reality and all that

[matthewsquires]

sometimes my thought process goes like this:

1. there's a cup on my table
2. i can't prove there's a cup on the table because all i have to base that on is my sensory perception and not the inherent knowledge of the cup being on the table
3. do I know anything, then?
4.  No.  I believe a shitload of things, and I theorize a shitload of things.
5.  Isn't what I just said a theory then?
6.  Yes, it is.
7.  So why am I so sure of myself?
8.  I'm not.
9.  Is there an authentic way to perceive?
10.  Ideally, the authentic perception is to experience truly and not perceive.
11.  Is that attainable?
12.  I won't know unless I attain it.
13.  Well, let's say there's an authentic, singular, true way to experience things... if I were to attain that ability, then (following the theory that everything is a theory) wouldn't I wonder if it was just me theorizing and I would actually inhibit myself from experiencing things authentically, because I was so skeptical of inauthenticity?
14.  I'm too lazy to finish this train of thought.

[Kai]

BAI be barstoolin'.

[Elder Iptuous]

please note, matthew (good name...), that this line of thinking is common enough around here that BAI's response has been distilled to a 'smiley'....
the barstool....

[Kai]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.0 And this

[The Good Reverend Roger]

sometimes my thought process goes like this:

1. there's a cup on my table
2. i can't prove there's a cup on the table because all i have to base that on is my sensory perception and not the inherent knowledge of the cup being on the table
3. do I know anything, then?
4.  No.  I believe a shitload of things, and I theorize a shitload of things.
5.  Isn't what I just said a theory then?
6.  Yes, it is.
7.  So why am I so sure of myself?
8.  I'm not.
9.  Is there an authentic way to perceive?
10.  Ideally, the authentic perception is to experience truly and not perceive.
11.  Is that attainable?
12.  I won't know unless I attain it.
13.  Well, let's say there's an authentic, singular, true way to experience things... if I were to attain that ability, then (following the theory that everything is a theory) wouldn't I wonder if it was just me theorizing and I would actually inhibit myself from experiencing things authentically, because I was so skeptical of inauthenticity?
14.  I'm too lazy to finish this train of thought.

Fucking pseudo-intellectual garbage.  Fucking smack yourself, then smack your mother for smoking while she was pregnant.

TGRR,
Wants his fucking bandwidth back.

[Telarus]

  Ok, now that you have been pummeled by Barstools, lets take another look at your original premise and where you seem to have strayed. I would recommend reading this R.A. Wilson essay (http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html), and then re-examine your bullet points.

[matthewsquires]

So should I say the barstool didn't hurt when I was hit over the head with it?  It just seemed to me that it hurt?

if it's all lines on a map, and i'm too fixated on the map to see the actual terrain, what do i need to do to see the terrain?  or how do i know that there's a map if i have no frame of reference because i've never seen the terrain? 

I'm not trying to be contrary and i probably sound like an idiot, maybe i am one, i'm just trying to get a grip of discordianism, I guess.

[Iason Ouabache]

Either you've smoked too much weed or not enough. I can't decide yet.

[matthewsquires]

i think i smoked too little.  i got high and came down and wrote this after thinking hard about it, but i think it kind of makes sense, but i[m high, so i might be posting something nonsensical.


When one constructs a philosophy, he or she is making up a theory of how the universe works, and logical conclusions are mental tools that enable theories to work.  If we didn't have mental theories we wouldn't be able to cope in an objective universe. As subjective-feeling creatures we are forced to theorize about "how we fit into the big picture" in order to operate objectively.  There is no internal essence of things outside of what we give them, but because we give them meaning, they have meaning.  This does not depreciate the value of these objects.   They are important because we have the power to make them important, and it just happens that one of the theories we like to believe in is that objects must be valuable in-them-of-themselves in order for them to be authentically valuable.  The only reason this value-system seems necessary to us is because it was logically concluded to after theorizing about how we fit into the world.  It is like living in a world where everyone sees the color green differently.  We then all agree to label it as the word green.  So we can agree on it but that doesn't make us see the same thing.  If we say that it looks the same for everyone, we're obviously speculating.  But let's say the taste of oranges brought joy to everyone, but everyone's actual experience of the taste was different.  Like we were programmed to taste goodness so that we could keep eating it, but the actual experience of what joyfulness was, was up to everyone's imaginations after absorbing the stimuli.  Well does this mean the enjoyment is gone.  As long as your saying it's a joyful experience, you will experience joy.  So as long as you say that life is meaningful, you will experience meaning in the same way.  Life is life.  It doesn't have meaning or a lack of meaning.  We create that.  So to be bothered by this fact is like setting up a machine that has artificial intelligence and telling it to be unhappy. 

