Quack Perspectivism

A spectre looms over these pages, which I hasten to dub with name “quack perspectivism”. The whence and the wherefore of this serpentine doctrine is a mystery to me, and though at length have I perused with care its coils and folds---I can find neither the head, nor any argument in favour of it, nor its end. And how the fangs of this unlikely doctrine could have spread its venom to those amongst us, I can only assume was by surprise, upon unknowing victims who in their writing rehearse this dangerous.......

**cough, cough**

Sorry, gents. That was a bit dramatic. Ahem…

The ghost of an ancient dogma haunts these pages. You can see its spirit nursed within lines that unknowingly presume a place for a world beyond in what matters today. I am talking about otherworldly thinking, and specifically the ancient Platonic idea that the world of the senses is somehow less real than it might have been. This revenant shows itself, among other places, in Lyssa’s suggestion that what is valuable is somehow tied to its being deemed so, and in Satyr’s claim that this-or-that is not intrinsically valuable, simply because it is only valuable to us. And elsewhere, here, a full appraisal of parts of our reality are granted only with the incoherent proviso, “only to us!”, or else are withheld entirely.

Do you suppose there’s some way the world is, apart from how it is to someone, or something? Have you ever used the term, “thing-in-itself”, or “noumenon”---and thought you used it coherently. If so, you may be one of those undergoing the last paroxysms of this ancient pathogen. Let’s call you, “perspectivists”. –Those who leave the door open.

A ‘thing-in-itself’ is supposedly a thing as it is to no one, which makes it not a thing in the first place. What would a noumenal realm be like if it is a realm that is not like anything, to everyone. An incoherent idea. Then how comfortable are you making an existence claim about it? Perhaps you think that, “everything is a matter of perspective”. But if something applies to everything, it consequently applies to nothing, meaningfully. And so you ought to cease speaking about perspectives, unless of course you’d like to hold the door open to some way the world is, apart from any perspective. (This is what every religious person does when faced with the Problem of Evil, who responds, “God works in mysterious ways”). If so, perhaps you can make sense of that incoherent idea, the ‘thing-in-itself’, or else cease speaking about perspectives entirely.

Without casting a spell, can you tell me what it means to be a “perspectivist”?

I'm not,one...so whatever you speak of, is for you to direct as an accusation.

A little summary of my views.
Perspectivism is an admission that man is limited to interpreting reality.
Reality is what is being interpreted.

Thing is how the fluidity of reality is interpreted.
Thingness is the abstraction, produced by human binary methodologies, evolved to order the disordering.
Therefore, all is theory, as in θεορια, θεορο.

From this we get dualism: the nothing, in opposition to the some-thing.

What is the real?
That which is constantly changing, is active, the (inter)acting, (inter)active.
The human mind cannot escape the methodology and so must abstract reality, to the point that even when trying to define and describe it, it must construct absolutes.
This si why trying to define the fluid inevitably submits to paradoxes...and this is also why philosophy is not a scicne, which is a discipline dealing with things, culinating in the purest thingness, the most abstract abstraction fo a numerical value: a 1...opposed by a 0

This is, also, why philosophy, or the study of the world, all that is real, requires an artistic mind, coupled with a scientific disposition.

Thing-in-itself is a farce.
It presupposes, like with all modern popular religions, the thing which can never be perceived.
Kant, being a product of his time, was a Judeo-Christian thinker.

No thing....in my mind.
Thing is the mind's creation, projected as an idea(l).

This is where it gets mystical, in the non-religious, non-nihilistic, sense:
It is because reality is fluid, always changing, in flux, that no mind can ever know it completely.
The concept of completeness, itself, is another way of saying thing.

Man, all organisms for that matter, are forever trying to make sense of a constantly changing world.
In other words, they are forever trapped in their subjectivity, trying to become objective: completeness, truth, are words denoting this missing absolute.
Man feels this absence as need, and experiences the struggle to fulfill, to find completion, as a struggle, an αγον, experienced as need/suffering, and inevitably resulting in a surrender to the fluidity, after attrition has sapped the energies used to maintain whatever level of cohesion, order, an organism can manage.

I will not get into this further.
I will return to the subject.

In my mind, there is no perspective each mind lives within. Perspective is another aspect of natural selection.
The world is shared...and whatever interpretation of it comes closest to it is successful, and is selected...it survives.
In our modern western world, this is not totally so. Here even an absurdity, a false perspective, one lacking reference to an aesthetic source, is protected....stupidity sheltered form itself.
This, too, is another issue.

I am not saying that perspectivism is some solipsistic self-referential reality.
but most, today, consider it so...and that's why we get this bullshit about "beauty being in the eye of the beholder" and how "all have a right to their point of view" and that "appearances are skin deep", and that "you cannot juudge a book by its cover".
All these feel-good excuses are founded on the thing-in-itself, this 'ghost in the machine', as Pinker called it...or as we know it the soul, the spirit, god etc.

This is NOT what I think.
For me, like I said, perspectivism, is an admission that all organism's are forced to live or die by the value of their own perceptions...and interpretations and (inter)actions with otherness...and like in nature, all organism's are forced to suffer the consequences of their perceptions.

Now, we can understand what intelligence is and why it is so vital...and so powerful that man can dominate creatures bigger, faster, stronger, tougher than he.
Intelligence is the perception of patterns within this fluidity...this Flux.
If these perceptions are pf a higher quality - they incorporate more details, more aesthetic data, has more sensual referential points - then the abstractions constructed with them, can be projected in time, as preemtive, as preparatory....as an over-powering.
The factor of synergy comes into play, and efficiency.
And this is how the feeble energies accessible to man, can be pinpointed, mustered over time, and they can overpower bigger, stronger, faster, more durable organism's...some of which possessing more acute senses.

It's the same principle used in the Martial arts.

So, no...there is no thing-in-itself because there is no thing.
Thing, the abstraction, the one, the god, the particle, the here, the now, the beginning and the end, are all words describing the same missing absolute.
Man, being an ordering consciousness, creates, constructs, what is missing, as a way of directing his will....the aggregate of his energies...towards an object/objective...also called a thing, an idea(l) etc.
The quality of these abstractions are not equal in all brains..but all brains are contained within the interpretations created, their own perspective...and all suffer the consequences.

Then the question arises:
What then is changing?

Here we see the addiction and the human brain's containment within the methodology of binary thinking...the on/off, becoming something/nothing...good/evil etc.

The question itself presupposes what it is looking for.
Like asking:
What is the meaning of life?
Or
What is God?

To contradict it another mind must accept the presupposes, resulting ni the paradoxes...when in, fact the very question is nonsensical.
Like the since question:
Where and how did the universe begin?
Or
What is the fabric of reality?

Nonsensical questions posited by mind immersed in Judeo-Christian, nihilistic, thinking.
Math is a language based on a nonsensical presupposition: a ONE and a Nil.
It is useful, as all tools might be - even Christianity is useful to the desperate,the ill, the lost, the simple.

We can now begin to understand why, for the Greeks, philosophy was an art-form.
Language does not deal with literal things...but with symbols, referring to mental simplifications/generalizations (abstractions), constructed by collecting, and integrating sensual data (inter)actions into ideas.

Satyr wrote:

A little summary of my views.
Perspectivism is an admission that man is limited to interpreting reality.
Reality is what is being interpreted.

What I call 'real' is the world as it is, around me, and you, and everyone else. In what sense can anyone be "limited to interpreting reality", when it’s their interpretation that just is the reality. What I see around me is what's real. So, what have I been limited from, in principle? If you think that it’s anything at all, even if you can’t say what it is, you're engaged in otherworldly thinking, because you’re begging the question of what interpretations are interpretations of. There's no other reason to think in terms of 'interpretations', at all.

If you want to find a place in your outlook for some unknowable X that you think was filtered and falsified by the structure and categories of your mind, that’s fine---but it’s otherworldly and religious. Mystical, as you said of yourself. The fact that you may think the character of that other-world is chaotic and so on, rather than orderly and stable, doesn’t change that fact.

Quote :

This is where it gets mystical, in the non-religious, non-nihilistic, sense:
It is because reality is fluid, always changing, in flux, that no mind can ever know it completely.
The concept of completeness, itself, is another way of saying thing.

There used to be this old cunt who thought that the ‘thing-in-itself’ was somehow causally implicated in our own interpretation of the world---that is, how the world as it seemed to us; how it appeared. He thought that the mind was structured with categories (like space and time) and ways of filtering input data, and that the ‘thing-in-itself’---the world apart from us---was causally implicated in the end product (how the world appeared to us)---you know, trees, and houses, and roads, and cars, and etc. His name was Cunt, written as Kant.

The problem is that if the ‘thing-in-itself’ is unknowable, then you can’t attribute causality to it, because that would be knowing something about it---namely, that it a category like causality applies to it.

So what of the world being “chaotic, fluid, constantly changing, in flux”, etc? Clearly, some people seem to think that Fritz Nietzsche made the same mistake… when he said that the world as it is apart from us is “chaotic, fluid, ever changing, in flux” and so on. That’s an extra-perspectival claim that he’s not entitled to make.

That would be a religious claim---or at least an extra-perspectival and otherworldly one, no different than if he had said that reality, as he meant it, was “constant, unchanging, solid”---as every Christian says, about God. The fact that he said something directly opposed doesn’t make him less religious, because what makes him religious is that he said something at all, and not just that, but that he felt the need to, at all.

How do you move past that sort of quack perspectivism, you might ask? ...Stop supposing that your interpretation is an interpretation of something, and remove 'interpretation' all together. Reality is just what is the case, exactly as it is to you. In other words, reality is fluid and chaotic only if that is exactly how it seems to you. The only people who would ever care to mention ‘perspective’ or ‘interpretation’ are those (perhaps unknowingly) concerned with what might be outside of ‘perspective’ or ‘interpretation’---they are those who leave the door open so such a notion---that sort of ancient metaphysical pathogen. That's why I called perspectivists: those who leave the door open. ...Call it a longing.

Satyr wrote:

In other words, they are forever trapped in their subjectivity, trying to become objective: completeness, truth, are words denoting this missing absolute.
Man feels this absence as need, and experiences the struggle to fulfill, to find completion, as a struggle, an αγον, experienced as need/suffering, and inevitably resulting in a surrender to the fluidity, after attrition has sapped the energies used to maintain whatever level of cohesion, order, an organism can manage.

There’s that longing. What am I trapped in, such that I am trapped in subjectivity? I call objective whatever is undeniably true to a creature such as me. Whatever is true given the kind of creature that I am---that’s objectivity. Why have a need for anything else? What’s absent? What suffering?

Satyr wrote:

I am not saying that perspectivism is some solipsistic self-referential reality.
but most, today, consider it so...and that's why we get this bullshit about "beauty being in the eye of the beholder" and how "all have a right to their point of view" and that "appearances are skin deep", and that "you cannot juudge a book by its cover".
All these feel-good excuses are founded on the thing-in-itself, this 'ghost in the machine', as Pinker called it...or as we know it the soul, the spirit, god etc.

This is NOT what I think.

Ok.

Quote :

What is the meaning of life?

That's answerable. Remember when I explained to Watson the ‘why’ game? And how it uncovered intrinsic value. The meaning of life (i.e., the purpose or point) is to uncover and bring to life just that intrinsic value.

Mo wrote:

What I call 'real' is the world as it is, around me, and you, and everyone else. In what sense can anyone be "limited to interpreting reality", when it’s their interpretation that just is the reality. What I see around me is what's real. So, what have I been limited from, in principle?

The real is fluid...you interpret it as static.
In essence, you are ordering the disordering.

It takes a vast amount of arrogance to make a statement like the one you just made.
You just use a word "is", as if you are saying something concrete.
The "is" is your cementing bullshit.

What 'is," being forced to adopt your term, is never the same, from moment to moment, now "is" it?
When you observe, the apparent, it has altered while you are formulating an image, in your brain, or by the time you gather and process the data...the (inter)activity between the medium light, the phenomenon, and your sense organ.
To use another example: I see a star...it IS...yet the same star may have burned out and is no longer, because by the time the light reached my planet it had been extinguished.
But you don't care, do ya? You only wish to bask in its glow, and not question it.
I understand.

Your conception of "the world" is always a step behind. This is why Heidegger said that consciousness is a "looking back".
Intelligence attempts to overcome this lag, by projecting. This is why when someone accuses another of "projecting" it is funny....he is simply stating a fact about all consciousness.
But no two projections are equal, because no two brains have the same potentials.

But if defining the world, reality, as "that which IS" satisfy you...then feel free to use it.
Of course, you can never say, what is, nor can you ever completely know it...so, here, you are using ignorance to pretend gnosis.
Christians do the same when they claim God's existence.

