"Never underestimate the power of stupidity." -anonymous
"You misunderestimated me." -George W. Bush
"It's too bad stupidity doesn't hurt." -Anton LaVey
LaVey was wrong when he said stupidity doesn't hurt. Stupidity is like a weapon that can be as adverse as sticks and stones. Stupidity can't be cured by breaking your television or smashing your head against a wall. That would be just stupid. Stupidity is more than just Forrest Gumpesque retardation or Alfred E. Neuman's care-free smirk. Stupidity isn't stupid when it's funny all around. Real stupidity can and does hurt. Stupidity is like a joke that isn't funny; like kicking somebody in the balls. It doesn't hurt the kicker, who laughs at the pain, but it can and does hurt. Stupidity is more than just malice. Stupidity is the Nazi who somehow effects many people to think the same way, like a butterfly causing a tornado. America is as dumb as George Bush because stupidity is a plague, a meme that captivates the people just because it's there. How can stupidity be cured? Be like smart people. Whether you think that smart people are drugged out hippies or A.A. freaks is up to you. Bushites, anti-Bushes, anti-anti-Bushes, anti-anti-anti-Bushes, up to you. Whether you think that smart people are Christians, Islamists, atheists, or otherwise, all of that is up to you. It is not up to me what you choose to think intelligent is. Just as stupidity holds sway over much of the culture, you can hold sway. You can change it yourselves, and it is that spark of individual wit that can skewer the homogenous mass of Dumb like a wild boar, and change it into a fantastic intelligent butterfly effect. Intelligence will trigger like dominoes. The dumb shall be smitten with intelligent rapture. By intelligence we will prove that we care about ourselves, for intelligence is love. And it will be they who demisunderestimate the true power of love.
"Mama always told me, stupid is as stupid does." - Forrest Gump
This is very cool, Devin.
I especially like the line about the dumb being smitten with intelligent rapture.
Bra-fuckin'-vo! Well spoken, my friend! I think you just earned yourself an officer's commision....on behalf of the NSRA, I hereby promote you to the rank of Lieutenant. Congratulations, Comrade Devin!
8)
Awesome. Well, I was the Emperor of the NSRA before that, but I guess Lieutenant is even better! Thanks!
What the hell do you mean, kicking someone in the balls isn't funny?
*Kicks EraPassing in the balls*
See how you like it.
:lol:
boy....I hope that mental picture gets the hell outta my head before I go to sleep tonight...
8)
Ha!
I mock in your general direction!
*Averts general snobbery*
I'm truly curious about this. I'd like to explore this concept some more.
As someone who worships knowledge (and can't help it) I've always viewed it as a slight weakness as well as an asset. It's great for thse who like to explore different viewpoints and persue the "truth", but there's also alot of exclusion that goes on in this world in the name of intelligence.
I've also studied alot of religions and philosophies that teach that pursuit of brain power is a hindrance to the spiritual life in general. The mind should be exercised only to be expanded and controlled, not for it's own merit, etc. Some are more positive about it than others, but their final goal seems to always be spiritual progress at the expense of life progress. I'm not as gullible now as I was years ago, so I take all of that with a grain of salt, but I think there's a kernal of truth in there somewhere. At what point does your intelligence begin to hold you back from seeing more?
I agree that everyone should push their limits intellectually, but the more I learn the more I begin to think that knowledge is not the goal but a means to the end, and a farking long one at that. And if that's true, might not there be another path there besides intelligence? Is experience due to stupidity not sometimes better?
QuoteThe dumb shall be smitten with intelligent rapture.
The problem here is that no one truly thinks that they're dumb.
Truly dumb people don't just have low IQ's, they're not open to other's opinions. They mimic. They're insular because to challenge yourself beyond your limits is akin to mental suicide. It's not always a bad thing to have limits.
For now I go by the philosophy "Open-minded persuit of knowledge" but I'd love to hear someone else's opinion on this. Teaching intelligence by example sounds great, but I'm not so sure it's possible or even neccessary.
