Trying to be comfortable with death

  • 28 Replies
  • 6313 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2013, 08:14:11 pm »
Quote from: Meyna
Quote from: Davias
Death is always a tough theme to talk about with other people. Whenever I want to talk about it with colleagues or friends it ended mostly in awkwardly situations.
Many people seem to don't want to talk about it in earnest. Oh, of course every time I talk about it, I hear senctences like that:
"I don't know what comes after my death, but I'm sure, something will await me!"
When I ask:"Ok, it is all about Believe than? Why are you so damn sure about it?", the answers aren't very satisfying:
"It is a feeling of mine", or "God has something prepared for me after this life..."
It is almost the same with conversations about god and religion.
Ok, maybe, I am to cynical in those conversations ( as in many others, I admit that ) but after those answers, my wish to explain my attitude about this topic drops drastically.
The conversations ended mostly like this:
"So, you do believe in nothing? How sad!" followed by an obscure frown and that priesterly look, an old man would give an 6 year old child ( Oh, how I hate that :evil: )
My answer is always: "Yes, your're right. I believe in nothing. How refreshing, huh?" accompanied  by an derisive smile.
Maybe I'll talk always to the wrong people about it. It can't be my fault! I believe it. ;)

It is indeed a sensitive topic, and therefore your upfront approach may turn most people off. It's not that you talk to the wrong people, but, rather, the journey that you take these people on with your words leads to dead ends (or, at least, leads to destinations that don't correspond to what you hoped for). The trackless steppe is infinite, after all  ;)

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2013, 08:14:17 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Madness
Quote from: Callan S.
We speak the words of men (and women) long since dead. Many things are passed on and so still live.

We leave alot of ripples around, in others, in how we affect them. And they will combine with other ripples and pass on into latter generations.

It's not much, but try to think how much of you will live on in others rather than it ALL coming to an end at death.

This is my gripe and goad. We're embodying a version of humanity decided by people dead and perpetuated by few living, mostly out of fear.

As Duskweaver's link seems to suggest, the complete and total obliteration of self is a very meager human suggestion.
I don't understand?

Quote
The version of Ripple World, as Callan described, or Clockwork Earth that we embody is ridiculously ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned. There is a universe of wonder to explore.
Well, maybe you're bet will be right - I'm okay with that. If someone else wins the lottery, I fully intend to bum that kind of money off them - when they get to heaven, they can buy me a sandwich! One reason for diversity - so we can get loaners of those who belief won the lottery.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2013, 08:14:23 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Davias
"So, you do believe in nothing? How sad!" followed by an obscure frown and that priesterly look, an old man would give an 6 year old child ( Oh, how I hate that :evil: )
My answer is always: "Yes, your're right. I believe in nothing. How refreshing, huh?" accompanied  by an derisive smile.
I'd be inclined to say I believe I'm talking with them, that we talked in peace, respecting each others space, no violence broke out and that this all happened.

And that I'm not inclined to ignore special events like this by blocking it all out so as to think about a sky fairie.

Granted I am thick and ignore such moments as mundane alot - so I'd thank the other person for reminding me of the moment. The did good in doing that. A wonderful moment, indeed.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2013, 08:14:29 pm »
Quote from: Madness
As always, Davias, this place is an anomaly. Rest, pursue your discursive goals in excess here for a moment.

Meyna probably offers quality commentary (in terms of likeliness of validity) in that people generally avoid discomfort in communication. I, for one, alienate people all the time as I'm an abrasive communicator - there's no time for mundanities with Reality practically crackling with novelty around me. We're a young species and scared of our maturity. Kellhus might say that people communicate to fill the unknown with comfortable fictions, rather than engaging the world around them with honest reflection.

I've found because I have a genuine interest in anything and everything, so long as people talk about their interests conversations can at least continue until I've outrun another's interests (in that, many, many people are sadly so vapid that they cannot carry an engaged conversation about their own habits, that my interest in their interests is too deep, too bottomless).

Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Madness
Quote from: Callan S.
We speak the words of men (and women) long since dead. Many things are passed on and so still live.