If we accept this hypothesis as probable, then your desperation to
simply say "IS" would make you a sitting duck, for someone like me...in
any world outside this sheltering one.
While you were living in your world, declaring yourself invulnerable, unchanging, immortal, unaffected by doubt, I would be slicing your throwt...and that would be my IS.

Boy, the world is adapted to...it does not adapt to you.

Mo wrote:

If you think that it’s anything at all, even if you can’t say what it is, you're engaged in otherworldly thinking, because you’re begging the question of what interpretations are interpretations of. There's no other reason to think in terms of 'interpretations', at all.

Right there is where you are contained by your own brain's methodology.
I mention it towards the end.

The question:
"What, then, is changing"?

Mo wrote:

If you want to find a place in your outlook for some unknowable X that you think was filtered and falsified by the structure and categories of your mind, that’s fine---but it’s otherworldly and religious. Mystical, as you said of yourself. The fact that you may think the character of that other-world is chaotic and so on, rather than orderly and stable, doesn’t change that fact.

Who said anything about an "other world"?
I'm describing world. Not other world.
I live in this world...and so do you. That's why saying IS has no effect on the world or on me.
Whomever has the superior perspective gets to continue to think...the other becomes a victim of his own perspective.
Luckily, stupidity is needed to make this modern world more stable...and so a retard, can live in his own world, with few consequences, if he pays another to take care of reality outside his tiny mind.

The"mystery," about the world, is that it can never be known, because it is constantly changing...and the idea of "completeness", your "is", assumes an "outside", encompassed by some boundary, where the "inside" is what IS.

The mind is prone towards solipsism...that's what God is. A self-referential Being.
Solipsism is the longing to complete one's self and to control his environment.
But it's a process, a movement towards....demanding sensual perception of what cares not about your desires and hopes and interpretations.

Mo wrote:

The problem is that if the ‘thing-in-itself’ is unknowable, then you can’t attribute causality to it, because that would be knowing something about it---namely, that it a category like causality applies to it.

Who said there was a "thing" to be known?
You are assuming what you have no reason to assume.
I say appearance is all there is, for us. Appearance is how we interpret an (inter)action between a phenomenon, that which appears, and our sense organ.
Appearance is (inter)action.
Nothing is hidden...but not all can be seen by a human eye.

For instance, a metal wall appears solid and unchanging...but as we look at it, wondering how solid and unchanging it is, it is changing....at a rate imperceptible to us.
For instance, the brain of an other is active, thinking, but we can never perceive what? The skull hides it...and all we have are his other behaviros to aid us in interpreting what is being thought.
In this effort we use what is most immediate and intimate: the self....self-consciousness being decisive.
Know Thyself, ...get it?

Matter is a rate of flow, like energy is.
The rate is, in relation to the perceiving sense organ and brain, interpreted as solid, or as less so.
Solidity, like speed, is a value judgment...and all value judgments are comparisons. In other words relative...or perspective.
Causality is this perspective, interpreted.
A primitive mind sees lightning and thinks the cause is one thing...a more sophisticated mind attributes it to an other thing.
In the end causality is (inter)activity...with no gap between cause and effect.....but only fluidity.

Solidity, like color, form, smell...etc...are methods the human brain evolved - successful noes at that - to interpret rates of activity...in relation to the one observing.

Mo wrote:

So what of the world being “chaotic, fluid, constantly changing, in flux”, etc? Clearly, some people seem to think that Fritz Nietzsche made the same mistake… when he said that the world as it is apart from us is “chaotic, fluid, ever changing, in flux” and so on. That’s an extra-perspectival claim that he’s not entitled to make.

This does not start with Nietzsche, but because he is the most famous modern thinker who connects us to the past, everyone thinks he invented this.
Think Heralcitus.
Think pre-Socratic.

What is "extra-perspectible" about change?
Do you not perceive change?
That's bizarre.
Can you point to a "thing" not changing.

I would say that your claim is absurd...and you derive your "right" to say it because the better part of western thinking is built on the fuck-up of Parmenides.
Both Aristotle and Plato were influenced...and guess which two are the pinnacles of western, modern, philosophizing?

I will gladly concede a point, if you mention one thing, static, immutable, unchanging, inactive...use whatever word you like...an absolute.

Mo wrote:

That would be a religious claim---or at least an extra-perspectival and otherworldly one, no different than if he had said that reality, as he meant it, was “constant, unchanging, solid”---as every Christian says, about God. The fact that he said something directly opposed doesn’t make him less religious, because what makes him religious is that he said something at all, and not just that, but that he felt the need to, at all.

In fact, it is your addiction to IS which is religious.
Another word trying to describe the absolute. Other words being 'now', 'here', 'God'....'thing'...'one'.

What IS then becomes the immutable God.
A projection of an absolute thingness. He had to be placed "outside" the realm of human perception because He contradicts human perception.

In secular times He becomes "particle".

Tell ya what...you show me one particle, indivisible, and immutable...one beginning and end, and we'll call it a day.

Mo wrote:

How do you move past that sort of quack perspectivism, you might ask?...Stop supposing that your interpretation is an interpretation of something, and remove 'interpretation' all together.

In other words you are beyond skepticism and have attained the position of a God.
Are you saying that man should stop theorizing and simply say "It IS!!!!?

The "is" is your end...as in brain-dead nihilism.
Since what is suffices, then you've reached the end of exploring, knowing....you know?
You know that what you see, IS.
No need to look closer and see those nasty voids in between electrons and protons...and those Theoretical SuperStrings.
What is, IS...end of story.

I'm not saying appearance does not matter - that would be the opposite of what I think - but that your addiction with making the apparent as a static Thing, requiring no constant updating, or thinking of appearance as only visual, is where you reveal, you appear, like the moron that you IS.

I think your addiction to certainty is revealing.
Yet, there would be no need for a consciousness, adapting correcting, exploring, if it were so.

Let us stop supposing, my dear boy...and simply decide: IT, whatever that means, IS, whatever that means....let us end our supposition with this final one.
I think you might belong on ILP after all.

Mo wrote:

Reality is just what is the case, exactly as it is to you.

Oh my...a hint of solipsism.
Now we are getting somewhere; we are peeking into the underlying psyche.

Forgive me, but that stench you exude...I've smelled it before. It smells familiar.

Yes...so given your erudite declarations of "is" and whatnot, let us assume that you are correct, so as to end all assumptions, shall we?
Okay...so now, if a retard likes to believe in a thing, as in thing-in-itself, then why would you badger him, this "cunt"?
Are you the only one permitted to just declare an IS?
That would make you a cunt twice over...or CUNT to the power of 2.

For the cunt, as for you (how remarkably alike you've suddenly turned out to be) the thing-in-itself IS.
For another, a retard, God IS!!!
For another, alien abduction IS.
For another, believing he is God, IS.
For, yet, another, soaring into the sky, with no feathers and no engines, IS.

Shall we cover ourselves in a cocoon, made up of modernistic feces, and live within our own realities?
Shall we hope that we will emerge as pretty butterflies?

I have a dream...
Yes, one day if encountering a pack of wolves, simply say "You IS not here" and simply dismiss them from existence.
How wonderful.

Mo wrote:

In other words, reality is fluid and chaotic only if that is exactly how it seems to you.

Ah...but I did not say chaotic, did I?
I said the world is tending towards, TOWARDS, chaos....
But that's a minor point for a vast intellect, as yours.
Let's keep it on your level.

Okay, so tomorrow I will wake up, change my perspective - how nicely you've turned into a perspectivist of the worse kind - and I shall declare my IS as being no longer about change.
I shall stop aging....I shall live forever...I shall not require food or drink.
My world will be complete....ordered...and I a God in it.

See, I know now...I see. It's about attitude.
If I change - oops that nasty word again - my attitude correcting it, I can change my circumstances.
It's about finding the "right" is....and since this is not derived from a world that cares not, I shall simply declare my reality as IS.
Therefore, all shall be equal, in my world...uniform. There shall be no divergence in my perspective...no difference, no reason to care, to fear, to feel anxious, to doubt.
I will not succumb to the humility of saying "This is my perspective and it may or may not be superior or inferior" but I shall simply say "It IS!!!"

Dear boy, you've been an angel to me.
I've been excluded from forums where retards gather in droves...but alas, some, like you, have the courage to come to me.
I want to thank you.
I've been having a bad week, but you've lifted my spirits.

Mo wrote:

The only people who would ever care to mention ‘perspective’ or ‘interpretation’ are those (perhaps unknowingly) concerned with what might be outside of ‘perspective’ or ‘interpretation’---they are those who leave the door open so such a notion---that sort of ancient metaphysical pathogen. That's why I called perspectivists: those who leave the door open. ...Call it a longing.

Your modern outlook is invigorating.
And by "pathogen" I see how using words to make yourself feel healthy is part of your solipsistic, nihilistic, self-assured, retardation.

And it is I who is, more often, accused of arrogance.
But with people like you, in my world, how can I not feel so?

I would love to explore the deep-seated, fears, exhibiting this self-numbing, arrogance, but I fear it will be time wasted.

Shall we close the doors, boy?
Let us close the windows, as well. Let us ensconce ourselves in a grave, where no doubt, no wonderment, no disturbance, can distract us from peering into our navel.
Shall we live forever young, there, unchanging, uncaring, in our crematorium...or is it a sanatorium?

I can feel your desperation to do away with need.
I feel your need to not need.
Need, being the experience of yourself in the world.
I can feel the desire to be, to be absolutely still, unmoving, within the unquestionable IS.

I feel for you, I really do.
I, too, was once a child...and before that an infant....and for me, then, all I cared was for that IS of my mother's breast.
My parents allowed me to live within my imagination.
Some days my IS was an alien planet; on other days my IS was a World War 2 battlefield, where I was immune to bullets...

I could end this with a joke and simply reply:
"That is your perspective" but you are too precious to let go of...not yet.

The wonderful thing about your perspective is that it attempts to do away with perspectives.
It's an imperial perspective, a veritas....after which nobody can or should doubt.
Change is halted, all in an instant, and all is ordered under a singular idea(l)...we are outside change, and what is...IS.
Que sera...sera.

If we substitute perspective for truth, we get the real gist of your desperation.
A ploy for power, where afterwards, no one can challenge it.
A sheltering womb, with mommy and daddy letting you play, forever young.
A finality, where all automatons live with their own little worlds...remarkably protected from a world that cares not what they wish or what reality they declare as an IS.

Mo wrote:

There’s that longing. What am I trapped in, such that I am trapped in subjectivity? I call objective whatever is undeniably true to a creature such as me. Whatever is true given the kind of creature that I am---that’s objectivity. Why have a need for anything else? What’s absent? What suffering?

Ahhhh...longing....desire....need....the spice of life.

What a delicious desire to die and to bury yourself, you have.
I taste your longing for the end of it.
Not nihilistic methinks...what about you?

Tell me, free-bird, if you were not so well preserved in modern embalming fluids, who would protect you from a world you denounce as unchanging?
How would your perspective, now protected as your "right" to be a moron if you pay your taxes, be preserved....with such certainty?
Who will let you live in your IS?

Mo wrote:

That's answerable. Remember when I explained to Watson the ‘why’ game? And how it uncovered intrinsic value. The meaning of life (i.e., the purpose or point) is to uncover and bring to life just that intrinsic value.

That sounds like a longing to me.
If life has intrinsic value, then why does it feed on itself?
Why does it perish?

What standard are you using to evaluate it?
Yours?
Are you using "IS" again, poor boy?

I consider value a product of utility in time. Time, is what makes an idea, a tool, a method, an other, valuable.
Time...not IS.
Time because time measures...measures what, imbecile?
Yes...it measures change in relation to the one experiencing the world of (inter)activity.
And why is it so?
Because of a lack....we can never know, be certain, declare ourselves gods, so we find patterns in the fluidity, and if they are accurate enough, they withstand the test of time....making them valuable.
Genius is also about time. Who is considered a genius, a valued thinker?
The one offering us a perspective that stands true beyond a generation or two or ten.
But such minds do not have the luxury of declaring the world as IS...only retards can have such powers.

What if - there's that arrogant humility of doubt, in me - another valued raping you....or your child?
Would you give him the "right" to live in his perspective?

Quote :

But if defining the world, reality, as "that which IS" satisfy you...then feel free to use it.
Of course, you can never say, what is, nor can you ever completely know it...so, here, you are using ignorance to pretend gnosis.

That’s funny. Nobody who has ever existed has defined ‘reality’ as something other than that which is---aka what exists. If you think reality (that which exists) is “constant becoming” or some other regurgitated Nietzsche postcard, that’s fine---that may be what’s real (that which is). But make no mistake: that’s just what the fucking word means. And it says nothing about what exists, only that whatever you think exists is what you call “real”.