Quoteintelligence is love.
In the end, only love is love. To assert otherwise is dangerous. (Example: assimilation is love, obedience is love, etc.)
Either way, great post
Devin.
Forrest was blessed with a low IQ.
It allowed him to make the smart decisions with ease.
if "stupid is as stupid does" then forrest = any$-"stupid.
Quote from: HoshikoI'm truly curious about this. I'd like to explore this concept some more.
Assuming for a second or two that you actually wanted serious responses, I'd say that you're playing fast and loose with your definition of knowledge.
At times you use it in a way that sounds (at least to my ear) like it's synonymous with some sort of gnostic enlightenment. Other times you're almost denegrating it and using it to mean something akin to hardcore, seeing-is-believing, empirical data-based inferences.
Quote from: HoshikoAt what point does your intelligence begin to hold you back from seeing more?
I'd guess that a question like this comes from a position that assumes that the something more exists and is
better than intelligence. Sounds like the enlightenment vs. data thing to me.
Quote from: HoshikoIs experience due to stupidity not sometimes better?
Allow me to rephrase this: is the enlightenment due to a lack of intelligence not sometimes better? I guess what I'm getting at is that you seem to be giving 'intelligence' a special relationship to 'knowledge' that I am not sure it rightly deserves; there are many paths to God, absurdity is only one of them.
A lot of people have bought into that 50s corn-ball bullshit that says knowledge is wholly under the aegis of science. The New Age moved it beyond 'science' per se but still think that the methods of science and rationality should
necessarily apply. Thing is -- I have never found a 'scientific method' that adequately allows for or explains how we can get knowledge from observations at all (and I have looked quite hard).
I seem to have wandered on a tangent that is of no use to you.. ahh...
how's this then, I'll just give a personal answer to one of the questions: the point at which intelligence holds you back from seeing more is the point at which the methods for increasing your intelligence require you to be seperated from living in and experiencing the moment in which you find yourself.
I am, of course, wrong.
Edit: Damn my sausage fingers and their attacks on spelling.
be frugal, be wise, above all be drunk.
Hmm. I'm going to think on that some more guido but that's exactly what I was looking for.
This thread was going to be titled "Stupidity". I'm not especially intelligent. There are things that people do that leaves me in stupified awe, like how the heck does this computer actually work and how did they craft this whole world so stupendously. Stupendous and/or stupidous. Stupidity isn't always harmful, but I think W would have been better as a fourth stooge than as president of the world. If he could only just rub two brain cells together. Maybe there won't be a rapture of intelligence. The way things are going, maybe it will be the rapture of DUMB.
Quote from: Devin... I think W would have been better as a fourth stooge than as president of the world.
Dubya? A fourth stooge? No way. He has absolutely no sense of comedic timing.
Does intelligence get in the way of spiritual enlightenment?
Well, if we use my model of reality (that is, a modified RAWilson type of thing), we could say that for many people, "intelligence" could be said to be a thorough indexing and cataloging every thing inside one's own grid/filter/model, and "enlightenment" the concious radical changing of said model.
With that in mind, it would appear that an even-handed approach is needed; Too much focus on "intelligence", and a person might not be aware that they are only working within one of a myrid models, the result being a denial of other model's existence. Too much focus on "enlightenment", and one experiences the new model as completely outside themselves, with no inner/outer exploration, no sense of depth.
I feel that the emphasis of esoteric spiritual traditions on the abandonment of "mind" or "intelligence" as Hoshiko observed can be traced to the widely practiced belief that there "is" only one model, and a particularly strong stress on "intelligence", with "enlightenment" barely touched upon, if at all.
Perhaps this is why Crowley instructed his students to fully analyize and deconstruct every ritual they performed when it was over, and to write down empiracly what occured. In this way, he tried to bring "enlightenment" and "intelligence" together.
Guido, I'm not so sure we're differing. I should have double-checked my wording, true, but let me go through this again.