We leave alot of ripples around, in others, in how we affect them. And they will combine with other ripples and pass on into latter generations.

It's not much, but try to think how much of you will live on in others rather than it ALL coming to an end at death.

This is my gripe and goad. We're embodying a version of humanity decided by people dead and perpetuated by few living, mostly out of fear.

As Duskweaver's link seems to suggest, the complete and total obliteration of self is a very meager human suggestion.

I don't understand?

Hmm... the Duskweaver comment was fulfilling a secondary stream of thoughts. (EDIT: It "ALL" coming to an end is a human conception and I don't put a whole lot of stock into human conceptions at the moment. You really think someone here, on planet earth, has actually figured out this Universe?)

The Myth of Social Mobility is something lockesnow mentioned in the Feminism and Slavery thread as crux of our conversations there. There's a very real likelihood, based on the social organization of humanity as is, that I will never escape the economic position I've been born into. Even worse, we're all judged socially, everyday, based on people's unconscious assumptions about us (though, I can hardly gripe too much about physiology).

However, I don't care at all about possessions or material. I care about our species (bias) and I care how our propagation. I care about our style, our pose. I care that vested interests have ground human progress, that much lauded phenomenon, to a meager trickle at best.

As you described, Callan, and I tried to echo, everything around us is an idea and these conceptual structures for the most part were manifested by humans who aren't contemporary of us, who are not living now to reap the wages of what they've sown. It shouldn't be so hard to change those ideas, to truly improve the agency of our species. It shouldn't be so hard to change ourselves, if we'd like - again I'm not advocating augmentation of self through technology (though, we're pretty much past this point of original preservation with antibiotics and gadgetry) but augmentation of self, through practice, using only the embodied form. Obviously, there are tools that can supplement this.

Planned obsolescence is a prime example of these fulcrums, the fiction of progress.

Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Madness
The version of Ripple World, as Callan described, or Clockwork Earth that we embody is ridiculously ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned. There is a universe of wonder to explore.

Well, maybe you're bet will be right - I'm okay with that. If someone else wins the lottery, I fully intend to bum that kind of money off them - when they get to heaven, they can buy me a sandwich! One reason for diversity - so we can get loaners of those who belief won the lottery.

Now I don't understand?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2013, 08:14:35 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
Getting back to these questions from Meyna, which I've been thinking about...
Quote from: Meyna
What if all of the cells are frozen and cease to function during suspension, but are fine after revival? What if during suspension, the person's body is stripped down to individual cells and then put back together such that the post-revival person is in the same state as in case 1)? What if 1% of cells are replaced by identical cells? 10%? What if 100% of the cells are switched out (case 2) ) and the person, upon revival, is identical to the person in case 1)?

What if there are cell-changes during the suspension on the order of changes that occur during a typical night's sleep or a day's worth of experiences? A month's worth of experiences? A year's worth?

What if a person dies normally (no suspension), and hundreds or thousands of years later, cells are arranged by artisanal hands in an arrangement consistent with case 2) above? There would be a lapse of experiences much like a suspended state, but with a traditional "death" occurring instead of an initial suspension.
I would say it depends on a core agenda of the person. Was their agenda to be stripped apart and reassembled? Or to be replaced?

If such an agenda wasn't there, then these things which tamper with a non desire for such things to happen. It's a disruption of the person - it might not be a traditional notion of death. But then again traditional death can actually be more respectful, in that it doesn't mutate you into something else against your agenda that then goes on living, in a state against it's own agenda, not quite what it was.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2013, 08:14:43 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Madness
Hmm... the Duskweaver comment was fulfilling a secondary stream of thoughts. (EDIT: It "ALL" coming to an end is a human conception and I don't put a whole lot of stock into human conceptions at the moment. You really think someone here, on planet earth, has actually figured out this Universe?)

The Myth of Social Mobility is something lockesnow mentioned in the Feminism and Slavery thread as crux of our conversations there. There's a very real likelihood, based on the social organization of humanity as is, that I will never escape the economic position I've been born into. Even worse, we're all judged socially, everyday, based on people's unconscious assumptions about us (though, I can hardly gripe too much about physiology).