And from that first misstep, (your going on about ‘is’ and confusing it with a metaphysical claim), you stumbled off into the darkness, bumping into walls periodically, addressing me as you did, flailing about as you would, and then somehow getting my point at the end---exactly as it was. It’d be hilarious, but of course I don’t have the sense organ appropriate to humor.

As I’ve already told you, I call real the world around me. What you’ve implied is that what is most real is some otherworldly unknown---in other words, whatever your perspective is a perspective of. Supposedly, you can’t say---because you’re only acquainted with appearance. But you would contradict yourself by saying things about how it is flux and constantly changing and so on.

At one point, you tried to change your tune, and say that what you meant was nothing more than that the human eye doesn’t see atoms and the periodic table, or such-like, it only sees the tree. But atoms and the periodic table are squarely within the realm of appearance. Australia doesn’t not exist to me, simply because I haven’t literally seen it, or can't literally see it. What was that point about the star light… how clevvvverrr of you Benevolent Wisdom!

If something can affect me, then it can appear to me. That’s an appearance.

Quote :

Boy, the world is adapted to...it does not adapt to you.

Quote me as having said anything like that.

Quote :

Who said anything about an "other world"?
I'm describing world. Not other world.

What is your perspective a perspective of? Want to know why I can ask you that question, and have it make sense, to you? ---It’s because in your outlook you have a religious hangover that has you speaking as if the world as it is to you is not the world as it really is. It’s a point about your language. Like Plato, and every Christian, the world of appearances isn’t all there is... to you.

Go ahead, make a point about a place I haven’t been, or a star I haven’t seen. And then ask me whether or not I think it’s really there, since I haven’t seen it---and then stick your head in a doorway and shut the door. You know how I’ll respond, right? Should I?

Quote :

I will gladly concede a point, if you mention one thing, static, immutable, unchanging, inactive...use whatever word you like...an absolute.

I'll address this, even though it has nothing to do with anything I've said. It's easy. There are plenty of things that are unchanging relative to us. And don’t ever say something dumb like, “everything is a matter of perspective” and then object to absolutes. That is itself an absolute.

Quote :

Since what is suffices, then you've reached the end of exploring, knowing....you know?
You know that what you see, IS.
No need to look closer and see those nasty voids in between electrons and protons...and those Theoretical SuperStrings.
What is, IS...end of story.

That’s exactly right, in the sense that I mean it, (which is not yours). Since appearance is all there is, there’s no looking beyond or behind it for the causes behind appearance. ---No, old geezer, I don't mean "any particular appearance", I mean "any possible appearance". No thing-in-itself, no extra-perspectival claims about ultimate reality, no God, no noumena, and no absolutes like, “there are no absolutes”.

Go ahead, call it “brain-dead nihilism”. Nothing could be more incoherent. But maybe one of your brain-dead friends will mistakenly think you’re saying something applicable.

Quote :

I'm not saying appearance does not matter - that would be the opposite of what I think - but that your addiction with making the apparent as a static Thing, requiring no constant updating, or thinking of appearance as only visual, is where you reveal, you appear, like the moron that you IS.

Quote me, please. Justify the bullshit that comes out of your face.

Quote :

Your modern outlook is invigorating.
And by "pathogen" I see how using words to make yourself feel healthy is part of your solipsistic, nihilistic, self-assured, retardation.

Don’t give yourself a heart attack. And don’t worry about justifying what you say, either. Go slow, and care about care, subtlety, precision, when making your insults.

Quote :

The wonderful thing about your perspective is that it attempts to do away with perspectives.
It's an imperial perspective, a veritas....after which nobody can or should doubt.
Change is halted, all in an instant, and all is ordered under a singular idea(l)...we are outside change, and what is...IS.
Que sera...sera.

YES, finally! How did you find the right door in the dark! I am DOING AWAY with perspectives, entirely, exactly. That’s not sarcasm, I am dead serious. Because to say that “everything is a matter of perspective” is to say something nonsensical. Something that applies to everything, consequently applies to nothing, meaningfully. And to say that only "some things are a matter of perspective, and some things aren't" is religious. But you don’t know what you’re talking about, because saying that “change is halted” has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

Quote :

That sounds like a longing to me.
If life has intrinsic value, then why does it feed on itself?
Why does it perish?

There are intrinsic values. (That’s utterly obvious, and I’ll repeat myself on this point if you’d like). But ‘life’ is not one of them. A life lived simply for the sake of continuing living is a life wasted.

Mo wrote:

That’s funny. Nobody who has ever existed has defined ‘reality’ as something other than that which is---aka what exists.

You mean "everybody" says so?
Wow!!!
The popular vote has spoken. Well, if EVERY-ONE says so, and NO-Body says otherwise...then it must be SO!

What is...IS.

What is black?
It IS.
What is a cow?
It IS.

What is God?
God is what IS.

Mo wrote:

If you think reality (that which exists) is “constant becoming” or some other regurgitated Nietzsche postcard, that’s fine---that may be what’s real (that which is). But make no mistake: that’s just what the fucking word means. And it says nothing about what exists, only that whatever you think exists is what you call “real”.

I had no idea Nieatzche said that, I got it from Heidegger.

But everything is about Nietzsche for the modern generation of pseudo-intellectuals.
They can't think without bumping into him...and then they accuse others of being obsessed.

Mo wrote:

And from that first misstep, (your going on about ‘is’ and confusing it with a metaphysical claim), you stumbled off into the darkness, bumping into walls periodically, addressing me as you did, flailing about as you would, and then somehow getting my point at the end---exactly as it was. It’d be hilarious, but of course I don’t have the sense organ appropriate to humor.

I did?
Was that part of what IS, in your perspective, or is it what IS...period?

Mo wrote:

As I’ve already told you, I call real the world around me.

Very precise.
You, IS, the center of the world, and it rotates around you.

Presumably, I is not around you, so I is not.
I also love the "everything"...it has the word "thing" in it, making it wonderfully scientific.

Mo wrote:

What you’ve implied is that what is most real is some otherworldly unknown---in other words, whatever your perspective is a perspective of.

Is that what IS said?

Funny how "other worldly" IS the opposite of everything I stand for...but if it IS part of your world, then it IS.
For a schizophrenic, autistic, wonder-pet, anything aproaching reality would be sci-fi.
You are, after all, the center around which "every thing" revolves.
I bet the girls luv ya.
I am but one of those every things that IS...but not real, since I am not around you.
How real can I be?
I is un-real.

Mo wrote:

Supposedly, you can’t say---because you’re only acquainted with appearance. But you would contradict yourself by saying things about how it is flux and constantly changing and so on.

Your perspective of no perspective, must be correct, since what you perceive IS...and there can be no other perspective.
Not only do you perceive...but you perceive every-thing, as it IS...and that's not just you saying so, no perspective...it IS what it IS.
Therefore, it is not that you have no clue what I am saying, but that I contradict myself....and I believe in an 'other world'.

To a chimp, any talk of space and time would be something other-wordly. In other words: outside its perspective, or the limits of its ability to conceive and to perceive.

There IS really nothing I can say to that, since solipsism IS the center of your world, and I IS but whatever you wish I IS.
So, let's go with that: I DO believe in an other world, besides this one, or your one...and it is not you confusing your perspective of what I am saying with what I am saying, but it is I who is contradicting myself.

It would seem that I am "only" acquainted with appearance in my other world, but you are acquainted with more...your IS, in this world, I suppose.
In my other world, the empirical one, based on Hellenism and perception, and aesthetics, I rely on my senses to inform me about what is more or less real.
Not absolutely so, but most probably so, within the limits of my temporal horizons.
You, on the other hand, being at the center of things, the every things, are of this world where what you say IS....IS.

I suggest to you a possibility.
What if there was no system protecting you from your stupidity?
What IS would you decide would suffice to be done with me before I fucked you with a broom-handle?
Now, you may pretend that the broom-handle were a bird, and it IS one...but do you think the world or I would give a shit, while I shove that broom in deep?

Mo wrote:

At one point, you tried to change your tune, and say that what you meant was nothing more than that the human eye doesn’t see atoms and the periodic table, or such-like, it only sees the tree. But atoms and the periodic table are squarely within the realm of appearance. Australia doesn’t not exist to me, simply because I haven’t literally seen it, or can't literally see it. What was that point about the star light… how clevvvverrr of you Benevolent Wisdom!

It's funny how I "change my tune" when change IS not possible, in your world that IS...and when I've been saying the same things for years, using the same examples and metaphors, mind you.
It is also funny that the above sentence is no response at all...but an evasion, with a sarcastic ending, to escape your own IS.
Now, I can ignore my senses and not think you IS a moron, but I cannot. Therefore, I will only say that you are most probably a moron, since I can never be completely certain, and I cannot accurately measure your stupidity.
I will say that, in comparison, to I, you IS a moron...but in comparison to a slug, you may be considered a genius.

I guess you missed the point...since it IS not part of your world.

Mo wrote:

If something can affect me, then it can appear to me. That’s an appearance.

So, those particles that pass through you, billions at a time, are not part of your IS?
What are they called...neutrinos?

But we IS making progress.
So, affect, is what in your world you call (inter)acts...right?
What appears is not only what you perceive...and it is not only visual.
That's appearance...the apparent.
Congratulations, imbecile, you've made it to level 2.

Mo wrote:

Quote me as having said anything like that.

Did I say you said it...or are you reading using your asshole again?
I repeat...THE world does not adapt to you, imbecile, not unless you put a lot of Will power and, that, only AFTER you perceive it more accurately than you are already...but it is YOU who adapts to it.
To change the world to your liking you must first perceive it accurately...or as accurately as you can.
And, even then, your impact will be slight.
See what I did there, boy?
I took you out of the center of your world, and placed you some-where, indefinable, in THE world...somewhere around the rim of its anus, where you belong.
You can call it an "other world" since your world is about you being the center and being immutable and godly...and where nothing changes.

Still waiting on that example of a thing, an immutable thingness....one example will do.
Now in my "other world", which I call reality, you are nothing more than a piece of trash floating in a sea of shit.
No, not special, and not the center of the world.
No, not able to alter reality simply by changing your mind, which contradicts your IS that never changes.

I think you and CUNT have a lot in common.
Yous IS both dumb.

See, in my "other world" my senses are tools helping me adapt to an ever-changing environment...governed by constant (inter)actions; and one such (inter)action is a medium (air, light) (inter)acting with a phenomenon, and then with my sense organ...and then the data translated into bio-energy, transmitted to my brain, another tool, where it is processed, using evolved methods, and taking a certain amount of time.
My brain, having evolved in this world, simplifies/geenralizes the data, constructing an abstraction, representing the phenomenon...like a photo is a representation of my cat, and not the cat itself.
Follow me so far, retard?
Now, this cat is not IN my head...but the representation of it IS.

See, there's that IS.
The representation, the abstraction, is not the cat, not the phenomenon, but a construct representing a phenomenon which has already changed, by the time I've processed the information and done my constructing deed.
This does not mean the cat is not real, retard...only that it is not the cat itself...but an interpretation, which is more or less accurate and which is always a step-behind.
Of course, the time scales are infinitesimal, when by time we mean change...so the rate of change is not so fast as to make my representation totally obsolete.

So, the representation is a mental construct, using a priori methods of constructing abstractions. Each detail of color, form, odor, texture, sound etc. is how my mind interprets the (inter)activity between my sense organ, the medium (air, light) and the phenomenon.
Since all is active, (inter)active, different rates of (inter)activity are interpreted in different ways.
Solidity is, simply, the relative difference in rates of (inter)activity between my sense organ, my brain, the medium and the phenomenon...all of which are (inter)acting..and by (inter)acting I mean affecting.
Obviously human brains will interpret in approximately the same ways, because we evolved from the same species...and creatures sharing a past, not that far removed, will also share in the manner their brains interprets, but not precisely.
This divergence, implied by "not precisely"...or approximately, is what is naturally selected as superior or inferior...

Mo wrote:

What is your perspective a perspective of?

See?
Once more, after two repeated attempts.
Your question is nonsensical, since it implies what it then asks for.

If you provide evidence of a thing, a changeless thing, I'll respond...
But I've already told you that philosophy demands artistry...mental flexibility, and you are mired by primal addictions...which you cannot support.
I also told you that mystery is part of reality...since absolutes are absent, including absolute perception.

I will respond in a way which a simpleton, like you may grasp:
Let us take SueprStrings, where science is delving into the mysterious and becoming philosophical:
Is there a string vibrating....or is there only vibration and no string?
There is no string...but only vibration. This is the absent absolute, which morons, like you long for, but then try to escape with godly particles and things and words like God or IS.
ONLY vibration, moron, means only (inter)activity...or activity.
There is no thing...get it?
Nope, didn't think so.

My perspective is a perspective of a constant (inter)activity.
Since this (inter)activity is constant, my perceptions are never complete, nor absolute.
This is why intelligence is so vital. It uses patterns to get around this lag, I spoke of, and find stability, order, in the (inter)activity.

