality, it is a meaningless hypothesis. Only what our hands can touch, or what our eyes can see at great distance, Guy. If, even indirectly, you have no evidence of anything different...for FUCKS SAKE, its just MASTURBATION. And it's frustrating talking with you, since you are obviously intelligent but unable to grasp how stupid your words sound. Its like asking the question, "Is there a god?" Current company excluded of course. I can't think of any possible way I could ever falsify the existence of an invisible being I can't sense in any way and shows no direct or indirect activity in this universe. If I can't see it, if I can't touch it or taste it or measure it in some way, subjective or objective or WHATEVER, does it even really matter? Its like making up stories of invisible giant neon pink lagomorphs. If it doesn't have any effect on or in the universe, it, for the sake of anything we can ever know, doesn't exist. And thats all I can work with.
Kai, I'm not trying to talk about things with great import. It's philosophy, I've already copped to that. Might as well just say it's masturbation, so what? I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have scientists. It's just a limitation. I feel like we're really close to agreeing actually.
It's not a limitation though, it's a benefit, because it helps to figure out what sorts of hypotheses are actually meaningful and which aren't. It limits...*sigh* it limits the amount of bullshit I have to consider on a daily basis for survival and on up the hierarchy of needs. And I'm okay with that.
Some of us like bullshit... it makes the flowers grow. We don't need flowers, but they're pretty and smell nice and the Universe is better with Honey.
Well said,
Rat Bastard! I think a lot of this argument is me talking across people. I'm not advocating some sort of downfall of science. I'm talking about a very small flaw in the best system we've got. I realize I'm being speculative and somewhat fanciful and maybe that rubs people the wrong way. But bullshit or not, it's there right?
And Nyx, you're right, but you can't ignore that tiny little flaw in a system and treat it like its perfect. The difference between 99.9 percent certain and 100 percent certain is only small quantitatively.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 03:58:12 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:51:51 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:40:33 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:38:54 AM
It means that in this physical reality, it is a meaningless hypothesis. Only what our hands can touch, or what our eyes can see at great distance, Guy. If, even indirectly, you have no evidence of anything different...for FUCKS SAKE, its just MASTURBATION. And it's frustrating talking with you, since you are obviously intelligent but unable to grasp how stupid your words sound. Its like asking the question, "Is there a god?" Current company excluded of course. I can't think of any possible way I could ever falsify the existence of an invisible being I can't sense in any way and shows no direct or indirect activity in this universe. If I can't see it, if I can't touch it or taste it or measure it in some way, subjective or objective or WHATEVER, does it even really matter? Its like making up stories of invisible giant neon pink lagomorphs. If it doesn't have any effect on or in the universe, it, for the sake of anything we can ever know, doesn't exist. And thats all I can work with.
Kai, I'm not trying to talk about things with great import. It's philosophy, I've already copped to that. Might as well just say it's masturbation, so what? I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have scientists. It's just a limitation. I feel like we're really close to agreeing actually.
It's not a limitation though, it's a benefit, because it helps to figure out what sorts of hypotheses are actually meaningful and which aren't. It limits...*sigh* it limits the amount of bullshit I have to consider on a daily basis for survival and on up the hierarchy of needs. And I'm okay with that.
Some of us like bullshit... it makes the flowers grow. We don't need flowers, but they're pretty and smell nice and the Universe is better with Honey.
Some of us get tired of bullshit, it piles too high, blocking roads, polluting waterways, and generally making it difficult to breathe. Plus, myiasis.
I don't think we actually disagree about anything, Kai.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 04:02:36 AM
Yes, i dont want to live in a world where love, god and magic dont exist - and if that means i have to make pretend every second of my life, so be it.
What's wrong with that if its what you want to do?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 04:31:14 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 04:02:36 AM
Yes, i dont want to live in a world where love, god and magic dont exist - and if that means i have to make pretend every second of my life, so be it.
What's wrong with that if its what you want to do?
Hear, hear!
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 04:10:21 AM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 03:58:12 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:51:51 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 03:40:33 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:38:54 AM
It means that in this physical reality, it is a meaningless hypothesis. Only what our hands can touch, or what our eyes can see at great distance, Guy. If, even indirectly, you have no evidence of anything different...for FUCKS SAKE, its just MASTURBATION. And it's frustrating talking with you, since you are obviously intelligent but unable to grasp how stupid your words sound. Its like asking the question, "Is there a god?" Current company excluded of course. I can't think of any possible way I could ever falsify the existence of an invisible being I can't sense in any way and shows no direct or indirect activity in this universe. If I can't see it, if I can't touch it or taste it or measure it in some way, subjective or objective or WHATEVER, does it even really matter? Its like making up stories of invisible giant neon pink lagomorphs. If it doesn't have any effect on or in the universe, it, for the sake of anything we can ever know, doesn't exist. And thats all I can work with.
Kai, I'm not trying to talk about things with great import. It's philosophy, I've already copped to that. Might as well just say it's masturbation, so what? I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have scientists. It's just a limitation. I feel like we're really close to agreeing actually.
It's not a limitation though, it's a benefit, because it helps to figure out what sorts of hypotheses are actually meaningful and which aren't. It limits...*sigh* it limits the amount of bullshit I have to consider on a daily basis for survival and on up the hierarchy of needs. And I'm okay with that.
Some of us like bullshit... it makes the flowers grow. We don't need flowers, but they're pretty and smell nice and the Universe is better with Honey.
Some of us get tired of bullshit, it piles too high, blocking roads, polluting waterways, and generally making it difficult to breathe. Plus, myiasis.
If you're tired of bullshit, don't use it.
It is the best system we have. And the fact that it's not 100% accurate is okay since if it WAS 100% accurate we wouldn't really NEED science would we?
Science is a process that has helped to accelerate our knowledge of other processes.
It's the mystery that makes things so damn exciting...if we ever did get to that 100% shit, man, let's just call it a night and start again.
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 04:39:03 AM
It is the best system we have. And the fact that it's not 100% accurate is okay since if it WAS 100% accurate we wouldn't really NEED science would we?
Science is a process that has helped to accelerate our knowledge of other processes.
It's the mystery that makes things so damn exciting...if we ever did get to that 100% shit, man, let's just call it a night and start again.
I totally agree with you here, I find the mystery the most intriguing part of it all. Science isn't 100% so that little sliver of doubt leaves room for my imagination to go wild. And with that kind of license, it would be a real shame not to make the most use of it!
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 04:43:49 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 04:39:03 AM
It is the best system we have. And the fact that it's not 100% accurate is okay since if it WAS 100% accurate we wouldn't really NEED science would we?
Science is a process that has helped to accelerate our knowledge of other processes.
It's the mystery that makes things so damn exciting...if we ever did get to that 100% shit, man, let's just call it a night and start again.
I totally agree with you here, I find the mystery the most intriguing part of it all. Science isn't 100% so that little sliver of doubt leaves room for my imagination to go wild. And with that kind of license, it would be a real shame not to make the most use of it!
I think the biggest problem that goes along with that is ...
mysticwicks.com
wicca.com
raptureready.com
godhatesfags.com
Well, you get the idea.
Granted, that's not 'making the most use of it' but fuck...that's a hell of a .1%
The discordians laughed to see such a sport, because the kitsch ran away with buffoon.
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 05:02:17 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 04:43:49 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 04:39:03 AM
It is the best system we have. And the fact that it's not 100% accurate is okay since if it WAS 100% accurate we wouldn't really NEED science would we?
Science is a process that has helped to accelerate our knowledge of other processes.
It's the mystery that makes things so damn exciting...if we ever did get to that 100% shit, man, let's just call it a night and start again.
I totally agree with you here, I find the mystery the most intriguing part of it all. Science isn't 100% so that little sliver of doubt leaves room for my imagination to go wild. And with that kind of license, it would be a real shame not to make the most use of it!
I think the biggest problem that goes along with that is ...
mysticwicks.com
wicca.com
raptureready.com
godhatesfags.com
Well, you get the idea.
Granted, that's not 'making the most use of it' but fuck...that's a hell of a .1%
The discordians laughed to see such a sport, because the kitsch ran away with buffoon.
I get you, man, and I appreciate you not lumping me in with that lot. But I don't see how giving a little slack to the mystical is somehow an implicit endorsement of that sort of thing. Also, I don't particularly want to visit those sites, but I don't see how you lump Wiccans with the God Hates this or that crowd, maybe I'm missing something but Wiccans in my experience are harmless and entitled to do their thing, whereas the hate-monger types are actually harmful.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 05:07:22 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 05:02:17 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 04:43:49 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 04:39:03 AM
It is the best system we have. And the fact that it's not 100% accurate is okay since if it WAS 100% accurate we wouldn't really NEED science would we?
Science is a process that has helped to accelerate our knowledge of other processes.
It's the mystery that makes things so damn exciting...if we ever did get to that 100% shit, man, let's just call it a night and start again.
I totally agree with you here, I find the mystery the most intriguing part of it all. Science isn't 100% so that little sliver of doubt leaves room for my imagination to go wild. And with that kind of license, it would be a real shame not to make the most use of it!
I think the biggest problem that goes along with that is ...
mysticwicks.com
wicca.com
raptureready.com
godhatesfags.com
Well, you get the idea.
Granted, that's not 'making the most use of it' but fuck...that's a hell of a .1%
The discordians laughed to see such a sport, because the kitsch ran away with buffoon.
I get you, man, and I appreciate you not lumping me in with that lot. But I don't see how giving a little slack to the mystical is somehow an implicit endorsement of that sort of thing. Also, I don't particularly want to visit those sites, but I don't see how you lump Wiccans with the God Hates this or that crowd, maybe I'm missing something but Wiccans in my experience are harmless and entitled to do their thing, whereas the hate-monger types are actually harmful.
These are specific Wiccans that relates to specific events regarding this and other forums in the past. So yeah, you kinda are missing a bit. (Cain did a pretty sweet write up of events past...i'll see if I can find it and bump it.)
As far as the crowd I referenced is concerned, it's really just a mix of shitty artistic expression and ignorance.
I don't have a problem with the mystical--it has its own limitations in the same way other forms of such expression do. I try to look at all of it, including science, as art-form. I figure it's open enough to include both while not taking sides. So i guess if you were to ask a mathematician to make some art, he'd write an expression..a musician will sing a song...Kai will enlighten you about biology and The Process....Roger will make it rain...and so on.
It's just that I also happen to be rather critical of art and when someone decides to come out with kitsch crap (much like some or all of the folks at the above mentioned forums, i generally :roll:
Quote from: Burns on January 11, 2010, 05:23:23 AM
These are specific Wiccans that relates to specific events regarding this and other forums in the past. So yeah, you kinda are missing a bit. (Cain did a pretty sweet write up of events past...i'll see if I can find it and bump it.)
Ah, good to know. And thanks, looking forward to seeing that thread.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 05:07:22 AM
I get you, man, and I appreciate you not lumping me in with that lot. But I don't see how giving a little slack to the inquisition is somehow an implicit endorsement of that sort of thing. Also, I don't particularly want to visit those sites, but I don't see how you lump Wiccans with the God Hates this or that crowd, maybe I'm missing something but Wiccans in my experience are harmless and entitled to do their thing, whereas the hate-monger types are actually harmful.
1. U C WAT I DID THAR? so yeah, giving slack to the idea that interacting with the rest of the world based on the framework of self-deception and superstition is OK
is an endorsement of those things, and whether or not it's implicit doesn't really matter.
2. as it turns out, they're frequently indistinguishable from each other aside from the different types of tacky outfits.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:36:08 AM
If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.
No. Kant's writings on the Categorical Imperative aren't exactly very clear or logically complete. He gives several different definitions of the Categorical Imperative [JohnnyX just quotes one], and they are not logically consistent or even seem to define the same thing. He only gives 3 or 4 practical examples of application of the Categorical Imperative, so it doesn't leave much to be deduced from either. All the rest are interpretations by other people.
In that respect, utilitarianism is a lot better defined. I generally agree with it more as well, personally [on the occasions where Kantian ethics disagree with utilitarian ethics], but it's not perfect either.
Quote from: NotPublished on January 10, 2010, 10:56:46 PM
:lulz: It is my fault for bringing out random quotes.
Its actually a mangled Hassan ibn al-Sabbah quote. The actual quote is "nothing is forbidden, everything is permitted", and it is very unlikely he ever said it, since Sabbah was a devout Muslim, and the rules of Islam could only be broken during Qiyamat. Now, Hassan VI, a later leader of the Assassins did declare the world had ended and the usual rules which bind Muslims, such as eating pork, drinking alcohol, sex before marriage etc, did not apply. This was reversed by his sucessor.
Context and I'smailism FTW.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 08:52:48 AM
1. U C WAT I DID THAR? so yeah, giving slack to the idea that interacting with the rest of the world based on the framework of self-deception and superstition is OK is an endorsement of those things, and whether or not it's implicit doesn't really matter.
That's a pretty fucking good argument for censorship you got yourself there. Can't disagree either. Let's go burn some books :evil:
Quote from: NotPublished on January 11, 2010, 12:09:22 AM
The only thing I see is objective is life, we all gotta play by its rules.
of physics?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:07:01 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:05:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 02:01:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:00:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:55:36 AM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:49:26 AM
Morality: a system of values regarding right and wrong.
I have a moral system, others have different ones.
Now you're just being glib. I didn't ask for a definition, saying that morality is a system of right and wrong is tautological. You say that you don't believe in objective morality, but subjective morality is no different from taste. You say "I have a moral system, others have different ones." Are they all equally valid?
No. Mine is more valid.
See how that works?
So the conflict between peoples moral system can have an outcome a positive outcome on one and a negative on the other. As soon as notions of power play or the realization that we are all trapped in a fish bowel, ideas of all morality being equal get thrown out the window.
As the Judge once told me, back in the bad old days, "Wrong is poor and weak; Right is rich and powerful."
Whenever I see these discussions the power play of morality is always ignored, and its probably the most important part because it is the reality and the actualization of morality.
Its shaking the shit out of it and seeing does it still work afterward.
Yep. Any philosophical model that ignores brute force is nothing more than mental masturbation.
Realism, ITT. E.H. Carr, Thucydides and Machiavelli FTW
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:22:02 AM
It doesn't provide any evidence, simply, something might happen, someday, that's never happened before, but we won't know until it happens. I can't think of any way to falsify that statement.
well that's what he said right? the universe displaying consistent behaviour is not a falsifiable statement. see:
Quote from: guy incognitothe hypothesis on which science is based, namely that the universal is self consistent, is itself an untestable hypothesis even in principle. Think about it, what sort of a test can you use to test the hypothesis that the laws that govern the universe will work every time? It would take an infinite number of trials to prove that.
there ya go, it's what he started out with, didn't you catch it the first time?
QuoteGuess what? That means that it falls outside the scientific method. It means, that it means nothing. It's, in a word, meaningless.
I agree that it falls outside the scientific method.
Why does that make it meaningless though?
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 09:01:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:36:08 AM
If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.
No. Kant's writings on the Categorical Imperative aren't exactly very clear or logically complete. He gives several different definitions of the Categorical Imperative [JohnnyX just quotes one], and they are not logically consistent or even seem to define the same thing. He only gives 3 or 4 practical examples of application of the Categorical Imperative, so it doesn't leave much to be deduced from either. All the rest are interpretations by other people.
In that respect, utilitarianism is a lot better defined. I generally agree with it more as well, personally [on the occasions where Kantian ethics disagree with utilitarian ethics], but it's not perfect either.
That's a good point, TZ. I'd be interested to know where you think that utilitarianism falls short, could you elaborate? I've never been particularly persuaded by utilitarianism, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 09:01:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 12:36:08 AM
If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.
No. Kant's writings on the Categorical Imperative aren't exactly very clear or logically complete. He gives several different definitions of the Categorical Imperative [JohnnyX just quotes one], and they are not logically consistent or even seem to define the same thing. He only gives 3 or 4 practical examples of application of the Categorical Imperative, so it doesn't leave much to be deduced from either. All the rest are interpretations by other people.
In that respect, utilitarianism is a lot better defined. I generally agree with it more as well, personally [on the occasions where Kantian ethics disagree with utilitarian ethics], but it's not perfect either.
Utilitarianism is also stupid, though. Except when its not, but then it needs so many additions and rules and exceptions it quickly begins to look like another system entirely. Hell, it took a genius like John Stuart Mill (who really was a certifiable genius) to even make it workable in any real sense.
Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.
Guy Incognito, the textbook example against utilitarianism:
scenario A
you're in charge of a railroad switch. due to an error somewhere, the train is about to go into a mountain tunnel where 5 people are working on the ventilation somethings and if the train goes there, they will all get smashed and die. you could throw the switch to save them and the train will take a different route. except it's really not your day because that route also goes to a mountain tunnel where 1 guy is working.
so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I throw the switch and let 1 person die?
utlitarianism says throw the switch and let 1 person die.
scenario B
you're a doctor in a hospital and you are treating 1 person with a appendectomy. he is still asleep under narcosis but he will be fine. while treating him you happen to find out he has a very rare bloodtype. that night, it's really not your night, because 5 people come in and they all suffer from severe blood loss from a shoggoth attack. they need blood transfusion or they will die. of course (because this is a shitty night remember) these 5 people all have this same very rare bloodtype as your sleeping patient. you can save these 5 people by drawing blood from him, but it will be too much cause he's weakened from the operation and he will die.
so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I take action and let 1 person die?
utlitarianism says again to let 1 person die.
--------
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.
Guy Incognito, the textbook example against utilitarianism:
scenario A
you're in charge of a railroad switch. due to an error somewhere, the train is about to go into a mountain tunnel where 5 people are working on the ventilation somethings and if the train goes there, they will all get smashed and die. you could throw the switch to save them and the train will take a different route. except it's really not your day because that route also goes to a mountain tunnel where 1 guy is working.
so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I throw the switch and let 1 person die?
utlitarianism says throw the switch and let 1 person die.
scenario B
you're a doctor in a hospital and you are treating 1 person with a appendectomy. he is still asleep under narcosis but he will be fine. while treating him you happen to find out he has a very rare bloodtype. that night, it's really not your night, because 5 people come in and they all suffer from severe blood loss from a shoggoth attack. they need blood transfusion or they will die. of course (because this is a shitty night remember) these 5 people all have this same very rare bloodtype as your sleeping patient. you can save these 5 people by drawing blood from him, but it will be too much cause he's weakened from the operation and he will die.
so your choice is, should I do nothing and let 5 people die, or should I take action and let 1 person die?
utlitarianism says again to let 1 person die.
--------
i thought utilitarianism also added that you should not feel bad about making that choice.
because it is The Right Thing To Do.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.
I thought so. I mean, I do too, but I just wanted to point out that it really is a sucky system when you apply some of the logic of (especially Benthamite) Utilitarianism to properly tricky ethical questions.
> i thought utilitarianism also added that you should not feel bad about making that choice.
that's kind of strange, the only moral system I could consistently feel good about is a subjective one, not an objective one.
except for that mythical "perfect" objective one, but that one might not exist.
i mean sometimes I do things because I feel they are the right thing to do, but I would feel better about doing something else. though maybe not in the long run, perhaps.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 09:58:43 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 03:22:02 AM
It doesn't provide any evidence, simply, something might happen, someday, that's never happened before, but we won't know until it happens. I can't think of any way to falsify that statement.
well that's what he said right? the universe displaying consistent behaviour is not a falsifiable statement. see:
Quote from: guy incognitothe hypothesis on which science is based, namely that the universal is self consistent, is itself an untestable hypothesis even in principle. Think about it, what sort of a test can you use to test the hypothesis that the laws that govern the universe will work every time? It would take an infinite number of trials to prove that.
there ya go, it's what he started out with, didn't you catch it the first time?
QuoteGuess what? That means that it falls outside the scientific method. It means, that it means nothing. It's, in a word, meaningless.
I agree that it falls outside the scientific method.
Why does that make it meaningless though?
Provided that the scientific method can only test falsifiable hypotheses, the "self consistency" hypothesis doesn't fall under the realm of the scientific method, therefore it doesn't indicate a flaw in the scientific method. A statement that falls outside the scientific method is scientifically meaningless. Again, this indicates no flaw in the scientific method, because it's only set up to test falsifiable hypotheses.
Wow that's pretty circular.
So, science cannot falsify itself.
Does that make it flawless?
Guy Incognito said that hypothesis testing may be flawed. That is absolutely true, because science can neither prove nor disprove it.
Not meant to be a burden-of-proof trick. Just that any statement you make about whether science is flawed or not, is a scientifically meaningless statement.
If that's not a limit to the scientific method, I don't know what is.
There are the LOTR fans, who just want to be elves and have their own unicorns.
God fucking hell. Shut the fuck up and go do some science. You people are making me puke. Assholes. The only one of you fit to have this fucking conversation is Kai.
SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP
You bunch of retarded fucking incompetent assholes
if any ONE of you had any fucking idea what you were talking about, you would have SHUT UP ALREADY.
I hate all of you.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2010, 10:30:14 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
Cain, absolutely. I just say I find myself agreeing more often with utilitarianism than Kantianism.
I thought so. I mean, I do too, but I just wanted to point out that it really is a sucky system when you apply some of the logic of (especially Benthamite) Utilitarianism to properly tricky ethical questions.
YOU
JUST FUCKING SHUT UP.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:14:39 PM
God fucking hell. Shut the fuck up and go do some science. You people are making me puke. Assholes. The only one of you fit to have this fucking conversation is Kai.
SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP
You bunch of retarded fucking incompetent assholes
if any ONE of you had any fucking idea what you were talking about, you would have SHUT UP ALREADY.
Um.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 01:38:58 PM
Wow that's pretty circular.
So, science cannot falsify itself.
Does that make it flawless?
Guy Incognito said that hypothesis testing may be flawed. That is absolutely true, because science can neither prove nor disprove it.