However, I don't care at all about possessions or material. I care about our species (bias) and I care how our propagation. I care about our style, our pose. I care that vested interests have ground human progress, that much lauded phenomenon, to a meager trickle at best.

As you described, Callan, and I tried to echo, everything around us is an idea and these conceptual structures for the most part were manifested by humans who aren't contemporary of us, who are not living now to reap the wages of what they've sown. It shouldn't be so hard to change those ideas, to truly improve the agency of our species. It shouldn't be so hard to change ourselves, if we'd like - again I'm not advocating augmentation of self through technology (though, we're pretty much past this point of original preservation with antibiotics and gadgetry) but augmentation of self, through practice, using only the embodied form. Obviously, there are tools that can supplement this.

Planned obsolescence is a prime example of these fulcrums, the fiction of progress.
What's the point of a change to anything, if it just gets changed again a moment latter? I mean, as you describe it it sounds like you think you'll get to make your change and that'll...stay.

What's it part of when things change, but then change again in non sequetur to the past a moment latter? Nothing in particular except the utterly modular notion of change over and over - always new. The spirit of cancer.
Never mind that you talk about escaping an 'economic position' - you're essentially seeking freedom from that because you're still trapped within some socio conditioning of it mattering* (in a pratical sense it might matter, in that if you did not have to work you could spend more time reading/learning, for example. But we can act like this is the prime concern, or we can consider it's actually a social concern). As much as the economic position inflicts it's mattering upon your perceptional width, you're not really considering a world of continual change.

Quote
However, I don't care at all about possessions or material. *snip* I care about our style, our pose.
Not seeing a huge difference between the two?

Quote
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Madness
The version of Ripple World, as Callan described, or Clockwork Earth that we embody is ridiculously ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned. There is a universe of wonder to explore.

Well, maybe you're bet will be right - I'm okay with that. If someone else wins the lottery, I fully intend to bum that kind of money off them - when they get to heaven, they can buy me a sandwich! One reason for diversity - so we can get loaners of those who belief won the lottery.

Now I don't understand?
Invisible claims are the most over powering - particularly when the claim is made simply as the shadow of calling some other claim ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned.

I'm, in part, saying you have a claim, Mike - a stake, a bet, a ticket in the belief lottery.

As said, it wont seem to be a claim as it'll just seem to be the other dude being ignorant, short-sighted, etc.

Amorph-thingie of the day: Every time we see a wrong, we claim a right. But generally we only see the wrong. The claim remains invisible. Even as (or because) it animates us.

And maybe it's the winning claim. And if so, when you get to heaven, I'll pester you to buy me a sandwich.

* In terms of it being a chip on my shoulder, I think it matters as well.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2013, 08:14:49 pm »
Quote from: Meyna
Quote from: Callan S.
Getting back to these questions from Meyna, which I've been thinking about...
Quote from: Meyna
What if all of the cells are frozen and cease to function during suspension, but are fine after revival? What if during suspension, the person's body is stripped down to individual cells and then put back together such that the post-revival person is in the same state as in case 1)? What if 1% of cells are replaced by identical cells? 10%? What if 100% of the cells are switched out (case 2) ) and the person, upon revival, is identical to the person in case 1)?

What if there are cell-changes during the suspension on the order of changes that occur during a typical night's sleep or a day's worth of experiences? A month's worth of experiences? A year's worth?

What if a person dies normally (no suspension), and hundreds or thousands of years later, cells are arranged by artisanal hands in an arrangement consistent with case 2) above? There would be a lapse of experiences much like a suspended state, but with a traditional "death" occurring instead of an initial suspension.
I would say it depends on a core agenda of the person. Was their agenda to be stripped apart and reassembled? Or to be replaced?

If such an agenda wasn't there, then these things which tamper with a non desire for such things to happen. It's a disruption of the person - it might not be a traditional notion of death. But then again traditional death can actually be more respectful, in that it doesn't mutate you into something else against your agenda that then goes on living, in a state against it's own agenda, not quite what it was.

