Reply to Jamal This comment does seem consistent with what I've said regarding all is metaphor in a way because it suggests a hidden underlying meaning that the language cannot fully convey, so, like art, words (and punctuation) are just representations of a deeper reality that we grasp at understanding.
Whether this is what Adorno actually means, I don't know. I only read this small passage and it was provided not for its substance, but instead to celebrate the em dash, an oft overlooked punctuation mark.
Mainly I liked the idea of punctuation marks as friendly spirits. The quotation gets across how punctuation feels to me: something that has its own logic, internal to language and not directly involved in communication (because for example, a semi-colon can be replaced with a full stop with no loss of meaning).
So on its own I don't think it supports your mysticism, although it's probably consistent with it.
Mainly I liked the idea of punctuation marks as friendly spirits. The quotation gets across how punctuation feels to me: something that has its own logic, internal to language and not directly involved in communication (because for example, a semi-colon can be replaced with a full stop with no loss of meaning).
I do think the semi-colon says something different. If used correctly, it identifies the sophistication of the author. Other than that, the same can be said of words, as in H20 versus water. That too can be argued to be different for the same reason the semi-colon and the period are different in that it says something of the sophistication of the author.
And this leads to synonymity and analytic/synthetic conversations that were never intended.
Misspelled words are an interesting example. They have the exact same referent and the exact same intended meaning, yet they convey something different to the reader. That's an interesting thought I just had.
I did like you calling me a mystic, and thanks for the bday wishes. And please don't clarify that you didn't call me a mystic. It's my birthday. That's what I wanted to hear.
Instead of diligently serving the interplay between language and the reader, they serve, hieroglyphically, an interplay that takes place in the interior of language, along its own pathways. Hence it is superfluous to omit them as being superfluous: then they simply hide. Every text, even the most densely woven, cites them of its own accord — friendly spirits whose bodiless presence nourishes the body of language.
— Adorno, Punctuation Marks
I interpret the Adorno quote as saying punctuation represents something that is present in the text even if it isn't explicitly expressed in the form of a mark on the page - something inherent in the nature of the language used rather than something provided by the writer. He says it's useless to omit them because they will only hide - they'll still be there even if unexpressed. Perhaps I've got that wrong.
Mainly I liked the idea of punctuation marks as friendly spirits. The quotation gets across how punctuation feels to me: something that has its own logic, internal to language and not directly involved in communication (because for example, a semi-colon can be replaced with a full stop with no loss of meaning).
I don't get this. Most punctuation represents some sort of pause in the sentence. It sets the rhythm of the text. As I experience it, different marks represent different lengths but also different tones, moods, and inflections of pause. Different punctuation can have as much effect on the meaning of a text as the words themselves.
Most punctuation represents some sort of pause in the sentence. It sets the rhythm of the text. As I experience it, different marks represent different lengths but also different tones, moods, and inflections of pause. Different punctuation can have as much effect on the meaning of a text as the words themselves.
I agree, and I admit it would take some work to show how this isn't contradictory.
I feel the tantalizing presence, off in the distance across a chaotic chasm of confusion, of a happy synthesis combining all of our views, even @Hanover’s. Is it just a mirage? I am certain it is not.
One angle is that I was describing how my own use of punctuation felt to me. I don’t deny that punctuation marks have meaning or serve communication, only that this does not feel direct to me; it’s more like an emergent property of an inner logic. When I use a dash instead of a semi-colon, what matters is how the two thoughts relate to each other, and this determines the choice of mark. It’s not that I think, “I want the reader to pause here and expect a supporting aside,” but that I’m seeking the right structure, and I choose the dash not because of what it represents but because of what it is in the system (say, an interruption).
Adorno’s use of “hieroglyphic” might be the key to unlocking this box of worms. On its own, a hieroglyph might as well be an arbitrary sign, but in fact it is not: it has its own logical relation to other hieroglyphs, independent of the meaning it communicates.
I do think the semi-colon says something different.
Yes, I withdraw my parenthetical comment stating that a semi-colon can be replaced with a full stop with no loss of meaning. Even if it’s often true, I don’t think it supports the point I was trying to make.
And another thing. What do you think and feel when you see bad punctuation? Me, I don’t just think, oh, they haven’t communicated possession according to standards. It feels more like an offence or a violation of the sacred orthographic order (the inner logic), or like leaving a banana skin on the summit of a Scottish mountain (true story).
I feel the tantalizing presence, off in the distance across a chaotic chasm of confusion, of a happy synthesis combining all of our views, even Hanover’s. Is it just a mirage? I am certain it is not.
While i haven't always shared in your awe of the punctuation, it is impossible not to get swept away in your excitement, realizing that it's not just a dream, but a real liklihood that simple marks will become a vehicle for bridging what otherwise appeared irreconcilable differences, bringing forth an era of peace.
While this may sound hyperbolic and sarcastic, I assure you it's not -- hold on -- of course it is, but how fitting the em dash tells us that! And who are you little friend? Is that the exclamation point with its sudden emphasis! Yes, yes it is! They've all come out for the celebration!
I say this not to belittle, because to even mention the honorable punctuation in the same sentence as the snotty nosed emoji is to take a shit in the ark of the covenant, but is there a case to be made that punctuation is an ancient form of the emoji?
is there a case to be made that punctuation is an ancient form of the emoji?
That is fertile ground, I expect.
[quote= McDonald L. Making Sense of Emoji;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/making-sense-of-emoji/C3BB28E1E63D38032A7BAC33F2193DB9] I argue that emoji have at least three communicative functions. Firstly, they can serve a replicative function, in that they can play the same role as words and punctuation, thereby replicating the function of existing written communicative devices. Secondly, they can serve a compensatory function, in the sense that they can be used to make up for features of face-to-face conversation which are lost in written online conversation. Thirdly, they can serve supplementary functions, in that we can perform new communicative acts with emoji which we could not previously perform either in written or face-to-face communication.[/quote]
I’m desperate to know more about that third function, but I don’t have access to read it. :cry:
I liked your composition so much I couldn’t resist. And I thought the foreground detail would be a good challenge for me.
I knew I recognized that from somewhere. Hey. How about this one.
An old place from time immemorial.
Surely, a man of your, clearly proven to me, fortitude, strategy, and craft, can create something from or of this? Or can you? Only the times will tell. :grin:
Thirdly, they can serve supplementary functions, in that we can perform new communicative acts with emoji which we could not previously perform either in written or face-to-face communication.
Let us speculate as to what they might be. For example, you cried rivers of tears in your latest emoji, but they were sarcastic tears, suggesting you really weren't quite as distraught and suicidal as they made you appear. The question is whether that could have been done sans (that's French for without) emoji.
So here's how it might happen. Your wife would say, "Babycakes, how bout we go get us some supper down at the meat and 3. I done burned the stroganoff while I was getting a shower," and you'd be a bit upset not to have that home cooked meal, and you'd want her to know that you so love her stroganoff, so you'd say, "Awww shit, I ain't now gonna have none that noodles n meatsuace like you make" and then you'd cry as in the emoji.
My suggestion is that it would be exceedingly difficult to produce that level of tears in a way that replicated the emoji, and if you did, it would be alarming, almost as alarming as your sudden Appalachian dialect.
DifferentiatingEggMay 22, 2025 at 18:11#9897010 likes
One angle is that I was describing how my own use of punctuation felt to me.
Yes. I am doing the same. That's true of almost everything I post here on the forum. For me, philosophy is about self-awareness - awareness of how my mind works. It almost all comes out of introspection. Reasoning comes afterwards.
When I use a dash instead of a semi-colon, what matters is how the two thoughts relate to each other, and this determines the choice of mark. It’s not that I think, “I want the reader to pause here and expect a supporting aside,” but that I’m seeking the right structure, and I choose the dash not because of what it represents but because of what it is in the system (say, an interruption).
And this is exactly how everything I write feels. There is no conscious decision. Things flow from somewhere inside directly onto the screen unless I get lost. Then I might have to sit back and cogitate more formally.
Adorno’s use of “hieroglyphic” might be the key to unlocking this box of worms. On its own, a hieroglyph might as well be an arbitrary sign, but in fact it is not: it has its own logical relation to other hieroglyphs, independent of the meaning it communicates.
And another thing. What do you think and feel when you see bad punctuation? Me, I don’t just think, oh, they haven’t communicated possession according to standards. It feels more like an offence or a violation of the sacred orthographic order (the inner logic), or like leaving a banana skin on the summit of a Scottish mountain (true story).
Bad punctuation by others doesn't bother me as much as misuse of words or bad grammar. For me, those undermine the credibility of the writer. Punctuation less so. I do hate overuse of exclamation points - "I think they should only be used in dialog!" he screamed.
While this may sound hyperbolic and sarcastic, I assure you it's not -- hold on -- of course it is, but how fitting the em dash tells us that! And who are you little friend? Is that the exclamation point with its sudden emphasis! Yes, yes it is! They've all come out for the celebration!
As I noted in my post to @Jamal, exclamation points do not belong in philosophy except, perhaps, ironically.
AI can come up with (already known) abstract models from observations, double pendulum motions.
Say, feed telescope data to AI, and see if it can come up with anything.
And this is exactly how everything I write feels. There is no conscious decision.
But not with this:
Things flow from somewhere inside directly onto the screen unless I get lost. Then I might have to sit back and cogitate more formally.
It's not like that for me. It's not coming just "from somewhere inside." Here is something I wrote on TPF 10 years ago in the "Extended Mind" monthly reading:
As some of you know, I broke my left arm two weeks ago. I'm right-handed so I haven't been as disabled as I could have been, but it's still been difficult, and in interesting ways.
The worst thing has been typing, because not only am I a web developer, but I've also been setting up and trying to participate in this new forum. It's difficult not merely in the physical sense, but in the way it seems to block my entire being-as-developer or being-as-writer. I open up a forum discussion with the intention of contributing, but I find I cannot think about it without my hands at the ready in the normal way. Similarly with my work, I can keep on top of the small everyday tasks that come up, but I cannot bring my self to bear on the meatier problems. I've got bugs to fix and new features to implement, but I can't get in the zone. When I'm in the zone I'm constantly switching between various windows and using special key strokes to manipulate code. My cognition, normally, seamlessly involves my brain, hands, keyboard, and the objects on my computer screen.
I can achieve these things, given time, but the extra effort degrades the quality of the work, I feel like I only have a superficial hold on the problem, and I feel like I'm not in control. More importantly, I most often struggle to get going in the first place.
It is not that I know what to do--have it all planned out "in my head"--and feel frustrated that my body is not in a fit state to cooperate. This is not how it is at all. I actually cannot plan or think well without my familiar powers of movement. When I'm in the zone, I pounce on the computer and throw myself into a problem, and these words are not merely metaphorical--there is a real sense in which I move physically, however slightly, in postures of attack or careful exploration (it's not just my hands).
If you actually got through all that gibberish and waffle, first, congratulations, and second, what you can maybe see is that I don't think it's a matter of one-way expression of something inside, but more like a reciprocal engagement. I was talking about bodily engagement, but it can apply to an engagement with a system of signs like language.
So to make that relevant to the task at had, what I say is that the system of signs and meanings I'm engaging with has a ready-made structure that pushes and pulls me in certain directions. Artists and musicians often talk about the feeling of channeling or tapping into something greater, perhaps something transcendent or at least primal and unconscious. This is the kind of feeling I mean, roughly. @Hanover will be nodding along in furious agreement at this point.
Adorno’s use of “hieroglyphic” might be the key to unlocking this box of worms. On its own, a hieroglyph might as well be an arbitrary sign, but in fact it is not: it has its own logical relation to other hieroglyphs, independent of the meaning it communicates.
The letter ? is an entirely arbitrary sign. In the Russian alphabet it just happens to stand for the voiced postalveolar fricative, i.e., the zh sound, as in the middle of closure—but it might have stood for another sound. The same principle applies to all letters in all alphabets (and even where there are semi-exceptions, like the character O (which looks like the mouth looks when some of the sounds it stands for are made by people), the arbitrariness principle is still primary).
But hieroglyphs, while also importantly arbitrary in their use, are also iconic representations. The sun symbol can stand for a consonant sound, but it can also stand for the sun, because it looks like the sun. So when I said that the hieroglyph has its own logical relation to others, I meant that it has a place in a system, and that this is primary. Meaning emerges from that, but in a sense indirectly. In using a hieroglyph one's choices are first and foremost determined by that system, and the effect on the reader pops out: the system has done most of the work.
The idea is that punctuation is like this. A dash might represent an interruption, but underlying that, it also looks like, or even is, an interruption, on the page. Or a semicolon: it represents something to the reader, but it also has a systemic relation to other punctuation marks as part-way between a colon and a comma.
And the point of that is to say that in choosing a punctuation mark there is no direct utilitarian decision about what we want the reader to think, because punctuation is more than utilitarian—it has its own concerns.
I hope you appreciate the research I did for that.
Bad punctuation by others doesn't bother me as much as misuse of words or bad grammar. For me, those undermine the credibility of the writer. Punctuation less so. I do hate overuse of exclamation points - "I think they should only be used in dialog!" he screamed.
Yes, it's subjective. But I think you know what I meant, because you used the word "hate". There is something more than registering an unconventional usage—it's more visceral.
Let us speculate as to what they might be. For example, you cried rivers of tears in your latest emoji, but they were sarcastic tears, suggesting you really weren't quite as distraught and suicidal as they made you appear. The question is whether that could have been done sans (that's French for without) emoji.
So here's how it might happen. Your wife would say, "Babycakes, how bout we go get us some supper down at the meat and 3. I done burned the stroganoff while I was getting a shower," and you'd be a bit upset not to have that home cooked meal, and you'd want her to know that you so love her stroganoff, so you'd say, "Awww shit, I ain't now gonna have none that noodles n meatsuace like you make" and then you'd cry as in the emoji.
My suggestion is that it would be exceedingly difficult to produce that level of tears in a way that replicated the emoji, and if you did, it would be alarming, almost as alarming as your sudden Appalachian dialect.
True story.
My lachrymose rivers were not entirely ironic. I was genuinely sad when the abstract hooked me and then I couldn't find out how it went.
This is the kind of feeling I mean, roughly. Hanover will be nodding along in furious agreement at this point.
So much so I have herniated a disk from whiplash, reading as if listening to heavy metal.
I compare your difficulty communicating through your broken hand as if having to speak in a foreign language, having the thought, yet having to consciously process how it is conveyed.
In fact, I find that comparison so insightful, I am tempted to call it a day, unable to pierce that standard I've now set.
"Pierce" you ask? Yes, to pierce is to puncture, and to puncture is to punctuate.
I just outsightfulled myself, but that felt more planned than Eurekaed. Little of both probably.Quoting Jamal
because punctuation is more than utilitarian—it has its own concerns.
This I like. The personification of the mark, giving its own concerns, like a comma wandering about, in search of a statement to slow down, to chill it a notch, so it doesn't just spill out in a manic burst.
A period is like a schoolmarm, strictly putting an end to nonsense. She arrives just in time, usually once a month. Always room for a menstrual joke, right guys?
I compare your difficulty communicating through your broken hand as if having to speak in a foreign language, having the thought, yet having to consciously process how it is conveyed.
In fact, I find that comparison so insightful, I am tempted to call it a day, unable to pierce that standard I've now set.
This I like. The personification of the mark, giving its own concerns, like a comma wandering about, in search of a statement to slow down, to chill it a notch, so it doesn't just spill out in a manic burst.
A period is like a schoolmarm, strictly putting an end to nonsense. She arrives just in time, usually once a month. Always room for a menstrual joke, right guys?
Good stuff. Reminds me of what Adorno said just before the bit I quoted earlier:
[quote=Punctuation Marks]An exclamation point looks like an index finger raised in warning; a question mark looks like a flashing light or the blink of an eye. A colon, says Karl Kraus, opens its mouth wide: woe to the writer who does not fill it with something nourishing. Visually, the semicolon looks like a drooping moustache; I am even more aware of its gamey taste. With self-satisfied peasant cunning, German quotation marks [» «] lick their lips.[/quote]
Another thought I had was that of the cantillation mark, which is a form of punctuation I would think, but what I think is that everything is on a continuum and everything is a blurred line.
The cantillation mark tells one how to sing the torah passages, but they'd generally be useless when reading to one's self, although maybe they say something about what is being read. Perhaps that's more akin to Asian emphasis marks, of which some also exist in English. However, one might assume that differing emphasis marks indicate different meanings entirely, so then it becomes a matter of direct semantical importance. But maybe that happens with punctuation too I'm sure in some contexts. All this seems different from the cantillation sing song notes though. But then I think of musical notes generally. They are a form of language, and they have meaning insofar as they communicate the song. So if I put musical notes with the words underneath, are the musical notes what you'd think of as supplementary language, a parallel language, or punctuation? Perhaps it could vary. Like if the music reached a crecendo, maybe that'd be like a really powerful exclammation point.
I feel I'm rambling, like I'm having a manic episode over punctuation. The stakes are high on this, so I guess that's why I'm obsessing.
That’s a good avenue. Punctuation marks shape rhythm and breathing, and that ties everything back to T Clark:
God Damnit! Now you sparked all sorts of other issues. Punctuation cannot just be about rhythm and breathing, but it serves a major organizational function. Imagine a book without any puctuation, and even consider one without ordered pages, no paragraphs, no spaces between words and on and on and on. All of those things are arguably punctuation. We're ordering it so we can read it, not so we can dance with its ryhthm.
And then you have the emerging issue of electronic books, adhering to antiquated technology related to page numbers. There are no more pages though! What now? Are we going to have electronic books in 100 years and have page numbers and no one will even know what a page meant. How big are we going to standardize a "page" to be when all electronic?
Will this ever end? Will we one day reference where the words are in the cloud? And that's full circle. Are we talking about the firmament again, right where we started.
And this free association thing I do. When will it end?? Just because I'm reminded of something doesn't mean it has to be said. Jesus fucking Christ.
I always edit my posts after I write them. And sometimes after I post them. Sometimes I change things around, fix the spellings, or change the grammar or punctuation, but I always take out at least two “that”s.
My posts are like contemporary jazz. I sort of learn what they're going to say as they say it, and I never go back and change them, else that would be an attack on the free flow creativity that is the hallmark of my philosowisdom, with neologisms scattered about like hash browns at your local diner, smothered with cheese and onions. Sometimes what comes from the grill is burnt and charred, but other times, the deliciousness swims off the greasy spoon and into your lap, hot and bothersome, but exactly where it belongs.
I don't think I'll change this post. It came out perfect. Once again.
That’s disgusting, unless, of course, it’s Velveeta.
You know nothing of Waffle House lingo of scattered, smothered, covered, chunked, diced, peppered, capped, topped, or country. I always do scattered, smothered, and covered and occassionally peppered.
You know nothing of Waffle House lingo of scattered, smothered, covered, chunked, diced, peppered, capped, topped, or country. I always do scattered, smothered, and covered and occassionally peppered.
You’re mostly right, but I do know that smothered, covered, capped, and topped all mean the same thing - somebody pours brown gelatinous “gravy” over top.
As some of you know, I broke my left arm two weeks ago. I'm right-handed so I haven't been as disabled as I could have been, but it's still been difficult, and in interesting ways.
This describes an interesting experience. Perhaps I'll break my arm so I can feel what you felt... perhaps not. The closest thing I've experienced I can think of was back in the mid-1990s when we switched over from hand writing documents for someone else to type to typing them ourselves with a word processor. I remember it took a little while to get the words to flow as smoothly as they did when I wrote on yellow legal pads. After a while, though, that difficulty faded. Now I can't imagine having to go back to the old ways.
Artists and musicians often talk about the feeling of channeling or tapping into something greater, perhaps something transcendent or at least primal and unconscious. This is the kind of feeling I mean
And this is exactly the kind of experience I'm describing when I say "Things flow from somewhere inside directly onto the screen..."
But hieroglyphs, while also importantly arbitrary in their use, are also iconic representations. The sun symbol can stand for a consonant sound, but it can also stand for the sun, because it looks like the sun. So when I said that the hieroglyph has its own logical relation to others, I meant that it has a place in a system, and that this is primary. Meaning emerges from that, but in a sense indirectly. In using a hieroglyph one's choices are first and foremost determined by that system, and the effect on the reader pops out: the system has done most of the work.
I don't know what it would feel like to read or write with hieroglyphics or the characters used in China - or American Sign Language for the Deaf I suppose. It is my understanding that, although they originally developed from visual representations, now they represent full words and concepts. That's not so different from how language works for me. I read and write in full words, not letters. I'm not sure the fact letters are arbitrarily attached to sounds as opposed meaningfully attached to words is relevant. I'd really like to know, but not enough to want to learn Chinese.
Punctuation Marks:An exclamation point looks like an index finger raised in warning; a question mark looks like a flashing light or the blink of an eye. A colon, says Karl Kraus, opens its mouth wide: woe to the writer who does not fill it with something nourishing. Visually, the semicolon looks like a drooping moustache; I am even more aware of its gamey taste. With self-satisfied peasant cunning, German quotation marks [» «] lick their lips.
This is not how they feel to me at all. When I write or read a punctuation mark, I feel the pause. I feel the rhythm, the change in meaning, propagating through the sentence.
You know that feeling you have when you press a button, like maybe it's on a remote control, on the dishwasher, or maybe even a doorbell? That's how it feels to me when I press the semicolon key on my typewriter.
This is not how they feel to me at all. When I write or read a punctuation mark, I feel the pause. I feel the rhythm, the change in meaning, propagating through the sentence.
Note that unlike me, he was not talking about how it feels.
The apostrophe is largely responsible for capitalism in both its possessory function , demanding ownership, and its contractionary function, in demanding efficiency.
In capitalist systems, rejection of the apostrophe is apostasy, which is precisely why God made these words similar, including the word apocalyptic, a close cousin, describing how the shit hits the fan.
Enough of my dazzling you with my encyclopediac etymological knowledge for the moment.
I used to always tell people I preferred poppy-seed bagels to sesame-seed bagels, but now my preference has reversed. What's that all about? What has changed? How deep does it go? And what should I do about it, if anything? Should I go on pretending, so as to pre-emptively scotch rumours and comments from friends containing implied but unambiguous accusations, like "you've changed!" or "what's happened to you?"
Yep, I quite like it. Here in Russia it's called Olivier salad, obligatory on New Year's Eve.
A popular but divisive summer "soup" here is okroshka, which is cold diced vegetables, quite similar to what you get in olivier salad, with chilled kvass poured over it. So it's salad in a carbonated soft drink, which is an interesting combination, to put it tactfully.
okroshka, which is cold diced vegetables, quite similar to what you get in olivier salad, with chilled kvass poured over it. So it's salad in a carbonated soft drink, which is an interesting combination, to put it tactfully.
Wow! It is, indeed.
I really like Russian gastronomy.
There were always great Russian restaurants in Madrid, but most of them closed due to the 2020 Covid pandemic. I remember dishes of meat (deer or duck, if I am not mistaken) mixed with blueberries or marmalade. I was reluctant to try it out, but the dish impressed me for good. The restaurant was called 'Rasputin', and some waitresses wore a Russian traditional dress. It was fun to go and eat there.
Sounds fun! On the theme of foreign restaurants, I hope it was better than the Scottish restaurants I found in Seville, Moscow, and Victoria, Canada. In the Canadian one I asked for haggis for breakfast and was told that haggis is not served for breakfast and I said, "Well it is in Scotland!" I could have continued, saying "What kind of Scottish restaurant is this?! I demand haggis!" and so on, but in the end, I'm a regular nice guy.
I used to always tell people I preferred poppy-seed bagels to sesame-seed bagels
There are several foods with poppy-seeds I like but I can not say what poppy seeds actually taste like. It seems like it's the other stuff (like lemon in lemon-poppy seed cake) that makes the item appealing. What do poppy seeds taste like?
I only eat them in bread or cookies. The flavour is clearly distinguishable. However, for unknown reasons, poppy seed cookies tend to be dry. I need to dip them in coffee or milk before eating them.
I used to always tell people I preferred poppy-seed bagels to sesame-seed bagels, but now my preference has reversed. What's that all about?
Growing up, bagel rigidity was expected, but things are more fluid now, particularly in the cities and among the young. You'll find greater acceptance there, and your real friends won't see it as a big deal.
What kind of Scottish restaurant is this?! I demand haggis!" and so on, but in the end, I'm a regular nice guy.
We have a Scottish restaurant here called the Tilted Kilt, or at least we did. They served wings and beer and it was served by young women in very short skirts and shirts, barely containing their breasts. It was very authentic.
Speaking of which, a guy was wearing a kilt at a restaurant near me yesterday, acting like it was no big deal. My only response was to return wearing full traditional Russian wear, dancing to Russian folk music. I let them know what the chaos of anything goes tastes like. @javi2541997.
And really now, who came up with the idea to call food "gastronomy?" Makes it sound gross. Major lack of intuition and foresight on that one. But I suppose things so longstanding are not easily changed. Not like that Gulf of America.
I used to always tell people I preferred poppy-seed bagels to sesame-seed bagels, but now my preference has reversed.
Coincidentally, I’m eating a sesame seed bagel right now.
As for your spiritual issue, Chuang Tzu would say to follow your intrinsic virtuosities, your Te, your heart - or perhaps your stomach in this case. This often happens to me. I’ll do something one way for a long time and then suddenly feel like changing. For example, I often have breakfast and I usually get poached eggs and bacon with an English muffin. Recently, I just started wanting breakfast sandwich on a bagel.
Also, sesame seed bagels are much better than poppyseed bagels, and they won’t cause you to fail drug tests.
For example, I often have breakfast and I usually get poached eggs and bacon with an English muffin. Recently, I just started wanting breakfast sandwich on a bagel.
Whereupon your associates, full of an admiration tinged with mild concern, were stunned into silence by your unpredictable, thrill-seeking behaviour.
We grow fresh our own poppy seeds and make a tangy morphine butter we slather on our toast for breakfast. The power and plumbing have since been turned off and the feces accumulate in the waterless bowls. A man crawls in the window and takes our TV while we sleep face down in our plates. I awake to the sounds of sirens and a medic yelling my name asking him if I can hear him.
I'm unhappy with my breakfast choice and am thinking of Froot Loops despite their sugar content. Type Ii is nothing to take lightly.
We grow fresh our own poppy seeds and make a tangy morphine butter we slather on our toast for breakfast. The power and plumbing have since been turned off and the feces accumulate in the waterless bowls. A man crawls in the window and takes our TV while we sleep face down in our plates. I awake to the sounds of sirens and a medic yelling my name asking him if I can hear him.
I'm unhappy with my breakfast choice and am thinking of Froot Loops despite their sugar content. Type Ii is nothing to take lightly.
The beeping machines connected to my arm bring a slow beat of consistency, but likely for just the moment before it stops. The ten hospital floors above me, stacked with dying souls, between me and the heavens, but I am otherwise alone seperated by God the layers between me. Jacob's ladder interrupted.
Should have chosen Froot Loops. But what does a child know?
We grow fresh our own poppy seeds and make a tangy morphine butter we slather on our toast for breakfast. The power and plumbing have since been turned off and the feces accumulate in the waterless bowls. A man crawls in the window and takes our TV while we sleep face down in our plates. I awake to the sounds of sirens and a medic yelling my name asking him if I can hear him.
I was convinced this was a true story until I realized that opioids cause constipation. That means there would be no feces accumulating in the toilet bowls. That destroys the verisimilitude of your story.
was convinced this was a true story until I realized that opioids cause constipation. That means there would be no feces accumulating in the toilet bowls. That destroys the verisimilitude of your story.
The shit was shipped in from overseas. Company is called Shipt Shit, LLC. Opiod users use the service because they miss shitting. There's a market for everything.
Reply to javi2541997Reply to Jamal I still don't know what poppy seeds taste like. The summer meadow is probably loaded with wood ticks carrying Lymes disease and Rocky Mountain spotted fever. Don't want to dance naked there, clogs or not.
Perhaps our philosophical gourmands could suggest flavors that poppy seed resembles? (Granted, flavors are hard to describe. What is the flavor of a pear like? What is the flavor of a spoiled strawberry like?)
Reply to Jamal Are there no categories of flavors? sour? sweet? bitter? Perfect pear like? Cinnamon / clove like? Cardamom like? (That's another flavor I don't quite get. Scandinavians are fond of cardamom, but it's nothing compared to cinnamon. Or maybe they aren't using enough.)
Picking out the flavor of poppy seeds sounds like the problem of picking out the flavor of major American beer bands. In a blind test, they all taste "like beer" but nothing distinctive. Minor American beer brands like Summit Brewing or very small artisanal brewers can produce more identifiably distinct brews.
That means there would be no feces accumulating in the toilet bowls.
For some reason when I was reading this (if it were anyone else: unhinged and neurotic) story I pictured literal bowls. Brown wooden ones to be exact. It just seemed more dramatic and hectic that way, I suppose. But your fleshing out and expanding of the text makes more sense, admittedly.
The shit was shipped in from overseas. Company is called Shipt Shit, LLC. Opiod users use the service because they miss shitting. There's a market for everything.
I predict AI will result in the re-enchantment of the world, responsive to the revelation of the inadequacy of technology, now in such magnificent form, still wholly incapable of imparting meaning into the world.
The joy this brings me to think about. I compare it only to how I suspect othrrs think of pigs or punctuation.
No tales, triumphs, and trials from Castle Hanover on this most American of holidays? God the people in your line of work are as boring as they say.
Fine. I'll just get back to browsing Reddit then. Anything to get my near-voyeuristic fill of random people doing random things. :eyes:
Ever since they removed "show most recent by Location X" on social media apps it just hasn't been the same. Though I imagined they did so for purposes of national (and regular) security. :chin:
Too bad. I enjoyed it for spotting out potential locations to visit (yay or nay, safe or not) if the average crowd that posts to social media at a particular popular area within the past hour looks disreputable or not.
I'm in my 30s so, it's kind of a "younger guy" thing. But yeah, I dunno. I thought it was neat for people who can't travel either by financial or mobility reasons. You just type in, I dunno, some place you've always wanted to visit, or perhaps never heard of into Instagram or Twitter for example, then sort by "Most Recent." It was fun. Informative. Life changing, perhaps for some, like I said. Anyway. How are you @BC? Recall reading you've been through a bit as of late. Best wishes.
I sort of remember being in my 30s -- a long time ago. Personal computers hadn't become a consumer product yet. By my 40s they had arrived. I started using a Macintosh in the late 80s--been an Apple fan ever since. I have searched for a lot of on-location stuff on the net, and found a lot. True enough -- I am not interested in travel these days, but if I decided to look up Jakarta, for instance, I could probably use Google Street View to get a walking tour.
Computers do seem to be more of a guy thing. At 78 I do love a slick piece of hardware and get pleasure from using good software.
Started planting today -- several packets of Xenias. Tomorrow the Cosmos, Nasturtiums and Hollyhocks, and a few bachelor buttons. The raspberries have quite a few blossoms. The iris are opening. The tulips are all done. The weeds in the lawn are thriving; the lawn, not so much.
When I was a kid, they didn't have cell phones yet and you had to call people through a conch. Everyone had a car conch and they'd get distracted using them while driving. They came out with hands free car conchs that used bluetooth technology, which saved lives, but it also didn't make any sense how a marine snail could link through radio waves to a system that would ultimately require a cell phone to transmit, but the entirety of this post was prefaced with a statement that there was no such thing as cell phones. This confusion problem resulted in a loss of as many lives as were saved by the bluetooth technology, so it was a wash, and everyone was clean.
is there a peach drawn on the license plate? No way.
It's the peach state after all. You'd expect to see an orange in Florida. The peach is standard issue, but you can order all sorts of specialty ones if you want for an up charge. https://mvd.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/PlateSelection.aspx
I expect a beautiful raven on Massachusetts's license plates in honour of T Clark.
I appreciate the sentiment, but Massachusetts has yet to recognize my honor. The state bird of Massachusetts is a blue hen chicken… no, wait, that’s Delaware. Massachusetts’ is the chickadee.
I had not thought about it before, but another thing that divides the great Western lands of America and Europe is America's never ending efforts at monetization. Whether it be your alma mater, your favorite charity, a hobby you particularly enjoy, or whatever else may sell, the entreprenurial folks down at the DMV will make a license plate for you, charge you an extra $20 and spread that love to your favorite cause and to the state coffers.
When a European looks at the back of his car, he just sees a spot for government registration numbers. An American sees a billboard, a chance to build and a chance to prosper.
While I was in Dénia I took up the local habit of having beer with breakfast. It was a delightful experience.
BTW, I base this characterization of Dénia locals on the fact that when I left my apartment in the morning there were always two old guys sitting in the square drinking beer.
Reply to Jamal Yeah, that's a very common practice amongst the elders here. They also drink "orujo" (the green liquid substance in a small glass). There is always one old guy at least sitting on a bar drinking one of these drinks. I don't know where this custom comes from, but I am aware that it is a characteristic that foreigners and tourists only see here.
Orujo de hierbas? I never had it. On wikipedia it says “In the past, farmers used to drink it after breakfast … before work in the fields at dawn, and some elderly people still maintain this custom.”
I drink tea with every meal. Hot tea in the morning and iced tea on all other occasions. I could not fathom otherwise.
Hope your job pays well. From the sound of that description, that's going to come in handy down the road, medical-wise. I somehow doubt someone in your line of work is actively sweating and burning off all that sugar throughout the course of an average day. Of course, depends on the particular case and client I'm sure.
Hope your job pays well. From the sound of that description, that's going to come in handy down the road, medical-wise. I somehow doubt someone in your line of work is actively sweating and burning off all that sugar throughout the course of an average day. Of course, depends on the particular case and client I'm sure.
Ain't that cool! I wonder if it works for less meaningful names?
There is no "Chinese alphabet", so words, specifically ones that do not exist in Chinese culture, such as American cities, say "Hanover" for example, would have no meaning or equivalent.
Also, that's a strong assumption. Perhaps the individual in question is simply one interested in the Orient or other places in general, or perhaps is some sort of spy sent to take down the Chinese government, and of course has to know and speak Chinese first. They could also be university students from China who simply wish to study abroad for a myriad of reasons. The possibilities are just shy of endless.
Count Timothy von IcarusMay 30, 2025 at 17:08#9911550 likes
Interesting biographical fact about Milton: after graduating as a top student his father supported his doing nothing but staying around home and studying, as well as some educational travel, for about a decade.
I'm sure some people still get something like that opportunity, but they'd probably be considered wastrels today for not being productive enough. But then he did have his time in government.
Had it not been for those ten years and then his party getting the boot from power (plus some other serious misfortunes), we might never have gotten Paradise Lost.
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus My life is similar in that the bulk of my artistic contributions were made possible through the generous stipends granted through the TPF Trust.
Seeing as you're an American, might I recommend the "Freedom Soap?" :chin:
I bathe in the soap of freedom, its lather spilling past my belly, emancipating my body and spirit of the stench of enslavement, my fetters slipping off my wrists and shackles off my ankles. I emerge upright from this tub of liberty, sparkling America from my every fiber, boldly seducing and fully satisfying the very Statue of Liberty, holding tightly to her torch for leverage as I jackhammer my love home in the name of justice itself.
Reply to Jamal I wanted another dessert, so I ctrl-c, then ctrl-v. I accidentally threw away my fork, but ctrl-z brought it back. Didn't like my curtains, so I did a search and replace. Changed them from biege to a light almond. I just needed a new me.
I dreamed sewed buttons all over my clothes, like totally covered. It felt kind of radical.
I dreamt my clothes were covered in velcro and I would cling to people throughout my day, some delighted to have my company, others inconvenienced by my proximity.
I wanted another dessert, so I ctrl-c, then ctrl-v. I accidentally threw away my fork, but ctrl-z brought it back. Didn't like my curtains, so I did a search and replace. Changed them from biege to a light almond. I just needed a new me.
Remember the old days when you could rebuild your house with Ctrl+Alt+Delete?
The odd thing is that it came with one foot still intact, with the fur and everything. Not sure if it was a superstitious thing or if it was to prove it was a rabbit and not a cat.
The odd thing is that it came with one foot still intact, with the fur and everything.
Huh. Not a food service expert by any means. Had an older family friend with 15+ years experience at Denny's handling all of that business when that was going on. Sure, I memorized the basic charts, temps, and "do's and don'ts" just so I'd be able to pass a test if one was suddenly sprung upon me, but, is that supposed to happen? Seems possible that some bacteria might be able to survive in the fur/unprocessed flesh but, I don't know.
