Son of the Dragon wrote:
Why worry about the end? It takes away from the journey.
The experience of the journey is all we really have. And we only have that for a moment.
2012 isn't the end of the world, Mayans insist
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 hmcclungiii |
|||
|
Posts: 429 (10/16/09 08:39:57) |
The experience of the journey is all we really have. And we only have that for a moment. |
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/16/09 17:15:49) |
In each moment, we have a certain momentum, and we can change that momentum by applying some force. This means that we can to some degree control ( or
experience the illusion of controlling ) our own trajectories -- and hence our journeys. A small force persistently applied for some time can result in a large
difference in trajectory. If we don't apply any force at all -- or apply a force in a wrong direction -- we may soon crash into a much more massive
entity, and our individualized trajectory will no longer exist. "I am a strange loop."
Last Edited By: Moebius Duck
10/16/09 17:26:09.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/16/09 17:30:22) |
hmcclungiii wrote:Thank you very much, sir. I really appreciate your frankness ( no irony intended ). 
"I am a strange loop."
|
||
|
hmcclungiii |
|||
|
Posts: 429 (10/16/09 17:45:48) |
I'm glad it is appreciated. But there is more irony within than you understand without.
|
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/16/09 22:00:54) |
No problem ( for me, anyway ). I don't mind honest expressions of feelings or opinions -- whatever they may happen to be. What I do not appreciate are
attempts to deceive me, or to apply a double standard. For example: Dan Rowden's attempts to convince me that that "Great Debate" had actually
occurred, and his complaining about my using irony, sarcasm or satire as a means of getting my points across, in spite of the fact that that "Great
Debate" is exactly that: a satire. At least, Kelly Jones was honest enough to admit that that "Great Debate" is indeed a satire, and that it
never actually occurred. On the other hand, Kelly threatened to ban me, whereas Dan stated that just ignoring me was a better idea.
Last Edited By: Moebius Duck
10/16/09 22:13:34.
Edited 5 times.
|
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 150 (10/16/09 23:31:03) |
Duckster, Dan was being ironic/sarcastic when he told you that the Great Debate actually occurred - he wasn't trying to deceive you. Seriously, I know him.
|
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/16/09 23:56:52) |
hmcclungiii wrote: hmcclungiii wrote:???--------??? 
Ahhhh... finally ( I think ) I understand what you really meant with your second quote. Your first quote was not an honest expression of a feeling or an opinion. Instead, it was an honest attempt to subject my goddam "intrinsically harmless, meaningless, powerless pixel pattern" hypothesis to a rigorous scientific test! 
If this interpretation is correct, it means that you are the first one who has really grokked the point which I have been trying to make for several years -- the point which those "geniuses" at that other site missed --- perhaps because they were too focused on their dishonest attempts to deceive me. An illustration of the "strange loops" about which Douglas Hofstadter talks in his books, and the reason why I have included a Möbius strip in my avatar.
"I am a strange loop."
|
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/17/09 00:42:07) |
Laird Shaw wrote:I'm not so sure. As far as I'm concerned, Dan still needs to prove himself. Seems to me that Dan definitely crossed the fine dividing line between sarcasm and deception. If friendship has any meaning at all, one takes pains to make sure that one's friends don't misinterpret one's sarcasm as an attempt to deceive them. And how can true friendship be possible without empathy? Why all that effort at Dan&company's sites to badmouth empathy? Seems to me that their ideology is very similar to that of Ayn Rand's followers, who claim to base their ideology strictly on pure logic and reason, and badmouth altruism. No, I can't believe that Dan&company regard me as their friend. That doesn't mean that I don't regard them as my friends. It means that I regard them as seriously misguided friends. Perhaps they can manage to live without friends -- I certainly can't. Rather than pursuing some deadly serious esoteric recipe for enlightenment, they should lighten up and learn how to laugh at themselves. That "Ha,Ha,Ha" mantra has been thoroughly tested and shown to not only lengthen our probable lifespan, but also make our years more enjoyable.
Last Edited By: Moebius Duck
10/18/09 18:01:52.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 150 (10/17/09 13:59:44) |
Duckster, as I wrote earlier, Dan & co don't believe in conventional friendship fullstop... or at least that's what they say. They seem to be
perfectly fine with friendliness though.
Sorry to say that I think the dividing line between sarcasm and deception has been crossed in your mind only, due to lack of familiarity with Dan's style. He's a wisecracker, a punster and a jokester, and whilst he might not laugh at himself as you suggest, he frequently takes the piss out of the things that other people say. Perhaps he could have been more empathetic towards you, but ... well, empathy isn't very MASCULINE is it? ;-) |
||
|
Sherezada |
|||
|
Posts: 2437 (10/17/09 14:11:51) Persian princess |
Dan does laugh at himself, Laird. I'm surprised you don't know that.