Our agendas are already mutating and evolving constantly by virtue of the fact that our brains never cease operations. think about a snapshot of your brain state at this very instant, and then compare that to another snapshot 24 hours in the future. There are countless possibilities for the state that that snapshot could take on, each correlating to a different set of experiences on a different path that you take in this 24-hour period. Each is different, however, there are many that will not have crossed a threshold beyond which the new "you" is unrecognizable. You could take the length of time as 2 days or 3 days or whatever -- extending the time only increases the possible number of brain states, of which a portion will still be more or less recognizable as the "you" at this very moment with your current agenda (or close enough to it such that the change is consistent with the constant change that happens anyway). Thus, there are many, many possible configurations of a recognizable "you" that could be constructed, I think.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2013, 08:14:59 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
I gotta be skeptical - are you going to be speaking french tomorrow? More importantly, when you think thoughts in your head, when they rise up from feelings into the psuedo verbal (but really only imagined verbal), are they going to be in a different language tomorrow?

No, we have your gravitas. Gravitasas, really - or whatever the plural would be. Were gunna be doing the same sorts of things tomorrow - do you think a brain is going to genuinely have a whole new configuration, and yet still do the same sorts of things as prior to that configuration? No - it's going to be that it's not really a whole new configuration at all.

I think to have an agenda that has one go through the sort of stuff you describe - I think it's a savage agenda for someone to have, it could see so many subtle nuances of their functioning sheared away through mechanical destruction, I'd agree on that.

But to forfil the agenda it has set itself upon, it would have.

Went a bit Yoda at the end there, I did...

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2013, 08:15:06 pm »
Quote from: Madness
Quote from: Callan S.
What's the point of a change to anything, if it just gets changed again a moment latter? I mean, as you describe it it sounds like you think you'll get to make your change and that'll...stay.

I have no illusions as to the unlikely hold my ideas will have on the world. Entrenched interests are my issue? It is become increasingly unlikely for revolution to ever succeed again.

Quote from: Callan S.
What's it part of when things change, but then change again in non sequetur to the past a moment latter? Nothing in particular except the utterly modular notion of change over and over - always new. The spirit of cancer.

Wow. I've never read my life so succinctly described... such reduction. I might appropriate that for my sig - as much as I dislike the connotations I have.

Again, I'm not sure you haven't taken this to an extreme I'm simply not thinking about yet. Not a bad thing - but you were specifically responding to thoughts that societal change seems too difficult, it is more entrenched than it should be; entrenchment comes from people, human bodies, practicing the beliefs, embodying the rituals of their beliefs, which gives power to institutions. I'm talking about change in this vein.

(EDIT: In hindsight, you might also be mashing the thoughts I'm portraying about societal change vs. the brain change that Meyna and I have been mentioning; neuroplasticity being constant change.)

However, if you were primed by Meyna's thoughts than I'd imagine your thoughts were concerning a biologically augmented fluidity, which I'm most certainly not advocating.

Clarity?

Quote from: Callan S.
Never mind that you talk about escaping an 'economic position' - you're essentially seeking freedom from that because you're still trapped within some socio conditioning of it mattering* (in a pratical sense it might matter, in that if you did not have to work you could spend more time reading/learning, for example. But we can act like this is the prime concern, or we can consider it's actually a social concern).

What is a prime concern and how does it differ from a social concern?

Also, there are humans far, far more dominated by their 'economic position' than I - yet those same humans might represent cortical anomalies, diverse variation, that might save us from ourselves - as far as there are "problems in the world" that apparently don't have "solutions" to them. As AE says, "you cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them."

Quote from: Callan S.
As much as the economic position inflicts it's mattering upon your perceptional width, you're not really considering a world of continual change.

I would argue that you aren't considering a static world - It seems to me a sad, state of affairs. And I also don't know what your connotations of "world of continual change" are or how they relate to your interpretation of my words.

Quote from: Callan S.
I gotta be skeptical - are you going to be speaking french tomorrow? More importantly, when you think thoughts in your head, when they rise up from feelings into the psuedo verbal (but really only imagined verbal), are they going to be in a different language tomorrow?

Possible and probable, increasing in likelihood based on practice.