I guess we'll find out in a few hours eh? :razz:
Keep us posted. Cool pic BTW. Vicarious living, is still living. No matter what the naysayers try and tell me. :cool:
I had a thought to write some children's books called Rabbi Rabbit wears a Habit. It's a fun tale of an ordained rabbit rabbi who teaches the children halacha in a playful unintimidating hippidy hopidy way while dressed in the strict modest garb of the chaste women of the Vatican. It's educational and deeply confusing at the same time, much like middle school generally, so it brings that reality back to the child.
I expect the ladies will want something different. But I find it delicious.
Many sources indicate that French fries are actually a Belgian creation, originating from the practice of frying potatoes in the winter when the river froze and fishing was impossible. [Had they not heard of ice fishing? It never occurred to the unimaginative Bulgeese to fry potatoes in the summer. Like, fish and chips?]
During World War I, American soldiers stationed in Belgium discovered these fried potatoes. Since the language of the southern region of Belgium was French, they started calling them "French fries".
AI responses are never mistaken. Don't even think about it!
As for waffles...
The Brussels waffle gained popularity internationally after being showcased at the Brussels World's Fair in 1958. Waffles were, apparently, the best thing the Belgeese had to offer. It was later introduced to the United States and further popularized at the New York World's Fair in 1964. Brussels is in Belgium. People are known to engage in waffle eating in Brussels. Therefore, Belgium waffles. Brussels was already linked to premature baby cabbages, which have always had limited appeal in the world.
Belgian waffles are like French fried potatoes, they have nothing to do with their eponymous countries.
You try to speak with an air of unquestionable authority, yet @BC says otherwise, having advanced knowledge of the origins of exquisite foodstuffs, describing an historic world fair with the details only an eyewitness might know, solidly laying to rest your cynical suggestions regarding the large squared Belgian waffle.
As you know nothing of the Belgian waffle, it'd best if you limit your Belgian dining to the charred field rabbit as has been your custom in 1989 and 2014.
an historic world fair with the details only an eyewitness might know,
I actually was an eyewitness to that historic world’s fair. One of my fondest memories was of Albert Johnson throwing up on the wing of a carnival rocket ship ride.
Reply to T Clark Probably because you dared him to eat rabbit vindaloo at a dodgy Indian food stall near the Belgian State Waffle Hall at the fair from which he got ptomaine poisoning. Your were wise not to touch it.
AI responses are never mistaken. Don't even think about it!
Here's an example of how AI (as delivered in a Google query) is never wrong:
Utah is larger than Minnesota in terms of square miles. Utah has an area of 84,900 square miles, while Minnesota has 86,943 square miles. Wikipedia ranks Utah as the 11th largest state in the U.S. and Minnesota as the 12th largest.
Actually, Wikipedia rates Minnesota and Utah as 12 and 13. Michigan and Minnesota are 11 and 12 in Wikipedia's list.
#12 Minnesota 86,936 sq miles
#13 Utah 84,897 sq miles
Of course, Wikipedia could be mistaken. Or the US Census Bureau data could be wrong, Or, horrors, AI could be wrong.
It was the first time I'd cooked a whole one, and the first time I'd roasted a rabbit over hot wood. I went against the advice not to do so and the results exceeded my expectations but fell short of those of the ladies, as explained above.
I finished my letter already. I used the 'maroon' colour: gorgeous, elegant, and shiny. I wish my friend 'feels' the same feelings as I when he sees maroon-colored lettering. He lives in Argentina, and he is very passionate, nostalgic, and melancholic. I understand how he feels, and I think maroon colour was the best choice. It is true that blue is usually associated with sadness. But that's another topic.
You try to speak with an air of unquestionable authority, yet BC says otherwise, having advanced knowledge of the origins of exquisite foodstuffs, describing an historic world fair with the details only an eyewitness might know, solidly laying to rest your cynical suggestions regarding the large squared Belgian waffle.
It was later introduced to the United States and further popularized at the New York World's Fair in 1964.
In past posts I have discussed "The Power Broker," about Robert Moses, who built many of the highways around New York City. Moses was also the big boss for the 1964 World's Fair. In the book, the author describes how Moses pissed off the governments of European countries considering participating by his inflexibility. Because of his intransigence, most - and in particular Belgium - did not send contingents. Therefore there were no true "Brussels Waffles" or "Belgian Waffles" at the fair.
Also, as I noted, I was at the fair and observed no Belgian Waffles. And yes, since Hanover will ask, I did systematically and thoroughly search the fairgrounds - being a conscientious and prescient 13 year old.
[Reply to T Clark The famed waffles were introduced at the 1958 Brussels World Fair. In Brussels. There and then. No issues with imports or exports. Made by Belgians, for Belgians. No USA interloping
https://www.historylink.org/File/10092
In 1962, they were brought to the Seattle Worlds Fair where Americans ate them at rates like no European had even imagined.
The rest of your story doesn't pan out. It must receive the heretofore never used designation "Untrue story." This is the red card of the Shoutbox.
The famed waffles were introduced at the 1958 Brussels World Fair. In Brussels.
They weren’t called Belgian waffles, were they? They were called waffles. I never said nobody in Belgium ever ate waffles. I also never said nobody at other locations ever sold something they called Belgian waffles. As I noted in my original post in this conversation, those particular waffles had nothing to do with Belgium, the country. It was all public relations.
Your clever manipulation of AI images cannot hide the hollowness of your argument.
Reply to T Clark Belgian waffles seem to be surrounded by lies, falsified history, and an overall lack of truthiness.
The last Pannekoeken Huis in Minnesota closed last year, so I can't get so much as a sniff of a Hollandaise waffle/pancake/dutch baby. A dutch baby is a hybrid of popover, pancake, and crepe, not an unwanted child, just in case any literalists are reading this. I presume the place did not serve belgian waffles, as a matter of principle.
Reply to Hanover You and AI are becoming a famous couple; great work!
Your clever manipulation of AI images cannot hide the hollowness of your argument.
I am to understand that despite a photograph of you with a Belgian waffle in your mouth, and despite a very stern referee chastising you, you still deny knowledge of Belgian waffles in your youth??? Wow! Unreal!
I'd just point out that AI didn't exist when you were young, so it would have been impossible to create this image. It must therefore be real.
I am to understand that despite a photograph of you with a Belgian waffle in your mouth, and despite a very stern referee chastising you, you still deny knowledge of Belgian waffles in your youth??? Wow! Unreal!
It is well known that soccer, or as they call it in Europe “geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung”, was not invented till 1967 when I was 16 years old. This photograph clearly predates that and this is thus a fake.
Also, that is clearly not a picture of me. I remember when it was taken. The kid shown is John Fosky. I was standing next to him out of the picture. The label, “Mister Clarky” was added by the notoriously inaccurate and malicious artificial intelligence.
Also, that is clearly not a picture of me. I remember when it was taken. The kid shown is John Fosky. I was standing next to him out of the picture. The label, “Mister Clarky” was added by the notoriously inaccurate and malicious artificial intelligence.
Alright, I had it pan to the right, and next to you is Brooke Shields in a soccer uniform playing the banjo. I have no idea what sort of absurdist surreal existence you live, but it doesn't exactly increase your credibility.
I had it pan to the right, and next to you is Brooke Shields in a soccer uniform playing the banjo.
This is clearly another example of a doctored photo. It’s true Miss Shields was there, but when I was 13, she was an infant. I was holding her and feeding her from a bottle. She wasn’t wearing a soccer uniform and she definitely was not playing the banjo, although she did have a pacifier.
Given your known obsession with Brooke Shields, I’m guessing your AI spontaneously inserts her somewhere in almost every image it makes for you.
I was thinking recently about what the human who calls himself "Jamal" had to say about art, that, no matter what form it is it possesses one universal quality. That quality, of course, being "uselessness" or lack of practical utility. I don't believe that. Example. I've been cleaning the house lately and stumbled across a folder of old records of online and other assorted purchases from around over 20 years ago when I was a young teenager using the debit card my father allocated me.
There's a sense of nostalgia, but no, much more than that when I read the assorted papers, transactions, and invoices. It's almost like, getting to know myself again at a time when I was first developing and becoming a thinking, feeling, full human being. It's almost like reading a book in some way. So here I am, posing a simple question: Is nostalgia useless? I don't think so. Sure, it's overblown and for many quite unhelpful and a hindrance. But not for all. Compare a massage, for example. It physically relaxes the body, as such does traveling with a fond memory. Sure, perhaps it's difficult to test or "measure" in a laboratory setting, but this is common sense held by even the simplest of men. Is it not?
Oh, now here's an unforgettable memory. I purchased a Toshiba 13" TV with DVD player in the year of 2006 for $131.98 (+$56.50 shipping). To this date, it's one of the only times I bought/ordered something online that flat out never showed up (ie. whoever or whatever took my money). I'll never forget that. I have the receipt/online order confirmation in front of me after all. I wonder what the statute of limitations is around these parts? I'd ask the occasionally wise Hanover but, he's what we call a fair weather intellect. :grin:
Added context: I'm basically cleaning house. Having to toss what is not needed or is otherwise (or will be) a hindrance. I don't have it in me to toss these old records. They have no real use. The filing period has passed, furthermore I was a minor at the time so there's no practical utilitarian benefit or purpose they have. Yet I refuse to. Is that foolish? I wonder. :chin:
I would like to add to the public record, I have since created two new and very unique categories to the various papers and documentation from the last 20 years. "Miscellaneous legal shame" and "random unknown phone numbers", respectively. No life not un-lived is complete without both.
Compare a massage, for example. It physically relaxes the body, as such does traveling with a fond memory. Sure, perhaps it's difficult to test or "measure" in a laboratory setting, but this is common sense held by even the simplest of men. Is it not?
I'd be inclined to think of nostalgia as a spandrel, a by-product of being human but not in itself a functional adaptation or psychological coping mechanism.
But nostalgia is more complex anyway, and might just as often hinder as help a person's practical effectiveness. The word comes from Greek: nostos = homecoming; algos = pain. And this is definitely my own experience. Even the most fond memory is painful, because those happy moments are forever lost. Dwelling in this melancholia is not often considered to be a useful practice.
But why worry about nostalgia's utility anyway? The whole point of Oscar Wilde's (not my) statement that all art is quite useless is precisely to make the point that what is most valuable is not justified by an appeal to utility, therefore when someone accuses art or philosophy or nostalgia of being useless, we can say, yes, and that's what makes it so valuable!
I suspect not so long ago, nostalgia wasn't what it is today, the past can now be made so present with photos, videos, documents, recordings. We evolved with all sorts of emotions, but none can be so provoked and exaggerated today through technology than nostalgia.
I recently saw a picture of my aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, parents, and family friends at a random dinner, everyone so young and just in the moment. Most are gone now or are much older. I don't know I'm better off to have seen it. It's the more poignant because it's just a random moment, like you want to call to them and tell them to preserve it. And that's a trap too because you can over protect the moment, preserving it so much that importance becomes too elevated to just be.
the category of value, not the category of utility
Something that is useless can have value? Or something that has value can be useless? I'm reminded of the old adage, forgive me for being cliche, "One man's trash is another man's treasure."
I don't feel you've best explained this to the capacity or, heh, forgive me, utility, of your intellect.
How can something be valued, if it's useless (if not to the person). A screen door on a submarine is useless. Meanwhile on land in some places it's a literal difference between Hell on Earth.
So, I find it difficult to say with absolute certainty, in every case and scenario, the concept or category of value and utility are intrinsically and distinctly separate.
A thing can have utility that has long been superseded by a greater invention that reduces its value to the point of uselessness, say, well, I'm sure you can imagine plenty. The first automobile in 1910, for example. And so on and so on.
But why worry about nostalgia's utility anyway? The whole point of Oscar Wilde's (not my) statement that all art is quite useless is precisely to make the point that what is most valuable is not justified by an appeal to utility, therefore when someone accuses art or philosophy or nostalgia of being useless, we can say, yes, and that's what makes it so valuable!
For me, it’s not a question of whether or not nostalgia has any value, is whether or not it’s destructive, and I think it is. Replaying the past is like playing a record over and over again. You remember records? After a while, the grooves get worn down and the memories lose their power. Recently, my family had a reunion in the town where I was born. I had resisted going because of the importance of the memories that I had there. I didn’t want to wear them out. Finally I decided I would go and it turned out to be a really great time. But still, I didn’t go to visit my grandfather’s farm, where most of my fondest memories took place. My family hasn’t owned the farm for decades, so it’s not mine anymore. It’s not ours anymore. But the memories are all mine and I’m not willing to risk them.
All right, replace value with meaning and see what you think of that.
Sure, one might say "meaning" is personal, whereas "value" can be measured or codified by some sort of agreed upon standard that requires more than the individual to validate or meet said threshold.
I mean, this is where it gets interesting. Can you really think of something that is truly "meaningless" beyond the lack of intent from the person or cause that led to whatever it is that is being discussed?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for example. Seems to suggest, literally anything can have meaning and therefore have, at least personal, utility.
So where do we go from here? Sure, I'd take an industrial floor cleaner over a toothbrush if I felt cleaning a large cafeteria floor as vital or important to me. That doesn't mean either item is useless, or any less meaningful, simply one is more effective than the other. So is this how meaning transcends utility, effectiveness? Or is it something greater altogether? :chin:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for example. Seems to suggest, literally anything can have meaning and therefore have, at least personal, utility.
The reason you are struggling is that you have an expansive, wishywashy idea of utility. Oscar meant it in terms of sheer practicality, whereby a beautiful painting has no use but a screwdriver does. The former is a meaningful thing and the latter is a tool. It's that simple. If you want to expand utility to cover everything that doesn't hinder a person, that's ok but it's not what I or Oscar were doing. The idea of meaning therefore utility is alien to Oscar and me.
The reason you are struggling is that you have an expansive, wishywashy idea of utility.
A simple misunderstanding is a passive event. One and done. Not an active "struggle", as you, if I may humbly suggest, project unto another. Sure, I could be incorrect. And I appreciate your engagement in the idea that perhaps I may become better informed. So for that much I thank you.
Oscar meant it in terms of sheer practicality, whereby a beautiful painting has no use but a screwdriver does.
Ah, but let us not forget ignorance is not knowledge. A child has no idea what a screwdriver is, so for him is useless. But, a painting is engaging and discourages and alleviates (or at least can, depending on the work) anguish and restlessness, so therefore, in such scenario, does in fact have more utility than a screwdriver. In a hypothetical future world without screws, the screwdriver is useless, meanwhile the painting retains its intrinsic value as entertainment and aesthetic enjoyment.
This generation is unfortunate in that, yes, that which has immediate value is all that has value. And that, in my humble opinion, and perhaps provable fact, is a fatal flaw and overall intellectual travesty and overall inaccurate view of reality. Surely you can see that argument as plausible.
The former is a meaningful thing and the latter is a tool.
Would you say that a meaningful thing (such as a strong opinion or sentiment) can be used as a tool, and a tool (no matter how simple, say a screwdriver) can have meaning as a metaphorical device and piece of art of human ingenuity and social progress itself?
Well, I don't really know what you're on about. Have a look back at my original response, where I mentioned spandrels. I was attempting to take your question seriously but now you're flying through the stratosphere, a tiny dot at the limit of my vision, like an ant or a far away dog.
Do people not use art as a tool? Is propaganda not a thing? An effective tool at that. It most certainly is, or at least was.
But, yes. I shall do as you requested. I did overlook that in my intrigue and impulse opportunity to interact with the site owner. You're a bit of a celebrity around these parts, if you did not know. :snicker:
I'd be inclined to think of nostalgia as a spandrel, a by-product of being human but not in itself a functional adaptation or psychological coping mechanism.
The word itself is an attempt at framing a concept. All words are. Meaning, when you, or if I may humbly suggest myself, read the word "nostalgia" and envision the resulting concept, might be significantly different than someone who is younger or less intelligent. To the point, while we both get the same "idea", per se, the subtleties that differentiate the two idealizations can be starkly different. Meaning, some people do in fact benefit from it, and so it effectively serves as an evolutionary or "functional adaption" that brings benefit. Remembering something that was good, encourages you to pursue said thing that was good. Whether that be a good stream of water, or great tree with delicious fruit, or a simple video game or TV show, in these days. Sure, it can bring a sense of wellness or comfort in unfamiliar times, which is beneficial and doesn't have to be a strict "coping mechanism".
The word comes from Greek: nostos = homecoming; algos = pain.
Indeed it does. Of course, the world was quite different back then. But not so much. Sure, everything was simpler when we had one or more responsible for ourselves, coupled with the ignorance of non-physical true pain. That's right.
Even the most fond memory is painful, because those happy moments are forever lost.
What can (or rather would) be continually replayed or relived becomes its own prison. Worse than any physical torture I can assure you. No matter how joyous or positive. It's the dynamic of suffering that allows joy to exist, otherwise, all is just the same monotony. Nothingness. You know this. Sure, that specific moment or aura of discovery and immersion from a lower form of consciousness (a newborn) into a child, teenager, young adult, or what have you is in fact one of a kind. You, yes you, will never experience that again. Not truly. But you should be grateful you had such, and be further content with the knowledge, you can offer that again for another being, but perhaps much better, without any of the preventable negativity, if you so choose and would only put your mind to it.
I mean, it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?
In another, less popular take. You should be happy to know you were born in a society, where historically humankind was plagued by war, disease, strife, and suffering, that you, lucky you, were able to have those memories in the first place. Someone did something right. And you should be eager to stand at attention right by those who offered you such freedom and grace. I don't need to explain how cruel and awful the lives that some persons are born into. And you weren't. Now that's something to :grin: about, wouldn't you say?
But why worry about nostalgia's utility anyway? The whole point of Oscar Wilde's (not my) statement that all art is quite useless is precisely to make the point that what is most valuable is not justified by an appeal to utility, therefore when someone accuses art or philosophy or nostalgia of being useless, we can say, yes, and that's what makes it so valuable!
Now I see why you proclaimed that earlier. I thought it was for a reason much more simple and far less deep. Thank you. I appreciate this interaction we had. May we have another interaction, someday, someplace. :cheer:
For me, it’s not a question of whether or not nostalgia has any value, is whether or not it’s destructive, and I think it is. Replaying the past is like playing a record over and over again. You remember records? After a while, the grooves get worn down and the memories lose their power. Recently, my family had a reunion in the town where I was born. I had resisted going because of the importance of the memories that I had there. I didn’t want to wear them out. Finally I decided I would go and it turned out to be a really great time. But still, I didn’t go to visit my grandfather’s farm, where most of my fondest memories took place. My family hasn’t owned the farm for decades, so it’s not mine anymore. It’s not ours anymore. But the memories are all mine and I’m not willing to risk them.
On the other hand, at least for me, I can't remember much about my post-childhood life unless I replay it, talk about it, think about it repeatedly. Often one makes the memories, rather than just having them, and a failure to make them is where the risk lies.
But replaying them can also ossify them and make them false. I've become sceptical of the stories I tell repeatedly, asking myself, "but did it really happen like that?" to which the answer is probably often no.
[quote="javi2541997;990888"]So, do you believe that art is dependent upon the market?
No, more that the art is the market. No "art", no market. No market, no "art". Inseparable.
Did early man, painting on or carving rock, see that exercise/result (or conceive of it) as Art?
Interesting question, maybe?
If the answer is no, what did it take for later man to decide..."That is Art?"
The suggestion is where the buyer decides "That's Art", that is art. Call it a market,if you like.
Just a thought, Javi, not meant as a rusted-on idea to defend, without fear of life or limb, at the barricades.
The idea of meaning therefore utility is alien to Oscar and me.
Perhaps this quote makes the point that meaning and utility are not the same:
“Man of the twentieth century is proud of his practical achievements, of his conquest of space, of his power over the forces of nature. Yet, strangely enough, he has never been more confused, insecure, and disillusioned... He has gained the world but lost his own self.”
This use of meaning is in the existential sense, related to a self, wanting to find his particular purpose for existing. Living in a world that values practical achievements over finding one's self furthers that feeling of isolation. It all goes along with my disillusionment of modernity, providing me a justification for not responding to emails and texts. It's not me ignoring you. It's a deep seated reason rooted in my soul that I cannot violate if I wish to maintain any integrity.
Is AI just a Wittgensteinian language game devoid of meaning, proving that he's right and that he's wrong. Right in the sense that use is all we need to communicate and use language, but wrong in that mimicry without internal meaning misses the entirety of human experience. Art does not contain beauty within it. The beauty is an experience within the person. A conversation about heartbreak without heartbreak is not a conversation about heartbreak.
And that's why I haven't responded to my emails. Maybe that follows. I might be getting far afield now, but something said about nostaligia and meaning got me here.
Do you feel bored on this Monday? If you don't have anything better to do, you can always watch the following YouTube video where a TPF user called "javi2541997" does weird stuff in a park and talks about the four elements: fire, wind, water and aether. I think it is very poorly recorded (probably on a Samsung) but still a gem I found out on the Internet. Better than ChatGPT and related stuff.
And that's why I haven't responded to my emails. Maybe that follows. I might be getting far afield now, but something said about nostaligia and meaning got me here.
For some reason, your last two posts make me think of your law partner Bob.
1. Get one of those Cuisinart icecream makers with the pot you put in the freezer.
2. Get a bunch of chocolate flavored peanut butter, some yogurt, some chocolate almond milk, and some ripe bananas that they sell in special bags with "Ripe Bananas" written on them.
3. Put ingredients in a big bowl and use your Cuisinart mixer on a stick, which you also use to make humus, except it's clean now, and mix the hell out of the ingredients.
4. Put the liquid in the frozen metal pot, set it in the icecream maker with the wand, and then stand there for 20 minutes watching it freeze, one ice crystal at a time. Realize that if you keep standing there, it's never going to freeze, so go out into the backyard and look at plants, then come back in and see that the icecream is almost frozen, so stop the mixer, eat a few spoonfuls, then pour it into a clean icecream tub, and put it in the freezer. Wait a few hours, and voila. Or you can make pineapple icecream with the vanilla flavoring.
I enjoyed your video, although unfortunately I did not understand more than a few words. What I enjoyed was the pleasant surroundings, the relaxed atmosphere, and of course the magnificent eyebrows.
Standards are slipping in the shout box. I bring to your attention a couple of examples. How can philosophers be trusted if they let these thing pass uncritically?
Ah, but have all volcanoes always smelt of sulphur dioxide?
Just curious.
No, some of them smell of hydrogen sulphide, and these are the ones that rotten eggs are likened to. It makes me wonder what they do in schools these days — do they never eat volcanoes or climb rotten eggs due to some heath and safety nazism?
A child has no idea what a screwdriver is, so for him is useless.
The reification of use! Just because it is called a screwdriver, does not impose on the device that it cannot be used for opening a paint tin, stabbing a sibling, or removing wax from one's ear. I speak from experience. "Usefulness is in the hand of the holder." Your thinking has succumbed to the hypnotic power of language: I prescribe as therapy that you peruse 101 uses for a Dead Cat, a page or two per day until the book is complete.
Reply to Jamal Thanks! I thought nobody watched the video. I like to film random things in Madrid, and yes, that's exactly what I like most about my city: a relaxed atmosphere and people chilling in parks or our famous terrazas. :smile:
I watched it, but I don’t know if you noticed, it’s in Spanish.
My favorite part was the pergola. I just looked that word up the other day and the one in the park is a wonderful example. Eventually, I guess the vines will grow to cover the entire structure, which will be beautiful.
It's weird because when things are on my TV in other languages, usually it writes the English at the bottom, but this time that didn't happen. Maybe your phone is broken.
Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii.
1982!
Forty Years Later!
From BBC news:
Climate change: Four things you can do about your carbon footprint
Published
13 November 2024
summary:
stop this, tax that, pay more and have less!
So not why the prospect of limitless clean energy from high temperature geothermal has been overlooked for forty years, by left and right alike - while regressive forms of taxation are imposed on society under the rubric of addressing climate change, even as production of fossil fuels only increases?
Reply to karl stone You might get dinged by a moderator for bringing your geothermal thread to the garbage-fueled shout box. I'm posting something in your thread now.
Literally? No! Figuratively, more of a dog!
Interesting character; he would carry a lit lamp around in the daytime, and say he was looking for an honest man!
Reply to T Clark I'm not claiming to be Diogenes. I'm only suggesting, that posting this in the shoutbox:
So not - why the prospect of limitless clean energy from high temperature geothermal has been overlooked for forty years, by left and right alike - while regressive forms of taxation are imposed on society under the rubric of addressing climate change, even as production of fossil fuels only increases?
Reply to karl stone
I have no problem with you discussing it in the Shoutbox within reason. It is not uncommon to start substantive discussions here, including for moderators. Still, this is generally the place for less substantive stuff. It was started specifically to give @Hanover a place to post his [s]puerile[/s] [s]disgusting[/s] idiosyncratic thoughts.
...while regressive forms of taxation are imposed on society...
The aggressive taxes are meant to curb peoples appetite for dirty energy, you know, like the sin taxes are meant to do. No one is going to put billions of dollars into extracting energy from magma when the oil practically flows freely from existing wells. So, tax the hell out of its use, to encourage investment in alternatives.
The aggressive taxes are meant to curb peoples appetite for dirty energy, you know, like the sin taxes are meant to do. No one is going to put billions of dollars into extracting energy from magma when the oil practically flows freely from existing wells. So, tax the hell out of its use, to encourage investment in alternatives.
In the UK - where I live, they put aggressive taxes on tobacco, knowing full well that people were addicted, and would pay whatever the price was. Energy has a similarly well known 'inelasticity of demand' - as it is known in economic jargon; demand that is not responsive to price increases.
So no; I cannot accept that's why they're lying about Limits to Growth, and telling us we need to go vegan and sit in the dark wearing two jumpers, and taxing carbon while still pumping oil. They're doing it because they know people won't Just Stop Oil; they'll find the money somewhere else.
Discussing what? Why flamingos stand on one leg? Also thermodynamics!
Flamingoes stand on one leg because they are expecting to be painted in an oil on canvas! Not everything can be explained within the boundaries of science, karl.
Man, can you imagine the horrible dystopian world mankind used to live in before books and manuscripts had blank pages titled: "This Page Intentionally Left Blank." Like, imagine how jarring and psychologically traumatizing it must have been for our predecessors to read Booklets and occasionally come across a blank white page. Surely the blankness must have pushed the limits of their sanity resulting in countless deaths, direct and indirect.
Good thing we fixed that by labeling every blank white page as such thus preventing untold hardship. Sigh. You people are nuts.
Like seriously? "Oh I thought there was some crack in reality, some inter-dimensional matrix being entered or transcended, because I came across a blank page that wasn't labeled as such." Come on now. I don't know, maybe it's just an American thing and those reading have no idea what frustration I'm speaking of. Good for you if so. All the better.
Flamingoes stand on one leg because they are expecting to be painted in an oil on canvas! Not everything can be explained within the boundaries of science, karl.
Dubious assumptions underlying the phrase "within the boundaries of science." I conceive of science as starting at the fingertips, and extending as far as we're able to reach. Not as a bounded discipline with limited application; but of universal application - albeit applied by limited creatures!
The hypothesis, flamingos stand on one leg to conserve heat loss in cold water, doesn't - I'll admit, prove the flamingos subjective motivations; which I suspect, ultimately are that the flamingo stands on one leg because flamingos stand on one leg!
Flamingos have evolved to stand on one leg, because standing on one leg was an advantage, because it conserves heat loss. In short, the flamingos motive is not conscious, but an evolved predisposition to an advantageous behaviour, ingrained into the organism by a survival advantage.
Flamingos have evolved to stand on one leg, because standing on one leg was an advantage, because it conserves heat loss. In short, the flamingos motive is not conscious, but an evolved predisposition to an advantageous behaviour, ingrained into the organism by a survival advantage.
Or, maybe it's just smarter than you realize and is attempting to create what we humans call "style" or "fashion" or "one's particular way of doing things", that just happened to have caught on in that particular flock. You don't know. Do you? Can karl stone truly peer into the mind (or lack thereof) of a bird? Hah, while he may be used to being called a birdbrain, I for one doubt it! :razz:
Reply to Outlander That looks delicious. I've had a bowl of soup so far today. It's lunchtime now, and I'm going to grab some chicken, new potatoes and coleslaw. But I'll be thinking of snapper and mash!
May I offer, for your consideration, a work of, dare I say, art?
The composition is a little barren, as if this food was served right before a virus wiped out the human population, leaving no one behind but a few philosophical zombies.
Something up with gravity?
These astrophysicists have apparently found some discrepancies with the standard models and are working with a modified model they call MOND, "Modified Newtonian Gravity".
+40% gravitational strength, under particular circumstances, seems significant enough.
Did you try to eat on a barrel? I did it more than one time. It is cool, mate. We sit around it like a circle, and we share the tapas and vermú in the middle.
My point is if we can eat on a barrel, why can't we live too?
Reply to javi2541997 As far as I recall I have never eaten on, or from a barrel. Indeed, I cannot remember the last time I ate with someone else. I don't imagine Diogenes often had folk over for some tapas either. He was a philosopher. Other considerations were irrelevant to him - to a degree that I can empathise with, but don't care to emulate. It's not nearly as warm as Athens where I live.
Reply to karl stone Well, karl, I recommend you eating from and on a barrel. I honestly believe it is worth trying. Furthermore, before eating from/on a barrel, you should consider if you like seafood in the first place; if you do, the experience of eating on (or from) a barrel will be unforgettable. Clams and prawns are my fave seafood.
I cannot remember the last time I ate with someone else.
What a shame that is to hear, a lovely and well-learned soul such as yourself should not have to walk this path wrought with trepidation alone; of course perhaps, one might argue, it is fact the only way a man true to himself and not the world can walk such a path of his own volition. :chin:
I'm doing exactly what it is I need to do; and it's not my fault I haven't succeeded in convincing the world of the virtues of Magma Energy. It's a better, more hopeful idea than anything Greta Thunberg has to offer. Yet she's a famous millionaire, and I persist in obscurity.
I'm fine, but it should have worked. Not for my sake - but because it's scientifically true and morally right in face of the climate and ecological threat, to develop constant clean energy sufficient to meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon. Humankind should have a prosperous AND sustainable future - not one or the other.
I should be beloved of multitudes, and eating fish from a barrel - because I'm a philosopher.
Not one or the other.
I was imagining, not a barrel full of monkeys, but a barrel surrounded by monkeys.
Certainly once the barrel is breached and the monkeys are so emancipated, it is expected they would spend the first few moments collecting their thoughts in proximity to their once cruel prison by gathering around, but soon thereafter, they will likely move about freely, finding new opportunities beyond their prior confines.
Certainly once the barrel is breached and the monkeys are so emancipated, it is expected they would spend the first few moments collecting their thoughts in proximity to their once cruel prison by gathering around, but soon thereafter, they will likely move about freely, finding new opportunities beyond their prior confines.
I was thinking more of monkeys sitting around a barrel sharing tapas and vermú which, by the way, is Spanish for vermouth.
Good question. Subjectivists are very much - offence is in the eye of the beholder, such that my intent would be irrelevant to their offence taking. I thought it was funny and clever, and speaks to an absurdity - that people who are very keen to take offense in some contexts are purblind to actual malice aforethought in others!
And that's another thing. A bedfellow, as if there were a time when you had a fellow you just shared a bed with, neither romantic nor Platonic, but just a person in need of a place to lay his head, and so it was in close proximity to your own, having nothing else in common but that same need for rest. And so you and your bedfellow would then wake up, live entirely unrelated lives, nothing else in common, often entirely at odds with one another, but then, come nightfall, you laid your head next to your fellow and slept peacefully, with that person you somehow in that strange moment needed to be next to.
By teaming up, they've both shown what unprincipled grifters they are. Anytime someone says anything like "you can't say that it's homophobic" - you get to reply "at least it's not pro-hamas!"
And then throw them off a roof!
You're a breath of fresh air here. I only hope you show restraint and choose logic over sensationalism. For those of us who wish to continue enjoying reading your postings. :smile:
Thanks for the warning. I'll try to reign it in. I'll strive to sublimate my personality to conform to someone else's values - because the last thing we'd want on a philosophy forum is the honest expression of people's own values! Philosophical discussion could break out!
By teaming up, they've both shown what unprincipled grifters they are.
So yeah, to the extent the LGBTQ community might find itself in an unprincipled alignment with Hamas, I still don't know I'm ready to jump aboard your crazy train and suggest some moral equivalence between the two. I'm not so purblind that I can't see a stark difference between those two organizations.
Reply to Hanover If you cannot see the irony in lefty causes promoting the cause of deeply conservative religious terrorists; and you think it's crazy to make a joke pointing out the irony - why not cry bully me off the forum, get me sacked from my job, and ruin my life? Y'know like a terrorist, but without the AK47!
If you cannot see the irony in lefty causes promoting the cause of deeply conservative religious terrorists; and you think it's crazy to make a joke pointing out the irony - why not cry bully me off the forum, get me sacked from my job, and ruin my life? Y'know like a terrorist, but without the AK47!
If you cannot see the irony in lefty causes promoting the cause of deeply conservative religious terrorists
About 45,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza since the start of this round of warfare. About 50% of those are women and minors. The US is complicit in those deaths which means I share responsibility. If you are a US citizen, you do too.
In Madness and Civilisation Micheal Foucault describes how the extremes define the norm; that even if you disagree with someone's opinion, you should allow it to be expressed anyway - because it is only by discovering where the boundaries lie, we can locate our own position.
I think your position is absurd; that you would take responsibility for a war in which you have no part. Foreign policy is not your job. You elect people to make such decisions; people who are privy to information you are not. You're not responsible because you are a citizen of a country - and if you are, then so is everyone in Gaza, responsible for what happened on Oct 7th. So which is it?
If you're stuck for an answer, then just delete my post again!
It's not my job to worry about what other people are responsible for.
You may deny it, but you are responsible too.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you find it absurd.
Reply to Jamal Okay then. If you wish, delete all my posts back to the joke, and delete that as well. I probably wouldn't have posted it sober, and I don't feel great about the argument since. I'm not admitting fault - I didn't keep pushing it. If you don't delete it all, it's other people who won't be able to let it go.
There was an interesting experiment described by youtube science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder on measuring qualia. They put people in an MRI machine and subjected them to the 'art' of Rothko - and mapped their neurological responses. Apparently, my red is your red. Which is exactly what I'd expect, because we evolved, and the senses must be basically accurate to reality to promote survival.
These findings refute claims that reality is subjectively constructed. I posted the Abstract somewhere, or if you wanted to discuss it, you could watch Sabine's video.
These findings refute claims that reality is subjectively constructed.
No it doesn't. At best it shows intersubjective reliability, and unless you assume an unprovable identity theory, you can't claim anything about the consistency of the phenomenonal state.
Notwithstanding your gross overstatement of the consistency of fMRI brain images to known mental states.
It does for me, but I guess that's because the findings are consistent with what I believed anyway. The problem for you is explaining how intersubjective reliability occurs - if reality is subjectively constructed. If there is a consistent response to stimuli - mapped by a MRI machine, Occam's razor suggests it's a physiological response to a given stimuli by the type or organism we are. The evolutionary argument is that fruits turn red so monkeys spread their seeds; and monkeys see red so they can spot fruits that are ripe. If my red weren't your red one of us would have starved to death!
The evolutionary argument is that fruits turn red so monkeys spread their seeds; and monkeys see red so they can spot fruits that are ripe. If my red weren't your red one of us would have starved to death!
Huh... interesting! I suppose one might counter-argue by saying the pigment response in mammalian or other organic beings may be universal and thus similar in that respect, no different than say how fire or frost can be painful all the same, it creates the same biological response in the brain, but perhaps doesn't create the same experience or sense of meaning for conscious beings, if that is what the whole "Hard Problem of Consciousness" debate is about. Obviously we all respond (or not respond) to light and dark in different ways, the simplest organisms such as plants and bacteria do as well. So, something "bright" is liable to produce a similar response against all sorts of organisms due to the nature of the world we all share and purportedly adapted and evolved in. So this in and of itself, may require just a bit more of an argumentative "push", per se, to convince some folk. :smile:
(To be fair I never really fully understood the whole "hard problem" thing anyhow, at least not to the degree its explained and posed in detail..)
If there is a consistent response to stimuli - mapped by a MRI machine,
There's not though. You're overstating the evidence. But you're not relying upon empirical evidence anyway. Quoting karl stone
. If my red weren't your red one of us would have starved to death!
You're relying upon what you think evolution dictates. There are many studies showing inconsistent brain states compared to known mental states, yet you don't use those to falsify your theory.
The problem for you is explaining how intersubjective reliability occurs - if reality is subjectively constructed.
This is a conflation of terms. Even if we all had the exact same brain states and they all perfectly aligned with the same phenomenonal state upon seeing an object, that doesn't imply objectivity of perception in an ontological sense, as if our perception must accurately reflect reality. Your theory is inconsistent with that. You argue perception is pragmatic, asserting nothing of the thing, but only explaining its representation as a way that increases survivability.