The world is in flux...the brain collects patterns and construct abstractinos using them...so as to direct its Will, its aggregate energies.
I've repeated this another ten thousand times.

Mo wrote:

Want to know why I can ask you that question, and have it make sense, to you? ---It’s because in your outlook you have a religious hangover that has you speaking as if the world as it is to you is not the world as it really is. It’s a point about your language. Like Plato, and every Christian, the world of appearances isn’t all there is... to you.

But it IS, moron.
You are the one claiming an IS...so where IS it?
If every thing, is divisible, and no absolute can be found...where is this IS, you speak of with the obsession of a christian?

Moron, I am the opposite of Plato and his Ideals, and Christians with their God.
Just that statement pinpoints your IS.
You claim a thing, an immutable thing...so where is it?
I deny there is such a construct...and so there is no Platonic ideal and no God and no absolute...like a here, now, one, thing, participle, Being...etc.

I am the opposite of you and your sort.
And no, Nietzsche did not invent this....it goes further back, you imbecile.
You and your sort may have had first contact with these ideas through Nietzsche, making you think that he came up with this stuff.

Mo wrote:

Go ahead, make a point about a place I haven’t been, or a star I haven’t seen. And then ask me whether or not I think it’s really there, since I haven’t seen it---and then stick your head in a doorway and shut the door. You know how I’ll respond, right? Should I?

A door hitting my head, retard, is an (inter)action...but what does hit mean to you?
Modern Physics points to no contact but energy exchanges.
The door's energies (inter)act with my head...and this you call contact.

My point, retard, is that when you look up in the sky and say "There IS a star" you may be pointing at empty space...because the light (energy) has left the star (phenomenon), and then (inter)acted with your sense organ (eyes), at a time interval which may mean that there no longer IS a star there...but only the light it emitted centuries ago.
Same shit happens on a smaller scale when you see a tree.
By the time the light and the phenomenon and your sense organ and the processing unity, you call a brain, are done...the tree is not the same.

Mo wrote:

I'll address this, even though it has nothing to do with anything I've said. It's easy. There are plenty of things that are unchanging relative to us. And don’t ever say something dumb like, “everything is a matter of perspective” and then object to absolutes. That is itself an absolute.

That's you "addressing it"?
Wow...in your world addressing means something different than in my "other world".
Presumably, "addressing" IS, in your perspective, something called "plenty".

Therefore, if I ask a christian for evidence of a god, he can respond in your world:
"There is plenty of evidence for my Christian God."

Turd...you've left your herd.
You are in grave danger of eternal ridicule....and you are tiring me out with your thickness.
I Is an old man, and I can't deal with morons for long. I lack the stamina.

Here's another indication of an absolute:
"There is absolutely no absolute"
or
"Truth is, there Is no truth"

I do believe we've completed the circle.
Linguistics is your problem...you are stuck in the symbols.

Thanks for your evidence of the unchanging. I'll be looking out for those "plenitudes", relative to us...when perspective is something you deny.
Like's I said, nigga...da door don look like its changin' masta...so it must be immut...immuta...a table.

Mo wrote:

That’s exactly right, in the sense that I mean it, (which is not yours). Since appearance is all there is, there’s no looking beyond or behind it for the causes behind appearance. ---No, old geezer, I don't mean "any particular appearance", I mean "any possible appearance". No thing-in-itself, no extra-perspectival claims about ultimate reality, no God, no noumena, and no absolutes like, “there are no absolutes”.

I knew that smell was familiar.

You do know what this means, don't ya, my pet?
Yes...you are titter-tottering on the edge of a dungeon keep.

Yes, appearance is all there IS...and presumably in your world it IS not changing.
Appearance is immutable.

Mo wrote:

TGo ahead, call it “brain-dead nihilism”. Nothing could be more incoherent. But maybe one of your brain-dead friends will mistakenly think you’re saying something applicable.

Maybe...and maybe not.
One thing I am certain of....you's IS dumb.

And there's "plenty" of evidence.

Mo wrote:

YES, finally! How did you find the right door in the dark! I am DOING AWAY with perspectives, entirely, exactly.

Except ONE...right?
The singular one...the God.
Every breath you take every step you take....I'll be laughing' at ya.

Mo wrote:

That’s not sarcasm, I am dead serious.

No, you're brain-dead hilarious.
I wonder if Jupiter is the center of what IS.

Mo wrote:

Because to say that “everything is a matter of perspective” is to say something nonsensical.

For those who are senseless everything but their own delusions, IS nonsensical.

I guess, even schizophrenics have no perspective different than yours...or what IS.

Mo wrote:

Something that applies to everything, consequently applies to nothing, meaningfully.

Exactly.
Like your singular perspective...applicable to all.

Mo wrote:

And to say that only "some things are a matter of perspective, and some things aren't" is religious.

Who said that?

You missed the point...again.

Mo wrote:

But you don’t know what you’re talking about, because saying that “change is halted” has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

And that IS not just your perspective.

Mo wrote:

There are intrinsic values. (That’s utterly obvious, and I’ll repeat myself on this point if you’d like). But ‘life’ is not one of them. A life lived simply for the sake of continuing living is a life wasted.

And I'm the religious one?

My dear, turd...do you hear yourself mind-farting?
You are a moralist...the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics.

Value is determined by need; need is determined by lack; lack is never equal...and only living organism's value.
Not rocks, not rivers, not moons...not even Jupiter.

Do you know what IS going to happen in your world, along as within my other-world?
Yes...that's right.
I am going to ignore you...unless you provide one of those plenitudes that do not change.

And no, your little semantic trick, will not suffice: relative to us, does not mean that the phenomenon is static, simpleton, only that it is active at a slower rate, relative to us.
I think you need a girlfriend.
You're backing up, awfully bad.

Something about ‘IS’.
Something about me being a solipsist.
A pseudo-intellectual.
Oh, and change isn’t possible.

Anyone paranoid of a certain sort of thing tends to see it everywhere. This is the phantasm you’re engaging in the dark that talks to you and says nothing about me, and only about you. Can you justify my being, or having said, any of those things? It's nowhere in any of your posts. Given what you think I’ve done, it’s hypocritical of you to think I am those things simply because you think so. Justify the bullshit that comes out of your face.

Satyr wrote:

I am going to ignore you...unless you provide one of those plenitudes that do not change.

If you can quote me as having said that nothing ever changes, then I’ll tell you what it is.

Quote :

You mean "everybody" says so?
Wow!!!
The popular vote has spoken. Well, if EVERY-ONE says so, and NO-Body says otherwise...then it must be SO!

You are saying this in response to a dictionary definition. That’s right… words mean just what language speakers mean when they use them. Whooaaaaa, reeealllly...

Quote :

My brain, having evolved in this world, simplifies/geenralizes the data, constructing an abstraction, representing the phenomenon...like a photo is a representation of my cat, and not the cat itself.
Follow me so far, retard?
Now, this cat is not IN my head...but the representation of it IS.

When you look at the cat, there’s no homunculus watching a screen in your withered brain, of a cat. What you see is the fucking cat. There’s no abstraction, you simply see as much as is possible for you of the phenomenon itself, and you call that the cat. This is your connection to the world. It’s not through the medium of an image, or a vat, or an evil demon, or any kind of idealism. This is realism: No abstraction, no photo in your brain---you see the cat itself. Welcome beyond the 18th century. The only abstraction is the word you used to tell me about it.

Forgive my intrusion, and lack of introduction. But like a lone traveler whom, on occasion, is accosted by a deranged beggar, I am accosted by the lack of intellectual fortitude on part of anti-perspectivists where ever they spring forth from their hiding places. So have at you, you Randian derelict.

Mo wrote:

When you look at the cat, there’s no homunculus watching a screen in your withered brain, of a cat. What you see is the fucking cat.

Invoking the homunculus argument to invalidate any understanding of visual cognition that does not agree with your asserted strict-objectivist view of the world belays a lack of awareness of more recent advances in the fields of basic physics, cognitive science and complexity theory.

Photoreceptors excite ocular dominance columns which begin the process of integrating the received stimulus, propagating information up higher-level orthograde structures within the visual cortex and throughout the rest of the brain. What you ultimately conceive and deliberate upon is the result of a constraint or rule bound process, and can be modeled mathematically and algorithmically.

But where do the rules come from, is there an infinite regress of devil-spawn existing independently within one's mind having a laugh and pulling the strings, just as there must be an infinite regress of ever higher-level processes directing the lower-level ones as posited by the intellectually lazy?

Of course not. An algorithmic origin of cognition does not necessarily connote such a fallacy, and it is outmoded thinking to hold on to such a suggestion.

Rather a finite degree of higher-level processes are emergent from the lower-level ones and ultimately the physical matter they are instantiated, a consequence of symmetry breaking and bifurcation. It is thus grounded to reality and the laws of nature. It is a minimalist conception that can be derived from the ground up.

But what selected these rules? Why is the brain structured the way it is? It shouldn't be hard to comprehend how the process of natural evolution has selected that which works over time, that which is good enough at interpreting reality, allowing successive generations of organisms to survive.

Quote :

There’s no abstraction, you simply see as much as is possible for you of the phenomenon itself, and you call that the cat. This is your connection to the world. It’s not through the medium of an image, or a vat, or an evil demon, or any kind of idealism. This is realism: No abstraction, no photo in your brain---you see the cat itself. Welcome beyond the 18th century. The only abstraction is the word you used to tell me about it.

If what you see "as much as possible" of the cat is not the cat itself, as you have implied, then what is it? Are the neurons firing in your brain the same thing as the cat out there in the world before you? That's what you would have us believe.

The brain can be deceived, tricked. There is no shortage of optical illusions which exploit quirks in how our brains process visual stimuli. And with drugs, or as a result of mental disease, perception can be altered, changed. The mind is not a one-to-one representation of the absolute world. The world may be objective, it may exist independent of the mind. But we exist embedded inside of this world, and our perception of it is entirely subjective.

Your connection to this world hangs in a delicate balance.

Indeed, one ventures forth into fantasy realms often enough in one's sleep. The mind is not unlike a reality simulator. The underlying mental "machinery" that gives rise to the experiences of vivid dreams and hellish nightmares is the very same that perceives the reality around you during your wakeful hours.

Now, Kant didn't get it completely right, obviously. Nor did all of his successors or forebears. There is no thing-in-itself. There is no ghost in the machine.

But he wasn't completely wrong either. You see, the ghost is the machine.

“Deranged beggar”
“Randian derelict”
“lacking intellectual fortitude”

Did you really just ask for a pardon of your intrusion, and then proceed to open with name calling like that? Where are you getting this from?

Quote :

If what you see "as much as possible" of the cat is not the cat itself, as you have implied, then what is it?

Where did I imply that? I believe I said you see the cat itself, in exactly those words.

Quote :

Are the neurons firing in your brain the same thing as the cat out there in the world before you?

Of course not. One is neurons firing, and the other is a cat.

Quote :

The mind is not a one-to-one representation of the absolute world. The world may be objective, it may exist independent of the mind. But we exist embedded inside of this world, and our perception of it is entirely subjective.

I don’t represent anything, within my mind. There’s no little man inside my head watching a screen. I see the world as I have to see it---as I’m able to see it. I am directly connected to the world. That’s realism. And I call what I gather from it: ‘real’.

How do I explain away cases of delusion, or changes in brain chemistry, or optical illusions, when I would say to the person that they’re mistaken about the world around them? Is that what you want to hear? What does the simple fact that you can be mistaken offer as an objection to anything I’ve said? Somehow you think this makes everything “subjective”? It opens the door to brains in vats, and evil demons, and how do you know you even exist?? Psychobabble, to steal a phrase.

“The ghost IS the machine”?? ---Dude, that’s the line that you end with?? Let me get this straight… you bust in the door, call me a "deranged beggar", and then have that as your final word??




Good-night and good-luck to you, sir.

I'm learning Modernity.

I have a car.
I get in, turn the key...it works.
End of story.
No mambo-jumbo, about batteries, electricity, internal combustion, pistons, engine, transference of energy, and so own...none of that spiritual, ghost in the machine, shit.
There IS a car...I get into it, start it... and drive.
It IS rolling.
But change is not occurring...because there are "plenty" of examples of no change, in relation to I...but no perspective.
Change is not happening relative to I, yet no perspective is being claimed...and what is this thing which is not changing?
Plenty.

I have no perspective.
Value is intrinsic...this is not a perspective.
I value remaining a retard; I am proud of it.
Ergo being a moron is a value intrinsic to reality.

Mo likes shoving eggs up his bottom. He values the experience...he calls it "good".
This is not his perspective, because ALL value the same thing...ergo shoving eggs up your ass is an intrinsic value.
I see an ignorant, native. I shine a mirror in his eyes. He is amazed...he values this magical thing, which just IS.
He will sell his daughter to me to attain it. His values and mine are equal....the same.
We find parity in our common sharing of value(s).

