The Second Apocalypse

Miscellaneous Chatter => General Misc. => Topic started by: TaoHorror on May 29, 2018, 05:34:12 pm

Title: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on May 29, 2018, 05:34:12 pm
I love quotes. Love the quotes before each chapter in PON and Dune. Love them from all walks and times. So I'm starting a thread to collect cool quotes.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on May 29, 2018, 05:35:13 pm
If you can believe it, Jack Nicholson at a younger age was self conscious of his image as an actor and was reframing from doing work that could paint him as a perenial bad guy. Stanley Kubrick approached him for the starring role in The Shining and Jack took some convincing. Jack expressed he wanted to perform optimistic stories.

Stanley Kubrick responded, "The Shining is optimistic. Any story suggesting there is an after-life is optimistic."
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on May 31, 2018, 08:28:59 pm
Ok, this thread is being ignored, no problem, no hurt feelings, I like talking to myself anyways, so here goes another winner ...

Rocky Horror Picture Show/Frankenfurter, "Don't dream it, be it"
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TLEILAXU on June 01, 2018, 10:17:34 am
From Heretics of Dune: "The sun is not God!"
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on June 01, 2018, 11:05:25 am
The Royal Tenenbaums has a bunch of quotes that are really great, it's easily one of my top 3 movies, perhaps even #1.  A couple of my favorites:

Quote
Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is... maybe he didn't?

Quote
The crickets and the rust-beetles scuttled among the nettles of the sage thicket. "Vámonos, amigos," he whispered, and threw the busted leather flintcraw over the loose weave of the saddlecock. And they rode on in the friscalating dusklight.

Quote
Why would a review make the point of saying someone's not a genius? You think I'm especially not a genius?
[Pause]
You didn't even have to think about it, did you?
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on June 01, 2018, 05:21:35 pm
From Heretics of Dune: "The sun is not God!"

Maybe for Dune, she's not - but she's surely is here. It gave us life and when she red-dwarfs, she will end us ... sounds like the power of a god to me.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on June 01, 2018, 05:22:27 pm
The Royal Tenenbaums has a bunch of quotes that are really great, it's easily one of my top 3 movies, perhaps even #1.

Haven't see this movie - guess I better, that is a serious recommendation, let alone some great quotes  :)
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on June 04, 2018, 01:49:10 pm
Inspired by today's Q talk:

Woody Allen's Deconstructing Harry, "I love whores."
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on June 12, 2018, 03:26:15 pm
"In view of these portentous impossibilities, it has been assumed, perhaps as the result of a growing impatience with the difficult factual material, that Christ was nothing but a myth, in this case no more than a fiction. But myth is not fiction: it consists of facts that are continually repeated and can be observed over and over again. It is something that happens to man, and men have mythical fates just as much as the Greek heroes do. The fact that the life of Christ is largely myth does absolutely nothing to disprove its factual truth—quite the contrary. I would even go so far as to say that the mythical character of a life is just what expresses its universal human validity. It is perfectly possible, psychologically, for the unconscious or an archetype to take complete possession of a man and to determine his fate down to the smallest detail."

C. G. Jung - "An Answer to Job"
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: Wilshire on June 12, 2018, 06:13:08 pm
"Though well-equipped, we know not who we are or where we are going"
- Dr. Leon Kass on the possibilities of genetic engineering and modern science.

I encountered this line when I was much younger (still in grade school), doing 'research' for a 'paper' I was 'writing'. It stuck in my mind, though now I can't recall exactly what paper I got it from. A quick search pulls several hits- it seems its oft quoted - so I'm no longer sure exactly where it came from or the exact context. Great line though.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on June 12, 2018, 09:00:42 pm
"Though well-equipped, we know not who we are or where we are going"
- Dr. Leon Kass on the possibilities of genetic engineering and modern science.

I encountered this line when I was much younger (still in grade school), doing 'research' for a 'paper' I was 'writing'. It stuck in my mind, though now I can't recall exactly what paper I got it from. A quick search pulls several hits- it seems its oft quoted - so I'm no longer sure exactly where it came from or the exact context. Great line though.

Reminds me of a Timothy Leary quote I have memorized thanks to it being in a song:

“Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.”
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: MSJ on June 12, 2018, 09:13:54 pm
Just wanna say I like the thread, and ill share how ive been vulnerable to my own biases, yet I (hopefully I am, but I indeed try to admit when I'm wrong and proof is put in my face) usually keep an open mind in any subject. I love this community because when people do disagree, its civil. I really enjoy that. And, I have had many views changed by just reading posts here. And, please feel free to call me out when I am not. I can fully admit to being wrong. I love that quote from above, first time ive heard it. Good words to live by.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: themerchant on June 13, 2018, 04:45:47 am
(https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/j/johnwooden/106379/johnwooden1-2x.jpg)
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on June 18, 2018, 03:28:06 pm
"And, as for such faith: it is not at all the will to believe things that you know perfectly well to be false. Faith is not the childish belief in magic. That is ignorance or even willful blindness. It is instead the realization that the tragic irrationalities of life must be counterbalanced by an equally irrational commitment to the essential goodness of Being."

Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules For Life
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on June 19, 2018, 11:18:46 am
Quote
Christ would never have made the impression he did on his followers if he had not expressed something that was alive and at work in their unconscious. Christianity itself would never have spread through the pagan world with such astonishing rapidity had its ideas not found an analogous psychic readiness to receive them. It is this fact which also makes it possible to say that whoever believes in Christ is not only contained in him, but that Christ then dwells in the believer as the perfect man formed in the image of God, the second Adam. Psychologically, it is the same relationship as that in Indian philosophy between man’s ego-consciousness and purusha, or atman. It is the ascendency of the “complete”——or total human being, consisting of the totality of the psyche, of conscious and unconscious, over the ego, which represents only consciousness and its contents and knows nothing of the unconscious, although in many respects it is dependent on the unconscious and is often decisively influenced by it. This relationship of the self to the ego is reflected in the relationship of Christ to man.

C. G. Jung - "An Answer to Job"
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on June 22, 2018, 11:18:18 am
Quote
However, I have been asked so often whether I believe in the existence of God or not that I am somewhat concerned lest I be taken for an adherent of “psychologism” far more commonly than I suspect. What most people overlook or seem unable to understand is the fact that I regard the psyche as real. They believe only in physical facts, and must consequently come to the conclusion that either the uranium itself or the laboratory equipment created the atom bomb. That is no less absurd than the assumption that a non-real psyche is responsible for it. God is an obvious psychic and non-physical fact, i.e., a fact that can be established psychically but not physically. Equally, these people have still not got it into their heads that the psychology of religion falls into two categories, which must be sharply distinguished from one another: firstly, the psychology of the religious person, and secondly, the psychology of religion proper, i.e., of religious contents.

C. G. Jung - "An Answer to Job"
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on June 22, 2018, 05:41:29 pm
Quote
However, I have been asked so often whether I believe in the existence of God or not that I am somewhat concerned lest I be taken for an adherent of “psychologism” far more commonly than I suspect. What most people overlook or seem unable to understand is the fact that I regard the psyche as real. They believe only in physical facts, and must consequently come to the conclusion that either the uranium itself or the laboratory equipment created the atom bomb. That is no less absurd than the assumption that a non-real psyche is responsible for it. God is an obvious psychic and non-physical fact, i.e., a fact that can be established psychically but not physically. Equally, these people have still not got it into their heads that the psychology of religion falls into two categories, which must be sharply distinguished from one another: firstly, the psychology of the religious person, and secondly, the psychology of religion proper, i.e., of religious contents.