That is, the apple is red so we can see, it is sweet so we'll eat it, etc. What is the apple without subjective imposition of qualities?
Reply to Outlander In James Reeve's The Neanderthal Enigma he describes how homo sapiens spent about 1.5m years making the same stone hand axes. Then suddenly, in the archaeological record, we see a creative explosion - the sudden development of improved tools, jewelry, burial of the dead, cave paintings - all things that imply a sudden change of psychological state, not explained by a sudden increase in the volume of the brain - because there wasn't one. There were no major climatological upheavals during this period. Nothing to explain this creative explosion - and the implication of a changed psychological state, I think speaks to the hard problem of consciousness.
I proposed an answer, but it's pure speculation. I suggested there was conceptual evolution; a bootstrap following from realisation that if a stone hand axes might be made, then who made me? Who made the world? - plunging primitive man into a phase of superstitious self consciousness!
Insofar as phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, I know I developed a self - battling through superstitious fear into knowledge of self in relation to reality; so perhaps the species followed the same evolutionary course, developing a subjective sense of being, through rehearsal of this idea in the act of making things. Creation shapes the creator!
"I made this!"
I want to read Wayfarer's post in The Mind Created World, but it's quite long and I haven't had breakfast yet. If there were a reader; like for blind people - I could listen to it on headphones while making breakfast. I think I can copy and paste the text and put it into a reader, but I thought maybe it might be incorporated into the forum.
Today, I am going to eat at a restaurant where the barrels are tables, and the waitresses are gipsy women with picturesque red-coloured shirts! The food is served on tinplate crockery. They are specialised in green peppers and croquetas. Beer size is a bit small; we don't have the average pint-sized glasses of the UK.
This is a conflation of terms. Even if we all had the exact same brain states and they all perfectly aligned with the same phenomenonal state upon seeing an object, that doesn't imply objectivity of perception in an ontological sense, as if our perception must accurately reflect reality. Your theory is inconsistent with that. You argue perception is pragmatic, asserting nothing of the thing, but only explaining its representation as a way that increases survivability.
That is, the apple is red so we can see, it is sweet so we'll eat it, etc. What is the apple without subjective imposition of qualities?
I don't assume a subjective imposition of qualities; that's the whole point.
The apple IS red, and I SEE a red apple. And what is more - so do you!
This relates to something in evolutionary theory it's not difficult to grasp; and that is - the coevolution of the redness of the apple, and the primate ability to see red.
It's like the arms race of the cheetah and the gazelle; only a cooperative strategy instead. They make eachother; the redder the fruit, the more likely it is seen by animals, such that its seeds are spread, and so the redder fruits are in general, because those characteristics are passed on, while less red fruits may be overlooked. The primate that can see red is better fed, better able to survive to breed, so those characteristics are passed on - while colour blind monkeys may die out.
All this happens over millions and millions of years of evolution, a miniscule fractional advantage at a time, not any hard or fast rule. So please spare me the "here's a picture of a monkey eating a green banana - explain that!"
I suggested there was conceptual evolution; a bootstrap following from realisation that if a stone hand axes might be made, then who made me? Who made the world? - plunging primitive man into a phase of superstitious self consciousness!
Again, the period you’re talking about represents several different species of humans.
Although this is not directly related, I thought you might be interested. A somewhat controversial book called “
I suggested there was conceptual evolution; a bootstrap following from realisation that if a stone hand axes might be made, then who made me? Who made the world? - plunging primitive man into a phase of superstitious self consciousness!
Sorry, I pushed the post button too soon before I was finished with my comment. As I was saying:
Although this is not directly related, I thought you might be interested. A somewhat controversial book called “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes claims that human consciousness as we know it developed recently in historic times. Here’s what Wikipedia says:
“He places the origin of consciousness around the 2nd millennium BCE and suggests that the transition from the bicameral mind to consciousness was triggered by the breakdown of the bicameral system. The bicameral mind, he explains, was characterized by individuals experiencing auditory hallucinations as commands from gods, guiding their actions.“
I read the first few chapters of the book and didn’t find it very convincing but some knowledgeable people give him some credence
Reply to T Clark It is, strictly speaking correct to say homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years, but it's also true that the ancestors of homo sapiens have been making stone hand axes for 1.5m years. There's no definitive human ancestor; we diverged from a common ancestor shared with other hominins, including Neanderthals and Denisovans.
Although this is not directly related, I thought you might be interested. A somewhat controversial book called “
Thanks, but no. Jaynes coined the term 'bicameral mind' - so he's running his own flag up his own pole. I find that dubious. Were bicamerality a phenomenon identified in the psychological literature, and he were attempting to explain it, it might be different.
He invents the phenomenon from whole cloth, and in order to explain what exactly?
Reports of religious experience?
Why isn't "they made it up" a better explanation?
Or ergot poisoning? Or schizophrenia?
The origin of consciousness 2nd millennium BCE?
China already had microwave rice!
I might buy that, but it’s not what you wrote in your previous post.
I wasn't trying to convey a timeline as it is not the relevant issue. What is your purpose in establishing a correct timeline? Is there a point you are trying to make that depends upon having a fully explained timeline? Or...
I wasn't trying to convey a timeline as it is not the relevant issue. What is your purpose in establishing a correct timeline? Is there a point you are trying to make that depends upon having a fully explained timeline? Or...
You wrote it was sometime in the past 1.5 million years. That doesn't make sense, as I pointed out. Then you revised your comment to make it 50,000 years, which is easier to swallow. Please don't kvetch at me for your own lack of clarity.
You wrote it was sometime in the past 1.5 million years. That doesn't make sense, as I pointed out.
No. I wrote that 'for around 1.5m years homo sapiens were making stone hand axes. Then suddenly, there was a change in behaviour...speaking to a change in psychological state.'
I didn't put a date on that change in behaviour; it was about 50,000 years ago, according to Shreeve, although this is disputed with reference to recently unearthed artefacts, personally I'm not at all sure are indicative of artistic expression.
That aside, what do you imagine is the purpose of the argument? Is to describe the classification of hominid species? No! It's not. Is the purpose to establish an exacting timeline? No!
Is it the change in behaviours speaking to a change in psychological state? Yes!
To whom it may concern:
While I am quite ok with the administration deleting posts, and banning members or "users", as and when necessary, I must protest over the latest escalation of actually deleting users as well as their posts. It is surely a step too far. A conviction by a jury of his peers is surely the minimum justice a chap is entitled to price to his execution.
Also chaps, watch a video of elephants drawing and grooving to music, and stop being so anthropocentric. Especially in the shoutbox, for the devil's sake.
I'm either right about subjectivism and Limits to Growth being wrong, or I'm insane, because it's unreasonable to think I'm right and everyone else is wrong. And yet I don't think I'm wrong.
Am I insane?
What do you mean by cool? If it means conform, I can't. If being cool means fitting in, like the individual bird within a murmuration of starlings, judging its course by the course of those around it, and so wheeling about the sky in a great flock going in no particular direction, it's not my way. Consequently, I'm likely to upset people; not on purpose - but because I don't conform to the consensus. I'm not cool.
I am sublimating a lot of anger at what; if I'm right, is a collective complacency. I believe we're heading down the wrong philosophical path unto failure and extinction. And many here defend that philosophical perspective to the hilt, rather than grasping at philosophical sanity as justification for a prosperous and sustainable future. I rein that anger in; I do not express how frustrated I am by a self satisfied willingness to wheel about the sky in a great big flock going nowhere; ignoring my earnest explanations. That's the best I can do.
What do you mean by cool? If it means conform, I can't. If being cool means fitting in, like the individual bird within a murmuration of starlings, judging its course by the course of those around it, and so wheeling about the sky in a great flock going in no particular direction, it's not my way. Consequently, I'm likely to upset people; not on purpose - but because I don't conform to the consensus. I'm not cool.
I am sublimating a lot of anger at what; if I'm right, is a collective complacency. I believe we're heading down the wrong philosophical path unto failure and extinction. And many here defend that philosophical perspective to the hilt, rather than grasping at philosophical sanity as justification for a prosperous and sustainable future. I rein that anger in; I do not express how frustrated I am by a self satisfied willingness to wheel about the sky in a great big flock going nowhere; ignoring my earnest explanations. That's the best I can do.
How about just be nice and respond with logical necessity only as opposed to things you know very well are superfluous in a logical sense and serve only to incite and inflame. Or are otherwise, that do so without actually being required as part of a logical response?
I.E. don't be provocative just for provocation sake. Surely no intellect would hold such behavior as proper, let alone required to communicate one's ideas and to change minds and opinions worth changing. :chin:
Reply to Outlander If her silly little boat isn't stopped by Western forces, Greta Thunberg is going to get herself killed, and those who would delete my posts are going to have to reckon with the degree to which their myopically nice idealistic groupthink forced her onto that boat. Best case scenario she ends up a voluntary hostage HAMAS can trade with the West; worse case she has her head cut off and posted on youtube!
I may not agree with Greta Thunberg about anything other than the threat posed by climate change, but I wouldn't wish that on her. Y'all agree with everything she says, and that's what forced her onto that boat! Because you think consensus is nice. That disagreement is disagreeable. Not so.
If her silly little boat isn't stopped by Western forces, Greta Thunberg is going to get herself killed
It's her life. She's an adult. In fact, one who has reached heights of life and fame in this world most all people could only dream of. Why are you so concerned if she wishes to risk it for what she believes important or perhaps even straight martyr herself?
And, nah. She has private security with automatic weapons. Besides, that would only serve in the best interest of her goals and ideas going forward. Callous and inhumane if not sociopathic as it is to say, it remains a fact.
Reply to Outlander It's not her life though; because enforced consensus leaves no space to back down. Her decisions are not her own; they are those of the group - a group I think has been infiltrated, as evidenced by the absurdity of LGBTQHAMAS! Enforced moral consensus creates a ratchet effect; a holier than thou dynamic that's really quite extreme and dangerous. The rhetoric coming out of the radical left on any number of issues is hysterical; and the consequences for questioning that consensus are increasingly extreme too. It's something I tried to bring up, and y'all lost your collective shit! Y'all attacked me, deleted my posts and threatened to kick me off the forum. How much more onerous is that kind of pressure on Greta Thunberg?
Gotta love how much that little girl upsets old white men.
Don't put me in one of your boxes - I'm not that guy and you know it. I'm not a climate denier; my disagreement is with limits to growth because Earth is a big ball of molten rock. My argument with Greta Thunberg is the same argument I have with the entire environmental movement. They should have embraced Nasa/Sandia labs findings, and campaigned for a prosperous AND sustainable future powered by endless clean energy from high temperature geothermal. Not Marxist degrowth.
Do you think she's not a sane, functional, rational adult able to understand consequences including what risk and death is? — Outlander
Are any of us?
Well, as a religious person I suppose many would place me outside of the first category, so, a fair point brought about. :grin:
Functional? Indeed. To the not only chagrin but envy of many. Of course, what is function that serves a goal that is ultimately naught? :chin:
Ah, more religious rambling. Forgive me.
Rational? I like to think so. At least, to the level that society expects of a legal adult able to hold a job and operate a motor vehicle or otherwise be responsible for another human life. Of course. so are babysitters who are often as young as 14!
As far as understanding risk and death, I like to think so. Reward complements risk, for surely, there could not be one without the other! The same goes for death. :pray:
And also, No karl stone! That's no way to talk someone several thousand posts your senior. Now is it? Is it?? :cry: :scream:
When you get blocked, you can blame the liberal leftist gays that run the forum, and consider yourself a martyr to the cause... what ever that is. No need to blame your no doubt frustrating lack of ability.
Reply to Outlander Why would you think I was saying that to dear old Banno? I'm just wondering how I might distinguish myself, in future, from a bar of soap - should the situation arise.
Lest he say something like this, off screen, about me:
3. She Exposes Hypocrisy
Greta calls out the gap between rhetoric and action. She points out that adults have been aware of the climate crisis for decades and done little. That puts some older people — especially those in power — on the defensive. It’s not just that she’s asking for accountability; it’s that she’s revealing complacency and failure.
6. Projection and Fragility
Some of the backlash may reflect a kind of masculine fragility — a discomfort at being publicly upstaged by a teenager. She becomes a screen onto which some project their anxieties about irrelevance, loss of control, or generational decline.
I'm basically an alcoholic, sorry. I have a habit to misread things in the most offensive configuration possible. (and even so, I have immense levels of restraint and sense of logical priority, something I may humbly suggest you may wish to learn from! Ha, I kid of course. How fun to speak with a kindred spirit. I only hope you stick around long enough, which requires a bit of effort on your part, I fear :confused: )
Anyway. Let us watch with baited breath and eyes peeled as to what comes about from Ms. Thuneberg's (no pun intended) maiden voyage! :grin:
Reply to Banno Am I hypocrite Banno? Am I displaying masculine fragility and projection? How am I not to be offended by that; particularly as I'm the one who's expressing concern for Greta Thunberg - even though she's an idiot, who doesn't know anything about the climate, less about the middle east, and is doing more harm than good pushing a limits to growth perspective under a rubric of political correctness that punishes dissent. I'm the one standing against the idiot consensus - y'all so desperate to enforce, you're going to get my species, and Greta Thunberg killed. Get me banned then!
To whom it may concern:
While I am quite ok with the administration deleting posts, and banning members or "users", as and when necessary, I must protest over the latest escalation of actually deleting users as well as their posts. It is surely a step too far. A conviction by a jury of his peers is surely the minimum justice a chap is entitled to price to his execution.
One particular member began editing their posts to remove everything they had written, because they'd decided they didn't want to be a member of TPF any more. When I asked about it privately they asked me to delete their account and blank their posts in one fell swoop.
Lest some of us think he really didn't do so by his own will and perhaps someone up above (eh, you) felt his posts inconsistent with one's particular sensibilities or idea of morals and values and was, as the person your replying to, intelligent as he is, felt he was "Disappeared". Sans due process.
If I went round deleting everything that was inconsistent with my sensibilities I wouldn't have time for anything else.
I mildly resent your mad suspicions, although I'm used to it.
Since the mystery member in question had attempted self-erasure, rather than asking the staff to do it, I have to assume they don't want their disappearance to be publicized.
The whole story is as follows. Mystery member posted a new discussion that consisted of a book title, a link to the book, and basically nothing else except for some words to the effect of "here is a book" (not even anything concerning the book's content). I deleted it for low quality and neglected to tell mystery member why I did so. Mystery member began self-erasing, and the rest is history.
Reply to Jamal Proper dilemma that one. The only alternative was presumably to ban them so that they could not delete their own posts...
Of course, where they had been quoted, their posts remain...
Leaving an odd "User not found" singularity in the forum. Here's hoping that those quotes are not pulled in, destabilising the forum's continuum and resulting in a "big crunch" End Of All Things.
A rigid designator picks out the given individual in every possible world in which they exit. So if they cease to exist, what happens to the rigid designator? Presumably it remains a rigid designator, but denotes the empty set?
Here is the highlight of a political debate that took place in 1988 between the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, Lloyd Bentsen and the Republican VP candidate, Dan Quale:
Since @Moliere had actually replied to the OP, he might have a different view of the matter. I don't think I’m exaggerating when I say it had zero substance. The problem with my actions is that I didn’t bother sending a message to the member to let them know why I deleted it. I think I was feeling quite grumpy at the time—and now look what’s happened.
When you get blocked, you can blame the liberal leftist gays that run the forum, and consider yourself a martyr to the cause... what ever that is. No need to blame your no doubt frustrating lack of ability.
Reply to karl stone Karl dear, you are getting way too much attention in the shoutbox. I say something outrageous or incredibly clever and nobody responds! You do your hot lava thing and philosoffs fall all over you with sharp knives. Not fair!
I mildly resent your mad suspicions, although I'm used to it.
I mean, unelightened thought something of the sort happened, so. Y'know. Come on mate. He's a smart guy so I just figured, oh shoot, maybe he's right... nothing personal. How could it be? He was the source of insinuation I simply figured it possible as I respect his sense of logic. No big deal. :confused:
Since the mystery member in question had attempted self-erasure, rather than asking the staff to do it, I have to assume they don't want their disappearance to be publicized.
Fair enough. I just, you'll never understand because you've simply never seen or been through what I have. But, sometimes people are forced into mindsets they simply never wanted to be. And I just simply wanted to see what led to such blatant disregard of one's efforts or attempt to mask what one had such desire to share with the world...... was it a person here? Was it someone else in their life we'll never know? These things fascinate me is all... sorry to trouble you. :confused:
The whole story is as follows. Mystery member posted a new discussion that consisted of a book title, a link to the book, and basically nothing else except for some words to the effect of "here is a book" (not even anything concerning the book's content). I deleted it for low quality and neglected to tell mystery member why I did so. Mystery member began self-erasing, and the rest is history.
I believe that. Low self esteem, from the looks of it. Wanted to make his light shown and felt rejected. Tis a pity but natural for folk young of age or mind. Still. Wonder what some who follow in such patterns could offer to the world if only they were given the right encouragement and direction.....
Sigh, 'tis not your job. Nor mine I suppose. We all have lives to tend to, after all. Kudos on you for offering this here platform for such a wide myriad of minds and souls to speak to one another. Thank you. Again. Truly. :smile:
Karl dear, you are getting way too much attention in the shoutbox.
I believe @karl stone is one of the most picturesque mates I ever talked with here in The Shoutbox. I wish him the best, but also a warning to behave; he often posts weird and quirky stuff.
Wow! It's come to something, when even my feeble jokes are intimidating. I'm going to reference the shoutbox in my application to become part of the UK's nuclear deterrent.
For me it’s his fanaticism that’s the problem, and his desecration of the Shoutbox.
A true understanding of optimal Shoutbox discourse is difficult to come by, and, of course, it is not dependent on political spectrality. I see it more as the origamic enfolding of politics into topographically negentropic discursive events that reconstitute the nature of politics itself precisely to that mode the Shoutbox manifests and delineates. This requires a certain ironic distance from irony itself as a self-looping mechanism of humorous but edifying engagement. There is a there there and it is the process of searching for it that instantiates the necessary quality of experience rather than any particular predetermined end.
Oh, @Amity, through the magic of AI, I have uncovered the meaning of the previous post's apparent Sokal-like hoax:
Via Google Gemini:
"Imagine the "Shoutbox" is a space for conversation. The author is saying that the best kind of conversation in that Shoutbox isn't about winning a left-wing vs. right-wing debate. In fact, it has nothing to do with the usual political labels we use.
Think of it like this:
Folding Politics Like Origami
The author sees the ideal Shoutbox discussion as a work of art, like origami. Instead of a flat piece of paper (representing a simple political argument), the conversation should be a process of "origamic enfolding." This means taking the raw, often messy subject of politics and carefully folding it into something new and intricate.
This "folding" creates "topographically negentropic discursive events." Let's break that down:
* Discursive events: These are simply conversations or discussions.
* Negentropic: This is the opposite of entropy. While entropy is the tendency for things to become disordered and chaotic, "negentropic" means the conversation is actually creating order, complexity, and new ideas. It's a discussion that builds something up, rather than just breaking things down.
* Topographically: This means the conversation doesn't just move in a straight line from point A to point
B. Like a folded origami shape, it has depth, layers, and unexpected connections. You can jump from one point to another in a way that seems far apart but is actually connected through the "folds" of the conversation.
So, a great Shoutbox discussion takes politics and, through a creative and orderly process, transforms it into a complex and insightful conversation that isn't just a rehash of old political arguments. In doing so, it changes what "politics" even means in that space.
Being Ironic About Irony
The author also suggests that to have these kinds of conversations, participants need a special kind of humor. It's not enough to just be ironic or sarcastic. You need to have an "ironic distance from irony itself."
This means you understand how irony can be used for humor and to make a point, but you also recognize that irony can become a lazy, endless loop where nothing is taken seriously. So, you use irony in a way that is both funny and genuinely contributes to the conversation's depth—it's "humorous but edifying."
The Journey Is the Destination
Finally, the author says that the ultimate point of this ideal Shoutbox discussion isn't to arrive at some final, perfect answer. The real value—the "there there"—is in the process of searching for understanding and meaning together. The shared experience of exploring complex ideas is what makes the conversation worthwhile, not any particular conclusion you might reach.
In short, the author is describing a very sophisticated and creative form of online discussion. It's a conversation that is less like a debate and more like a collaborative art project, where the goal is not to win but to build something new and interesting together."
As a subtitle for the Shoutbox I can't decide between "The origamic enfolding of politics into topographically negentropic discursive events" and the less glamorous but more direct "less like a debate and more like a collaborative art project".
Following up on my theory that all communication is art of varying degrees, I had ChatGpt (hereinafter "Kevin") reduce to a single image our recent Shoutbox conversation. I provided a page of posts to Kevin with this instruction:
"Using this conversation as inspiration, draw a picture, but it can contain no words and it must capture its essence, not just create a series of explanatory images:"
Kevin drew me this:
WTF you ask? I asked that very question. That bird is a starling. The black cloud behind is a murmation, a flock of grouped starlings working as one to confuse hawks and predators as to what they are. The lone starling on the branch is non-conforming, perhaps unaccepting of the murmation's strategy, seeing it as doomed, so taking the chance at autonomy despite seeming self-destruction.
Following up on my theory that all communication is art of varying degrees, I had ChatGpt (hereinafter "[s]Kevin[/s]" Francis) reduce to a single [s]image[/s] music video our recent Shoutbox conversation. I provided a page of posts to [s]Kevin[/s] Francis with this instruction:
"Using this conversation as inspiration, [s]draw a picture[/s] make a music video [s]but it can contain no words and it must capture its essence, not just create a series of explanatory images:[/s]"
Thank you for this. I listened to a few repetitions of the word "wired," and then I left to order some shampoo off Amazon, but I'll definitely get back to it.
Here is the highlight of a political debate that took place in 1988 between the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, Lloyd Bentsen and the Republican VP candidate, Dan Quale:
I didn’t know if many people would recognize my paraphrase, but I knew you would.
Karl dear, you are getting way too much attention in the shoutbox. I say something outrageous or incredibly clever and nobody responds! You do your hot lava thing and philosoffs fall all over you with sharp knives. Not fair!
The difference is, we do know you from a bar of soap.
You and Kevin must know the bird shown is not a starling. Perhaps that is the substance of what Kevin is trying to show us. The bird is not a starling, following blindly. It is its own bird. You can see the integrity in his eyes.
Well, I’ll be a primate’s father’s brother. Given the rarity of these leucistic starlings, it’s an even better avatar of the rugged, independent man of the world.
But not for you. No, not of one who has so much potential to share with those he might find unworthy or unfitting or perhaps even incapable of receiving, such.
Of course, what comes easy often goes easy. Or so the saying says. You have your wit. But what ever will you make of it? :chin:
Thank you for your contribution; insofar as it is a response that acknowledges no part of that to which it responds, nor indeed, anything that we've spoken about previously as far as I'm aware. Surreal, I'd call it. A string partly remembered cliches - seeming to allude to some emotional state I find impossible to discern, less yet attribute.
She got lucky. Worst thing that could have happened to her, is if her flotilla was allowed to land.
Israel towed the ship to Ashdod, and made Greta watch Bearing Witness; a film showing what HAMAS did on Oct 7th, recorded by HAMAS bodycams!
This is going to be interesting; because like I said, wokery has no reverse gear. It's a holier than thou ratchet effect. Apostates are not allowed by the pc brigade!
She got lucky. Worst thing that could have happened to her, is if her flotilla was allowed to land.
Pardon, I don't really follow the topic often other than the larger geopolitical context, but, isn't she in favor ie. supportive of Hamas, Palestine, etc.? Why would they kill her for no reason when she's (allegedly) there in support of them. Makes no sense?
Pardon, I don't really follow the topic often other than the larger geopolitical context, but, isn't she in favor ie. supportive of Hamas, Palestine, etc.? Why would they kill her for no reason when she's (allegedly) there in support of them. Makes no sense?
There's a video on youtube "Italian peace activist Vittorio Arrigoni murdered in Gaza."
He was supportive of Hamas, Palestine etc. He was hanged.
I don't really know why - they said something about him coming from an infidel country. I don't know if Italy is more of an infidel country than Sweden. But I can't imagine it would have gone well for her.
I wonder what she'll do, having seen that video though. Maybe go home and protest the alarming rise in incidences of sexual violence in Sweden.
@javi2541997 I'm not much of a soccer fan, but I did see where Spain lost to Portugal yesterday in free kicks while I was eating my chicken wings. I hope you and your family have recovered from that cross-town rivalry.
Reply to karl stone There's already a thread for talking about Gaza: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10926/israel-killing-civilians-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank
I didn't watch the match because I don't like these new weird tournaments created by UEFA. For me, the real rivalry is in the Euros. I think I have never missed a Euros competition.
I'm talking about Greta Thunberg; because she is a climate activist. As you may be aware, my focus is a Magma Energy solution to climate change. It's not my fault Greta has become a jihadi bride. She, and her radical left wing political weaponization of climate change, still stand as obstacles to a prosperous and sustainable future. But I am hoping that her ill-informed stance on HAMAS will reflect on her ill-informed stance on the climate!
What makes a climate activist any different than a "don't put lead in paint" activist. They have a point that can be scientifically proven. Sure something so large can be abused, and due to human nature, likely will be. But why lose focus on that fact and act like the good concept never existed in the first place? You're smarter than that. So act like it.
Sure something so large can be abused, and due to human nature, likely will be.
The climate cause is being abused, by a radical left wing 5th column of neo marxists, preying upon the genuine concerns and empathies of mostly decent people.
Oops, probably should have checked if he was a moderator first!
Hanover, I don't do well with hints, pretences, facial expressions, emojis, or anything that is not communicated very directly. If you're saying I cannot post in the shoutbox, say that, explain your reasons, because I don't understand what you're saying or why.
I don't do well with hints, pretences, facial expressions, emojis, or anything that is not communicated very directly. If you're saying I cannot post in the shoutbox, say that, explain your reasons, because I don't understand what you're saying or why.
We get guys like you here on the forum on a fairly regular basis - those who want to provoke people without providing anything substantive to discuss just so they can call attention to themselves. They don't have any interest in playing nice and they don't generally last very long.
We get guys like you here on the forum on a fairly regular basis
This is factually incorrect. Possessing one or more qualities, such as liking the color blue or behaving in a way that warrants negative attention, sure. One may be called something and given an accurate descriptor, but no one is "just" anything (ie. that descriptor).
There is an unsolicited private message disgracing my coveted inbox addressing me using a word that describes one's rear bodily cavity that was sent in anger by a man unable to control his emotion and chose such desires over logic. I wonder, pray tell, who that could be.
There is an unsolicited private message disgracing my coveted inbox addressing me using a word that describes one's rear bodily cavity that was sent in anger by a man unable to control his emotion and chose such desires over logic. I wonder, pray tell, who that could be.
Footage of an Australia Journalist being shot in LA shows how low the US has become.
Documentation of evil (or undesirable bouts of human nature).is a bad thing? When in reality the same happens all day everyday in other nations without such freedoms, never to see the light of day.
Have you gone mad in your sheer capacity of intellect? No shame. Happens quite often. There's quite ample room to get lost in, particularly for one such as yourself. :grin:
The fact it's being reported is some sort of negative aspect of the few places and governments that are open enough to do and allow so? Well, shoot the messenger right in the eye, why don't ye.
Ignorance of the dust under the rug does not make it disappear, but in one's own mind.
I.E. don't be provocative just for provocation sake.
Why not? Provocation for its own sake can stimulate a response unexpected leading into uncharted territory
And logic is the wet blanket of creativity, isn't it?
And not everyone wants to convince or convert others to a particular conclusion/thought/process, it may be suggested.Particularly on the shoutbox.
AND sustainable future powered by endless clean energy from high temperature geothermal. Not Marxist degrowth.
Anybody studied the long term effects of high temp geothermal on.for examples, cooling effects of the core and heating effects on atmospheric temps resulting long term from heat extraction from the earth's core.
A true understanding of optimal Shoutbox discourse is difficult to come by, and, of course, it is not dependent on political spectrality. I see it more as the origamic enfolding of politics into topographically negentropic discursive events that reconstitute the nature of politics itself precisely to that mode the Shoutbox manifests and delineates. This requires a certain ironic distance from irony itself as a self-looping mechanism of humorous but edifying engagement. There is a there there and it is the process of searching for it that instantiates the necessary quality of experience rather than any particular predetermined end.
Anybody studied the long term effects of high temp geothermal on.for examples, cooling effects of the core and heating effects on atmospheric temps resulting long term from heat extraction from the earth's core. curious smile
No, Kazan, obviously not - if you think about it. I'm here 40 years after Nasa/Sandia Labs published their Magma Energy Project Report, campaigning on a philosophy forum because the technology has not been developed or applied.
It hasn't even been demanded by radical left wing environmentalists like Greta Thunberg.
Instead, they have demanded we stop this, tax that, pay more and have less until western capitalist society collapses; a policy known as degrowth.
However, the Earth's core has been radiating energy into space for 4bn years, and will do so for a very long time to come, no matter how much of that energy we intercept, and apply to balance human needs and the environmental good.
As for the heating effect on atmospheric and ocean temperatures, there are two factors to consider:
1. geothermal heat is not extra heat caused by the chemical combustion of coal, oil or gas, or nuclear fission. It is background heat that was radiating into space anyway.
2. geothermal energy is carbon free. It doesn't add to the blanket of carbon in the atmosphere, trapping heat, to warm the oceans - causing ever wilder climatic conditions.
As we use geothermal energy, over time, atmospheric carbon will be reduced - and ultimately background heat will radiate into space normally, as it has for billions of years.
I wish I could put numbers on this for you, but Magma Energy has been ignored by left and right alike for the past 40 years. I'm now seeking the rapid development and application of this technology worldwide; as a response to the climate threat. I advocate building a Magma Energy platform sufficient to global energy demand by 2050 - looking toward energy abundance by the end of this century.
Not all that glitters is gold. So, there are two possibilities going forward: There might be a possibility that someone smarter than you might possibly exist who has already ran the numbers and did the real world tests and determined it's simply not feasible, at least in the concept of some near "magic bullet" or "common sense" solution to all energy problems being ignored for no reason other than because people aren't yelling about it loud enough OR there's some, I can't even imagine, anti-human conspiracy of people that just want everything to be as terrible and inefficient as possible for reasons that surpass all available logic. I mean, it basically has to be one of the two.
There should be a new TV show, you being Newman and me (or the preferred TPF member of your choosing) being Kramer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUCulRiK0o0
(purposely not embedded since external playback is disabled for this particular clip)
I think people would watch us. Or you all. Whomever. :smile:
Not all that glitters is gold. So, there are two possibilities going forward: There might be a possibility that someone smarter than you might possibly exist who has already ran the numbers and did the real world tests and determined it's simply not feasible, at least in the concept of some near "magic bullet" or "common sense" solution to all energy problems being ignored for no reason other than because people aren't yelling about it loud enough OR there's some, I can't even imagine, anti-human conspiracy of people that just want everything to be as terrible and inefficient as possible for reasons that surpass all available logic. I mean, it basically has to be one of the two.
I do not believe Magma Energy is impossible; and even if it were, how would everyone in the environment movement over the past 40 years know that, such that they campaigned for limits to growth instead?
There's an explanation you haven't considered; what one might describe as a concatenation of partial views and short term interests, conspiring to exclude a middle ground Magma Energy solution.
I think the Magma Energy Project was ended by the administration of Ronald Reagan in the 1980's - and one can imagine there were reasons relating to fossil fuel markets, and geopolitics, to say nothing of electoral politics, that he would do so. His economic politics were very right wing; a position that today is fertile ground for climate change denial.
The equal and opposite response from the left can be seen in the Greenpeace founder Dr Patrick Moore, in 1986 - being drummed out of the organisation for suggesting we need to invest in nuclear energy. He complained the organisation "took a sharp turn to the political left" and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas".
Today, the radical left is fertile ground for anti-capitalist, anti-western neo marxism - using sustainability as a critique of capitalism, that is all about weaponizing the climate and ecological problem - and wholly uninterested in productive solutions.
Then there's the energy industry itself; in my view, not above spending money to keep new entrants off the market. I believe the oil industry funds radical left wing activism, precisely because it alienates the general public from concern with the climate and environment. Just Stop Oil for example, was funded by Aileen Getty - granddaughter of oil baron JP Getty.
In short, there are a lot of interests that bear upon the subject, that may conspire, incidentally, to exclude a Magma Energy approach to the climate crisis - without ever being aware they are doing so. It may be, by explaining all this - cutting the Gordian Knot of a tangle of perspectives, each of those positions is re-conceptualized, such that all legitimate interests align in a Magma Energy solution to the climate crisis none had considered because they were maintaining a position relative to others.
We've been shooting people in the streets here for 400 years including, I'm sure, a few Aussies. Why the outrage now?
I would like to hear the police account. It looked like the protestors were in another area and there were other people walking near the reporter, so I'm not sure why they decided to wing her in the leg with a rubber bullet. I saw her interviewed later, and she seemed nice enough, more confused than angry. It was bizarre.
I believe the oil industry funds radical left wing activism, precisely because it alienates the general public from concern with the climate and environment.
So, the masterminds of industry are puppeteers jerking the strings of radical left wing activists in order to alienate the public. By that theory, we might suppose that you are an agent provocateur working for the Big Oil in order to turn environmentalists against left wing radicals and further confuse the general public.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy to account for market failures or market successes. Some ideas fly, some flop. I've hitched my wagon to enough falling stars to know that conviction is no guarantee of success.
When I’m making a philosophical claim, I sometimes point out that my argument may be taken as a bit over-simplified. In the future, I’m going to use the term “jejune” instead.
Although a more thorough investigation might find mitigating circumstances, from the video evidence, it is hard to dismiss the shot as “crossfire”. The reporter and cameraman were off to one side of the police, clearly identified and working legitimately.
If this is not troubling for you, then it seems you are a part of the problem. But hey, its your country.
So, the masterminds of industry are puppeteers jerking the strings of radical left wing activists in order to alienate the public. By that theory, we might suppose that you are an agent provocateur working for the Big Oil in order to turn environmentalists against left wing radicals and further confuse the general public.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy to account for market failures or market successes. Some ideas fly, some flop. I've hitched my wagon to enough falling stars to know that conviction is no guarantee of success.
I'm working for a six year old boy, who was in school in 1978, reading an annual for a TV show, and turned the page and saw an image of a lunar landscape - Earth hung in the inky blackness of space like a moon. Astronauts in the foreground, working on some mechanical device. Habitation modules. A moon buggy skipping across the surface. A rocket ascending.
That boy thought the world would be amazing when he grew up; and he was devastated to learn that humankind is accelerating up a dead end street.
He was advised to start writing things down by someone who didn't want to listen to his despair; but found he could hardly write half a page before running into contradiction of what he had professed to believe earlier. Through a process of identifying and resolving contradictions in understanding, he arrived, at very long last at a worldview grounded in scientific rationalism - in terms of which he discovered there exists a very good answer to the climate and ecological threat; namely, Magma Energy; a technology that had been known to science all his life, but was ignored because it didn't suit anyone's immediate interests.
It didn't suit the interests of big oil, and it didn't suit the interests of radical left wing environmental activists - who, either by accident or design found themselves in a mutually beneficial conspiracy of opposition; a conspiracy against a six year old boy who thought the future would be amazing.
through the magic of AI, I have uncovered the meaning of the previous post's apparent Sokal-like hoax:
Glad to see, with the help of AI magic, you now "know thy self" or at least that part that writes "...the previous post's apparent Sokal-like hoax". More than at least one other can, 'hand on heart', claim even after the attempted illumination
As many prophets have found, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. And the world still kept turning.
Besides, Aus may need to recover most of its $300 billion when the subs don't turn up. So don't throw the first stone( referring to not being without our own sins), just flick pebbles.
Just a suggestion.
It can be argued that no nation is without its flaws, despite its citizens' blindness to their flaws.
I would like to hear the police account. It looked like the protestors were in another area and there were other people walking near the reporter, so I'm not sure why they decided to wing her in the leg with a rubber bullet. I saw her interviewed later, and she seemed nice enough, more confused than angry. It was bizarre.
Agreed. Her subsequent down noting of the incident may have something to do with the interruptions to her work should she be required to testify in a court trial. Although, the fame gained may justify.
This is the first thing I learnt from TPF when I joined the first time.
Astute, Javi. Pity you never mentioned this earlier. The shoutbox might have been even better, although T Clark's assertion doesn't seem to have markedly improved things....so far, it may be argued
Just an observation, not an assertion.
smile
I'm working for a six year old boy, who was in school in 1978, reading an annual for a TV show, and turned the page and saw an image of a lunar landscape - Earth hung in the inky blackness of space like a moon. Astronauts in the foreground, working on some mechanical device. Habitation modules. A moon buggy skipping across the surface. A rocket ascending.