Not meant to be a burden-of-proof trick. Just that any statement you make about whether science is flawed or not, is a scientifically meaningless statement.
If that's not a limit to the scientific method, I don't know what is.
Well thats not really fair either, its not a case of proving, its a case of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, which does give consistent results which more importantly are able to be applied to similar systems to get predicable results. That is not a flaw in hypothesis testing or the scientific method, its an acceptable margin of error.
1) Nigel if it bothers you so much, may I suggest you stop reading the thread? jeez. What is your problem going round the forum telling everybody to shut up?
2) And what makes Kai more fit to have this conversation than me? cause s/he's a scientist? cause you know, I went to university as well, did 2-3 years of research and co-wrote a paper that got presented at ESANN, also followed a couple of philsophy modules, including philosophy of science. is that enough credentials for me to have this conversation? or are there additional requirements?
3) there were unicorns in LotR?
The question isn't whether there were unicorns in LOTR but whether we can falsify the hypothesis that unicorns were in LOTR.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 02:23:40 PM
1) Nigel if it bothers you so much, may I suggest you stop reading the thread? jeez. What is your problem going round the forum telling everybody to shut up?
2) And what makes Kai more fit to have this conversation than me? cause s/he's a scientist? cause you know, I went to university as well, did 2-3 years of research and co-wrote a paper that got presented at ESANN, also followed a couple of philsophy modules, including philosophy of science. is that enough credentials for me to have this conversation? or are there additional requirements?
3) there were unicorns in LotR?
FUCK YOU
It is six am and I am drunk. SUCK MY DICK.
YOU ARE ALL TOTALLY INCOMPETENT
THIS THREAD IS THE CLOSEST THING TO CONTENT ON THE BOARD ATM
THAT MAKES ME WANT TO DIE.
STILL DRUNK
FROM LAST NIGHT
FUCK YOU
I WILL SHIT UNICORNS FROM MY VAGINA IF YOU WILL JUST FUCKING SHUT UP ABOUT PHILOSOPHY YOU INCOMPETENT SHITHOLES.
shut up, go to bed.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:21:11 PMQuote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 01:38:58 PMWow that's pretty circular.
So, science cannot falsify itself.
Does that make it flawless?
Guy Incognito said that hypothesis testing may be flawed. That is absolutely true, because science can neither prove nor disprove it.
Not meant to be a burden-of-proof trick. Just that any statement you make about whether science is flawed or not, is a scientifically meaningless statement.
If that's not a limit to the scientific method, I don't know what is.
Well thats not really fair either, its not a case of proving, its a case of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, which does give consistent results which more importantly are able to be applied to similar systems to get predicable results. That is not a flaw in hypothesis testing or the scientific method, its an acceptable margin of error.
What do you mean with fair?
Ever since I was 23 and read about Godel's incompleteness theorem, I've been reading up on this stuff in order to find the parts where the scientific method is incomplete.
It has to be. And that blew my mind at the time. Cause I had a Spock-like absolute faith in that thing. But I figured, well if that means there are things that are True, but are not covered by the scientific method, I want to know what they are.
I'm not sure whether I have found it or not, but among other things that search led to the occult.
About which, btw, there's yet quite a bit of science to do. I mean, it seems to me that the resistance against it must be mostly in, as ECH put it, "dangerous thought" or as Roger said "lying to yourself".
Because the other part, about which we seemed to agree a couple of pages back, that magic is basically mind-reprogramming or something. The cry against that was, you shouldn't need silly robes and chants to do that.
Well, that's an easy hypothesis to falsify, try it with the robes and without the robes, see what works best. Just that whether it "works" or not can only be determined subjectively, or in other words it can only be objectively determined by the subject.
So either everybody gotta test that for themselves, and if Roger and ECH say they don't need the robes, I can only take their word for it.
I haven't tried myself btw. Like Roger, I find it pretty hard to trick myself into believing something when I know I'm tricking me.
On the other hand you can also say, that's not Science cause it's not peer-reviewable!
Well in that case, we hit another limit of science. Is this one also unfair?
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:40:06 PM
YOU ARE ALL TOTALLY INCOMPETENT
THIS THREAD IS THE CLOSEST THING TO CONTENT ON THE BOARD ATM
THAT MAKES ME WANT TO DIE.
Right. So just what we need is drunk posts in our treasured last bastion of content on this forum.
What Faust said, go to bed.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 02:44:13 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:21:11 PMQuote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 01:38:58 PMWow that's pretty circular.
So, science cannot falsify itself.
Does that make it flawless?
Guy Incognito said that hypothesis testing may be flawed. That is absolutely true, because science can neither prove nor disprove it.
Not meant to be a burden-of-proof trick. Just that any statement you make about whether science is flawed or not, is a scientifically meaningless statement.
If that's not a limit to the scientific method, I don't know what is.
Well thats not really fair either, its not a case of proving, its a case of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, which does give consistent results which more importantly are able to be applied to similar systems to get predicable results. That is not a flaw in hypothesis testing or the scientific method, its an acceptable margin of error.
What do you mean with fair?
Ever since I was 23 and read about Godel's incompleteness theorem, I've been reading up on this stuff in order to find the parts where the scientific method is incomplete.
It has to be. And that blew my mind at the time. Cause I had a Spock-like absolute faith in that thing. But I figured, well if that means there are things that are True, but are not covered by the scientific method, I want to know what they are.
I'm not sure whether I have found it or not, but among other things that search led to the occult.
About which, btw, there's yet quite a bit of science to do. I mean, it seems to me that the resistance against it must be mostly in, as ECH put it, "dangerous thought" or as Roger said "lying to yourself".
Because the other part, about which we seemed to agree a couple of pages back, that magic is basically mind-reprogramming or something. The cry against that was, you shouldn't need silly robes and chants to do that.
Well, that's an easy hypothesis to falsify, try it with the robes and without the robes, see what works best. Just that whether it "works" or not can only be determined subjectively, or in other words it can only be objectively determined by the subject.
So either everybody gotta test that for themselves, and if Roger and ECH say they don't need the robes, I can only take their word for it.
I haven't tried myself btw. Like Roger, I find it pretty hard to trick myself into believing something when I know I'm tricking me.
On the other hand you can also say, that's not Science cause it's not peer-reviewable!
Well in that case, we hit another limit of science. Is this one also unfair?
Hrm, not quite, you CAN still test the robes/no robes hypothesis... Just not personally, you need lab rats who are unaware of the test. Obviously this would lead to other causes of error. For instance each persons unique experiences can skew the outcome, the only way to get a result that works within a certain margin of error is to increase the size of your test group to a comfortable amount (thousands or more). Its not untestable, just difficult.
All psychological hypotheses are tested over large groups to build up an average, but it is true that hypothesis testing is less reliable when people are involved.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
It's been a few years since I've read it, but one flaw in the scientific process (not method) was documented in Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_Life) by Latour and Woolgar.
long story short
Laboratory Life was written by people trying to understand science from a sociological point of view. One of the points they made is that when something is on its way to "Fact hood", there might be a lot of uncertainty. Maybe the data is off, maybe the results are skewed, maybe it's only accepted by 60% of the scientists.
Once that "fact" has been cited by other scientists and built upon, all the uncertainty surrounding its creation evaporates. The "fact", divorced from the environment which led to its "discovery"*, becomes something we are certain about.
They also discuss the cycles of credibility - they examine credit and credibility as a form of currency that scientists use in order to change the "facticity" of a hypothesis. One flaw in the scientific process may be that if a scientist who doesn't have a very good track record makes an amazing discovery, other scientists are less likely to cite it.
* or "creation", if you prefer
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 11, 2010, 03:05:18 PM
It's been a few years since I've read it, but one flaw in the scientific process (not method) was documented in Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_Life) by Latour and Woolgar.
long story short
Laboratory Life was written by people trying to understand science from a sociological point of view. One of the points they made is that when something is on its way to "Fact hood", there might be a lot of uncertainty. Maybe the data is off, maybe the results are skewed, maybe it's only accepted by 60% of the scientists.
Once that "fact" has been cited by other scientists and built upon, all the uncertainty surrounding its creation evaporates. The "fact", divorced from the environment which led to its "discovery"*, becomes something we are certain about.
They also discuss the cycles of credibility - they examine credit and credibility as a form of currency that scientists use in order to change the "facticity" of a hypothesis. One flaw in the scientific process may be that if a scientist who doesn't have a very good track record makes an amazing discovery, other scientists are less likely to cite it.
* or "creation", if you prefer
Unfortunately that seems the largest flaw in the system, if Joe the plumber comes up with a consistent unified field theory he would have a hard time getting anyone to read it because he doesn't have a string of letters after his name.
Dont some journals and institutions conceal the name for the purposes of peer-reviews?
Obviously it doesn't solve the problem entirely, but it can still help overcome some elements of groupthink and appeals to reputation.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 02:44:13 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:21:11 PMQuote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 01:38:58 PMWow that's pretty circular.
So, science cannot falsify itself.
Does that make it flawless?
Guy Incognito said that hypothesis testing may be flawed. That is absolutely true, because science can neither prove nor disprove it.
Not meant to be a burden-of-proof trick. Just that any statement you make about whether science is flawed or not, is a scientifically meaningless statement.
If that's not a limit to the scientific method, I don't know what is.
Well thats not really fair either, its not a case of proving, its a case of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, which does give consistent results which more importantly are able to be applied to similar systems to get predicable results. That is not a flaw in hypothesis testing or the scientific method, its an acceptable margin of error.
What do you mean with fair?
Ever since I was 23 and read about Godel's incompleteness theorem, I've been reading up on this stuff in order to find the parts where the scientific method is incomplete.
It has to be. And that blew my mind at the time. Cause I had a Spock-like absolute faith in that thing. But I figured, well if that means there are things that are True, but are not covered by the scientific method, I want to know what they are.
I'm not sure whether I have found it or not, but among other things that search led to the occult.
About which, btw, there's yet quite a bit of science to do. I mean, it seems to me that the resistance against it must be mostly in, as ECH put it, "dangerous thought" or as Roger said "lying to yourself".
Because the other part, about which we seemed to agree a couple of pages back, that magic is basically mind-reprogramming or something. The cry against that was, you shouldn't need silly robes and chants to do that.
Well, that's an easy hypothesis to falsify, try it with the robes and without the robes, see what works best. Just that whether it "works" or not can only be determined subjectively, or in other words it can only be objectively determined by the subject.
So either everybody gotta test that for themselves, and if Roger and ECH say they don't need the robes, I can only take their word for it.
I haven't tried myself btw. Like Roger, I find it pretty hard to trick myself into believing something when I know I'm tricking me.
On the other hand you can also say, that's not Science cause it's not peer-reviewable!
Well in that case, we hit another limit of science. Is this one also unfair?
This is the correct motorcycle... I know I probably say this once a week, but its precisely WHY I like Model Agnosticism.
The MODEL ("It's only a model...*") defined by the Scientific Method is a great way of examining observable and repeatable 'objective' (to the best of our knowledge) phenomena.
However, if something is subjective, rather than objective we need a different MODEL... because the Scientific Method doesn't have an option for 'subjective data'... Subjective Data is meaningless in the Scientific Model. Yet, subjective data viz a viz personal experience is really THE ONLY KIND OF DATA WE INTERACT WITH WHEN WE'RE NOT IN A LABORATORY.
So, how do we model 'I had an experience where I spent 15 minutes perceiving myself as being a 7 headed wild beast with tawny fur' on a Scientific Model? We don't, because that's not what its useful for.
I also think that there exists a wide gulf between making use of models and really, really for sure 100% believing any Model as true. The godhatesfags and Mysticwicks appear to have that as their common problem, they really, really BELIEVE absolutely that their views are True.
"When Dogma enters the mind, all rational thought leaves" - RAW
However, most of the people 'defending' the 'mystical' paradigm here (at least) don't seem to be saying "This is 100% true" in fact, I don't recall seeing anyone claim that they could throw fireballs, levitate or anything else that would breech the laws of physics.
So, if you can't (or don't wish to) deal with models besides the simple scientific one, that's great. However, make sure you realize that it will inherently limit the kind of data you can examine. If it's not observable by more than one person, if its not repeatable in a lab environment (or repeatable in nature in a way that can be observed and documented), then it can't be usefully discussed with that Model, which means you either switch models, or take a pass on that information.
Finally, I really think we have some kind of communication error on this isssue of "fooling yourself'....
You do NOT need to 'fool yourself', in the 'formula' I mentioned earlier, the state of gnosis is precisely designed to trick your 'subconscious' (where we mean the automatic responses, imprints, beliefs, tendencies, reality tunnels, BiP bricks or whatever you want to calll them to make your Psych teacher happy).
So... GNOSIS... the state of 'No Mind', can be reached through 'fooling yourself', but this is not a preferred method. High Ritual (with the robes and the chanting and the knife, cup, etc) are props and a process which can consume your conscious mind while the ritual is happening (that is, it can move you to the state of Gnosis). However, you could reach that state as well through hysterical laughter for 10 minutes, or breathing/meditation for long periods of time, or drugs, or sex or ANYTHING which can reliably distract or absorb your conscious mind.
The only think you have to 'trick' is your "Psychic Censor (AKA BUllshit Detector) and you trick it by distracting your conscious mind and using the semantic connection between they symbols/props being used and the concepts already tied to those symbols and props. It may be possible for some people to make major changes to their imprints, psychology, etc etc just by deciding to, I can make small changes like that (I stopped biting my fingernails because I decided to)... However, ritualized reprogramming has been extremely useful for me in rebuilding a lot of the early imprints I got as a child, for ripping out old Dogma and repairing the 'brainwashing' that comes with growing up in a cult.
I struggled a lot with beliefs and responses that I didn't like or want... until I found "magic" as a way of making permanent changes to those beliefs and responses. Maybe, its just me, personally, because of a flaw in my mind... or because I was raised with the Super Daddy watching over my shoulder and honestly believed that there were invisible Angels and Demons everywhere... I dunno.
What I do know is that I have had a far more enjoyable and successful life than before, I feel extremely happy with who I am and how I got to be here... science, magic, psychology or fooling myself... whatever it was, it seems to have worked.
Home Life = AWESOME (beautiful, smart and funny partner/ shared interests/good friends/great hobbies)
Work Life = Could be better, I'm kinda bored lately, but I make lots of money and have relative freedom (I obviously can chat here all day and get paid).
Personal Life = Never been better, self-esteem, confidence and leadership seem to be second nature to me now... 10 years ago, I doubt any of you would have recognized me as the same person.
Is all of that because of Magic? Hell No. Did ritualized reprogramming help? As far as I can tell, it certainly seemed to.
Beyond that, I don't know that any of us can really say much more about the topic.
*apologies for the Python quote
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Wench?
Drunken and mean, yes, but...
Oh, fuck it. Does anyone need any matches?
Those bridges aren't going to burn themselves.
Damn!
:|
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:39:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Wench?
Drunken and mean, yes, but...
Oh, fuck it. Does anyone need any matches?
Those bridges aren't going to burn themselves.
I would have said a lot worse to anyone else who calls me "the wallpaper" or ordered me to shut up.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:39:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Wench?
Drunken and mean, yes, but...
Oh, fuck it. Does anyone need any matches?
Those bridges aren't going to burn themselves.
I would have said a lot worse to anyone else who calls me "the wallpaper" or ordered me to shut up.
Not gonna argue with that. I wasn't talking specifically about you, and I should have made myself more clear.
Nigel made a good point yesterday about the more inane threads, but what she did in here this morning was out of line. But tossing "wench" out there didn't help, any more than did her comments to you.
This is fucking bullshit. All the people I like are coming unglued at the seams or fighting like cats and dogs, and all the content on the board has gone into a dormant state. I can't fucking stand it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:39:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Wench?
Drunken and mean, yes, but...
Oh, fuck it. Does anyone need any matches?
Those bridges aren't going to burn themselves.
I would have said a lot worse to anyone else who calls me "the wallpaper" or ordered me to shut up.
Not gonna argue with that. I wasn't talking specifically about you, and I should have made myself more clear.
Nigel made a good point yesterday about the more inane threads, but what she did in here this morning was out of line. But tossing "wench" out there didn't help, any more than did her comments to you.
This is fucking bullshit. All the people I like are coming unglued at the seams or fighting like cats and dogs, and all the content on the board has gone into a dormant state. I can't fucking stand it.
Meh, its just PD's 'time of the month'.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 03:39:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Wench?
Drunken and mean, yes, but...
Oh, fuck it. Does anyone need any matches?
Those bridges aren't going to burn themselves.
I would have said a lot worse to anyone else who calls me "the wallpaper" or ordered me to shut up.
Not gonna argue with that. I wasn't talking specifically about you, and I should have made myself more clear.
Nigel made a good point yesterday about the more inane threads, but what she did in here this morning was out of line. But tossing "wench" out there didn't help, any more than did her comments to you.
This is fucking bullshit. All the people I like are coming unglued at the seams or fighting like cats and dogs, and all the content on the board has gone into a dormant state. I can't fucking stand it.
Fair point, its not helping. I retract it.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:42:54 PM
I WILL SHIT UNICORNS FROM MY VAGINA IF YOU WILL JUST FUCKING SHUT UP ABOUT PHILOSOPHY YOU INCOMPETENT SHITHOLES.
:mittens:
also...
:postpics:
also also, anyone who wants to get PD to troll itself only needs to start a thread with the word "magic" in the title. this is nothing new, but now it's nothing that's particularly amusing either.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 05:20:09 PM
also also, anyone who wants to get PD to troll itself only needs to start a thread with the word "magic" in the title. this is nothing new, but now it's nothing that's particularly amusing either.
Yeah, I'm kinda feeling a little dumb.
yeah I thought I was adding a meaningful point, but now I really do feel like I was wasting my time. thanks for clearing that up.
Thirty. Seven. Pages.
Holy hell.
I think I had a point to make, about TWELVE FRIGGIN PAGES ago.
All right.
Question: Can a person metaprogram without using the trappings of occultism, religion, or magic?
Answer: 95% confidence in the answer of "yes". Please see the Angel Tech thread, where I am attempting to translate the rituals and meditations into secular language.
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
Question: Doesn't that run headfirst into Atheism?
Answer: No, because this only concerns Known Things. Weird Shit that cannot yet be explained, or may never be explained, is not covered.
Question: Hold on, isn't that the "god of the gaps" argument?
Answer: Well, they have to live somewhere...
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Thirty. Seven. Pages.
Holy hell.
I think I had a point to make, about TWELVE FRIGGIN PAGES ago.
All right.
Question: Can a person metaprogram without using the trappings of occultism, religion, or magic?
Answer: 95% confidence in the answer of "yes". Please see the Angel Tech thread, where I am attempting to translate the rituals and meditations into secular language.
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
Question: Doesn't that run headfirst into Atheism?
Answer: No, because this only concerns Known Things. Weird Shit that cannot yet be explained, or may never be explained, is not covered.
Question: Hold on, isn't that the "god of the gaps" argument?
Answer: Well, they have to live somewhere...
IAWTC
Oddly enough, in this case your endorsement does not help.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:41:02 PM
Oddly enough, in this case your endorsement does not help.
Which seems ironic since you simply stated the position I've held on the topic for years.
If that's true, you may want to work on the clarity of your written communication.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:47:02 PM
If that's true, you may want to work on the clarity of your written communication.
Have I stated something here which is counter to what you stated?
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
Guy Incognito, the textbook example against utilitarianism:
[...]
utlitarianism says again to let 1 person die.
You know, these are some interesting examples you bring up, particularly how they highlight the intuitive difference between example A and example B. I think every Kantian would agree with A but probably none would go with B, but I'm at a loss to articulate any moral difference between the two scenarios.
Quote from: DALEKK on January 11, 2010, 01:43:23 PM
There are the LOTR fans, who just want to be elves and have their own unicorns.
Uh, is there any other reason to do magixks?
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:08:56 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 11, 2010, 03:05:18 PM
It's been a few years since I've read it, but one flaw in the scientific process (not method) was documented in Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_Life) by Latour and Woolgar.
long story short
Laboratory Life was written by people trying to understand science from a sociological point of view. One of the points they made is that when something is on its way to "Fact hood", there might be a lot of uncertainty. Maybe the data is off, maybe the results are skewed, maybe it's only accepted by 60% of the scientists.
Once that "fact" has been cited by other scientists and built upon, all the uncertainty surrounding its creation evaporates. The "fact", divorced from the environment which led to its "discovery"*, becomes something we are certain about.
They also discuss the cycles of credibility - they examine credit and credibility as a form of currency that scientists use in order to change the "facticity" of a hypothesis. One flaw in the scientific process may be that if a scientist who doesn't have a very good track record makes an amazing discovery, other scientists are less likely to cite it.
* or "creation", if you prefer
Unfortunately that seems the largest flaw in the system, if Joe the plumber comes up with a consistent unified field theory he would have a hard time getting anyone to read it because he doesn't have a string of letters after his name.
These are good points Cramulus and Faust make, and represent a bigger practical flaw in the scientific process than any sort of evil deceiver argument is ever likely to. But I think there is something fundamentally different about these two things, insofar as we can theoretical overcome the human error element of science (maybe by brainwashing people or with robot scientists or whatever), whereas the epistemological shortcomings of science, while it might never hamper practical results, cannot be overcome even in theory.
Holy shit.
This is why I avoid the magic threads.
Well, that, and it always gives me a mental image of Leonardo DiCaprio introducing David fucking Blaine.
Joe the Plumber isn't going to develop a unified field theory, anyway.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
No argument there. One point I would like to make though, is that most of the time if a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram then the tools aren't going to work.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2010, 02:46:30 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:40:06 PM
YOU ARE ALL TOTALLY INCOMPETENT
THIS THREAD IS THE CLOSEST THING TO CONTENT ON THE BOARD ATM
THAT MAKES ME WANT TO DIE.