Quote from: Meyna
Our agendas are already mutating and evolving constantly by virtue of the fact that our brains never cease operations. think about a snapshot of your brain state at this very instant, and then compare that to another snapshot 24 hours in the future. There are countless possibilities for the state that that snapshot could take on, each correlating to a different set of experiences on a different path that you take in this 24-hour period. Each is different, however, there are many that will not have crossed a threshold beyond which the new "you" is unrecognizable. You could take the length of time as 2 days or 3 days or whatever -- extending the time only increases the possible number of brain states, of which a portion will still be more or less recognizable as the "you" at this very moment with your current agenda (or close enough to it such that the change is consistent with the constant change that happens anyway). Thus, there are many, many possible configurations of a recognizable "you" that could be constructed, I think.

+1 on description, if "agenda" means cortical architecture representing "whatever you and Callan are surmising as someone's self-image."

To attempt a synthesis, I'd hazard, Meyna that over both cases, the entity awaking from the various unconsciousness you've described would still feel a unified experience, even temporally. I feel this was Auriga's gripe with death to begin with... the total dependence of consciousness on biology?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2013, 08:15:12 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: Madness
Quote from: Callan S.
What's the point of a change to anything, if it just gets changed again a moment latter? I mean, as you describe it it sounds like you think you'll get to make your change and that'll...stay.

I have no illusions as to the unlikely hold my ideas will have on the world.
So you resent the idea of a ripple influence on others - which may have a kind of permanence - instead you want to make changes which...dissappear in the next tide?

Quote
Entrenched interests are my issue? It is become increasingly unlikely for revolution to ever succeed again.
Not sure what you mean here?

Quote
but you were specifically responding to thoughts that societal change seems too difficult
I think I just talked about having a ripple effect on other people, as giving a sense of what ones life actually is, continuing on (once the stone has passed below the surface of the water)?

It seemed to goad you?

I'm not sure I specified any particular scale of ripples.

Quote
Quote from: Callan S.
Never mind that you talk about escaping an 'economic position' - you're essentially seeking freedom from that because you're still trapped within some socio conditioning of it mattering* (in a pratical sense it might matter, in that if you did not have to work you could spend more time reading/learning, for example. But we can act like this is the prime concern, or we can consider it's actually a social concern).

What is a prime concern and how does it differ from a social concern?
In that the social is largely whimsy (or atleast these days it is) while practical is practical. But the whimsy of considering others judgement of 'economic position', you treat as if it's not whimsy to listen to their judgement.

Then again I guess when they take their judgement dreadfully seriously, to treat it as whimsy is to disconnect from them.

Quote
Also, there are humans far, far more dominated by their 'economic position' than I - yet those same humans might represent cortical anomalies, diverse variation, that might save us from ourselves
Sounds like any solutions will be well within the frame of economic position importance?
Quote
As AE says, "you cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them."
Not sure about that - I think someone of the same conciousness as you could make up a sedoku that you can then solve.

Other variants of that phrase seem to be more about having to give up certain values held that are involved in a problem before that problem can be solved.

Quote
Quote from: Callan S.
As much as the economic position inflicts it's mattering upon your perceptional width, you're not really considering a world of continual change.
I would argue that you aren't considering a static world - It seems to me a sad, state of affairs. And I also don't know what your connotations of "world of continual change" are or how they relate to your interpretation of my words.
Okay...so you tell me you don't know what my connotations...wait, you're just saying you have no idea what I'm talking about. Then leaving it at that. Okay, if you don't have any questions, okay.

Quote
Quote from: Callan S.
I gotta be skeptical - are you going to be speaking french tomorrow? More importantly, when you think thoughts in your head, when they rise up from feelings into the psuedo verbal (but really only imagined verbal), are they going to be in a different language tomorrow?

Possible and probable, increasing in likelihood based on practice.
You don't get any visualisation to mind of residual base and simply peripheral changes in regard to this - you see it as utterly plastic change?