That boy thought the world would be amazing when he grew up; and he was devastated to learn that humankind is accelerating up a dead end street.
He was advised to start writing things down by someone who didn't want to listen to his despair; but found he could hardly write half a page before running into contradiction of what he had professed to believe earlier. Through a process of identifying and resolving contradictions in understanding, he arrived, at very long last at a worldview grounded in scientific rationalism - in terms of which he discovered there exists a very good answer to the climate and ecological threat; namely, Magma Energy; a technology that had been known to science all his life, but was ignored because it didn't suit anyone's immediate interests.
It didn't suit the interests of big oil, and it didn't suit the interests of radical left wing environmental activists - who, either by accident or design found themselves in a mutually beneficial conspiracy of opposition; a conspiracy against a six year old boy who thought the future would be amazing.
I expect that in the near future this will be the opening passage of the holy Book of Karl, alternatively the Tablets of Stone.
I expect that in the near future this will be the opening passage of the holy Book of Karl, alternatively the Tablets of Stone.
I imagine that it will get scraped off the internet by a super-intelligent AGI, and in some small part inform its thinking with regard to the sustainability of human existence.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 11, 2025 at 10:58#9936210 likes
Reply to karl stone
Why do you want to bore us all the way to hell, just to tap into it's blazing furnace, when we all know that true freedom is to be found in the other direction?
Why do you want to bore us all the way to hell, just to tap into it's blazing furnace, when we all know that true freedom is to be found in the other direction?
I really don't understand the question.
First, your emotional state is more your responsibility than mine. I don't read metaphysics, because it's complete nonsense. I would be bored if I read metaphysics, so I don't read it. It seems to me you are free to adopt the same strategy with regard to anything that you find uninteresting.
Second, I advocate for the development of Magma Energy to address the climate and ecological threat to civilisation, and ultimately, to life on Earth.
Third, I don't know what you mean by 'true freedom is to be found in the other direction.' I can only speculate. Are you talking about Heaven? Are you talking about Heaven on an individual basis, after death? Or as a species, after a climate Armageddon induced by continued fossil fuel use? Or for just one particular religious sect? What is it that we all know? And how do we know it?
Third, I don't know what you mean by 'true freedom is to be found in the other direction.' I can only speculate.
I think he's talking about space, perhaps harvesting resources from asteroids or other planets or perhaps solar energy (either as is currently harvested or perhaps some hypothetical in-space system of some sort). That's all that comes to mind when he says "in the other direction" in reference to your "boring" (I see what he did there! Very creative.) idea.
I think he's talking about space, perhaps harvesting resources from asteroids or other planets or perhaps solar energy (either as is currently harvested or perhaps some hypothetical in-space system of some sort).
I don't know y'know. I've always considered metaphysics to occur in the course of a subjectivist denial of the primacy of Galilean objectivism underlying science i.e. actual physics!
I suspect metaphysics is often adopted by religious types to undermine epistemology and rationalism in philosophy. For all we know, Metaphysician Undercover could very well believe the Earth is flat, fixed in the Heavens, and 4000 years old.
Reply to Hanover
What program do you use to generate your images? The ones I’ve tried won’t let me do celebrities and they’re very limited in the kinds of images they can create.
I thought my eyebrows were irrelevant until I posted pictures of myself in The Shoutbox.
You thought they were irrelevant only because you've never suffered the misery of dust finding its way into your eye. What we'd all give for just one hyper-vigilant brow, let alone two forminable barriers.
ChatGPT, but I have the $20/month paid version that you're too cheap to buy.
Genisys does everything. My phone will link to my tablet will link to my computer will link to my car...
Everything in my life uploaded and online 24/7. Totally connected.
Testing members... :smirk: that sounds like a reasonable idea.
That's what I thought about Magma Energy!
Reasonable idea, I thought, epitome thereof.
Even if Gazprom's sceptical, I figured, Greta's bound to see reason.
Yet Just Stop Oil have Just Stopped.
Greta's protesting Gaza rather than Gazprom.
And the supposedly enlightened act to prevent challenges to their groupthink!
Why not post about something fun you did today, maybe a walk in the park you went on, or a new meal you've tried, with photos! Boy, do I love me some [s]voyeurism[/s] vicarious living. :lol:
We want to know the real karl. His human nature and desires. Yes, yes, we all advocate for something at the end of the day the world "just doesn't seem to understand." But you already have a thread about that.
This is for random, non-categorized, scattered thoughts and musings. Maybe fun poems or little short stories, stuff like that. I fear you've reached a level of ad nauseam in your refusal to change things up. So why don't you?
For example, I recently had to "re-chain" a chainsaw I bought for light work at a job site. It was annoying. I swear the bloody thing fought me every step of the way. I was about to throw in the towel and chalk up my difficulties to sheer incompetence or perhaps malformed equipment. But no, I powered through and now the thing is good as new. Ready to take on the world. Or at least a branch or two. :grin:
See, stuff like that. A Shoutbox is about the human connection you don't typically find in most areas of the forum, especially one such as this focused on pure logical and debate-oriented threads that exist to solve or discuss a problem. That's what people want to see more of. The real karl stone, and maybe fun little facts about his life or what he did today or will do tomorrow. No matter how small, no matter how mundane (to you), just make it worthwhile a stranger not interested in anything that already exists in a thread posted might enjoy, otherwise have brighten up their day, or at least offer some sort of deviation from their current doings or whatnot.
Something in my shoe
The corpse of a black goldfish
All of nature in the shape of a cat
I think they're going to put my cat on thyroid meds. She has a neck goiter and is losing weight. That's a common thing with old cats. They can also nuke her thyroid for like $1,500 or something and cure it. Maybe I'll do that. My wife took her in and told the vet that we'd likely spare no expense because there was nothing more important to her husband than that cat, even her.
There's a park near my office that is a preserved farm from before urban sprawl, reminding me of simpler times. I think I'd have done better then, although internet reception likely was poorer. I harken back to those days, but take comfort in knowing today will be someone else's tomorrow to harken back to.
Your choice. "Raised eyebrow smile", perhaps. To put Javi's seal on it, although any future "raised eyebrow smile" reference will not be and should not be understood as a Javi whistle.
Javi, glad to see you keep up with /on top of the smile. Emogies can't always spell it out with sufficient nuance for some of us.
As an aside, what should the total construction of a mixed metaphor used in a pun be called. Apart from the knee jerk, "Bad English" reaction.
I just want to make that clear if it wasn't already.
Point duly noted. Someone had to clarify the butter to get the clarification, that is the ghee or the clarified butter whichever term is used in the particular cook book one might be using. Glad you did, for clarity's sake.
It is well known that Georgia's peach juice is delicious. I might try it with ice cream.
Peach juice? I've never had that. Georgia is actually not the biggest peach producing state. We lead in peanuts, poultry, and pecans, all Ps for some reason.
I think they're going to put my cat on thyroid meds. She has a neck goiter and is losing weight.
From experience, the medication for hyperthyroid works pretty well for a while, but you have to keep retesting her every six months or so, and upping the dosage. Inevitably, she will hate taking the medication and refuse, no matter what kind of treat you hide it in. Then, you'll have to force it, and she'll scratch and bite as if you're trying to kill her, until the point, God forbid, you might actually be. Then she'll die, because without the nukes (which is how they treat human beings), the disease is unstoppable.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Her diagnosis is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and has been prescribed a beta blocker. So we'll see.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 14, 2025 at 01:32#9943650 likes
Reply to Hanover That's a big word, or two. It sounds more like a heart condition than hyperthyroidism. But a quick google search tells me that the symptoms can be similar.
In any case, medicating a cat is a real pain, be prepared to develop a good strategy.
That sounds very good, interesting, and unique. I think it is far more interesting than the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as "MI6."
Secret Service Bureaus are superb. I wonder if they have information about me or any compromising footage where I appear stealing wine in Mercadona.
Just so you’ll know, I did send a link to the video you recently posted here to the NSA.
:scream:
What will happen now? I have two missed calls from an unknown number. I guess it is the governor of Georgia. He will ban me from entering their territory. I really hope I can still eat peaches.
Yes. I specialise in fallout. I can fallout of places you wouldn't think a cat could get into. I do believe I could fall out of a bottle of wine in Mercadona, so the NSA better just watch their step.
Story 1: This guy is transporting a huge piece of ice through dangerous terrain. He encounters many life threatening hardships, but the chunk of ice gets smaller and smaller, so it becomes easier to travel. By the time he gets to his destination, the ice is gone. I think the location is South America.
Story 2. A guy works for many years to save up enough money to have a huge chunk of ice mailed to him. He finally makes enough and purchases the ice from Amazon.com. He waits patiently, day by day for the arrival of the ice.
Story 1: This guy is transporting a huge piece of ice through dangerous terrain. He encounters many life threatening hardships, but the chunk of ice gets smaller and smaller, so it becomes easier to travel. By the time he gets to his destination, the ice is gone. I think the location is South America.
Story 2. A guy works for many years to save up enough money to have a huge chunk of ice mailed to him. He finally makes enough and purchases the ice from Amazon.com . He waits patiently, day by day for the arrival of the ice.
Why doesn't the guy just jump on an iceberg, with a parasol and a cooler full of beer, and take the free cruise?
You can buy bottled water produced from melted iceberg. It's apparently (though I've never tried it) the best tasting water on the planet. I'm skeptical, after all those years in the fridge, it's sure to pick up some odours. How else would those scientists be able to determine the historical composition of the atmosphere through coring the ice shield, if they weren't testing for dissolved odours?
There was once a guy who needed to bring a bottle of precious oil to a far-off village. He carefully filled the bottle and set off on his journey. Before setting off, he noticed a small hollow at the bottom of the bottle — an indentation. He thought to himself:
"Ah! What a waste of space! I can fit just a little more oil there!"
So he flipped the bottle upside-down to pour oil into the little hollow.
Of course, although he did not notice, all the oil in the top spilled out onto the ground.
And so he walked carefully, but the oil in the indentation slowly splashed out, so that when he arrived only a small amount was left, the villagers upset to have so little oil.
He told them no worries, he had plenty more oil, and so he flipped the bottle upright to show them.
Wise men of Chelm:The town of Che?m decided to build a new synagogue. So, some strong, able-bodied men were sent to a mountaintop to gather heavy stones for the foundation. The men put the stones on their shoulders and trudged down the mountain to the town below. When they arrived, the town constable yelled, "Foolish men! You should have rolled the stones down the mountain!" The men agreed this was an excellent idea. So they turned around, and with the stones still on their shoulders, trudged back up the mountain, and rolled the stones back down again.
I would like to have a discussion (not really just a reply from anyone who has any insight) on the possible correlations between the fact that lion tamers use chairs to distract lions (the points of the many legs of the chair cause confusion) and the fact that, despite people who lie on surveys due to ego and pride who say they're not afraid of spiders, the vast majority of people are afraid (or at least non-accepting, which is a form of fear) of spiders or other insects, despite their disproportionately small size, due to the amount of limbs they have, particularly larger than normal ones that cannot be squashed with the tiniest appendage (a finger). For as the difficulty to kill or neutralize something that is unfamiliar grows, so does it's threat level in the mind of thinking beings.
There has to be a connection.
This seems like a very @Metaphysician Undercover type of mini-discussion. If he would be so kind as to offer his (or her? I couldn't care less!) input.
Reply to Outlander It's numerous legs are probably why house centipedes are among the least popular arthropods, yielding first or second place to spiders (arachnids). The good thing about centipedes is that they are carnivores and prey on things like spiders, probably. They are preying on something, because little centipedes (1/8" long, say) grow up to be big ones, 2" long. I've never seen a centipede actually eating anything.
I have tried to foster more positive feelings toward centipedes, and have been somewhat successful. A long-standing arachnophobia has improved too. Or, I just haven't come across big spiders lately. 3 years ago a big spider was lurking on a silk strand which stretched from the eves to the ground. It bothered me quite a bit, but I didn't haul out the flame thrower.
So trees used to be humans, but we declassified them.
Deuteronomy 20:19:
When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?
I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 16, 2025 at 02:06#9948040 likes
Reply to Hanover
Oh Mr. Knowledge of Witty Inventions, tell me how "cut loose like a deuce" is converted into "wrapped up like a douche", and this turns a boring song into an instant hit? Don't listen to that bullshit about the technician not being able to make the words sound like they were supposed to, due to some technical difficulty.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover The capitalization of Witty was a clever mistake, similar to the deuce/douche one, bringing the conversation full circle back to Wittgenstein.
I imagine there might be less bullying, but perhaps not, as you've not specifically precluded weight or size in general, as well as the phenomenon of forming groups.
Clothing would be simpler, thus dramatically affecting the social fabric, no pun intended. There would be one size for adults; that size of course being "Adult." It may make the production of clothing much simpler and streamlined; or it may not.
There would be no weight classes in boxing and similar sports, for one. As to what that would lead to (if anything) is uncertain. There would also be little need to separate inmates by size (perhaps, since again you did not specifically dictate 'if humans were the same size').
It's also possible there would be less officer involved shootings as if you're reasonably in shape the justifiable necessity to shoot the average person who matches your size is fairly low, or at least lower than someone you are dwarfed by.
It's certainly an interesting topic with many ramifications, large and small.
Reply to frank Right, suppose all humans were equally tall and equally stupid. Would this uniformity result in life being different? No. People are already quite stupid, and great height makes stupidity worse. Short stupid people actually get into less trouble than tall smart ones. Indeed, most of the world's problems are caused by tall, smart, well-dressed people with great hair. So short, stupid, bad hair. Peace on earth.
Perhaps, it is more accurate to the times of nowadays.
Better not. See enough of those on the current POTUS whenever he faces a "fake news" journalist or other persona non gratia.... is that what you are referring to in that ingrained/natural Euro-diplomatic way of yours?
You're really connecting into the smile environment, Javi.
is that what you are referring to in that ingrained/natural Euro-diplomatic way of yours?
I don't know to what extent I can consider myself as European, at least from a political perspective. Most of the powerful and interesting decisions are taken by France, Germany, and the UK. Spain is not relevant enough. I am not mad about this, and I believe it is better to be hidden nowadays.
I think it’s just Hanover’s new catchphrase, replacing “True story.”
You're probably right. Same thing.
Like, don't count your shekels out loud in the marketplace. Good advice, hence, true story/old but persistent Yiddish proverb.
Which, in a juxtaposed way, ties in with the old Romany proverb: Don't count someone else's shekels where they can see or hear you.
Another true story
Now you're taking the smile into uncharted regions. Thanks for the heads up/ link on the resistance, youth, multi national and inequality aspects of your "Villa 31" smile plus whatever else can be construed... a multi layered smile
OK then, what's the difference between a clever mistake and a Freudian Slip?
By definition a mistake is non-intentional. The concept or state of being "clever" requires conscious intention so as such the concept is, well, a non-concept. Absurd and invalid.
You're slipping, just a bit. Perhaps it's just early and you're just not quite on the top of your game insomuch. Cheers. :sparkle:
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 16, 2025 at 11:48#9949030 likes
The concept or state of being "clever" requires conscious intention so as such the concept is, well, a non-concept. Absurd and invalid.
It's a mistake that would have been clever had it been intentional, suggesting an even more clever universe, imposing wittiness even within our mistakes.
Yesterday, I ate pig meat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. What a delicious animal. But I had to do a lot of exercise in the park. Otherwise, my heart would be at serious risk.
Your neighbor tells you their dog ate most of their chickens. Do you:
1. Laugh and remind your neighbor that dogs are predators
2. Express horror at the mayhem
3. Say "Oh no!!" in a way you hope doesn't sound mocking, but shows a general concern for the welfare of all creatures, but accepting that inexplicable violence is part of nature, and sorry because you won't have as many eggs as you wanted, but you can get some more chickens, just keep the dog away from them, oh, you got rid of the dog, well, that's probably for the best.
The current rough expected value of deaths caused by AI by the end of the century is (very conservatively) 500 million (roughly 7 WWIIs) according to Perplexity AI, which also informed me that AI would have to generate multiple quadrillions of dollars to "economically" justify that level of loss of life.
It's funny though how AI companies will argue they are ethical because they do their best to protect our privacy while they also do their best not to talk about stuff like the above. It's a bit like claiming credit for helping someone fix their tie while not telling them a train is about to run them over.
The current rough expected value of deaths caused by AI by the end of the century is (very conservatively) 500 million (roughly 7 WWIIs) according to Perplexity AI, which also informed me that AI would have to generate multiple quadrillions of dollars to "economically" justify that level of loss of life.
How is AI going to kill people and why wouldn't counter-AI attack evil AI leading to more and more advanced levels of attack and counter-attack, resulting in a stale mate where peace prevails. That's how I envision it, although the death of @Frank's neighbor's chickens to the mouth of a dog makes me think that sometimes things don't work out. But, then again, it did work out for the dog, so we need to be the dog in this analogy. It's a dog eat chicken world they always say.
The current rough expected value of deaths caused by AI by the end of the century is (very conservatively) 500 million (roughly 7 WWIIs) according to Perplexity AI,
Don't worry. I asked ChatGPT how it was going to kill that many people and it said it wasn't and that people are only trying to trick you into thinking that.
The Count responded to me. My G-mail said so. He normally doesn't give me the time of day. I'm so excited. Perhaps I should eat something. No, no, I'm just going to face it. No. Ah. I'll grab something to go then come back to his reply. I've always been so skittish around those I feel have potential that transcends the ilk of this world.
I always imagined you part of the aristrocracy. Are you just being humble?
It's a prime characteristic of the aristocracy to be self-deprecating, (which is why Trump is so risible). But you wouldn't know that because the US has no aristocracy, just rich peasants. Mr T has the right idea though.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 19, 2025 at 01:34#9955400 likes
How does artificial insemination (otherwise known as AI) kill people? I thought it was used to create lives.
How does artificial insemination (otherwise known as AI) kill people? I thought it was used to create lives.
A common misunderstanding about artificial intelligence is caused by modern typological fonts. “AI” is not actually an acronym, it’s a guy’s name - Allen (AI) Thibideau, a French Canadian pastry chef.
Expected value... Experts give a 5-10% chance it will kill all of us by the end of the century. Multiply that % by the likely population when and if it does so and you get an expected value of at least about 500 million dead.
It's like a 10% chance of winning ten dollars is as good as a 100% chance of winning one dollar. Only, this is bad.
Expected value... Experts give a 5-10% chance it will kill all of us by the end of the century. Multiply that % by the likely population when and if it does so and you get an expected value of at least about 500 million dead.
There's a 10% chance that a fly is at least 90% sunk in 50% of your ointment.
It's happening guys. A line of caskets, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, each ceremoniously laid upon a black buggy pulled by a black horse (but for his white nose) are slowly being trotting down my street. Women with black lace covering their faces are weeping, men bent over, pounding their hands into the pavement (the pavement is black too) crying out. AI would stop the horses if it could, but it can't stop our foregone methods. Our only weapon against today is yesterday.
I ask you to turn off your lights, open your shutters, let the ancient sun shine upon your face, just as it did upon your ancestors. Let's take back yesterday.
I asked AI what happens if you add milk to orange jello and it told me this:
"Curdling: The citric acid in the orange jello mix can cause the milk proteins, primarily casein, to curdle and clump together. This happens because the acid lowers the pH of the milk, causing the proteins to coagulate. This can result in a lumpy, unappetizing mixture, sometimes described as looking like "snot"
AI is way too helpful to dispense with at this point.
Yeah, but it doesn't exactly mean he's right either.
Some perspective perhaps - in 1963 John F. Kennedy estimated that the chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis was somewhere between 30 and 50%.
Some perspective perhaps - in 1963 John F. Kennedy estimated that the chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis was somewhere between 30 and 50%.
Google tells me (and Google is way more smarter than AI), (oops it was Google AI), that approximately 150,000 people die every day. Instead of multiplying that by 365.25, I asked Google how many people die in a year, and it said "Approximately 67.1 million people die each year worldwide. This translates to an average of about 184,000 deaths per day".
I see a discrepancy. Since it switched from 150,000 per day, to 184,000 per day, I think it actually killed those 34,000 extra people to justify its new numbers. 34,000 people killed every day by AI works out to about 1,241,850,000 killed in a century (if I didn't do a typo on my Google calculator).
You might think that those 34.000 people a day are not actually getting killed, but then what is happening to them?
I had to look him up and it turned out to be a deep rabbit hole. I'm more worried about the influence of these apocalyptic tech bros than I am about genocidal AI.
Reply to javi2541997 Coloring each letter was so time consuming, once upon a time. One could spend hours fiddling with the text. BTW. España has been in the news lately -- hail storm in Madrid, the usual and customary corruption, naughty socialists, etc.
I think it actually killed those 34,000 extra people to justify its new numbers
Killing an extra 34,000 to balance the books? Seems reasonable. Like, we all have to die anyway. It doesn't take AI to think of 34,000 people whose absence might be quite convenient.
España has been in the news lately -- hail storm in Madrid, the usual and customary corruption, naughty socialists, etc.
I thought we were not relevant enough to appear on your news. But the sad thing is the news is only about bad things. Yes, the incumbent government are having a struggling period because important members of the cabinet are corrupt, and they are now being prosecuted for corruption. I believed that Pedro Sánchez was smart enough to resign and call for new elections; but he will remain in office until 2027...
The opposition is likewise extremely negative, corrupt, and ineffective. I've given up on my country's politics.
Reply to BC
In those days there were no digital machines and we had to make our own echos by hand. Nowadays AI does it for us with the millions of corpses it has hidden in cyberspace.
Some perspective perhaps - in 1963 John F. Kennedy estimated that the chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis was somewhere between 30 and 50%.
He meant that out of a hundred universes that had a Cuban missile crisis, 30-50 of them had nuclear wars.
Reply to frank I also took Kennedy to mean that assuming Castro a rigid designator across multiple worlds, how many worlds would result in nuclear war.
What was not answered is that if you had 100 sets of 100 universe subsets how many of those subsets would the nuclear war occur in. Would you have 30 to 50 wars in each subset and so 100% of the subsets would therefore have wars, or would 30 to 50 of the subsets have war, but within those that had wars, it would occur 30 to 50 times?
If the former, it would be accurate to say wars occur 30 to 50% of the time 100% of the time. If the latter, it would be accurate to say wars occur 30 to 50% of the time 30 to 50% of the time.
This answers a question of another post as to what it means to say something happens a certain percent of the time a certain percent of the time. We also needn't limit it to just one subset, but we could say something lilke that happens 20% of the time 18% of the time 12 % of the time and so on.
Today is my company picnic. There will be all sorts of competitions. Mine will be how soon I can sneak out and go home.
That seems like an abrogation of your responsibilities. You'll leave Loblaw and T Clark (no relation) there to show your employees how much you value them.
I didn't know Americans had picnics. I thought it was just barbecues.
Picnics require Gingham table cloths spread on the grass, and cold sausage rolls served out of a wicker hamper and some wine they used to drink before I was born.
Picnics require Gingham table cloths spread on the grass, and cold sausage rolls served out of a wicker hamper and some wine they used to drink before I was born.
This is a picnic table:
In the US, anything eaten at a picnic table is a picnic. It's the law.
Reply to Jamal I'd say they require potato/pasta salad with chicken sandwiches (from last nights roast), and chips.
After that, some excuse for why we're out here like fishing or frisbee or whatever.
I think of picnics as the poor man's way of "going out" -- the parks are free to go to and if you bring your own food then you can have a good time without spending anymore than what you would have at home.
The first time I got drunk, it was at a picnic. Folks brought rum with lemon, and I drank it without sense and control. It was delicious, refreshing, and a bit bitter. Thirty minutes later, I was puking in a random public bathroom in the park. Since then, I got disgusted with rum (but not with lemons).
Reply to Jamal I had to watch a you-tube video to figure out the analogy, but yes.
The important thing is that you can spend all of 2 dollars to bring a bag of chips to the park without having frier equipment. They're not hot out of the cooker, but they are still fried potatoes with salt and anything else you might want.
So unlike "chips" in the British sense where, as I understand it, that means "freshly deep fried potatoes served with a sauce and sandwich" -- rather, more often than not, I think of a bag you buy at the grocery store.
Yes, it's a useful update. But while all Brits and Irish are aware that Americans call crisps chips, I suspect only a small portion of Americans (say, a truckful) know that chips are called crisps in Britain and Ireland.
Yes, it's a useful update. But while all Brits and Irish are aware that Americans call crisps chips, I suspect only a small portion of Americans (say, a truckful) know that chips are called crisps in Britain and Ireland.
I was in Britland and ordered a sammich or some such and I asked to substitute chips for crisps. The Britwaitress acted surprised and said "really?" I can't convey the way she said it without providing an audio file.
I feel I speak in pretty good Britvoice, but I'll let you be the judge.
ya'know, you're not wrong. "Crisps/Chips" would be more relatable than looking at the stars.
How else are the kids to understand the contribution to thinking that Frege introduced?
But there was never anyone who had eaten crisps and eaten chips and thought they were different things, and learned later they were both Saturn, so I see a distinction.
Reply to Jamal I'm likely influenced by the Spanish I hear locally, but the "th" sound was a nice touch, along with the choice of authentic conversation regarding the dancing goat.
North or south Delaware? County or ZIP code will help. I'm pretty precise with mid-Atlantic accents, particularly those influenced by the Philly/Baltimore/Jersey variations.
I feel like listening to the voice of a TPF moderator would have some sort of effect similar to what happened in "The Evil Dead" so while I myself will abscond I eagerly await the opinion of others as to how he sounds like. :grin:
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius
Do the insane really have rank, though? That speaks more of humanity as a whole, at least the society in question that placed them or allowed them to be there in the first place than the so-called insane themselves, I'd say. At least, it speaks just as much, I'd say. :confused:
DifferentiatingEggJune 21, 2025 at 10:35#9960370 likes
Who here isn't simulacrum? That's the question I think everyone here ought to ask themselves.
he first time I got drunk, it was at a picnic. Thirty minutes later, I was puking in a random public bathroom in the park.
The random problem again.
In mathematics, particularly within probability and statistics, random refers to an event or process where the outcome is unpredictable and cannot be determined with certainty beforehand.
The public bathroom you referenced as "random" was probably anything but "random", since the outcome of a young person getting drunk at a picnic is predictable, and will occur with a high degree of probability. What you refer to as "random" likely derives from the Middle English "random" meaning "an impetuous headlong rush". In other words, you dashed into the nearest public toilet to puke your guts out.
I have been there, done that -- though in the first case, I was 20 and got drunk very fast and very badly on really disgusting cheap slop. There was no picnic -- it was a warm spring evening on campus. We walked across the highway bridge to Bluff Siding in Wisconsin where the legal drinking age was 18. We followed the railroad back; we sat down (randomly) on the railroad track and proceeded to guzzle this sickening rot gut. Instant Inebriation! We crossed the Mississippi River on the railroad bridge -- no railings -- and then picked our way through a scrap metal yard before proceeding back to campus. Nausea lasted 2 days.
The second bad drunk was the result of drinking too much fairly good quality rosé wine. I was about 26 that time--a long time ago. Since then I have stuck to beer and sometimes whiskey and have had highly satisfactory drunkenness ever since.
One can get perfectly drunk on beer and it is safe and effective when used as directed.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 22, 2025 at 02:16#9961840 likes
Reply to BC
What's the criteria for "perfectly drunk"?
I don't think I've found it yet. So... off I go to experiment further.
Reply to BC Well, it's a great analysis, dear friend. I can't disagree with you on your point, but let me be more specific in what is related to the bathroom and why I believe its location is random.
Madrid (but I believe the rest of the cities do this) put bathrooms that look like cabinets in very random places. For example, you are walking in a large avenue, and ta-da! There are these random toilets.
On the other hand, these constructions are there to help people in an emergency. But I doubt if they were put to give a hand to drunk people. Imagine how many of these you would need then!
Folks tend to say: if you are drunk, go home! But no one notices that there are these bathrooms.
I agree. A thing that is worth doing at all may not be worth doing well - like getting perfectly drunk. "Fairly drunk" is good enough.
Remember, Mr. Undiscovered Metaphysician, getting drunk can impair 100,000 dendrites making it impossible for your neurons to figure out how to put the key into the lock of your door, resulting in you sleeping on the ground.
Madrid (but I believe the rest of the cities do this) put bathrooms that look like cabinets in very random places. For example, you are walking in a large avenue, and ta-da! There are these random toilets.
OK, I get it. See, in Minnesota, we do not have random toilets. WE DO NOT PUT NICE TOILETS ON THE STREET, ¡EVER! and chilly upper-midwestern hospitality doesn't include welcoming your bladder, bowels, or stomach into the cafe or store unless you are buying--and maybe not even then. Banks would just as soon see you die in the gutter as provide a toilet.
In Minnesota strangers, visitors, citizens, et al are expected to take care of their physical needs somewhere else. At the airport. At the hotel. At the jail. At your office. Before you leave home. At the previous store you were in. Anywhere but here.
Even in parks, of which we have many -- hell, the Mississippi River flows through the middle of town -- there are few toilets. There also may not be trees, bushes, various visual obstacles behind which one might service one's bladder, bowels, or stomach. The police assume that sex will be had if there are privacy hedges (which is of course true). They want to surveil the whole park without having observation impeded by big bushes, thick trees, tall flowers, etc.
And, in the police view, no place is more likely to collect disgusting activity than a toilet.
In Minneapolis, it can truly be said, "if you a need a toilet quick, you are shit out of luck."
Reply to BC We did the same as in Minneapolis back in the day. We didn't have nice (and random) toilets in the street. If you were in an urgency, you had to go to a hidden tree or corner. Folks complained about this, and the mayor decided to put random toilets. It is a good idea, indeed. But they are treated very badly. The walls are decorated with spray-painted graffiti. And there isn't toilet paper in most cases. Although they are supposedly places for doing good things, they are easily corrupted. So, I recommend avoiding the random public toilets.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 22, 2025 at 11:47#9962180 likes
I agree. A thing that is worth doing at all may not be worth doing well - like getting perfectly drunk. "Fairly drunk" is good enough.
"Perfectly drunk" might be the same as "fairly drunk", I don't know.
I saw a pop up article where some scientist was arguing that one drink per year is the maximum amount anyone should have. One drink per year! How arbitrary, why not one every 250 days, or one every 500 days, or none for that matter? For that guy "perfectly drunk" is not drunk at all, except a very slight buzz once a year, maybe a glass of New Years Eve champagne or something.
I agree. A thing that is worth doing at all may not be worth doing well - like getting perfectly drunk. "Fairly drunk" is good enough.
Remember, Mr. Undiscovered Metaphysician, getting drunk can impair 100,000 dendrites making it impossible for your neurons to figure out how to put the key into the lock of your door, resulting in you sleeping on the ground.
This is from “That Mitchell and Webb Look,” a very funny television show from Britain back in the early 2000s.
We have public latrines where I live. Large open fecal pits with a log running across. Etiquette dictates you drop trou and scoot to the middle to allow others space. Man and lady alike enjoy the open air, a nice book, and perhaps a lazy smoke as they relax and rejuvenate.
We have public latrines where I live. Large open fecal pits with a log running across. Etiquette dictates you drop trou and scoot to the middle to allow others space. Man and lady alike enjoy the open air, a nice book, and perhaps a lazy smoke as they relax and rejuvenate.
My company's Atlanta office was once located in an office building set up like a motel. Each office fronted on an open courtyard and common facilities were located in separate locations at one end. The first time I visited, I said, to general amusement, that this was just what I expected in Georgia - that I'd have to go outdoors to go to the bathroom.
The first time I visited, I said, to general amusement, that this was just what I expected in Georgia - that I'd have to go outdoors to go to the bathroom.
I see that they appropriately housed you in the yankee quarters.
Reply to T Clark Thanks!!! Those clips are actually very funny. You probably saw the show on WGBH or somewhere like that. Brit Box? Was Brit Box around back then?
Slightly less than two drinks does seem to be the ideal amount.
Well, I was pleased to find the hotel I stayed in had indoor toilets. So, there is progress.
Indoor toilets! Wow! I thought these only existed in indoor pools. "Indoor" and "outdoor" are two of my favourite English adjectives. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, they are adjectives and not adverbs!
Reply to javi2541997 Correct. Indoors and outdoors function as adverbs, because they describe where an activity took place, like "I urinated outdoors behind a random tree."
"Behind a random tree" raises the issue of which side of a tree is "front" and which side is "behind", or for that matter, maybe it was "to the left of" or "to the right of" the tree. 1 round tree on a street; one could get lost in the relativity of it all.
All flat fishes; e.g. flounder, sole, turbot, halibut; evolved from a single common ancestor.
Fun fact: if @Hanover had to become a fish, he would become a flounder because he would admire the ability to lay on his side whilst maintaining full situational awareness. He says the strangest things and unfortunately the stranger something is the more I'm inclined to remember it. Is that normal? That's probably normal... it has to be. :shade:
I was floundering about cooking dinner, and I fell into the pot, and I boiled for at least 2 hours, but it felt like forever. My wife found me in there and collindered me out.
I'm telling you guys this for two reasons: (1) this synchronicity with flounders is uncanny, and (2) I should likely rethink the size of my cooking pots because they pose a sinking hazard, particularly while boiling water.
Picnics require Gingham table cloths spread on the grass, and cold sausage rolls served out of a wicker hamper and some wine they used to drink before I was born.
And don't forget unseasonal rain showers, mosquitoes, flies, ants et al.
Correct. Indoors and outdoors function as adverbs, because they describe where an activity took place, like "I urinated outdoors behind a random tree."
I love how we used didactic examples related to urinating, toilets, random bathrooms and outdoor/indoor places, but I think we have to move on. What do you think of bus stations? They could be indoor or outdoor buildings. Furthermore, most of them have toilets, because we need to pee before starting a long journey on the road!
Furthermore, most of them have toilets, because we need to pee before starting a long journey on the road!
There is an age, that some of us reach, when exposed to a new physical environment, particularly a public place, in which one will be spending some time, the first order of business is to locate the toilets and taking into account/consideration such things as the weather, one's current and near future state of hydration and one's personal conception of bladder content and withstandable pressure, one quickly calculates one's roaming range from said toilets. Having young children in tow that one is responsible for is another consideration.
A good reason for local council members to have a wide range of ages... about the only good reason for having some of the silly old farts.
Just an observation
enjoying the topic smile
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 23, 2025 at 11:15#9964520 likes
Reply to javi2541997 Of course we can elevate our verbose didactic grammatical examples: "I retreated indoors to the library and sat at a random table while I translated an ancient Latin text on the barbarian conquest of Iberia. First were the Vandals, Suebi, and Alans, but later the Visigoths arrived. The Vandal culture survived intact, and to this day they are responsible for scribbling obscene messages on random toilet walls and causing the toilets to overflow. As a rule, they prefer to urinate in subways and alleys."
Almost put this on Vera Mont's tribute thread, because synchronicity.
Here is a new observatory in Chile, coming on stream, named after Vera Rubin the somewhat under-celebrated discoverer of dark matter.
They announce several thousand new asteroids detected in a couple of days of operation, along with lots of variable stars and some very nice pictures that can be seen here.
Lots of details and endless thanks to each other, with commentary by my favourite Anton, available below, you might want to skip to around the middle:
Sparkling mineral water is delicious, and it is preferable to drink it over Coca-Cola and the rest of the sodas.
Here in the US, we are required by law to drink at least a six pack of either Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola every week. If you were here, what you’ve written would be considered treason.
DifferentiatingEggJune 24, 2025 at 16:11#9968360 likes
Reply to javi2541997 in dealing with philosophy, who hasn't put the onion in their omelet? So many layers that makes one teary eyed...
Here in the US, we are required by law to drink at least a six pack of either Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola every week. If you were here, what you’ve written would be considered treason.
Interesting. I'd like Pepsi over Coca-Cola. Sorry if this is also a treason.
Incredible! Sparkling mineral water from Georgia. I believe it would be hard to find them here, but Madrid is a big city with different and random stuff. I guess there would be one shop that sells Borjomi, at least.
Atlanta is home to Coca-Cola. Clarky is jealous of my great state, so he tries to anger me by discussing my arch enemy Pepsi. I try not to let it bother me, but it's hard not to let it get to me. Pepsi wakes up every morning trying to kill Coke, and that is infuriating to me.
Clarky is jealous of my great state, so he tries to anger me by discussing my arch enemy Pepsi.
I like Georgia. I have friends there. I like Coke too. I don’t like Pepsi. Let’s not mention RC cola. It’s true my heart was taken by Dr Pepper somewhere along the line. But drinking a Coke makes me nostalgic for my first love.
