? wrote:Satyr wrote:
Yes...but I was hoping you could stay away from "I know I am but so are you".
I guess I was too optimistic.
"why do you have to take your hat off if i am all naked"?
Because I want to watch you dance, and I've paid the doorman already.
? wrote:Satyr wrote:If I am speaking my truth then all I must do is show it it be better than yours
is it so? if a rabies-looking preacher thinks that he has shown you the god, and you dumb ass just wont get it, without some loving violence or better rhetoric tactics, then is it all he has to do?
Did you think this has anything to do with convincing you of anything?
Why do you think I would care?
Woman, this is a social experiment, on my part...and I use these forums as my laboratory.
Where else can I find ready willing and arrogant fucks, ready to play along, without me having to face any dire consequences?
Here I can observe in silence, or poke and prod, to my heart's desire, producing all kinds of results, which I can then study.
Here I can test some of my views, with huge amounts of specimens.
? wrote:or, lets take some emotional distance to that daily situation or crime scene:
if you see two man with different models and seeing different truth through their different models, which model is the better model to them or to you? can they both see the same, that through their model, their model is looking better? can you see yourself to be the other man of those two?
Dear woman, if two men discuss geography and in one man's model the earth is flat and in the other man's model it is round, which of the two men would you think had the better position, even if he could not articulate it as well as the flat-earth man?
Which of the two could hope to benefit the most from his position, his belief, his truth?
Little woman, these mental models I speak of are not innocuous little puzzles you put together and then take apart, only to build another....they have to do with life and death....with fitness and unfitness in the genetic sense....with seeing clearly and being lucid and living in the dark, then dying an ignoramus.
So, you see, little woman, that these abstractions usual result in real-world consequences, no matter how small or unperceptive they might be.
In nature the slightest difference in judgment decides who lives and passes on his genes and who is culled out of the herd.
Here is the missing factor, little woman: in this case we are not dealing with natural environments, but with
manmade ones.
I call them
artificial only to differentiate them from circumstances that come about without human intervention.
In this case, little woman, stupidity or an error in judgment, most often the consequence of poor genes or inexperience or retardation or emotionalism, is not so harshly punished.
This has some very interesting repercussions upon man's genetic health and his overall mental awareness, and it also explains why herd animals must be culled, more often, with predation while predators must be culled, more often, with disease.
Protecting stupidity from the consequences of its own stupidity, is an intervention which only serves to breed more stupidity.
If you protect a mutation, woman, you ensure its continuance.
Take the
Douche-Bag and his "you confuse truth for belief" or "the cup is on the table" as the prime example...or take the
British Princess with her gossipy gossip and her credential reports and her height and weight and bust size insinuation as a live example of what I am saying.
Do you know why I love these forums, woman?
It's because I do not really need to make much of an argument or show external evidence, since this forum provides it for me real-time.
See, the retard shows how retarded and emasculated he is simply with the bent of his replies.
Take the
Douche-Bag, again.
He's differentiated the human concept of
Truth from the human concept of
Belief in his mind, even if truth makes no sense outside the human mind and is always a declaration of belief.
When someone speaks of a truth he is expressing his convictions, his beliefs, his opinions, his perspective...see how many words can substitute the concept?
There are nuances involved, obviously, like how
God and
particle both share many attributes except that one is anthropomorphic while the other is not.
Here are some words that can stand-in for the
absent absolute:
Thing, Particle, Complete, Omniscient, Omnipotent, thing-in-itself, here, now, self, one and of course
God.
All denote the same absence, but merely give it a new twist, a subtle divergence, or they apply it within a different context.
For example take the terms
sexual role and
gender role: both imply the same behavior, yet one applies it within a natural context and the other within a social one...and each has its own set of symbols.
Most often the same concepts are given a different twist and then given a new symbol.
For example in the case of
truth it is always in reference to a person's perspective. There is no such thing as a truth just lying around out there.
You can't say "Hey look!! the truth" like you can say "Hey look a tree!!"
The word truth is always an evaluation of a mental abstraction and so it always refers to the validity or accuracy of the mental abstraction.
The word is used to refer to a man's beliefs and convictions. Truth always refers back to a man's perspective and the abstractions that govern it and the judgments that come from it.