I'm thinking blind brain theory can, subjectively, burn both ways - either one sees oneself as utterly solid and immoveable, or utterly ephemeral and every changing. With nothing to see, nothing to guide any kind of middle ground, eventually the conclusion crashes either to one extreme end, or the other.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2013, 08:15:19 pm »
Quote from: Madness
Quote from: Callan S.
So you resent the idea of a ripple influence on others - which may have a kind of permanence - instead you want to make changes which...dissappear in the next tide?

Again, we're coming to the same communication issue again.

If I interpret your ambiguity correctly, then I think I resent the success and entrenchment of the ripple influence of others and instead want to facilitate the changes of any/every other.

Quote from: Callan S.
I think I just talked about having a ripple effect on other people, as giving a sense of what ones life actually is, continuing on (once the stone has passed below the surface of the water)?

It seemed to goad you?

I'm not sure I specified any particular scale of ripples.

I don't understand your connotations.

Quote from: Callan S.
In that the social is largely whimsy (or atleast these days it is) while practical is practical. But the whimsy of considering others judgement of 'economic position', you treat as if it's not whimsy to listen to their judgement.

Then again I guess when they take their judgement dreadfully seriously, to treat it as whimsy is to disconnect from them.

Practical is practical?

Also, I don't know about you but I don't have the choice to suddenly jump my tax bracket one day and get more for doing less.

Quote from: Callan S.
Sounds like any solutions will be well within the frame of economic position importance?

So if a child in any destitute country has the capacity to exceed our intelligence given the same education, we should perpetuate the status quo [what is] just because, rather than change it?

Quote from: Callan S.
Not sure about that - I think someone of the same conciousness as you could make up a sedoku that you can then solve.

Other variants of that phrase seem to be more about having to give up certain values held that are involved in a problem before that problem can be solved.

You can create problems without having the biological capacity, or sensation, to recognize the problems you've created.

Quote from: Callan S.
Okay...so you tell me you don't know what my connotations...wait, you're just saying you have no idea what I'm talking about. Then leaving it at that. Okay, if you don't have any questions, okay.

We've drifted far off course from Auriga's thread so I think the onus is on us to justify relevance to topic?

Quote from: Callan S.
You don't get any visualisation to mind of residual base and simply peripheral changes in regard to this - you see it as utterly plastic change?

I'm thinking blind brain theory can, subjectively, burn both ways - either one sees oneself as utterly solid and immoveable, or utterly ephemeral and every changing. With nothing to see, nothing to guide any kind of middle ground, eventually the conclusion crashes either to one extreme end, or the other.

BBT isn't actually a gradient, except in terms of perception. We are all blind brains. It, however, has no effect on the plasticity of the brain. It simply describes limitations.

Also, check out some accounts of synesthesia or talented, yet perceptively-deprived individuals (blind-musicians, mathematicians). There are many different experiences of cognition.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2013, 08:15:25 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote
If I interpret your ambiguity correctly, then I think I resent the success and entrenchment of the ripple influence of others and instead want to facilitate the changes of any/every other.
Well, I've given a few guesses as to what you mean and don't seem to have guessed all that accurately, so this time I'll just go eh? What does that mean?

Quote
I don't understand your connotations.
Well, I just talked about ripples - I don't know why you see that as related to anything being too difficult?

Quote
Practical is practical?

Also, I don't know about you but I don't have the choice to suddenly jump my tax bracket one day and get more for doing less.
That's resource gatherers.

Are you talking about A: You, as a person, being judged by your fiscal status?

Or are you talking about B: resource gathering capacities that are under your control?

Seperate things.

Quote
So if a child in any destitute country has the capacity to exceed our intelligence given the same education, we should perpetuate the status quo [what is] just because, rather than change it?
Oh, I thought you were just talking about A from before, not B. Gotta nail down this A/B thing!

Quote
We've drifted far off course from Auriga's thread so I think the onus is on us to justify relevance to topic?
Well, no, not us? I talked about ripples and...I'm happy to leave it at that.

Quote
BBT isn't actually a gradient, except in terms of perception. We are all blind brains. It, however, has no effect on the plasticity of the brain. It simply describes limitations.
*shrug* I was talking about perceptions. If it sounds interesting to talk about, I will, but I wont go into it otherwise.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2013, 08:15:32 pm »
Quote from: Madness
Quote from: Callan S.
Well, I just talked about ripples - I don't know why you see that as related to anything being too difficult?