C. G. Jung - "An Answer to Job"

Are you religious, H?
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on June 22, 2018, 07:24:07 pm
Are you religious, H?

No, although that probably makes my actual position definitively less clear.  I steal that quote from Jung, because he is infinitely more smart than I am and so can explain some aspects of my perspective far more eloquently than I ever could.

Anther quote from Peterson (I know you guys love him):
Quote
Then there is the conversation where one participant is trying to attain victory for his point of view. This is yet another variant of the dominance-hierarchy conversation. During such a conversation, which often tends toward the ideological, the speaker endeavours to (1) denigrate or ridicule the viewpoint of anyone holding a contrary position, (2) use selective evidence while doing so and, finally, (3) impress the listeners (many of whom are already occupying the same ideological space) with the validity of his assertions. The goal is to gain support for a comprehensive, unitary, oversimplified world-view. Thus, the purpose of the conversation is to make the case that not thinking is the correct tack. The person who is speaking in this manner believes that winning the argument makes him right, and that doing so necessarily validates the assumption-structure of the dominance hierarchy he most identifies with. This is often—and unsurprisingly—the hierarchy within which he has achieved the most success, or the one with which he is most temperamentally aligned. Almost all discussions involving politics or economics unfold in this manner, with each participant attempting to justify fixed, a priori positions instead of trying to learn something or to adopt a different frame (even for the novelty). It is for this reason that conservatives and liberals alike believe their positions to be self-evident, particularly as they become more extreme. Given certain temperamentally-based assumptions, a predictable conclusion emerges—but only when you ignore the fact that the assumptions themselves are mutable.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on June 26, 2018, 01:24:00 pm
Quote
Jesus, protect us from your followers

As a fellow Christian, I too can very much appreciate this one - originally saw it on a bumper sticker on a car in front of me, but research has it quoted by many, so not sure the original author. Says a lot on many levels, like great efficient code.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on June 29, 2018, 06:24:45 pm
Quote
The affective systems that govern response to punishment, satisfaction, threat and promise all have a stake in attaining the ideal outcome. Anything that interferes with such attainment (little old ladies with canes) will be experienced as threatening and/or punishing; anything that signifies increased likelihood of success (open stretches of sidewalk) will be experienced as promising or satisfying. It is for this reason that the Buddhists believe that everything is Maya, or illusion: the motivational significance of ongoing events is clearly determined by the nature of the goal toward which behavior is devoted. That goal is conceptualized in episodic imagery—in fantasy. We constantly compare the world at present to the world idealized in fantasy, render affective judgment, and act in consequence.

Jordan Peterson Maps of Meaning
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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?
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: SmilerLoki on July 11, 2018, 12:52:25 pm
So, the 100?  And so then further, Yatwer as a Principle?
Does seem like it indeed. And in a way that would Earwa a simulacrum of consciousness without sacrificing realism and complexity.

But the problem is, real-world implications are much more moot. It it very hard to determine the effects of methodology and necessary learning on the mind. Right now we have things that are explained using specific frames of reference (be it Newtonian formalism in physics, computational logic paradigm used in computer science, etc.), and you need to understand those things to navigate any modern society. 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.

It's very hard to say whether our acquired method of interacting with the world really changed us, and if it did, then to what extent.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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?
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: SmilerLoki on July 11, 2018, 01:26:57 pm
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?
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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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...
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: SmilerLoki on July 11, 2018, 02:27:33 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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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...
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: SmilerLoki on July 11, 2018, 02:42:16 pm
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...
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".
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: SmilerLoki on July 11, 2018, 05:30:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: SmilerLoki on July 12, 2018, 10:54:51 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: SmilerLoki on July 12, 2018, 02:14:09 pm
However, if you foster entrenchment, nothing good is going to come of it.
That's for certain.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on July 30, 2018, 05:04:51 pm
Quote
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...
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on July 30, 2018, 07:59:15 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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: TaoHorror on July 31, 2018, 12:48:27 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H 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.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on August 30, 2018, 06:42:54 pm
Quote
Psychology deals with ideas and other mental contents as zoology, for instance, deals with the different species of animals. An elephant is “true” because it exists. The elephant is neither an inference nor a statement nor the subjective judgment of a creator. It is a phenomenon. But we are so used to the idea that psychic events are wilful and arbitrary products, or even the inventions of a human creator, that we can hardly rid ourselves of the prejudiced view that the psyche and its contents are nothing but our own arbitrary invention or the more or less illusory product of supposition and judgment. The fact is that certain ideas exist almost everywhere and at all times and can even spontaneously create themselves quite independently of migration and tradition. They are not made by the individual, they just happen to him—they even force themselves on his consciousness. This is not Platonic philosophy but empirical psychology.

C. G. Jung, Psychology and Religion
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: Wilshire on August 30, 2018, 07:00:21 pm
Its funny that he used an Elephant :P

Well described though. Much more succinct than anything Bakker comes up with.
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on August 30, 2018, 07:21:54 pm
Its funny that he used an Elephant :P

Well described though. Much more succinct than anything Bakker comes up with.

No offense meant to Bakker, but Jung was probably one of the 1% (or less) of the smartest humans who ever lived.  I just don't think Bakker is in that league, smart as he is...
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: themerchant on August 30, 2018, 08:13:34 pm
Quote
Psychology deals with ideas and other mental contents as zoology, for instance, deals with the different species of animals. An elephant is “true” because it exists. The elephant is neither an inference nor a statement nor the subjective judgment of a creator. It is a phenomenon. But we are so used to the idea that psychic events are wilful and arbitrary products, or even the inventions of a human creator, that we can hardly rid ourselves of the prejudiced view that the psyche and its contents are nothing but our own arbitrary invention or the more or less illusory product of supposition and judgment. The fact is that certain ideas exist almost everywhere and at all times and can even spontaneously create themselves quite independently of migration and tradition. They are not made by the individual, they just happen to him—they even force themselves on his consciousness. This is not Platonic philosophy but empirical psychology.

C. G. Jung, Psychology and Religion

Isn't this just what is said at the start of the SA series specifically this point "The fact is that certain ideas exist almost everywhere and at all times and can even spontaneously create themselves quite independently of migration and tradition"
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: themerchant on August 30, 2018, 08:15:48 pm
Do non-mathematicians spawn mathematical ideas?

What's an example of an idea that exists almost everywhere and at all times?
Title: Re: A celebration for the clever
Post by: H on August 30, 2018, 09:11:12 pm
Do non-mathematicians spawn mathematical ideas?

What's an example of an idea that exists almost everywhere and at all times?

Sure, before there was formal "math" as we'd call it, Egyptians and many other cultures were able to do some pretty mathematical things.  I mean, I guess in that sense, they were mathematicians, but there was no such thing as formal math, so what they were doing was really instinctively (or subconsciously) preforming mathematical operations?  Perhaps in the same way that, say, a basketball player doesn't consciously preform the mathematics of the requisite arc needed to reach the basket with the ball.  But in the sense, they reflexively (instinctively?) do just that.  So, now I really have no idea what a mathematician even is anymore...