Right. So just what we need is drunk posts in our treasured last bastion of content on this forum.
What Faust said, go to bed.
You're pretty too.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
Sure... but its true of all systems. Discordians can get trapped in 23PINEALOMGZLAWLO5'S. Materialists can get trapped in "Science or it ain't real". Psychologists, depending on the particular school of study may accept only that school of thought.
Humans confuse the map and the territory all the time. It's not unique to 'magic'.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:40:14 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 09, 2010, 11:36:04 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 11:34:20 PM
Right, because all worldviews are merely reactions to our fears and desires and everybody creates fairylands to have solace.
Well said! :mittens:
Im sorry, that was sarcastic.
We all know we are gonna die, and i think the majority fears it.
Religion is a rationalization for that fear (when we die, we go to this big garden with candy and sluts).
And i only get this big fucking anxiety that fuels my cigarrette addiction and hedonistic behaviour.
Sounds like the religious approach is more effective. Even if false.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Oh really?
Does the bouquet think he's a match for me?
Do you want to find out, pretty thing?
I would enjoy pinning you.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 09:44:27 PM
OK, serious answer: my personal method is a combination of willpower and self-discipline. no need to trick myself into anything, just making a decision to alter the way I think about/perceive/react to whatever the relevant subject is and being constantly mindful to follow through on that decision. I guess if you need me to invent a term for it I'd call it self-reinforcement, but there's certainly no bullshit or trickery involved and I have always been able to effect the change of mindset that I desire provided I use my will and self-discipline to do so. I've also found that, as with most everything, it gets easier with repetition.
Thank you for explaining. I don't think that would work for me, but a layer or two of bullshit generally does and I think as long as I remember afterwards that it was bullshit that's ok.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
No argument there. One point I would like to make though, is that most of the time if a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram then the tools aren't going to work.
that's just as well. If that person has any sort of worthwhile brain function, that will be the point at which they realize they never NEEDED the trappings in the first place. Though if it makes you feel better, I understand why you're so bent on not having to confront that scenario yourself.
ETA: I don't know if you're aware of this, but you really come off as a passive-aggressive dickweed.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
Oh hey, I missed this. Well said.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
No argument there. One point I would like to make though, is that most of the time if a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram then the tools aren't going to work.
that's just as well. If that person has any sort of worthwhile brain function, that will be the point at which they realize they never NEEDED the trappings in the first place. Though if it makes you feel better, I understand why you're so bent on not having to confront that scenario yourself.
A large difference exists between something being a tool and something being unnecessary. After all, you
can hammer a nail with your forehead, but a hammer is less painful.
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
I'm not one for stretching a metaphor, but equating a hammer with a belief system is a little weak.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
that's just as well. If that person has any sort of worthwhile brain function, that will be the point at which they realize they never NEEDED the trappings in the first place. Though if it makes you feel better, I understand why you're so bent on not having to confront that scenario yourself.
Confront what scenario? I just disagree with you that some people haven't got worthwhile brain function or whatever you want to call it. I've already confronted all the things we're talking about.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
ETA: I don't know if you're aware of this, but you really come off as a passive-aggressive dickweed.
That isn't my intention, I'm not sure why you feel that way. I guess I'm alternating between trying to firmly make some points and trying (unsuccessfully) to be funny.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
Is superstition really that dangerous? People seem to have an easy enough time committing heinous acts when they aren't putting on funny hats.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 07:18:56 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
Sure... but its true of all systems. Discordians can get trapped in 23PINEALOMGZLAWLO5'S. Materialists can get trapped in "Science or it ain't real". Psychologists, depending on the particular school of study may accept only that school of thought.
Humans confuse the map and the territory all the time. It's not unique to 'magic'.
"magic" (and other supernatural-based fraeworks) are different in that to be effective they
require the user to mistake the map for the territory.
The fact that a tiny percent of the people who use this framework are able to both use it effectively AND remember afterwards to discontinue mistaking the map for the territory does not impart any validity to the framework, it just speaks to the ability of some otherwise intelligent people to blindly fall into their own confirmation bias.
It's like the people who are so smart that they trick themselves into endorsing ideas like "ethical eugenics", "benevolent dictatorships", "marxism", and the like but are too self-centered to understand the effect that propagation of those ideas is going to have when applied to a large number of primates.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
An idiot is going to believe all sorts of stupid stuff about pretty much anything you put in front of them. Doesn't invalidate the significance of the thing they misunderstood from the outset. Plus it potentially makes the idiot more obvious, since they're likely to be wearing really dumb looking shit and talking inane, pseudo mystiqual bollix. Win-win in my book.
However, having a go at people who you should by now realise aren't these sorts of idiots, on the strength of what the idiots get up to seems a bit harsh IMO.
Like pointing and saying "ha, ha, you like dumb shit". I don't point and laugh at you for claiming to read a book just because most of the books currently being read are fucking Harry Potter and the Twilight series, do I?
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
I'm not one for stretching a metaphor, but equating a hammer with a belief system is a little weak.
I wasn't talking about the 'belief system' I was talking about the tools and props. Candles and Athame don't start Genocide either... Humans start genocide and they'll do that as long as they follow a monkey that tells them to. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists have all participated in genocide.
Laying the horror at the doorstep of some props seems absurd to me.
Quote
It's like the people who are so smart that they trick themselves into endorsing ideas like "ethical eugenics", "benevolent dictatorships", "marxism", and the like but are too self-centered to understand the effect that propagation of those ideas is going to have when applied to a large number of primates.
Has someone been advocating that everyone use Magic? I missed that post.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
No argument there. One point I would like to make though, is that most of the time if a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram then the tools aren't going to work.
that's just as well. If that person has any sort of worthwhile brain function, that will be the point at which they realize they never NEEDED the trappings in the first place. Though if it makes you feel better, I understand why you're so bent on not having to confront that scenario yourself.
ETA: I don't know if you're aware of this, but you really come off as a passive-aggressive dickweed.
A. Dickweed. YES.
B. I challenge you to truly enter the altered state created by group ritual, with no trappings whatsoever.
C. marijuana.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:33:37 PM
"magic" (and other supernatural-based fraeworks) are different in that to be effective they require the user to mistake the map for the territory.
I've been trying to figure out a way to say that. Now I don't have to. Cheers.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 07:32:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
Is superstition really that dangerous? People seem to have an easy enough time committing heinous acts when they aren't putting on funny hats.
So, your argument is, "people do horrible shit, why don't we just say it's ok for them to do it?"
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:39:46 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:33:37 PM
"magic" (and other supernatural-based fraeworks) are different in that to be effective they require the user to mistake the map for the territory.
I've been trying to figure out a way to say that. Now I don't have to. Cheers.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 07:32:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
Is superstition really that dangerous? People seem to have an easy enough time committing heinous acts when they aren't putting on funny hats.
So, your argument is, "people do horrible shit, why don't we just say it's ok for them to do it?"
I think his argument was "People do horrible shit, the props make no difference".
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:39:46 PM
So, your argument is, "people do horrible shit, why don't we just say it's ok for them to do it?"
Not at all, my argument is a variation on the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. In this case replace guns with religion or magic and there you go. Like somebody else just said, Atheists commit genocide too, look at Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 07:36:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
I'm not one for stretching a metaphor, but equating a hammer with a belief system is a little weak.
I wasn't talking about the 'belief system' I was talking about the tools and props. Candles and Athame don't start Genocide either... Humans start genocide and they'll do that as long as they follow a monkey that tells them to. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists have all participated in genocide.
Laying the horror at the doorstep of some props seems absurd to me.
Quote
It's like the people who are so smart that they trick themselves into endorsing ideas like "ethical eugenics", "benevolent dictatorships", "marxism", and the like but are too self-centered to understand the effect that propagation of those ideas is going to have when applied to a large number of primates.
Has someone been advocating that everyone use Magic? I missed that post.
no, you missed my point, which is that by perpetuating the acceptance of the framework through your personal validation of it, you are still handing out grenades to the monkeys. whether or not you require them to use it, you're providing them with a positive reference point for it. I'm not telling you you can't do it or that we should start censoring ideas, I'd defend your right to do whatever idiot shit you feel like to yourself until my dying breath, but it doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'm not going to challenge it and that is my primary reasoning for doing so.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:33:37 PM
"magic" (and other supernatural-based fraeworks) are different in that to be effective they require the user to mistake the map for the territory.
THIS.
Thread is over. Anything posted after this is dildoes.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 07:37:42 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
No argument there. One point I would like to make though, is that most of the time if a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram then the tools aren't going to work.
that's just as well. If that person has any sort of worthwhile brain function, that will be the point at which they realize they never NEEDED the trappings in the first place. Though if it makes you feel better, I understand why you're so bent on not having to confront that scenario yourself.
ETA: I don't know if you're aware of this, but you really come off as a passive-aggressive dickweed.
A. Dickweed. YES.
B. I challenge you to truly enter the altered state created by group ritual, with no trappings whatsoever.
C. marijuana.
1. total dickweed.
2. OK, but since I'm not going to believe I doubt I'll find it effective. I'll try though, for SCIENCE.
3. sure, a little, and I'd be happy to share it. you've got my digits.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 01:13:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 01:00:53 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 11, 2010, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: Immanuel Kant
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Do you agree with him?
So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?
My point was to see how far Guy Incognito was willing to take the objective morals viewpoint.
Kant's system is shitty because it does not take into account intention nor consequence.
So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.
Theft cannot exist without intention. Taking a loaf of bread from the supermarket is theft in some cases and not in others, and they are all about context and intent. Unlike killing thieving is a social construct in many ways.
Dildoes.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:43:07 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 07:36:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
I'm not one for stretching a metaphor, but equating a hammer with a belief system is a little weak.
I wasn't talking about the 'belief system' I was talking about the tools and props. Candles and Athame don't start Genocide either... Humans start genocide and they'll do that as long as they follow a monkey that tells them to. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists have all participated in genocide.
Laying the horror at the doorstep of some props seems absurd to me.
Quote
It's like the people who are so smart that they trick themselves into endorsing ideas like "ethical eugenics", "benevolent dictatorships", "marxism", and the like but are too self-centered to understand the effect that propagation of those ideas is going to have when applied to a large number of primates.
Has someone been advocating that everyone use Magic? I missed that post.
no, you missed my point, which is that by perpetuating the acceptance of the framework through your personal validation of it, you are still handing out grenades to the monkeys. whether or not you require them to use it, you're providing them with a positive reference point for it. I'm not telling you you can't do it or that we should start censoring ideas, I'd defend your right to do whatever idiot shit you feel like to yourself until my dying breath, but it doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'm not going to challenge it and that is my primary reasoning for doing so.
So... "some dumb monkeys will screw themselves up" is your argument?
Cause, uh... I don't really give a fuck about most other monkeys... I'm busy trying to manage my own monkey.
However, if you're of a mind to worry about the other monkeys and their state of reality, I completely understand your position.
*insert dildos here*
EDIT: In fact... I hang out in various Pagan locations just to further fuck with the people that really really believe it for real. I've made monkeys do all sorts of 'rituals' that were entirely absurd.
well, as soon as the other monkeys stop being able to negatively impact my life because of their state of reality, I'll stop caring about their state of reality.
Fraid I used to be bad for this too. I only evar handed out occult advice to idiots if I reckoned it would help them go completely batshit. I'm kind nasty that way. Never got into the whole notion of karma.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:54:03 PM
well, as soon as the other monkeys stop being able to negatively impact my life because of their state of reality, I'll stop caring about their state of reality.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:57:13 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:54:03 PM
well, as soon as the other monkeys stop being able to negatively impact my life because of their state of reality, I'll stop caring about their state of reality.
I haz a spell for that :rpger:
Dildoes.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 07:32:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
Is superstition really that dangerous? People seem to have an easy enough time committing heinous acts when they aren't putting on funny hats.
In which case it shouldnt be made even easier for them.
Quote"magic" (and other supernatural-based fraeworks) are different in that to be effective they require the user to mistake the map for the territory.
I don't think this is even close to correct... During a 'ritual' the practitioner might suspend disbelief for a period of time (and these idiot monkeys many of you seem worried about would fuck the map and bury the corpse no matter what the map said)... but its not a requirement that you 'believe' the map or mistake the map for the territory.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 07:30:11 PM
There is a much lesser chance that genocide will break out if someone decides to use a mallet, however.
I'm not one for stretching a metaphor, but equating a hammer with a belief system is a little weak.
I am pretty sure he was equating a hammer with a funny hat actually.
No, I'm pretty sure he's smarter than that. I hope.
Also, Dildoes.
As a (mostly former) Reiki Master, Tarot reader, avid Astrologer, and pretty damned experienced Chakra Therapist, I:
A) Find the temptation to delude myself is too great to risk.
B) Think what people do in their lives is their business, but shouldn't expect anything but harsh criticism in trying to validate any belief system or worldview that has no firm, immobile bottom-line. Like a hammer. In fact, that one thing, the demand this place makes on these concepts, is my favorite aspect of this place. It made me look at my delusions without comfort. I found myself constantly trying to validate my beliefs so that my world made sense.
C) Dildoes.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 08:13:04 PM
No, I'm pretty sure he's smarter than that. I hope.
Also, Dildoes.
Hammer = tool
Wand = tool
Alphabet = tool
Computer = tool
We can hammer in nails without a hammer, but it might hurt.
We can communicate without an alphabet, but only verbally and through picutres.
We can compute without a computer, but the math is hard and Instant Messages cost $0.44 and take a few days to show up.
Tools aren't necessary, but they often make reaching the goal easier.
A hammer hits things.
A holy ritual fools the mind.
The local carpenter's union will not decide it's ok to kill someone who uses a different implement to hit things.
The local priesthood will decide it's ok to kill someone who adheres to a different ritual.
Plus, dildoes.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 08:23:10 PM
A hammer hits things.
A holy ritual fools the mind.
The local carpenter's union will not decide it's ok to kill someone who uses a different implement to hit things.
The local priesthood will decide it's ok to kill someone who adheres to a different ritual.
Plus, dildoes.
The local Tribal Leaders will decide it's O.K. to kill someone who adheres to a different worldview, rituals or not. And 9 times out of 10, its likely that the 'difference' is just an excuse to behave like territorial monkeys.
I mean, your argument can apply to any view, any belief, any idea that diverges from the mainstream... shall we eschew them all?
jesus tittyfucking christ, Rat, you not only don't get it but you're quite fucking intent on NOT getting it.
fat lot of good breaking free of your religious chains did.
fucking dildoes.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:44:35 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 07:37:42 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on January 11, 2010, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 06:07:53 PM
Question: What's the harm in using occult trappings when trying to metaprogram?
Answer: If a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram, nothing. However, far too often many people do not understand that it is the body that is controlling the metaprogramming process, and not the tools. They begin to believe (or never stopped beliving) that the Religion/Ritual/Magic Wand has a Truth and a Signifigance that is greater than the body's own ability to reprogram itself.
fuck yeah. that's what I've been trying to say for the last 20 pages, but I'm just not that eloquent.
No argument there. One point I would like to make though, is that most of the time if a person understands that the trappings are merely tools with which to metaprogram then the tools aren't going to work.
that's just as well. If that person has any sort of worthwhile brain function, that will be the point at which they realize they never NEEDED the trappings in the first place. Though if it makes you feel better, I understand why you're so bent on not having to confront that scenario yourself.
ETA: I don't know if you're aware of this, but you really come off as a passive-aggressive dickweed.
A. Dickweed. YES.
B. I challenge you to truly enter the altered state created by group ritual, with no trappings whatsoever.
C. marijuana.
1. total dickweed.
2. OK, but since I'm not going to believe I doubt I'll find it effective. I'll try though, for SCIENCE.
3. sure, a little, and I'd be happy to share it. you've got my digits.
:lulz:
Mahqgiqual Dildoes!
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 08:26:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 08:23:10 PM
A hammer hits things.
A holy ritual fools the mind.
The local carpenter's union will not decide it's ok to kill someone who uses a different implement to hit things.
The local priesthood will decide it's ok to kill someone who adheres to a different ritual.
Plus, dildoes.
The local Tribal Leaders will decide it's O.K. to kill someone who adheres to a different worldview, rituals or not. And 9 times out of 10, its likely that the 'difference' is just an excuse to behave like territorial monkeys.
I mean, your argument can apply to any view, any belief, any idea that diverges from the mainstream... shall we eschew them all?
A tribal leader is not a hammer.
Please adhere to your previous statements.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 08:23:10 PM
A hammer hits things.
A holy ritual fools the mind.
This doesn't really show anything, just that both those tools operate on certain mechanisms. They still can accomplish purposes, for good or evil.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 08:23:10 PM
The local carpenter's union will not decide it's ok to kill someone who uses a different implement to hit things.
I don't think this is a certainty. What about Jimmy Hoffa (maybe a bad analogy, but this whole analogy is getting stretched as it is). Like Rat Bastard said, non religious institutions aren't immune to territoriality. People can get killed for costing the union money just as easily as for a religious heresy that costs the church money. Somebody a while back in this thread said it's a mistake to ignore power politics in morality, and it's also a mistake to ignore the way they factor into institutions, both religious and secular.
You're avoiding the point, too.
dildoes.
A TOOL THAT REQUIRES A BELIEF SYSTEM TO BE EFFECTIVE ENGENDERS CIRCUIT 2 BEHAVIOR.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 08:18:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2010, 08:13:04 PM
No, I'm pretty sure he's smarter than that. I hope.
Also, Dildoes.
Hammer = tool
Wand = tool
Alphabet = tool
Computer = tool
This thread = Toolbox.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 08:33:12 PM
jesus tittyfucking christ, Rat, you not only don't get it but you're quite fucking intent on NOT getting it.
fat lot of good breaking free of your religious chains did.
fucking dildoes.
I get the argument. I find it invalid.
Monkeys are dumb. Many monkeys believe some bullshit, think its real, identify their entire existence through those beliefs and if they're questioned (or if some other monkeys do it differently) there may be bloodshed.
However, to me, that speaks far more to a flaw in the monkey.
Now, I have found 'magic"* to be a useful tool for me. You may not like it, it may not be useful for you... but its useful for me. I don't believe its 'real', I don't have to lie to myself about any aspect of it... and I don't give a fuck about the other monkeys, THEY are going to behave like monkeys, there is nothing I can do to stop a few million years of evolution. However, for me, myself, magic in various forms has been a great tool for remodeling my BiP. As such, I'll continue to use it when its useful, and not use it when its not useful.
In the end, and I know this is gonna get me ripped (but I'm saying it anyway). I don't think most people grok the heavy duty BiP remodel work that can be done... some people seem to confuse a new coat of paint or a new welcome mat (or a new toilet) as 'remodeling'. Whereas I'm talking about turning your BiP into a Yellow Submarine and taking a dive deep into the Sea of Human Consciousness. Maybe this is all bullshit, maybe I have completely deluded myself into thinking that my thinking now is less muddled than my thinking before. However, I do seem to be enjoying life far more now than ever in the past. Lies, truth models or reality... that's not shit compared to being happy. Or you can go drive on the Lost Highway, doesn't sound like the way I want to spend the rest of my time on this rock, but 'to each their own' said the old lady as she kissed the cow.
Quote
A TOOL THAT REQUIRES A BELIEF SYSTEM TO BE EFFECTIVE ENGENDERS CIRCUIT 2 BEHAVIOR.
If it required a permanent belief system, that's certainly possible. However. it is not necessary. If the Belief System requires that your system is TRUE and all others are FALSE, then absolutely. However, MOST people that I'm aware of (even the dumb pagans that really, really believe), don't seem to think they're True and all others are False... rather most focus on UPG (Unverifiable Personal Gnosis).
And while specific systems like Wicca have fights about if you 'are' or 'are not' Wicca... that has more to do with 'shared experience' rather than Right vs Wrong.
Simply because SOME belief systems lead to territorial defense doesn't mean that ALL belief systems lead to territorial defense.
*as a generic encompassing term for the various models of 'metaprogramming' we've been discusssing
Oh, and DILDOES
Holy shit I'm away from this thread for half a day and look what I miss.
When I started arguing in here, it was against the statement "the scientific method is flawed".
I still can't find any flaw in it.
Also, I'd like people to tell me how it is possible to confidently test a hypothesis that is not falsifiable.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 08:53:21 PM
Holy shit I'm away from this thread for half a day and look what I miss.
When I started arguing in here, it was against the statement "the scientific method is flawed".
I still can't find any flaw in it.
Also, I'd like people to tell me how it is possible to confidently test a hypothesis that is not falsifiable.
I believe there was a confusion between the words incomplete and flawed. I may be wrong.
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 08:53:21 PM
Holy shit I'm away from this thread for half a day and look what I miss.
When I started arguing in here, it was against the statement "the scientific method is flawed".
I still can't find any flaw in it.
Also, I'd like people to tell me how it is possible to confidently test a hypothesis that is not falsifiable.
I think it involves funny hats.
Did you know: There are 16562 other threads in this forum, many of which are not dildoes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 09:02:39 PM
many of which are not dildoes.
I find that rather hard to believe. [But at least it's a testable hypothesis.]
Quote from: Kai on January 11, 2010, 08:53:21 PM
Holy shit I'm away from this thread for half a day and look what I miss.
When I started arguing in here, it was against the statement "the scientific method is flawed".
I still can't find any flaw in it.
Also, I'd like people to tell me how it is possible to confidently test a hypothesis that is not falsifiable.
I'll give you a flaw - Science is much more dangerous that "magic".
To the nth degree.
Science has so far provided the arrow, the gun, the tank, the fire and forget missile and nuclear warheads to idiot fucking monkeys. Hustle accuses magic of giving a hand grenade to a monkey. Bullshit! Science gave the monkey the hand grenade. All magic ever did in the wrong hands was reduce the monkey to a gibbering wreck and/or wear dumb hats.