The only way around this is to presume yourself outside existence, from some Godly perspective, where the entire of the universe, all all that it contains, how presumptuous indeed, is laid down before you, in one neat, static package.
In other words one must extricate one's self from reality in order to call this reality a whole, or a truth, or a God or a universe.
even the idea of a uni-verse is now under assault as
multiverse is being thrown around.
But the retards aside, little woman, (I hear queers and steers come form Oregon) let us return to your
perspectivism run awry.
This is a position I've faced many times before, and it is based on a gross misunderstanding of its
Nietzschesque origins.
The idea that all opinions, all convictions, all truths, all perspectives, are equally valid because only the individual is affected by them, fails to consider the fact that most of these convictions are mind-candy which few men abide by and only share to pass the time or pretend they are well-read and sophisticated and intelligent.
In Nietzsche's case the usage of the term was an attempt to explain how many can live within the same world and still hold onto vastly different views about it. It was NOT an attempt to equalize all views under the heading
Human.
In most cases the underlying morays and convictions are common, allowing the multitudes of mediocre turds, to simply indulge in some word-play with no personal ramifications, because none of them will ever suffer the consequences of his or her failed judgments or his or her weak mind's assumptions.
They all share the same basic principles, which involve shared weaknesses and delusions, and so they can explore any possibility with the coolness of a snake...because none of it really impacts them directly.
Even Christians go to Church on Sundays, begging for forgiveness for all the sins they'll enjoy succumbing to the other six days of the weak.
Let us return it to your two guys with two mental models metaphor, shall we?
Now, let's say that one guy,
guy1, has a clear, but not complete, understanding of air-dynamics and has observed birds in flight and he has a hypothesis as to how to build a device to soar over a canyon.
Let us say the second guy,
guy2, has faith that if he prays hard enough his God his help him levitate over the canyon.
Both believe their hypothesis is correct; both think that what they say is truth and that this will soon be proven; both have mental models concerning nature and how the world works - they have particular world-views.
If both simply go to on-line forums to share their beliefs about what is true and what is not, content to simply debate it endlessly with no personal ramifications involved and simply playing with words to feel not as stupid as they really are, then they can both go to bed every night content that they know the truth.
But if they choose to test their hypotheses then one of them will not survive the test...and perhaps neither will.
This is the scientific method, the empirical method of evaluating which hypothesis, which truth, which conviction and belief is superior to the other.
But, of course, in politics and in philosophy, there are ideas which are abstract...such as freedom and masculinity and existence and so on.
Here no easy and decisive test is available, opening the door to any absurdity imaginable, even a
Douche-Bag who indulges in word-games to pretend he has a more complex understanding of reality, when all he is doing is playing with himself...or a
British Princess who thinks a piece of paper and communal agreement makes him and his opinions more valuable.
In this case there is another method.
How do we evaluate which perspective is more or less likely to be closer to a more precise understanding of a dynamic world?
I say this because in reality all is fluid and so what holds true today may not hold true tomorrow....in this case and with genius it has to do with time.
This, by itself, explains why consciousness is also a process which must always test itself and upgrade itself.
The more valuable idea and/or mind is the one offering the most advantages over a longer time-period.
In fact all value can be traced back to this formula.
So, the hypothesis of
guy1 and
guy2 should be evaluated in two ways, since it cannot be evaluated by throwing both over a cliff:
The sensual connections of each position to an ongoing reality must be shown to be more numerous or more concrete in each case, or one must use each hypothesis to make predictions concerning the future.
We might say that the difference between fantasy and fact is in how each hypothesis or world-view corresponds to an ongoing sensually perceived world.
A horse is factual and a unicorn is fantasy because one has a more tenuous grasp of reality and the abstraction has few or no references to the outside world.
If fantasy becomes more detached from reality then it turns into what is called "delusion" or "illusion".
In the wild this condition of detachment leads to a quick end.
Guy2 might stick his head in the sand and pretend the lion is not coming, but this will not save him...his delusion, and stupidity will only increase the possibility of him suffering severe consequences. He might have faith and a strong belief and claim that his belief is true, and still this will not save him, unless there is some external factor, like an institution, a system, a society, present to defend him from his own genetic weaknesses...only to perpetuate them indefinitely.
Got something to say to me then say it but please stop gossiping about me.