Show Posts

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

Messages - Wilshire

Pages: 1 ... 388 389 [390] 391
Introduce Yourself / Re: Hello
« on: April 24, 2013, 03:33:34 pm »
Always like to see the Old Names as they call you Three Seas folk.

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:21:56 pm »

It's also the binary people seem to default into that either it's proven to them right now, or it's utterly wrong.

This, I think, is an important statement. Its very true in a lot of cases that people tend to see things this way, especially if they feel they are being challenged or confronted, even if its subconcious. Like mentioned earlier, having someone whip out a paper and say "hey do you get this", it would be almost (almost) an insult to themselves if they didnt understand whatever it was (depending on the person, the situation, and the context of the confrontation).

Also, Jorge, I'm glad you chimed in. I think earlier I was trying to say a lot of what you just did. You, however, did a much better job at it and have the credentials to back it up. I was mostly just whistling in the dark :P

Introduce Yourself / Re: Hello (t)here
« on: April 23, 2013, 09:15:16 pm »
Buckle up. Madness is in the process of transferring the accumulated wealth of knowledge over at the old TSA forum. Quite the treasure trove of speculation to be found. More to come I'm sure.

The Warrior-Prophet / Re: Cnaiur and Fate, After Anwurat
« on: April 23, 2013, 08:05:04 pm »
No need to only refer to the Goddess of Fortune as the Whore. Drawing her inclination towards whores makes her seem like Yatwer or (insert other goddess name here).

Anyway, hitting a moving target whilst on horesback seems like a bit of a blessing too doesn't it? Maybe he is being favored by both Fortune and War at the same time? Though that to me is attributing WAY to much to the gods (who IMO have only shown minimal involvement beyond what we have seen from Yatwer).  There is such thing as luck and happenstance and the Wold Conspiring, which all happen outside the wants of Gods. Why force everything that happens to be the will of god? Seems a bit too biased for me to agree with fully.

Well I would say that the 'individual gods' and an 'immanent god' are two entirely different things. The so-called Gods (as they are referred to every time in the appendix) are just power-hungry ciphrang, while the one god, may be something more. It is likely, in my mind, that he could end up fooling one of the hundred, but if there is a One God who has some kind of omnipotence, that would be much more difficult (and far less likely. I would say impossible).

The Warrior-Prophet / Re: Cnaiur and Fate, After Anwurat
« on: April 22, 2013, 07:38:26 pm »
I think there might be more than meets the eye in this passage, but I actually disagree with the section you put in bold being significant. That specific sentence looks to me like a man in desperation, finding similarities between a woman and child that might have looked like someone he knew in the past. Or perhaps finding a kindred spirit in the common flight of a common enemy.

Other sections, like the original passage where the arrow misses, sees like it could be fate. How hard would it be to hit a stationary man on a horse? That said, later, when more arrows miss, I think that could just be difficulties hitting a moving target from horseback and much less likely to be some kind of intervention.

I didn't think that the 'whore of fate' was actually a goddess, more of an idea to describe chance, but turns out I forgot about the Goddess Anagke (The Goddess of fortune, also known as "the Whore of Fate").

There is nothing to say that the gods, or the god, cannot be fooled. Kellhus could have very well convinced the outside agency that he is some kind of higher divinity.

Post WLW I would say 'the horns' could refer to some kind of wake up ritual. Like a bugle call that wakes up the army each morning. But the fact that Golgotterath is always described with some reference to its Horns makes that explanation seem wanting.

News/Announcements / Re: Suggestion Box
« on: April 22, 2013, 05:21:28 pm »
In the advent of the new board I thought it may be worthwhile to consider a slight change. Much of conversation in TUC board, I think, should be moved to the WLW. We as a community have kind of decided that each dedicated board contains the spoilers up to the reading of that book. As such, I think now that TUC is coming soon (hopefully), and since in light of the entire forum move, I think it might be a good idea to move the topics to WLW.

That way we can still discuss the WLW stuff without fear of TUC spoilers, since, by design, TUC board will be discussing the book. It will be a bit awkward for some time after TUC is released, in regards to what is/isn't spoiler tagged. If the conversation where moved to WLW, then this could be somewhat alleviated. Those interested in continuing the conversation about WLW could do so, and those sufficiently worried about spoilers would be able to avoid TUC board until they finished reading.

Hopefully you havent moved to much yet, I wouldn't want to have to do it twice.

I guess this was too studded with spoilers to leave in TDTCB threads. Oops :P.

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 22, 2013, 02:58:15 am »
Oh I've no idea how to go about it as I explained. Not a clue. I was merely trying to say that the way it is presented is more philosophical than scientific. Nothing is wrong with that, but if you ask a scientist to read it then they will likely give you a disappointing response.

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 21, 2013, 10:07:16 pm »
Yeah I would agree that the judgment passed was a bit harsh. Sure his stuff isn't a breeze to read, but there is no rule that it has to be. It isn't a scientific article and should lose points because of that fact. It might not be what one generally reads, but just because you dislike how it is written doesn't mean it is garbage.

Well anything is certainly better than nothing, and it looks like a great start to me, though a website might be nice so people could more easily find the information.

General Misc. / Re: Explaining Bakker
« on: April 21, 2013, 02:29:45 pm »
I think the opinions of your scientists seems reasonable. I'm not going to say I have spent any reasonable amount of time looking into Bakker's philosophies, but from what I have looked at, I can say that I felt similar to your quoted opinions. I, however, and just some guy off the street. One would hope that someone that is, more or less, in the field of study that the paper was written about, would be able to more fully grasp what the hell was going on.

Though the credentials of your readers may be important. I don't know what the paper(s) were about, and I don't know how much a 'neruolinguistic researcher' would know about it. However, what I can say is that Bakker does not write scientifically, and the people in the scientific community expect a certain kind of writing. I don't know how much Bakker claims to be a scientist, but he certainly isn't doing 'science' on a day to day basis. Philosophy and science can be more or less similar depending on how theoretical ones research is. I would imagine that your readers, since they are doing research (which I take to me actually doing experiments and developing working models of theories) that philosophy is not close to heart. Practical science, outside the realm of purely theoretical stuff, is not much like philosophy, and the practitioners would not appreciate something like the texts written by Bakker.

This is because, like they said, he isn't a scientist. I'm sure he could write something that could be more comprehensible for a scientific audiance, but from what I've seen, most of his work is not for them. Its for the philosophers. His papers are not scientific papers.

Go to google scholar or something similar and look up a journal article regarding something scientific.  You'll find a very similar design in all of them. They will start with an abstract, then go into their hypothesis, then a theory section, then their apparatus and method for testing, data and discussion, and finally the conclusions they came to. There will also be an appendix section.

There is not a lot of fluff. Not a lot of confusing dialect and complex sentence structure. The only thing that may be confusing are the terms that are very specific to the research itself, and these things are usually explained in the appendix, accompanied by all the references they used for their work.

Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles go through a rigorous process to get published, and their findings are typically more accurate and more reliable than textbooks or papers, since those can be written by just a few people and hold no obligation to be accurate.

I'm just trying to say I can understand the stance of the your scientists. Bakker is a philosopher not a scientist, and grabbing any random scientist from the street and asking them to interpret his writing will probably yield you the same result over and over again.

What was the motivation for doing thing? Looks like you spent quite some time on it.

Pages: 1 ... 388 389 [390] 391