You wanna talk about banning practices to save humanity? Fine. Let's start with the really dangerous ones - lets start with Science.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 09:14:42 PM
Science has so far provided the arrow, the gun, the tank, the fire and forget missile and nuclear warheads to idiot fucking monkeys.
And pennicillin, electric light, aspirin, this computer,
and the strap on dildo that is this thread.
Right.
Kill science.
Prove magic didn't assist in the creation of all those things.
Use science to do so.
... okay I'm trolling now. I'll stop :oops:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 09:18:40 PM
Prove magic didn't assist in the creation of all those things.
Use science to do so.
... okay I'm trolling now. I'll stop :oops:
This thread is killing PD. Also, it made my sammich go stale. :crankey:
:?
This thread gave me the clap.
Eating cereal usually solves that
I think this thread has 50 pages in it.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 11, 2010, 09:27:06 PM
I think this thread has 50 pages in it.
I think the next 8 pages just gave me hookworm.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 07:34:04 PM
An idiot is going to believe all sorts of stupid stuff about pretty much anything you put in front of them. Doesn't invalidate the significance of the thing they misunderstood from the outset. Plus it potentially makes the idiot more obvious, since they're likely to be wearing really dumb looking shit and talking inane, pseudo mystiqual bollix. Win-win in my book.
However, having a go at people who you should by now realise aren't these sorts of idiots, on the strength of what the idiots get up to seems a bit harsh IMO.
Like pointing and saying "ha, ha, you like dumb shit". I don't point and laugh at you for claiming to read a book just because most of the books currently being read are fucking Harry Potter and the Twilight series, do I?
THIS.And I thought I would never agree with Pent about anything.
Even though he's hawt.
This thread has given me the consumption.
cereal!
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 11, 2010, 09:34:35 PM
This thread has given me the consumption.
This thread has given me diptheria. And the mange.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 07:21:50 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Oh really?
Does the bouquet think he's a match for me?
Do you want to find out, pretty thing?
I would enjoy pinning you.
Try it, try anything, lets see you do anything other then get hysterical. I'm calling you out, can you do anything other then throw a hissy fit?
I'm currently lying on my death bed, surrounded by concerned friends and relatives, and as I strain to whisper my final words, I cough up blood daintily onto the lacy handkerchief I hold and pass from this world of mud and tears.
All because of this thread.
Aw, fuck.
I think I'm gonna take a break. I'm not watching two of the smartest people I know beat the shit out of each other for no fucking reason.
Will someone let me know when this shit is over? drhowl123@yahoo.com
Also, Dildoes can be used in Magical Rituals.
:lulz:
My cereal ran out and its your fault :(
Okay, I'm not done yet.
I'm gonna make a prediction. Faust and Nigel, who have been friends for a couple of years, will now enter a pissing contest in which things will be said that can't be unsaid, and things won't ever be quite the same between them again.
Because neither one knows how to stop without feeling like the beta monkey.
Ook.
TGRR,
Knows you CAN actually just stop.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 09:59:29 PM
Okay, I'm not done yet.
I'm gonna make a prediction. Faust and Nigel, who have been friends for a couple of years, will now enter a pissing contest in which things will be said that can't be unsaid, and things won't ever be quite the same between them again.
Because neither one knows how to stop without feeling like the beta monkey.
Ook.
TGRR,
Knows you CAN actually just stop.
Good prediction, did you read that in the Tarot?! :wink:
Aww, thats just getting annoying.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 09:47:12 PM
Also, Dildoes can be used in Magical Rituals.
:lulz:
(http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k91/AliceChaos/penn_jillette.gif)
Quote from: NotPublished on January 11, 2010, 10:02:18 PM
Aww, thats just getting annoying.
The last 7 pages of a 50 page thread get that way... but we must press on!
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 09:38:10 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 07:21:50 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
shut up, go to bed.
Oh for fuck's sake, the wallpaper has something to say.
You make a lot of posts but its rare that you ever say anything. I actively ignore this place whenever I am busy, call me wallpaper if you want.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Faust, I have a compliment for you. You are a pretty thing.
Go to bed.
Oh, did the pretty thing wake up for a moment?
not really, keeping it civil drunken wench, for your benefit.
Oh really?
Does the bouquet think he's a match for me?
Do you want to find out, pretty thing?
I would enjoy pinning you.
Try it, try anything, lets see you do anything other then get hysterical. I'm calling you out, can you do anything other then throw a hissy fit?
That was soft.
Prediction: Nothing will ever break me out of my assured sense of superiority, and nothing will ever break Faust out of his comfortable cocoon.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 11, 2010, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 09:59:29 PM
Okay, I'm not done yet.
I'm gonna make a prediction. Faust and Nigel, who have been friends for a couple of years, will now enter a pissing contest in which things will be said that can't be unsaid, and things won't ever be quite the same between them again.
Because neither one knows how to stop without feeling like the beta monkey.
Ook.
TGRR,
Knows you CAN actually just stop.
Good prediction, did you read that in the Tarot?! :wink:
Thanks for the help.
Asshole.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 09:59:29 PM
Okay, I'm not done yet.
I'm gonna make a prediction. Faust and Nigel, who have been friends for a couple of years, will now enter a pissing contest in which things will be said that can't be unsaid, and things won't ever be quite the same between them again.
Because neither one knows how to stop without feeling like the beta monkey.
Ook.
TGRR,
Knows you CAN actually just stop.
Your right, I dont need to keep this up, my mild curiosity to see what bug got up her ass is only that, mild, I have nothing to prove, so i won't be keeping this up.
Quote from: Faust on January 11, 2010, 10:22:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2010, 09:59:29 PM
Okay, I'm not done yet.
I'm gonna make a prediction. Faust and Nigel, who have been friends for a couple of years, will now enter a pissing contest in which things will be said that can't be unsaid, and things won't ever be quite the same between them again.
Because neither one knows how to stop without feeling like the beta monkey.
Ook.
TGRR,
Knows you CAN actually just stop.
Your right, I dont need to keep this up, my mild curiosity to see what bug got up her ass is only that, mild, I have nothing to prove, so i won't be keeping this up.
I loled. Hollowly.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 07:34:04 PM
An idiot is going to believe all sorts of stupid stuff about pretty much anything you put in front of them. Doesn't invalidate the significance of the thing they misunderstood from the outset. Plus it potentially makes the idiot more obvious, since they're likely to be wearing really dumb looking shit and talking inane, pseudo mystiqual bollix. Win-win in my book.
However, having a go at people who you should by now realise aren't these sorts of idiots, on the strength of what the idiots get up to seems a bit harsh IMO.
Like pointing and saying "ha, ha, you like dumb shit". I don't point and laugh at you for claiming to read a book just because most of the books currently being read are fucking Harry Potter and the Twilight series, do I?
THIS.
And I thought I would never agree with Pent about anything.
Even though he's hawt.
If it's any consolation I was joking.
LOL SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT 8)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 11:10:21 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 07:34:04 PM
An idiot is going to believe all sorts of stupid stuff about pretty much anything you put in front of them. Doesn't invalidate the significance of the thing they misunderstood from the outset. Plus it potentially makes the idiot more obvious, since they're likely to be wearing really dumb looking shit and talking inane, pseudo mystiqual bollix. Win-win in my book.
However, having a go at people who you should by now realise aren't these sorts of idiots, on the strength of what the idiots get up to seems a bit harsh IMO.
Like pointing and saying "ha, ha, you like dumb shit". I don't point and laugh at you for claiming to read a book just because most of the books currently being read are fucking Harry Potter and the Twilight series, do I?
THIS.
And I thought I would never agree with Pent about anything.
Even though he's hawt.
If it's any consolation I was joking.
LOL SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT 8)
Whatever. Still fappable. As are Faust and 000.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 11:13:52 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 11:10:21 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 07:34:04 PM
An idiot is going to believe all sorts of stupid stuff about pretty much anything you put in front of them. Doesn't invalidate the significance of the thing they misunderstood from the outset. Plus it potentially makes the idiot more obvious, since they're likely to be wearing really dumb looking shit and talking inane, pseudo mystiqual bollix. Win-win in my book.
However, having a go at people who you should by now realise aren't these sorts of idiots, on the strength of what the idiots get up to seems a bit harsh IMO.
Like pointing and saying "ha, ha, you like dumb shit". I don't point and laugh at you for claiming to read a book just because most of the books currently being read are fucking Harry Potter and the Twilight series, do I?
THIS.
And I thought I would never agree with Pent about anything.
Even though he's hawt.
If it's any consolation I was joking.
LOL SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT 8)
Whatever. Still fappable. As are Faust and 000.
:cry:
I'm about to read the last ten pages or so. My predicted response is: FUCK!!!
edit. What ended up happening: Got through three pages, then FUCK!!! I'M NOT READING THIS
yeah, you certainly didn't miss anything worthwhile.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 12:25:42 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 11:13:52 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 11:10:21 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 07:34:04 PM
An idiot is going to believe all sorts of stupid stuff about pretty much anything you put in front of them. Doesn't invalidate the significance of the thing they misunderstood from the outset. Plus it potentially makes the idiot more obvious, since they're likely to be wearing really dumb looking shit and talking inane, pseudo mystiqual bollix. Win-win in my book.
However, having a go at people who you should by now realise aren't these sorts of idiots, on the strength of what the idiots get up to seems a bit harsh IMO.
Like pointing and saying "ha, ha, you like dumb shit". I don't point and laugh at you for claiming to read a book just because most of the books currently being read are fucking Harry Potter and the Twilight series, do I?
THIS.
And I thought I would never agree with Pent about anything.
Even though he's hawt.
If it's any consolation I was joking.
LOL SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT 8)
Whatever. Still fappable. As are Faust and 000.
:cry:
Shut UP. You and your hair. How inclusive can I be in one thread? You all know.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 12:25:42 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 11:13:52 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 11:10:21 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 11, 2010, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2010, 07:34:04 PM
An idiot is going to believe all sorts of stupid stuff about pretty much anything you put in front of them. Doesn't invalidate the significance of the thing they misunderstood from the outset. Plus it potentially makes the idiot more obvious, since they're likely to be wearing really dumb looking shit and talking inane, pseudo mystiqual bollix. Win-win in my book.
However, having a go at people who you should by now realise aren't these sorts of idiots, on the strength of what the idiots get up to seems a bit harsh IMO.
Like pointing and saying "ha, ha, you like dumb shit". I don't point and laugh at you for claiming to read a book just because most of the books currently being read are fucking Harry Potter and the Twilight series, do I?
THIS.
And I thought I would never agree with Pent about anything.
Even though he's hawt.
If it's any consolation I was joking.
LOL SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT 8)
Whatever. Still fappable. As are Faust and 000.
:cry:
People who live in Ohio are not fappable. Is sad truth.
Except Fred.
It's the hair. I makes him look like a filthy pot head.
Well, just for that, I'm getting it cut.
O_o
Im gonna put on my magical hawaiian shirt and shorts, so that this fucking 0ºC cold stops bothering me; also, im gonna stuff coal up my rectum, while i chant "I wanna go to africa" as a ritual hymn to Rah.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 01:31:54 PM
Im gonna put on my magical hawaiian shirt and shorts, so that this fucking 0ºC cold stops bothering me; also, im gonna stuff coal up my rectum, while i chant "I wanna go to africa" as a ritual hymn to Rah.
There's Only One God
He Is The Sun God
Isis Isis
Ra Ra RA
(but only if you do it in ancient 'cheerleader chant')
taht's from the illuminatus trilogy, right?
never noticed it was a cheerleader chant before :D :D wonder if they did it like that in the audio book version? [or maybe I didnt get to that part, I didnt entirely finish the audio book].
so um this might be a dumb question, but if there is only one god, and he is the sun god, why does the chant include Isis?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 01:31:54 PM
Im gonna put on my magical hawaiian shirt and shorts, so that this fucking 0ºC cold stops bothering me; also, im gonna stuff coal up my rectum, while i chant "I wanna go to africa" as a ritual hymn to Rah.
There's Only One God
He Is The Sun God
Isis Isis
Ra Ra RA
(but only if you do it in ancient 'cheerleader chant')
Are you mocking my magical ritual? What if its the only way i have to keep warm? You prick.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2010, 02:03:26 PM
taht's from the illuminatus trilogy, right?
never noticed it was a cheerleader chant before :D :D wonder if they did it like that in the audio book version? [or maybe I didnt get to that part, I didnt entirely finish the audio book].
so um this might be a dumb question, but if there is only one god, and he is the sun god, why does the chant include Isis?
The cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one. The Sun God was worshiped over all other Gods by that cult (the other gods existed, but were weenies). Oddly, worshiping the Sun God (the Father) ended up behaving much like fundamental Christianity in Egypt. Some say its a factor in monotheism, if you KNOW Ra is the ONLY GOD, then you get pissed at everyone else (ala 2nd circuit)... Others that play with 'archetypes' find strong correlations between Ra as worshiped by Akhenaten and some aspects of the 'Father' in Christianity (and the Son in Osiris).
However, the really, real best bit... is that its a slam at Catholics.
Isis was the 'Mother Goddess', so the monotheistic Ra worshipers were also (in his chant) worshiping Isis... just as the 'monotheistic' Catholics pray to Mary:
There's only One God
He is The Son God
Mary, Mary
Jesus Christ!
:lulz:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 02:05:51 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 01:31:54 PM
Im gonna put on my magical hawaiian shirt and shorts, so that this fucking 0ºC cold stops bothering me; also, im gonna stuff coal up my rectum, while i chant "I wanna go to africa" as a ritual hymn to Rah.
There's Only One God
He Is The Sun God
Isis Isis
Ra Ra RA
(but only if you do it in ancient 'cheerleader chant')
Are you mocking my magical ritual? What if its the only way i have to keep warm? You prick.
But that ritual will make you laugh if you do it right... and that will warm you.
Ratatosk's hair is dildoes.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2010, 02:03:26 PM
taht's from the illuminatus trilogy, right?
never noticed it was a cheerleader chant before :D :D wonder if they did it like that in the audio book version? [or maybe I didnt get to that part, I didnt entirely finish the audio book].
so um this might be a dumb question, but if there is only one god, and he is the sun god, why does the chant include Isis?
The cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one. The Sun God was worshiped over all other Gods by that cult (the other gods existed, but were weenies). Oddly, worshiping the Sun God (the Father) ended up behaving much like fundamental Christianity in Egypt. Some say its a factor in monotheism, if you KNOW Ra is the ONLY GOD, then you get pissed at everyone else (ala 2nd circuit)... Others that play with 'archetypes' find strong correlations between Ra as worshiped by Akhenaten and some aspects of the 'Father' in Christianity (and the Son in Osiris).
However, the really, real best bit... is that its a slam at Catholics.
Isis was the 'Mother Goddess', so the monotheistic Ra worshipers were also (in his chant) worshiping Isis... just as the 'monotheistic' Catholics pray to Mary:
Quote from: Wiktionarymonotheistic (not comparable)
1. (religion) Believing in a single god, deity, spirit, etc., especially for an organized religion, faith, or creed.
Quote from: Wiktionarypolytheism (plural polytheisms)
1. The belief of the existence of many gods.
Mary might be ascended, but shes not a goddess.
The only thing you could try to slide is that the "holy trinity" is a sign of polytheism in an apparent monotheism, but thats just spinning yarns.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 02:50:00 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 02:05:51 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 01:31:54 PM
Im gonna put on my magical hawaiian shirt and shorts, so that this fucking 0ºC cold stops bothering me; also, im gonna stuff coal up my rectum, while i chant "I wanna go to africa" as a ritual hymn to Rah.
There's Only One God
He Is The Sun God
Isis Isis
Ra Ra RA
(but only if you do it in ancient 'cheerleader chant')
Are you mocking my magical ritual? What if its the only way i have to keep warm? You prick.
But that ritual will make you laugh if you do it right... and that will warm you.
The grace of Rah, will make me laugh in joy, because his spirit rays shall be warming me.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2010, 02:03:26 PM
taht's from the illuminatus trilogy, right?
never noticed it was a cheerleader chant before :D :D wonder if they did it like that in the audio book version? [or maybe I didnt get to that part, I didnt entirely finish the audio book].
so um this might be a dumb question, but if there is only one god, and he is the sun god, why does the chant include Isis?
The cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one. The Sun God was worshiped over all other Gods by that cult (the other gods existed, but were weenies). Oddly, worshiping the Sun God (the Father) ended up behaving much like fundamental Christianity in Egypt. Some say its a factor in monotheism, if you KNOW Ra is the ONLY GOD, then you get pissed at everyone else (ala 2nd circuit)... Others that play with 'archetypes' find strong correlations between Ra as worshiped by Akhenaten and some aspects of the 'Father' in Christianity (and the Son in Osiris).
However, the really, real best bit... is that its a slam at Catholics.
Isis was the 'Mother Goddess', so the monotheistic Ra worshipers were also (in his chant) worshiping Isis... just as the 'monotheistic' Catholics pray to Mary:
Quote from: Wiktionarymonotheistic (not comparable)
1. (religion) Believing in a single god, deity, spirit, etc., especially for an organized religion, faith, or creed.
Quote from: Wiktionarypolytheism (plural polytheisms)
1. The belief of the existence of many gods.
Mary might be ascended, but shes not a goddess.
The only thing you could try to slide is that the "holy trinity" is a sign of polytheism in an apparent monotheism, but thats just spinning yarns.
Catholics tend to mix up their gods and their graven idols quite a bit. Virgin Mary is venerated, often to the point where the god(s) are ignored. Catholicism is thinly veiled polytheism, masquerading as monotheism. Considering its roots how could it be anything else?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 12, 2010, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2010, 02:03:26 PM
taht's from the illuminatus trilogy, right?
never noticed it was a cheerleader chant before :D :D wonder if they did it like that in the audio book version? [or maybe I didnt get to that part, I didnt entirely finish the audio book].
so um this might be a dumb question, but if there is only one god, and he is the sun god, why does the chant include Isis?
The cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one. The Sun God was worshiped over all other Gods by that cult (the other gods existed, but were weenies). Oddly, worshiping the Sun God (the Father) ended up behaving much like fundamental Christianity in Egypt. Some say its a factor in monotheism, if you KNOW Ra is the ONLY GOD, then you get pissed at everyone else (ala 2nd circuit)... Others that play with 'archetypes' find strong correlations between Ra as worshiped by Akhenaten and some aspects of the 'Father' in Christianity (and the Son in Osiris).
However, the really, real best bit... is that its a slam at Catholics.
Isis was the 'Mother Goddess', so the monotheistic Ra worshipers were also (in his chant) worshiping Isis... just as the 'monotheistic' Catholics pray to Mary:
Quote from: Wiktionarymonotheistic (not comparable)
1. (religion) Believing in a single god, deity, spirit, etc., especially for an organized religion, faith, or creed.
Quote from: Wiktionarypolytheism (plural polytheisms)
1. The belief of the existence of many gods.
Mary might be ascended, but shes not a goddess.
The only thing you could try to slide is that the "holy trinity" is a sign of polytheism in an apparent monotheism, but thats just spinning yarns.
Catholics tend to mix up their gods and their graven idols quite a bit. Virgin Mary is venerated, often to the point where the god(s) are ignored. Catholicism is thinly veiled polytheism, masquerading as monotheism. Considering its roots how could it be anything else?
So are you saying that all religions are polytheistic?
Are angels minor gods?You know what, nevermind, i dont want to argue about definitions of stuff that is jibberish anyways.
I'm saying that a desperate last ditch attempt to hold together a crumbling empire who's population are almost exclusively polytheistic is going to have to have elements of polytheism in there. Sugar coating for the pill that's about to be rammed down the populace's throat. The fact that it worked is testament to how good an editing job the nicene council actually managed to pull off. All the shit that those pagan assholes always claim about them hijacking the existing festivals - that's pretty much true after a fashion.
Karl Jung and Joseph Campbell would argue that the veneration of Mary as 'Mother of God' is directly connected to a basic human archetype. The same archetype as filled by Isis and others throughout history... Moms are generally important to people.
Also, Pent is correct in tying the weird Catholic 'monotheism-ish' with the early recruitment plans of the Church.
I wonder if the catholics used sigils and robes and funny hats and arcane rituals to assist them in recruiting otherwise damned souls?
hmm, yeah, I think they did. I think they also burned the people who couldn't see their way clear to convert to that particular brand of funny-hat-ism.
those funny hats sure were useful tools.
They also used language and music and architecture. We ban those too?
who said anything about banning anything? you've got censorship on the brain.
There are lots of things that should not be banned and yet aren't good ideas either. This is why we prefer reasoning with people over legislating them.
also, I'm pretty sure the catholic church didn't burn people based on the language they spoke, the songs they listened to, or what their house looked like.
pretty sure it was all ostensibly based on whether or not they subscribed to the same funny-hatted rituals.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 12, 2010, 05:00:33 PM
I wonder if the catholics used sigils and robes and funny hats and arcane rituals to assist them in recruiting otherwise damned souls?
hmm, yeah, I think they did. I think they also burned the people who couldn't see their way clear to convert to that particular brand of funny-hat-ism.
those funny hats sure were useful tools.
Are you confusing 'ritual' and religion? Were the funny hats the reason they burned people or were their dogmatic beliefs, political goals, and consolidation of power the reason they burned people? Protestants generally eschew funny hats and they killed lots and lots of people, in fact, they're still killing lots of people in some countries.
There is a huge gulf between "practicing magic" and "religion". Some religions include magic, the Catholics through ritual and props 'use' similar tools. Some Wiccans participate in 'magic' but many do not (nevermind that they don't grok ritual as magic... but meh, they're Wiccans).