I believe he is talking more about mythological, i.e. psychological phenomena though.  For example, the "engendering" of psychic phenomena (as male or female), or even just the universal experience of the numinosum, even if in form of different psychological symbols.  The work from which I took the quote pretty much presupposes that you have already become familiar with Jung's earlier work on archetypes and so pretty well agree (by continuing to follow Jung's thought process through) that they are real.  This is just part of what makes it so difficult to understand a great deal of his work.  In addition to it simply being rather complicated in and of itself...
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on September 06, 2018, 10:00:07 pm
So, I was watching/listening to the Peterson/Harris talks on YouTube the other day.  And, much like Peterson, I tend to agree with most of what Harris says, yet, something still doesn't sit right.  Stumbled across this in the Jung book I am reading:

Quote
As a matter of fact, it only needs a neurosis to conjure up a force that cannot be dealt with by rational means. Our cancer case [where a patient psychosomatically thinks they have cancer and actually show some symptoms] shows clearly how impotent man’s reason and intellect are against the most palpable nonsense. I always advise my patients to take such obvious but invincible nonsense as the manifestation of a power and a meaning they have not yet understood. Experience has taught me that it is much more effective to take these things seriously and then look for a suitable explanation. But an explanation is suitable only when it produces a hypothesis equal to the morbid effect. Our patient is confronted with a power of will and suggestion more than equal to anything his consciousness can put against it. In this precarious situation it would be bad strategy to convince him that in some incomprehensible way he is at the back of his own symptom, secretly inventing and supporting it. Such a suggestion would instantly paralyse his fighting spirit, and he would get demoralized. It is far better for him to understand that his complex is an autonomous power directed against his conscious personality. Moreover, such an explanation fits the actual facts much better than a reduction to personal motives. An apparently personal motivation does exist, but it is not made by his will, it just happens to him.

C. G. Jung - Psychology and Religion

This is what I think Harris doesn't really want to acknowledge.  That we can assume humans are rational actors.  But the fact is, often, perhaps most often, they are not.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: Francis Buck on September 07, 2018, 11:25:21 am
I have largely come around to just fully disliking Harris without any hesitations, and I definitely think that one of the big elements of that (even though I could not have articulated before now, so thank you H.) is this position on "humans as rational actors". It's not even really a debate. We are totally, completely NOT rational actors at all. Even if you JUST zero in on humanity's pervasive, nigh inescapable "optimism delusion", it becomes clear how hilariously non-rational we are in just simple day-to-life, even among people are who are proportionately aware of this delusion.

And this is without even really dipping your toes into the maelstrom of cognitive biases and waaaaaay headier content you see routinely on Three Pound Brain, for examples. Even philosophers/scientists/thinkers who are relatively of clued-in to the Bakker-esque material are mostly incapable of making that last big "leap" and wrapping their heads around the full scope of human delusion, especially when it comes to grappling with the "language" involved with investigation of non-intentional-anything.

TBF, I do RSB trends toward a more "radical" outlook/perception of other somewhat like-minded "thinkers" (dunno what else to call these dudes anymore) and can be overly dismissive of folks who are basically treading the same waters he is, particularly when it comes to "intentionalist talk" (though again RSB is not off-point here exactly, he just laser-focuses in on it with seemingly anyone whose actually throwing their hat into the ring).

Then again I may just have no fucking clue what RSB is talking about and I'm totally wrong. I flip-flop everytime I dive into that blog.

sorta TL;DR
I haven't really stayed up on Harris since my early-to-mid twenties and am still catching up on Peterson, but my opinion ATM is that Harris is a well-spoken, well-educated individual with some incredibly shallow views on a number of alarming topics and, ultimately, is just kind of an asshat. Peterson is similar, but IMO suffers most from an inability to articulate himself on a handful of interrelated and relevant topics/issues which then COULD be used to cumulatively build up to a coherent intellectual vision. These factors, for each individual, lend themselves to popularity and to the sense H. describes of "tending to agree with most of what Harris/Peterson says, yet still something doesn't sit right." This is because (most, certainly not all) of their views are fairly straightforward and non-crazy, and in piece-meal do make sense, but there's little cohesion (especially with Peterson) that make all these little pieces build up into some digestible, coherent, visionary concept.

TBF, I have less against Peterson than Harris. Harris's warmongering and views on religion, especially Islam, are almost completely asinine IMO when you lay it all out. I just lost all respect for so-called progressives that still thinks violence is a solution to anything short of like, an alien invasion or some crazy shit. War is fruitless, always has been, always will be. It's still an issue obviously and an enormous part of human existence, but it is never, ever the "right way" IMO. You can cut some slack for our ancestors who had no realistic recourse (although, they did, and used them more we are often led to believe), but in the 21st century for first world countries, there are no excuses).
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on September 07, 2018, 12:08:52 pm
Well, I don't pretend that my "like" of Peterson is not bias.  That being said, it isn't as if I don't know that he can and will be wrong about things.  Like anyone else, he certainly is.  That being said, Harris is essentially a "rationalism" fundamentalist, which simply isn't going to sit well with me.  Peterson does get wishy-washy in places, most in places where he is outside his element.  Simply, that is a product of the "big picture" being vastly complicated.  I doubt he could or would be able to focus on the "whole" thing, even if he had some theory on it...
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: Wilshire on September 07, 2018, 12:56:51 pm
warmongering ... progressives that still thinks violence is a solution ... part of human existence, but it is never, ever the "right way" IMO.
A big part of the issue is how to address a group unwilling to listen to any argument and simply relies on the Might Makes Right mentality.

Even in a relationship between just two humans, if one of them wants to take something from the other and is bigger, stronger, and/or willing to commit acts of violence for it, no amount of argument or pandering will help.

As Cnaiur put it so wonderfully:  To indulge it is to breed it. To punish it is to feed it. Madness knows no bridle but the knife.

When you're talking about entire countries and complex international relationships, its even harder. Until the US disbands its entire global military force, I think we're probably the last country that can talk about "war isn't the right answer"
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on September 07, 2018, 04:42:09 pm
When you're talking about entire countries and complex international relationships, its even harder. Until the US disbands its entire global military force, I think we're probably the last country that can talk about "war isn't the right answer"

Well, one, war isn't actually irrational.  At least, not iherrently.  It can be perfectly rational to go to war.

Quote
Protestantism was, and still is, a great risk and at the same time a great opportunity. If it goes on disintegrating as a church, it must have the effect of stripping man of all his spiritual safeguards and means of defence against immediate experience of the forces waiting for liberation in the unconscious. Look at all the incredible savagery going on in our so-called civilized world: it all comes from human beings and the spiritual condition they are in! Look at the devilish engines of destruction! They are invented by completely innocuous gentlemen, reasonable, respectable citizens who are everything we could wish. And when the whole thing blows up and an indescribable hell of destruction is let loose, nobody seems to be responsible. It simply happens, and yet it is all man-made. But since everybody is blindly convinced that he is nothing more than his own extremely unassuming and insignificant conscious self, which performs its duties decently and earns a moderate living, nobody is aware that this whole rationalistically organized conglomeration we call a state or a nation is driven on by a seemingly impersonal, invisible but terrifying power which nobody and nothing can check. This ghastly power is mostly explained as fear of the neighbouring nation, which is supposed to be possessed by a malevolent fiend. Since nobody is capable of recognizing just where and how much he himself is possessed and unconscious, he simply projects his own condition upon his neighbour, and thus it becomes a sacred duty to have the biggest guns and the most poisonous gas. The worst of it is that he is quite right. All one’s neighbours are in the grip of some uncontrolled and uncontrollable fear, just like oneself. In lunatic asylums it is a well-known fact that patients are far more dangerous when suffering from fear than when moved by rage or hatred.