QuoteAssuming for a second or two that you actually wanted serious responses, I'd say that you're playing fast and loose with your definition of knowledge.
At times you use it in a way that sounds (at least to my ear) like it's synonymous with some sort of gnostic enlightenment. Other times you're almost denegrating it and using it to mean something akin to hardcore, seeing-is-believing, empirical data-based inferences.
Isn't it capable of being both? Knowledge = The sum of what has been learned, whether that be scientific or spiritual.
QuoteI'd guess that a question like this comes from a position that assumes that the something more exists and is better than intelligence.
Maybe not better, but perhaps not encompassed by intelligence. Intelligence as a way to gather knowledge, the capacity to learn, but not the goal itself. Knowledge of some sort would be the goal.
And I believe I see where you're going with this. Intelligence is not necessary for knowledge, although the two can be related, no?
Quote from: Ithe more I learn the more I begin to think that knowledge is not the goal but a means to the end
Change that to intelligence and I think we're getting somewhere. My bad for inter-changing the two.
****
Devin, W isn't dumb. He's smart, deep down he has nihilistic tendencies, and that's exactly why he's dangerous. It's his ever-adoring public who are burying their heads in the sand; he knows exactly what
he's doing, and why would he worry about the consequences if he doesn't have to?
People in power... meh.
Quote from: LMNODoes intelligence get in the way of spiritual enlightenment?
Well, if we use my model of reality (that is, a modified RAWilson type of thing), we could say that for many people, "intelligence" could be said to be a thorough indexing and cataloging every thing inside one's own grid/filter/model, and "enlightenment" the concious radical changing of said model.
Interesting. I've never thought of it that way, but it makes a certain amount of sense. The two constantly being a serious of weights, each detracting from the other in some way. "Tangible Reality" vs "Possibility"? Or am I over-simplifying it?
QuoteWith that in mind, it would appear that an even-handed approach is needed; Too much focus on "intelligence", and a person might not be aware that they are only working within one of a myrid models, the result being a denial of other model's existence. Too much focus on "enlightenment", and one experiences the new model as completely outside themselves, with no inner/outer exploration, no sense of depth.
I feel that the emphasis of esoteric spiritual traditions on the abandonment of "mind" or "intelligence" as Hoshiko observed can be traced to the widely practiced belief that there "is" only one model, and a particularly strong stress on "intelligence", with "enlightenment" barely touched upon, if at all.
And that is what bothered me, I think. The two are not mutually exclusive. They can both obviously exist, and both taken to one extreme seem to be just as detrimental as the other. Co-existing models is a much easier concept to swallow, and it has the added benefit of being possible, unlike (in my experience) the one model viewpoint.
QuotePerhaps this is why Crowley instructed his students to fully analyize and deconstruct every ritual they performed when it was over, and to write down empiracly what occured. In this way, he tried to bring "enlightenment" and "intelligence" together.
Smart thinking. I guess that's why, as hard as I tried, I always had an objection to the term "enlightenment". I just couldn't picture the aspect of my mind preoccupied with reality existing in a situation where perceived reality had no value, and most gurus/ spiritual leaders that I had studied or talked to definitely weren't willing to admit the possibility of "enlightenment" existing peacefully with empirical data.
This makes it much easier to understand. Feel free to tell me if I've missed or misinterpreted anything.
Quote from: HoshikoInteresting. I've never thought of it that way, but it makes a certain amount of sense. The two constantly being a serious of weights, each detracting from the other in some way. "Tangible Reality" vs "Possibility"? Or am I over-simplifying it?
Well, considering I started with an over-simplification, I should probably be clear-er. "Tangible Reality" seems to be more of a "filtered reality"--that is, there is far too much information coming in at any given instant than our brains can handle. We have trained our minds to filter out what we have learned, been taught, and have culturally assimilated to call "useless information". That appears to be our model. Changing our model (fliter) changes the way we look at the world. The realization one can, with much hard work, change the model at will could be called "enlightenment"; some may even change models, and not know what happened, and ascribe the process as "devine". For a ham-fisted example, Cf: Paul on the Road to Damascus.