The transcendental paradigm and the magical paradigm, however are not the same.... Some would argue that they're not really even compatible. In the bool Liber Null, Pete Carroll lays out three paradigms which humans tend to be involved in (obvious caveat when dealing with labels here).
Materialistic - The universe is believed to consist fundamentally and entirely of matter. Energy is but a form of matter and together they subtend space and time within which all change occurs strictly on the basis of cause and effect. Human behavior is reducible to biology, biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry is reducible to physics and physics is reducible to mathematics. Mind and consciousness are thus merely electrochemical events in the brain and spirit is a word without objective content. The causes of some events are likely to remain obscure perhaps indefinitely, but there is an underlying faith that sufficient material cause must exist for any event. All human acts can be categorized as serving some biological need or as expressions of previously applied conditioning or merely as malfunction.
Transcendental - The essence of Transcendentalism is belief in spiritual beings greater than oneself or states of spiritual being superior to
that which currently one enjoys. Earthly life is frequently seen merely as a form of dialoque between oneself and one's deity or deities, or perhaps some impersonal form of higher force. The material world is a theatre for the spirit or soul or consciousness that created it. Spirit is the ultimate reality to the transcendentalist.
Magical - Reality can be manipulated as it is tied to our consciousness. Obviously, we're not talking about an 'Objective Reality', but rather the perceived reality. The 'magician' interacts with reality attempting to influence the direction. For the magician, all things contain 'information' (old magical systems used words like Mana, Aether... but they're basically talking about what we'd consider 'information' today). Information can be manipulated. Some parts of reality are very big, and have a lot of information, humans are not able to manipulate such large amounts of information, but they can perceive the information and capitalize on its likely flow/direction.
The materialist uses reality. The transcendentalist transcends reality. The magician plays with reality.
Now, there has been (particularly post-Renaissance and Victorian England eras) a lot of commingling of these systems, particularly the transcendent/magical paradigms. However, these systems are still generally focused on transcendence and merely use the 'magical' paradigm as a tool to recruit/manipulate their followers... or we get a hybrid like 'Wicca' where they believe in a transcendent reality and a subset of them believe in a 'participatory reality' where magic is a practicable art.
The vast majority of genocide, torture, conversion by the sword etc. are from views that are within the transcendental paradigm.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 12, 2010, 05:32:17 PM
who said anything about banning anything? you've got censorship on the brain.
There are lots of things that should not be banned and yet aren't good ideas either. This is why we prefer reasoning with people over legislating them.
The people you need to reason with are the majority of tards who use it who, by their very natures, aint all that likely to wise up but, hey, you wanna troll MW or TCC or whatever - be my guest - I genuinely wish you all the best it's something I'd describe as a worthy use of time and may just impact positively to a greater or lesser extent. At the very least it's easy lulz.
The ones you are currently talking to aint going to stop using it just because the rest of the tards refuse to and may or may not be fucking up the universe with their stupidity.
Unlike probably the majority of wizards and witches and whatever elses on the face of this planet who come across as wanting to justify their bullshit worldview as some way of reinforcing it's validity to themselves, I don't have a vested interest in selling this concept to people. I happen to see another (non supernatural) side to all this shit so I'll chime in when a debate kicks off but, tbh, I think you and me both know by now what I'm getting at. If not then I don't think I'll ever make it clear.
What's the position we're arguing if it's not censorship? You want me to stop or admit it's a very bad thing? I'll happily admit that a great many things are very bad things, including the trappings of religion and the occult. Are we even debating anything here anymore?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 12, 2010, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2010, 02:03:26 PM
taht's from the illuminatus trilogy, right?
never noticed it was a cheerleader chant before :D :D wonder if they did it like that in the audio book version? [or maybe I didnt get to that part, I didnt entirely finish the audio book].
so um this might be a dumb question, but if there is only one god, and he is the sun god, why does the chant include Isis?
The cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one. The Sun God was worshiped over all other Gods by that cult (the other gods existed, but were weenies). Oddly, worshiping the Sun God (the Father) ended up behaving much like fundamental Christianity in Egypt. Some say its a factor in monotheism, if you KNOW Ra is the ONLY GOD, then you get pissed at everyone else (ala 2nd circuit)... Others that play with 'archetypes' find strong correlations between Ra as worshiped by Akhenaten and some aspects of the 'Father' in Christianity (and the Son in Osiris).
However, the really, real best bit... is that its a slam at Catholics.
Isis was the 'Mother Goddess', so the monotheistic Ra worshipers were also (in his chant) worshiping Isis... just as the 'monotheistic' Catholics pray to Mary:
Quote from: Wiktionarymonotheistic (not comparable)
1. (religion) Believing in a single god, deity, spirit, etc., especially for an organized religion, faith, or creed.
Quote from: Wiktionarypolytheism (plural polytheisms)
1. The belief of the existence of many gods.
Mary might be ascended, but shes not a goddess.
The only thing you could try to slide is that the "holy trinity" is a sign of polytheism in an apparent monotheism, but thats just spinning yarns.
Catholics tend to mix up their gods and their graven idols quite a bit. Virgin Mary is venerated, often to the point where the god(s) are ignored. Catholicism is thinly veiled polytheism, masquerading as monotheism. Considering its roots how could it be anything else?
Hehehe, We had basically this exact debate on TCC. If Brigid gets dragged into it I am going to lose it.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 12, 2010, 08:17:20 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 12, 2010, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 12, 2010, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2010, 02:03:26 PM
taht's from the illuminatus trilogy, right?
never noticed it was a cheerleader chant before :D :D wonder if they did it like that in the audio book version? [or maybe I didnt get to that part, I didnt entirely finish the audio book].
so um this might be a dumb question, but if there is only one god, and he is the sun god, why does the chant include Isis?
The cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one. The Sun God was worshiped over all other Gods by that cult (the other gods existed, but were weenies). Oddly, worshiping the Sun God (the Father) ended up behaving much like fundamental Christianity in Egypt. Some say its a factor in monotheism, if you KNOW Ra is the ONLY GOD, then you get pissed at everyone else (ala 2nd circuit)... Others that play with 'archetypes' find strong correlations between Ra as worshiped by Akhenaten and some aspects of the 'Father' in Christianity (and the Son in Osiris).
However, the really, real best bit... is that its a slam at Catholics.
Isis was the 'Mother Goddess', so the monotheistic Ra worshipers were also (in his chant) worshiping Isis... just as the 'monotheistic' Catholics pray to Mary:
Quote from: Wiktionarymonotheistic (not comparable)
1. (religion) Believing in a single god, deity, spirit, etc., especially for an organized religion, faith, or creed.
Quote from: Wiktionarypolytheism (plural polytheisms)
1. The belief of the existence of many gods.
Mary might be ascended, but shes not a goddess.
The only thing you could try to slide is that the "holy trinity" is a sign of polytheism in an apparent monotheism, but thats just spinning yarns.
Catholics tend to mix up their gods and their graven idols quite a bit. Virgin Mary is venerated, often to the point where the god(s) are ignored. Catholicism is thinly veiled polytheism, masquerading as monotheism. Considering its roots how could it be anything else?
Hehehe, We had basically this exact debate on TCC. If Brigid gets dragged into it I am going to lose it.
Well if you want to look at it that way then yeah, Brigid and her ilk were being used to control the stoopids long time before jesus and co showed up on the scene. All the one true god did was made globalisation and central control easier to administer which, lets not forget, was the whole point of the exercise in the first place. Not stopping the wycches from casting magiqual spells on people. :lulz:
Also keep in mind that the Bible speaks of 'Gods'. That there is one Almighty God, doesn't mean that there are not other 'Gods'. Paul lists Satan as a God in 2 Cor. 4 (The God of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers).
Elohim in Hebrew was a name for God, but also a plural term used to denote powerful beings like angels. As Saints are considered greater than the Angels, they too would be elohim or 'gods' (as opposed to Almighty God YHVH).
Generally speaking Catholicism has an almighty God which they equate with YHVH of the Hebrews and Jesus. However, they use the Saints as some polytheistic religions of the past used 'lesser gods'... conduits to the Top Dude.
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
ETA: I'm gonna have to add an UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! here, as the standard gesture of respect to the expert who gets everything wrong.
Its dildoes, all the way down.
But Egyptian-style dildoes, with little cartouches carved into them, you know, for people who think Ankenaten worshiped Ra. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
After years of agony provoked by the complete FAIL of this thread, i can finally rest in peace knowing that i managed to last enough to actually learn something.
<dies>
(http://www.indexarte.com.ar/imgs/obras/last-die-1945.jpg)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
ETA: I'm gonna have to add an UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! here, as the standard gesture of respect to the expert who gets everything wrong.
EDITED FOR CLARITY:
QuoteThe cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one
Akhenaten equated Aten and Ra as one and the same. He was the Sun God of Midday... remember the Egyptians didn't have single duty deities. They had incarnations/aspects and those incarnation/aspects were often given their own names, much like the Hindu system.
The Aten was named Ra-Horus-Aten, because he was an aspect of Ra and included aspects of Horus.
The worship of a singular deity out of the pantheon was not original to Akhenaten (he was just the guy that tried to force it down other people's throats). Ra's followers had been trending that direction since the Middle Kingdom.
As for Religion and Ritual/Magic... they are not the same.
Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose existence. It generally includes some supernatural deity and a moral code.
Ritual is a series of actions performed mostly for their symbolic value. It 'can' be religious, it 'can' be based on the society you live in and not 'religious', it can be completely devoid of religion.
Masonic rituals, for example are not religious rituals.
Magic rituals may or may not be religious depending on the context and practitioners. For example, a Wiccan coven casting a circle and performing the Great Rite is religious ritual because its tied directly to their beliefs and their supernatural views. Antero Alli, performing a ritual with Para-theatrics is not religious at all, since there's no moral code, no supernatural entity and a lack of any required 'beliefs' or views on why/how the Universe got here.
Come on Page 50... and DILDOES!
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
ETA: I'm gonna have to add an UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! here, as the standard gesture of respect to the expert who gets everything wrong.
Again, you're wrong twice over.
QuoteThe cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one
Learn to History.
I notice you didn't link to your source, asshole.
While it's true that Aten
originally was an aspect of Ra, during the reign of Ankenaten he was viewed as a different god with a different role, as a quick trip to Wikipedia would have shown you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten Ra as such was NEVER worshiped monotheistically.
LEARN 2 FUCKING READ, DUMBSHIT.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 12, 2010, 05:53:47 PM
What's the position we're arguing if it's not censorship? You want me to stop or admit it's a very bad thing? I'll happily admit that a great many things are very bad things, including the trappings of religion and the occult. Are we even debating anything here anymore?
I guess we aren't.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:48:29 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
ETA: I'm gonna have to add an UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! here, as the standard gesture of respect to the expert who gets everything wrong.
Again, you're wrong twice over.
QuoteThe cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one
Learn to History.
I notice you didn't link to your source, asshole.
While it's true that Aten originally was an aspect of Ra, during the reign of Ankenaten he was viewed as a different god with a different role, as a quick trip to Wikipedia would have shown you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten Ra as such was NEVER worshiped monotheistically.
LEARN 2 FUCKING READ, DUMBSHIT.
you can't argue with someone who honestly believes we can all be right at the same time, depending on what "model" we're using.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:48:29 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
ETA: I'm gonna have to add an UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! here, as the standard gesture of respect to the expert who gets everything wrong.
Again, you're wrong twice over.
QuoteThe cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one
Learn to History.
I notice you didn't link to your source, asshole.
While it's true that Aten originally was an aspect of Ra, during the reign of Ankenaten he was viewed as a different god with a different role, as a quick trip to Wikipedia would have shown you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten Ra as such was NEVER worshiped monotheistically.
LEARN 2 FUCKING READ, DUMBSHIT.
More than read... learn to history.
Ra, from his earliest worship at Heliopolis to the end of the New Kingdom had several names, he had aspects which at different times were kinda of worshiped as different gods and at times were all Ra.
"The Aten" at least based on the poetry we have left, was originally an object, the Egg of Ra. Eventually the object was venerated (as we have priests of The Aten at Heliopolis). Ankenaten though equated Ra and Aten (no longer The Aten, but Aten an aspect of Ra).
Wikipedia, as that bastion of great and trustworthy information does actually make this point, but only in the topic on "Ra":
QuoteDuring the New Kingdom, the worship of Ra became more complicated and grandeur. The walls of tombs were dedicated to extremely detailed texts that told of Ra's journey through the underworld. Ra was said to carry the prayers and blessings of the living with the souls of the dead on the sun boat. The idea that Ra aged with the sun became more popular with the rise of The New Kingdom. Eventually, during the reign of Akhenaten(mid 1350s-1330s), the worship reached the level of "uncompromising monotheism" [/i
Ra and Aten are the same 'God'... they are different incarnations and Ankenaten gave him greater power and greater importance... but it was still Ra. In fact, Ankenaten claimed that the earlier belief that he was the Sun God was merely metaphorical and in fact he was the ONLY GOD. Up until the 9th year of his reign, Aten was pictured with the traditional Hawk's Head image of Ra. This representation stopped, not because Aten was not Ra, but because Ankenaten outlawed idols etc.
Aten can be seen as a deity, but not as a deity completely separate from Ra. He is an incarnation of Ra, an expounded, more powerful interpretation of the Sun God which eventually lead to him being the Sole God (as the 'Great Hymn' describes).
That is, while Ankenaten was pissing on Osiris and Amon-Ra etc... He did not pit Atun against Ra, rather he equated them as the same entity, with Aten being a 'better understanding' of Ra.. the fuller view that he's NOT ONLY the god of the Sun, but the God of everything.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 12, 2010, 10:03:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:48:29 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
ETA: I'm gonna have to add an UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! here, as the standard gesture of respect to the expert who gets everything wrong.
Again, you're wrong twice over.
QuoteThe cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one
Learn to History.
I notice you didn't link to your source, asshole.
While it's true that Aten originally was an aspect of Ra, during the reign of Ankenaten he was viewed as a different god with a different role, as a quick trip to Wikipedia would have shown you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten Ra as such was NEVER worshiped monotheistically.
LEARN 2 FUCKING READ, DUMBSHIT.
you can't argue with someone who honestly believes we can all be right at the same time, depending on what "model" we're using.
Err, I definitely don't believe that. I have never said that everyone is right depending on their model. Some models are terrible. Some are useful for some things, others are useful for other things. If you use the wrong model, you're wrong.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 05:48:41 PM
Are you confusing 'ritual' and religion?
There's no difference.
Getting ready for work in the morning is a daily ritual for me. I brush my teeth, shave, shower, deodorize, there is a set way I do this and I stick to my little ritual, it leaves me feeling awake and ready for the day. That doesn't mean there is anything religious about it.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 12, 2010, 10:03:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:48:29 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
ETA: I'm gonna have to add an UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! here, as the standard gesture of respect to the expert who gets everything wrong.
Again, you're wrong twice over.
QuoteThe cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one
Learn to History.
I notice you didn't link to your source, asshole.
While it's true that Aten originally was an aspect of Ra, during the reign of Ankenaten he was viewed as a different god with a different role, as a quick trip to Wikipedia would have shown you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten Ra as such was NEVER worshiped monotheistically.
LEARN 2 FUCKING READ, DUMBSHIT.
you can't argue with someone who honestly believes we can all be right at the same time, depending on what "model" we're using.
I'm not arguing so much as taking the piss. I've been wanting to do this since he trashed my psycho letter just for cheap kicks.
One good turn deserves another.
"WE CAN BE DILDOES... JUST FOR ONE DAY!"
\
(http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album-David-Bowie-Heroes.jpg)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 11:15:32 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 12, 2010, 10:03:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:48:29 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on January 12, 2010, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
Ra worshippers weren't monotheistic. Someone is confusing "Ra" and "Aten".
ETA: I'm gonna have to add an UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! here, as the standard gesture of respect to the expert who gets everything wrong.
Again, you're wrong twice over.
QuoteThe cult of Ra (the Sun God) during the New Kingdom, esp under the rule of Akhenaten was a monotheistic one
Learn to History.
I notice you didn't link to your source, asshole.
While it's true that Aten originally was an aspect of Ra, during the reign of Ankenaten he was viewed as a different god with a different role, as a quick trip to Wikipedia would have shown you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten Ra as such was NEVER worshiped monotheistically.
LEARN 2 FUCKING READ, DUMBSHIT.
you can't argue with someone who honestly believes we can all be right at the same time, depending on what "model" we're using.
I'm not arguing so much as taking the piss. I've been wanting to do this since he trashed my psycho letter just for cheap kicks.
One good turn deserves another.
I figured you were just arguing for fun...
Ah! PD.com the real Argument Clinic :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2010, 09:32:23 PM
Its dildoes, all the way down.
See, this made the whole thread worth it. :lulz:
Thank Goddess this thread didnt make it to 50 pages.
This thread needs at least one whole page of :barstool:
:lol: how fitting (http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Quantum).
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 14, 2010, 04:27:57 PM
This thread needs at least one whole page of :barstool:
Like I was trying to explain last time I argued magic the barstool is actually an arguement FOR funny hats.
In the parable of the barstool the fact that the barstool is actually, truly, mostly space doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that if you are hit with it, it hurts.
The fact that the laws and assumptions regarding magic may be complete bullshit doesn't change the fact that it works (in some cases) and it works better if you accept those rules and laws. So the barstool says, the funny hats and the robes may be bullshit, but they still hurt if you get hit in the head with them.
I think the real moral of the story is: we shouldnt drink.
Because it provokes senseless blabbing which will make you get hurt.
Dont drink!
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 14, 2010, 11:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 14, 2010, 04:27:57 PM
This thread needs at least one whole page of :barstool:
Like I was trying to explain last time I argued magic the barstool is actually an arguement FOR funny hats.
In the parable of the barstool the fact that the barstool is actually, truly, mostly space doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that if you are hit with it, it hurts.
The fact that the laws and assumptions regarding magic may be complete bullshit doesn't change the fact that it works (in some cases) and it works better if you accept those rules and laws. So the barstool says, the funny hats and the robes may be bullshit, but they still hurt if you get hit in the head with them.
wow. way to miss the point as completely as anyone I've ever seen. for your analogy to work, the funny hats and the robes would have to hurt ME solely because YOU believed they would.
Man, it's like trying to tell children to stop picking their nose.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 15, 2010, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 14, 2010, 11:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 14, 2010, 04:27:57 PM
This thread needs at least one whole page of :barstool:
Like I was trying to explain last time I argued magic the barstool is actually an arguement FOR funny hats.
In the parable of the barstool the fact that the barstool is actually, truly, mostly space doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that if you are hit with it, it hurts.
The fact that the laws and assumptions regarding magic may be complete bullshit doesn't change the fact that it works (in some cases) and it works better if you accept those rules and laws. So the barstool says, the funny hats and the robes may be bullshit, but they still hurt if you get hit in the head with them.
wow. way to miss the point as completely as anyone I've ever seen. for your analogy to work, the funny hats and the robes would have to hurt ME solely because YOU believed they would.
Nope. The barstool doesn't hurt you because I believe it will. It hurts you because it's a barstool.
:cramstipated:
oh, and dildoes.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 12:42:47 AM
oh, and dildoes.
if dildos hurt you're doing it wrong . . .
Come on guys! We can do this! Go go 50!
:barstool: :barstool: :richter: :barstool: :barstool:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 01:55:35 AM
:barstool: :barstool: :richter: :barstool: :barstool:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 15, 2010, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 14, 2010, 11:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 14, 2010, 04:27:57 PM
This thread needs at least one whole page of :barstool:
Like I was trying to explain last time I argued magic the barstool is actually an arguement FOR funny hats.
In the parable of the barstool the fact that the barstool is actually, truly, mostly space doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that if you are hit with it, it hurts.
The fact that the laws and assumptions regarding magic may be complete bullshit doesn't change the fact that it works (in some cases) and it works better if you accept those rules and laws. So the barstool says, the funny hats and the robes may be bullshit, but they still hurt if you get hit in the head with them.
wow. way to miss the point as completely as anyone I've ever seen. for your analogy to work, the funny hats and the robes would have to hurt ME solely because YOU believed they would.
Nope. The barstool doesn't hurt you because I believe it will. It hurts you because it's a barstool.
what hurts me, right now, is having given 30 seconds of my life to both reading and responding to your abject idiocy.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 15, 2010, 02:15:30 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 15, 2010, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 14, 2010, 11:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 14, 2010, 04:27:57 PM
This thread needs at least one whole page of :barstool:
Like I was trying to explain last time I argued magic the barstool is actually an arguement FOR funny hats.
In the parable of the barstool the fact that the barstool is actually, truly, mostly space doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that if you are hit with it, it hurts.
The fact that the laws and assumptions regarding magic may be complete bullshit doesn't change the fact that it works (in some cases) and it works better if you accept those rules and laws. So the barstool says, the funny hats and the robes may be bullshit, but they still hurt if you get hit in the head with them.
wow. way to miss the point as completely as anyone I've ever seen. for your analogy to work, the funny hats and the robes would have to hurt ME solely because YOU believed they would.
Nope. The barstool doesn't hurt you because I believe it will. It hurts you because it's a barstool.
what hurts me, right now, is having given 30 seconds of my life to both reading and responding to your abject idiocy.
Poof! Maqghiquealism accomplished.
Quote from: MMIX on January 15, 2010, 01:37:59 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 15, 2010, 01:36:07 AM
Quote from: MMIX on January 15, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 12:42:47 AM
oh, and dildoes.
if dildos hurt you're doing it wrong . . .
But sometimes it can hurt so good.
good point . . .
Quote from: Richter on October 03, 2008, 12:39:13 AM
The Dildoes of Nigel
Oft mentioned in the same regard as the Iron Maiden of Nuremberg or the Rack of the White Tower, the Dildoes of Nigel hailed from one of the Inquisition's more terrifying periods. Mentioned only in scribbles at the back of the first edition Maleus Maleficarum, and often dismissed as a perverted scribes joke, the horrid truth is that these dildoes DID exist.