C. G. Jung - Psychology and Religion

You can safely skip the part about Protestanism and the rest is still perfectly applicable to the here-and-now and directly to your above point.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on September 08, 2018, 02:12:11 am
... nigh inescapable "optimism delusion", it becomes clear how hilariously non-rational we are in just simple day-to-life

Go easy on our disallusionment - the only thing we have to fend off the existential terror that one day we're gonna die. "Primitive" man sees another die - they're "gone" ... where did they go? Logic can't resolve, not enough information, limited view ... disallusionment is necessary to continue conscious life - otherwise we're faced with ( perhaps factual ) jumping off a cliff is no different from eating breakfast.

Harris's warmongering and views on religion, especially Islam

While I do not see it the same way Harris does, terrorism does spread alarm and disgust by design. While I think he's wrong, I don't beat up those who want to fight back too much, it's an understandable response. Indiscriminate violence ( meh, maybe all violence - but the more arbitrary/indiscriminate, the more scary ) is jarring. Terrorism has jarred Harris, he is not immune.

In the spirit of RSB - we're all limited, so while it's cool to critique, be careful to not be overly critical for who appear to be fair actors risking exposure in the public discourse - it's not easy to bare one's soul to the world. Peterson and Harris appear to be fair actors, which is to say they're not aiming for political effects ( they could be operatives, just they don't appear to be to me ). At least they're trying, so yes, they don't get it all - but none of us do and collectively, continuing to talk and vet, we may get somewhere. So I enjoy listening to people like Petersen and Harris, even though they ( like myself ) miss so many marks. Not easy wrapping your head around everything as the more cogent you "stuff" the world into a box, the more it seeps out away from you - there's simply too much for a single brain to contain. Genius continues to pop up all over the world, in all corners, as the global level of violence has greatly decreased compared to the rest of human history. If we can continue, reducing violence, improving/spreading stable environments - the human gang intellect may make some headway into unknown. The last Jung quote details a great hurdle which currently seems insurmountable - imagine if we could move past it, what we would be capable of.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: themerchant on September 08, 2018, 03:52:06 am
Yeah i'm going to have to start reading some Jung, is there a natural starting place?

Every time i try and understand these super smart folk I feel like i'm trying to pour 5lb of shite into a 2lb bag.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on September 10, 2018, 12:52:06 pm
Yeah i'm going to have to start reading some Jung, is there a natural starting place?

Every time i try and understand these super smart folk I feel like i'm trying to pour 5lb of shite into a 2lb bag.

Hmm, that's a good question.  Being the ignorant and headstrong teenager I was when I first picked up some of Jung's collected works, I dove straight in to the most dense, most difficult stuff.  And naturally, was completely dumbfounded.  For years.  I still am on a good bit of it.

However, I recently looked over Peterson's "recommended reading" and he lists Jung's "Two Essays on Analytical Psychology" as a good starting point.  I can't recall if I have read that completely, or only in part, but looking at it now, I think Peterson is likely correct.  It even begins with a reasonable account of the historical development of psychology, that is, psychoanalysis, that is likely helpful to get into the subject.

Honestly, despite owning most of the books as physical copies, this is a case where the eBook versions are honestly superior.  Because even after years and years of reading Jung, I still need google to guide me on several fronts.  Also, always keep in mind that while Jung was most probably in the 1% of the 1% of smartest people ever, time bears out places where he can simply be wrong.  We are the beneficiaries of ~100 years of new insight, grown upon his and others.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: themerchant on September 10, 2018, 09:43:05 pm
Cheers H.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on October 03, 2018, 07:53:07 pm
Quote
Today humanity, as never before, is split into two apparently irreconcilable halves. The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.

C.G. Jung -Aion, Researches Into the Phenomenology of The Self

Written in 1950, this is still just as relevant, if not more so, today...
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on October 16, 2018, 01:44:41 am
Bertrand Russell:

"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."

"Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim."

"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important."
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: Francis Buck on October 16, 2018, 03:56:15 am
Quote
If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to external things. Don't wish to be thought to know anything; and even if you appear to be somebody important to others, distrust yourself. For, it is difficult to both keep your faculty of choice in a state conformable to nature, and at the same time acquire external things. But while you are careful about the one, you must of necessity neglect the other.
-The Enchiridion, 13

Quote
“For who is it that made the heavens crimson and the sun golden, who has given light to the moon and the stars with it, who has dried the earth in the midst of the many waters, who set you yourself among the things and who has sought me out in the perplexity of my thoughts?”
- The Apocalypse of Abraham


Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on October 17, 2018, 02:40:19 pm
Quote
If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to external things. Don't wish to be thought to know anything; and even if you appear to be somebody important to others, distrust yourself. For, it is difficult to both keep your faculty of choice in a state conformable to nature, and at the same time acquire external things. But while you are careful about the one, you must of necessity neglect the other.
-The Enchiridion, 13

Reminds me of an article I read a while back about how people abandon hobbies for not being "excellent" at them.

Quote
“For who is it that made the heavens crimson and the sun golden, who has given light to the moon and the stars with it, who has dried the earth in the midst of the many waters, who set you yourself among the things and who has sought me out in the perplexity of my thoughts?”
- The Apocalypse of Abraham

Reminds me of the line of thinking about consciousness, that its purpose is the ability to supply a specifically limited perception of God to God.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on November 08, 2018, 01:29:47 am
I know, common, but in light of Q today and I feel spot on ...

Quote
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
“Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Though I prefer it's slightly more modern usage, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on November 08, 2018, 02:29:43 pm
I know, common, but in light of Q today and I feel spot on ...

Quote
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
“Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Though I prefer it's slightly more modern usage, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

It's a very interesting little tidbit.  In t he sense that it seems like something small, but is actually likely a symptom of a very "big" issue.  That is, just who are we?  In the sense of, who am I?  What am I?

If we consider the narrative character of life, we likely find at least part of why we want to try to maintain "consistency."
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on November 27, 2018, 01:10:33 am
Going against the current tide of heavy material, something light to enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1kS_f3yS8c
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: themerchant on November 27, 2018, 07:10:24 am
I know, common, but in light of Q today and I feel spot on ...

Quote
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
“Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Though I prefer it's slightly more modern usage, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

It's a very interesting little tidbit.  In t he sense that it seems like something small, but is actually likely a symptom of a very "big" issue.  That is, just who are we?  In the sense of, who am I?  What am I?

If we consider the narrative character of life, we likely find at least part of why we want to try to maintain "consistency."

It could also just be a pithy excuse for being inconsistent in your dealings.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on November 27, 2018, 12:32:00 pm
I know, common, but in light of Q today and I feel spot on ...

Quote
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
“Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Though I prefer it's slightly more modern usage, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

It's a very interesting little tidbit.  In t he sense that it seems like something small, but is actually likely a symptom of a very "big" issue.  That is, just who are we?  In the sense of, who am I?  What am I?

If we consider the narrative character of life, we likely find at least part of why we want to try to maintain "consistency."

It could also just be a pithy excuse for being inconsistent in your dealings.

Ha, wouldn't be the first time someone leveraged "wisdom"/philosophy to excuse bad behavior. The point of the quote is not to be purposely inconsistent or leverage it conveniently, but be smarter about identifying what truly matters.