Therefore, values are universal...but I am not a christian or a religious fanatic...and I certainly am not Platonic, because that Ideal(s) existing in an other realm is not what I am saying. They are real...God, is real...morals are real....no perspective. They are part of the fabric of reality.
The unchanging plenty.

This is where it gets interesting.

There IS a cat...I see it.
How or why, does not matter.
I SEE IT.
It is there ----- where?...THERE!!!
The word suffices...no further explanations required.
IT, the cat, is THERE, at a static place.
What is static?
Nevermind...it is here, in the there.
It is present.

The there is here, on earth. I see it....it IS.
This IS secular, modern, scientific study.

I see...I hear....how?
Does not matter. I see, I hear...this is enough.
And what do I see?
IT...a cat, a car...a fart.
It is there...in the here, in the now.

It is...no reason to define what "IS" means...IS, is exists.
Exists IS.
Cat exists...I see it.
No reason to explore how.
I...SEE....IT.
I call it cat.
Just because.
What kind?
Who cares?!
I'll have none of that 18th century crap.
IT is CAT.

It looks friendly...with its big nails, teeth, and stripes.
Since it looks friendly it IS friendly...no reason to doubt myself.
My perception is THE perception...not a perspective.

I see it licking its lips.
It may be hungry.
I think it wants to kiss me.
In my world it is so....it IS.
I cannot see its thoughts, ergo its thoughts have no effect on me.
My thoughts are THE thoughts.
My perspective is THE perspective...ergo no need to question it.

Cat approaches..
End of story.

-----

Alternative

See boy run.
See ball.
See boy run to ball.
See boy catch ball.
Boy plays.
Ball is fun.

See spot.
See spot run after boy and ball.

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

What I need is a vacation from this planet.

Mo wrote:

Did you really just ask for a pardon of your intrusion, and then proceed to open with name calling like that? Where are you getting this from?

There was a time when I would give strict-objectivists the benefit of the doubt, yet experience deems that best initial stance is one of bemused hostility.

Quote :

Where did I imply that? I believe I said you see the cat itself, in exactly those words.

You said, in your own words "you simply see as much as is possible for you of the phenomenon itself." Are you able to see the light outside of visible electromagnetic spectrum being radiated off of the cat? Are you able to see the inner layers of the cat, to fully comprehend it's precise state in three dimensions? Are you able to see every single particle of matter that comprises the cat at the atomic level?

Unless you are some deity with supernatural powers unbeknownst to the common man, the answer is no. What you see is a projection of the cat, of the fraction of photons in the visible spectrum that bounce off of the cat, through the air, and into your eyes. It is a condensed representation of the feline, nothing more.

Quote :

Of course not. One is neurons firing, and the other is a cat.

So you accept this, but don't see how it supports a perspectivist position, at least inasfar as cognition holds? Do you not realize that the information constructed from your neurons integrating visual stimuli of a cat is in itself an abstraction independent from actual cat?

Quote :

I don’t represent anything, within my mind. There’s no little man inside my head watching a screen. I see the world as I have to see it---as I’m able to see it. I am directly connected to the world. That’s realism. And I call what I gather from it: ‘real’.

You claim to be a realist, but how can that be so when you neglect basic facts of reality? You seem to be rejecting basic tenets of causality. Furthermore, I don't see you offering an opposing theory of mind that is presented in a sound, cohesive, and logical fashion that actually explains how the mind works and that would back up your claims. All I see is a desperate act of vainly holding onto the ideals you have presupposed for yourself.

Quote :

How do I explain away cases of delusion, or changes in brain chemistry, or optical illusions, when I would say to the person that they’re mistaken about the world around them? Is that what you want to hear? What does the simple fact that you can be mistaken offer as an objection to anything I’ve said? Somehow you think this makes everything “subjective”? It opens the door to brains in vats, and evil demons,

I've gutted your homunculus argument, yet you persist along this train of thought?

As far as brains in vats are concerned--Boltzmann brains--it's an unsettling possibility, yet demonstratively remote. There's a much higher probability that we're in a shared reality. But this very question posits something else. Why do you let your fears dictate the veracity of a philosophical position? Should not an idea be judged by how it holds up to the light of truth and not one's personal emotions?

Quote :

and how do you know you even exist?? Psychobabble, to steal a phrase.

Even in a Boltzmann brain scenario, there exists an absolute external reality. Finding that the mind actually operates in a fashion that yields a subjective window onto an objective reality does not in any way complicate this question further than if the contrary was true.

I'm not sure you understand how weak your position is. I'm dealing with facts based on the latest of what those in the field have unearthed. You're dealing with an outmoded idealistic understanding of the human mind. If the science actually backed up some sort of strict objectivist theory of mind, I wouldn't be arguing with you. And yet you're the one who claims what I have to say is mere "psychobabble." Hah!

Quote :

“The ghost IS the machine”?? ---Dude, that’s the line that you end with?? Let me get this straight… you bust in the door, call me a "deranged beggar", and then have that as your final word?? Good-night and good-luck to you, sir.

Yes, but it appears to be lost on you, and you seem to be quick to disregard what I have to say. Did my mild insults really sting you that badly? Are you that easily wounded? It seems that your dislike of perspectivism is more about your personal understanding of yourself, about how you see yourself in this world. Any attack against strict-objectivism is something you interpret as a personal attack on you, and vice versa.

Let me ask you, if you were to deconstruct a man, tear him asunder and render him into the atoms that originally constituted him, would you discover what makes him a man? Would you find the origin of the human experience--of life itself--in a particle of molecular carbon, or perhaps hydrogen?

What is life?

Countless scientists have approached this problem through purely deconstructionist means throughout the decades and centuries, and have come no more closer to answering this question. It's only in recent years that a consensus has been growing towards a need for more constructive method. Oddly enough, it's as if science is coming full circle and rediscovering what philosophers of the past had already determined to some degree of understanding, albeit with a clarity and richness in nomenclature that is unparalleled. It is through the lens of information theory that this paradigm shift is occurring.

"The sum of the parts is greater than the whole" is turning out to be more than just a clever aphorism, but something that is actually objectively measurable, at least in a theoretical sense. In a way, it is this greater sum that can be construed as the "ghost", as the "thing-in-itself," or as close to such an ideal as actually exists. Though as you've rightly pointed out in an earlier post, it's not something completely independent of the reality it is instantiated in. But it's not something that is material in essence either. Information is substrate independent.

Satyr wrote:

I'm learning Modernity.

I have a car.
I get in, turn the key...it works.
End of story.
No mambo-jumbo, about batteries, electricity, internal combustion, pistons, engine, transference of energy,

The realm of appearance is just the set of things that affect you---that's what an appearance is. Do those things affect you? You can study actions and reactions within that realm, and learn more. That's invention. How many times should I repeat myself for a tiring, numb, repetitive, and dull withered geezer?

Quote :

But change is not occurring...because there are "plenty" of examples of no change, in relation to I...but no perspective.
Change is not happening relative to I, yet no perspective is being claimed...and what is this thing which is not changing?
Plenty.

What are the shadows saying in your echo chamber? Do you think that if you repeat a confusion enough times it'll somehow seem appropriate? Where did I say anything about no change? Relative to me, my brick wall hasn't changed since this morning. Should I go on, quack?

Here's a parting question for you: Do you think that everything is a matter of perspective? If no, then what's not a matter of perspective? How religious of you. If yes, then do you think that something that applies to everything consequently applies to nothing, meaningfully? How nonsensical of you. That problem is your language. You think in terms of perspective of vs real world, and it leads to similar issues as separating subject and object, doer and deed.

Quote :

Therefore, values are universal...

WHO THE FUCK SAID ANYTHING ABOUT UNIVERSALITY?? Quote me you stupid fuck. OBJECTIVITY, not universality. Wake the fuck up you stupid fucking quack.







Satyr, I'm so thankful to you for all your insight and generosity. Your perception is finely tuned, well calibrated, subtle, and so on. It's been a light for me in dark places. In any case, it's possible to have too much of a good thing, and for that reason, I'll apologize in advance for not, in future, giving more of your posts the attention they clearly deserve. Believe, sir, that you have given all that you can to me, and that your time is absolutely required and better spent on interlocutors elsewhere, perhaps some even on this forum. What happened to Watson? --I mean Laconian. Where is Apaosha? I'm sure Lyssa has some text to quote for you to read. Take good care of them, if one day soon I leave. Best wishes, Benevolent Wisdom!

Then allow me to concede defeat.
You, sir/ma'am, have bettered me.

Ta, Ta,


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And I want to thank YOU, for being such a wonderful mouthpiece for Ayn Rand. A noble bitch, to the bitch, that turned feminine selfishness into a fashion trend, and made capitalism and materialism sexy.
Your strategic usage of the word "thing", in the place of "Is", was a semantic coup de grace, putting me, once and for all, out of my misery.

I'm sure, that at some time you will find it convenient to enlighten us on what a "thing" is, and where it is.
I'm sure it is out there, in plenitude.
Quack, Quack

On the contrary, you were victorious before I opened my mouth. I knew that you had seen through me the moment you drew from your stock... 'boy', 'weak', 'coward', 'retard', 'moron'. I was discovered.

Ayn Rand? I'm afraid your explanation would be beyond me, were you to offer it. If thinking that there are right and wrong answers, regardless of your subjective opinion on some matter, makes me an objectivist---then I'm guilty as charged. Definitely guilty. But I'm not as literate as you... I haven't read Ayn Rand.

A "thing"---I'm happy to tell you. 'Thing' is a word like 'this' or 'that'. One of those pointer words you use to pick out some aspect of your experience, to name with a name suitably vague. A tree is a thing. A car is a thing. A cat is a thing. A hat is a thing........

.....Is that not good enough, for your high standards? Then let me try to rise to your level, as once before I tried to rise to Watson's...

I will pick up this hook, you will see something new,
Two 'things'. And I call them Thing One and Thing Two.
These things will not bite you. They want to have fun,
And out of the box will come Thing Two and Thing One.
Introduce yourself, say, "How do you do?"
Would you like to shake hands, with Thing One and Thing Two?

Überlieferung wrote:

You said, in your own words "you simply see as much as is possible for you of the phenomenon itself." Are you able to see the light outside of visible electromagnetic spectrum being radiated off of the cat? Are you able to see the inner layers of the cat, to fully comprehend it's precise state in three dimensions? Are you able to see every single particle of matter that comprises the cat at the atomic level?

Awesome, this feels like an interview. Ok, so, electromagnetic spectrums and sub atomic levels... ummm, what do YOU think?

Quote :

Unless you are some deity with supernatural powers unbeknownst to the common man, the answer is no. What you see is a projection of the cat, of the fraction of photons in the visible spectrum that bounce off of the cat, through the air, and into your eyes. It is a condensed representation of the feline, nothing more.

Oh, so you think my eyes are actually looking at a photo album in my brain, rather than the fucking cat, is that it?

Quote :

Do you not realize that the information constructed from your neurons integrating visual stimuli of a cat is in itself an abstraction independent from actual cat?

That's exactly right, that's not an abstraction at all. That's just the process, neurophysiological, of my looking at the fucking cat. The only abstraction here is the word, 'cat'.

Quote :

You seem to be rejecting basic tenets of causality. Furthermore, I don't see you offering an opposing theory of mind that is presented in a sound, cohesive, and logical fashion that actually explains how the mind works and that would back up your claims. All I see is a desperate act of vainly holding onto the ideals you have presupposed for yourself.

Good lord man. Do you talk to your mother with that mouth? I'm rejecting causality? Where? You want a full fucking theory of mind? For free? All I fucking said was that I looked at the fucking cat, not a screen in my head. My eyes were not turned around backwards. I am connected to the world in this way. Realism, my brother from another mother.

Quote :

As far as brains in vats are concerned--Boltzmann brains--it's an unsettling possibility, yet demonstratively remote.

I don't want to talk to anyone who doesn't laugh when they read this quote. I'm not sure if anyone has a sense of humor around here...
Of course you realize that whether or not you are a brain in a vat is a possibility that would be impossible to calculate a probability for, in principle, don't you?
"Demonstratively"...




Well, that's it for me.
Bless your heart, young jedi.

I did enjoy the semantics.

I liked how perspective, a first person perception, became relativity, a third person perspective.
It was fun, when coming from someone who denounces perspectives.
It places you outside the events....as a God, declaring the world a thing, an IS.
It's not that from your perspective the wall is unchanging, but relative to you, this is so.
You have the eyes of a God.
I am a bottom<>up thinker.