Excerpt as such:
"At such time that the nobility of ::obscured:: province began to accuse each other of heresy and witchcraft for their own profit, an Inquisitor was dispatched to discover the truth of the matter.
A suspect was brought before the court and asked to confess their heretical belief and practice. When refusing, they would be foretold that they would suffer torture to extract the truth, and the dildoes would be shown unto them. At the merest sight of these implements both the stoic and the frail, be they woman or man, confessed, preferring flames at the stake to torment upon the dildoes. This is moft fortunate, for in such time as elapsed since their last employment, that no agent of the inquisition knew how for to use them in the extraction of truth.
So terrible were they to the very mind of the sufpect, that even a doughty old gentle, renowned for deed on the field of war and at the hunt, believed to be hearty and tough in every way, did faint dead away at their sight. He was revived with a draught of strong vinegar,and promptly made his confession. He met death at the stake gladly, for the sight had caused him develop a moft horrible prolapfe of the bowelf.
it should be recorded that in dimension, thee Dildoes were a score and three ::unit of measure obscured: in length, and five ::unit ofmeasure obscured:: about the circumference.
May Lord God have mercy upon they who created and knew them!"
::Diagram obscured by varicoloredstain::
Quote from: Richter on January 15, 2010, 04:50:38 AM
Quote from: MMIX on January 15, 2010, 01:37:59 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on January 15, 2010, 01:36:07 AM
Quote from: MMIX on January 15, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 12:42:47 AM
oh, and dildoes.
if dildos hurt you're doing it wrong . . .
But sometimes it can hurt so good.
good point . . .
Quote from: Richter on October 03, 2008, 12:39:13 AM
The Dildoes of Nigel
Oft mentioned in the same regard as the Iron Maiden of Nuremberg or the Rack of the White Tower, the Dildoes of Nigel hailed from one of the Inquisition's more terrifying periods. Mentioned only in scribbles at the back of the first edition Maleus Maleficarum, and often dismissed as a perverted scribes joke, the horrid truth is that these dildoes DID exist.
Excerpt as such:
"At such time that the nobility of ::obscured:: province began to accuse each other of heresy and witchcraft for their own profit, an Inquisitor was dispatched to discover the truth of the matter.
A suspect was brought before the court and asked to confess their heretical belief and practice. When refusing, they would be foretold that they would suffer torture to extract the truth, and the dildoes would be shown unto them. At the merest sight of these implements both the stoic and the frail, be they woman or man, confessed, preferring flames at the stake to torment upon the dildoes. This is moft fortunate, for in such time as elapsed since their last employment, that no agent of the inquisition knew how for to use them in the extraction of truth.
So terrible were they to the very mind of the sufpect, that even a doughty old gentle, renowned for deed on the field of war and at the hunt, believed to be hearty and tough in every way, did faint dead away at their sight. He was revived with a draught of strong vinegar,and promptly made his confession. He met death at the stake gladly, for the sight had caused him develop a moft horrible prolapfe of the bowelf.
it should be recorded that in dimension, thee Dildoes were a score and three ::unit of measure obscured: in length, and five ::unit ofmeasure obscured:: about the circumference.
May Lord God have mercy upon they who created and knew them!"
::Diagram obscured by varicoloredstain::
The thread just started getting good... :lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 01:55:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) :richter: (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif)
FIXED THAT FOR YOU.
(allllll the way down, motherfucker)
Quote from: Burns on January 15, 2010, 05:19:47 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 01:55:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) :richter: (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif)
FIXED THAT FOR YOU.
(allllll the way down, motherfucker)
Oh hell yeah. Dildo party.
Quote from: Burns on January 15, 2010, 05:19:47 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 01:55:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) :richter: (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif)
FIXED THAT FOR YOU.
(allllll the way down, motherfucker)
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Quote from: Burns on January 15, 2010, 05:19:47 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 01:55:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) :richter: (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif)
FIXED THAT FOR YOU.
(allllll the way down, motherfucker)
That opens up a whole new interpretation of the mythos...
Quote from: JohNyx on January 15, 2010, 06:00:58 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 15, 2010, 05:19:47 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 15, 2010, 01:55:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) :richter: (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif) (http://i.imgur.com/srRGC.gif)
FIXED THAT FOR YOU.
(allllll the way down, motherfucker)
That opens up a whole new interpretation of the mythos...
Like magic
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 02:51:59 PM
"WE CAN BE DILDOES... JUST FOR ONE DAY!"
\
(http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album-David-Bowie-Heroes.jpg)
:mittens:
what the fuckles
:monkeydance: :barstool: :monkeydance:
Quote from: Burns on January 15, 2010, 12:18:53 AM
Man, it's like trying to tell children to stop picking their nose.
I think the problem is no one did say "Get your finger out of your damn nose" and some picked put their brains.....
Too late to fix the problem now!
Damn, now the whole fucking thread is NSFW with the flashing dildoes....
They already thought I was a twisted bitter lesbian....
Quote from: Khara on January 15, 2010, 10:18:34 PM
Damn, now the whole fucking thread is NSFW with the flashing dildoes....
They already thought I was a twisted bitter lesbian....
Hey, yeah, wtf? NSFW smileys?
Quote from: Khara on January 15, 2010, 10:18:34 PM
Damn, now the whole fucking thread is NSFW with the flashing dildoes....
They already thought I was a twisted bitter lesbian....
Yeah but they're the shiny black pvc bondage kind.
50 PAGES!
How are DILDOES NSFW???
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 15, 2010, 11:23:03 PM
How are DILDOES NSFW???
A drawing of a dildo would be as nsfw as a drawing of a dick, right? Am I missing something?
(http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/spiff_bucket/633815647868554625-dildos.jpg)
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 15, 2010, 06:22:01 PM
what the fuckles
:monkeydance: :barstool: :monkeydance:
Is that monkeydance graphic from the old DOS monkey island games?
Yup. Off-topic, but you can play them all again with ScummVM. It's the most fun I've had on my PSP. PM me if you want details.
I just had to..
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4057/253077785000000.png)
I will kill a motherfucker.
Lets just get this over with.
<Piles on 50 snowball.>
ALAKAZAM!
Fuckstick.
:spag:
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 15, 2010, 11:25:15 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 15, 2010, 11:23:03 PM
How are DILDOES NSFW???
A drawing of a dildo would be as nsfw as a drawing of a dick, right? Am I missing something?
Are drawings of dicks NSFW these days?
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 16, 2010, 05:59:15 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 15, 2010, 11:25:15 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 15, 2010, 11:23:03 PM
How are DILDOES NSFW???
A drawing of a dildo would be as nsfw as a drawing of a dick, right? Am I missing something?
Are drawings of dicks NSFW these days?
I don't see why one would draw the line between drawings and photos...drawings being able to get very realistic... but to answer your question I don't know. :?
How about sculpture?
http://www.florence-italy-apartments.com/images/Florence-David-Michelangelo.jpg
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 16, 2010, 06:47:11 AM
How about sculpture?
http://www.florence-italy-apartments.com/images/Florence-David-Michelangelo.jpg
FILTHY NASTY DIRTY SMASH IT WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2010, 06:49:35 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 16, 2010, 06:47:11 AM
How about sculpture?
http://www.florence-italy-apartments.com/images/Florence-David-Michelangelo.jpg
FILTHY NASTY DIRTY SMASH IT WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN
FOR MORAL INTEGRITY! AND JESUS!
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 16, 2010, 06:47:11 AM
How about sculpture?
http://www.florence-italy-apartments.com/images/Florence-David-Michelangelo.jpg
Huh, huh...it's still there.
/
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E8BpJEni77I/SaayHzP72fI/AAAAAAAAIUU/nW1za6rtihU/s400/bandb.jpg)
Well, we made it to 50 pages. Now what?
We let it sink, and then I bump it in 10 months time.
followed by an :argh!: or quite possibly a :crankey: but no doubt a :horrormirth:
then the obligatory :fap:
That this thread refuses to die clearly proves the existence of magic.
Quote from: Brotep on January 18, 2010, 05:10:25 PM
That this thread refuses to die clearly proves the existence of evil.
Fixed, and
:alevil:
I didn't mean to stir shit. The point is you are reading a thread and someone walks by and the flashing draws their attention, then they see that it is flashing dildoes and.....
In an office environment, it doesn't go over well. It has nothing to do with children, it's my job, the protection of the children comes when I can't feed them because I don't have a job.
If it's really such a big deal damn, I can just stop posting, especially since when I make a fucking comment, more shit is posted.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 16, 2010, 05:59:15 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 15, 2010, 11:25:15 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 15, 2010, 11:23:03 PM
How are DILDOES NSFW???
A drawing of a dildo would be as nsfw as a drawing of a dick, right? Am I missing something?
Are drawings of dicks NSFW these days?
I tend to err on the side of caution with that sort of thing. I'm sure there are some people here whose employers would look askance at a screen full of realistic-looking fake cocks on their workstation, though I'm also not going to mod the flashing dildo pics unless someone asks me to.
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 05:40:34 PM
I didn't mean to stir shit. The point is you are reading a thread and someone walks by and the flashing draws their attention, then they see that it is flashing dildoes and.....
In an office environment, it doesn't go over well. It has nothing to do with children, it's my job, the protection of the children comes when I can't feed them because I don't have a job.
If it's really such a big deal damn, I can just stop posting, especially since when I make a fucking comment, more shit is posted.
Oh wow, I didn't realize this was about you, again!
My bad.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 18, 2010, 06:29:23 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 05:40:34 PM
I didn't mean to stir shit. The point is you are reading a thread and someone walks by and the flashing draws their attention, then they see that it is flashing dildoes and.....
In an office environment, it doesn't go over well. It has nothing to do with children, it's my job, the protection of the children comes when I can't feed them because I don't have a job.
If it's really such a big deal damn, I can just stop posting, especially since when I make a fucking comment, more shit is posted.
Oh wow, I didn't realize this was about you, again!
My bad.
I am not the only one here who works in an office. Considering that mine is fairly laidback, I get away with a lot. However, the flashing pics push it.
You made a point of posting more crap about dildoes and penises after my comment. Don't know what your problem with me is, I have not tried to piss you off, but I would appreciate it if you stopped with me.
NSFW means "Not Safe For Work".
I'd say it's not any of our place to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't have to explain to their boss.
I'd also say that realistic-looking fake cocks are likely to be considered NSFW at most offices, and we should act accordingly. It's really not an imposition on anyone to link a pic instead of displaying it in the post.
no more dildoes? :cry:
Quote from: Regret on January 18, 2010, 08:38:26 PM
no more dildoes? :cry:
Now it's page 51. Thanks a lot.
Hey! Lets argue about theism vs. atheism so we get this to 100 pages !11!!
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 18, 2010, 06:29:23 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 05:40:34 PM
I didn't mean to stir shit. The point is you are reading a thread and someone walks by and the flashing draws their attention, then they see that it is flashing dildoes and.....
In an office environment, it doesn't go over well. It has nothing to do with children, it's my job, the protection of the children comes when I can't feed them because I don't have a job.
If it's really such a big deal damn, I can just stop posting, especially since when I make a fucking comment, more shit is posted.
Oh wow, I didn't realize this was about you, again!
My bad.
I am not the only one here who works in an office. Considering that mine is fairly laidback, I get away with a lot. However, the flashing pics push it.
You made a point of posting more crap about dildoes and penises after my comment. Don't know what your problem with me is, I have not tried to piss you off, but I would appreciate it if you stopped with me.
Hey Khara. Sorry about the big black flashing cock pic. I was so absorbed in the parody of the barstool it didn't occur to me that a giant flying flashing pleather space dildo would offend. :oops:
Quote from: Burns on January 18, 2010, 09:05:21 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 18, 2010, 06:29:23 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 05:40:34 PM
I didn't mean to stir shit. The point is you are reading a thread and someone walks by and the flashing draws their attention, then they see that it is flashing dildoes and.....
In an office environment, it doesn't go over well. It has nothing to do with children, it's my job, the protection of the children comes when I can't feed them because I don't have a job.
If it's really such a big deal damn, I can just stop posting, especially since when I make a fucking comment, more shit is posted.
Oh wow, I didn't realize this was about you, again!
My bad.
I am not the only one here who works in an office. Considering that mine is fairly laidback, I get away with a lot. However, the flashing pics push it.
You made a point of posting more crap about dildoes and penises after my comment. Don't know what your problem with me is, I have not tried to piss you off, but I would appreciate it if you stopped with me.
Hey Khara. Sorry about the big black flashing cock pic. I was so absorbed in the parody of the barstool it didn't occur to me that a giant flying flashing pleather space dildo would offend. :oops:
S'ok Burns. The whole fucking thing got blown OOP! It's a funny pic and if I hadn't been in the office, nor gotten caught......
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 16, 2010, 05:59:15 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 15, 2010, 11:25:15 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 15, 2010, 11:23:03 PM
How are DILDOES NSFW???
A drawing of a dildo would be as nsfw as a drawing of a dick, right? Am I missing something?
Are drawings of dicks NSFW these days?
unless its on an urn or a medical text yes. most workplaces would raise an eyebrow.
Bet you I can find NSFW medical penis drawings.
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 18, 2010, 06:29:23 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 05:40:34 PM
I didn't mean to stir shit. The point is you are reading a thread and someone walks by and the flashing draws their attention, then they see that it is flashing dildoes and.....
In an office environment, it doesn't go over well. It has nothing to do with children, it's my job, the protection of the children comes when I can't feed them because I don't have a job.
If it's really such a big deal damn, I can just stop posting, especially since when I make a fucking comment, more shit is posted.
Oh wow, I didn't realize this was about you, again!
My bad.
I am not the only one here who works in an office. Considering that mine is fairly laidback, I get away with a lot. However, the flashing pics push it.
You made a point of posting more crap about dildoes and penises after my comment. Don't know what your problem with me is, I have not tried to piss you off, but I would appreciate it if you stopped with me.
I wasn't even thinking about you, at all, just surprised by how your comment seemed to imply that you thought that this discussion was about you.
And, yes, I posted "more crap about dildoes and penises", as in, the words "dildo" and "penis", and a LINK to Michaelangelo's David. Again, nothing to do with you (at that point I hadn't even noticed that you'd posted - I'm sure I read your post, just didn't register that it was you) but because I was legitimately curious about what is off-limits these days. Either things have changed since I worked in a corporate environment, or the places I worked were really liberal; quite possibly the latter, because anything that could reasonably fall into the category of "art", such as drawings, paintings and sculpture, were fine to the extent that no one would have ever wondered whether they were OK or not. You wouldn't want a client to find drawings of dildoes on your screen, but no one at work would mistake it for you looking at porn on the job.
And me and TGRR riffed a little on protecting children from filth, ie. art.
Nothing to do with you, whatsoever. If it could be said that I have a problem with you, it's only to the extent that you tend to think things are about you when they're not.
The basic rule I go with is, if you were a tight-assed, career-minded manager with a flourescent tan and stress levels that would choke an elephant, and were obsessed with Politically Correct attitues and constantly worried about sexual harassment suits, what kind of visual content wouldn't give you a stroke?
True, a lot of PD.com content doesn't adhere to this, but I've learned how to be sneaky, and how to anticipate what a thread may contain.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 19, 2010, 07:37:41 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 18, 2010, 06:29:23 PM
Quote from: Khara on January 18, 2010, 05:40:34 PM
I didn't mean to stir shit. The point is you are reading a thread and someone walks by and the flashing draws their attention, then they see that it is flashing dildoes and.....
In an office environment, it doesn't go over well. It has nothing to do with children, it's my job, the protection of the children comes when I can't feed them because I don't have a job.
If it's really such a big deal damn, I can just stop posting, especially since when I make a fucking comment, more shit is posted.
Oh wow, I didn't realize this was about you, again!
My bad.
I am not the only one here who works in an office. Considering that mine is fairly laidback, I get away with a lot. However, the flashing pics push it.
You made a point of posting more crap about dildoes and penises after my comment. Don't know what your problem with me is, I have not tried to piss you off, but I would appreciate it if you stopped with me.
I wasn't even thinking about you, at all, just surprised by how your comment seemed to imply that you thought that this discussion was about you.
And, yes, I posted "crap about dildoes and penises", as in, the words "dildo" and "penis", and a LINK to Michaelangelo's David. Because I was legitimately curious about what is off-limits these days. Either things have changed since I worked in a corporate environment, or the places I worked were really liberal; quite possibly the latter, because anything that could reasonably fall into the category of "art", such as drawings, paintings and sculpture, were fine to the extent that no one would have ever wondered whether they were OK or not. You wouldn't want a client to find drawings of dildoes on your screen, but no one at work would mistake it for you looking at porn on the job.
And me and TGRR riffed a little on protecting children from filth, ie. art.
Nothing to do with you, whatsoever. If it could be said that I have a problem with you, it's only to the extent that you tend to think things are about you when they're not.
Well, as I had stated that the flashing dildoes really weren't safe for work, your posting of such further I took a bit personally. I do not work in an "arts" atmosphere, so that type of thing is not acceptable in the office where I work.
As for thinking things are about me, I have no clue where that is coming from. With only a couple of exceptions, no one here knows anything about me, so trying to judge my responses in posts to me turning it into being about me isn't really fair if you know nothing about me nor what I may or may not be thinking. Considering I rarely post, that whole "all about me" comment is BS and I think you know it.
Be that as it may, it's done and has been addressed. We can just drop it now.
Quote from: Horrendous Foreign Love Stoat on January 20, 2010, 08:28:58 AM
QuoteBe that as it may, it's done and has been addressed. We can just drop it now.
untill 6 months later this thread zombies with a new title. :D it wants your braaaaaiiiiiiiins,...
Brains are quite tasty browned in butter with a touch of garlic and thyme....... :wink:
Short supply in my neck of the woods, unfortunately. You've more chance of finding beluga caviar growing behind the fridge
good reverend, don't forget the 'forgotten' teenage girls who are so far into their self-loathing that they feel the only way to change their life into the fantasy world they read about and see on the screen (see: twilight, the story about a jailbait emo girl who is stuck on her decision between bestiality and necrophilia) is to believe in magick
''i can totally blow out candles with my mind, wanna see?"
"i discovered that i can see ghosts, but only when others are around and ignoring me"
"hey, wanna see my wounds from the vampire that bit me last night while i was sleeping?"
oh, and back to PD etc etc, ignore if this example was already posted and such
also, on a semi-related note; those damned ghost-hunter shows make me want to spend all the money i have to fly to each one of the producer's front porch and massacre their family slowly with a dull butter knife... anyone else feeling this rage when having their brain cells massacred by their commercials, let alone their shows?
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 03:15:09 PM
also, on a semi-related note; those damned ghost-hunter shows make me want to spend all the money i have to fly to each one of the producer's front porch and massacre their family slowly with a dull butter knife... anyone else feeling this rage when having their brain cells massacred by their commercials, let alone their shows?
This is why I don't watch TV. I need that money for pills.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 03:15:09 PM
also, on a semi-related note; those damned ghost-hunter shows make me want to spend all the money i have to fly to each one of the producer's front porch and massacre their family slowly with a dull butter knife... anyone else feeling this rage when having their brain cells massacred by their commercials, let alone their shows?
This is why I don't watch TV. I need that money for pills.
i tend to not watch tv much unless i am irritatingly bored, and of course, all it does is make me more irritated... its a hate/hate relationship, and apparently i am masochistic in this sense... wonderful, ne?
i make it a habit of only watching discovery, history, and the like (food channel is crack when i am hungry... another form of torture. sad trend here)
and when i saw that the discovery channel had those deplorable shows on there, i had a fucking conniption.
didn't those stations used to pride themselves on being educational? so, what... now people will watch the discovery channel, see these 'oooh ghosts!' shows, and take them as fact?
like the Smithsonian holding seminars on the 'known characteristics of local extra-terrestrials'
grraaaAAAAAAaaagh! frustrating as all bloody fucking hell...
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 03:15:09 PM
also, on a semi-related note; those damned ghost-hunter shows make me want to spend all the money i have to fly to each one of the producer's front porch and massacre their family slowly with a dull butter knife... anyone else feeling this rage when having their brain cells massacred by their commercials, let alone their shows?
This is why I don't watch TV. I need that money for pills.
i tend to not watch tv much unless i am irritatingly bored, and of course, all it does is make me more irritated... its a hate/hate relationship, and apparently i am masochistic in this sense... wonderful, ne?
i make it a habit of only watching discovery, history, and the like (food channel is crack when i am hungry... another form of torture. sad trend here)
and when i saw that the discovery channel had those deplorable shows on there, i had a fucking conniption.
didn't those stations used to pride themselves on being educational? so, what... now people will watch the discovery channel, see these 'oooh ghosts!' shows, and take them as fact?
like the Smithsonian holding seminars on the 'known characteristics of local extra-terrestrials'
grraaaAAAAAAaaagh! frustrating as all bloody fucking hell...
There is no "History Channel". It's now the "Pseudoscience Channel". Everything is about bigfoot and Nostradumbass.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:23:34 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 03:15:09 PM
also, on a semi-related note; those damned ghost-hunter shows make me want to spend all the money i have to fly to each one of the producer's front porch and massacre their family slowly with a dull butter knife... anyone else feeling this rage when having their brain cells massacred by their commercials, let alone their shows?