That much said, there seems to be no "detraction" from purely the concepts of "intelligence" v "enlightenment" per se. The detraction may come from the denial of either process. That is, being intelligent doesn't detract from enlightenment, and being enlightened doesn't detract from intelligence. It is when one is intelligent and forsakes enlightenment, or when one is enlightened and forsakes intelligence, that a problem seems to arise.
QuoteAnd that is what bothered me, I think. The two are not mutually exclusive. They can both obviously exist, and both taken to one extreme seem to be just as detrimental as the other. Co-existing models is a much easier concept to swallow, and it has the added benefit of being possible, unlike (in my experience) the one model viewpoint.
I sometimes think about old esoteric traditions this way: The best way to learn a foreign language is to be fully immersed in that culture. You want to learn Japanese in a hurry? Go live in a part of Japan where most people speak no english. Your ingrained communication skills are useless, and you must adapt or die (well, not
die). In the same way, esoteric arts try to break the student of their ingrained habits of using their model as the sole interpretation of existence.
Because "intelligence" tends to back up whatever model is currently used ("What the Thinker Thinks, the Prover Proves" - Wilson, "Enough research will tend to support your theory", Murphy), the esoteric teachers tend to force the students to abandon "intelligence", as it appears to be the largest stumbling block on the road to enlightenment. What many teachers seem to forget, is to re-introduce intelligence back into the process (Sometimes intentionally - after all, once you add intelligence into enlightenment, you don't really need a teacher anymore).
QuoteSmart thinking. I guess that's why, as hard as I tried, I always had an objection to the term "enlightenment". I just couldn't picture the aspect of my mind preoccupied with reality existing in a situation where perceived reality had no value, and most gurus/ spiritual leaders that I had studied or talked to definitely weren't willing to admit the possibility of "enlightenment" existing peacefully with empirical data.
well, once the whole notion of "models" is understood, there is a definite tendency to doubt that what you are experiencing is indeed "real"; perhaps a better way to describe it is an "interpretation"; Von Neumann's theory of infinite regress is a great description of why Empirical data can't be trusted 100%. Of course, one can't fall into solipsism, which is why the advent of probability theory seems to be so helpful.
If you view the ability to think as another way of observing, like smell, view, sound, touch and taste than breaking free of dogmas sure brings a light to things.
But certain approaches to intelligence can be considered Dogmatic, as well.
I've always perceived and used "dogmatic" in the sense of "being firmly rooted in one paradigm and vehemently dismissing anything which challenges it". With that in mind, I'd actually claim that science is even more dogmatic than most religions.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but as far as my experience has shown, religion has fewer problems with science explaining things than science does with religion explaining things. You can scientifically reduce a person down to DNA sequences and most Christians won't care, because that doesn't change their belief that they were created by a divine being. (Hell, if anything, it'll reaffirm that belief because they can't imagine something that complicated could happen randomly.) On the other hand, science absolutely will not stand for "Because God made it that way" as an explanation for why things can't travel faster than light, because there is no God in the scientific paradigm.
FWIW, it's also been my experience that very few if any people live completely in the scientific paradigm - it's just something they have to operate within while they're at work. They believe in God on their own time, and just leave him at home.
God is a fucking moron.
as much as a non-existent pseudo-entity can be a fucking moron, that is.
8)
You've obviously never met my father. :lol:
Perhaps we're gonna start splitting hairs here, but the way I see it, science (when done right) is one of the least dogmatic things out there (of course, that's like saying christianity, when done right, is the most tolerant of religions*).
Science is designed based upon theories and models, and evidence. The scientific method is the clearest view of this: Hypothesis (theory), experiment, observation, revised hypothesis [repeat]. it in a constant state of revision. If enough evidence is presented that changes a theory, then the theory will change. Never mind the scientists who resist. the science itself will eventually change, or die.