Ascribed to Oscar Wilde ( another "updated" version of a quote ) I think nails the point : Life is too important to be taken seriously.

Simply, life is art, which makes it fun if you allow it. The Tao in me smiles at the truth of these contradictions. So, yes, both - don't weight yourself down with consistency, but don't revel in hypocrisy either. To go further, what we discussed in Q that day, I'm saying it's not even hypocrisy to be inconsistent across our sphere's of reality, sphere's of degrading importance if you will. So I say it's a mistake to deny your child welfare if they truly need it just because you're a Libertarian who believes society is better off without welfare. Don't pay more taxes than you owe even if you believe the tax rate should be higher for your perceived economic bracket. Consistency as a moral or the notion it's absolute application makes you moral is simply self destructive and not a contribution to a better self or world. Not all "smart" self interested decisions are immoral "selfishness" and indeed the world is better for it, not just for yourself. You could be a great person of morality and love and yet it's valid/correct to make some of your life decisions with self interest which does not invalidate your ethics. At first glance, this may all sound like fanciful cynicism - show the world you're worthwhile to take better advantage of it, camouflaged vampirc living - but, no, that's not what I'm getting at.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on December 06, 2018, 03:17:28 am
"Death destroys a man but the idea of it saves him."

- E.M. Forester
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on December 14, 2018, 01:48:38 pm
"Death destroys a man but the idea of it saves him."

- E.M. Forester

That's a good one.

Quote
These remarks will have made it evident to the reader that the ideal of the Supreme Being, far from being an enouncement of the existence of a being in itself necessary, is nothing more than a regulative principle of reason, requiring us to regard all connection existing between phenomena as if it had its origin from an all-sufficient necessary cause, and basing upon this the rule of a systematic and necessary unity in the explanation of phenomena.

A fascinating conclusion by Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on December 14, 2018, 02:55:16 pm
Quote
These remarks will have made it evident to the reader that the ideal of the Supreme Being, far from being an enouncement of the existence of a being in itself necessary, is nothing more than a regulative principle of reason, requiring us to regard all connection existing between phenomena as if it had its origin from an all-sufficient necessary cause, and basing upon this the rule of a systematic and necessary unity in the explanation of phenomena.

A fascinating conclusion by Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.

So if I understand this correctly, the belief in the divine is rational, not irrational.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on December 14, 2018, 03:54:49 pm
So if I understand this correctly, the belief in the divine is rational, not irrational.

In a way, but I think it is deeper than that.  Perhaps, that the ideal, that is the transcendental ideal, which could be Divine, if we choose to define it that way, is the transcendent rational and so is the rationalizer of the rational.  So, if there is anything transcendental about the rational, then the very idea of that thing conditions rationality to it's pinnacle (rather than something like self-consuming "navel-gazing"), not the literal, objectivist existence of an entity such as God.

Here is Scruton on that passage:
Quote
Considered thus it is the source, not of illusion, but of knowledge. The knowledge that it leads to remains circumscribed by the conditions of possible experience: in other words, it conforms to the categories, and does not reach beyond their legitimate territory into a transcendent realm. The idea “does not show us how an object is constituted, but how, under its guidance, we should seek to determine the constitution and connection of the objects of experience” (A. 671, B. 699). Thus reason is led back from its vain speculations to the empirical world, trading the illusions of metaphysics for the realities of empirical science.

So, perhaps then it is the manner in which we could connect transcendental rationality to practical, pragmatic rationality.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on December 23, 2018, 11:39:23 pm
( migrated from TSA FB Group post )

A beggar's mistake harms no one but the beggar. A king's mistake, however, harms everyone but the king. Too often, the measure of power lies not in the number who obey your will, but in the number who suffer your stupidity.

--R. Scott Bakker
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on December 24, 2018, 02:37:47 pm
Doesn't quality as a "quote" being just a historical statement, more just quoting someone, but in the spirit of the season ...

Quote
“For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offence of others, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon such accountants as aforesaid, every person so offending shall pay of every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the county.”

- Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1659.


Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: themerchant on December 24, 2018, 10:43:43 pm
Doesn't quality as a "quote" being just a historical statement, more just quoting someone, but in the spirit of the season ...

Quote
“For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offence of others, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon such accountants as aforesaid, every person so offending shall pay of every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the county.”

- Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1659.



Talk about a Grinch lol
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on December 26, 2018, 03:06:52 pm
Quote
Only the dead have seen the end of the war.

- Plato
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on December 30, 2018, 12:36:37 am
In the spirit of the holidays, thought I would share a few of my favorite sophomoric quotes.

Quote
Death ... Death! Death to all those who oppose us!

- Locnar-infused Barbarian Leader, referred only to as "your Excellency", Heavy Metal

Quote
Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're an asshole"

- unknown, bumper sticker
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on January 10, 2019, 04:39:25 am
Physics does not consist only of atomic research, science does not consist only of physics, and life does not consist
only of science.  The aim of atomic research is to fit our empirical knowledge concerning it into our other thinking.
If it cannot be fitted into [this other thinking], then it fails in its whole aim and one does not know what purpose it
really serves."
— Erwin Schrödinger

Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on January 10, 2019, 08:56:38 pm
Physics does not consist only of atomic research, science does not consist only of physics, and life does not consist
only of science.  The aim of atomic research is to fit our empirical knowledge concerning it into our other thinking.
If it cannot be fitted into [this other thinking], then it fails in its whole aim and one does not know what purpose it
really serves."
— Erwin Schrödinger

I love this whole "fuck physics, we're alive, mother fuckers" philosophy you've been sharing, Sci - very interesting stuff, gives me hope I'm more than a simple machine.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on January 10, 2019, 09:09:38 pm
I love this whole "fuck physics, we're alive, mother fuckers" philosophy you've been sharing, Sci - very interesting stuff, gives me hope I'm more than a simple machine.

<<insert supportive emoji>>

I don't think it's "fuck physics/science" so much as "fuck mechanistic-reductionist explanations".

As for being a machine, read Raymond Tallis' On Time & Lamentation. He's a retired neuroscientist turned brilliant philosopher.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on January 10, 2019, 10:34:54 pm
I love this whole "fuck physics, we're alive, mother fuckers" philosophy you've been sharing, Sci - very interesting stuff, gives me hope I'm more than a simple machine.

<<insert supportive emoji>>

I don't think it's "fuck physics/science" so much as "fuck mechanistic-reductionist explanations".

Right, that didn't come across correctly, was speeding along today. You nailed it and that's what I meant, not that physics is "wrong" but the perspective it is necessarily the science of "all".

As for being a machine, read Raymond Tallis' On Time & Lamentation. He's a retired neuroscientist turned brilliant philosopher.

I'll check him out, thanks for the referral. You missed ( or maybe you were lurking, you have an impressive post count number ) the fireworks on Free Will here. I concede my ( belief? ) we have free will likely stems from not wanting to be a machine, I want to take responsibility for my error(s) - it is me whose fucking up, not a bug in the program. That said, I am open to the possibility I'm a self-hating robot. I'll see what Mr. Tallis has to say on the matter as you might've guessed, we didn't end the discussion on consensus, the talk simply ran out of gas ...
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on January 10, 2019, 11:13:46 pm
I'll check him out, thanks for the referral. You missed ( or maybe you were lurking, you have an impressive post count number ) the fireworks on Free Will here. I concede my ( belief? ) we have free will likely stems from not wanting to be a machine, I want to take responsibility for my error(s) - it is me whose fucking up, not a bug in the program. That said, I am open to the possibility I'm a self-hating robot. I'll see what Mr. Tallis has to say on the matter as you might've guessed, we didn't end the discussion on consensus, the talk simply ran out of gas ...