This is why I don't watch TV. I need that money for pills.
i tend to not watch tv much unless i am irritatingly bored, and of course, all it does is make me more irritated... its a hate/hate relationship, and apparently i am masochistic in this sense... wonderful, ne?
i make it a habit of only watching discovery, history, and the like (food channel is crack when i am hungry... another form of torture. sad trend here)
and when i saw that the discovery channel had those deplorable shows on there, i had a fucking conniption.
didn't those stations used to pride themselves on being educational? so, what... now people will watch the discovery channel, see these 'oooh ghosts!' shows, and take them as fact?
like the Smithsonian holding seminars on the 'known characteristics of local extra-terrestrials'
grraaaAAAAAAaaagh! frustrating as all bloody fucking hell...
There is no "History Channel". It's now the "Pseudoscience Channel". Everything is about bigfoot and Nostradumbass.
This is the correct terrible television programming motorcycle.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:23:34 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 03:15:09 PM
also, on a semi-related note; those damned ghost-hunter shows make me want to spend all the money i have to fly to each one of the producer's front porch and massacre their family slowly with a dull butter knife... anyone else feeling this rage when having their brain cells massacred by their commercials, let alone their shows?
This is why I don't watch TV. I need that money for pills.
i tend to not watch tv much unless i am irritatingly bored, and of course, all it does is make me more irritated... its a hate/hate relationship, and apparently i am masochistic in this sense... wonderful, ne?
i make it a habit of only watching discovery, history, and the like (food channel is crack when i am hungry... another form of torture. sad trend here)
and when i saw that the discovery channel had those deplorable shows on there, i had a fucking conniption.
didn't those stations used to pride themselves on being educational? so, what... now people will watch the discovery channel, see these 'oooh ghosts!' shows, and take them as fact?
like the Smithsonian holding seminars on the 'known characteristics of local extra-terrestrials'
grraaaAAAAAAaaagh! frustrating as all bloody fucking hell...
There is no "History Channel". It's now the "Pseudoscience Channel". Everything is about bigfoot and Nostradumbass.
oh fake gods be damned! i forgot about those fucking shows!
fucking 'oh look everyone, these hillbilly's saw bigfoot, and now we will make their claims have merit by having a history channel team investigate it for no more than 48 hours. short time you say? who cares? by us simply being here we give it believability!'
FRAAACK fucking pieces of shit. 'oHey imma go to da libraryz and gets reading material on these things. they be real, dont want to get caught out in da swamps and not be able to defen' against these here attacks, yo. of course they are real, saw it on da tv on history channel! HISTORY CHANNEL! fo sho''
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
A what?
WHAT CHOO SAY!?
\
(http://www.desitin.se/images/JuliusCaesar.jpg)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
A what?
seizure heh. i spl gewd, shut up.
its like sci fi airing that wwf crap. wrestling =/= sci fi
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
A what?
seizure heh. i spl gewd, shut up.
its like sci fi airing that wwf crap. wrestling =/= sci fi
You'll watch what they tell you watch
and like it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:46:15 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
A what?
seizure heh. i spl gewd, shut up.
its like sci fi airing that wwf crap. wrestling =/= sci fi
You'll watch what they tell you watch and like it.
i know
shameless etc...
not really though. the sheer stupidity of those shows make me so uncomfortably angry that i have to turn off the tv or go outside, grab a random passer-by, beat the ever-living shit out of them, scream 'GO WATCH THE FUCKING BOOB TUBE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WILL NEVER WALK AGAIN', and walk home covered in blood with a satisfied smile on my face... either way, i win i suppose, but still. the blood gets everywhere, and i hate cleaning...
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:51:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:46:15 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
A what?
seizure heh. i spl gewd, shut up.
its like sci fi airing that wwf crap. wrestling =/= sci fi
You'll watch what they tell you watch and like it.
i know
shameless etc...
not really though. the sheer stupidity of those shows make me so uncomfortably angry that i have to turn off the tv or go outside, grab a random passer-by, beat the ever-living shit out of them, scream 'GO WATCH THE FUCKING BOOB TUBE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WILL NEVER WALK AGAIN', and walk home covered in blood with a satisfied smile on my face... either way, i win i suppose, but still. the blood gets everywhere, and i hate cleaning...
If you wait long enough, the blood will just flake out from under your fingernails on its own.
I watched one and only because they were hunting for a "Skunk-Ape" and I was hoping they'd get sprayed by a Skunk-Skunk" while they were traipsing around in the swamps.
This is what happens when you don't watch American Idol.... :|
Your punishment is they fuck up everything else on TV.
:lulz:
Seriously though, this is why I don't have cable, I can only take so many choices of crap before I spew and I have a nice TV and would like to keep it that way!
This is why god invented the intertubes. Cancel your teevee subscription and spend the money you save on a dvd player that can read wifi streams from your pc and then steal steal steal. Watch what you want, when you want to and leave opium for the masses, for the masses.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 20, 2010, 06:30:07 PM
This is why god invented the intertubes. Cancel your teevee subscription and spend the money you save on a dvd player that can read wifi streams from your pc and then steal steal steal. Watch what you want, when you want to and leave opium for the masses, for the masses.
Zoom goes the correct Pirate Boat.
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
A what?
seizure heh. i spl gewd, shut up.
its like sci fi airing that wwf crap. wrestling =/= sci fi
Maybe not, but it isn't scifi channel anymore, anyway. It's the sciecne fiction FANTASY channel now. Syfy.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 21, 2010, 02:01:10 AM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
A what?
seizure heh. i spl gewd, shut up.
its like sci fi airing that wwf crap. wrestling =/= sci fi
Maybe not, but it isn't scifi channel anymore, anyway. It's the sciecne fiction FANTASY channel now. Syfy.
Wrestling is not science fiction or fantasy. bigfoot is sciencefiction, so is hollow earth and ghosts, take that shit off history channel and discovery channel and put them on syfy and put WWF on fuckin ESPN.
Wrestling might not be science fiction but I assure you it is most certainly fantasy.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 20, 2010, 06:30:07 PM
This is why god invented the intertubes. Cancel your teevee subscription and spend the money you save on a dvd player that can read wifi streams from your pc and then steal steal steal. Watch what you want, when you want to and leave opium for the masses, for the masses.
Zoom goes the correct Pirate Boat.
No more commercial breaks!
even when i go to the movies or buy a dvd i still GET FUCKING COMMERCIALS!
UNSKIPPABLE 'DON'T STEAL MOVIES' COMMERCIALS!
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 21, 2010, 02:01:10 AM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Manabu on January 20, 2010, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 04:33:44 PM
Sometimes they show documentaries on Hitler.
Which invariably mention how he now lives with the Vril inside the Hollow Earth, building a flying saucer army to take revenge.
i must have had a ciesure before they mentioned that... though i don't put that past them anymore
A what?
seizure heh. i spl gewd, shut up.
its like sci fi airing that wwf crap. wrestling =/= sci fi
Maybe not, but it isn't scifi channel anymore, anyway. It's the sciecne fiction FANTASY channel now. Syfy.
THAT'S what that new stupid abbreviation stands for? It was bad enough when I thought it was just supposed to a *hip* new way to spell SciFi, but it's got fantasy thrown in their too now? :roll:
It's like when they changed CourtTV to TruTV. I like to watch the documentary/reporting-style shows like Forensic Files, Investigators, etc. Sure, they still show them sometimes, but a good 75% of the programming is like 10 different cops/beach patrol/party patrol/patrol patrol show variations, a million different people doing something stupid/shocking/outlandish shows and Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory :x (actually I don't know if that show's on there, but they sure advertise it enough) Now they're advertising some upcoming "The REAL NFL" or something like that. WTF is that shit? I'd watch a sports channel if I want to see sports.
But there really is no point in going on, preaching to the choir, etc. There are some shows I do enjoy but waves of shit just keep coming in. I guess I still get kinda astounded (for some reason) by the drivel that people not only will watch, but WANT to watch.
Read a book instead? :D
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on January 21, 2010, 03:27:39 PM
THAT'S what that new stupid abbreviation stands for? It was bad enough when I thought it was just supposed to a *hip* new way to spell SciFi, but it's got fantasy thrown in their too now? :roll:
It's like when they changed CourtTV to TruTV. I like to watch the documentary/reporting-style shows like Forensic Files, Investigators, etc. Sure, they still show them sometimes, but a good 75% of the programming is like 10 different cops/beach patrol/party patrol/patrol patrol show variations, a million different people doing something stupid/shocking/outlandish shows and Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory :x (actually I don't know if that show's on there, but they sure advertise it enough) Now they're advertising some upcoming "The REAL NFL" or something like that. WTF is that shit? I'd watch a sports channel if I want to see sports.
But there really is no point in going on, preaching to the choir, etc. There are some shows I do enjoy but waves of shit just keep coming in. I guess I still get kinda astounded (for some reason) by the drivel that people not only will watch, but WANT to watch.
Yeah, they changed the name because of all the crappy movies they put on there that fall under the science fiction fantasy genre. I like some of the older ones, like the one they made based on the Odyssey, but other than that they're kind of dull and have overused plots.
Yeah, TruTV. Seems to me it just becae like a reality show channel for officer type people. And I haven't heard of that 'REAL NFL' show, but I'm willing to bet it's another reality show, or whatever a person calls it where they film the behind the scenes drama and slap a name on it and call it a show.
I hardly ever watch tv anymore, other than to put cartoons on for my monkey, but I do like wrestling. It's my equivalent of a soap opera, with the bonus that people who have issues with someone just go beat the snot out of each other. :lulz:.
Though I don't watch the one on Syfy. It's on too late.
Quote from: Regret on January 21, 2010, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 20, 2010, 06:30:07 PM
This is why god invented the intertubes. Cancel your teevee subscription and spend the money you save on a dvd player that can read wifi streams from your pc and then steal steal steal. Watch what you want, when you want to and leave opium for the masses, for the masses.
Zoom goes the correct Pirate Boat.
No more commercial breaks!
even when i go to the movies or buy a dvd i still GET FUCKING COMMERCIALS!
UNSKIPPABLE 'DON'T STEAL MOVIES' COMMERCIALS!
Yeah! If you see one of those commercials it's telling you you've been swindled. Also I have a shit memory so instead of waiting a week and forgetting what happened the last episode of my favourite show, I tend to save a season up and watch them, 1 a night, for a couple of weeks. Copyright theft is win!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2010, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: Regret on January 21, 2010, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 20, 2010, 06:30:07 PM
This is why god invented the intertubes. Cancel your teevee subscription and spend the money you save on a dvd player that can read wifi streams from your pc and then steal steal steal. Watch what you want, when you want to and leave opium for the masses, for the masses.
Zoom goes the correct Pirate Boat.
No more commercial breaks!
even when i go to the movies or buy a dvd i still GET FUCKING COMMERCIALS!
UNSKIPPABLE 'DON'T STEAL MOVIES' COMMERCIALS!
Yeah! If you see one of those commercials it's telling you you've been swindled. Also I have a shit memory so instead of waiting a week and forgetting what happened the last episode of my favourite show, I tend to save a season up and watch them, 1 a night, for a couple of weeks. Copyright theft is win!
Troof its the best way to see any series!
Also if you like Anime, Funimation now has new shows and no commercial interruption on their site. I think they're about 4 days behind the Japanese broadcast of several current shows. I found them while looking for copies of Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood
I'M STILL POSTING IN DIS FREAD!
\
:nigel:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 21, 2010, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2010, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: Regret on January 21, 2010, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 20, 2010, 06:30:07 PM
This is why god invented the intertubes. Cancel your teevee subscription and spend the money you save on a dvd player that can read wifi streams from your pc and then steal steal steal. Watch what you want, when you want to and leave opium for the masses, for the masses.
Zoom goes the correct Pirate Boat.
No more commercial breaks!
even when i go to the movies or buy a dvd i still GET FUCKING COMMERCIALS!
UNSKIPPABLE 'DON'T STEAL MOVIES' COMMERCIALS!
Yeah! If you see one of those commercials it's telling you you've been swindled. Also I have a shit memory so instead of waiting a week and forgetting what happened the last episode of my favourite show, I tend to save a season up and watch them, 1 a night, for a couple of weeks. Copyright theft is win!
Troof its the best way to see any series!
Also if you like Anime, Funimation now has new shows and no commercial interruption on their site. I think they're about 4 days behind the Japanese broadcast of several current shows. I found them while looking for copies of Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood
Yeah, but all the new shows are crap. They're all either desperately buying up "light novel" rights hoping to find the next Suzumiya, taking "Slice of Life" to it's ultimate conclusion by having cuter, younger girls (this season has a show dedicated to preschoolers who act exactly like the Strawberry Marshmallow girls, I kid you not) and leaving out the "life," or generic young boy with an underrated [Gimmick] trying to show up the rest of the world, where society awards power, respect, and girls go to the guy with the best [Gimmick]. They're stuck in the "play it safe, maybe if we can match the formula better than anyone else we can sell some 10k yen dvds or at least some poseable action figures" mentality.
Quote from: GA on January 21, 2010, 08:28:37 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 21, 2010, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2010, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: Regret on January 21, 2010, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 20, 2010, 06:30:07 PM
This is why god invented the intertubes. Cancel your teevee subscription and spend the money you save on a dvd player that can read wifi streams from your pc and then steal steal steal. Watch what you want, when you want to and leave opium for the masses, for the masses.
Zoom goes the correct Pirate Boat.
No more commercial breaks!
even when i go to the movies or buy a dvd i still GET FUCKING COMMERCIALS!
UNSKIPPABLE 'DON'T STEAL MOVIES' COMMERCIALS!
Yeah! If you see one of those commercials it's telling you you've been swindled. Also I have a shit memory so instead of waiting a week and forgetting what happened the last episode of my favourite show, I tend to save a season up and watch them, 1 a night, for a couple of weeks. Copyright theft is win!
Troof its the best way to see any series!
Also if you like Anime, Funimation now has new shows and no commercial interruption on their site. I think they're about 4 days behind the Japanese broadcast of several current shows. I found them while looking for copies of Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood
Yeah, but all the new shows are crap. They're all either desperately buying up "light novel" rights hoping to find the next Suzumiya, taking "Slice of Life" to it's ultimate conclusion by having cuter, younger girls (this season has a show dedicated to preschoolers who act exactly like the Strawberry Marshmallow girls, I kid you not) and leaving out the "life," or generic young boy with an underrated [Gimmick] trying to show up the rest of the world, where society awards power, respect, and girls go to the guy with the best [Gimmick]. They're stuck in the "play it safe, maybe if we can match the formula better than anyone else we can sell some 10k yen dvds or at least some poseable action figures" mentality.
I've only been watching the new FMA: Brotherhood and Inuyasha: The Final Chapter, dunno about what other stuff they've been cranking out lately. Both FMA and Inuyasha are following the manga pretty well so far (well, as far as is reasonable for a tv series).
I consider anime to be a guilty pleasure, for which I am in poor taste for watching and something that should not be discussed in public. Much like my listening to Kenny G.
Also, FOASTING IN DIS BREAD!
Quote from: Kai on January 21, 2010, 09:17:23 PM
I consider anime to be a guilty pleasure, for which I am in poor taste for watching and something that should not be discussed in public. Much like my listening to Kenny G.
Also, FOASTING IN DIS BREAD!
I like some of it, some of it is terrible and occasionally some of it has tentacle shaped penises busting through hospitals to eat humans. Two out of three categories isn't bad ;-)
COASTING IN THIS HEAD!
All discussions on magic eventually devolve into discussions about comics and anime.
I saw this happen many-a-time @ the PDXOcculture meetings, thanks for proving it yet again. :evil:
Ive only seen the full series of:
-Neon Genesis Evangelion
-Elfen Lied
-Death Note (3/4ths of the way)
-Serial Experiments Lain
But eh, idk, theres billions of crap floating around and i cant muster the energy to read reviews.
Cowboy Bebop and the... the one where people die and get another chance to live if they kill the monsters they are instructed to (GODDAMN WHAT ITS NAME?).
GANTZ.
Those last two are on my "to-watch" list.
Cowboy Bebop is the absolute single worst thing in existence, period.
E/O/T.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 23, 2010, 09:16:31 AM
Cowboy Bebop All anime, ever, is the absolute single worst thing in existence, period.
E/O/T.
Fixed that for you. There is no good anime, anywhere.
Quote from: Telarus on January 23, 2010, 07:01:22 AM
All discussions on magic eventually devolve into discussions about comics and anime.
I saw this happen many-a-time @ the PDXOcculture meetings, thanks for proving it yet again. :evil:
Better the latter than the former. And thats really saying something. :x
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 07:25:11 AM
Ive only seen the full series of:
-Neon Genesis Evangelion
-Elfen Lied
-Death Note (3/4ths of the way)
-Serial Experiments Lain
But eh, idk, theres billions of crap floating around and i cant muster the energy to read reviews.
Cowboy Bebop and the... the one where people die and get another chance to live if they kill the monsters they are instructed to (GODDAMN WHAT ITS NAME?).
Elfen Lied is thinly veiled child pornography.
Witch Hunter Robin is pretty good, if you don't mind ambiguous series endings.
Aw you mean those endings where you have to think? (Sometimes I like them, you can derail the whole story :D)
I haven't seen anything but probably the typical ones you watch on TV when its 7am and your about to go school (Muscular naked men with large nipples - DBZ) ... but I think one that stands out to me is Sailor Moon. I find it hilarious to watch
Quote from: Faust on January 23, 2010, 08:19:02 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 07:25:11 AM
Ive only seen the full series of:
-Neon Genesis Evangelion
-Elfen Lied
-Death Note (3/4ths of the way)
-Serial Experiments Lain
But eh, idk, theres billions of crap floating around and i cant muster the energy to read reviews.
Cowboy Bebop and the... the one where people die and get another chance to live if they kill the monsters they are instructed to (GODDAMN WHAT ITS NAME?).
Elfen Lied is thinly veiled child pornography.
"Thinly?"
The Ohio State University anime club has a joke: "Most anime
isn't gory tentacle rape of little girls. Just... don't watch Elfen Lied."
Quote from: NotPublished on January 24, 2010, 12:49:37 AM
Aw you mean those endings where you have to think? (Sometimes I like them, you can derail the whole story :D)
I haven't seen anything but probably the typical ones you watch on TV when its 7am and your about to go school (Muscular naked men with large nipples - DBZ) ... but I think one that stands out to me is Sailor Moon. I find it hilarious to watch
I liked Dragonball, stuck with DBZ because I wanted to see how everything turned out, and REFUSED to watch that last one. It looked beyond retarded.
I also am refusing to watch the live-action DBZ movie. I didn't believe it was real at first, and I saw the movie poster at a theater first.
Quote from: GA on January 24, 2010, 03:17:22 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 23, 2010, 08:19:02 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 07:25:11 AM
Ive only seen the full series of:
-Neon Genesis Evangelion
-Elfen Lied
-Death Note (3/4ths of the way)
-Serial Experiments Lain
But eh, idk, theres billions of crap floating around and i cant muster the energy to read reviews.
Cowboy Bebop and the... the one where people die and get another chance to live if they kill the monsters they are instructed to (GODDAMN WHAT ITS NAME?).
Elfen Lied is thinly veiled child pornography.
"Thinly?"
The Ohio State University anime club has a joke: "Most anime isn't gory tentacle rape of little girls. Just... don't watch Elfen Lied."
Sure its gory, but i dont recall any tentacle rape :? And sure, there are several scenes with pre pubescent diclonius Nana naked, but they are very spaced out and reasonably in context.
I'm not really into anime, but I just wanted to drop in and say FLCL and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann are incredibly fun. Well, Gurren Lagann is fun until the seven-year time-skip, but up until that point it is amazing. Even after that it has galaxy-sized robots fighting in space.
The thing about anime is that like everything else, it conforms to Sturgeon's Law. This isn't helped by the fact that most of the anime that gets exported to North America is just whatever's the most popular in Japan. This is actually the exact reason that I'm not really into anime.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 24, 2010, 03:23:02 AM
Quote from: GA on January 24, 2010, 03:17:22 AM
Quote from: Faust on January 23, 2010, 08:19:02 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 23, 2010, 07:25:11 AM
Ive only seen the full series of:
-Neon Genesis Evangelion
-Elfen Lied
-Death Note (3/4ths of the way)
-Serial Experiments Lain
But eh, idk, theres billions of crap floating around and i cant muster the energy to read reviews.
Cowboy Bebop and the... the one where people die and get another chance to live if they kill the monsters they are instructed to (GODDAMN WHAT ITS NAME?).
Elfen Lied is thinly veiled child pornography.
"Thinly?"
The Ohio State University anime club has a joke: "Most anime isn't gory tentacle rape of little girls. Just... don't watch Elfen Lied."
Sure its gory, but i dont recall any tentacle rape :? And sure, there are several scenes with pre pubescent diclonius Nana naked, but they are very spaced out and reasonably in context.
You don't have to strain yourself very hard to see the sexual connotations of violence, of amputating young naked girls limbs and the like to see that this was catering for a very very nasty groups special tastes. Its plot is non existant, its strung together by cliches, its the sexual violence that makes the show what it is and why I hate it so much. Its very easy to see the difference between sexual violence and violence portrayed as good wholesome gritty war like violence.
To date after watching close to every series that came out pre 2007 (when I stopped running the anime soc) There are still only a handful of shows I like:
Excel saga because it is the only show with good voice acting, and is an attack on anime in general.
Gantz: unpredictable
Evangelion: it was the first of that lot I had seen and at the time it was creative shame about all the rip offs.
Cowboy Bebop: It has a slow moving sleepy feel as opposed to the gaudy sensationalism of all other anime and the music is pretty good.
Cowboy Bebop had the saddest ending evar. I will never watch it again.
I like .hack//SIGN, it was really interesting. And I used to have a friend who read/watched Excel Saga and would tell me about it. It made me laugh.
No. All anime is crap. This is actual science. Do not question it.
That's the thing about actual science though, so many people DO question it.
If there is something that appears to anime, but isn't crap, it cannot be anime, since being crap is part of the definition.