Scientific paradigms are challenged daily. In a way, that's the whole point behind PhD theses. At the same time, scientific challenges are dismissed every day, as well. Usually, this is because of faulty experiements, or illogical proofs. This is why science rejects proofs that end with "because God did it": there are no validating, repeatable experiments that can prove it. It leaves science and becomes theology.
Many scientists rationalize their faith with science by saying God made the Universe; we want to know how the rules in the Universe He made works. Or they are atheists.
Science deals with the possibility of the way things seem to work inside this Universe; Religion deals with the certainty of the way things work outside the universe which affects the universe.
In short, religion bases its beliefs on books and ideas that are thousands of years old. Science bases its beliefs on whatever replicable experiment was done last week, last night, this morning, now.
Which seems more dogmatic to you?
*no, i don't want to start talking about how Taoism (or whatever) is more tolerant. It was just an example.
Quote from: LMNOYou've obviously never met my father. :lol:
Perhaps we're gonna start splitting hairs here, but the way I see it, science (when done right) is one of the least dogmatic things out there (of course, that's like saying christianity, when done right, is the most tolerant of religions*).
Science is designed based upon theories and models, and evidence. The scientific method is the clearest view of this: Hypothesis (theory), experiment, observation, revised hypothesis [repeat]. it in a constant state of revision. If enough evidence is presented that changes a theory, then the theory will change. Never mind the scientists who resist. the science itself will eventually change, or die.
Scientific paradigms are challenged daily. In a way, that's the whole point behind PhD theses. At the same time, scientific challenges are dismissed every day, as well. Usually, this is because of faulty experiements, or illogical proofs. This is why science rejects proofs that end with "because God did it": there are no validating, repeatable experiments that can prove it. It leaves science and becomes theology.
Many scientists rationalize their faith with science by saying God made the Universe; we want to know how the rules in the Universe He made works. Or they are atheists.
Science deals with the possibility of the way things seem to work inside this Universe; Religion deals with the certainty of the way things work outside the universe which affects the universe.
In short, religion bases its beliefs on books and ideas that are thousands of years old. Science bases its beliefs on whatever replicable experiment was done last week, last night, this morning, now.
Which seems more dogmatic to you?
*no, i don't want to start talking about how Taoism (or whatever) is more tolerant. It was just an example.
so If I take lsd today and experience god in the same way that I have in the past that validates god as an actual entity and not just a manifestation of my conscience and subconscience mind?!?!?
no, but you can say that in X many instances when you have taken something you believe (or at least have been told) to be LSD you experienced certain things (subjectively, not objectively) that could be either random synaptic firing, lucid dreaming, sub-atomic neural conciousness, a psychological manifestiation of the conscious and/or subconscious, or direct communication with a supernatural being calling itself "god" (among other hypotheses).
Until you can rule out the former stuff, you can't conclude the latter.
My, this is horribly aneristic, isn't it?
Quote from: HoshikoDevin, W isn't dumb. He's smart, deep down he has nihilistic tendencies, and that's exactly why he's dangerous. It's his ever-adoring public who are burying their heads in the sand; he knows exactly what he's doing, and why would he worry about the consequences if he doesn't have to?
People in power... meh.
W is not that smart. He is like a dog that has learned one trick. He knows
that if he gives his underlings anything they want, that he can have
anything he wants because they will give it to them. He wanted Iraq.
They went and got it for him. They want themselves appointed to
all the important government posts, he gave it to them. Same lesson
all tyrants eventually learn. Doesn't require any intelligence (hell, Idi
Amin did it) because it doesn't require analyzing choices and making
decisions. You just do what you want. Simple.
"Do what thou will" shall be the whole of the law...
or something like that.
8)
You do, of course, realize that the "thou" is an implied collective, and that "Love is the Law: Love under Will".
Of course you did. Silly me.
