Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - H

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 148
General Misc. / Re: What's your favorite kind of pie?
« on: August 21, 2018, 08:03:06 pm »
This thread makes me sad now though, because I can't eat dairy at all any more.

But on the plus side, I am about healthy as can be.  Which isn't a shock since I don't eat much, since anything that tastes good makes me sick...

FB - if joining The Consult is an option, count me in!


No, seriously, it's a trap...

Philosophy & Science / Re: Bakker and Harris
« on: August 08, 2018, 12:04:25 pm »
Of course.  I agree with all these things.

I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)

If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!

Well, I really don't know much about Harris, in reality either.  From what I have seen, he is generally pretty smart.  So, chances are good that if he said something, he had a definite agenda in doing so.  I mean, the little I have read from him makes it seem that he likes to take some hard-line objectivity stance and then back it up with "scientific" rationale.  Possibly a noble endeavor, but flawed all the same...

Taken in isolation, it probably is true, that some ideas are so detrimental to have and to hold that it would be best that those that hold them simply did not exist.  The issue of course is, who gets to be the arbiter of that?  What is the threshold criterion for expunging such?  The problem comes in the humans are irredeemably (yes, I mean that literally) biased.  That includes humans engaged in science.  So, I'd distinctly reject the idea that science could or should be the arbiter.  So, then, we are back in the lurch for how we could know what is "too dangerous" and what isn't.

I believe the Harris is firmly against any sort of "transcendental" ideas.  While objectively factual, you are going to be missing something with that kind of hard line.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Genetic Engineering the future
« on: August 07, 2018, 05:47:18 pm »
While a difficult question, I seriously doubt humans will concede that a created "enhanced" human is post-human, or any other term that implies 'not actually human'. Starting from human stock will safeguard whatever the result is, as calling it something else diminishes the achievement. Its an ego thing.

But what if they decide that?  I.E. what if a "created" "post-Human" sues for rights?  Or what happens when created Humans simply out preform born humans?  Born humans would simply end up out, evolutionarily speaking, right?

Philosophy & Science / Re: Bakker and Harris
« on: August 07, 2018, 05:36:17 pm »
Free speech is probably without argument the most dangerous thing to any person with any modicum of power (outside physical violence - human bodies are so squishy).

It's also (seemingly) essential to whatever we want to call it, liberty, freedom, efficacy, etc.

The thing is, and too many people seem to have a very hard time understanding this practically, that freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence or freedom from responsibility for speech.  Also, it doesn't guarantee a forum; for example, the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (where there is no fire).  No one says you can't say the word "fire," however, you can't yell it in a place that where doing so would cause a danger.  In the same way, not speaking of "danger" however but perhaps more abstractly of "harm," no one is "entitled" to have their videos hosted by say, Facebook or YouTube.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Genetic Engineering the future
« on: August 07, 2018, 05:18:54 pm »
Brings into focus the issues raised in something like Blade Runner 2049, i.e. "what are the moral and ethical implications of 'humans' who aren't actually human?"  I don't think there is, can be, or ever will be a "clear" answer to that.  It really, so heavily, depends on what you hinge "value" and "values."

Which, is tangential to a question I have offered myself from time to time, for different reasons, "what are the moral implications of killing something that has no feelings?"

It is a shame that TUC didn't give us more information. I hope the other books get published at some point. But a full year of radio silence does not seem hopeful lol.

Oh, ye of little faith....

What's a year for us Veterens of The Slog?

The Unholy Consult / Re: Two Questions
« on: August 07, 2018, 02:28:10 pm »
1. Just who is it that tells Celmomas, that an Anasurimbor will return at the end of the world?

Well, if the Dream in TGO Chapter 8 is to be believed, it's Gilgaöl, manifested as Kellhus.  Or Kellhus manifest as Gilgaöl.

It's a much more complex question though of what the hell that means if it's true.  If it's false, well, that's simple.  So, if we want to explore the idea, we need to take on faith that it's the genuine nature of the revelation.  In that case, it's either a clue into the "leaky" nature of the Dreams, or a purview of the atemporal nature of the Outside as pleroma.

2. What is the purpose of the Dunyain?

This one is a lot more tricky.  I think I'll have to take a crack at it when I have a bit more time.

I don't know that it is clear or not that the ideal wasn't the natural extension of the same sort of ideas that spawned the Consult though...

General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 31, 2018, 05:05:07 pm »
I was summing up what I think he was saying briefly, not saying I agree/disagree with it. Calling it a lie is too simplistic, ofc. I'm not as gifted as Nitz with his command of succinctness, I'm more awkward.