It must be animated story-telling done in a Japanese artistic style or with Japanese influences.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2010, 04:32:41 PM
No. All anime is crap. This is actual science. Do not question it.
All visual media is crap, with the exception of anything david lynch makes, and even then his stuff isn't even enjoyable
Nothing is good, everything is dismissable
Quote from: Faust on January 24, 2010, 07:57:19 PM
Nothing is good, everything is dismissable
I see what you did there. :lulz:
Quote from: Faust on January 24, 2010, 07:57:19 PM
Nothing is good, everything is dismissable
News ticker!
Quote from: Faust on January 24, 2010, 07:57:19 PM
Nothing is good, everything is dismissable
:mittens:
This thread delivers. :awesome:
I'M SO GLAD I POSTED IN DIS FREAD!
\
:nigel:
Quote from: Faust on January 24, 2010, 07:57:19 PM
Nothing is good, everything is dismissable
This is correct.
I like anime (then again, I like crap.)
For me the pinnacle is Neon Genesis Evangelion, which I've watched in its entirety on more than one occcasion in one sitting. The best description I've ever heard of that show is that it was for giant robot anime what Twin Peaks was for cop shows. Although, I should probably warn that it doesnt really start to pick up until after episode 14. Serial Experiments Lain was pretty good, and kind of had a similar theme to Eva (at least the instrumentality aspect of Eva).
Excel Saga is ok, but ridiculously silly. I cant stomach more than ten minutes or so of it at a time. Usually when I'm in the mood for something like that I'll watch Cromartie High School, which never gets old for me. Either that or Great Teacher Onizuka, which just starts pretty tame, but continues to escalate in its ridiculousness until at the end of the series it just cant top itself anymore and it just kind of ends abruptly. (worth watching, just don't expect any closure.)
Anyway, anime is just like any other visual medium, the vast majority of it is complete crap. Anime at its worst is just as trite as the stale british comedy they play on public television.
Oh, and Hustle? Whats your problem with Cowboy Bebop, if you dont mind me asking? Does this tie into your hatred of Jazz?
I dunno, I watched some bits of Cowboy Bebop, and it seemed to me about as captivating and interesting as the Dune trilogy books.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 25, 2010, 01:06:32 PM
I dunno, I watched some bits of Cowboy Bebop, and it seemed to me about as captivating and interesting as the Dune trilogy books.
Which is to say, not.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 25, 2010, 01:06:32 PM
I dunno, I watched some bits of Cowboy Bebop, and it seemed to me about as captivating and interesting as the Dune trilogy books.
This is the correct motorcycle... though I did catch half an episode where one of the ate some bad shrooms and that was funny... for about 5 minutes.
Quote from: Burns on January 21, 2010, 03:50:59 PM
Read a book instead? :D
haha oh definitely, I've been finding more time to read lately as it is. But, cooking, cleaning it's nice to have background noise and such, and sometime just feel like vegging out or something to watch while cross-stitching. TV is not my life by far, but just felt like complaining when the bits of it I do like are ruined further.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 21, 2010, 04:52:29 PM
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on January 21, 2010, 03:27:39 PM
THAT'S what that new stupid abbreviation stands for? It was bad enough when I thought it was just supposed to a *hip* new way to spell SciFi, but it's got fantasy thrown in their too now? :roll:
It's like when they changed CourtTV to TruTV. I like to watch the documentary/reporting-style shows like Forensic Files, Investigators, etc. Sure, they still show them sometimes, but a good 75% of the programming is like 10 different cops/beach patrol/party patrol/patrol patrol show variations, a million different people doing something stupid/shocking/outlandish shows and Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory :x (actually I don't know if that show's on there, but they sure advertise it enough) Now they're advertising some upcoming "The REAL NFL" or something like that. WTF is that shit? I'd watch a sports channel if I want to see sports.
But there really is no point in going on, preaching to the choir, etc. There are some shows I do enjoy but waves of shit just keep coming in. I guess I still get kinda astounded (for some reason) by the drivel that people not only will watch, but WANT to watch.
Yeah, they changed the name because of all the crappy movies they put on there that fall under the science fiction fantasy genre. I like some of the older ones, like the one they made based on the Odyssey, but other than that they're kind of dull and have overused plots.
Ahh I see. Yea I remember seeing in the tv listing a string of pretty awful looking movies on all the time for a while. I've watched a few things on that channel time to time, usually just x-files when it's on at 2 in the morning, lol.
QuoteYeah, TruTV. Seems to me it just becae like a reality show channel for officer type people. And I haven't heard of that 'REAL NFL' show, but I'm willing to bet it's another reality show, or whatever a person calls it where they film the behind the scenes drama and slap a name on it and call it a show.
Yea, I used to like it a bit more when it was court tv, but now it's just reality show after reality show. From what I saw on the NFL commercial (lady yells at some guy, some other guy cries) it seems like every other show except that a lot of the people are wearing football uniforms
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 23, 2010, 09:16:31 AM
Cowboy Bebop is the absolute single worst thing in existence, period.
E/O/T.
Inuyasha is way worse.
Anyone ever notice how Japan has sort of hijacked youth culture with anime?
Just throwing that out there.
Felix, it was pretty deliberate too. Japanese companies flooded the American market with pirated copies of old anime and first seasons of new programs in the 90s in order to create a demand for it. Obviously, when you give out a lot of free stuff, people think "why not give it a go", and then they get hooked, and then you introduce the pay-for versions and new seasons.
We're turning Japanese.
I really think so.
I've got your picture of me and you
I want a doctor to take your picture so I can see you from the inside as well.
:lol:
Well, we nuked them like twice. It's not like we didn't have it coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIO4Uw36-JE
:lulz:
But it's SAAAAAD! :x
Only for about an episode at the end.
On the other hand, there are plenty of shows that really are sad, the whole way through, not in the "plot is a tragedy" sense, but in the "I despair because some human being actually approved this scenario/script/series" sad. (And this goes for every kind of media, naturally.)
Ok, you have a point. Only the end episode was sad. Mostly. But I can't watch it anymore without going "OMG he DIESSSSS!!!!!! :x "
I repeat:
Quote from: Shrunkenheadspace on January 29, 2010, 08:19:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIO4Uw36-JE
:lulz:
This is all you ever need to know about anime.
Quote from: Shrunkenheadspace on January 29, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
I repeat:
Quote from: Shrunkenheadspace on January 29, 2010, 08:19:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIO4Uw36-JE
:lulz:
This is all you ever need to know about anime.
There
are a handful that don't suck. No more than maybe 8 out of the hundreds (thousands?) that America imported though, so it's kind of a moot point.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 04:25:39 AM
Quote from: Shrunkenheadspace on January 29, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
I repeat:
Quote from: Shrunkenheadspace on January 29, 2010, 08:19:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIO4Uw36-JE
:lulz:
This is all you ever need to know about anime.
There are a handful that don't suck. No more than maybe 8 out of the hundreds (thousands?) that America imported though, so it's kind of a moot point.
That one sucked? I thought it was hilarious.
It was amusing I guess, but I've become extremely snobbish about anime since there's just way too much that is no good.
Felix,
I used to like anime for itself. When I was still a child.
A YEAR AND A DAY LATER
BUMP
This is why I come to this forum.
Now Im going to spend the entire night reading an ancient lulzy thread.
I think I know how this is going to go: Roger insults magik, a bunch of people put on their wizard robes and hats while getting extremely butthurt.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 02, 2011, 09:42:29 AM
This is why I come to this forum.
Now Im going to spend the entire night reading an ancient lulzy thread.
I think I know how this is going to go: Roger insults magik, a bunch of people put on their wizard robes and hats while getting extremely butthurt.
I am nothing if not consistent. :lulz:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 02, 2011, 09:42:29 AM
This is why I come to this forum.
Now Im going to spend the entire night reading an ancient lulzy thread.
I think I know how this is going to go: Roger insults magik, a bunch of people put on their wizard robes and hats while getting extremely butthurt.
And any time anyone other than Roger insults magic, they get butthurt AND say the OP is copying someone else. :lulz:
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 02, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 02, 2011, 09:42:29 AM
This is why I come to this forum.
Now Im going to spend the entire night reading an ancient lulzy thread.
I think I know how this is going to go: Roger insults magik, a bunch of people put on their wizard robes and hats while getting extremely butthurt.
And any time anyone other than Roger insults magic, they get butthurt AND say the OP is copying someone else. :lulz:
No, this has been going on since before roger, this isn't the first thread either. Cram cold dig deeper still, find one yet another year back.
Quote from: Faust on February 02, 2011, 05:16:55 PM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 02, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 02, 2011, 09:42:29 AM
This is why I come to this forum.
Now Im going to spend the entire night reading an ancient lulzy thread.
I think I know how this is going to go: Roger insults magik, a bunch of people put on their wizard robes and hats while getting extremely butthurt.
And any time anyone other than Roger insults magic, they get butthurt AND say the OP is copying someone else. :lulz:
No, this has been going on since before roger, this isn't the first thread either. Cram cold dig deeper still, find one yet another year back.
There was only 3 months before me, and nobody talked about much of anything.
I am the Alpha and the Omega. My poop is the primordial ooze from which the world was formed, and my fossilized poop will be here when we're all gone.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 02, 2011, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Faust on February 02, 2011, 05:16:55 PM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 02, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 02, 2011, 09:42:29 AM
This is why I come to this forum.
Now Im going to spend the entire night reading an ancient lulzy thread.
I think I know how this is going to go: Roger insults magik, a bunch of people put on their wizard robes and hats while getting extremely butthurt.
And any time anyone other than Roger insults magic, they get butthurt AND say the OP is copying someone else. :lulz:
No, this has been going on since before roger, this isn't the first thread either. Cram cold dig deeper still, find one yet another year back.
There was only 3 months before me, and nobody talked about much of anything.
I am the Alpha and the Omega. My poop is the primordial ooze from which the world was formed, and my fossilized poop will be here when we're all gone.
Typo, before this thread. I recall this argument when I first registered and even then I don't think it was the first time it had cropped up.
Here's my experience with magic.
I have a terrible memory. I'm always forgetting things I'm supposed to do. I'll forget entire conversations I had a day ago. I decided to experiment with magic to fix this problem.
Knowing what I know about how magic really works, I know that I can just make up deities, rituals, etc. on the spot as I need them, and they will work just as well as anything I read about in any ancient grimoire. So I made up a deity and called him Memnos, the God of not forgetting shit my wife told me to do, and then I made up an invocation ritual.
Say I have a thing X that I don't want to forget. I say (not out loud, just in my head), "Lord Memnos, I need to remember X. Please help me to remember X. Don't let me forget X. Amen." During the ritual, while I am repeating the thing I want to remember, I'm also visualizing myself doing the thing I want to remember.
I tried this several times and so far my success rate is 100%.
If I need to remember multiple things at the same time, I have an advanced, more powerful ritual that involves taking the items I want to remember and writing them down on a list. I call it a magic memory scroll.
Some of you haters might be thinking, "Hey dipshit, you ever wonder if all that repetition and visualization and list making might be what's helping you to remember, and not some 'deity' you just fucking made up?"
Of course it is, but that's all magic is. Is it stupid? You bet, but it was just an experiment. I'm sure I could just do the visualization, repetition, and list writing, and skip all the hocus pocus, and get the same result.
At first, I was all :|
But then, I was like :lulz:
Confession time:
Here's a "charisma spell" I still use.
LOL - not really. I created it when I was still into occulty things, but I find it useful to this day even though I'm not in that head space anymore. Even then, I called it a "mental trick", a "form of self-hypnosis" -- not a "spell" or whatever. Nothing occult about it.
If I have to be extremely glib, like at a job interview or a presentation or something, I spend a few minutes getting myself ready.
First, I rehearse, out loud, all the shit I might accidentally say. Stuff that just sneaks out like the word Um or Like. I stammer, I make false starts, I mispronounce things, I correct myself... basically I am rehearsing the worst case scenario for the talk. While I'm doing this, I'm visualizing a film forming on the surface of my tongue. It's like a layer of grossness created by my uncertainty. I can actually feel it there, this grossness inside my mouth.
Then, when I'm ready, I spit, I rinse out my mouth, and I wash my hands.
It always leaves me feeling glib and sharp. Every time.
:rpger:
IT'S MAAAAAAGIC
:lulz: My magic memory scrolls just do NOT work. Neither do the apps on my iPhone that perform this wizardry for me. I STILL forget to motherfucking LOOK. It has to bash me over the head and say BREAD, BITCH--BUY SOME BREAD!
Sometimes the ACT of making the list helps me remember what to buy, but damn if I don't forget the damned thing at home or to look at the damned app that has all the lovely items typed out on it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 08:46:52 PM
An effort to classify the various types of people who believe in - or profess to believe in - "magick".
1. Fat smelly pagan women (FSPW). The thing to remember here is that there is no reason FSPW are the way they are...they spontaneously generate in the cracks of smelly old couches, and they cannot change. They think of themselves as "Earth Mothers", etc, or even "crones", and will wheeze endlessly about the Goddess they're "working with" this week.
2. Weedy guys who want to fuck FSPW. Nobody knows WHY they do, because any gratification they would receive must surely be offset by the horrible necessity of picking 6" pubic hairs out of your teeth afterward. Scientists don't know WHY they do what they do, they just know they do it.
There's a song by this comedian named Allison Somethingorother (I forget, ok?). She sings this song where she explains why fat girls, high girls and homeless girls give great head..."because they're hungry."
It's quite funny.
I agree with these comments... The labels don't matter, the 'ritual' might :)
I make magic with my arse.
The ritual involves Indian food.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 03, 2011, 10:47:16 PM
I make magic with my arse.
The ritual involves Indian food.
Your ritual may begin tomorrow, depending on what I find for ingredients.
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 03, 2011, 11:04:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 03, 2011, 10:47:16 PM
I make magic with my arse.
The ritual involves Indian food.
Your ritual may begin tomorrow, depending on what I find for ingredients.
Ingredients? Will you be preparing some kind of potion or elixir?
ALL PRAISE THE ASS GENIE
Quote from: Unqualified on February 04, 2011, 02:24:31 AM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 03, 2011, 11:04:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 03, 2011, 10:47:16 PM
I make magic with my arse.
The ritual involves Indian food.
Your ritual may begin tomorrow, depending on what I find for ingredients.
Ingredients? Will you be preparing some kind of potion or elixir?
More like an ambrosia of horror and awesome.
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 04, 2011, 05:17:40 PM
Quote from: Unqualified on February 04, 2011, 02:24:31 AM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 03, 2011, 11:04:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 03, 2011, 10:47:16 PM
I make magic with my arse.
The ritual involves Indian food.
Your ritual may begin tomorrow, depending on what I find for ingredients.
Ingredients? Will you be preparing some kind of potion or elixir?
More like an ambrosia of horror and awesome.
I see. Ambrosia for the drawing of the sigil on the mystic porcelain.
(http://www.mtgvault.com/images/cards/ALL/Chaos_Harlequin.jpg)
You nerds...I wonder how many of you went looking for your "Badass blue/black deck" from 1998 after I posted that?
It's okay, I belong in this category.
Quote from: navkat on February 06, 2011, 09:52:01 PM
You nerds...I wonder how many of you went looking for your "Badass blue/black deck" from 1998 after I posted that?
It's okay, I belong in this category.
Pfft. That's lame.
My best deck was white/black. And it was from 2005.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 06, 2011, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: navkat on February 06, 2011, 09:52:01 PM
You nerds...I wonder how many of you went looking for your "Badass blue/black deck" from 1998 after I posted that?
It's okay, I belong in this category.
Pfft. That's lame.
My best deck was white/black. And it was from 2005.
I wasn't allowed to play blue by all my friends. And I wasn't allowed to play black a lot of the time either.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 06, 2011, 10:38:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 06, 2011, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: navkat on February 06, 2011, 09:52:01 PM
You nerds...I wonder how many of you went looking for your "Badass blue/black deck" from 1998 after I posted that?
It's okay, I belong in this category.
Pfft. That's lame.
My best deck was white/black. And it was from 2005.
I wasn't allowed to play blue by all my friends. And I wasn't allowed to play black a lot of the time either.
Nobody liked it when I played white and/or black. But they couldn't tell me i couldn't play them because i didn't have an other colors.
We did stop playing Magic altogether in relatively short order, though. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 06, 2011, 11:10:31 PM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 06, 2011, 10:38:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 06, 2011, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: navkat on February 06, 2011, 09:52:01 PM
You nerds...I wonder how many of you went looking for your "Badass blue/black deck" from 1998 after I posted that?
It's okay, I belong in this category.
Pfft. That's lame.
My best deck was white/black. And it was from 2005.
I wasn't allowed to play blue by all my friends. And I wasn't allowed to play black a lot of the time either.
Nobody liked it when I played white and/or black. But they couldn't tell me i couldn't play them because i didn't have an other colors.
We did stop playing Magic altogether in relatively short order, though. :lulz:
I've had friends concede the game with in 10 turns of me just fucking with their game plan. I was a master of psychological dueling.
"I pacify your creature."
"I sac it and kill your creature and/or you lose life"
Coyote, I moved the discussion here:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=28317.0
I like it better when this thread was called "Techniques to mindfuck yourself." where is that thread anyway?
...Bu☆ns goes to look.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on February 12, 2011, 11:21:27 PM
I like it better when this thread was called "Techniques to mindfuck yourself." where is that thread anyway?
...Bu☆ns goes to look.
I printed the output from that thread in my Intermittens issue #6
see here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14660538/Intermittens-6-Lesser-Poop - page 26
9 months since was last posted in. Well done, everyone, we almost got over this thread! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Also, magick. :lulz:
Speaking of magick, one of my best friends told me that not only was astral projecting real, it was proven with science. I almost felt bad for laughing at her. Almost.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 05, 2011, 11:45:01 AM
9 months since was last posted in. Well done, everyone, we almost got over this thread! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Also, magick. :lulz:
Speaking of magick, one of my best friends told me that not only was astral projecting real, it was proven with science. I almost felt bad for laughing at her. Almost.
Oh its real she just mispronounced it:
Ass trail Projecting = projectile diarrhea
:lulz:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 05, 2011, 12:18:02 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 05, 2011, 11:45:01 AM
9 months since was last posted in. Well done, everyone, we almost got over this thread! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Also, magick. :lulz:
Speaking of magick, one of my best friends told me that not only was astral projecting real, it was proven with science. I almost felt bad for laughing at her. Almost.
Oh its real she just mispronounced it:
Ass trail Projecting = projectile diarrhea
:lulz:
If only. :horrormirth:
Do you know what she told me? Do you fucking know what the poor broken little thing told me?? "It's real science, Google it!" :cry: WHY TORCHIE, WHY?!
I googled it and found a lot of people saying "I am not a scientist, but....STRING THEORY! VIBRATIONS! QUANTUM!"
I tried to, but when I did and the first result was one that didn't even have capitalisation in the article title, and the second was Wikipedia, my brain just refused to delve any further. I have enough unwanted stupid to deal with on a regular basis, I don't want to do it on purpose.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 05, 2011, 12:24:28 PM
Do you know what she told me? Do you fucking know what the poor broken little thing told me?? "It's real science, Google it!" :cry: WHY TORCHIE, WHY?!
Isn't that your juggalo friend?
I mean....
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 12:49:51 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 05, 2011, 12:24:28 PM
Do you know what she told me? Do you fucking know what the poor broken little thing told me?? "It's real science, Google it!" :cry: WHY TORCHIE, WHY?!
Isn't that your juggalo friend?
I mean....
Is very sad face. :sad: <- Like so.
However, I will say that she doesn't talk like a Juggalo hardly, nor wears the face paint at all, and only wears the Tripp clothes half the time, and only because she can pull the stripper look off, since she is one. Or maybe she is one because she can pull it off...?
Strippers wear tripp clothes there?
Jesus, Tucson is even worse than I thought. :lulz:
Juggalo strippers who believe in scientific astral projection?
I think my brain just parsed something wrong and I'm having a stroke.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 05, 2011, 11:45:01 AM
9 months since was last posted in. Well done, everyone, we almost got over this thread! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Also, magick. :lulz:
Speaking of magick, one of my best friends told me that not only was astral projecting real, it was proven with science. I almost felt bad for laughing at her. Almost.
She's talking about TV. Poor dear doesn't understand how the people got in the box.
Quote from: Cain on November 05, 2011, 03:32:11 PM
Juggalo strippers who believe in scientific astral projection?
I think my brain just parsed something wrong and I'm having a stroke.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on November 05, 2011, 03:32:11 PM
Juggalo strippers who believe in scientific astral projection?
I think my brain just parsed something wrong and I'm having a stroke.
FUCKIN' ASTRAL PROJECTION, HOW DOES THAT WORK?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 03:21:30 PM
Strippers wear tripp clothes there?
Jesus, Tucson is even worse than I thought. :lulz:
Roger sez, "We do it with magnets."
Do you know, I'm still not sure how that works. Possibly with miracles.
GODDAMNED FUCKING MAGNETS!!!!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
FUCKING GIRAFFES, HOW DO THEY WORK?
Quote from: Nigel on November 05, 2011, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 05, 2011, 11:45:01 AM
9 months since was last posted in. Well done, everyone, we almost got over this thread! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Also, magick. :lulz:
Speaking of magick, one of my best friends told me that not only was astral projecting real, it was proven with science. I almost felt bad for laughing at her. Almost.
She's talking about TV. Poor dear doesn't understand how the people got in the box.
:spittake:
Quote from: Cain on November 05, 2011, 03:32:11 PM
Juggalo strippers who believe in scientific astral projection?
I think my brain just parsed something wrong and I'm having a stroke.
For a second there the whole forum looked like hirley0.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2011, 04:41:12 AM
FUCKING GIRAFFES, HOW DO THEY WORK?
They don't.
AND THAT IS WHY THE ECONOMY IS IN THE CRAPPER!