(no subject)

[ineffabelle]

hmm. I don't even know where to begin really.

I guess that's why I've lived my life 'in media res'...
but so few get me.

And it's not anything, just luck. Because I've never laid out my first principles, my roots, to anyone.
I've hinted, but my idea of hinting doesn't line up with what most people think of.

So here it is:
1. The world is fundamentally rational.
2. We have a flawed and blurry conception of it. All of us.
3. Everything that has been touched by human minds is made-up and artificial.
4. There's nothing wrong with that.
5. Life has no purpose that we need to care about. Fuck Mr. DNA.
6. No one is better than anyone, unless they violate someone else's envelope, in which case they have lowered themselves voluntarily, by definition.
7. Most things people believe in are utter bullshit.

Comments

[pharminatrix.livejournal.com]

I think this is a good place to start. "Believing" is always tricky and suspect space.

[ineffabelle]

skepticism is the only salvation, IMO.

Octave

[lhasa7.livejournal.com]

http://alchemicalpsychology.com/book/contents.htm#8

Re: Octave

[ineffabelle]

Solve Et Coagula.

heheh. Yeah.

[polydad.livejournal.com]

My own takes, or responses to, your points:

1. I'm not sure. The world *exists*; rationality is an attribute of thinking. Some parts of the world think; most of it doesn't. Are we in the same ballpark, here?

2. Seems likely.

3. Everything human minds have *perceived* about the world may be made-up and artificial; us having screwy perceptions doesn't change the nature of the thing(s) we've perceived.

4. Agreed.

5. We invent our own purposes; I think you and I are in substantial agreement here. Fucking is how Mr. DNA *got* here; repeating the process is likely to be productive in exactly the sense you're apparently trying to avoid. Humor aside, one can as well choose spreading one's DNA as a purpose as anything else, but it's no inherently better or worse than any other purpose.

6. Referent missing: Better than anyone else at, or about, what? The implied root that people are very often much too quick to rush to make judgments when they don't know what they're judging or why, agreed.

7. No; bullshit is useful fertilizer. Most human belief systems don't have that virtue.

best,

Joel

good response!

[ineffabelle]

1. I think what I meant was that the world follows some sort of inexorable logic.
3. My most used example of this is that "pizza" doesn't exist until we decide there is such a thing.
5. That's a good extension of my basic point, and you caught the hidden reference, which is neat. :)
6. The missing referent is the point, as you said, people tend to think of hierarchy without context.
7. If you mean that there's not enough room allowed for bs-ing in most belief systems, I'll agree.
But my idea on that one is basically that when people start to think they "know" how things work, they start to know less and less about them.
It's a sort of science or religion point, but not necessarily just in that context, because science has become a religion to many people these days too. And religion has strayed from offering metaphors and metaphysics to trying to explain the mechanical parts, and that just doesn't work.

Re: good response!

[polydad.livejournal.com]

1. I think it's called physics.
3. I'm not sure, here. The English word "pizza" has a commonly agreed-upon referent, and a thin bread covered with cheese and tomato sauce is a case-example of the class referred to by the referent. I've yet to hear of pizza coming into existence without human action, but assuming a pizza exists, it can do so regardless of, for example, my knowledge of or decisions about its existence. In short, it doesn't require my permission to exist.
5. Thank you.
6. We agree! Celebration!
7. The insufficient BS tolerance is an extension of what I'd been saying rather than a part of it, but I agree with your extension.

Arrogance is a common human failing, agreed. I'm good at it, as a subset of learning how to fail properly. I get the most novel learning experiences that way...

I regretfully agree that many people treat science as dogma, which is self-contradictory. They unfortunately fail to disappear in poofs of self-refutory logic.

Religion has at this point mutated so much I'm no longer sure what it is. If you've got a concise definition, I'm all ears. Eyes. Whatever.

best,

Joel

[xpaerimtlslaekv.livejournal.com]

Yes, root...is definitely my root(and greatest lov) as well: #1..is the universe is inherentlyrationael[pragmaetic architecturael]...
And yes, accuracy of power[creation ]is perfectli perpendicular[as I too see as spacemummy and bibble has seen that lov is perpendicular, but it is the creation from that lov the expression, and precise power[the meta-pragmatic state] that it entirely perpendicular, as the precise new expression from that love has no innacurate fields mitigating its path..[Which is why pure art and pure engineeing is the highest form of accuracy..in........
just as pure systems are entirely [without any exterior values to it such as symbology or....]'valueless' in[non [r] essence] existential[essential ethic[meaning][altering its path][or as you have said of 'purpose', they hold to the pure ethics of pragmatics[pure systems] all true is inherent within such...... viscerael impressions.
which is why engineering and direct art.. be the precise-ist form of interrupt relays instrict trelaeys...[it is the pure lov, and pure viscerael states, and pragmatic that is the ethic....... such that pure systems are the purest form of observance of relations in ethic....
as energy directly instreases into form, [moresothan words]other than nmeumonic acrobatics[y'all are so presicely gorgeous at....

other than auditory nmeumonic [interruptrelays..[tendrels tre[u]ncating]perfect precise preterbaetions intoform