Stewarts Cola, Karma Kola (New Zealand) and Cafe Cola (defunct - mid 90s I think) are better than Pepsi and Coke by some wide, wide, wide margin. Ironically, the Stewarts Daft Cola is actually owned by Coke lmao.
RC Draft is also amazing (not standard RC, RC Draft
I don't drink any soft drinks. I only drink iced tea. Sometimes water in a pinch. I also only drink at meals, never having a drink anywhere else. I'm not entirely sure why, but it adds to my mystique.
Are you kidding me? Please read on. I just put people in the cleft in the rock and they pass by me. It's really not all that hard. Sure, it's unconventional, but I don't want people to die for Christ sake.
“There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
Good morning, Miss Rapunzel and Mister O'Hara. The Greek salad is already in the fridge. I put pepper, yoghurt, tomato, cheese and olive oil in the salad. It is a big bowl.
Please, put a bib on you, because you often get dirty after eating, and I have to wash both the clothes and the tableware.
You'll eventually break off the bolt head when trying to loosen a bolt with countersunk threads.
I've seen that the method of getting a pig onto a truck is to twist its tail. I did not know that you had to twist a female pig's tail the opposite way as a male's or else the pig would not go and you'd break off the tail. Ouch!
There was once a kosher pig which was also forsaken...
It is said that once the messiah comes (Jesus didn't count for Jews you see), the pig will be made kosher, as even the symbol of impure will be pure.
It's a blessing and a curse. A blessing to be pure. A curse to be dinner. Especially in the early days after being made kosher, the previously bacon deprived Jews will have lost time to make up ravenously.
Protecting oneself with impurity is precisely why I rub horse dung behind my ears each morning.
In the deepest caverns beneath the Kerosene Sea lies the most elusive iridescent Kaleidoscope Squid with flesh described as sweeter than mango tinged with the perfect bitterness of the vaporous fuel.
My mother broke (accidentally) a glass of the Scottish beer brand 'Innis and Gunn'. Now, I feel a bit sad and melancholic. One of the best souvenirs of Scotland went to the rubbish. I have other pint beer glasses that I bought in Edinburgh, but none of them are as cool as the broken glass.
I think no. The broken glass was bought in Edinburgh. If I buy another on the Internet, it will lose its essence. The "new" glass would be a boring object.
My mother broke (accidentally) a glass of the Scottish beer brand 'Innis and Gunn'. Now, I feel a bit sad and melancholic. One of the best souvenirs of Scotland went to the rubbish. I have other pint beer glasses that I bought in Edinburgh, but none of them are as cool as the broken glass.
There's a gift I give people for Christmas from time to time. I take a Christmas tree ornament, take a picture of it, and then break it. I put the broken pieces in a very small box - two inches round if possible, and glue the top on. Then I glue the picture on the cover of the box and put a small hole in it so you can put in the hook to hang it on the tree. I call it a Zen ornament, although someone I gave it to once called it Schrodinger's ornament.
So, that's what you should do. Put the broken pieces of the glass in a box about the size of the glass, glue a picture of the unbroken glass on the side, and put it on the shelf where you used to keep the glass. It's best if you use a picture of the actual glass that broke. I suppose you could use one you got elsewhere, but it wouldn't work as well.
I'm not really sure what to do, but prolonging the loss of the glass as long as possible makes the most sense so as to never forget its blessed memory.
Speaking of alcohol, drinkers are far more judgy of non- drinkers than non-drinkers are of drinkers. It's like we make you nervous, like if we were standing at the dinner table and everyone else was seated. You just want us to sit down and relax. You think we're going to pounce on your vulnerability or something.
If the broken glass is so cool, why did you throw it into the rubbish?
Everything is transient. Innis & Gunn Lager beer; the Innis & Gunn brewery, the Innis & Gunn glass, Edinburgh, Scotland, the British Isles, the British Empire, the sun which never sat on the British Empire, etc. We people are grass.
By the way, Innis & Gunn glasses are alienated products of mass production. No matter where you bought it, how you bought it, when you bought it, or how much Innis & Gunn alienated lager beer you drank from it, they are all the same. Order another pair of alienated Innis & Gunn glasses and rejoice in the wonder of Capitalist Production.
By the way, Innis & Gunn glasses are alienated products of mass production
Originally, each glass was hand made by a skilled craftsman and hand painted, no two being alike. The glassery (as it was called) was owned by the laborers, and each was paid based upon need, with the remaining profits returned to the purchasers. This was the way for decades, until.Carol called Susan a cunt for talking to her man, then it went to shit, and like you said, capitalism, alienation, and everything else followed.
Speaking of alcohol, drinkers are far more judgy of non- drinkers than non-drinkers are of drinkers. It's like we make you nervous, like if we were standing at the dinner table and everyone else was seated. You just want us to sit down and relax. You think we're going to pounce on your vulnerability or something.
This characterization is very interesting. I believe drugs or substances are related to maladaptive beliefs and low self-esteem.
Put the broken pieces of the glass in a box about the size of the glass, glue a picture of the unbroken glass on the side, and put it on the shelf where you used to keep the glass. It's best if you use a picture of the actual glass that broke. I suppose you could use one you got elsewhere, but it wouldn't work as well.
It seems like a nice idea, but you can't imagine how destructive the impact was to the glass. More than many pieces, it turned into shards. I even lost some in the large floor of the kitchen.
If the broken glass is so cool, why did you throw it into the rubbish?
Because it turned into a messy broken object. More than "throwing it into the rubbish", I believe that I actually buried it down. It made me sad to see how that precious beer glass has become.
ou can't imagine how destructive the impact was to the glass
It is amazing how ordinary glass can shatter and spread across the floor and be difficult to clean up. A week later and bits of glass are still showing up.
Hey, how bad was the heat this past weekend? 40ºC or 104ºF is hot. Add humidity, and it's really bad. Stay hydrated and don't get over-heated! The US has been hot quite a bit, with lots of damaging storms.
Hey, how bad was the heat this past weekend? 40ºC or 104ºF is hot.
Yes, it had been a tough week. That's the main reason why I dislike summer. Hot days make me feel very tired, and I have to be confined at home with the air con on. But I believe that the worst part is when night comes. It is still hot, like in tropical zones, and it is very difficult to sleep.
It seems like a nice idea, but you can't imagine how destructive the impact was to the glass. More than many pieces, it turned into shards. I even lost some in the large floor of the kitchen.
I believe that the beer was complementary with a tasty meal. Beer always stimulates appetite for myself.
Reply to javi2541997 I prefer the heat. They make it way too cold in restaurants here, where you have to wear a jacket in the summer. At least I do.
The a/c was broken last night where I ate, and they apologized for the comfortable temperature.
I do like the a/c cold at night though. It is hard to sleep if it gets too hot and you have no fan or anything. The a/c takes care of the high humidity also.
Reply to Hanover Think about it deeply. If you have a problem with cool weather, there are multiple solutions to take care of the situation. For example: you can wear a jacket or a scarf or tuck yourself in with the blanket. You can turn the heat on, etcetera.
But what can we do with the heat? I will not be 24/7 in a swimming pool or beach because this is disgusting. Furthermore, we are in a serious shortage of water, so it is not the best time to make ice or drink water constantly.
Think about it deeply. If you have a problem with cool weather, there are multiple solutions to take care of the situation. For example: you can wear a jacket or a scarf or tuck yourself in with the blanket. You can turn the heat on, etcetera.
It's not like you're going to catch on fire. Just take a deep breath and accept the heat. Welcome it in like a cat and stretch out under the window.
Furthermore, we are in a serious shortage of water, so it is not the best time to make ice or drink water constantly.
Is there not enough water because the skies dried up or is it because demand is higher than there are water treatment plants? If it's the latter, then you need to talk to the water people and tell them to get to work. If it's the former, I'll talk to my people here and send you guys some coca-cola. It's refreshing. It'll cheer you guys up.
Producing heat out of X-rays is still kinda hard to do without X-ray reflectors, otherwise you'd have to steal it from the government. Stuff can't be patented though apart from the reflectors, but good luck with that...
Metaphysician UndercoverJuly 01, 2025 at 02:08#9980590 likes
Sorry javi, but I couldn't resist making fun of your slang. Who ever calls it "air con"?
I searched on Brave how to say "aire acondicionado" in English. The answers were very good, but above all, it said that in the UK it is called "air con". I liked it so I posted it.
I am in La Mancha, and we also need an aircon urgently. But I don't know where to place it. The worst time is at night, and it makes it very difficult to sleep. I couldn't sleep a wink until 01:30.
Reply to javi2541997
I haven't heard people talking about 'air con' in Britain and, maybe, the slang is used by those fortunate enough to have it. As it is, I and many others are like roast potatoes, having the hottest weather ever. Don't be surprised if I write gibberish on the forum as my sleeping patterns are upside down, because I don't have 'air con' at all and my room feels like a furnace, night and day!
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Air conditioning, often abbreviated as A/C (US) or air con (UK),[1] is the process of removing heat from an enclosed space to achieve a more comfortable interior temperature, and in some cases, also controlling the humidity of internal air.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioning
The full system is called HVAC, pronounced H-vac. Maybe Brits say that. I'm not sure. They get weird with Hs. They'll say umble instead of humble. Maybe they say Vac instead of HVAC, fully foresaking the H.
Speaking of which, I've heard there are lands where the J is treated as an H. Maybe they say J-Vac. I'll ask @javi2541997. He might know.
I know, but I thought you liked to be called Scottish rather than British
Thank you for thoughtfully excluding me, but I can acceptably be called either, depending on circumstances. Scotland is on the island of Great Britain, commonly known as Britain, therefore I'm not only Scottish but British too. Simplistic, perhaps, but that's the way I see it.
Still runnun an eggnisha in Darwin through the midday heat,if ya tourist.
In Cairns, the locals may need a cardy in the early mornun if it drops ta 15C. Brollies will wear out twice as quick in Cairns with so much rain this not so dry season.
Thoughts in an ancient dialect.
After the way your last "Pig?" drew comments, why not?
And how are you traveling of late, Shawn? Ok, good, fantastic or.... choose your own description?
That's right. As well as I am not only Spanish but also a Castilian, and folks in Cataluña and the Basque Country are both Spanish and Catalán/Basque.
I see you removed the part of my sentence in which I framed the matter in physically geographic terms, so that you could make this controversial political point. But that's ok, I don't mind :cool:
I see you removed the part of my sentence in which I framed the matter in physically geographic terms, so that you could make this controversial political point. But that's ok, I don't mind
I think you should have posted 'piggy smile' instead.
Considering the wide variety of pigs smiling or not (...hard to tell for many of us) that Shawn presents to us, posting a "piggy smile" could be misconstrued in too many ways, don't you think, Javi; particularly, with the two "different/competing" strands of that specific post?
But, who knows, another time it could be very, or more, appropriate, yes?
Please don't stop the suggestions coming. Including yours, everybody's suggestions are a strong point of S/box multi-logue, even when, sometimes, the image of a skinny dog, purging itself of something bad it has recently eaten, comes to mind; while at other times, the suggestions are more relatable to fog light switches being activated to help see the way ahead. And all of that which lies between. Such a rich realm of ideas.
Considering the wide variety of pigs smiling or not (...hard to tell for many of us) that Shawn presents to us, posting a "piggy smile" could be misconstrued in too many ways, don't you think, Javi; particularly, with the two "different/competing" strands of that specific post?
Yes, that's right. It is complex to determine if a pig is actually smiling because the act of smiling is something human. It is true that I often see that my dog puts his snout in a form that seems she is smiling as humans do. But the big question here is: are dogs and pigs aware that they smile when they are smiling?
Yes, that's right. It is complex to determine if a pig is actually smiling because the act of smiling is something human. It is true that I often see that my dog puts his snout in a form that seems she is smiling as humans do. But the big question here is: are dogs and pigs aware that they smile when they are smiling?
Very difficult to answer the "other species" smile question. Have own a hound with an edgy sense of humour that several people claim he would look at you after you realized what he had done and laugh with his eyes at and with you. Coyote the Trickster stuff.
Evening meal preparation time here or shut the S/box time.
Cheers, Javi.
Thoughts on the new red shoes? They remain untied as part of the hip design and the uppers are 100% wool. I came upon them while searching for wool shoes, thinking there couldn't be such a thing, much less in bright red.
I’d give you a thumbs up if they were real shoes, but I suspect they’re novelty slippers, since you said they’re wool and they look soft like felt slippers. Correct me if I’m wrong, but so far it’s :down:
Considering the wide variety of pigs smiling or not (...hard to tell for many of us) that Shawn presents to us, posting a "piggy smile" could be misconstrued in too many ways, don't you think, Javi; particularly, with the two "different/competing" strands of that specific post?
Reply to Jamal I would add the shoes show an authentic non-conformity that has since eroded, where American individualism is now displayed as obedience to custom.
Those simple shoes, impregnated with so much meaning, not just feet.
I look upon those poolside with their mango infused intoxicants foresaken by the Almighty from the heroic suffering bestowed upon me, who insists upon running and biking to prove my superiority despite my parched dizziness. They pretend to ignore my heroism to hide their shame, but I can taste their jealousy above the weird metallic taste the sun has brought about. Some were chosen for greatness, others for vacation.
Reply to Hanover Actually... I've been reading Rick Atkinson's 3 volume history of the American Revolution. Lots of stuff not mentioned in 7th grade American history! Anyway, George Washington couldn't account for the victory over the British of his sometimes half-arsed, motivated but frequently barefoot army under his sometimes less-than-adequate management. In his speech to congress accepting his commission, he acknowledged he was not up to the task. His military skills were lacking, but he was very convincing as a man on a horse.
Your cartoon would be more accurate if a scrawny George W. with at most 1 very ragged red shoe was stomping on a buff but supine George III.
A robust 4th of July!
Metaphysician UndercoverJuly 05, 2025 at 00:10#9987850 likes
I feel like if you're mixing the egg salad, the tuna salad, and the potato salad, you're just stretching out the picnic leftovers. You then need to give it a fun name, like rainbow salad, so the kids will eat it. I feel like maybe that happened to you.
A lot of different things have happened to me at picnics... but that's another episode of my life, mate!
I was at my company picnic, and the organizer thought it would be entertaining for the partners of the firm (which includes me) to line up to have water balloons thrown at us as a sort of pie in the face sort of humor. I left right before that but everyone else dutifully lined up.
I didn't say anything and let it go, but it really pissed me off. Like a crazy amount. As in, don't cast me in your idiot play, don't force others not as stubborn as me into your stupidity, and this feels like passive bullying. But to everyone else, they seemed not to care.
Am I just uptight? Is this my introversion in overdrive? Am I overly sensitive? I ask because it sparked some pissed offedness I usually don't feel.
Metaphysician UndercoverJuly 06, 2025 at 00:42#9989160 likes
I ask because it sparked some pissed offedness I usually don't feel.
Culture that feeling of pissed offedness. It goes really well with a couple gallons of beer. The two combined provide for a phenomenal enjoyment of life. But please stay out of jail.
Reply to Shawn Have you considered working with pigs? I suspect there are opportunities, particularly for someone with such a niche passion. Obviously not a farm, but maybe a petting zoo.
I kinda work with pigs, but, not cops. I don't understand cops. Do you?
Metaphysician UndercoverJuly 07, 2025 at 01:27#9991050 likes
Reply to Shawn
Cops are the obstacles which get in the way of having a phenomenally good time when you properly mix your pissed offedness with the appropriate amount of beer.
No. Like when they say, "Sir, can I please see your driver's license?," I always get confused and think they mean they want me to play with their gun. When they say, "Sir, stop going for my gun," I think they mean "fight harder." Typically we figure out the confusion and we just laugh and laugh.
For a long time I've held that "A fact is a true sentence"
And now I'm starting to think I need to add to it -- "A fact is a true sentence which refers to the world"
Truly revolutionary thoughts**.
**EDIT: I can't help but make fun of myself. What this would mean for me, though, is that there are some truths that are not referring to the world, which is a weird thought when not subscribing to transcendental idealism.
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
And so was it a fact that Pluto was a planet and now it's a fact that it's not? Or was it thought to be a fact Pluto was a planet and then it was discovered it was not? Are truths not necessarily facts? If that is the case, then facts are epistimological evaluations, not ontological statements. This would mean you don't ground facts in truth.
Facts would be just provisional taxonomic labels under this theory, unrelated to whether the facts correspond to reality.
I don't like this theory. It's of the sort that dispenses with metaphysics, reducing philosophy to talk analysis.
"A fact is a true sentence which refers to the world"
How does "which refers to the world" modify your sentence? Do you not define "the world" as "anything and everything," or are you taking "the world" to mean something limited, like the physical world?
I'm working on a theory that argues that if the metaphysical is inaccessible by any philosophical means, whether it suffers the Wittgensteinian fate of being the silence behind the usage or unknowable beyond Kant's phenomenal, then the solution isn't to discard the effort, but it's to discard philosophy as a tool for its access. The mystery is there, but if our microscope can't find it, then it's a microscope that is the problem, not the problem that is the problem.
This, of course, just offers me a basis for faith, which is always the result I seek, but that's just self-awareness speaking.
How does "which refers to the world" modify your sentence?
I started to think about sentences which might be true regardless of context. In the extreme tautologies, but those are not interesting.
Ethical beliefs might fit here, but it'd be contentious as to which ethical belief fits so I'd prefer to give the category as an example rather than a particular belief.
But in that vein -- ye olde Kant had a good theory about universalizing the subjective principles one holds to. Supposing "the world" refers to "all of which I experience" and a person holds to a principle then that principle -- though not universally true -- is practically true within the world without referring to the world.
I guess what I'm trying to tangle with is the notion of transcendental truths that are somehow still part of philosophy rather than faith, with a "materialist" perspective that cares about others.
But in that vein -- ye olde Kant had a good theory about universalizing the subjective principles one holds to. Supposing "the world" refers to "all of which I experience" and a person holds to a principle then that principle -- though not universally true -- is practically true within the world without referring to the world.
Is this a modal logic question, as in
?P = "Necessarily P" vs. ?P = "Possibly P"
As in, it is necessarily true in all possible worlds that some moral truth exists versus it is only possibly true that such a moral truth exists in world that exists under certain constructs?
I make this comparison because Kant references the universalization of morality (“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”) so it would necessarily have to extent across all possible worlds.
Anyway, feel free to correct me. I feel like we're drifting between two different foundations (possible world language versus a priori moral necessity language, but it's good to be eclectic.
I'm working on a theory that argues that if the metaphysical is inaccessible by any philosophical means, whether it suffers the Wittgensteinian fate of being the silence behind the usage or unknowable beyond Kant's phenomenal, then the solution isn't to discard the effort, but it's to discard philosophy as a tool for its access. The mystery is there, but if our microscope can't find it, then it's a microscope that is the problem, not the problem that is the problem.
This, of course, just offers me a basis for faith, which is always the result I seek, but that's just self-awareness speaking.
Thoughts?
That looks like a basic justification for esotericism, mysticism, or religion: since the truth cannot be reached rationally/conceptually, we have to open ourselves to a different kind of personal experience.
I don't agree but the idea is solid and digestible.
The similarity and contrast with Adorno is striking: concepts tend to vitiate truth and we have to open ourselves to the non-conceptual—but without abandoning rationality and conceptualization.
Both approaches are based on the concept of a reality hidden behind appearances, one in metaphysical terms and the other in social terms.
if the metaphysical is inaccessible by any philosophical mean
Metaphysics is just a bunch of stories we tell ourselves. And by "we" I mean philosophers. And by "tell ourselves" I mean make up. Then we pretend what we have made up comes from somewhere outside ourselves rather than inside.
Metaphysics is just a bunch of stories we tell ourselves. And by "we" I mean philosophers. And by "tell ourselves" I mean make up. Then we pretend what we have made up comes from somewhere outside ourselves rather than inside.
Do you deny metaphysical underpinnings, or just mean truth is inaccessible? Your previous post didn't deny truth. It just distinguished it from facts, which you explained were just temporary subjectively justified beliefs.
If there is a truth, even if it be inaccessible, and we don't demand a relationship between facts and truth, we're left with the oddity of the false fact, as in, it is a fact Pluto is a planet and that fact is false.
I don't know how that makes sense even in a Wittgensteinian logic because our language games don't allow for false facts. It violates usage.
Do you deny metaphysical underpinnings, or just mean truth is inaccessible?
The world is the world. It doesn’t have and it doesn’t need any underpinnings. Metaphysics is the underpinnings of how we think about the world. This is pretty close to my standard metaphysics spiel.
Your previous post didn't deny truth. It just distinguished it from facts, which you explained were just temporary subjectively justified beliefs.
I didn’t see your post as a follow up to your previous one. I guess I just thought you were feeling all profound and stuff. If we get into the whole justified true belief spiral, this will go on forever and get us nowhere. That’s something I believe and I know it’s true because it’s justified by my experience with just this question many times here on the forum.
Reply to Jamal If we know truth is hidden, we know there is truth. As Pascal said, "You would not be seeking Me if you had not already found Me." Does Adorno say the flashlight of reason is inadequate to see and reason is all we have to see, then what did he not see to know the truth was there?
I didn’t see your post as a follow up to your previous one. I guess I just thought you were feeling all profound and stuff. If we get into the whole justified true belief spiral, this will go on forever and get us nowhere. That’s something I believe and I know it’s true because it’s justified by my experience with just this question many times here on the forum.
I wasn't defining knowledge. I was extrapolating the consequences of your definition of "facts," which you don't ground in truth, and so that allows for false facts. My question was how do you allow false facts to exist when that notion conceptually borders on nonsense other than to say you're fatigued from thinking about it and you're comfortable with your decision damnit.
which you don't ground in truth, and so that allows for false facts. My question was how do you allow false facts to exist when that notion conceptually borders on nonsense
This is at JTB spiral I was talking about. Have you never participated in one of those discussions here on the forum? The idea of false facts is exactly what’s at the heart of JTB concept. And that’s before they bring in the bologna of the Gettier problem.
Or perhaps, they are the sum of the whole. Which, mind you, the parts are not always the sum of the whole, meaning, sometimes, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Let's take knowledge of pain. Something we can all agree is universally shared by basically any and every human being. What facts are there to be construed? "It hurts", "it brings displeasure", "my biological nervous system and nerve endings are receiving sensations that when relayed to my brain creates intense feelings of an undesired nature and thus propels me to move away, often non-consciously by automatic reflex". Okay. Great. So what of these facts? Are they not, by themselves, inherently useless without the larger understanding (ie. the whole vs. the sum of the parts).
We sometimes mislabel our ideas as facts simply because we are ignorant of a greater knowledge that would make our prior misconceptions seem foolish and to be revealed as the falsehoods they are. Sure, the pain thing is not a great example. But say, our youthful misconceptions of right and wrong, for example.
The fact to be construed is that you feel pain. Generally speaking, since you’re the only one who has access to that experience directly, you get to decide on the truth or falsity of that statement.
We sometimes mislabel our ideas as facts simply because we are ignorant of a greater knowledge that would make our prior misconceptions seem foolish and to be revealed as the falsehoods they are.
Did you read the Stephen J Gould quote I put in my previous post? I think that addresses this comment.
Facts are the content of knowledge. If not, what is the relationship between the two?
So you told me facts were provisional agreements, and I objected on the basis that such definition permitted untrue facts, which resulted in nonsense. And here you suggest a fact to be a content of knowledge, which is to either equate truth to fact or to simply tell me nothing other than facts are things you know.Quoting T Clark
The idea of false facts is exactly what’s at the heart of JTB concept. And that’s before they bring in the bologna of the Gettier problem
No, that's not the Gettier problem. Gettier deals with true (true true true, I say it for emphasis) beliefs with unknowingly incorrect justifications. It does not suggest a false fact. False facts are the product not of knowledge problems but of truth theories. JTB is not not not (for emphasis) a truth theory. It is a knowledge theory. That you've not required truth (truth truth truth) to correspond to reality (metaphysics!), and you've asserted a pragmatism, you end up with facts (as you, not I) defined them that don't correspond to what is.
So you told me facts were provisional agreements, and I objected on the basis that such definition permitted untrue facts, which resulted in nonsense. And here you suggest a fact to be a content of knowledge, which is to either equate truth to fact or to simply tell me nothing other than facts are things you know.
So does this preclude the idea of, forgive me, "untrue knowledge", or at least, information that is, by all intents and purposes true at a given moment of receiving, that could in fact change rapidly? Say, it's raining outside. Outside where? Outside the location of which I either currently reside, or perhaps where the person I am communicating said knowledge resides. It's conditional (not sure if you equate that word with 'provisional', I do but not judging you). Yet even beyond the context of what the person its intended to reach, if this is deceptive in some way, there's the fact that yes, it may stop raining by the time you go outside to verify if this fact is justified or not.
Again I'm eager to see the reply of the person your remark was intended for, but, just a personal commentary, if that's alright. Perhaps this may clarify one or more things for one or more persons who are engaged or wish to engage in this particular line of thought.
Untrue facts. Curious. Certainly if its "untrueness" is known beforehand, this is but a lie. But otherwise, this is simply a mistake. An inaccurate statement. Though some inaccurate statements can indeed stand the test of time. How fascinating.
Now, untrue knowledge? Hm. Conviction of belief may equate to knowledge in one's mind. So does a misjudgement or misassessment ie. "I saw a man pull out a gun so I shot him" (when in reality it was an oddly shaped phone or some sort of pager).
I am curious as to how the two differ in your mind (and the mind of all who wish to participate).
Without just throwing up one's metaphorical hands and nursing at the teat of Socratic dogma (the only thing I know is that I know nothing), I wonder if there's a more or less agreed upon (or better yet, universally non-debatable) definition or standard for processing such deviations.
To simplify.
Can you believe a fact to be a fact that is not a fact? Certainly. This is called a misunderstanding.
Can you have knowledge that is not based on a single true fact? If so, would this not be considered a delusion.
I'm inclined to say that knowledge is about the interpretation of facts. To know is to be able to understand the facts, which is about context and relationships between facts.
So does this preclude the idea of, forgive me, "untrue knowledge", or at least, information that is, by all intents and purposes true at a given moment of receiving, that could in fact change rapidly?
If knowledge is a justified true belief, then a belief that is untrue would not be knowledge by definition.
Rapidly changing information isn't what Clarky was referencing. He was referencing fallibism, just the basic scientific notion we can accept propositions (e.g. it is raining) as true without certainty, meaning we might later learn we were wrong in our beliefs (as in when we later learned Pluto wasn’t a planet) . My pushback was to require an acknowledgement that that position was pragmatic only and it left the metaphysical problem unanswered. That problem is whether it is actually raining or not (ontology) versus how sure you can be about it (epistemology).
As in, do we acknowledge we aspire to know what actually is, placing scientific discovery as pursuit of truth, or do we just say we arrive at a well founded belief and make no suggestion we're any closer to truth. Is Pluto's status planet one day, satellite another, meteor another, a lost spaceship the next, just whatever works from day to day, or is it actually something and we can be wrong when we say it's the other?
And so was it a fact that Pluto was a planet and now it's a fact that it's not?
Absolutely! but what has changed is not Pluto, but the way we use the term "planet". Language evolves and thereby eternal truths can change. A bachelor used to be an unmarried man, but now it is a brand of soup.
A bachelor used to be an unmarried man, but now it is a brand of soup.
https://www.philosophy.com
(or a simple Google search for the word "philosophy" will do)
Now as to whether said phenomenon is an "evolution" and not a "devolution", that is where we disagree. :wink:
Though I do wonder if there's not some sort of irony in the naming of a makeup/vanity product with the word that is generally agreed upon to be the pursuit or otherwise "love of" wisdom. :chin:
Absolutely! but what has changed is not Pluto, but the way we use the term "planet". Language evolves and thereby eternal truths can change. A bachelor used to be an unmarried man, but now it is a brand of soup.
I suppose you're right on the Pluto detail, so let me stipulate the facts better to force the question I'm asking, which you pretty much answered anyway, but precision in the Shoutbox is always required with it being the primary news source for most the planet.
Let us assume that Pluto were thought to spin in a way that made it a planet, but Jacko recognized its peculiar spin made it fail to be a planet, the question then is whether Pluto was a planet yesterday before Jacko's discovery but not a planet today due to the discovery.
In my new example, we don't have a change in definition. We have a change in knowledge. Pluto's always been a Disney dog. That goes unchanged, which is what you said. This varies from what @t clark says because he won't anchor in reality, but just in best knowledge, although I won't speak for him, so he can correct me if I'm wrong. Although he'll grumble and dismiss all this because that too is an eternal truth.
If knowledge is a justified true belief, then a belief that is untrue would not be knowledge by definition.
i understand. Of course, "justified" basically means "sounds good to me" which as I'm sure you're aware of can vary greatly, to the point of legal insanity.
Rapidly changing information isn't what Clarky was referencing. He was referencing fallibism, just the basic scientific notion we can accept propositions (e.g. it is raining) as true without certainty, meaning we might later learn we were wrong in our beliefs (as in when we later learned Pluto wasn’t a planet)
In the grand scheme of things, isn't all information and states of being or knowledge "rapidly changing"? Say we're on an island, a large one, that has everything sustainable, and we call that "the world", for basically all intents and purposes that is our world, and have done so for thousands of years uninterrupted. Then one day, I guess the ocean lowers (somehow) and we discover there was an entire world beneath what we thought was devoid of life. Or something like that. You understand. Basically, to me, the distinction between "rapidly changing information" and the general concept of fallibism seems poorly drawn, if drawn at all. As you say, Pluto apparently is not a planet. But perhaps it might be found that the scientist made an error and it was actually spinning the right way the whole time. Stuff like this can happen. Can it not?
My pushback was to require an acknowledgement that that position was pragmatic only and it left the metaphysical problem unanswered.
Well, sure, unless one declares themself as some sort of god or being who otherwise "knows all there is to know" (we call that arrogance where I come from), there is always the possibility or rather realistic chance that there is more to know, even if such information or knowledge is relatively trivial or irrelevant to anything one considers, you know, relevant.
That problem is whether it is actually raining or not (ontology) versus how sure you can be about it (epistemology).
Interesting. Would you consider "ontology" synonymous with "absolute reality" or some sort of similar concept? I.E. if the cat in Schrodinger's box is biologically alive by all standardized modern medical definition? Would you in turn equate "epistemology" with what we call the "scientific method", a widely agreed upon, observable, and thus generally reliable method of determining "what's what", per se?
As in, do we acknowledge we aspire to know what actually is, placing scientific discovery as pursuit of truth, or do we just say we arrive at a well founded belief and make no suggestion we're any closer to truth. Is Pluto's status planet one day, satellite another, meteor another, a lost spaceship the next, just whatever works from day to day, or is it actually something and we can be wrong when we say it's the other?
This is exactly the most (I suppose confounding and hard to pin down) elusive point, or specifically the real argument of you two's exchange. In my opinion. Beautifully put. I'm only glad you're not some sort of sniper and me some sort of unfriendly. :grin:
As in, it is necessarily true in all possible worlds that some moral truth exists versus it is only possibly true that such a moral truth exists in world that exists under certain constructs?
I make this comparison because Kant references the universalization of morality (“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”) so it would necessarily have to extent across all possible worlds.
Good question.
It seems to me that the CI would be necessary, i.e. hold in all possible (moral?) worlds. I'm just spitballing here, but supposing the Kingdom of Ends formulation of the CI: The first formulation would hold for any possible instantiation of a Kingdom of Ends, but the universalizing maxims which a particular kingdom ends might hold to would only hold for those worlds rather than for every Kingdom of Ends.
This, though, going against what I think Kant intended -- that there was only one kingdom of ends.
Perhaps in the long run, but in the short run the process of universalizing our maxims yields multiple kingdoms of ends that are at odds with one another.
EDIT: To note -- each of these kingdom of ends are a result of universalizing different subjective maxims which pass the first formulation of the CI, i.e. they are self-consistent in their universalization (when they apply to all actors who follow said maxim it doesn't "contradict" the maxim, or what I take that to mean is make the maxim impossible to follow, hence the lying example).
Does Adorno say the flashlight of reason is inadequate to see and reason is all we have to see
No.
Adorno saw suffering, and considered the need give voice to suffering to be the motivation of philosophy properly so-called. Thus, from feeling and seeing, to concepts and knowledge.
. Basically, to me, the distinction between "rapidly changing information" and the general concept of fallibism seems poorly drawn, if drawn at all. As you say, Pluto apparently is not a planet.
I see them as very different. The tides are constantly ebbing and flowing so from T-1 to T-100 there are perhaps billiions of variations. However at T-42, it is in a definite state, however complex that might be. T-42 is in State 42 and that be that.
Fallibalism would just say that our understanding of State 42 might be very wrong, but it doesn't suggest there is no true state of State 42, but just one of general agreement.
that such definition permitted untrue facts, which resulted in nonsense
As the quote from Gould indicates, there are only provisional facts and, thus, only provisional truth. That's not a particularly controversial, nor nonsensical, idea.
That you've not required truth (truth truth truth) to correspond to reality (metaphysics!), and you've asserted a pragmatism, you end up with facts (as you, not I) defined them that don't correspond to what is.
First off, pragmatism is a metaphysical position. Beyond that, we can never be sure anything we believe is actually true and yet we have to act on the information we have. As I see it, that is a much more important idea than your "false facts."
I'm inclined to say that knowledge is about the interpretation of facts. To know is to be able to understand the facts, which is about context and relationships between facts.
Maybe in a broader context that makes sense, but I think we're talking in a very narrow area, as we philosophers are wont.
Here's what I generally say when we get into this kind of discussion, which we do once every few weeks. Knowledge is actionable belief. Adequately justified belief which takes into account uncertainty about what we think we know and the consequences of being wrong. Knowledge is belief from an engineering perspective. Said the engineer.
Rapidly changing information isn't what Clarky was referencing. He was referencing fallibism, just the basic scientific notion we can accept propositions (e.g. it is raining) as true without certainty, meaning we might later learn we were wrong in our beliefs
Likewise, it used to be the case that the shout box was a philosophical desert, but now the poison has spread everywhere.
I've always tried to keep extended philosophical ideas out of the Shoutbox, but, as you note, they are starting to seep in around the edges. I would feel worse about it except that the primary culprits are moderators themselves.
This varies from what t clark says because he won't anchor in reality, but just in best knowledge, although I won't speak for him, so he can correct me if I'm wrong. Although he'll grumble and dismiss all this because that too is an eternal truth.
I will agree the fact I will grumble is as close to eternal truth as we can get. At least in the Shoutbox.
If I wanted to be provocative here, I might say reality is nothing more than best knowledge. But I wouldn't want to alarm any of the meek souls here.
Adorno saw suffering, and considered the need give voice to suffering to be the motivation of philosophy properly so-called. Thus, from feeling and seeing, to concepts and knowledge.
I totes get being bitched slapped by reality offers a certain understanding otherwise not afforded the coddled, so that's well taken, but the centrality of that might be overstated, although my knowledge of this is limited to less than 15 minutes and two short lines of threadmeat.
But whatever it was that I was saying, I get the elusiveness of truth, but organizing a system around its irrelevance seems not philosophy at all, but just sticking to what is obvious. If I was going to do that, I'd be a mindless engineer, building bridges I knew were true and right just based upon the fact that they didn't fall down.
If I wanted to be provocative here, I might say reality is nothing more than best knowledge. But I wouldn't want to alarm any of the meek souls here.
You are slipping down the slope of idealism, a place where I might just be a figment of your imagination. I know you're not just a figment of my imagination because my imagination would make you into something far more interesting, probably involving Brooke Shields.
If all that you touch and all that you see is all that reality will ever be, then you are a Pink Floydian idealist. Actually I have to re-write that:
If all that you feel and all that you perceive is all that reality will ever be, then you are a Pink Floydian idealist.
Which area? I thought it was about knowledge in general.
Whenever this subject comes up, people act as if knowledge, truth, and facts only apply to propositions when they rarely do. Who cares if Pluto is a planet? If I know that, maybe I can win with the home addition of Jeopardy. Let’s talk about the celestial mechanics of the solar system. If I know enough about that maybe I can send astronauts to mars.
I know you're not just a figment of my imagination because my imagination would make you into something far more interesting, probably involving Brooke Shields.
Ms. Shields seems like a very nice person. We both know she deserves better than that.
Whenever this subject comes up, people act as if knowledge, truth, and facts only apply to propositions when they rarely do. Who cares if Pluto is a planet? If I know that, maybe I can win with the home addition of Jeopardy. Let’s talk about the celestial mechanics of the solar system. If I know enough about that maybe I can send astronauts to mars.