Caminante, no hay camino sino estelas en la mar. |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 150 (10/17/09 14:13:11) |
Yeah, he does, but not in the context of his philosophy: he takes that completely seriously.
|
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/18/09 00:11:07) |
Laird Shaw wrote:How's that any different from my regarding whatever other people write and say as being meaningless pixel patterns and sound bites UNTIL ( are you paying attention, hmcc? ) I choose my own interpretation of those pixel patterns and
sound bytes? Does that mean that I should assume that my own writings and sayings will never be interpreted by anybody else as being
intrinsically pissful, and that therefore nobody will get pissed off after reading or hearing those writings or sayings of mine?
Apparently, Dan doesn't care a hoot if anybody gets pissed off after reading or hearing his words. Well, he can find out for himself how that attitude is going to benefit him in the world we happen to inhabit: a world in which most people are ready to get pissed off and overreact whenever they perceive the slightest instance of whatever they interpret to be a provocation. Also, Dan should heed the moral of the tale of the boy who cried wolf one time too many. Should Dan in the future say to me: "Please help me, a pack of Tasmanian devils is about to devour me!!!"  , I'm going to immediately think:
"I'm sure that he must be joking. He's in no danger at all. Even if it were true that a pack of Tasmanian devils was attacking him, his INFINITE
MASCULINITY would protect him from any harm. He would be able to single-handedly ward off the attack, even if he was 100 years old. 
Last Edited By: Moebius Duck
10/18/09 00:41:08.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/18/09 00:31:16) |
Laird, what do you think Sher should think about somebody ( can't remember who ) who recently ( can't remember when ) posted somewhere ( can't
remember where ) that Sher was something ( can't remember what ) ?
Last Edited By: Moebius Duck
10/18/09 00:45:57.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 150 (10/18/09 16:30:24) |
Ducky, I don't have an opinion on what Sher should think about what other people post about her - that's her business.
I can't recall the details of the thread that you're referring to (which was on another board, iirc), but it seems that pixel patterns were being perceived as both meaningful and harmful. |
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/18/09 18:41:50) |
Laird Shaw wrote:Indeed. And you hit the nail squarely on the head when you wrote "were being perceived as" rather than "were". Most people seem to automatically perceive such pixel patterns, when they are being directed at them, as "being" by themselves meaningful and harmful, rather being perceived by them as being intrinsically meaningful and harmful. In case somebody is still missing my ( and apparently now also Laird's ) viewpoint, please consider the following illustration: I'm completely ignorant of the Mandarin language. Suppose that somebody wrote the equivalent of "Ducky is a son of a bitch" in the Mandarin language. Suppose I were to see the corresponding ideograms being displayed in a computer monitor. Would there be any reason for me to feel offended as soon as I perceived that pixel pattern? Now suppose that I was completely ignorant of the English language, and I saw the actual words "Ducky is a son of a bitch" being displayed in a computer monitor. Why should there be any difference between this case and the preceding case, as far as my subsequent feelings is concerned? The point is that our responses to pixel patterns are learned rather than inborn. And we ( or, if you insist, at least some of us ) have the potential, through reasoning, to unlearn responses which we have found out not to be in our own best interests. And this realization could contibute to making this world a better world. A win-win situation for both the senders and the receivers of pixel patterns and sound bites. What more could we ask for?
Last Edited By: Moebius Duck
10/18/09 18:46:22.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Sherezada |
|||
|
Posts: 2437 (10/18/09 18:58:35) Persian princess |
L,
His philosophy, yes. But laughing (or failing to laugh) at his philosophy is very different than laughing at himself. Caminante, no hay camino sino estelas en la mar. |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 150 (10/18/09 20:21:01) |
Ducky, how does intention figure into your perspective?
Sher, fair enough. |
||
|
Naturyl |
|||
|
Posts: 11874 (10/19/09 02:57:07) Ozymandias |
I'm going to immediately think: "I'm sure that he must be joking. He's in no danger at all. Even if it were true that a pack of Tasmanian devils was attacking him, his INFINITE MASCULINITY would protect him from any harm. He would be able to single-handedly ward off the attack, even if he was 100 years old. I'm afraid you are suffering a bout of confusion, old bird. You must be thinking of me here. Except, of course, that rather than a pack of Tasmanian devils, it would be a pack of Alabamian Bible-loving patriots. But aren't the latter really much more dangerous? |
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/19/09 08:48:28) |
Laird Shaw wrote:I'll let the receivers of "my" pixel patterns figure that one out.
"I am a strange loop."
|
||
|
Moebius Duck |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (10/19/09 08:50:17) |
Naturyl wrote:Indeed. For the purposes of my illustration, please pick whichever danger you consider to be the worst. I'm sure the Nietzschean Superman will be able to easily handle it unassisted.
"I am a strange loop."
Last Edited By: Moebius Duck
10/19/09 10:25:07.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
>