In engaging your thoughts, initially, wherever it was we diverged, I was considering how the ripples of others become entrenched in the world - I've been interpreting "ripples" as the effects of the expression of individual agency, how ideas are expressed and physically maintained in form, biological or otherwise.

Quote from: Callan S.
That's resource gatherers.

What?

Quote from: Callan S.
Are you talking about A: You, as a person, being judged by your fiscal status?

Or are you talking about B: resource gathering capacities that are under your control?

B, so long as you mean, the capacity under my control to gather further resources allotted to me by A - as you've juxtaposed them A mostly determines B in society.

Quote from: Madness
So if a child in any destitute country has the capacity to exceed our intelligence given the same education, we should perpetuate the status quo [what is] just because, rather than change it?

Clearer on this now?

Quote from: Callan S.
Well, no, not us? I talked about ripples and...I'm happy to leave it at that.

Again, I'll let the community establish and embody its own code of etiquette as I have no desire to spend my time, first imaging a will and then imposing it. However, for my vote, I definitely think the onus is on the poster to justify relevance of their words to a thread.

It would be fairly immature of anyone interested in communication to think they can simply drop whatever words they want into any thread without attempting to make clear their personal connotations and intentional meanings, as articulately as possible, in relation to the topic at hand.

Quote from: Callan S.
*shrug* I was talking about perceptions. If it sounds interesting to talk about, I will, but I wont go into it otherwise.

But what does "talking about perceptions" in regards to invoking BBT mean to you, Callan? Especially, in relation to the thread of our conversation?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2013, 08:15:40 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
I must have missed this reply, Mike? Sorry for the delay.

Quote
B, so long as you mean, the capacity under my control to gather further resources allotted to me by A - as you've juxtaposed them A mostly determines B in society.
Do you mean rich men are more likely to get loans?

I don't think I've juxtaposed them - to me (as I'm sure will seem a banal reversal) it seems the other way around. You seemed concerned about being judged personally on your resources simply in terms of being judged by other humans - in how you are personally treated by other humans, whether you are ostracised.

But you want it to also be about the money as well.

Which comes first for you, bro? Money or the human contact?

They seem too very different things to me - and to try and twist them together into one object (oil into water) seems the juxtaposition. Though I totally grant in the not so distant historical past, ostracism meant death. But ignoring death just for now, which one comes first for you? Say you're super man, but a hobo - you don't need to eat, don't need shelter, but you crave human company yet people shun you for you're looks (even though you're actually several thousand times more powerful than them) - does this concern you the most? Or are you actually chilly chillax with it, as you've got the power? Or it can be a mixture of both over time, but which comes up the most often for you?

Quote
Again, I'll let the community establish and embody its own code of etiquette as I have no desire to spend my time, first imaging a will and then imposing it. However, for my vote, I definitely think the onus is on the poster to justify relevance of their words to a thread.
My vote is that you have to ask if the other guy wants to try and make replies hot and sexy for everyone else. If that person was on topic, yet your enquiries into it are off topic, my vote is the onus is on you to make your off topic-ness somehow engaging.

Quote
It would be fairly immature of anyone interested in communication to think they can simply drop whatever words they want into any thread without attempting to make clear their personal connotations and intentional meanings, as articulately as possible, in relation to the topic at hand.
I thought the issue was that discussion had become off topic?


Quote
But what does "talking about perceptions" in regards to invoking BBT mean to you, Callan? Especially, in relation to the thread of our conversation?
It means what I said before:
Quote
I'm thinking blind brain theory can, subjectively, burn both ways - either one sees oneself as utterly solid and immoveable, or utterly ephemeral and every changing. With nothing to see, nothing to guide any kind of middle ground, eventually the conclusion crashes either to one extreme end, or the other.
When I say 'blind brain theory can', by 'can' I mean the viewers perception of it can affect them in such a way.

I'm not refering to some sort of grasp of BBT that is somehow above and beyond perception.

Also, perhaps this thread could be transfered to the new forum, if possible? Please :)