I'm a bit more humble about it.
I dare not say much about what is "everything"...but your explanation as to what "thing" is, was marvelous.
Thing can be anything...including universe.
So, it is a human concept applicable, like the numerical value 1 to all phenomena.
The subsequent designations of "hat, "cat", bat", are refinements of the term "thing".
None of which, according to you, are human constructs, because they refer to a phenomena outside the human skull.
You can't account as to how they become perceived or enter the human mind, but , for you it suffices that they ARE - IS.
You are a simple mind, requiring simple things.
You do not care what existence is, or how you perceive, or what the relationship of the observer to the observed is, for you all IS.

For me the phenomenon, that which is apparent, not IS, is (inter)active.
IS, implies a static state....like Being.
It Be, for you.
For me it Becomes.
And I'm the religious one?

I also liked how existence, without being defined, was declared an IS.
What is god?
He IS.
No need for details.

The usage of the word "plenitude" was also incredibly artistic.

I offered an encapsulation of my views to help you.
I have no clue who you are arguing against or on what position.
Your target, appears to be, from my point of view, from my perspective, relative to my mind, perspectivism.

Right and wrong are relative to the timescale, baby Jesus.
What is right today may be wrong tomorrow.
Timescales, boy....think beyond human timescales. think trillions of years...not next week, next year.
this is why I say consciousnesses sis a simplification/generalization...it cuts away dimensions, time, so as to construct the absolutes, the rules, the laws, the values.
If all is (inter)active, will reality be as it IS, a trillion years from now?
For you, yes. Because you are a god and you see through god's eyes....
I use my own eyes and I see nothing eternal...so I do not suppose it.
I am a bottom<>up thinker.

You are a christian...admit it.
Right/Wrong are part of the Judeo-Christian canon.
You need an absolute morality, an absolute IS.
It must be comforting to you.
Perspectivism is a sin, to you, because it can be applied to morality.

Yet, you use relative....as in relative to so and so this is 'good' and relative to so and so it is 'bad'.
A contradiction.
Nope...what you are trying to defend is an absolute goodness, a definite truth, which we all fail to perceive....is that so?
You wish to exit time/space and find the final, the absolute, and declare it IS.

Unfortunately exiting time/space, in my prospective, is exiting reality, existence.
Time is the factor you try to escape...with your "relative to me the wall is not changing".
A contained, contradicted, retarded, point of view, simplifying reality by eliminating time.
And what is time?
A human measurement of change.
And what is change?
Yes, (inter)activity.
The wall is changing, and if I had the equipment to make my senses more powerful I could perceive this change as it is occurring...or I can allow time to expose this change which was occurring, when I could not perceive it, after the fact....when the amount of change reaches the point of being perceptible to my weak sense organs.

Therefore, relative to you, I am an old geezer...right?
Is that what IS?
And rela5tive to me, you are an imbecile.
But I was once young, whereas you, were always and will always be an imbecile...even when you are an old geezer yourself.
So, who has the worse lot, from your value system?

I claim that conscious beings are forced to live in their own perspectives, because of two reasons:
1- they are a part of existence, your IS, and so like the eye, even if it were godly, they cannot perceive themselves.
2- that which is perceived is active. I define existence as activity , (inter)activity...but you are content with "IS" and "Thing".
This constant activity makes all perceptions of it a constant updating, as consciousnesses is lagging behind.

You, place yourself outside time/space, reality, and say there IS right/wrong....there IS an immutable Thingness...which you call reality, and we all perceive.
But, you, being a coward, and a religious fanatic (even if you may call your self atheist), are unable to delve into what this reality, this world IS...what this IS is.
You do not want to know what Thing is, or how it can refer to all perceptions before these perceptions, these patterns of repetitive consistency, are given another word: tree, hat, bat.
For you these patterns of repetitive consistency are eternal, infinite, and not ephemeral....they are not affected by change....

If you do not provide something interesting other than "IS" and "THING" and "plenitude" and "the wall, relative to I, is not changing", or using semantics to attack the very things you then use to support your own bullshit, then, from my perspective, relative to I, I am done.

Science deals with theories...from the Greek theoro, to see.
It does not deal in certainties of right/wrong.
It deals in approximations, dictated by the knowledge at hand and out capacity to make sense of it.
Is the "particle" also a wave?
Which is right, which is wrong?
You are an absolutist thinker...a religious, Modern, mind.
So young...so naive...so needy.

I guess it comes down to values...and how different mine are from yours. You see, in my mind, from my perspective, your definitions of existence, as IS and Thing as that "cat" is valueless....for you it suffices.
For me it's childish, infantile, for you it's youthful, in relation to my old age.
For me, it is simplestic, which only a simpleton can be content with, for you it is the epitome of your religious desire to preserve right and wrong.

For a native a mirror is magical, mystical...for the one constructing it, it is another trinket.

Until you tell me something that I have not considered, please read through my actual positions and find loop-holes to preserve your right/wrong lollipop.
Perhaps the others may find you worth talking to.
I am the Lollipop King.

Like I said...you win.
Children tire my old bones.
I've been doing this for years, boy....YEARS.
Years of morons, coming up in age, wanting to prove themselves, or to put me in my place, repeating the same shit to me.
I no longer read through the entire posts.
Can you tell?
I skim, trying to find something worth responding to.
I take a risk every time...but I take it knowing that whatever comes of it, I will grow from it.

I have so little time....you see.

Mo wrote:

Awesome, this feels like an interview. Ok, so, electromagnetic spectrums and sub atomic levels... ummm, what do YOU think?
Oh, so you think my eyes are actually looking at a photo album in my brain, rather than the fucking cat, is that it?

A strawman argument that distorts what I've already stated. To repeat myself, your eyes aren't looking at a photo album in your brain, but the higher-level deliberative processes that form your consciousness are working off of an internal representation of the cat relayed to it from your eyes. It would appear that you are afraid to explore the inner physiology of how your eyes and brain perform their task. You would rather treat it as an indivisible black box that simply does what you whimsically believe or hope for. You'd rather treat the entire world as an indivisible black box that simply is. You are not interested in how things actually are, for that would be damaging to your views and in turn your psyche.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the world does not operate off of your wishes.

Quote :

That's exactly right, that's not an abstraction at all. That's just the process, neurophysiological, of my looking at the fucking cat. The only abstraction here is the word, 'cat'.

What is a word? An abstraction? Or a sequence of mechanical vibrations uttered between two spinsters. Or a sequence of symbols and demarcations written by a scribe, interpreted by your eyes. At which point do these stimuli become a word? Is there a precise moment when this transformation takes place? A which point within the brain does your firing cortical columns, and the information emergent thereof, become a category unto itself, if the mind is always in flux?

There is a relationship between declarative and imperative knowledge you see. They are isomorphic to one another. The same. A neural state burnt into your brain from one's eyes at a precise moment in time is just as much of an abstraction as is a word transcribed to paper. The paper will eventually deteriorate from the elements and turn to dust, just as the your mind changes focus stumbling on to the next idea or object that captures your interest. Where is the absolute abstraction of a word? Whence has it gone? Are you suggesting that you believe in the existence of the very noumenon you so loath?

You can't have it one way, with words in their declarative form being abstractions, and not the other as with words in flight. Your view of the cat is an abstraction, a condensed and compressed representation of the actual cat. The Kantian dichotomy between form and content holds.

Quote :

Good lord man. Do you talk to your mother with that mouth? I'm rejecting causality? Where?

You are thinking about the world in a top-down fashion, going only so far as you are comfortable with--only so far as is necessary not to break your objectivist world-view. You believe that your ideals are a priori and give rise to the world around you. You believe your ideals are a given and how reality is, even if the facts say otherwise. You thus believe in mind->cause, instead of cause->effect, although you might not even be conscious of that consequence from your ideals.

Quote :

You want a full fucking theory of mind? For free? All I fucking said was that I looked at the fucking cat, not a screen in my head. My eyes were not turned around backwards. I am connected to the world in this way. Realism, my brother from another mother.

I see you critiquing perspectivism, yet are unable to offer anything in return as a suitable replacement. How then are we to take you seriously? Are we supposed to take your empty words as truth? The leading theories of mind--the leading scientific models of how the mind works as supported by the evidence--are perspectival and subjective in nature. By throwing out perspectivism, you are claiming that the science doesn't matter. You claim you are a realist, but you are nothing of the sort. You are an occultist seeking to conjure safety from a prison cell.

Yes, I'm sure you'd love a nice padded room, with rounded corners and Fischer-Price colors to distract and appease your frightened mind. Or, you know, you could face the real "reality" and grow from it.

Quote :

I don't want to talk to anyone who doesn't laugh when they read this quote. I'm not sure if anyone has a sense of humor around here...
Of course you realize that whether or not you are a brain in a vat is a possibility that would be impossible to calculate a probability for, in principle, don't you?

You will find that exploring the various possibilities of how reality must be, given that we are here to observe it, places constraints allowing for such a feat to be made possible. Search for the paper entitled "Boltzmann brains and the scale-factor cutoff measure of the multiverse." You can find a preprint available on arXiv.

But knowing your luck--after all, having been brought into existence with the ill-advantage of intellectual ineptitude--you really are one of the unfortunate souls whom are nothing more than a brain in a vat.

Quote :

"Demonstratively"...

You got me. Your superficial pedantry has thoroughly debunked everything I have said, as it all hinged on a correct usage of vocabulary. Truly, you are a master of wits.

Satyr wrote:

I no longer read through the entire posts.
Can you tell?

Yes.

Satyr wrote:

I have no clue who you are arguing against or on what position.

That’s fine, I’ll clarify it.

Start with your definition of perspectivism---the idea that man is limited to interpreting reality. A perspective is a mediating mechanism, it mediates between reality, and the world as it is to us, as appearance/phenomenon. That’s the perspectivist’s view. The end result, for us, is that we are left with our own perspectival ‘truths’. As Nietzsche says, there are many kinds of eyes, and consequently there are many kinds of ‘truths’.

This is a view that I’m suspicious of---for the same reasons that I’m suspicious of the view that a tiny homunculus in your brain is watching a screen, of a picture of a tree, when you yourself look at a tree. I suspect there’s a conceptual confusion going on, and a language error being made. ---A language error similar to the error that’s made when you suppose that lightning is something that flashes, and not that lightning just is the flash.

Can I put my finger on the error exactly as it is, and make it explicit? I’m not sure. Your confusion is partly my fault. But here’s why I suspect an error is being made. It’s because the claim that a perspectivist makes (“that man is limited to interpreting reality”) is not a perspectival truth---it’s a declaration that cannot be made from within any particular perspective, and can only be made by someone who thinks he has stepped outside of all perspective. In other words, from within a perspective, you can’t declare yourself limited by anything, since from within your perspective it’s not for you to judge whether there’s anything beyond it. You can’t see around your own corner, as Nietzsche said. (Or “they cannot perceive themselves”, as you said). There’s a tinge of otherwordly thinking where there shouldn’t be.

So, what’s the error, you ask? Well, I’m not positive, but I think that the error occurs in an essential distinction between “appearance” and “reality”----the same way the error about lightning occurred in an essential distinction between “subject” and “object”, or “doer” and “deed”, or “thinker” and “thought”.

The world as it appears to me is the world that I call ‘real’. I call the computer screen that I’m looking at ‘real’, and I don’t qualify that by saying, “well it’s really just my perspective”----because that qualification is not a perspectival claim, it would be a metaphysical claim about the ultimate nature of reality, since it is meta-my-perspective.

So, the error is dualistic thinking---setting up an essential opposition between appearance and reality, just as subject and object, and so on. I’m taking a point that Nietzsche made, about language, and using it on Nietzsche himself. ---His perspectivism, at least. And you and all his drones, by proxy.

Does that make sense?

Here’s what I don’t have time for. I don’t have time for you to say that you skim posts, haven’t read all of mine, and haven’t understood what I’m saying, and then immediately proceed to call me a Christian and blah blah blah. That’s not humble, as you called yourself. It’s unjustifiable bullshit.

When I defined ‘reality’ as “that which is the case”----that was an ordinary everyday English language definition, that you’ll find in any dictionary. From that, you made the mistake of focusing on the word ‘IS’ and drawing a metaphysical conclusion that somehow I think reality is unchanging, absolute, eternal---and other bullshit. Nowhere did I say any of that. But to a stagnant withered and paranoid mind, everything looks like what once first scared him. Did the priest put his hands on you?

And for the record, I’ve read your encapsulation already. I’ve read it as you wrote it, and I’ve read it dozens of times written before you made it yours, and better.

Satyr wrote:

You are a christian...admit it.
Right/Wrong are part of the Judeo-Christian canon.
You need an absolute morality, an absolute IS.
It must be comforting to you.
Perspectivism is a sin, to you, because it can be applied to morality.

Riiight.
Absolutism, sin, Christian… does it do any good to ask you to justify the bullshit that comes out of your face? No disrespect.