I think before free will one must try to suss out causation...a subject for another thread or two or 100...heh.

=-=-=



Our brains are colored lenses in the wall of nature, admitting light from the super-solar source, but at the same time tingeing and restricting it.
–William James

'[The] spatial universe is not necessarily limited to the collection of physical objects located in the physical world. There may well be many different three-dimensional spatial (or four-dimensional spatio-temporal) systems of sense-data and images in addition...'

–JR Smythies

There is a possibility in human minds of something mysterious as the night-wind, deep as the sea, calm as the stars, and strong as Death, a mystic contemplation, the “intellectual love of God”.
-Bertrand Russell

'Mind is positioned in a space of its own making ... . We wonder about the limits of the universe but never ask what is beyond the space of a dream.'
– Jason Brown
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on January 11, 2019, 10:11:47 pm
'[At] the moment biology becomes biologism, science is turned into an ideology. What we have to deplore ... is not so much that scientists are specializing, but rather the fact that specialists are generalizing.'
 – Viktor E. Frankl

'How can the brain be in the head if the head is in the brain?' –
 -- J. R. Smythies
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on January 12, 2019, 01:21:30 am
'[At] the moment biology becomes biologism, science is turned into an ideology. What we have to deplore ... is not so much that scientists are specializing, but rather the fact that specialists are generalizing.'
 – Viktor E. Frankl

'How can the brain be in the head if the head is in the brain?' –
 -- J. R. Smythies

This post made you evil, Sci ( check out your post count before you post again  ;) )
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on January 12, 2019, 02:32:48 am
'[At] the moment biology becomes biologism, science is turned into an ideology. What we have to deplore ... is not so much that scientists are specializing, but rather the fact that specialists are generalizing.'
 – Viktor E. Frankl

'How can the brain be in the head if the head is in the brain?' –
 -- J. R. Smythies

This post made you evil, Sci ( check out your post count before you post again  ;) )

Damn missed my chance to commune with the numerology of the Dark Lord...I'm sure there'll be other chances -->


"The descent to Hell is the same from every place." -Anaxagoras
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TLEILAXU on January 14, 2019, 06:13:13 pm
From Heretics of Dune
Quote
... our God is a magical God whose language we speak."
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on January 20, 2019, 08:08:01 pm
'Materialism ... is the philosophy of the subject who forgets himself in his calculation.'
  – Schopenhauer
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on February 01, 2019, 04:50:19 pm
When something unreal can become almost real, it is perhaps more frightening to us, and perhaps more revealing.

-David Levinthal
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on February 01, 2019, 05:05:52 pm
When something unreal can become almost real, it is perhaps more frightening to us, and perhaps more revealing.

-David Levinthal

I like this one, Sci - kinda aligns with your profile picture, which scares the shit of me every time I see it ( I'm sure that's the intended effect ;) )
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on February 01, 2019, 05:06:29 pm
From Heretics of Dune
Quote
... our God is a magical God whose language we speak."

You've brought this up in conversation before, TL - what about it speaks to you?
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TLEILAXU on February 02, 2019, 12:53:00 am
From Heretics of Dune
Quote
... our God is a magical God whose language we speak."

You've brought this up in conversation before, TL - what about it speaks to you?
To speak God's language is to be able to perform miracles on demand. What solace do mere beliefs provide in comparison?
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on February 02, 2019, 01:13:29 am
From Heretics of Dune
Quote
... our God is a magical God whose language we speak."

You've brought this up in conversation before, TL - what about it speaks to you?
To speak God's language is to be able to perform miracles on demand. What solace do mere beliefs provide in comparison?

Ah, nice, thank you!
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on March 19, 2019, 06:25:00 pm
Quote
As the highest value and supreme dominant in the psychic hierarchy, the God-image is immediately related to, or identical with, the self, and everything that happens to the God-image has an effect on the latter. Any uncertainty about the God-image causes a profound uneasiness in the self, for which reason the question is generally ignored because of its painfulness. But that does not mean that it remains unasked in the unconscious. What is more, it is answered by views and beliefs like materialism, atheism, and similar substitutes, which spread like epidemics. They crop up wherever and whenever one waits in vain for the legitimate answer. The ersatz product represses the real question into the unconscious and destroys the continuity of historical tradition which is the hallmark of civilization. The result is bewilderment and confusion. Christianity has insisted on God’s goodness as a loving Father and has done its best to rob evil of substance. The early Christian prophecy concerning the Antichrist, and certain ideas in late Jewish theology, could have suggested to us that the Christian answer to the problem of Job omits to mention the corollary, the sinister reality of which is now being demonstrated before our eyes by the splitting of our world: the destruction of the God-image is followed by the annulment of the human personality. Materialistic atheism with its utopian chimeras forms the religion of all those rationalistic movements which delegate the freedom of personality to the masses and thereby extinguish it. The advocates of Christianity squander their energies in the mere preservation of what has come down to them, with no thought of building on to their house and making it roomier. Stagnation in these matters is threatened in the long run with a lethal end.

C. G. Jung -Aion, Researches into the Phenomonology of the Self

Hmm, keep in mind here that God-image is not, per se, God.  God-image can actually be used to stand in for the top of a hierarchy, or the pinnacle of an ontology.  One could consider it as "thing of highest value" as well, although monetary value not necessarily being that connotation there (although plausibly so in cases).
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on March 19, 2019, 06:33:51 pm
When something unreal can become almost real, it is perhaps more frightening to us, and perhaps more revealing.

-David Levinthal

I like this one, Sci - kinda aligns with your profile picture, which scares the shit of me every time I see it ( I'm sure that's the intended effect ;) )

I thought it was cute lol


C. G. Jung -Aion, Researches into the Phenomonology of the Self

Hmm, keep in mind here that God-image is not, per se, God.  God-image can actually be used to stand in for the top of a hierarchy, or the pinnacle of an ontology.  One could consider it as "thing of highest value" as well, although monetary value not necessarily being that connotation there (although plausibly so in cases).

What does he mean about making Christianity "roomier"?
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on March 19, 2019, 06:37:39 pm

C. G. Jung -Aion, Researches into the Phenomonology of the Self

Hmm, keep in mind here that God-image is not, per se, God.  God-image can actually be used to stand in for the top of a hierarchy, or the pinnacle of an ontology.  One could consider it as "thing of highest value" as well, although monetary value not necessarily being that connotation there (although plausibly so in cases).

What does he mean about making Christianity "roomier"?

I'll need to dig a bit more into the context of the quote (I kind of tripped over it), but I think he means that it would be more accommodating of changes in circumstance.  That is, not be stiflingly conservative.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on March 20, 2019, 01:56:55 am

C. G. Jung -Aion, Researches into the Phenomonology of the Self

Hmm, keep in mind here that God-image is not, per se, God.  God-image can actually be used to stand in for the top of a hierarchy, or the pinnacle of an ontology.  One could consider it as "thing of highest value" as well, although monetary value not necessarily being that connotation there (although plausibly so in cases).

What does he mean about making Christianity "roomier"?