How do you apply a truth value to an event? The proposition "Your mama has green hair" has a truth value, in that it is either true or false. If your mama has green hair, and I just see it, do I say "true" while looking at her hair? At what sorts of things would I look at and say "false"? Would that happen if I knew I was seeing double because I was drunk? I'd walk around saying "false" and everyone would know I couldn't see right?
organizing a system around its irrelevance seems not philosophy at all, but just sticking to what is obvious
What are you referring to here? Who or what do you think is guilty of this? Why do you think so? Are you trying hard to be cryptic, because it’s appropriate for your role as mystic guru?
What are you referring to here? Who or what do you think is guilty of this? Why do you think so? Are you trying hard to be cryptic, because it’s appropriate for your role as mystic guru?
I really wasn't trying to be cryptic. Organizing a system of philosophy around the irrelevance of the metaphysical doesn't seem like philosophy to me. That appears the approach of Wittgenstein and to linguistic philosophers to some extent generally and definitely Clarky
I think we have to figure out what the underlying structure of reality is else we're just talking about what is obvious, like how to talk, how to build bridges, or whatever.
No clever crypticism on my part, just old fashioned unclarity.
Perhaps in the long run, but in the short run the process of universalizing our maxims yields multiple kingdoms of ends that are at odds with one another.
Would this suggest that there are differing rationalities (as in differing types of rational ways of thinking) that could yield conflicting results, yet they all are rational? If yes, maybe give an example of two contradictory universal rules built on rationality to see if that could really exist. That would suggest reason can give two equally reasonable yet conflicting universal truths. If I'm following what you're saying.
Organizing a system of philosophy around the irrelevance of the metaphysical doesn't seem like philosophy to me
But who or what is doing this? I mean, aside from TC. The rejection of metaphysics is important to a lot of modern philosophy, starting with Hume and taken into the mainstream with Kant, but “organizing a system of philosophy around the irrelevance of the metaphysical” is an odd and I think inaccurate general description. For one thing, the rejection of metaphysics normally entails the rejection of systems. You’re just piling on eccentric interpretation upon eccentric interpretation upon eccentric interpretation with little direct engagement with what I’ve said or referred to.
If yes, maybe give an example of two contradictory universal rules built on rationality to see if that could really exist
Let's take Kant's maxim to never lie.
Would it undermine the maxim in the first sense of the CI if we added one exception, such as "Never lie, unless it is to an axe murderer"?
I don't think so. I think, given that the majority of the people are not axe murderers all this would undermine is communication between a person hiding the victim and the axe murderer -- so anyone who is an axe murderer would know that everyone will lie to them insofar that they understand that he's an axe murderer. So the axe murderer, agreeing to the maxim "Never lie, unless to an axe murderer" will hide his axe in order to ensure that people tell him the truth.
It seems to me both maxims pass the first formulation of the CI, and cannot both be universally true in a kingdom of ends, i.e. where all actors act in accord with the rational universalized maxims. So you end up with at least two different possible moral-worlds even while following the first criteria of the CI just by having different maxims with respect to the same action.
Which seems a reasonable sort of thing to observe -- insofar that humans are rational at all, we certainly observe that they seem to care about different things with respect to what's moral. Perhaps there's a contingent that's simply not-rational which the CI will cut out as not really worth thinking about when it comes to practical ethics. But then it seems to me that we can still derive different universal maxims that are consistent with themselves when universalized, but not necessarily consistent with every possible universal maxim a rational agent might choose to universalize.
That would suggest reason can give two equally reasonable yet conflicting universal truths. If I'm following what you're saying.
Yup. And it's certainly controversial, and even difficult to defend when you try to get into the nitty gritty of it -- how else than by reason do I identify these conclusions, and does that then not suggest that there's some other overarching standard by which these two standards are judged to which we could appeal to?
I'd say the how else is "the passions, we don't start at a rational place exactly so there's nothing more to appeal to", but that's controversial of course.
And now I've broken my promise to stop talking philosophy in the Shoutbox room.
For one thing, the rejection of metaphysics normally entails the rejection of systems. You’re just piling in eccentric interpretation upon eccentric interpretation upon eccentric interpretation with little direct engagement with what I’ve said or referred to.
Maybe put it into a direct question what you're looking that I better respond to. Our exchange has been very limited on this, and my general position is that foundational metaphysical assumptions can only be ignored, not avoided. At some level the grounding of the theory will be necessary, and usually it's a matter of exploration to determine what that is.
Kant, for example, might be an idealist unless we assert a causative effect of the noumena, which might be more than he's willing to allow.
My position is not eccentric and surely not intended to be obscure. It's ideosyncractic possibly as I look for the God effect in everything, but that's not necessarily confirmation bias, but it's because without metaphysical grounding that can be identified, there is nothing to hold up whatever philosophical position you assert.
I'll give another example. Wittgenstein requires that players of language games all be of the same form of life. That is a simple suggestion at the outset that we all have something generally in common (culture, biology, or something else) in order to even engage in coversation. But that "form of life" means something more (to me at least) because its vagueness most likely means "someone who thinks like me" and that is a problem. It's a problem because thought is internal, and it is where meaning happens, which, I'd submit, means I can talk to you because you mean the same things I mean when I say things. Now we've unraveled the whole meaning is use. Meaning is now some mental process I have that is similar to yours and that is not about use. It is about what our "form" is.
But there's no argument in your post for this. It's clear to me that the meaning you find internally (talking to yourself) is parasitic on the meaning that happens in interaction between people.
But this is the kind of thing I mean. I started by making an innocent comparison between your esotericism and negative dialectics, and now you're talking about Wittgenstein for some reason. So I don't understand where you're going. Too wishy washy.
It's clear to me that the meaning you find internally (talking to yourself) is parasitic on the meaning that happens in interaction between people.
Probably this is partially true, but it's also probably true that I treated the Shoutbox like everyone was shouting, which means whatever I said to you was attached to what was said to others in the room generally. I just assumed everyone read everyone else's comments and we were yelling across the table. But you might be right. I might not have mentioned Wittgenstein except in my head until I said it out loud and thought I brought it up. Quoting Jamal
I started by making an innocent comparison between your esotericism and negative dialectics, and now you're talking about Wittgenstein for some reason. So I don't understand where you're going. Too wishy washy.
Yeah, but I said in one post I had about 15 minutes of knowledge about the negative dialectics, which you've been carrying on about for months now in pretty deep analysis. I truly have no idea what you're talking about in that regard other than some quick Wiki reads.
You did make a comment about how my view was both similar and not to Adorno, which I surmised meant something along the lines of my taking a mystical approach due to the limitations of philosophy, yet Adorno (perhaps) taking the approach we've got to do the best with what we've got (thus my flashlight analogy is going to see what it's going to see) and we must assume from the darkness of what we don't see that we're missing something. And that, right or wrong (and I think you said it was wrong), was my thinking when I said AHA! there's the metaphysical underpinning. I found it. He sees the structure in the negative, in what's missing and from the dark he finds the light. That could be entirely wrong, but it's cool in its own regard. If he didn't say it, then I did, and I'll take credit for it.
Maybe put it into a direct question what you're looking that I better respond to.
— Hanover
Like these?
But who or what is doing this?
— Jamal
What are you referring to here? Who or what do you think is guilty of this? Why do you think so?
— Jamal
I see what you mean now. I really do. You were asking "What the hell are you talking about? You're starting in mid-conversation." I took your question to mean, "Why are you accusing me of saying all this horseshit. I just said something about Adorno. Step back." And I was like, "Why do you think I'm suggesting anything more than you've said. I'm talking about something entirely different from what you said." Then we clarified it all and laughed and laughed.
I see what you mean now. I really do. You were asking "What the hell are you talking about? You're starting in mid-conversation." I took your question to mean, "Why are you accusing me of saying all this horseshit. I just said something about Adorno. Step back." And I was like, "Why do you think I'm suggesting anything more than you've said. I'm talking about something entirely different from what you said." Then we clarified it all and laughed and laughed.
From my standpoint it's laughter without clarification. Clarification is to philosophy as explaining a joke is to humour.
Reply to frank Cost of collection, transportation are part of it. But the process is costlier because the pulp has to be cleaned/treated to make it into a uniform color. That is one of the reasons they process mostly white paper.
Cost of collection, transportation are part of it. But the process is costlier because the pulp has to be cleaned/treated to make it into a uniform color. That is one of the reasons they process mostly white paper.
I wonder if the cost comparison would change if we included the costs for disposal of unrecycled paper to the cost of the paper made from pulp.
Reply to T Clark
I don't know. Can't they just put the old paper in the washing machine, blend it up into paper soup and make paper? How is that more expensive that cutting down a freaking tree and chopping it up?
Or maybe paper is made from the waste product of plywood manufacturing?
Cost of collection, transportation are part of it. But the process is costlier because the pulp has to be cleaned/treated to make it into a uniform color.
Aren't those all components of raw wood processing?
I see them as very different. The tides are constantly ebbing and flowing so from T-1 to T-100 there are perhaps billiions of variations. However at T-42, it is in a definite state, however complex that might be. T-42 is in State 42 and that be that.
Of course. Our understanding of a non-static system will naturally result in "nothing we can observe" (the lowest designation) to "the highest thing we can observe" (the highest designation). That's common sense. Obviously at that point, once said concepts are either mathematically or otherwise "common-sensibly" declared or codified, they have meaning.
Fallibalism would just say that our understanding of State 42 might be very wrong, but it doesn't suggest there is no true state of State 42, but just one of general agreement.
I would argue the understanding of State 42 is not wrong but the system or process of discernment that led to said system is simply not as efficient or accurate as it could be. Hot take. :lol:
At least, that it serves its purpose for the time and serves it well. As well as one could hope for. It's the most intelligent thing and way of action that could result in something that has utility. No different than saying "a new plank of wood on a walkway in place of an old plank that has lost its constitutional integrity (ie. has become rotted) is the best choice of action to prevent what is socially understood as undesirable (ie. death or injury). Of course. 100%. Simply, perhaps one day, when we discover a better method people will laugh at how we used to do things and call it "barbaric", "stupid", or simply "illogical." Is this not the course of human progress, historically proven?
Imagine toilet paper that has Heidegger's Being and Time laser printed onto it.
Or the Bible.
Wiping your ass with the Bible is so passe. I'm sure the first guy who did it shocked the crowd, but now it's just what people do who can't come up with better ways to go viral.
Reply to frank I came up with what I think is really good idea related to your toilet paper suggestion, although mine is more of a prank, a gag, if you will.
The paper will have a chemical in it that turns beet red when it interacts with fecal matter. That way, the unsuspecting toilet user will wipe as normal, but when he looks down at his accomplishment, he will think he's profusely bleeding rectally. Imagine his face at the ER when he learns it was just his roommate messing around with him and that he's not dying of cancer. Priceless.
Wiping your ass with the Bible is so passe. I'm sure the first guy who did it shocked the crowd, but now it's just what people do who can't come up with better ways to go viral.
The paper will have a chemical in it that turns beet red when it interacts with fecal matter. That way, the unsuspecting toilet user will wipe as normal, but when he looks down at his accomplishment, he will think he's profusely bleeding rectally. Imagine his face at the ER when he learns it was just his roommate messing around with him and that he's not dying of cancer. Priceless.
Funny you should say that because I used to hate beets, but as I have aged, they have become one of my favorite root vegetables. I prefer fresh boiled and then sliced into chunks to where I have to still cut them with my fork to eat.
A fun game is to pour the beet juice in the toilet bowl and then to call over your loved one and tell them that you are concerned with your profuse rectal bleeding. Panic along with them for a while until you give them the final punchline: "Sweet Petunia, it's just beet blood, not a gaping anal fissure!" And then you'll laugh and laugh.
they have become one of my favorite root vegetables. I prefer fresh boiled and then sliced into chunks to where I have to still cut them with my fork to eat.
Yes, I love beets too. They are great in salads, either pickled or just plain.
Interesting interview with Habermas. If it's in The Nation it's not philosophy ;)
I'm interested in the book, but doubt that I'm signing up for 2000 pages-ish anytime soon. The quick version sounds interesting though -- a continuity from the ancient greeks through the medieval times with Christian notions supplying the basis for enlightenment... right up my ally in terms of things I'd enjoy reading.
Yes. The Grand Eye is looking and possibly wondering about how fast money is growing. Do you know inflation is tied with the very aspect of growth itself?
On the other hand, I am wondering when the union will be complete...
I don't know. Can't they just put the old paper in the washing machine, blend it up into paper soup and make paper? How is that more expensive that cutting down a freaking tree and chopping it up?
Aren't those all components of raw wood processing?
Separating and disposing of un-recyclable paper, including removal of foreign objects like staples and clips, pieces of plastic, is one the extra costs of the recycling process. It has to be done mostly by hand. But the chemical processes used, removing the ink from the paper, are more expensive. Raw wood pulp is more uniform in color and consistency so it is cheaper to make into paper.
Everyone is looking at photonic processing, but, currently I'm working in the deepest bunker filled to the brim with cashews and nuts, to feed me, while devising ways to process on microwaves.
What else can we not bring to make for the perfect austerity party?
I'll bring some beer since we recently had a discussion about beer in the chatbox. But, please don't get too desirous about it. We ration things here since we're experiencing austerity.
I know that trick. The pint glass that's not really a pint.
Nothing worse. Menu says $x for a 20 oz draft, and they serve it to you in a 16 oz glass. In their accounting for the taxman, a fifth of every keg purchased is left over for (use your imagination). Austerity at its finest.
Anselm:Truly, it is evident even to the foolish that goats are creatures of indiscriminate appetite, devouring whatsoever is placed before them. That which devours all things must, by necessity, devour pigs also—for pigs are among the things.
Therefore, it must be confessed that goats eat pigs.
But surely, that which eats another is greater than that which is eaten. For the eater has dominion over the eaten, and that which has dominion is superior in nature.
Thus, it follows unavoidably that goats are greater than pigs.
And this not merely in thought, but in reality—for the goat's greatness is made manifest in its act of consumption, while the pig suffers passively.
Therefore, let no one deny, on pain of absurdity, that among beasts, the goat surpasses the pig in greatness.
unenlightenedJuly 13, 2025 at 16:36#10002540 likes
Goats do not eat lavender. Nor do they eat daffodils, tomatoes, potatoes, lupins, poppies and several other things. Their greatness was all propaganda, smoke and mirrors.
Down with the goat!
Make Goat American Again!
Reply to T Clark I think this might be where we part ways, but today it was pimento cheese sandwiches. Tell me that too was your lunch and I'll totally freak out. Like cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs freak out.
Sad to say, I did not have a pimento cheese sandwich for lunch today. What’s more, I have never had a pimento cheese sandwich. I’m not even sure I’ve ever seen pimento cheese. And I don’t like Cocoa Puffs.
unenlightenedJuly 13, 2025 at 21:12#10003120 likes
Reply to Banno Goats posing as part of their sinister propaganda operation. Note the lack of horns; that goat has clearly been coerced!
Sad to say, I did not have a pimento cheese sandwich for lunch today. What’s more, I have never had a pimento cheese sandwich. I’m not even sure I’ve ever seen pimento cheese. And I don’t like Cocoa Puffs.
It's like a lobster roll, just with pimento cheese instead.
[quote="Book of the goat" ]And the fool hath said in his heart, “The pig is a goodly beast, and the goat is of Satan.”
But thus saith the Lord:
“Who hath made the goat, and who hath made the pig?
Did not one Hand form them both upon the earth?”
The goat I set upon the mountains;
He leapeth upon the rocks and seeketh the high place.
He eateth all things, even the thorns and the briars;
Yea, he maketh clean what others leave desolate.
And the pig I set in the low places,
To root in the mire and to sleep in the shade.
Each in his kind, and each according to his portion.
But woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
That put bacon for incense and call it holy;
That scorn the goat because of the word spoken unto the wicked.
For it is written:
“He shall set the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left.”
But this He spake not of beasts, but of men;
Not of nature, but of the heart.
Shall the creature be condemned for the sin of the sinner?
Shall the image of the goat be cursed because of man’s rebellion?
Behold, the scapegoat bore the iniquity of Israel,
And went into the wilderness bearing the sins of the people.
Was he not chosen by lot before the Lord?
And the pig? It is called unclean among the children of Jacob.
Its hoof is cloven, but it cheweth not the cud.
Its belly is full, but its mind is dull.
It sleepeth in filth and knoweth not ascent.
Therefore judge not by appearances, nor by the sayings of men.
For the Lord looketh upon the heart of the beast and the measure of its striving.
The goat is not Satanic, nor is the pig righteous.
Each is as the Lord hath made it,
But the goat seeketh the heights, and the pig remaineth in the pit.
Blessed is he who understandeth the parable,
And seeth the beast as a mirror.[/quote]
"The Lord" here is of course the Great Goat, who is uneaten yet eats all.
See, I am in accordance with the fool. The fool is often right about things. Even king's hasth listened to them. Thus, the goat is satanic and the pig good to itself.
I grew up around Pimento Bay. We'd run our toes into the sand feeling for pimentoes at low tide. I could usually get a couple of buckets full.
When I was a kid, the only time we got pimentos was when we went out to nice restaurants and they brought us a bowl full as appetizers. Even with those we had to remove the green husks before we could get to the pimento inside.
When I was a kid, the only time we got pimentos was when we went out to nice restaurants and they bought us a bowl full as appetizers. Even with those we had to remove the green husks before we could get to the pimento inside.
Ah! That makes better sense. I think i was projecting how you might have gone searching for clams onto myself and using pimentos as an odd substitute. Honest mistake.
Reply to T Clark I'd have to remove the olive in order to see if the pimento had a husk. Maybe you can send me a picture without a husk-like olive obscuring it.
I'd have to remove the olive in order to see if the pimento had a husk. Maybe you can send me a picture without a husk-like olive obscuring it.
I'm not familiar with this "olive" you speak of.
Back in the good old days, we would suck the pimentos out of the husks. The husks themselves are inedible. We would then ask the waitress for more. They always got angry. I'm not sure why.
My mother was named Olive, and the Good Lord removed her from this vale of tears many years since. But she looked less green and shapeless than that picture of her, which is frankly unrecognisable. I think it must be a species of pig.
:heart: Life is good here. Lots of uncertainty but lots of great stuff happening; lots of change. Still not feeling the philosophy bug, although I'm bummed I missed the contest.
Is @Hanover a hipster? How about @Noble Dust?@T Clark, @Unenlightened and Bitter Crank aka @BC (because of hipster dust) are not -- can not be -- hipsters. But children, WE were hip before hipsters, but that was then. This is now. In 2025 we're just too square, too old, and not far enough out to get back in. @javi2541997 is a hipster. Ditto @Baden . @Jamal? No. Too conventional. @Frank? Not @Shawn because "Pig?" Pigsters can not be hipsters. Which side are you on?
Look:
Are you verging on hipsteria? Do you have a disembodied forearm and hand on your shoulder?
Hipster or not, I can assure you that I don't know how to have a personal style regarding clothes, and I tend to wear basic t-shirts, basic trousers, basic shoes, etcetera. But I like coffee (a lot), and this may make me a bit of a hipster, actually.
Paper made of recycled paper cost twice as much as the ones made of raw wood. Why?
Simplest answer is because the true and full cost of resources that grow a tree are not calculated into the cost of non recycled (new) paper, whereas, every possible cost is calculated into the cost of recycled paper..... economic structures.
Reply to kazan Here's some information on the cost of virgin vs recycled cardboard. Virgin raw material is cheaper because the through-put is simpler: cut, mill, and ship. Used cardboard has to be collected, sorted, and cleaned (like de-inking, removing adhesives and dirt, etc.) before it can be milled and shipped.
Still, there are environmental benefits: Trees do not need to be felled to make recycled cardboard. Virgin cardboard requires more trees to fall.
There is no difference between recycled cardboard and virgin cardboard.
Recyclers may make $5 on a ton of baled cardboard. Not much for one ton, but when you gather, bale, and ship tens if thousands of tons of cardboard, a decent amount of profit can be garnered. Supply and demand can boost or shrink the profitability of recycling, just like it affects everything else.
I don't know how to have a personal style regarding clothes, and I tend to wear basic t-shirts, basic trousers, basic shoes,
Yes, you do know how to have a personal style regarding clothes: you wear basic t-shirts, basic trousers, and basic shoes. Just because your t-shirts lack hip statements, or your trousers are well pressed, and your shoes are black (and not pink and green) doesn't mean you don't have a personal style.
Reply to javi2541997 See, this is why Don Quixote made no sense to me. American windmills were very hard to attack with a spear, unless you were on a REALLY REALLY tall horse. It was just yesterday that it occurred to me that Señor Loco Quixote wasn't in Kansas.
Maybe he was outraged by too many windmills on this hill?
Maybe he was outraged by too many windmills on this hill?
I was on that hill last Saturday. It is located in a small town in Ciudad Real. When I arrived at the windmills, I started to feel weird for unknown reasons, but I guess it was the manchego cheese and wine. So sad that Trump puts tariffs on these amazing and unique products!
By the way, there are even more windmills around, but they are scattered randomly. It is, by far, the most iconic building of Castilla (and I am proud of that).
How about Noble Dust? @T Clark, @Unenlightened and Bitter Crank aka @BC (because of hipster dust) are not -- can not be -- hipsters.
I think the hipster movement died out some years ago. What’s left is a phoney aesthetic for wealthy wankers who want to role play creativity. The so-called “hipster style” has been co-opted by anyone who thinks authenticity means facial hair, tattoos, and shitty plaid shirts. Ironically, all that “workwear” is now some of the most expensive clothing you can buy. If you’re picking up your fake-heritage designer gear at Mr Freedom, don’t be surprised when you’re shelling out $350 for a pair of Japanese selvedge jeans. Cunts.
What’s left is a phoney aesthetic for wealthy wankers who want to role play creativity.
Isn't that what they always were?
Anyway, something like trust fund anarchists and sugar plum socialists.
By the way, how nice IS $350 Japanese selvedge denim? I've never actually touched any of it.
In the misty days of yore, long ago, Levi denim was 100% cotton, dark blue, stiff, and cut generously. Some people (hipsters of yore, in the misty days of long ago) soaked in a tub of hot water then dried the jeans while wearing them. The jeans shrank to fit. The better to show off one's thighs, buttocks, and basket. That was shortly before the horrifying age of polyester double knits, floral prints, very busy plaids, and shag carpeting, all on one body. Well, except for the shag carpeting, as far as I know.
Bone-in pork chops taste better than no bone chops. Why? And why are bone-in more expensive?
It's true of steaks and lamb too, and you pay for the weight of the uneaten bone, which is an additional hidden expense.
One wouldn't pay a premium for boney fish though, so it's not universal love of bone (philoosteo).
I suspect the reason goes back to our ancient canine roots, which also explains our natural inclination to fetch and to sit in exchange for a treat. We enjoy chewing on bones, only resisting that urge when among those we think we must impress. The test of friendship is to what degree you can be your true dog self, one paw holding down the bone on the table while you gnaw it with your turned face. I only do this before my children and my mailman, a delivery gentleman with whom I hold no secrets.
That is why we pay this high premium for the bone. The fish bone though, that's a cat thing, so it doesn't apply. We did not evolve from cats. They from us.
Yeah, but that's just, no offense, horseshit pseudo scientific speculation. This is the Shoutbox, a place of serious inquiry and discussion, not just your little creative writing nook.
Comments (61561)
I don't think so, but I can't rule it out. Can you elaborate?
Alternatively: define "contradict".
Whether this is what Adorno actually means, I don't know. I only read this small passage and it was provided not for its substance, but instead to celebrate the em dash, an oft overlooked punctuation mark.
Mainly I liked the idea of punctuation marks as friendly spirits. The quotation gets across how punctuation feels to me: something that has its own logic, internal to language and not directly involved in communication (because for example, a semi-colon can be replaced with a full stop with no loss of meaning).
So on its own I don't think it supports your mysticism, although it's probably consistent with it.
Happy birthday!
I do think the semi-colon says something different. If used correctly, it identifies the sophistication of the author. Other than that, the same can be said of words, as in H20 versus water. That too can be argued to be different for the same reason the semi-colon and the period are different in that it says something of the sophistication of the author.
And this leads to synonymity and analytic/synthetic conversations that were never intended.
Misspelled words are an interesting example. They have the exact same referent and the exact same intended meaning, yet they convey something different to the reader. That's an interesting thought I just had.
I did like you calling me a mystic, and thanks for the bday wishes. And please don't clarify that you didn't call me a mystic. It's my birthday. That's what I wanted to hear.
Based on your posts, I’d guess that you’re either 13 or 84. Happy birthday.
:roll:
Quoting Jamal
I interpret the Adorno quote as saying punctuation represents something that is present in the text even if it isn't explicitly expressed in the form of a mark on the page - something inherent in the nature of the language used rather than something provided by the writer. He says it's useless to omit them because they will only hide - they'll still be there even if unexpressed. Perhaps I've got that wrong.
Quoting Jamal
I don't get this. Most punctuation represents some sort of pause in the sentence. It sets the rhythm of the text. As I experience it, different marks represent different lengths but also different tones, moods, and inflections of pause. Different punctuation can have as much effect on the meaning of a text as the words themselves.
I agree, and I admit it would take some work to show how this isn't contradictory.
Looks familiar :grin:
EDIT: In fact, I'd like to hang it on my wall
Joyous!
@T Clark
I feel the tantalizing presence, off in the distance across a chaotic chasm of confusion, of a happy synthesis combining all of our views, even @Hanover’s. Is it just a mirage? I am certain it is not.
One angle is that I was describing how my own use of punctuation felt to me. I don’t deny that punctuation marks have meaning or serve communication, only that this does not feel direct to me; it’s more like an emergent property of an inner logic. When I use a dash instead of a semi-colon, what matters is how the two thoughts relate to each other, and this determines the choice of mark. It’s not that I think, “I want the reader to pause here and expect a supporting aside,” but that I’m seeking the right structure, and I choose the dash not because of what it represents but because of what it is in the system (say, an interruption).
Adorno’s use of “hieroglyphic” might be the key to unlocking this box of worms. On its own, a hieroglyph might as well be an arbitrary sign, but in fact it is not: it has its own logical relation to other hieroglyphs, independent of the meaning it communicates.
This is propaedeutic.
Yes, I withdraw my parenthetical comment stating that a semi-colon can be replaced with a full stop with no loss of meaning. Even if it’s often true, I don’t think it supports the point I was trying to make.
And another thing. What do you think and feel when you see bad punctuation? Me, I don’t just think, oh, they haven’t communicated possession according to standards. It feels more like an offence or a violation of the sacred orthographic order (the inner logic), or like leaving a banana skin on the summit of a Scottish mountain (true story).
Every family has their own artist, and @praxis is ours.
Grass is always greener. Easy to dismiss dangers and risks one is ignorant of. :confused:
While i haven't always shared in your awe of the punctuation, it is impossible not to get swept away in your excitement, realizing that it's not just a dream, but a real liklihood that simple marks will become a vehicle for bridging what otherwise appeared irreconcilable differences, bringing forth an era of peace.
While this may sound hyperbolic and sarcastic, I assure you it's not -- hold on -- of course it is, but how fitting the em dash tells us that! And who are you little friend? Is that the exclamation point with its sudden emphasis! Yes, yes it is! They've all come out for the celebration!
I say this not to belittle, because to even mention the honorable punctuation in the same sentence as the snotty nosed emoji is to take a shit in the ark of the covenant, but is there a case to be made that punctuation is an ancient form of the emoji?
Ah!! Forget i even said that.
I liked your composition so much I couldn’t resist. And I thought the foreground detail would be a good challenge for me, weeds and all.
You’re too kind.
That is fertile ground, I expect.
[quote= McDonald L. Making Sense of Emoji;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/making-sense-of-emoji/C3BB28E1E63D38032A7BAC33F2193DB9] I argue that emoji have at least three communicative functions. Firstly, they can serve a replicative function, in that they can play the same role as words and punctuation, thereby replicating the function of existing written communicative devices. Secondly, they can serve a compensatory function, in the sense that they can be used to make up for features of face-to-face conversation which are lost in written online conversation. Thirdly, they can serve supplementary functions, in that we can perform new communicative acts with emoji which we could not previously perform either in written or face-to-face communication.[/quote]
I’m desperate to know more about that third function, but I don’t have access to read it. :cry:
Quoting Hanover
Oh. Never mind then.
I knew I recognized that from somewhere. Hey. How about this one.
An old place from time immemorial.
Surely, a man of your, clearly proven to me, fortitude, strategy, and craft, can create something from or of this? Or can you? Only the times will tell. :grin:
[hide="Reveal"]
Let us speculate as to what they might be. For example, you cried rivers of tears in your latest emoji, but they were sarcastic tears, suggesting you really weren't quite as distraught and suicidal as they made you appear. The question is whether that could have been done sans (that's French for without) emoji.
So here's how it might happen. Your wife would say, "Babycakes, how bout we go get us some supper down at the meat and 3. I done burned the stroganoff while I was getting a shower," and you'd be a bit upset not to have that home cooked meal, and you'd want her to know that you so love her stroganoff, so you'd say, "Awww shit, I ain't now gonna have none that noodles n meatsuace like you make" and then you'd cry as in the emoji.
My suggestion is that it would be exceedingly difficult to produce that level of tears in a way that replicated the emoji, and if you did, it would be alarming, almost as alarming as your sudden Appalachian dialect.
Yes. I am doing the same. That's true of almost everything I post here on the forum. For me, philosophy is about self-awareness - awareness of how my mind works. It almost all comes out of introspection. Reasoning comes afterwards.
Quoting Jamal
And this is exactly how everything I write feels. There is no conscious decision. Things flow from somewhere inside directly onto the screen unless I get lost. Then I might have to sit back and cogitate more formally.
Quoting Jamal
I don't get it.
Quoting Jamal
Bad punctuation by others doesn't bother me as much as misuse of words or bad grammar. For me, those undermine the credibility of the writer. Punctuation less so. I do hate overuse of exclamation points - "I think they should only be used in dialog!" he screamed.
I think Jamal is like me - it isn't awe, it's affection.
Quoting Hanover
As I noted in my post to @Jamal, exclamation points do not belong in philosophy except, perhaps, ironically.
Quoting Hanover
Done and done.
@Hanover
As I've expressed elsewhere, I hate emojis. :sad:
What about Nietzsche!
I hate exclamation points, emojis, and Nietzsche! :down:
To be honest, I know very little about Nietzsche and his philosophy... or his punctuation.
Let me help you out. The following philosophers are known for the following punctuation:
Nietzsche: !
Socrates: ?
Descartes: ?
Frege: ?
Wittgenstein:
The last one might confuse you. It's silence.
This one I understand.
You think?
You smashed it. But don't call them weeds.
Learning to See Physics via Visual De-animation (2017)
Learning Symbolic Physics with Graph Networks (2019)
Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases (2020)
AI can come up with (already known) abstract models from observations, double pendulum motions.
Say, feed telescope data to AI, and see if it can come up with anything.
Quoting T Clark
But not with this:
It's not like that for me. It's not coming just "from somewhere inside." Here is something I wrote on TPF 10 years ago in the "Extended Mind" monthly reading:
Quoting Jamal
If you actually got through all that gibberish and waffle, first, congratulations, and second, what you can maybe see is that I don't think it's a matter of one-way expression of something inside, but more like a reciprocal engagement. I was talking about bodily engagement, but it can apply to an engagement with a system of signs like language.
So to make that relevant to the task at had, what I say is that the system of signs and meanings I'm engaging with has a ready-made structure that pushes and pulls me in certain directions. Artists and musicians often talk about the feeling of channeling or tapping into something greater, perhaps something transcendent or at least primal and unconscious. This is the kind of feeling I mean, roughly. @Hanover will be nodding along in furious agreement at this point.
Quoting Jamal
Quoting T Clark
The letter ? is an entirely arbitrary sign. In the Russian alphabet it just happens to stand for the voiced postalveolar fricative, i.e., the zh sound, as in the middle of closure—but it might have stood for another sound. The same principle applies to all letters in all alphabets (and even where there are semi-exceptions, like the character O (which looks like the mouth looks when some of the sounds it stands for are made by people), the arbitrariness principle is still primary).
But hieroglyphs, while also importantly arbitrary in their use, are also iconic representations. The sun symbol can stand for a consonant sound, but it can also stand for the sun, because it looks like the sun. So when I said that the hieroglyph has its own logical relation to others, I meant that it has a place in a system, and that this is primary. Meaning emerges from that, but in a sense indirectly. In using a hieroglyph one's choices are first and foremost determined by that system, and the effect on the reader pops out: the system has done most of the work.
The idea is that punctuation is like this. A dash might represent an interruption, but underlying that, it also looks like, or even is, an interruption, on the page. Or a semicolon: it represents something to the reader, but it also has a systemic relation to other punctuation marks as part-way between a colon and a comma.
And the point of that is to say that in choosing a punctuation mark there is no direct utilitarian decision about what we want the reader to think, because punctuation is more than utilitarian—it has its own concerns.
I hope you appreciate the research I did for that.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, it's subjective. But I think you know what I meant, because you used the word "hate". There is something more than registering an unconventional usage—it's more visceral.
Quoting T Clark
[quote=Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols]“Reason” in language: oh, what a tricky old woman she is![/quote]
True story.
My lachrymose rivers were not entirely ironic. I was genuinely sad when the abstract hooked me and then I couldn't find out how it went.
So much so I have herniated a disk from whiplash, reading as if listening to heavy metal.
I compare your difficulty communicating through your broken hand as if having to speak in a foreign language, having the thought, yet having to consciously process how it is conveyed.
In fact, I find that comparison so insightful, I am tempted to call it a day, unable to pierce that standard I've now set.
"Pierce" you ask? Yes, to pierce is to puncture, and to puncture is to punctuate.
I just outsightfulled myself, but that felt more planned than Eurekaed. Little of both probably.Quoting Jamal
This I like. The personification of the mark, giving its own concerns, like a comma wandering about, in search of a statement to slow down, to chill it a notch, so it doesn't just spill out in a manic burst.
A period is like a schoolmarm, strictly putting an end to nonsense. She arrives just in time, usually once a month. Always room for a menstrual joke, right guys?
Mind-blowing.
Quoting Hanover
Good stuff. Reminds me of what Adorno said just before the bit I quoted earlier:
[quote=Punctuation Marks]An exclamation point looks like an index finger raised in warning; a question mark looks like a flashing light or the blink of an eye. A colon, says Karl Kraus, opens its mouth wide: woe to the writer who does not fill it with something nourishing. Visually, the semicolon looks like a drooping moustache; I am even more aware of its gamey taste. With self-satisfied peasant cunning, German quotation marks [» «] lick their lips.[/quote]
My mind could not be more blown now, so you'd better stop with the insights.
Quoting Hashem Al-Ghaili · instagram · May 21, 2025 · 1m:7s
Quoting Hashem Al-Ghaili · x/twitter · May 21, 2025 · 1m:8s
[tweet]https://twitter.com/HashemGhaili/status/1925332319604257203[/tweet]
Authenticity of audio-visuals becomes more challenging
The cantillation mark tells one how to sing the torah passages, but they'd generally be useless when reading to one's self, although maybe they say something about what is being read. Perhaps that's more akin to Asian emphasis marks, of which some also exist in English. However, one might assume that differing emphasis marks indicate different meanings entirely, so then it becomes a matter of direct semantical importance. But maybe that happens with punctuation too I'm sure in some contexts. All this seems different from the cantillation sing song notes though. But then I think of musical notes generally. They are a form of language, and they have meaning insofar as they communicate the song. So if I put musical notes with the words underneath, are the musical notes what you'd think of as supplementary language, a parallel language, or punctuation? Perhaps it could vary. Like if the music reached a crecendo, maybe that'd be like a really powerful exclammation point.
I feel I'm rambling, like I'm having a manic episode over punctuation. The stakes are high on this, so I guess that's why I'm obsessing.
That’s a good avenue. Punctuation marks shape rhythm and breathing, and that ties everything back to @T Clark:
Quoting T Clark
So we all agree and it wasn’t a mirage after all.
Rarely. Badly.
God Damnit! Now you sparked all sorts of other issues. Punctuation cannot just be about rhythm and breathing, but it serves a major organizational function. Imagine a book without any puctuation, and even consider one without ordered pages, no paragraphs, no spaces between words and on and on and on. All of those things are arguably punctuation. We're ordering it so we can read it, not so we can dance with its ryhthm.
And then you have the emerging issue of electronic books, adhering to antiquated technology related to page numbers. There are no more pages though! What now? Are we going to have electronic books in 100 years and have page numbers and no one will even know what a page meant. How big are we going to standardize a "page" to be when all electronic?
Will this ever end? Will we one day reference where the words are in the cloud? And that's full circle. Are we talking about the firmament again, right where we started.