Uberreeferdung,

You remind me of someone very specific, who posted under a few different names. I won't say the names, because there's no need to insult someone who at least tries hard in his own way. In any case, I could never take him seriously, just as I can’t take you seriously. At least your last post was humorous, albeit unintentionally.

Quote :

To repeat myself, your eyes aren't looking at a photo album in your brain, but the higher-level deliberative processes that form your consciousness are working off of an internal representation of the cat relayed to it from your eyes.

There is no photo album, because there is no internal representation. You are directly connected to the world around you. Your internal-external distinction is your brand of dualism. But hey, simple minds need it simplified, don’t they? Anyways, that doesn’t imply that you are capable of seeing the world exactly as it is in its full detail, it only implies that you are not a solipsist, not a 17th century idealist, not a dualist. When you look at a cat, your eyes are not directed toward the back of your head, gathering internalized data about a cat. They are simply looking at the cat.

Quote :

You are thinking about the world in a top-down fashion… You believe that your ideals are a priori… you are claiming that the science doesn't matter… You are an occultist

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And I don’t have to justify any of that, because none of the accusations were justified in the first place.

Good luck to you, though.

Still nothing new from the Turd.
I'll have to address this to a broader audience.
I'll use the TURD as a patsy, as I often did with Purple Dragon and Fausty and many others.
Many of them accused me of putting words in their mouth, and that I did not understand them...when /I had, in fact, gone beyond their simplicity.
Wanting to made do, and not waste an opportunity, I always used these patsies to expand on my views...not adressing them, per se, for most of them were simpletons with simple challenges, but to address a bigger audience...wanting to find that rare one.
I'm offering a glimpse into my methodology and my motives...and explaining why I was so insulting and was quickly banned from many of these forums.

--------------------------------------------------------
Now, back to the specimen...the TURD:

You replace perspective with relative; you turn it into a third-person perspective, a god-like angle, by injecting a "not" in there (thou shalt), and then pretend you are saying something different from what absolutists, religious, turds of various kinds have been saying since... forever.
You are stuck in language.
"The earth is NOT turning, relative to me"
Ergo the earth is not turning?
Are you insane, or merely retarded?
There's those either/or questions you love?

You don't want to explore what IS means...or what THING is...you simply want to use the words...because "first came the word" and the word was "IS".
You are a Jew-Christian, through and through.
Secularized, or not. Secular can be called MODERN.
And Modern is a Jew dominated culture...Nihilism.
The words thing and is, if defined and understood, stand for ends.

I bet you're a humanist, as well.
Left leaning....progressive, as they call it, Liberal?
Such a mind cannot escape those clutches of Modernity.

"The wall is NOT changing RELATIVE to me", says the retard.
How wonderfully you play with words....like exists and IS and thing.
As if the wall stops being active, stops decaying, stops moving in the universe perpetually in expansion...because you do not see it doing so; because you say so; because your perspective is THE perspective, and the world is only relative to YOU.
Objectivism shines its infantile, womanly, individuality, here.

Therefore, the light emitted ten thousand years ago, from a star which has since gone nova, or fissile out, IS a star.
It's not the light you are perceiving...it IS the, complete, total, absolute, star.
Time, be damned...the Star IS...because you perceive the light it emitted....once.

The medium of light, is not intervening...the STAR IS.
Time has no place in your reality, Turd.
Are you afraid of time.
Is that why geezer is used as an insult, by you?
Oh, turd, I am beginning to see more.
It's interesting how age, for you, is something to be ashamed of.
It was once revered, and I, personally, like it...I prefer it.
It's freed me form many crazy behaviors.
But for you, relative to your essence...from your perspective, age is an insult.
The intent was fabulous...and I focus on it.

With that declarative certainty "NOT"...a variation of "IS", pseudo-intellectual gits, find their place in the internet circles.

What is relativity?
A perspective view from a detached, third-person, position.
You denounce perspective and then name it relativity, and use it to defend your insanity.
You denounce, God, perhaps, and then baptize the concept THING, IS....trying to defend your ego, so victimized by time.
You take away the beard, the face...the humanity of it...you, abstract God into thing, or IS, and you think of yourself as free from superstition.

Then you pretend that defining Thing would be easy, for you, and you offer new names for it: cow, sheep, hat, cat...
What is a Thing?
A cat, IS a Thing.
This, for a moron, suffices.

I place the relativity squarely in the observer, not outside of him.
Reality doesn't give a shit what you call it, moron, or how you think you can control it with words....or know it with grammar.
Natural selection deals with that level of intellectual weakness.

Well, not any more....imbeciles, like you, still reproduce.
So, there's still hope for ya.

Moron, if you can only live with the consequences of your own perspective who is the arbitrator?
Reality, you imbecile.
Luckily, you are protected.
Your perspective is base; that of an animal.
This is why a woman had to produce it as a philosophy, and sell it to children for mass consumption.
A reason to remain an animal...a philosophy of baseness.
Very Modern.

An animal lives like you describe the world...the IS.
For a cow, the grass, IS...it does not seek to understand what it is, or how she perceives or why.
She is content in the base, the materialistic, selfishness of IS.
She needs, she eats...she does not want to understand what need is or how it realities to other creatures or to reality at large. She is satisfied with eat, fuck, drink, shit....IS.
She, too, is suspicious of anyone who makes her think....makes her question her baseness.

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


What are you perceiving, imbecile...the phenomenon or the medium...light sound vibrations?
Want to cut-out the middle-man...do ya?!
Then pull out your eyes, tear out your eardrum, and enjoy reality.
Your reality is a VAT.
No air...no light.
Do away with these nasty mediums.
Perceive despite of them...be a true, pure solipsist.
You are a solipsist.

But I DO understand you, turd...and that's why I have no time for you.
Oops!!! Here I am wasting more time on you.
Not for long.
I think you are taking the right to judge away from me...for it is not up to me to judge anything beyond what I perceive - a temporal reference not a mystical one - ....so let's assume I'm correct....or are you the "decider"?
You must be an American.

No other world, turd...this one. Dimensions...TIME.
Not your three-dimensional, animal perspective...but longer.....deeper.....in time.
Time Turd.
And what did we say time was?
HA!!!
I'm luvin this.

I really do not care about your suspicions.
They don't affect me...so they do not exist.

----------------------------------------------------------
Let us give it one more try.
Not for you - you are lost - for those bystanders.

To a weak, insecure, fuck, like you, age is the only thing you've got on me.
So, you call me geezer to deal with your cowardice and mental inferiority...your inherited misgivings.
I know, it's about getting under my skin and making yourself feel better, and all....but it's also about more than that.
Here age, is a compensation for intellectual feebleness; physical virility, dealing with mental feebleness.
Classic.

You are 30, right?
So, relative to me, you are 17 earth-years younger...right?
This constitutes geezer age, from YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
I know...i know, the deference: you are only trying to get to me, and look at how well it worked...but no, Turd. There are no accidents, no coincidences.
You, unwittingly, expose yourself...you appear. You make yourself apparent...to sensitive eyes, like mine.

Relative to you, I am OLD.
I agree.
We will not say "older", we shall keep the derogatory taste...to sense the bitterness.
(See how I switched up RELATIVE and PERSPECTIVE, idiot? All you have are word-games...but you are dealing with a master. The difference between us, other than talent, and intelligence, is MOTIVE. Motive: a move towards)

Therefore, someone 17 years younger, a 13 year-old, would have to consider you a geezer, right?
According to your perspective this 17 year gap, is where geezer age steps in.
Here, you can read my own "insecurities, if you wish.
And I, would consider a geezer someone 17 years older than I...a 64 year old.
Right?

Therefore, you and I are both geezers and young, at this very moment, from different perspectives, or relative to different individuals, from different vantage points in time.
Let's use your word, because girls love semantics:
RELATIVE to you, I am ancient.
Relative to a 10 year-old YOU are ancient.

But let's take something else, still temporal, but more abstract.
Let's call it intelligence.
It, too, is a temporal product.
Not only is it brain symmetry inherited, through time, but it also exhibits itself temporally, in what we call genius, in its extreme form.

What is genius?
Genius is a brain's ability to collect raw data, sensual data, find patters in them, and then create, CREATE, you imbecile, mental models which can then be projected as ideas, ideals, object/objectives...in time.
This ability to project is also called imagination...and it is called fantasy or delusion when it lacks reference points to the sensually perceived world.

Perhaps, for a moron, like you genius is what IS.
No, I think you would use another word to pretend more thought went into it:
Genius, for you, would be what thinks greatly...or something easy, and base, like that.

In the case of intelligence the current has minimal effect.
Your age is a matter of time passing; intelligence is temporal, but it cannot attain, surpass, in a generation.
Time, is inherited, in this case.
When one is a moron, like the specimen, this is frightening. This turd must retain immediacy, this is why it tries to do away with mediums, and time.
What it perceives, IS...it is here, and now...it is current.
This is real.
Tomorrow it can delve into, because there it can hope and let it's imagination free from reference points.
But yesterday?...no yesterday is something terrible for it.

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

Like you, with your "things".
In this case, a moron (YOU), takes the phenomenon, turns it into a static (chops it away from its dimensional possibilities, primarily time), abstracts it into what it then calls, in general, a thing - an IS.
A Thing.
Then, you, this imbecile, uses other words to pretend that he is referring to the same static thing, but now more refined.
He calls this thing cat, hat, dog...He dresses the THING up, to hide it...making it APPEAR more sophisticated and cultured - not 17th century.
(Did you notice his repetitive allusions to 17th century and 18th century? A little hint of temporal stress...a linear thinking...Modern; the cult of eternal youth).
I'm feeling this hatred towards time, turd.
Thanks for exposing yourself to me.
Thanks for making yourself apparent.

He, you, has simply substituted a word, to represent a different category of things.
The THING is still implicit , in his tiny mind, in all these categories...because he mistakes the symbol for the phenomenon being symbolized.
Both the phenomenon being symbolized, and abstracted are real, but one is the phenomenon itself, whereas the other is a neurological construct, created using a medium...light, sound, electromagnetism, called touch...then processed by a tool, a brain.
Both the dog and the camera are real....but one uses light to create an image of the dog on film....the image is NOT the dog.
The turd does not like films...he sees directly...nothing intervenes.
Dog enters its small brain...how?
Nobody knows. It is there.
The specimen, sees...it cares not how or why. It sees....that IS it.

For the turd, there is no intervening medium, between the observed and the observer.
Air, light, electromagnetism, gravity, strong force, weak force,...the data analyzing brain, neural pulses, metabolic rates, sense organ, are irrelevant.
The turd sees, and the turd does not want anything to stand in its way....it and what it sees are united. This makes his stupidity more bearable, because a processing brain, a medium which an organ is sensitive to, will make him compare himself to an other...and he does not like this.

When we touch, the most immediate of all sensual (inter)actions, our fingers do not actually come into contact with anything.
If they did, there would be a nuclear explosion.
Physicists, say that the Newtonian conceptions of matter should be put in doubt. There is no matter...only moving particles, themselves made-up of moving sub-particles...all the way to the SueprString, with no string at all.

What we are sensing, and then interpreting as touch, is magnetism, (inter)acting...the pressure, the solidity, signified by the force of this electromagnetic (inter)action, between fingers, full of sense nerves, and table, ball, you tiny pecker.

I know it troubles you, to no end, being so intelligent and all, to consider your perceptions removed, from what is being perceived...since you go through a medium, but so what does it matter what a jerk-off is troubled by?
But if you think about it, simpleton, you are not really that removed, because we are talking about a continuum, and both the phenomenon, the light bouncing off of it, being absorbed, redirected, creating colors, the air, through which sound waves travel to your ears, are all (inter)acting...with no void between them.
What is interpreted is not irrelevant, because if it were, we would not have evolved the ability to perceive.
But neither are we born gods...we want to be gods....to BE - Will to....Life.
No, not Power.
Schopenhauer had it right....where Schopenhauer failed, and Nietzsche surpassed him, was in what one does, when one knows; how does one (re)act.
There, Schopenhauer chose a meditative, Buddhist approach...something I feel a kinship with.

My definition of existence is given.
Your "not" is what I call non-existence.
If your wall is not active, then it does not exist...and who cares what you think is relative to you?
Whether you perceive the wall or not; whether you are alive to perceive the wall or not...does not matter.
The wall is active, and it exists.

Relativity, and perspective only matter for conscious matter: LIFE.
This is the only thing they try to define and evaluate and understand.

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

I would wish you good luck, in return, turd...but you do not need it.
This world, this western culture, is made to protect you from your own stupidity.
No luck required.

What I wish you, is happiness.
That too you've found in your own simplicity, and "good enough" attitude.

It IS, what it IS.

Why do you ignore the others, when they make such wonderful points?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has made many good points...but you cannot answer, so you dismiss.
Why this obsession with me, dear boy?
Please...do not bother me again.
My friends will tear you to pieces...with politeness.
My honesty is more brutal.