Quote from: That Communist Bastard"Do what thou will" shall be the whole of the law...
or something like that.
8)
Quote from: Island of Lost Souls
Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to eat meat, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Quote from: Devo
A: WE ARE DEVO!
I don't know if it's true or just apocryphal, but I've heard that Devo got the idea for their name from that movie. Which would also tie in that line with the song.
[EDIT: Just found an interview with Mark Mothersbaugh confirming that the line came from that movie, but he didn't mention anything about getting the band name from it. ]
Quote from: LMNOno, but you can say that in X many instances when you have taken something you believe (or at least have been told) to be LSD you experienced certain things (subjectively, not objectively) that could be either random synaptic firing, lucid dreaming, sub-atomic neural conciousness, a psychological manifestiation of the conscious and/or subconscious, or direct communication with a supernatural being calling itself "god" (among other hypotheses).
Until you can rule out the former stuff, you can't conclude the latter.
My, this is horribly aneristic, isn't it?
My brothers dad made it.
has been since the sixty's.
my brothers grandfather said it was the same as the stuff the government used on him.
I believe it is LSD.
but the question is under any experiment we are limited buy the input of our senses.
So all science really does is grow within our subjective limitations but it is still subject to them. Which is why Newtonian Physics still seems to work to most of us.
all reality is subjective.
I mean Ayn Rand wrote some good stories, but that doesn't make her right.
Exactly. The whole metaphor of the "model" theory of reality contains the idea that all our instruments (including our own perceptions) are inherently subjective. A ruler can't tell time, a stopwatch can't measure length.
That's it's not as accurate to say "I saw God" as it is to say "I had an experience that in my current state of ignorance and knowledge I can only describe as seeing God."
Quote from: LMNOExactly. The whole metaphor of the "model" theory of reality contains the idea that all our instruments (including our own perceptions) are inherently subjective. A ruler can't tell time, a stopwatch can't measure length.
That's it's not as accurate to say "I saw God" as it is to say "I had an experience that in my current state of ignorance and knowledge I can only describe as seeing God."
I never said I saw god I say that I experienced god.
but all of us do everyday.
Buckminster Fuller called it Universe.
Same thing.
Same thing you're saying.
But I realized it the first time under the influence of LSD.
I thought I saw God once when I was grilling on a ten-strip.
then I realized that wasn't possible.
for one thing, I don't believe in God.
for another thing, if he does exist, I doubt he goes around introducing himself as Nyarlathotep.
8)
I dunno - are you sure it's impossible to see things you don't believe in? I think you can, but you're just going to explain it away as something else - which doesn't change the nature of its existence, just of your experience with it.
I think this is similar to why Anton LaVey says unbelievers are the easiest ones to curse - if they believed in Satanic magic, they would be more likely to suspect a hex for what it is and take measures to protect themselves from it. But folks who don't believe in magic will convince themselves that whatever ends up afflicting them is coincidence or mundane conspiracy instead of a hex.
oh, I'm sure it's possible to see things you don't believe in...non-belief doe4sn't necessarily mean non-existance...but as I said, I doubt God, if he exists, would go around introducing himself as Nyarlathotep...he probably doesn't have all those creepy tentacles either...
8)
Are you kidding? If God exists he's probably fucking with us all the time! Think about platypi. Those things are seriously screwed up, and if He made em, well. . . Also, the fact that everyone is meant to be born by being shat out of someone else is pretty hilarious.
If God exists I bet He's hysterical, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if He went around masquerading as Nyarlathotep.
Quote from: Llama Wishfart RinpocheAlso, the fact that everyone is meant to be born by being shat out of someone else...
Um, I'm not sure where you took
your biology class....
Quote from: LMNODoes intelligence get in the way of spiritual enlightenment?