And this free association thing I do. When will it end?? Just because I'm reminded of something doesn't mean it has to be said. Jesus fucking Christ.
Two question marks?? What does that even mean.
Anywho, food for thought.
Very, very funny :grin: and impressive.
Is summoning people part of your daily routine?
Yep.
I don't think I'll change this post. It came out perfect. Once again.
That’s also true for me, and I think many people.
Quoting Hanover
That’s disgusting, unless, of course, it’s Velveeta.
You know nothing of Waffle House lingo of scattered, smothered, covered, chunked, diced, peppered, capped, topped, or country. I always do scattered, smothered, and covered and occassionally peppered.
You’re mostly right, but I do know that smothered, covered, capped, and topped all mean the same thing - somebody pours brown gelatinous “gravy” over top.
This describes an interesting experience. Perhaps I'll break my arm so I can feel what you felt... perhaps not. The closest thing I've experienced I can think of was back in the mid-1990s when we switched over from hand writing documents for someone else to type to typing them ourselves with a word processor. I remember it took a little while to get the words to flow as smoothly as they did when I wrote on yellow legal pads. After a while, though, that difficulty faded. Now I can't imagine having to go back to the old ways.
Quoting Jamal
And this is exactly the kind of experience I'm describing when I say "Things flow from somewhere inside directly onto the screen..."
Quoting Jamal
I don't know what it would feel like to read or write with hieroglyphics or the characters used in China - or American Sign Language for the Deaf I suppose. It is my understanding that, although they originally developed from visual representations, now they represent full words and concepts. That's not so different from how language works for me. I read and write in full words, not letters. I'm not sure the fact letters are arbitrarily attached to sounds as opposed meaningfully attached to words is relevant. I'd really like to know, but not enough to want to learn Chinese.
This is not how they feel to me at all. When I write or read a punctuation mark, I feel the pause. I feel the rhythm, the change in meaning, propagating through the sentence.
Then I clean the porridge off my belly.
It's that good.
Don't mind me: ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; :joke:
Note that unlike me, he was not talking about how it feels.
:clap:
[hide]:wink:[/hide]
In capitalist systems, rejection of the apostrophe is apostasy, which is precisely why God made these words similar, including the word apocalyptic, a close cousin, describing how the shit hits the fan.
Enough of my dazzling you with my encyclopediac etymological knowledge for the moment.
I’ve used this before, and I have no doubt I’ll use it again.
The theodicy of Peanuts.
A pig walks into the forest...
Bloody hot summer is already here, and we are still in May; July is going to be terrifying... Again, it's time to suffer droughts. :fear:
Stay cool Javi.
Easier said than done, I suppose. If it makes you feel any better, here it's going to get up to 25 today, which is perfect.
My meal today will be 'ensaladilla rusa' to stay cool; I assume you know what dish I am referring to because you lived here. :smile:
Yep, I quite like it. Here in Russia it's called Olivier salad, obligatory on New Year's Eve.
A popular but divisive summer "soup" here is okroshka, which is cold diced vegetables, quite similar to what you get in olivier salad, with chilled kvass poured over it. So it's salad in a carbonated soft drink, which is an interesting combination, to put it tactfully.
Wow! It is, indeed.
I really like Russian gastronomy.
There were always great Russian restaurants in Madrid, but most of them closed due to the 2020 Covid pandemic. I remember dishes of meat (deer or duck, if I am not mistaken) mixed with blueberries or marmalade. I was reluctant to try it out, but the dish impressed me for good. The restaurant was called 'Rasputin', and some waitresses wore a Russian traditional dress. It was fun to go and eat there.
Sounds fun! On the theme of foreign restaurants, I hope it was better than the Scottish restaurants I found in Seville, Moscow, and Victoria, Canada. In the Canadian one I asked for haggis for breakfast and was told that haggis is not served for breakfast and I said, "Well it is in Scotland!" I could have continued, saying "What kind of Scottish restaurant is this?! I demand haggis!" and so on, but in the end, I'm a regular nice guy.
There are several foods with poppy-seeds I like but I can not say what poppy seeds actually taste like. It seems like it's the other stuff (like lemon in lemon-poppy seed cake) that makes the item appealing. What do poppy seeds taste like?
What do you know about the flavor of poppy seeds?
Like frolicking in a summer meadow, naked except for a pair of clogs?
I only eat them in bread or cookies. The flavour is clearly distinguishable. However, for unknown reasons, poppy seed cookies tend to be dry. I need to dip them in coffee or milk before eating them.
Growing up, bagel rigidity was expected, but things are more fluid now, particularly in the cities and among the young. You'll find greater acceptance there, and your real friends won't see it as a big deal.
Quoting Jamal
We have a Scottish restaurant here called the Tilted Kilt, or at least we did. They served wings and beer and it was served by young women in very short skirts and shirts, barely containing their breasts. It was very authentic.
Speaking of which, a guy was wearing a kilt at a restaurant near me yesterday, acting like it was no big deal. My only response was to return wearing full traditional Russian wear, dancing to Russian folk music. I let them know what the chaos of anything goes tastes like. @javi2541997.
Coincidentally, I’m eating a sesame seed bagel right now.
As for your spiritual issue, Chuang Tzu would say to follow your intrinsic virtuosities, your Te, your heart - or perhaps your stomach in this case. This often happens to me. I’ll do something one way for a long time and then suddenly feel like changing. For example, I often have breakfast and I usually get poached eggs and bacon with an English muffin. Recently, I just started wanting breakfast sandwich on a bagel.
Also, sesame seed bagels are much better than poppyseed bagels, and they won’t cause you to fail drug tests.
Whereupon your associates, full of an admiration tinged with mild concern, were stunned into silence by your unpredictable, thrill-seeking behaviour.
I'm unhappy with my breakfast choice and am thinking of Froot Loops despite their sugar content. Type Ii is nothing to take lightly.
We grow fresh our own poppy seeds and make a tangy morphine butter we slather on our toast for breakfast. The power and plumbing have since been turned off and the feces accumulate in the waterless bowls. A man crawls in the window and takes our TV while we sleep face down in our plates. I awake to the sounds of sirens and a medic yelling my name asking him if I can hear him.
I'm unhappy with my breakfast choice and am thinking of Froot Loops despite their sugar content. Type Ii is nothing to take lightly.
The beeping machines connected to my arm bring a slow beat of consistency, but likely for just the moment before it stops. The ten hospital floors above me, stacked with dying souls, between me and the heavens, but I am otherwise alone seperated by God the layers between me. Jacob's ladder interrupted.
Should have chosen Froot Loops. But what does a child know?
I was convinced this was a true story until I realized that opioids cause constipation. That means there would be no feces accumulating in the toilet bowls. That destroys the verisimilitude of your story.
The shit was shipped in from overseas. Company is called Shipt Shit, LLC. Opiod users use the service because they miss shitting. There's a market for everything.
Is that something like "ingravescent inimicalities"?
Perhaps our philosophical gourmands could suggest flavors that poppy seed resembles? (Granted, flavors are hard to describe. What is the flavor of a pear like? What is the flavor of a spoiled strawberry like?)
Their taste is unique, so they don't taste like anything, except themselves.
Picking out the flavor of poppy seeds sounds like the problem of picking out the flavor of major American beer bands. In a blind test, they all taste "like beer" but nothing distinctive. Minor American beer brands like Summit Brewing or very small artisanal brewers can produce more identifiably distinct brews.
For some reason when I was reading this (if it were anyone else: unhinged and neurotic) story I pictured literal bowls. Brown wooden ones to be exact. It just seemed more dramatic and hectic that way, I suppose. But your fleshing out and expanding of the text makes more sense, admittedly.
Yes, but I tend not to think that way about food, so if I'm thinking anything, I'm thinking "Mmm, poppy seeds".
Or these days, "I wish these were sesame seeds."
Yeah, it's the stupidest dad joke (literally) of all time, but you laughed, so there's that.
Verisimilitude restored!
I’m glad I could be of help.
The joy this brings me to think about. I compare it only to how I suspect othrrs think of pigs or punctuation.
No tales, triumphs, and trials from Castle Hanover on this most American of holidays? God the people in your line of work are as boring as they say.
Fine. I'll just get back to browsing Reddit then. Anything to get my near-voyeuristic fill of random people doing random things. :eyes:
Ever since they removed "show most recent by Location X" on social media apps it just hasn't been the same. Though I imagined they did so for purposes of national (and regular) security. :chin:
Too bad. I enjoyed it for spotting out potential locations to visit (yay or nay, safe or not) if the average crowd that posts to social media at a particular popular area within the past hour looks disreputable or not.
I never knew about it.
I'm in my 30s so, it's kind of a "younger guy" thing. But yeah, I dunno. I thought it was neat for people who can't travel either by financial or mobility reasons. You just type in, I dunno, some place you've always wanted to visit, or perhaps never heard of into Instagram or Twitter for example, then sort by "Most Recent." It was fun. Informative. Life changing, perhaps for some, like I said. Anyway. How are you @BC? Recall reading you've been through a bit as of late. Best wishes.
Computers do seem to be more of a guy thing. At 78 I do love a slick piece of hardware and get pleasure from using good software.
Started planting today -- several packets of Xenias. Tomorrow the Cosmos, Nasturtiums and Hollyhocks, and a few bachelor buttons. The raspberries have quite a few blossoms. The iris are opening. The tulips are all done. The weeds in the lawn are thriving; the lawn, not so much.
My 30s are in their 40s.
Thoughts?
Do you pronounce it “konk” or “konch?”
Quoting Shawn
¿Cerdo?
¿Cerdo?
Chancho.
'Taint art ( or a definition of art), 'cos nobody's buying it.
pest-istant smile
Tall pig... Very beautiful.
All that is sold with the buyer believing it's art.
cynical smile
Original title was going to be "Egg, Differentiated."
Shout out to @DifferentiatingEgg for the inspiration.
We don't have fruits, just boring numbers and letters.
Yeah, you'd expect at least a Cadillac Eldorado.
It's the peach state after all. You'd expect to see an orange in Florida. The peach is standard issue, but you can order all sorts of specialty ones if you want for an up charge. https://mvd.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/PlateSelection.aspx
I appreciate the sentiment, but Massachusetts has yet to recognize my honor. The state bird of Massachusetts is a blue hen chicken… no, wait, that’s Delaware. Massachusetts’ is the chickadee.
When a European looks at the back of his car, he just sees a spot for government registration numbers. An American sees a billboard, a chance to build and a chance to prosper.
Tea is made for drinking it on a very hot afternoon while you are playing cards with your mates or after laying many bricks on the wall.
While I was in Dénia I took up the local habit of having beer with breakfast. It was a delightful experience.
BTW, I base this characterization of Dénia locals on the fact that when I left my apartment in the morning there were always two old guys sitting in the square drinking beer.
Orujo de hierbas? I never had it. On wikipedia it says “In the past, farmers used to drink it after breakfast … before work in the fields at dawn, and some elderly people still maintain this custom.”
It all checks out. :up:
Yep. I only had it after finishing my meal—the famous "sobremesa".
Quoting Jamal
Now, it makes sense. There's nothing like that herby potion before working in the fields. :up:
@panwei is from China, and our names show up in Chinese on his computer.
I drink tea with every meal. Hot tea in the morning and iced tea on all other occasions. I could not fathom otherwise.
Quoting Jamal
Get a lot of work done that day?
Yes, but it required careful calibration:
Hope your job pays well. From the sound of that description, that's going to come in handy down the road, medical-wise. I somehow doubt someone in your line of work is actively sweating and burning off all that sugar throughout the course of an average day. Of course, depends on the particular case and client I'm sure.
I drink only unsweet tea.
There is no "Chinese alphabet", so words, specifically ones that do not exist in Chinese culture, such as American cities, say "Hanover" for example, would have no meaning or equivalent.
Also, that's a strong assumption. Perhaps the individual in question is simply one interested in the Orient or other places in general, or perhaps is some sort of spy sent to take down the Chinese government, and of course has to know and speak Chinese first. They could also be university students from China who simply wish to study abroad for a myriad of reasons. The possibilities are just shy of endless.
I'm sure some people still get something like that opportunity, but they'd probably be considered wastrels today for not being productive enough. But then he did have his time in government.
Had it not been for those ten years and then his party getting the boot from power (plus some other serious misfortunes), we might never have gotten Paradise Lost.
For every one of the wastrels that produce a “Paradise Lost,” there are dozens of us who don’t contribute anything substantive.
Being a productive member of society is overrated.
I knew I recognized you from somewhere. :cry:
https://philosophersguild.com/ Neat site. :grin:
Seeing as you're an American, might I recommend the "Freedom Soap?" :chin:
[i]Better to starve as a poet
than serve in the office[/i]
...was actually Milton's original line for Satan, but he decided to spice it up a bit.
Are we all past due on the expiry date?
I bathe in the soap of freedom, its lather spilling past my belly, emancipating my body and spirit of the stench of enslavement, my fetters slipping off my wrists and shackles off my ankles. I emerge upright from this tub of liberty, sparkling America from my every fiber, boldly seducing and fully satisfying the very Statue of Liberty, holding tightly to her torch for leverage as I jackhammer my love home in the name of justice itself.
.14 blood alcohol? That's about a case of twelve, solid beer, no lite. I'd have a hard time keeping my eyes open by then.
I'd pay to see someone of your intellect that far gone, quite honestly. :lol:
No, no, I take that back. All shame is shameful. Good for you for avoiding such. For true, for true. :blush:
Do you dream American dreams?
I feel like dreamt is more British.
I dreamt my clothes were covered in velcro and I would cling to people throughout my day, some delighted to have my company, others inconvenienced by my proximity.
Remember the old days when you could rebuild your house with Ctrl+Alt+Delete?
Quoting Hanover
I confess I consciously repressed my native spelling just to fit in.
No, this is wrong. Rotten eggs smell like volcanoes because of the sulfur.
Thoughts?
Have you ever noticed the statue of liberty looks kind of trans?
Cooked a rabbit on the fire.
The odd thing is that it came with one foot still intact, with the fur and everything. Not sure if it was a superstitious thing or if it was to prove it was a rabbit and not a cat.
Huh. Not a food service expert by any means. Had an older family friend with 15+ years experience at Denny's handling all of that business when that was going on. Sure, I memorized the basic charts, temps, and "do's and don'ts" just so I'd be able to pass a test if one was suddenly sprung upon me, but, is that supposed to happen? Seems possible that some bacteria might be able to survive in the fur/unprocessed flesh but, I don't know.
I guess we'll find out in a few hours eh? :razz:
Keep us posted. Cool pic BTW. Vicarious living, is still living. No matter what the naysayers try and tell me. :cool:
Thank you. I thought it was delicious, far more delicious than I expected, but the ladies hated it and forced me to cook some chicken for them.
I had a thought to write some children's books called Rabbi Rabbit wears a Habit. It's a fun tale of an ordained rabbit rabbi who teaches the children halacha in a playful unintimidating hippidy hopidy way while dressed in the strict modest garb of the chaste women of the Vatican. It's educational and deeply confusing at the same time, much like middle school generally, so it brings that reality back to the child.
I expect the ladies will want something different. But I find it delicious.
I've eaten rabbit twice in my life - oddly enough both times in Belgium. Once in 1989 and once in 2014.
Now there's a tale begging to be told. :smirk:
I believe you're thinking about waffles. Belgians eat waffles, not rabbits. You got the two confused. Common mistake.
You’re right, it’s a fascinating story. Here it is - I’ve been to Belgium twice, once in 1989 and once in 2014. Both times I was there, I ate rabbit.
Belgian waffles are like French fried potatoes, they have nothing to do with their eponymous countries.
Many sources indicate that French fries are actually a Belgian creation, originating from the practice of frying potatoes in the winter when the river froze and fishing was impossible. [Had they not heard of ice fishing? It never occurred to the unimaginative Bulgeese to fry potatoes in the summer. Like, fish and chips?]
During World War I, American soldiers stationed in Belgium discovered these fried potatoes. Since the language of the southern region of Belgium was French, they started calling them "French fries".
AI responses are never mistaken. Don't even think about it!
As for waffles...
The Brussels waffle gained popularity internationally after being showcased at the Brussels World's Fair in 1958. Waffles were, apparently, the best thing the Belgeese had to offer. It was later introduced to the United States and further popularized at the New York World's Fair in 1964. Brussels is in Belgium. People are known to engage in waffle eating in Brussels. Therefore, Belgium waffles. Brussels was already linked to premature baby cabbages, which have always had limited appeal in the world.
You try to speak with an air of unquestionable authority, yet @BC says otherwise, having advanced knowledge of the origins of exquisite foodstuffs, describing an historic world fair with the details only an eyewitness might know, solidly laying to rest your cynical suggestions regarding the large squared Belgian waffle.
As you know nothing of the Belgian waffle, it'd best if you limit your Belgian dining to the charred field rabbit as has been your custom in 1989 and 2014.
Good day sir!
I actually was an eyewitness to that historic world’s fair. One of my fondest memories was of Albert Johnson throwing up on the wing of a carnival rocket ship ride.
Here's an example of how AI (as delivered in a Google query) is never wrong:
Actually, Wikipedia rates Minnesota and Utah as 12 and 13. Michigan and Minnesota are 11 and 12 in Wikipedia's list.
#12 Minnesota 86,936 sq miles
#13 Utah 84,897 sq miles
Of course, Wikipedia could be mistaken. Or the US Census Bureau data could be wrong, Or, horrors, AI could be wrong.
It was the first time I'd cooked a whole one, and the first time I'd roasted a rabbit over hot wood. I went against the advice not to do so and the results exceeded my expectations but fell short of those of the ladies, as explained above.
Quoting Hanover
But Ladies Love Rabbi Rabbit.
That, my good sir, is a road you will have to embark on yourself, when ready.
I finished my letter already. I used the 'maroon' colour: gorgeous, elegant, and shiny. I wish my friend 'feels' the same feelings as I when he sees maroon-colored lettering. He lives in Argentina, and he is very passionate, nostalgic, and melancholic. I understand how he feels, and I think maroon colour was the best choice. It is true that blue is usually associated with sadness. But that's another topic.
Regular old blue. And no little hearts over the “i”s.
Sorry. I wrote my response before I saw this. Maroon is fine. Still - no hearts.
Quoting BC
In past posts I have discussed "The Power Broker," about Robert Moses, who built many of the highways around New York City. Moses was also the big boss for the 1964 World's Fair. In the book, the author describes how Moses pissed off the governments of European countries considering participating by his inflexibility. Because of his intransigence, most - and in particular Belgium - did not send contingents. Therefore there were no true "Brussels Waffles" or "Belgian Waffles" at the fair.
Also, as I noted, I was at the fair and observed no Belgian Waffles. And yes, since Hanover will ask, I did systematically and thoroughly search the fairgrounds - being a conscientious and prescient 13 year old.
https://www.historylink.org/File/10092
In 1962, they were brought to the Seattle Worlds Fair where Americans ate them at rates like no European had even imagined.
The rest of your story doesn't pan out. It must receive the heretofore never used designation "Untrue story." This is the red card of the Shoutbox.
They weren’t called Belgian waffles, were they? They were called waffles. I never said nobody in Belgium ever ate waffles. I also never said nobody at other locations ever sold something they called Belgian waffles. As I noted in my original post in this conversation, those particular waffles had nothing to do with Belgium, the country. It was all public relations.
Your clever manipulation of AI images cannot hide the hollowness of your argument.
The last Pannekoeken Huis in Minnesota closed last year, so I can't get so much as a sniff of a Hollandaise waffle/pancake/dutch baby. A dutch baby is a hybrid of popover, pancake, and crepe, not an unwanted child, just in case any literalists are reading this. I presume the place did not serve belgian waffles, as a matter of principle.
You and AI are becoming a famous couple; great work!
Sorry, too late Clarky! The letter has already been chartered!
And yes, it has little hearts over the “i”s and a cute little tree and sun next to the date.
I am to understand that despite a photograph of you with a Belgian waffle in your mouth, and despite a very stern referee chastising you, you still deny knowledge of Belgian waffles in your youth??? Wow! Unreal!
I'd just point out that AI didn't exist when you were young, so it would have been impossible to create this image. It must therefore be real.
I think.
It is well known that soccer, or as they call it in Europe “geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung”, was not invented till 1967 when I was 16 years old. This photograph clearly predates that and this is thus a fake.
Also, that is clearly not a picture of me. I remember when it was taken. The kid shown is John Fosky. I was standing next to him out of the picture. The label, “Mister Clarky” was added by the notoriously inaccurate and malicious artificial intelligence.
Alright, I had it pan to the right, and next to you is Brooke Shields in a soccer uniform playing the banjo. I have no idea what sort of absurdist surreal existence you live, but it doesn't exactly increase your credibility.
This is clearly another example of a doctored photo. It’s true Miss Shields was there, but when I was 13, she was an infant. I was holding her and feeding her from a bottle. She wasn’t wearing a soccer uniform and she definitely was not playing the banjo, although she did have a pacifier.
Given your known obsession with Brooke Shields, I’m guessing your AI spontaneously inserts her somewhere in almost every image it makes for you.
Fair enough, although those far away "I just murdered and ate the neighbors" AI eyes might undo that obsession.
But do let me know if you want me to pan right.
There's a sense of nostalgia, but no, much more than that when I read the assorted papers, transactions, and invoices. It's almost like, getting to know myself again at a time when I was first developing and becoming a thinking, feeling, full human being. It's almost like reading a book in some way. So here I am, posing a simple question: Is nostalgia useless? I don't think so. Sure, it's overblown and for many quite unhelpful and a hindrance. But not for all. Compare a massage, for example. It physically relaxes the body, as such does traveling with a fond memory. Sure, perhaps it's difficult to test or "measure" in a laboratory setting, but this is common sense held by even the simplest of men. Is it not?
What say you, @Jamal?
Oh, now here's an unforgettable memory. I purchased a Toshiba 13" TV with DVD player in the year of 2006 for $131.98 (+$56.50 shipping). To this date, it's one of the only times I bought/ordered something online that flat out never showed up (ie. whoever or whatever took my money). I'll never forget that. I have the receipt/online order confirmation in front of me after all. I wonder what the statute of limitations is around these parts? I'd ask the occasionally wise Hanover but, he's what we call a fair weather intellect. :grin:
Added context: I'm basically cleaning house. Having to toss what is not needed or is otherwise (or will be) a hindrance. I don't have it in me to toss these old records. They have no real use. The filing period has passed, furthermore I was a minor at the time so there's no practical utilitarian benefit or purpose they have. Yet I refuse to. Is that foolish? I wonder. :chin:
Yes please.
Turns out the Pied Piper was giving Jerry Seinfeld a root canal while Poe's raven flew overhead.
Seems your running around with a Belgian waffle in your mouth was the most normal thing going on that day.
I do like waffles.
Interesting. Like art, it seems to belong in the category of value, not the category of utility.
Quoting Outlander
I'd be inclined to think of nostalgia as a spandrel, a by-product of being human but not in itself a functional adaptation or psychological coping mechanism.
But nostalgia is more complex anyway, and might just as often hinder as help a person's practical effectiveness. The word comes from Greek: nostos = homecoming; algos = pain. And this is definitely my own experience. Even the most fond memory is painful, because those happy moments are forever lost. Dwelling in this melancholia is not often considered to be a useful practice.
But why worry about nostalgia's utility anyway? The whole point of Oscar Wilde's (not my) statement that all art is quite useless is precisely to make the point that what is most valuable is not justified by an appeal to utility, therefore when someone accuses art or philosophy or nostalgia of being useless, we can say, yes, and that's what makes it so valuable!
I suspect not so long ago, nostalgia wasn't what it is today, the past can now be made so present with photos, videos, documents, recordings. We evolved with all sorts of emotions, but none can be so provoked and exaggerated today through technology than nostalgia.
I recently saw a picture of my aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, parents, and family friends at a random dinner, everyone so young and just in the moment. Most are gone now or are much older. I don't know I'm better off to have seen it. It's the more poignant because it's just a random moment, like you want to call to them and tell them to preserve it. And that's a trap too because you can over protect the moment, preserving it so much that importance becomes too elevated to just be.
Something that is useless can have value? Or something that has value can be useless? I'm reminded of the old adage, forgive me for being cliche, "One man's trash is another man's treasure."
I don't feel you've best explained this to the capacity or, heh, forgive me, utility, of your intellect.
How can something be valued, if it's useless (if not to the person). A screen door on a submarine is useless. Meanwhile on land in some places it's a literal difference between Hell on Earth.
So, I find it difficult to say with absolute certainty, in every case and scenario, the concept or category of value and utility are intrinsically and distinctly separate.
A thing can have utility that has long been superseded by a greater invention that reduces its value to the point of uselessness, say, well, I'm sure you can imagine plenty. The first automobile in 1910, for example. And so on and so on.
For me, it’s not a question of whether or not nostalgia has any value, is whether or not it’s destructive, and I think it is. Replaying the past is like playing a record over and over again. You remember records? After a while, the grooves get worn down and the memories lose their power. Recently, my family had a reunion in the town where I was born. I had resisted going because of the importance of the memories that I had there. I didn’t want to wear them out. Finally I decided I would go and it turned out to be a really great time. But still, I didn’t go to visit my grandfather’s farm, where most of my fondest memories took place. My family hasn’t owned the farm for decades, so it’s not mine anymore. It’s not ours anymore. But the memories are all mine and I’m not willing to risk them.
All right, replace value with meaning and see what you think of that.
Sure, one might say "meaning" is personal, whereas "value" can be measured or codified by some sort of agreed upon standard that requires more than the individual to validate or meet said threshold.
I mean, this is where it gets interesting. Can you really think of something that is truly "meaningless" beyond the lack of intent from the person or cause that led to whatever it is that is being discussed?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for example. Seems to suggest, literally anything can have meaning and therefore have, at least personal, utility.
So where do we go from here? Sure, I'd take an industrial floor cleaner over a toothbrush if I felt cleaning a large cafeteria floor as vital or important to me. That doesn't mean either item is useless, or any less meaningful, simply one is more effective than the other. So is this how meaning transcends utility, effectiveness? Or is it something greater altogether? :chin:
The reason you are struggling is that you have an expansive, wishywashy idea of utility. Oscar meant it in terms of sheer practicality, whereby a beautiful painting has no use but a screwdriver does. The former is a meaningful thing and the latter is a tool. It's that simple. If you want to expand utility to cover everything that doesn't hinder a person, that's ok but it's not what I or Oscar were doing. The idea of meaning therefore utility is alien to Oscar and me.
A simple misunderstanding is a passive event. One and done. Not an active "struggle", as you, if I may humbly suggest, project unto another. Sure, I could be incorrect. And I appreciate your engagement in the idea that perhaps I may become better informed. So for that much I thank you.
Quoting Jamal
Ah, but let us not forget ignorance is not knowledge. A child has no idea what a screwdriver is, so for him is useless. But, a painting is engaging and discourages and alleviates (or at least can, depending on the work) anguish and restlessness, so therefore, in such scenario, does in fact have more utility than a screwdriver. In a hypothetical future world without screws, the screwdriver is useless, meanwhile the painting retains its intrinsic value as entertainment and aesthetic enjoyment.
This generation is unfortunate in that, yes, that which has immediate value is all that has value. And that, in my humble opinion, and perhaps provable fact, is a fatal flaw and overall intellectual travesty and overall inaccurate view of reality. Surely you can see that argument as plausible.
Quoting Jamal
Would you say that a meaningful thing (such as a strong opinion or sentiment) can be used as a tool, and a tool (no matter how simple, say a screwdriver) can have meaning as a metaphorical device and piece of art of human ingenuity and social progress itself?
I know you would. :smile:
Well, I don't really know what you're on about. Have a look back at my original response, where I mentioned spandrels. I was attempting to take your question seriously but now you're flying through the stratosphere, a tiny dot at the limit of my vision, like an ant or a far away dog.
Do people not use art as a tool? Is propaganda not a thing? An effective tool at that. It most certainly is, or at least was.
But, yes. I shall do as you requested. I did overlook that in my intrigue and impulse opportunity to interact with the site owner. You're a bit of a celebrity around these parts, if you did not know. :snicker:
Quoting Jamal
The word itself is an attempt at framing a concept. All words are. Meaning, when you, or if I may humbly suggest myself, read the word "nostalgia" and envision the resulting concept, might be significantly different than someone who is younger or less intelligent. To the point, while we both get the same "idea", per se, the subtleties that differentiate the two idealizations can be starkly different. Meaning, some people do in fact benefit from it, and so it effectively serves as an evolutionary or "functional adaption" that brings benefit. Remembering something that was good, encourages you to pursue said thing that was good. Whether that be a good stream of water, or great tree with delicious fruit, or a simple video game or TV show, in these days. Sure, it can bring a sense of wellness or comfort in unfamiliar times, which is beneficial and doesn't have to be a strict "coping mechanism".
Quoting Jamal
Indeed it does. Of course, the world was quite different back then. But not so much. Sure, everything was simpler when we had one or more responsible for ourselves, coupled with the ignorance of non-physical true pain. That's right.
Quoting Jamal
What can (or rather would) be continually replayed or relived becomes its own prison. Worse than any physical torture I can assure you. No matter how joyous or positive. It's the dynamic of suffering that allows joy to exist, otherwise, all is just the same monotony. Nothingness. You know this. Sure, that specific moment or aura of discovery and immersion from a lower form of consciousness (a newborn) into a child, teenager, young adult, or what have you is in fact one of a kind. You, yes you, will never experience that again. Not truly. But you should be grateful you had such, and be further content with the knowledge, you can offer that again for another being, but perhaps much better, without any of the preventable negativity, if you so choose and would only put your mind to it.
I mean, it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?
In another, less popular take. You should be happy to know you were born in a society, where historically humankind was plagued by war, disease, strife, and suffering, that you, lucky you, were able to have those memories in the first place. Someone did something right. And you should be eager to stand at attention right by those who offered you such freedom and grace. I don't need to explain how cruel and awful the lives that some persons are born into. And you weren't. Now that's something to :grin: about, wouldn't you say?
Quoting Jamal
Now I see why you proclaimed that earlier. I thought it was for a reason much more simple and far less deep. Thank you. I appreciate this interaction we had. May we have another interaction, someday, someplace. :cheer:
Hey, I'm not finished yet! You think you can get the last word so easily? No such luck, sonny boy. I'll be back.
On the other hand, at least for me, I can't remember much about my post-childhood life unless I replay it, talk about it, think about it repeatedly. Often one makes the memories, rather than just having them, and a failure to make them is where the risk lies.
But replaying them can also ossify them and make them false. I've become sceptical of the stories I tell repeatedly, asking myself, "but did it really happen like that?" to which the answer is probably often no.
No, more that the art is the market. No "art", no market. No market, no "art". Inseparable.
Did early man, painting on or carving rock, see that exercise/result (or conceive of it) as Art?
Interesting question, maybe?
If the answer is no, what did it take for later man to decide..."That is Art?"
The suggestion is where the buyer decides "That's Art", that is art. Call it a market,if you like.
Just a thought, Javi, not meant as a rusted-on idea to defend, without fear of life or limb, at the barricades.
quiet smile
That expression of love has been going from before your time, it maybe suggested.
wry smile
Ah, but have all volcanoes always smelt of sulphur dioxide?
Just curious.
smile
Such things cannot happen.
Perhaps this quote makes the point that meaning and utility are not the same:
“Man of the twentieth century is proud of his practical achievements, of his conquest of space, of his power over the forces of nature. Yet, strangely enough, he has never been more confused, insecure, and disillusioned... He has gained the world but lost his own self.”
This use of meaning is in the existential sense, related to a self, wanting to find his particular purpose for existing. Living in a world that values practical achievements over finding one's self furthers that feeling of isolation. It all goes along with my disillusionment of modernity, providing me a justification for not responding to emails and texts. It's not me ignoring you. It's a deep seated reason rooted in my soul that I cannot violate if I wish to maintain any integrity.
And that's why I haven't responded to my emails. Maybe that follows. I might be getting far afield now, but something said about nostaligia and meaning got me here.
Perhaps you’ve missed the point.
condescending sneer
Yes, this is what I’m talking about.
Quoting Jamal
The main purpose of telling the same stories over and over again is to give your children a chance to roll their eyes and laugh at you.
For some reason, your last two posts make me think of your law partner Bob.
1. Get one of those Cuisinart icecream makers with the pot you put in the freezer.
2. Get a bunch of chocolate flavored peanut butter, some yogurt, some chocolate almond milk, and some ripe bananas that they sell in special bags with "Ripe Bananas" written on them.
3. Put ingredients in a big bowl and use your Cuisinart mixer on a stick, which you also use to make humus, except it's clean now, and mix the hell out of the ingredients.
4. Put the liquid in the frozen metal pot, set it in the icecream maker with the wand, and then stand there for 20 minutes watching it freeze, one ice crystal at a time. Realize that if you keep standing there, it's never going to freeze, so go out into the backyard and look at plants, then come back in and see that the icecream is almost frozen, so stop the mixer, eat a few spoonfuls, then pour it into a clean icecream tub, and put it in the freezer. Wait a few hours, and voila. Or you can make pineapple icecream with the vanilla flavoring.
But emojis are a very cool Japanese invention.
How is Javi today? :cry: :roll: :fear:
What does Clarky think about prefaces? :confused: :yawn:
Donald Trump and his tariffs: :eyes: :rofl: :lol: :death:
I enjoyed your video, although unfortunately I did not understand more than a few words. What I enjoyed was the pleasant surroundings, the relaxed atmosphere, and of course the magnificent eyebrows.
Toast.
Quoting kazan
No, some of them smell of hydrogen sulphide, and these are the ones that rotten eggs are likened to. It makes me wonder what they do in schools these days — do they never eat volcanoes or climb rotten eggs due to some heath and safety nazism?
Quoting Outlander
The reification of use! Just because it is called a screwdriver, does not impose on the device that it cannot be used for opening a paint tin, stabbing a sibling, or removing wax from one's ear. I speak from experience. "Usefulness is in the hand of the holder." Your thinking has succumbed to the hypnotic power of language: I prescribe as therapy that you peruse 101 uses for a Dead Cat, a page or two per day until the book is complete.
I had no idea he hated us so much.
I watched it, but I don’t know if you noticed, it’s in Spanish.
My favorite part was the pergola. I just looked that word up the other day and the one in the park is a wonderful example. Eventually, I guess the vines will grow to cover the entire structure, which will be beautiful.
It is in Spanish because I am from Spain, Clarky. It would be odd to talk in English in Madrid, as well as if I spoke Spanish in Scotland.
Quoting T Clark
Yeah, it will be beautiful to see. If nothing happens, I might take images of the progress in the near future.
It's weird because when things are on my TV in other languages, usually it writes the English at the bottom, but this time that didn't happen. Maybe your phone is broken.
Good point. My phone is old but not broken.
I believe one important thing about the video is that you finally heard my voice.
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii.
1982!
Forty Years Later!
From BBC news:
Climate change: Four things you can do about your carbon footprint
Published
13 November 2024
summary:
stop this, tax that, pay more and have less!
This is the shoutbox. We talk here about more sophisticated matters. For example: what is your take? Would you allow pubs next to kindergartens?
So not why the prospect of limitless clean energy from high temperature geothermal has been overlooked for forty years, by left and right alike - while regressive forms of taxation are imposed on society under the rubric of addressing climate change, even as production of fossil fuels only increases?
1982:
Gas: 14,470 TWh
Oil: 33,271 TWh
Coal: 21,395 TWh
2023:
Gas: 40,102 TWh
Oil: 54,564 TWh
Coal: 45,465 TWh
Literally? No! Figuratively, more of a dog!
Interesting character; he would carry a lit lamp around in the daytime, and say he was looking for an honest man!
I — I —I — I — I — I
Do you know what this is Javi?
[hide="Reveal"]The T Clark eyeroll emoji[/hide]
I knew Diogenes. Diogenes was a friend of mine. You're no Diogenes.
So not - why the prospect of limitless clean energy from high temperature geothermal has been overlooked for forty years, by left and right alike - while regressive forms of taxation are imposed on society under the rubric of addressing climate change, even as production of fossil fuels only increases?
1982:
Gas: 14,470 TWh
Oil: 33,271 TWh
Coal: 21,395 TWh
2023:
Gas: 40,102 TWh
Oil: 54,564 TWh
Coal: 45,465 TWh
Despite being told:
Quoting javi2541997
Was Dioginesque!
i.e. careless of social conventions, and searching for honesty in vain!
I have no problem with you discussing it in the Shoutbox within reason. It is not uncommon to start substantive discussions here, including for moderators. Still, this is generally the place for less substantive stuff. It was started specifically to give @Hanover a place to post his [s]puerile[/s] [s]disgusting[/s] idiosyncratic thoughts.