To conclude that there is a god is just as much a theory as concluding that there is no god.  Neither has more going for it or against it.  The world working according to laws means that the world works according to laws.  It does not mean there is no god, or there is a god.  Take your best guess, but you do not know either way.  Belief is different then religion.  You can belong to a church and not believe in god, and you can believe in god and not go to church.  When we choose to believe in god, we then create an image of him in our likeness.  We make him reward and punish whatever our culture happens to tell us that he rewards and punishes.  So we imagine god seeing murder bad, and that becomes one of the things he told us in the ten commandments, Over-active imaginations lead to crusades and things like that. 

[Requia ☣]

Lets say that you're right and there is no barstool.

Then what?

[Kai]

So should I say the barstool didn't hurt when I was hit over the head with it?  It just seemed to me that it hurt?

if it's all lines on a map, and i'm too fixated on the map to see the actual terrain, what do i need to do to see the terrain?  or how do i know that there's a map if i have no frame of reference because i've never seen the terrain? 

I'm not trying to be contrary and i probably sound like an idiot, maybe i am one, i'm just trying to get a grip of discordianism, I guess.

No no, reality is there. Our senses filter reality, but its still out there, real and whole. Our maps are the concepts we form to understand our reality. You can't ever see the real terrain directly, only through your filters.

Okay, so, for your questions.

If you're really fixated on your personal maps right now, and this doesn't seem to be helping your overal sense of wellbeing, then perhaps you need to alter your maps better to suit the reality of whatever situations you're going through. Again, you can't see the actual territory, just a small portion of it, but since everyone else has the same problem it's not something you should worry too much about. Make your maps based on the imput that is at hand, and collaborate with others to clarify and enhance them.

You do have a frame of reference, you have your eyes, and ears, and your other senses. You have people around you that you can ask "hey, do you see that purple monkey over there?" and "can I run this past you to see if it bears any relation to your reality or if its way off?" This is what you have to work with so work with it. You have what your central nervous system tells you and you have others to ground you. Sure, we might ALL be crazy, but then crazy is normal and there's no way to isolate it anyway. You work with what you have.

Also, get off the pot. It makes you foggy headed, screws with your circuitry so you can't think straight. Its no different than being tired or hungry or drunk. Maybe it helps make weird connections, but to /understand/ those connections you need to be sober and physically healthy.

[Captain Utopia]

Also, get off the pot. It makes you foggy headed, screws with your circuitry so you can't think straight. Its no different than being tired or hungry or drunk. Maybe it helps make weird connections, but to /understand/ those connections you need to be sober and physically healthy.

I think of it in terms of periods of theory and practice - spending too much time on either has its own rewards, but neither in isolation seems to bring tangible progress. For a long time though, it was the only way I could taste Leary's sixth circuit.

Try one month on, one month off. If you see no improvement, increase the period size.

[Triple Zero]

Lets say that you're right and there is no barstool.

Then what?

you have to stand, or sort of lean while ordering your drink?

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

So should I say the barstool didn't hurt when I was hit over the head with it?  It just seemed to me that it hurt?

What difference does it make whether the barstool actually hurt or only seemed to hurt, if the barstool was indistinguishable from a barstool and the feeling was indistinguishable from pain?

What does it matter whether or not the cup was there if you are incapable of determining whether or not the cup is really there or simply seems to be there, and the cup acts indistinguishably from a cup that would be there were the cup there?

In other words, it's an artificial problem. A good one for wanking, but still not useful in the least.

[Kai]

Also, get off the pot. It makes you foggy headed, screws with your circuitry so you can't think straight. Its no different than being tired or hungry or drunk. Maybe it helps make weird connections, but to /understand/ those connections you need to be sober and physically healthy.

I think of it in terms of periods of theory and practice - spending too much time on either has its own rewards, but neither in isolation seems to bring tangible progress. For a long time though, it was the only way I could taste Leary's sixth circuit.

Try one month on, one month off. If you see no improvement, increase the period size.

Bullshit. First of all, you don't need external doping mechanisms to actualize any of the circuits, in fact, I think they would probably hinder your progress as the more you use, the more you rely on them to reach a state of mind. Most of the talk about the upper circuits is just drug addled stupidity. Psychic powers, my ass. Completely distracting you from the very real ability to alter your perception of the world on your own. BTW, if you weren't doing it on your own, then you didn't reach it. Its not satori, you don't 'taste it'. The higher circuits are states of being that you reach after building up to them from below. You don't just say, hey, I think I'll enjoy a little 6th circuit experience right now and down some Psilocybin cubensis. Thats not intelligence, thats not ANYTHING except getting you fucked up. Random firings of neuropathy by externally induced hallucinogenic substances = a random uncontrolled hallucinogenic experience. There's nothing about "reality selection" involved, except that you just selected to get fucked up and rationalized it would "make you smarter", when in reality it just made you temporarily catatonic and randomly stupid.

Second, what the fuck are you doing suggesting ANY drugs to a person who so obviously can't think straight? He needs to get the fuck off the pot and get his lower circuits in order. Jesus.

Fucking drug addled hippy shitnecks.