Intelligence can get in the way if you do not listen to people because you believe you are smarter than they are. You have to try to have an open mind. Ultimately you have to find your own path, which is the most difficult thing. Many people appear to find the path to spiritual enlightenment, but that does not mean that I will find it by following them. I can listen to their ideas, read the same books, go with them to the places or groups or meetings or whatever or whereever they go, but that does not mean I will find what they found.
Intelligence can save you if you do not listen to people because you believe you are smarter than they are. Some people claim to be further along than they are. They have mumbo jumbo that may sound intersting or exciting, but it does not mean squat.
The kind of intelligence you really need is experience. The older I get the more it makes sense. This does not mean that I cannot learn from someone younger than I am. It does not mean that my experiences are better than yours, or that yours are better than mine. It means that when you fuck up, you learn from the experience. Most people do not, it seems to me. They look as if they are worshipping destructive disorder and they are surprized when their life is destructed and disorderly. If you would like to see these people, watch any episode of Cops. I am sure there is more in my head, but I'm tired.
Cya
i disagree abotu open minded ness. an open mind is a fool's mind. that doesn't mean you should have a closed mind. buddha said build of your mind a fortress.
after that, an empty mind is the wellspring of i forget.
This is a pretty good thread.
I had a discussion on this topic some time ago with one of my more intelligent friends. You see, he himself is one of the smartest people I know, but a good portion of the people he hung out with (or more accurately, the people who played in his running D&D game) were complete idiots. When I asked him about this, he said that he regarded intelligence as little more than being tall. It was a trait that defined "how high you could reach on the intellectual shelf" but not necessarily one that immediately made you a good or bad person.
While I do agree with that, I still feel that I'd rather have intelligent friends than stupid ones, but stupidity is not something that makes you automatically unworthy nor is intelligence something a good human being.
Pretty wise friend, then. Wise, as opposed to merely smart.
Quote from: The FerretPretty wise friend, then. Wise, as opposed to merely smart.
Yeah. He's got some Moxie.
I'm midrange on the IQ level, but those few extra points don't really add up to a nice person - they just add up to someone who gets disgusted more readily.
All in all, though, it's easier for me to make friends with smart and evil people than good and dumb ones. There's more to talk about with them. I never have any idea what to say to nice people.
Quote from: lolmonsteri disagree abotu open minded ness. an open mind is a fool's mind. that doesn't mean you should have a closed mind. buddha said build of your mind a fortress.
after that, an empty mind is the wellspring of i forget.
It's one of those things where you have to find balance. I haven't read a lot of Buddha, so I am not sure about the quote. I just know that you can't learn anything if your mind is so closed you cannot hear what anyone else is saying. If your mind is so open that you believe everything you hear you will be confused and unable to do anything about anything.
Doh, of Occultforums, had it right when she said, "Stupidity should, and shall be, painful."Stupid people make me want to purge society of all of its rancid blood and rotted minds in a very aggressive and controlling manner. But that is just my fourth cousin making me say things (Mussolini). Sometimes, stupidity is somewhat cute and inspires sympathy, and other times stupid people just have to "get taken care of" if you catch my drift. What is the variable, and will this be on the test?
Ferret, I have the same experience as you. I have a high IQ (171, but I don't think that is something to brag about. The tests tend to be inaccurate, and just because you can't find the next number in a sequence, that does not make you as dumb as Bush or Richard Simmons.), and good people make me sick. I try to talk to them, but when I make jokes I understand, they think I am a freak. I am a freak, but don't walk away because of it. If they would just stay a few more minutes and chat, they would discover that I am a whore and a liar too. Evil people are only evil because they accept their own free will and faults. When faults are accepted, they cease to be faults but instead are characteristics... at least in my eye. Evil people are funny, and they are willing to laugh at dead baby jokes. I admire that; I enjoy a good dead baby joke. Good people cannot accept diversity. The bastards. They never did like my version of hangman or my game If There's A God. Damn them... damn them with sprinkles and extra virgin olive oil.