Aren't we all?  If I was even a 64th as smart...the things that could be done...who knows?

I think the crux might come in to the intersection of what is true, what could be true, and what should be true.  True, as in, actually Being.

General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 30, 2018, 08:19:09 pm »
I was a "fan" of the man in my younger years - deconstruction of Christianity/Judaism paired with a dystopic vision of what it'll be like without it. It's a lie, it's self-limiting/enslavement/reduction, but the road out of it leads to nothingness.

It's interesting, because (and I don't mean this to attempt to put forth the idea that somehow I was smart or anything even approaching it) in my necessarily depressive teenage and later years, it seemed clear to me that rationality was not a surrogate savior to, say, religion.  I had no ability to understand how or why though.  It's interesting to read that kind of why, now, later in life when it is actually less helpful to me due to circumstance but allowing what might be a more substantive perceptive.

I think the word lie and the word truth though, in a subjective sense, are semantic traps, perhaps.

General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 30, 2018, 05:04:51 pm »
Of what is great one must either be silent or speak with greatness. With greatness—that means cynically and with innocence. What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism…. Our whole European culture is moving for some time now, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade, as toward a catastrophe: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.

He that speaks here has, conversely, done nothing so far but to reflect: as a philosopher and solitary by instinct who has found his advantage in standing aside, outside. Why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals—because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these “values” really had.

We require, at some time, new values.

Nihilism stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests?

Point of departure: it is an error to consider “social distress” or “physiological degeneration,” or corruption of all things, as the cause of nihilism. Ours is the most honest and compassionate age. Distress, whether psychic, physical, or intellectual, need not at all produce nihilism (that is, the radical rejection of value, meaning, and desirability). Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations. Rather: it is in one particular interpretation, the Christian moral one, that nihilism is rooted.

The end of Christianity—at the hands of its own morality (which cannot be replaced), which turns against the Christian God: the sense of truthfulness, highly developed by Christianity, is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history; rebound from “God is the truth” to the fanatical faith “All
is false”; an active Buddhism.

Skepticism regarding morality is what is decisive. The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it has tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism.

“All lacks meaning.” (The untenability of one interpretation of the world, upon which a tremendous amount of energy has been lavished, awakens the suspicion that all interpretations of the world are false.)

-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

Well shit, if that isn't hitting a nail on the head...

I just realized, rereading this now that I think I misunderstood the intent of the tread.

I mean, my earlier post asked about if sins unseen still damn, which I actually think I am wrong on, because I twisted the question in my head.  The Nonmen dug deep for reasons, one of which was to avoid the sight of the gods.  So, indeed, it seems logical that sins committed out of sight are unknown.  But that wasn't the question.

I think the question was, does being out of sight keep you from being damned?  And to this, I think the answer is actually still no.  It's why it is important that the No-God stops the cycle of souls, but doesn't actually "blind" the gods.  Sin marks you.  Once marked, you stay that way, until absolved somehow or you die.  What the No-God does isn't absolution though, it's annihilation.

I'm not quite sure what you are proposing?

That sins committed out of the view of the gods don't damn one's soul?

I don't think this is true.  Once the No-God is active, we are told that the gods can still see, they are simply cut off from the harvesting of souls.  Ergo, it would seem to stand to reason that you soul is still damned, it just never gets reaped by a god, if the No-God intercedes.  This also explains the still-births, being that the Great Cycle of Souls does indeed cease to function while the No-God is active.

General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 12, 2018, 02:00:59 pm »
I don't think it's possible to control the rate of societal evolution (at least not in a productive manner). On the other hand, it's very possible to take it into account.

Hmm, that is complex.  I think it is possible to move it in small degrees, which is probably as "good" as it gets.  If it's plausible to be able to nudge people in a given direction, then I think it's plausible that you can nudge larger groups of people and so society.

However, if you foster entrenchment, nothing good is going to come of it.

General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 12, 2018, 10:07:21 am »
but it is a mark of what is generally going to happen.
It's like you say, more a mark of how soon it will happen and how well it's going to be received.

And I agree, this is one of the main reasons why many long-overdue improvements are stalled. I remember having a similar conversation with Wilshire about progress. Unimpeded progress is not the norm.

Right, I mean, at it's best, you'd want a society that is conservative enough to not throw away things of value, but liberal enough to actually change with the times and adapt to new circumstances.  How you actually achieve that balance is tricky though.  Especially with how entrenched people are now-a-days.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 148