I'll need to dig a bit more into the context of the quote (I kind of tripped over it), but I think he means that it would be more accommodating of changes in circumstance.  That is, not be stiflingly conservative.

I took it to mean by adhering ( demanding obedience ) to custom/tradition, they're selling themselves short as their contribution to our identity is so much more profound - they should step on the gas and expand to envelop the new in lieu of resisting/attacking it. Don't counter, absorb and expand - e.g. own the wonder that arises from science, make it holy, allow it to contribute to identity, as counter/repressing science fuels it's destructiveness to what we are.

But I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on March 20, 2019, 11:47:30 am
I took it to mean by adhering ( demanding obedience ) to custom/tradition, they're selling themselves short as their contribution to our identity is so much more profound - they should step on the gas and expand to envelop the new in lieu of resisting/attacking it. Don't counter, absorb and expand - e.g. own the wonder that arises from science, make it holy, allow it to contribute to identity, as counter/repressing science fuels it's destructiveness to what we are.

But I could be wrong.

Yeah, I think we are both heading in the same direction.

The quote itself is ensconced in a short chapter which is very obtuse (there are parts that have a footnote per sentence).  The main thrust of it though is how the "Christian mind" approached the figure of God (and Christ) in Revelation.  That is, what was the need for Revelation?  So, in this way, he discusses the idea of the Antichrist as a reconciliation of the sort of dual-nature of God and so something of the dual-nature of Christ.

So, what he seems to be saying is that such a thing as Revelation, while understandable, didn't need to be a forgone conclusion.  And still doesn't have to be.  That is, it need not be, necessarily, Apocalyptic.  Rather then see that house as having to be destroyed to be reborn, one could see that house appended.

If I understand it right, which is a massive if, because most of the chapter is highly opaque.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on March 21, 2019, 05:20:40 am
'Creativity itself is a groundless abyss of pure potential, more a fountain than a foundation.'
  -Matthew Segall
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on March 21, 2019, 08:48:01 pm
"We (the undivided divinity operating within us) have dreamt the world. We have dreamt it as firm, mysterious, visible, ubiquitous in space and durable in time; but in its architecture we have allowed tenuous and eternal crevices of unreason which tell us it is false."
 -Borges
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on March 25, 2019, 05:29:42 pm
“The divergence of the formulae about nature from the appearance of nature has robbed the formulae of any explanatory power.”
  - Whitehead
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on March 27, 2019, 03:56:47 am
"Meantime the background of Eternity shows steadfast through all the pageants of the shifting world. This gives majesty to solitary landscapes, and to the vault of night; it urges me to go out and to be alone; to pace in starlight the solemn avenues, and to gaze upon Arcturus with his sons."
  -F. Myers, Fragments of an Inner Life
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on March 28, 2019, 09:08:28 pm
'We may be in the Universe as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.'
 – William James
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on March 30, 2019, 02:26:50 pm
To learn more about mental aspects of the world … we should try to discover ‘manifest principles’ that partially explain them, though their causes remain disconnected from what we take to be more fundamental aspects of science. The gap might have many reasons, among them, as has repeatedly been discovered, that the presumed reduction base was misconceived.
 --Noam Chomsky: What Kind of Creatures Are We?
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on March 31, 2019, 05:59:51 pm
It would be possible to see in Achilles the Dionysiac strain, a passion for destruction growing out of a hatred for the destructibility of all things; and in Hector, the Apollonian part, the will toward preservation growing out of love for human achievements in their vulnerability.
  ~Rachel Bespaloff

Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 02, 2019, 01:38:38 am
"We (the undivided divinity operating within us) have dreamt the world. We have dreamt it as firm, mysterious, visible, ubiquitous in space and durable in time; but in its architecture we have allowed tenuous and eternal crevices of unreason which tell us it is false."
 -Borges

Music, states of happiness, mythology, faces belabored by time, certain twilights and certain places try to tell us something, or have said something we should not have missed, or are about to say something; this imminence of a revelation which does not occur is, perhaps, the aesthetic phenomenon.
 -Borges
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 04, 2019, 04:19:17 pm
'Thus the thought [e.g.] which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a [newly discovered] planet.'

– Gottlob Frege
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on April 04, 2019, 04:37:21 pm
'Thus the thought [e.g.] which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a [newly discovered] planet.'

– Gottlob Frege

I was watching this video, where Suskin talks about special relativity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4&feature=youtu.be&t=1h31m21s) and specifically, I was thinking about what the "spacetime interval" is, or as we'd usually call it the speed of light and why it exists, that is, why does light only go that speed.  Part of it, if I understood it correctly, is that in 4D non-Euclidean geometry, such as spacetime seems to be, the that the Pythagorean theorem still applies, except its actually inverse, that is, t² - x² not plus.  Which is pretty interesting in it's own right.  Of course, that's if I even understood it correctly...

But in light of your quote, it's fascinating, because that sort of means that it is a "formal rule" of the formal Euclidean geometry?  Right?
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 04, 2019, 05:08:39 pm
'Thus the thought [e.g.] which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a [newly discovered] planet.'

– Gottlob Frege

I was watching this video, where Suskin talks about special relativity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4&feature=youtu.be&t=1h31m21s) and specifically, I was thinking about what the "spacetime interval" is, or as we'd usually call it the speed of light and why it exists, that is, why does light only go that speed.  Part of it, if I understood it correctly, is that in 4D non-Euclidean geometry, such as spacetime seems to be, the that the Pythagorean theorem still applies, except its actually inverse, that is, t² - x² not plus.  Which is pretty interesting in it's own right.  Of course, that's if I even understood it correctly...

But in light of your quote, it's fascinating, because that sort of means that it is a "formal rule" of the formal Euclidean geometry?  Right?

That's all way above my pay grade, thus sadly I really cannot say. I just like the idea of math theorems being like undiscovered planets...
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on April 04, 2019, 05:29:04 pm
That's all way above my pay grade, thus sadly I really cannot say. I just like the idea of math theorems being like undiscovered planets...

Well, it's frankly way above mine too.

But, I guess I would draw the even more general way of thinking about it (less about the relation between existence and knowledge), in the "eternal" sense of "if A, then B" sort of way.  The Pythagorean theorem "works" because, if [Euclidean geometry] then [Pythagorean theorem].  In fact, the planet is the same sort of way, if [the starting conditions and "laws" of physics] then [the planet].

Both are not contingent on knowledge or observation, on being beheld or beholden.  I think though that there is a big difference though in the notion of "eternal" though, because, the planet could not have existed for "all time" because it is the product of an evolution of state through time (motion), where Euclidean geometry really is not abut time or motion at all and would be true absent both (although we wouldn't exist to know that).

I think I am outside the "spirit" of what you were trying to convey not though.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 04, 2019, 05:51:48 pm
That's all way above my pay grade, thus sadly I really cannot say. I just like the idea of math theorems being like undiscovered planets...

Well, it's frankly way above mine too.

But, I guess I would draw the even more general way of thinking about it (less about the relation between existence and knowledge), in the "eternal" sense of "if A, then B" sort of way.  The Pythagorean theorem "works" because, if [Euclidean geometry] then [Pythagorean theorem].  In fact, the planet is the same sort of way, if [the starting conditions and "laws" of physics] then [the planet].

Both are not contingent on knowledge or observation, on being beheld or beholden.  I think though that there is a big difference though in the notion of "eternal" though, because, the planet could not have existed for "all time" because it is the product of an evolution of state through time (motion), where Euclidean geometry really is not abut time or motion at all and would be true absent both (although we wouldn't exist to know that).