Quote from: DJRubberduckyI've always perceived and used "dogmatic" in the sense of "being firmly rooted in one paradigm and vehemently dismissing anything which challenges it". With that in mind, I'd actually claim that science is even more dogmatic than most religions.
Speaking as a part of the "scientific community" I think this is a gross overstatement. Sure, scientists are people too, they're often very "smart" in the area they do research, but many could be considered downright "stupid" in other areas.The scientific method is what ties them all together, but it's just a really useful tool. What you get from it depends on how you use it. It's really not too different from the way most people learn things by trial and error. Scientists just happen to be trained to use it to maximum advantage.
If the scientific method is used well, it can be tremendously powerful, but it's not miraculous. Basically, it relies on statistics from past measurements to make statements about future measurements. That means it's, almost by definition, a slow process to do science. You can never truly prove anything, and even to disprove something you still usually need tons of data saying the same thing before people start taking you seriously. It's just not practically possible for everyone to be constantly observant of every little challenge to the current models. That's why there's almost always a "paradigm". It's not written in stone though. Not by far.
The thing is, many people just seem to need truths. Politicians for example. Actually, most humans it seems, want some fundamental facts to be stable, to base their life on. If science was wholly independent of the support of such people and if scientific acclaim wasn't connected to personal power, I don't think "paradigms" would ever be a problem in science. But, as it is, scientists must somehow keep at least a respectable facade in order to get grants for their next project, and so on. That's part of why they simply can't follow up on every crazy idea they get, even if they would like to. Sadly, I suppose many are influenced by this situation, into not even
wanting to challenge their own "truths", which means they turn into beliefs. But, as I said, scientists are just people.
I will freely admit that the scientific method is no magical shield against one's own stupidity. It requires that one is able to formulate the questions in the first place. But once you do, I think it's a really neat tool to have for systematically finding answers.
Q: How many creationists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None - electricity is "just a theory."
With enough evidence, and after thorough peer review, science will change its mind if there is cause. Science has changed its collective mind more than once - so long as there is evidence for it.
Most religions would rather deny the evidence even exists than change their minds. I call that dogmatic.
How many Discordians does it take to change a lightbulb?
Five tons.
:lol:
I figured it out. Most people aren't just stupid. They're also insane. Insanity, like war, is ingrained in our genes and it may be millions upon millions of years before we ever purify it, if ever. Oh well. That's just fine by me. After all, how boring would "pure" sanity be? Very.
Quote from: agent compassionHow many Discordians does it take to change a lightbulb?
Five tons.
:lol:
One God or Goddess, but the light bulb never got changed. Eris is in love with both Bachus and Apollo. Apollo was gonna change the light bulb as a favor to Eris, but Bachus got jealous and punched Apollo's lights out. Years later, Jesus was gonna change it, but now He's stuck on a cross staring at a broken light bulb, wondering if Jehova will ever change.
Quote from: DevinQuote from: agent compassionHow many Discordians does it take to change a lightbulb?
Five tons.
:lol:
One God or Goddess, but the light bulb never got changed. Eris is in love with both Bachus and Apollo. Apollo was gonna change the light bulb as a favor to Eris, but Bachus got jealous and punched Apollo's lights out. Years later, Jesus was gonna change it, but now He's stuck on a cross staring at a broken light bulb, wondering if Jehova will ever change.
And Mohammed just yelled at the Christians and Jews for not changing the bulb, then his followers fought over the best way to change it.
We all drive each other insane. The only sane response it too Yakka noon eschesize.
Quote from: Sinner Bob the Mediocre
We all drive each other insane. The only sane response it too Yakka noon eschesize.
Aren't you glad I'm too stupid to really fuck your mind.
Quote from: ainiQuote from: Sinner Bob the Mediocre
We all drive each other insane. The only sane response it too Yakka noon eschesize.
Aren't you glad I'm faithful to my duty to really fuck your mind.
dude, you couldn;t fuck anyopne's mind here with a ten foo tpolel. or yeah.
Aini,
Is it in yet?
:lol: