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 ... 147
1
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.

2
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.

3
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.

4
Literature / Re: Yearly Targets 2018
« on: July 11, 2018, 05:10:17 pm »
Practicing psychiatry without a license? Or just disagreeing with his worldview?

I've read a lot of Dan Simmons' fiction published since 9/11. To this layman's eyes, there's no evidence of mental deterioration.

I would never.  Amateur psychology on the other hand?  I can't help but.

"Lost his mind" was certainly a colloquialism there not actually denoting metal deterioration, as such, rather, a seeming incredulity with following his seemingly new-found (or at least newly expressed) logic.

To say it simply though, no, I don't agree with that I have read of his (either) current views.  Or at least, as I knew them when I found them, years ago.

5
General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 11, 2018, 05:02:53 pm »
People actually hate to think, and being forced to think is loathed even harder. Thinking is all manners of inconvenient.

At the same time, I don't consider the opinion of the masses to be as important as it is presented today. Some things must be done, any opinion notwithstanding. It will come to "deal with it or die".

Right, it's not that the opinion (especially the uninformed opinion) of the masses is a qualifier, but it is a mark of what is generally going to happen.  So, difficult to accept facts are going to take a long time, if ever, to become permeate the general populace.  The cost will probably end up high, but the way that system might actually be for the better, even though it certainly is frustrating.

6
Literature / Re: Yearly Targets 2018
« on: July 11, 2018, 02:45:15 pm »
Both.  Definitely both.
Well, that's unfortunate.

Yeah, extremism just isn't very good on any end of the spectrum.

IIRC, Card went far-Right into ultra-conservatism and Simmons went similarly into heavy anti-Islamism/Islamiphopia territory.

7
General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 11, 2018, 02:35:24 pm »
So, to come back around to Peterson's point, is to say then that our habit of characterizing the world only as objects, leads itself to continuance, even when it is simply not the right frame...
Indeed, it is the case. It is also a known cognitive bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_bias

The whole problem is, it reduces fitness, which stops its infinite propagation. Yes, it's encountered often, but it is not be all, end all of modern behavior. A mistake shouldn't be considered a model, its effect is different because its impact is negative.

For example, this is why Bakker can see what he sees in our society and shout his warnings. He wouldn't be able to do that if the things he warns about lay completely beyond every frame of reference available to humanity.

Right, right, I mean, there are ways out of the loop, the first being, of course, to recognize that the frame can be incorrect.  Next is conceptualize what the better frame would be.  But there is a reason why Bakker and Peterson aren't exactly highly regarded by most people though...

8
Literature / Re: Yearly Targets 2018
« on: July 11, 2018, 02:12:34 pm »
Also, I recall reading a fair bit of evidence that Dan Simmons lost his mind at some point after Hyperion, some time around 9/11.
Wasn't that Orson Scott Card? Or is it both?

Both.  Definitely both.

9
General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 11, 2018, 02:08:09 pm »
It's more of an obvious cognitive mistake than conditioning, the way I see it. Just using a wrong model out of habit. Like when I first start speaking English after speaking Russian for a while, I would have a horrible accent, which will mostly fade away given a few minutes. What happens there is me trying to pronounce English words using muscular routines developed for Russian ones, because I had just been speaking Russian before. And then I hear myself speak, realize that I'm doing it wrong, and correct my behavior.

It's even more complex than that, actually. I specifically developed other routines for speaking because my Russian ones weren't producing results in regards to speaking English. The point being, when you use an inappropriate frame of reference for something, it instantly negatively impacts your performance.

Fair point.  I think if we substitute the word "habituation" for "conditioning" we can perhaps see how they go hand-in-hand though.  Conditions provide us the frame, which we internally habituate into the default.  In this way, the habit then continues to condition the response to rely on the habitual frame, given it's previous utility.  So, the habit conditions and the conditioning habituates the frame, ad infinitum. 

That is, until something comes along and violates, forcing a new frame to be needed.  In this case though, the response could be to discover a new frame, or "double-down" and construe the violation in a manner that makes the frame fit, no matter how poorly.  So, in your example, the way you "correct" your "recognition" of "I'm doing it wrong" when using your Russian frame to speak English, is to shift the frame.  But there is a chance you could have gone the other way, deciding the English would be "better off" spoken with your Russian inflection and fostering on.

So, to come back around to Peterson's point, is to say then that our habit of characterizing the world only as objects, leads itself to continuance, even when it is simply not the right frame...