Satyr,

Well, good job. You’ve won. Christian, secular, relativist, absolutist, and all the rest. Clear as day you have seen me. It’ll be clear as day for anyone who has read my post, surely. No need to say any more.

Satyr wrote:

You don't want to explore what IS means...or what THING is...you simply want to use the words...because "first came the word" and the word was "IS".

Of course not. Because I am a retard, I stupidly think that ‘IS’ is just the third-person singular present tense of the verb ‘to be’, with no metaphysical baggage attached. Because I am clearly a retard, I do not dig into the metaphysical bullshit about the nature of reality, from a simple English word. This is why you are my better. You are far more otherwordly.

And ‘thing’---well because I am a retard, that is just a word like the words ‘this’, or ‘that’, which picks out an aspect of your experience when you need a name suitably vague.

Satyr wrote:

How wonderfully you play with words....like exists and IS and thing.

You are too generous. The dictionary, Grand Master… I simply know the dictionary. That’s the extent of my literacy.

Quote :

Are you afraid of time....is that why geezer is used as an insult?
Oh, turd, I am beginning to see more.
It's interesting how age, for you, is something to be ashamed of.

It’s not your literal age, Grand Master ....it is the stagnation, the repetitiveness, the tiredness, the inability to assimilate new data..... It is the, “I don’t get what you’re saying, and didn’t read it, but let me call you a Christian and see what happens, because when I was a boy, the priest skull fucked me” ......However old you literally are, Grand Master, you are three quarters dead, to me.

But congratulations, Benevolent Wisdom. You are victorious. Though I am not humble and secure enough to accept defeat gracefully, I concede it with some amount of ill, let no one doubt that I haven't a philosophical point to fight on. Clearly, my previous post have been taken apart to the point that nothing left remains. Adieu, Grand Master.

About Uberleiferung... I just assumed he was the poster James S. Saint, or James L. Walker, or Joker, or whatever else. And didn't care to respond...

Nice covering up, there.

The hurt, sarcasm...as you creep backwards.
Turd, you are a girl, using word-games.
The perspective is bad, but "that's is relative to me" was clear.

The "plenty" followed by a definition of thing as cat, dog, cow...was clear.
You are simple...trying to imply that you are more, fails, in that your appearance, what is apparent, proves otherwise.
It IS!!!
See?
Now you try to imply that what IS apparent is not so...that there is a hidden you, which is not as simple as you appear to be.
I do not give a shit about what you think of yourself as.
I care about what you appear as, in relation to me...and to an average.

Reality, turd?....we all have theories but how do we judge which ones are more or less valid?
We refer them, constantly, with sensuality....we never stop looking, you imbecile.
We do not say "IS" and "THING" and consider it sufficient.
How do we refer to reality...we do it through our perceptions, our perspective...you simpleton.
If our perceptions are weak, we fail; if they are strong, we succeed.

But, in philosophy we can't always test them pragmatically, so we test them sensually.
How many reference point to a commonly perceived world does my perspective have, in relation to yours?

You say, there is no perspective and then use relativity in its place....*sound of buzzer*
You fail, turd.

We all have THEO-ries...theoro. You ignorant fuck.
We look....constantly. We do not say "IS", like fuckin' infants.
We test, we doubt, we challenge, we continuously update....we create.

Your IS is a dead end...you insecure nihilistic solipsistic turd...you Modern miasma.

New data, turd?
Where?

What I speak of is accessible to all.
I never speak of new. I speak of real....and the world is old, moron.
Older than a geezer, like me.
Of course, I repeat, you imbecile...because turd, like you, do not ....get...it.
You come before me with semantics to become noticed...you wish to appear before me.
With what?
You are a clown...

Nothing new to me.
Relative to me, in my perspective, nothing you said was new.

Turd...I am old, in relation, to you, no?
You are a moron, in relation to me.
I was once young....you were and will, until you die, be a moron.
Who is to feel embarrassed?
See?
Perspective...relativity.

I talk about degrees, and you of IS, THING, and NOT.
I speak of uncertainty, of change, of struggle, you of certainty, the absolute, the IS the thing....you are a hater of Time, turd.
Time is an insult, to you....in your mind, form your perspective, relative to your essence.
you never even tried to explore what "relative" means...relative to what?
I...I meaning what?

The past, turd....I is the sum of the past.
Relative to your past, genetics, time is a bad thing...an insult....something to be dismissed and forgotten.
You are a girly, thinking that with words you can outsmart a master of words. Only my usage is to clarify...you it is to mask, to hide....to hide the apparent.
You are a feeble, coward.

Perhaps, in relation to a child suffering from down syndrome you are a genius.
IT IS, so.

Get the fuck out of my sight....
You sicken me.

Mo wrote:

Uberreeferdung,
You remind me of someone very specific, who posted under a few different names. I won't say the names, because there's no need to insult someone who at least tries hard in his own way. In any case, I could never take him seriously, just as I can’t take you seriously. At least your last post was humorous, albeit unintentionally.

I assure you, I am not the Joker. Do you fault every slight against your character as the work of your chosen arch-nemesis? When you walk down the street and step into a pile of dog shit, do you think to yourself that it must be result of the Joker's agenda to ruin your day?

Quote :

There is no photo album, because there is no internal representation. You are directly connected to the world around you. Your internal-external distinction is your brand of dualism. But hey, simple minds need it simplified, don’t they? Anyways, that doesn’t imply that you are capable of seeing the world exactly as it is in its full detail, it only implies that you are not a solipsist, not a 17th century idealist, not a dualist. When you look at a cat, your eyes are not directed toward the back of your head, gathering internalized data about a cat. They are simply looking at the cat.

You are purposefully ignoring what I've stated, through distortion of semantics. My words not fitting the canter and mold of the Other, you twist them to more ideally match what you expect a viewpoint in opposition to yours must be.

You're merely interested in asserting yourself which you've so precariously associated with the delusional and self-righteous ideology of objectivism: that because reality exists objectively, independent of mind, it certainly must follow that minds themselves are only capable of predicting and interpreting reality in an objective manner. All the while, you avoid the subject of how the mind works. There hasn't been a more intellectually bankrupt ideology since Marx.

You are not interested in a debate or in finding truth. Speaking of truth, that appears to be your main concern with accepting the subjective nature of the mind, thinking that "perspectivism" can be used as a wedge to justify any old debauched ideology. So let's address that...

Quote :

Start with your definition of perspectivism---the idea that man is limited to interpreting reality. A perspective is a mediating mechanism, it mediates between reality, and the world as it is to us, as appearance/phenomenon. That’s the perspectivist’s view. The end result, for us, is that we are left with our own perspectival ‘truths’. As Nietzsche says, there are many kinds of eyes, and consequently there are many kinds of ‘truths’.

What is truth? What does it mean for something to be true? One can create truths by definition. I can say "the Joker is saint, and that is true" and thus have asserted such a truth by definition alone. Or I can construct a mathematical formal system in which 1 + 1 = 3 actually is a truthful statement, within that formal system. I can write a book entitled Das Kapital and conjure an elaborate scheme to defraud and enslave the masses hidden behind a veneer of clever language and ideology, and boastfully proclaim it as a truthful science! And in the communication of such bodies of knowledge, others might have difficulty in determining if they are true, for in fact they are true within their own ideological frameworks. You can make anything true by definition, and those who fail to notice the lack of connection and grounding to the natural world are its victims. The only way to judge such things is by the value given to them by their adherents and opponents, a result of their utility.

So what of truths concerning the natural objective world we all find ourselves living in? Assuming we only have a subjective view on this natural world, how can we possibly get at any objective understanding of things, if that is the case?

If the latest cult leader proclaims he is the Divine Lord of the Market Collective capable of producing miracles of a material nature, how can we possibly denounce his "truths" if our views are limited to a subjective interpretation? I'll tell you what we do. We defer to objective reality itself. We throw the cult leader off a cliff. Surely, if he is indeed capable of producing miracles, he can can save himself from certain death. You see, when we want to get at the objective truth, we test our hypotheses with how reality actually operates, observe the results, and update our perspectives to match accordingly. This is what humanity has always done to some degree, and codified in the scientific method.

Being limited to a subjective understanding of reality isn't all that bad, it just requires diligent effort to arrive at truths which are consistently reproducible. Sure, one day once our Universe begins to further cool, perhaps one or more of the natural laws will be ripped asunder, a field may split into two or more new forces at a new scale, and the truths we had once thought of as objective and permanent will no longer apply. But on scales of time and space that our minds are well adapted to, we can observe and arrive at certain truths about our environment that are more or less stable and well-ordered.

In other words, Nietzsche was right. But it's worth elaborating somewhat, and determining how to value and weigh truths against one another.

Quote :

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And I don’t have to justify any of that, because none of the accusations were justified in the first place.

With that approach to debate, you might as well put on a yarmulke and gyrate your hips while copulating with the satanic essence of the Shekinah at the Wailing Wall, like any other kike.

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

In conclusion, there is little utility in subscribing to objectivist ideology. You're shutting yourself out to basic principles of nature, to a coherent understanding of how the human mind works, to evolutionary psychology, and of how to exploit defects in your opponent's view the world. If anything, objectivism is used as "wedge" by the weak who aim to assert their weak and cowardly views of the world as "objective truths" justified by defining their thoughts as objective, an erroneous consequence of reality as a whole being objective.

Quote :

I assure you, I am not the Joker. Do you fault every slight against your character as the work of your chosen arch-nemesis? When you walk down the street and step into a pile of dog shit, do you think to yourself that it must be result of the Joker's agenda to ruin your day?

Yes, you are Joker. "My chosen arch-nemesis"? I don't think I've ever replied to Joker before. But what a ridiculous and self-denigrating paragraph, that only a pompous fake like you could write. And yes, it's a good metaphor---talking to you is like stepping in a pile of dog shit.

Nothing you've said (and no "slight against my character") has any grounding in something I've said. Do you need a response to your dressed-up, artificial and ridiculous fakery? Most of what you've said is its own refutation, to anyone who can read. Go ahead, accuse me of playing with words when I make you feel stupid. It's like accusing me of playing with sticks and pucks, when I beat you at hockey. Language is the currency of ideas, and your confused, incoherent, made-up at random vomiting that you christen with scientific labels and think that thereby that you've supported, are often just language confusions on your part.

You've confused subjectivity with subject-dependence. You've confused objectivity with external world realism. You've confused perspectivism with subjectivism. And your post is really just an excuse to start talking about Karl Marx. If you have a question for me you can just ask, politely. My method is always to take what someone says and make it as strong as possible, which often means saying what someone said better than they said it---and then either accept or reject it on the strength of the balance of good reasons. What am I supposed to do with someone who himself doesn't seem to know what he's talking about?

Quote :

So what of truths concerning the natural objective world we all find ourselves living in? Assuming we only have a subjective view on this natural world, how can we possibly get at any objective understanding of things, if that is the case?

I subscribe to a pragmatic theory of truth, except when adopting a coherence theory, or a correspondence theory, is pragmatically justified. Did you follow that? In other words, what we call 'true' is just what works. That's a claim about creatures such as us, and not the ultimate nature of reality. Get it, you fucking quack? Truths grounded in the kind of creature that you are---and not your fucking opinion---are 'objective truths'. Get it, you fucking quack?

Quote :

Sure, one day once our Universe begins to further cool, perhaps one or more of the natural laws will be ripped asunder, a field may split into two or more new forces at a new scale,

Psycho-babble.

Quote :

In conclusion, there is little utility in subscribing to objectivist ideology

To be an objectivist is just to think that some things are true regardless of what your opinion is about them. An objectivist about art would think that some piece by Mozart is (or is not) more beautiful than something by Britney Spears, regardless of what your opinion is. If truth about 'beauty' is objective, then it is grounded in the kind of creature that you are---not the ultimate nature of reality, or molecules in the external world, or some noumenal realm, just the way your ear is, whether you appreciate it, or not. That's a controversial example, but things get much easier when we talk about something like physical health. Are you a subjectivist about that, also?Try an experiment, and drink some paint...

Mo wrote:

Quote :

Sure, one day once our Universe begins to further cool, perhaps one or more of the natural laws will be ripped asunder, a field may split into two or more new forces at a new scale,

Psycho-babble.

HA!!!

I don't understand what Mo's saying for the most part.
I'd have to do some intensive wikipedia research for every second sentence.
And that's just for learning about the definitions of the words he's using.


But what I could decipher:

Mo doesn't like fakes or fakery. He doesn't like others who are pretentious.
He has no time for artificial ridiculousness.
Mo doesn't like confused, incoherent, made-up at random vomiting.
And he most definitely has no time for quacks.

That's what I learned about Mo.

Now excuse me, it has been raining last night - time to clean the feathers and have some puddle fun.