I think I am outside the "spirit" of what you were trying to convey not though.

I think we're sorting of looking at this similarly, in that it's curious (to say the least) that something that comes to us via human mental "leg work" is something that is a non-contingent truth.

Admittedly I am a "Platonist" of sorts on this matter of Logical/Mathematical Universals...
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 09, 2019, 08:56:00 pm
“Look at the wall. Form a clear representation of it in your mind.

Now, look at yourself, represent to yourself internally yourself looking at the wall.

Who is now doing the looking?”
 -Fitche

Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: BeardFisher-King on April 09, 2019, 11:16:42 pm
“Look at the wall. Form a clear representation of it in your mind.

Now, look at yourself, represent to yourself internally yourself looking at the wall.

Who is now doing the looking?”
 -Fitche
Do you mean Fichte?
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 09, 2019, 11:22:18 pm
“Look at the wall. Form a clear representation of it in your mind.

Now, look at yourself, represent to yourself internally yourself looking at the wall.

Who is now doing the looking?”
 -Fitche
Do you mean Fichte?

Fuck...yeah.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: BeardFisher-King on April 09, 2019, 11:30:26 pm
“Look at the wall. Form a clear representation of it in your mind.

Now, look at yourself, represent to yourself internally yourself looking at the wall.

Who is now doing the looking?”
 -Fitche
Do you mean Fichte?

Fuck...yeah.
Sorry for the pedantic intrusion, sci. Shall I delete my comments and allow you to make the edit?
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 10, 2019, 12:46:51 am
“Look at the wall. Form a clear representation of it in your mind.

Now, look at yourself, represent to yourself internally yourself looking at the wall.

Who is now doing the looking?”
 -Fitche
Do you mean Fichte?

Fuck...yeah.
Sorry for the pedantic intrusion, sci. Shall I delete my comments and allow you to make the edit?

Haha no worries, I appreciate the correction - my response was meant to be read as a humorous admission of fault. OTL
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: BeardFisher-King on April 10, 2019, 03:47:40 am
“Look at the wall. Form a clear representation of it in your mind.

Now, look at yourself, represent to yourself internally yourself looking at the wall.

Who is now doing the looking?”
 -Fitche
Do you mean Fichte?

Fuck...yeah.
Sorry for the pedantic intrusion, sci. Shall I delete my comments and allow you to make the edit?

Haha no worries, I appreciate the correction - my response was meant to be read as a humorous admission of fault. OTL
Oh, that's how I read it, sci. I just wanted to afford you the opportunity to "restart" the quote. Cheers!
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 10, 2019, 05:27:52 pm
“The inferno of the living is not something that will be; if there is one, it is what is already here, the inferno where we live every day, that we form by being together. There are two ways to escape suffering it. The first is easy for many: accept the inferno and become such a part of it that you can no longer see it. The second is risky and demands constant vigilance and apprehension: seek and learn to recognize who and what, in the midst of inferno, are not inferno, then make them endure, give them space.”

― Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities


Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: H on April 10, 2019, 05:40:02 pm
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is absurd one."

-Voltaire
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: Francis Buck on April 11, 2019, 05:20:54 am
"There are no gods, only dead men."


----------------------------------------------------------

‘The reason that souls condemned to Damnation always suffer eternally is because their only hunger is hatred, and so they hate all things universally, including themselves and Creation and God its Architect. Fury becomes the backbone of blind, screaming outrage at the sheer arrogance of existence, the very Thing-in-Itself: this is the true sustenance of Hell. Fuel for an impossible machine, suffering made into a parasite of suffering, like an autophagous serpent consuming its own ever-regenerating tail. So you see why Hell is a circle -- a wreath of black fire that crowns a towering and ghostly pillar of rings, plummeting into the abyssal jaws of time. The Pit and its ruler Annihilation masticate in the dark and groan forever with the same bottomless hunger; so the eyes of Men are never satisfied.”
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 11, 2019, 04:50:27 pm
"There are no gods, only dead men."


----------------------------------------------------------

‘The reason that souls condemned to Damnation always suffer eternally is because their only hunger is hatred, and so they hate all things universally, including themselves and Creation and God its Architect. Fury becomes the backbone of blind, screaming outrage at the sheer arrogance of existence, the very Thing-in-Itself: this is the true sustenance of Hell. Fuel for an impossible machine, suffering made into a parasite of suffering, like an autophagous serpent consuming its own ever-regenerating tail. So you see why Hell is a circle -- a wreath of black fire that crowns a towering and ghostly pillar of rings, plummeting into the abyssal jaws of time. The Pit and its ruler Annihilation masticate in the dark and groan forever with the same bottomless hunger; so the eyes of Men are never satisfied.”

Whoah nice! Are these originals drawn from your writing?

=-=-=

"THE cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack
of light between two eternities of darkness. Although the two are identical twins, man, as a rule,views
the prenatal abyss with more calm than the one he is heading for (at some forty-five hundred heartbeats an hour).
I know, however, of a young chronophobiac who experienced something like panic when looking for
the first time at homemade movies that had been taken a few weeks before his birth. He saw a world
that was practically unchanged—the same house, the same people—and then realized that he did
not exist there at all and that nobody mourned his absence. He caught a glimpse of his mother waving
from an upstairs window, and that unfamiliar gesture disturbed him,as if it were some mysterious farewell.
But what particularly frightened him was the sight of a brand-new baby carriage standing there on the
porch, with the smug, encroaching air of a coffin; eventhat was empty, as if, in the reverse course of events,
his very bones had disintegrated." 

 -- Nabokov's opening paragraph of SPEAK, MEMORY

Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: Francis Buck on April 15, 2019, 04:30:18 pm
"There are no gods, only dead men."


----------------------------------------------------------

‘The reason that souls condemned to Damnation always suffer eternally is because their only hunger is hatred, and so they hate all things universally, including themselves and Creation and God its Architect. Fury becomes the backbone of blind, screaming outrage at the sheer arrogance of existence, the very Thing-in-Itself: this is the true sustenance of Hell. Fuel for an impossible machine, suffering made into a parasite of suffering, like an autophagous serpent consuming its own ever-regenerating tail. So you see why Hell is a circle -- a wreath of black fire that crowns a towering and ghostly pillar of rings, plummeting into the abyssal jaws of time. The Pit and its ruler Annihilation masticate in the dark and groan forever with the same bottomless hunger; so the eyes of Men are never satisfied.”

Whoah nice! Are these originals drawn from your writing?

Lol, indeed. Testing out some of my 'in-universe chapter quotes'. Writing fake scripture is hard but it's getting easier, as time goes on...
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: Wilshire on April 15, 2019, 04:40:08 pm
I hope some day you get a book published FB.
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: Francis Buck on April 15, 2019, 05:04:52 pm
Thank you Wilshire, that is encouraging!
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: sciborg2 on April 16, 2019, 03:56:23 pm
"The rationals are spotted in the line like stars in a black sky while the dense blackness is the firmament of the irrationals"
  -G. Cantor

In honor of this reference to Peter Sas's work... (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2872.msg47542#msg47542)
Title: Re: Quotes
Post by: TaoHorror on April 18, 2019, 01:59:13 pm
Quote
Love is at the root at everything, all learning, all relationships, love or the lack of it.

 - Fred Rogers ( "Mr. Rogers" )