10
Literature / Re: Yearly Targets 2018
« on: July 11, 2018, 01:28:39 pm »
That's ... kinda sad. Caliban's War just moved down on my to-read list lol.
Currently reading Illium by Dan Simmons. Honestly, after Hyperion, I'm pretty disappointed with how its starting out.

Well, it probably is/was better than the one before it that I can't remember the name of because I am old.  It's just that it is the same general formula, written out a different way.

Also, I recall reading a fair bit of evidence that Dan Simmons lost his mind at some point after Hyperion, some time around 9/11.

11
General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 11, 2018, 01:07:23 pm »
This necessity forces aforementioned frames of references on the mind, certainly, but saying it conditions the mind is going a bit too far, in my opinion. It doesn't displace other ways of understanding the world, or no new frames of reference or paradigms would've surfaced.

But that "forcing of a frame" isn't a form of "conditioning?"  At least in the sense of our "default" method of perceiving?

To use one of Bakker's favorite says, in a way, and put simply, if we view everything from a hammer's perspective, we will be apt to see far more nails than screws perhaps?

12
The Unholy Consult / Re: Subject and Object Ruminations
« on: July 11, 2018, 10:08:41 am »
Yes; operator = ZG and operand = perspective.

So then, the Zero God is the Subject and Object merged, the No-God, the Subject and Object as a sort of disjunctive union?

13
The Unholy Consult / Re: Subject and Object Ruminations
« on: July 10, 2018, 08:44:42 pm »
Quote
Not a measure but an operator.  Transforming all frames to zero.

Well, from the non-mathmatical aspect, a frame is the perspective.

Quote
I've fallen into the classic trap of thinking of matrices (frames) as things rather than operators!  Frames are operators on what, though -- observable phenomena? Existence? What is the operand?

If Frames, then, are the perspective, then they operate on perception.  Even more to the point though, they operative on the subjective valuation of perceiving (i.e. consciousness?).  So, the Cubit, is the ultimate Frame, because it is the perception of the thing, from the thing, because all things are one thing, no thing, the Zero thing.  There is no distance, Subject and Object are the same.

14
Literature / Re: Yearly Targets 2018
« on: July 10, 2018, 08:06:15 pm »
So, I actually managed to finish Persepolis Rising.  It was OK, just another installment in the series really...

15
General Misc. / Re: A celebration for the clever
« on: July 10, 2018, 04:38:38 pm »
Quote
The phenomena that we would now describe as emotions or motive forces, from the per-spective of our modern, comparatively differentiated and acute self-consciousness, do not appear to have been experienced precisely as “internal” in their original form. Rather, they made their appearance as part and parcel of the experience (the event, or sequence of events) that gave rise to them, and adopted initial representational form in imaginative embodiment. The modern idea of the “stimulus” might be regarded as a vestigial remnant of this form of thinking—a form that grants the power of affective and behavioral control to the object (or which cannot distinguish between that which elicits a response, and the response itself). We no longer think “animistically” as adults, except in our weaker or more playful moments, because we attribute motivation and emotion to our own agency, and not (generally) to the stimulus that gives proximal rise to them. We can separate the thing from the implication of the thing, because we are students and beneficiaries of empirical thinking and experimental method. We can remove attribution of motive and affective power from the “object,” and leave it standing in its purely sensory and consensual aspect; can distinguish between what is us and what is world. The preexperimental mind could not (cannot) do this, at least not consistently; could not reliably discriminate between the object and its effect on behavior. It is that object and effect which, in totality, constitute a god (more accurately, it is a class of objects and their effects that constitute a god).

A god, so considered—more specifically, a potent and powerful god, one with a history—constitutes the manner in which a group or family of stimuli of isomorphic motivational significance reveals itself to or grips the collective (communicated) imagination of a given culture. Such a representation is a peculiar mix (from the later, empirical viewpoint) of psychological and sociological phenomena and objective “fact”—an undifferentiated mix of subject and object (of emotion and sensory experience), transpersonal in nature (as it is historically elaborated “construction” and shared imaginative experience). The primitive deity nonetheless serves as accurate representation of the ground of being, however, because it is affect and subjectivity as well as pure object (before the two are properly distilled or separated)—because it is primordial experience, rather than the mere primordial thing.

Jordan Peterson - Maps of Meaning

So, the 100?  And so then further, Yatwer as a Principle?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 147