Of course. Also - insults.
Push overs, flamingos!
The aggressive taxes are meant to curb peoples appetite for dirty energy, you know, like the sin taxes are meant to do. No one is going to put billions of dollars into extracting energy from magma when the oil practically flows freely from existing wells. So, tax the hell out of its use, to encourage investment in alternatives.
I — I —I — I — I — I
Thats the T Clark eye roll emoji.
In the UK - where I live, they put aggressive taxes on tobacco, knowing full well that people were addicted, and would pay whatever the price was. Energy has a similarly well known 'inelasticity of demand' - as it is known in economic jargon; demand that is not responsive to price increases.
So no; I cannot accept that's why they're lying about Limits to Growth, and telling us we need to go vegan and sit in the dark wearing two jumpers, and taxing carbon while still pumping oil. They're doing it because they know people won't Just Stop Oil; they'll find the money somewhere else.
A perfect response.
Flamingoes stand on one leg because they are expecting to be painted in an oil on canvas! Not everything can be explained within the boundaries of science, karl.
Good thing we fixed that by labeling every blank white page as such thus preventing untold hardship. Sigh. You people are nuts.
Dubious assumptions underlying the phrase "within the boundaries of science." I conceive of science as starting at the fingertips, and extending as far as we're able to reach. Not as a bounded discipline with limited application; but of universal application - albeit applied by limited creatures!
The hypothesis, flamingos stand on one leg to conserve heat loss in cold water, doesn't - I'll admit, prove the flamingos subjective motivations; which I suspect, ultimately are that the flamingo stands on one leg because flamingos stand on one leg!
Flamingos have evolved to stand on one leg, because standing on one leg was an advantage, because it conserves heat loss. In short, the flamingos motive is not conscious, but an evolved predisposition to an advantageous behaviour, ingrained into the organism by a survival advantage.
Or, maybe it's just smarter than you realize and is attempting to create what we humans call "style" or "fashion" or "one's particular way of doing things", that just happened to have caught on in that particular flock. You don't know. Do you? Can karl stone truly peer into the mind (or lack thereof) of a bird? Hah, while he may be used to being called a birdbrain, I for one doubt it! :razz:
May I offer, for your consideration, a work of, dare I say, art? Snapper filet, oven baked, and with a bit of an air fry, just for an extra finish.
And, for those who dare to venture a bit beyond, with a side dish!
[hide="Reveal"]
Surely, after all, how can one work one's mind with such burden that comes with philosophy, without first feeding one's body?
The composition is a little barren, as if this food was served right before a virus wiped out the human population, leaving no one behind but a few philosophical zombies.
These astrophysicists have apparently found some discrepancies with the standard models and are working with a modified model they call MOND, "Modified Newtonian Gravity".
+40% gravitational strength, under particular circumstances, seems significant enough.
New method of measuring gravity with 3D velocities of wide binary stars is developed and confirms modified gravity (May 27, 2025)
Low-acceleration Gravitational Anomaly from Bayesian 3D Modeling of Wide Binary Orbits: Methodology and Results with Gaia Data Release 3 (May 27, 2025)
Did you try to eat on a barrel? I did it more than one time. It is cool, mate. We sit around it like a circle, and we share the tapas and vermú in the middle.
My point is if we can eat on a barrel, why can't we live too?
Sitting on stools around a barrel is a great pleasure. :up:
It definitely is. :cool:
What a shame that is to hear, a lovely and well-learned soul such as yourself should not have to walk this path wrought with trepidation alone; of course perhaps, one might argue, it is fact the only way a man true to himself and not the world can walk such a path of his own volition. :chin:
I'm doing exactly what it is I need to do; and it's not my fault I haven't succeeded in convincing the world of the virtues of Magma Energy. It's a better, more hopeful idea than anything Greta Thunberg has to offer. Yet she's a famous millionaire, and I persist in obscurity.
I'm fine, but it should have worked. Not for my sake - but because it's scientifically true and morally right in face of the climate and ecological threat, to develop constant clean energy sufficient to meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon. Humankind should have a prosperous AND sustainable future - not one or the other.
I should be beloved of multitudes, and eating fish from a barrel - because I'm a philosopher.
Not one or the other.
I was imagining, not a barrel full of monkeys, but a barrel surrounded by monkeys.
Certainly once the barrel is breached and the monkeys are so emancipated, it is expected they would spend the first few moments collecting their thoughts in proximity to their once cruel prison by gathering around, but soon thereafter, they will likely move about freely, finding new opportunities beyond their prior confines.
I think.
I was thinking more of monkeys sitting around a barrel sharing tapas and vermú which, by the way, is Spanish for vermouth.
I was in Porto and they drink Porto wine, which translates into Port wine in American. They add the O for some reason.
I was in Russia, and they drink brown ale beers.
I was in Australia, and they drink water.
Victorian era smile.
Is that malicious culture-war trolling?
I now understand why karl is very motivated and unstoppable.
Magma energy forever!
Good question. Subjectivists are very much - offence is in the eye of the beholder, such that my intent would be irrelevant to their offence taking. I thought it was funny and clever, and speaks to an absurdity - that people who are very keen to take offense in some contexts are purblind to actual malice aforethought in others!
I forgive you, mainly because you used "purblind".
And that's another thing. A bedfellow, as if there were a time when you had a fellow you just shared a bed with, neither romantic nor Platonic, but just a person in need of a place to lay his head, and so it was in close proximity to your own, having nothing else in common but that same need for rest. And so you and your bedfellow would then wake up, live entirely unrelated lives, nothing else in common, often entirely at odds with one another, but then, come nightfall, you laid your head next to your fellow and slept peacefully, with that person you somehow in that strange moment needed to be next to.
By teaming up, they've both shown what unprincipled grifters they are. Anytime someone says anything like "you can't say that it's homophobic" - you get to reply "at least it's not pro-hamas!"
And then throw them off a roof!
You're a breath of fresh air here. I only hope you show restraint and choose logic over sensationalism. For those of us who wish to continue enjoying reading your postings. :smile:
Thanks for the warning. I'll try to reign it in. I'll strive to sublimate my personality to conform to someone else's values - because the last thing we'd want on a philosophy forum is the honest expression of people's own values! Philosophical discussion could break out!
Rein.
I don’t know if this is where the word came from, but in olden days people sometimes had to share beds in inns.
Or, maybe he truly wishes to reign it in. Whatever "it" is. It's a valid English language sentence and concept.
Look up images of 'the penny hang' - and tell me that's not the origin of the term hangover!
I think Jamal is correct. I can't believe I've been using the wrong spelling of the word rein all these years. Must have been about four times!
So yeah, to the extent the LGBTQ community might find itself in an unprincipled alignment with Hamas, I still don't know I'm ready to jump aboard your crazy train and suggest some moral equivalence between the two. I'm not so purblind that I can't see a stark difference between those two organizations.
Yawn.
Brilliant. How did you think of that?
About 45,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza since the start of this round of warfare. About 50% of those are women and minors. The US is complicit in those deaths which means I share responsibility. If you are a US citizen, you do too.
I think your position is absurd; that you would take responsibility for a war in which you have no part. Foreign policy is not your job. You elect people to make such decisions; people who are privy to information you are not. You're not responsible because you are a citizen of a country - and if you are, then so is everyone in Gaza, responsible for what happened on Oct 7th. So which is it?
If you're stuck for an answer, then just delete my post again!
I don’t have the authority or the ability to delete one of your posts. A moderator must’ve done it.
Quoting karl stone
You may deny it, but you are responsible too. it doesn’t matter whether or not you find it absurd.
Quoting karl stone
It’s not my job to worry about what other people are responsible for. It’s my job to look out for what I am.
You're not afraid of a contradiction, are you?
It's not my job to worry about what other people are responsible for.
You may deny it, but you are responsible too.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you find it absurd.
Doesn't it?
I was the one who deleted your post; it was rubbish. Be cool or get lost.
I'd rather not keep this ball in the air. Would you like to discuss something else? May I suggest horticulture? Or the novels of the Bronte sisters?
I want to discuss your notion of "subjectivism" in some way -- but I haven't figured out how to yet.
There was an interesting experiment described by youtube science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder on measuring qualia. They put people in an MRI machine and subjected them to the 'art' of Rothko - and mapped their neurological responses. Apparently, my red is your red. Which is exactly what I'd expect, because we evolved, and the senses must be basically accurate to reality to promote survival.
These findings refute claims that reality is subjectively constructed. I posted the Abstract somewhere, or if you wanted to discuss it, you could watch Sabine's video.
No it doesn't. At best it shows intersubjective reliability, and unless you assume an unprovable identity theory, you can't claim anything about the consistency of the phenomenonal state.
Notwithstanding your gross overstatement of the consistency of fMRI brain images to known mental states.
It does for me, but I guess that's because the findings are consistent with what I believed anyway. The problem for you is explaining how intersubjective reliability occurs - if reality is subjectively constructed. If there is a consistent response to stimuli - mapped by a MRI machine, Occam's razor suggests it's a physiological response to a given stimuli by the type or organism we are. The evolutionary argument is that fruits turn red so monkeys spread their seeds; and monkeys see red so they can spot fruits that are ripe. If my red weren't your red one of us would have starved to death!
Huh... interesting! I suppose one might counter-argue by saying the pigment response in mammalian or other organic beings may be universal and thus similar in that respect, no different than say how fire or frost can be painful all the same, it creates the same biological response in the brain, but perhaps doesn't create the same experience or sense of meaning for conscious beings, if that is what the whole "Hard Problem of Consciousness" debate is about. Obviously we all respond (or not respond) to light and dark in different ways, the simplest organisms such as plants and bacteria do as well. So, something "bright" is liable to produce a similar response against all sorts of organisms due to the nature of the world we all share and purportedly adapted and evolved in. So this in and of itself, may require just a bit more of an argumentative "push", per se, to convince some folk. :smile:
(To be fair I never really fully understood the whole "hard problem" thing anyhow, at least not to the degree its explained and posed in detail..)
There's not though. You're overstating the evidence. But you're not relying upon empirical evidence anyway. Quoting karl stone
You're relying upon what you think evolution dictates. There are many studies showing inconsistent brain states compared to known mental states, yet you don't use those to falsify your theory.
Quoting karl stone
Admitting to confirmation bias doesn't cure it. It just admits your conclusions untrustworthy.
This is a conflation of terms. Even if we all had the exact same brain states and they all perfectly aligned with the same phenomenonal state upon seeing an object, that doesn't imply objectivity of perception in an ontological sense, as if our perception must accurately reflect reality. Your theory is inconsistent with that. You argue perception is pragmatic, asserting nothing of the thing, but only explaining its representation as a way that increases survivability.
That is, the apple is red so we can see, it is sweet so we'll eat it, etc. What is the apple without subjective imposition of qualities?
I proposed an answer, but it's pure speculation. I suggested there was conceptual evolution; a bootstrap following from realisation that if a stone hand axes might be made, then who made me? Who made the world? - plunging primitive man into a phase of superstitious self consciousness!
Insofar as phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, I know I developed a self - battling through superstitious fear into knowledge of self in relation to reality; so perhaps the species followed the same evolutionary course, developing a subjective sense of being, through rehearsal of this idea in the act of making things. Creation shapes the creator!
"I made this!"
I hate summer, and it hasn't even started yet.
Oh no, it's sunny and yet my beer stays cold!
Whaaa!
I don't assume a subjective imposition of qualities; that's the whole point.
The apple IS red, and I SEE a red apple. And what is more - so do you!
This relates to something in evolutionary theory it's not difficult to grasp; and that is - the coevolution of the redness of the apple, and the primate ability to see red.
It's like the arms race of the cheetah and the gazelle; only a cooperative strategy instead. They make eachother; the redder the fruit, the more likely it is seen by animals, such that its seeds are spread, and so the redder fruits are in general, because those characteristics are passed on, while less red fruits may be overlooked. The primate that can see red is better fed, better able to survive to breed, so those characteristics are passed on - while colour blind monkeys may die out.
All this happens over millions and millions of years of evolution, a miniscule fractional advantage at a time, not any hard or fast rule. So please spare me the "here's a picture of a monkey eating a green banana - explain that!"
Homo sapiens have only been around for about 200,000 years. Other members of the genus homo did use tools from at least 2 million years ago.
Quoting karl stone
Again, the period you’re talking about represents several different species of humans.
Although this is not directly related, I thought you might be interested. A somewhat controversial book called “
Sorry, I pushed the post button too soon before I was finished with my comment. As I was saying:
Although this is not directly related, I thought you might be interested. A somewhat controversial book called “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes claims that human consciousness as we know it developed recently in historic times. Here’s what Wikipedia says:
“He places the origin of consciousness around the 2nd millennium BCE and suggests that the transition from the bicameral mind to consciousness was triggered by the breakdown of the bicameral system. The bicameral mind, he explains, was characterized by individuals experiencing auditory hallucinations as commands from gods, guiding their actions.“
I read the first few chapters of the book and didn’t find it very convincing but some knowledgeable people give him some credence
Quoting T Clark
No, it really doesn't. The creative explosion is placed by Shreeve (not Reeves) only about 50,000 years ago.
Quoting T Clark
Thanks, but no. Jaynes coined the term 'bicameral mind' - so he's running his own flag up his own pole. I find that dubious. Were bicamerality a phenomenon identified in the psychological literature, and he were attempting to explain it, it might be different.
He invents the phenomenon from whole cloth, and in order to explain what exactly?
Reports of religious experience?
Why isn't "they made it up" a better explanation?
Or ergot poisoning? Or schizophrenia?
The origin of consciousness 2nd millennium BCE?
China already had microwave rice!
I might buy that, but it’s not what you wrote in your previous post.
I wasn't trying to convey a timeline as it is not the relevant issue. What is your purpose in establishing a correct timeline? Is there a point you are trying to make that depends upon having a fully explained timeline? Or...
You wrote it was sometime in the past 1.5 million years. That doesn't make sense, as I pointed out. Then you revised your comment to make it 50,000 years, which is easier to swallow. Please don't kvetch at me for your own lack of clarity.
Nuff said.
Quoting T Clark
No. I wrote that 'for around 1.5m years homo sapiens were making stone hand axes. Then suddenly, there was a change in behaviour...speaking to a change in psychological state.'
I didn't put a date on that change in behaviour; it was about 50,000 years ago, according to Shreeve, although this is disputed with reference to recently unearthed artefacts, personally I'm not at all sure are indicative of artistic expression.
That aside, what do you imagine is the purpose of the argument? Is to describe the classification of hominid species? No! It's not. Is the purpose to establish an exacting timeline? No!
Is it the change in behaviours speaking to a change in psychological state? Yes!
Have you anything to say about that? No!
Then what's the purpose of your remarks?
Quoting T Clark
Take your own advice!
While I am quite ok with the administration deleting posts, and banning members or "users", as and when necessary, I must protest over the latest escalation of actually deleting users as well as their posts. It is surely a step too far. A conviction by a jury of his peers is surely the minimum justice a chap is entitled to price to his execution.
Huh? What happened now? Who? Or are you merely postulating a hypothetical? :chin:
Am I insane?
Quoting Jamal
What do you mean by cool? If it means conform, I can't. If being cool means fitting in, like the individual bird within a murmuration of starlings, judging its course by the course of those around it, and so wheeling about the sky in a great flock going in no particular direction, it's not my way. Consequently, I'm likely to upset people; not on purpose - but because I don't conform to the consensus. I'm not cool.
I am sublimating a lot of anger at what; if I'm right, is a collective complacency. I believe we're heading down the wrong philosophical path unto failure and extinction. And many here defend that philosophical perspective to the hilt, rather than grasping at philosophical sanity as justification for a prosperous and sustainable future. I rein that anger in; I do not express how frustrated I am by a self satisfied willingness to wheel about the sky in a great big flock going nowhere; ignoring my earnest explanations. That's the best I can do.
How about just be nice and respond with logical necessity only as opposed to things you know very well are superfluous in a logical sense and serve only to incite and inflame. Or are otherwise, that do so without actually being required as part of a logical response?
I.E. don't be provocative just for provocation sake. Surely no intellect would hold such behavior as proper, let alone required to communicate one's ideas and to change minds and opinions worth changing. :chin:
I may not agree with Greta Thunberg about anything other than the threat posed by climate change, but I wouldn't wish that on her. Y'all agree with everything she says, and that's what forced her onto that boat! Because you think consensus is nice. That disagreement is disagreeable. Not so.
It's her life. She's an adult. In fact, one who has reached heights of life and fame in this world most all people could only dream of. Why are you so concerned if she wishes to risk it for what she believes important or perhaps even straight martyr herself?
And, nah. She has private security with automatic weapons. Besides, that would only serve in the best interest of her goals and ideas going forward. Callous and inhumane if not sociopathic as it is to say, it remains a fact.
Why do they care? An interesting question.
Don't put me in one of your boxes - I'm not that guy and you know it. I'm not a climate denier; my disagreement is with limits to growth because Earth is a big ball of molten rock. My argument with Greta Thunberg is the same argument I have with the entire environmental movement. They should have embraced Nasa/Sandia labs findings, and campaigned for a prosperous AND sustainable future powered by endless clean energy from high temperature geothermal. Not Marxist degrowth.
Do you think she's not a sane, functional, rational adult able to understand consequences including what risk and death is?
Are any of us?
I don't know you from a bar of soap.
But why did you think I was referring to you? Something's a bit fragile. Curious.
When was the last time you were told to go fuck yourself by a bar of soap?
Well, as a religious person I suppose many would place me outside of the first category, so, a fair point brought about. :grin:
Functional? Indeed. To the not only chagrin but envy of many. Of course, what is function that serves a goal that is ultimately naught? :chin:
Ah, more religious rambling. Forgive me.
Rational? I like to think so. At least, to the level that society expects of a legal adult able to hold a job and operate a motor vehicle or otherwise be responsible for another human life. Of course. so are babysitters who are often as young as 14!
As far as understanding risk and death, I like to think so. Reward complements risk, for surely, there could not be one without the other! The same goes for death. :pray:
And also, No karl stone! That's no way to talk someone several thousand posts your senior. Now is it? Is it?? :cry: :scream:
When you get blocked, you can blame the liberal leftist gays that run the forum, and consider yourself a martyr to the cause... what ever that is. No need to blame your no doubt frustrating lack of ability.
Have fun.
Lest he say something like this, off screen, about me:
3. She Exposes Hypocrisy
Greta calls out the gap between rhetoric and action. She points out that adults have been aware of the climate crisis for decades and done little. That puts some older people — especially those in power — on the defensive. It’s not just that she’s asking for accountability; it’s that she’s revealing complacency and failure.
6. Projection and Fragility
Some of the backlash may reflect a kind of masculine fragility — a discomfort at being publicly upstaged by a teenager. She becomes a screen onto which some project their anxieties about irrelevance, loss of control, or generational decline.
I'm basically an alcoholic, sorry. I have a habit to misread things in the most offensive configuration possible. (and even so, I have immense levels of restraint and sense of logical priority, something I may humbly suggest you may wish to learn from! Ha, I kid of course. How fun to speak with a kindred spirit. I only hope you stick around long enough, which requires a bit of effort on your part, I fear :confused: )
Anyway. Let us watch with baited breath and eyes peeled as to what comes about from Ms. Thuneberg's (no pun intended) maiden voyage! :grin:
One particular member began editing their posts to remove everything they had written, because they'd decided they didn't want to be a member of TPF any more. When I asked about it privately they asked me to delete their account and blank their posts in one fell swoop.
Aren't those sort of ejaculating wells less common now than in the past?
Quoting Jamal
Who just suddenly doesn't have a name anymore?
Well, go on, spill the beans!
Lest some of us think he really didn't do so by his own will and perhaps someone up above (eh, you) felt his posts inconsistent with one's particular sensibilities or idea of morals and values and was, as the person your replying to, intelligent as he is, felt he was "Disappeared". Sans due process.
I am eager to research what he or she posted, which despite his or her ignorance of the basic nature of the Internet (can literally look up this site and any member profile a decade into the past that shall never be removed form the Internet) may have been intelligent in other less modern ways and thus retains some sort of value I may wish to research or simply humor in my free time. :brow:
If I went round deleting everything that was inconsistent with my sensibilities I wouldn't have time for anything else.
I mildly resent your mad suspicions, although I'm used to it.
Since the mystery member in question had attempted self-erasure, rather than asking the staff to do it, I have to assume they don't want their disappearance to be publicized.
The whole story is as follows. Mystery member posted a new discussion that consisted of a book title, a link to the book, and basically nothing else except for some words to the effect of "here is a book" (not even anything concerning the book's content). I deleted it for low quality and neglected to tell mystery member why I did so. Mystery member began self-erasing, and the rest is history.
Of course, where they had been quoted, their posts remain...
Leaving an odd "User not found" singularity in the forum. Here's hoping that those quotes are not pulled in, destabilising the forum's continuum and resulting in a "big crunch" End Of All Things.
Or maybe that would be for the better.
We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Only there is, since they were quoted...
A rigid designator picks out the given individual in every possible world in which they exit. So if they cease to exist, what happens to the rigid designator? Presumably it remains a rigid designator, but denotes the empty set?
Bloody pragmatists.
Here is the highlight of a political debate that took place in 1988 between the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, Lloyd Bentsen and the Republican VP candidate, Dan Quale:
:up:
Since @Moliere had actually replied to the OP, he might have a different view of the matter. I don't think I’m exaggerating when I say it had zero substance. The problem with my actions is that I didn’t bother sending a message to the member to let them know why I deleted it. I think I was feeling quite grumpy at the time—and now look what’s happened.
Karl dear, you are getting way too much attention in the shoutbox. I say something outrageous or incredibly clever and nobody responds! You do your hot lava thing and philosoffs fall all over you with sharp knives. Not fair!
Fresh meat, perhaps. The enthusiasm of the fledgling?
Quoting BC
Would it help if I occasionally asked you to ? I wouldn't want you to feel left out. :wink:
I mean, unelightened thought something of the sort happened, so. Y'know. Come on mate. He's a smart guy so I just figured, oh shoot, maybe he's right... nothing personal. How could it be? He was the source of insinuation I simply figured it possible as I respect his sense of logic. No big deal. :confused:
Quoting Jamal
Fair enough. I just, you'll never understand because you've simply never seen or been through what I have. But, sometimes people are forced into mindsets they simply never wanted to be. And I just simply wanted to see what led to such blatant disregard of one's efforts or attempt to mask what one had such desire to share with the world...... was it a person here? Was it someone else in their life we'll never know? These things fascinate me is all... sorry to trouble you. :confused:
I believe that. Low self esteem, from the looks of it. Wanted to make his light shown and felt rejected. Tis a pity but natural for folk young of age or mind. Still. Wonder what some who follow in such patterns could offer to the world if only they were given the right encouragement and direction.....
Sigh, 'tis not your job. Nor mine I suppose. We all have lives to tend to, after all. Kudos on you for offering this here platform for such a wide myriad of minds and souls to speak to one another. Thank you. Again. Truly. :smile:
I believe @karl stone is one of the most picturesque mates I ever talked with here in The Shoutbox. I wish him the best, but also a warning to behave; he often posts weird and quirky stuff.
Yes, but since unenlightened is so intimidating I project my resentment towards mild-mannered buffoons like you :cool:
You’re welcome, and I take back the “buffoon” comment.
Sleep soundly.
I will haunt you in your dreams.
For me it’s his fanaticism that’s the problem, and his desecration of the Shoutbox.
Would it help if I set up a link for you to click on? Really lay into you behind the scenes, and then come back on stage all smiles?
Why would you think I was referring to you?
Quoting Banno
ewww!
:rofl: :rofl:
That is something I will remember in the years to come. This is a live history of the Shoutbox.
Wow! It's come to something, when even my feeble jokes are intimidating. I'm going to reference the shoutbox in my application to become part of the UK's nuclear deterrent.
A true understanding of optimal Shoutbox discourse is difficult to come by, and, of course, it is not dependent on political spectrality. I see it more as the origamic enfolding of politics into topographically negentropic discursive events that reconstitute the nature of politics itself precisely to that mode the Shoutbox manifests and delineates. This requires a certain ironic distance from irony itself as a self-looping mechanism of humorous but edifying engagement. There is a there there and it is the process of searching for it that instantiates the necessary quality of experience rather than any particular predetermined end.
Via Google Gemini:
"Imagine the "Shoutbox" is a space for conversation. The author is saying that the best kind of conversation in that Shoutbox isn't about winning a left-wing vs. right-wing debate. In fact, it has nothing to do with the usual political labels we use.
Think of it like this:
Folding Politics Like Origami
The author sees the ideal Shoutbox discussion as a work of art, like origami. Instead of a flat piece of paper (representing a simple political argument), the conversation should be a process of "origamic enfolding." This means taking the raw, often messy subject of politics and carefully folding it into something new and intricate.
This "folding" creates "topographically negentropic discursive events." Let's break that down:
* Discursive events: These are simply conversations or discussions.
* Negentropic: This is the opposite of entropy. While entropy is the tendency for things to become disordered and chaotic, "negentropic" means the conversation is actually creating order, complexity, and new ideas. It's a discussion that builds something up, rather than just breaking things down.
* Topographically: This means the conversation doesn't just move in a straight line from point A to point
B. Like a folded origami shape, it has depth, layers, and unexpected connections. You can jump from one point to another in a way that seems far apart but is actually connected through the "folds" of the conversation.
So, a great Shoutbox discussion takes politics and, through a creative and orderly process, transforms it into a complex and insightful conversation that isn't just a rehash of old political arguments. In doing so, it changes what "politics" even means in that space.
Being Ironic About Irony
The author also suggests that to have these kinds of conversations, participants need a special kind of humor. It's not enough to just be ironic or sarcastic. You need to have an "ironic distance from irony itself."
This means you understand how irony can be used for humor and to make a point, but you also recognize that irony can become a lazy, endless loop where nothing is taken seriously. So, you use irony in a way that is both funny and genuinely contributes to the conversation's depth—it's "humorous but edifying."
The Journey Is the Destination
Finally, the author says that the ultimate point of this ideal Shoutbox discussion isn't to arrive at some final, perfect answer. The real value—the "there there"—is in the process of searching for understanding and meaning together. The shared experience of exploring complex ideas is what makes the conversation worthwhile, not any particular conclusion you might reach.
In short, the author is describing a very sophisticated and creative form of online discussion. It's a conversation that is less like a debate and more like a collaborative art project, where the goal is not to win but to build something new and interesting together."
My purpose as a Christian on this site of lost souls has been fulfilled. Thank you.
*vanishes into thin air and returns to the aether (or higher realm, for you foolish mortals)*
:lol:
Well, that's all I ever needed to know about the Shoutbox.
Quoting Baden I want some of that. But first, some ice-cream.
"Using this conversation as inspiration, draw a picture, but it can contain no words and it must capture its essence, not just create a series of explanatory images:"
Kevin drew me this:
WTF you ask? I asked that very question. That bird is a starling. The black cloud behind is a murmation, a flock of grouped starlings working as one to confuse hawks and predators as to what they are. The lone starling on the branch is non-conforming, perhaps unaccepting of the murmation's strategy, seeing it as doomed, so taking the chance at autonomy despite seeming self-destruction.
Kevin is a deep mother fucker. Props to him.
Following up on my theory that all communication is art of varying degrees, I had ChatGpt (hereinafter "[s]Kevin[/s]" Francis) reduce to a single [s]image[/s] music video our recent Shoutbox conversation. I provided a page of posts to [s]Kevin[/s] Francis with this instruction:
"Using this conversation as inspiration, [s]draw a picture[/s] make a music video [s]but it can contain no words and it must capture its essence, not just create a series of explanatory images:[/s]"
Francis made me this:
Thank you for this. I listened to a few repetitions of the word "wired," and then I left to order some shampoo off Amazon, but I'll definitely get back to it.
Enjoy.
Is this an Aussieism? I like it. I’m no going to bring it to America if it’s not already here.
I didn’t know if many people would recognize my paraphrase, but I knew you would.
The difference is, we do know you from a bar of soap.
Posting weird and quirky stuff is not misbehavior, especially not in the shoutbox.
You and Kevin must know the bird shown is not a starling. Perhaps that is the substance of what Kevin is trying to show us. The bird is not a starling, following blindly. It is its own bird. You can see the integrity in his eyes.
https://community.rspb.org.uk/chat/f/hello/287522/white-starling
Model, bad actress, soccer player, and Mountie - is there anything that woman can’t do?
Well, I’ll be a primate’s father’s brother. Given the rarity of these leucistic starlings, it’s an even better avatar of the rugged, independent man of the world.
Shut your dirty mouth!
Also, I left banjo player off my list.
I'm like a modern day Nostradamus, me!
Pride often begets the fall.
But not for you. No, not of one who has so much potential to share with those he might find unworthy or unfitting or perhaps even incapable of receiving, such.
Of course, what comes easy often goes easy. Or so the saying says. You have your wit. But what ever will you make of it? :chin:
Thank you for your contribution; insofar as it is a response that acknowledges no part of that to which it responds, nor indeed, anything that we've spoken about previously as far as I'm aware. Surreal, I'd call it. A string partly remembered cliches - seeming to allude to some emotional state I find impossible to discern, less yet attribute.
In short, what?
You got lucky. :smirk:
Now, be right twice, you can color me impressed. :smile:
She got lucky. Worst thing that could have happened to her, is if her flotilla was allowed to land.
Israel towed the ship to Ashdod, and made Greta watch Bearing Witness; a film showing what HAMAS did on Oct 7th, recorded by HAMAS bodycams!
This is going to be interesting; because like I said, wokery has no reverse gear. It's a holier than thou ratchet effect. Apostates are not allowed by the pc brigade!
Pardon, I don't really follow the topic often other than the larger geopolitical context, but, isn't she in favor ie. supportive of Hamas, Palestine, etc.? Why would they kill her for no reason when she's (allegedly) there in support of them. Makes no sense?
There's a video on youtube "Italian peace activist Vittorio Arrigoni murdered in Gaza."
He was supportive of Hamas, Palestine etc. He was hanged.
I don't really know why - they said something about him coming from an infidel country. I don't know if Italy is more of an infidel country than Sweden. But I can't imagine it would have gone well for her.
I wonder what she'll do, having seen that video though. Maybe go home and protest the alarming rise in incidences of sexual violence in Sweden.
I didn't watch the match because I don't like these new weird tournaments created by UEFA. For me, the real rivalry is in the Euros. I think I have never missed a Euros competition.
I'm talking about Greta Thunberg; because she is a climate activist. As you may be aware, my focus is a Magma Energy solution to climate change. It's not my fault Greta has become a jihadi bride. She, and her radical left wing political weaponization of climate change, still stand as obstacles to a prosperous and sustainable future. But I am hoping that her ill-informed stance on HAMAS will reflect on her ill-informed stance on the climate!
What makes a climate activist any different than a "don't put lead in paint" activist. They have a point that can be scientifically proven. Sure something so large can be abused, and due to human nature, likely will be. But why lose focus on that fact and act like the good concept never existed in the first place? You're smarter than that. So act like it.
There's also a thread for that: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15870/climate-change
I don't know of any lead paint activists that have addressed the UN.
Quoting Outlander
Not exactly. Climate scientists have a point. Climate activists have a cause, and that cause is not the climate, or Magma Energy would be a thing!
Quoting Outlander
The climate cause is being abused, by a radical left wing 5th column of neo marxists, preying upon the genuine concerns and empathies of mostly decent people.
Quoting Outlander
How am I to judge a person's soul?
Quoting Outlander
You overestimate me!
Hanover, I don't do well with hints, pretences, facial expressions, emojis, or anything that is not communicated very directly. If you're saying I cannot post in the shoutbox, say that, explain your reasons, because I don't understand what you're saying or why.
Just take it easy. Please. For me. A fan. At least, one who admires the majority of your posting history here. :smile:
But please, tell me what the shoutbox is for, if not an aside on interesting current events.
Hanover may not find Greta Thunberg interesting, but I do.
I don't like football videos.
Is she of philosophical import? Probably not. I'm not going to write a thread about it.
make it make sense!
We get guys like you here on the forum on a fairly regular basis - those who want to provoke people without providing anything substantive to discuss just so they can call attention to themselves. They don't have any interest in playing nice and they don't generally last very long.
I happen to think I'm a bit of a unicorn!
Quoting T Clark
But maybe beauty is in the jaded eye of the beholder!
Quoting T Clark
Other than an means to achieve a prosperous and sustainable future for all of humankind?
Quoting T Clark
That's not true.
Quoting T Clark
There's a difference between nice and honest here! I'd rather be honest! If you can be honest, I can be nice. How's that?
This is factually incorrect. Possessing one or more qualities, such as liking the color blue or behaving in a way that warrants negative attention, sure. One may be called something and given an accurate descriptor, but no one is "just" anything (ie. that descriptor).
There is an unsolicited private message disgracing my coveted inbox addressing me using a word that describes one's rear bodily cavity that was sent in anger by a man unable to control his emotion and chose such desires over logic. I wonder, pray tell, who that could be.
Here’s my Nostradamus prediction - less than a month.
I’m glad you haven’t forgotten.
How nice!
She is standing in front of a camera, with a microphone, obviously making a report, the bastard turns, aims and shoots.
America, you are lost.
Documentation of evil (or undesirable bouts of human nature).is a bad thing? When in reality the same happens all day everyday in other nations without such freedoms, never to see the light of day.
Have you gone mad in your sheer capacity of intellect? No shame. Happens quite often. There's quite ample room to get lost in, particularly for one such as yourself. :grin:
The fact it's being reported is some sort of negative aspect of the few places and governments that are open enough to do and allow so? Well, shoot the messenger right in the eye, why don't ye.
Ignorance of the dust under the rug does not make it disappear, but in one's own mind.
Why not? Provocation for its own sake can stimulate a response unexpected leading into uncharted territory
And logic is the wet blanket of creativity, isn't it?
And not everyone wants to convince or convert others to a particular conclusion/thought/process, it may be suggested.Particularly on the shoutbox.
Quoting karl stone
As currently practiced in Gaza, just to keep the ball in the air?
Quoting T Clark
Perhaps, but unenlightened clarified the ghee.
Quoting javi2541997
Only when they have to, generally. But, maybe because they believed you were looking.
Quoting Shawn
Why not? And a belated yes to "Pig?" Of course
smile
Anybody studied the long term effects of high temp geothermal on.for examples, cooling effects of the core and heating effects on atmospheric temps resulting long term from heat extraction from the earth's core.
curious smile
It is well known that Australian water is the purest.
emu smile.
But maybe not. Makes not difference.
Absolutely agree....perhaps?
Quoting Jamal
In future, would it be wise to ask if you are/were grumpy when we have an admin question?
wry smile
Where did you read/learn that? On a tourist advertisement?
big smile
No! I am a water tasting expert, that's all.
king Richard I smile.
I remember before they marketed water and it was delivered by a garden hose. No one even knew then there were varieties of water.
No, Kazan, obviously not - if you think about it. I'm here 40 years after Nasa/Sandia Labs published their Magma Energy Project Report, campaigning on a philosophy forum because the technology has not been developed or applied.
It hasn't even been demanded by radical left wing environmentalists like Greta Thunberg.
Instead, they have demanded we stop this, tax that, pay more and have less until western capitalist society collapses; a policy known as degrowth.
However, the Earth's core has been radiating energy into space for 4bn years, and will do so for a very long time to come, no matter how much of that energy we intercept, and apply to balance human needs and the environmental good.
As for the heating effect on atmospheric and ocean temperatures, there are two factors to consider:
1. geothermal heat is not extra heat caused by the chemical combustion of coal, oil or gas, or nuclear fission. It is background heat that was radiating into space anyway.
2. geothermal energy is carbon free. It doesn't add to the blanket of carbon in the atmosphere, trapping heat, to warm the oceans - causing ever wilder climatic conditions.
As we use geothermal energy, over time, atmospheric carbon will be reduced - and ultimately background heat will radiate into space normally, as it has for billions of years.
I wish I could put numbers on this for you, but Magma Energy has been ignored by left and right alike for the past 40 years. I'm now seeking the rapid development and application of this technology worldwide; as a response to the climate threat. I advocate building a Magma Energy platform sufficient to global energy demand by 2050 - looking toward energy abundance by the end of this century.
Yeah, mate. The good old times.
Drinking the water from the pit directly; and not with those crap plastic bottles that only pollute the environment.
When I was a kid, I drank the water from the hose. It was a delightful experience, and the taste was sweeter than when you drink it from bottles.
Not all that glitters is gold. So, there are two possibilities going forward: There might be a possibility that someone smarter than you might possibly exist who has already ran the numbers and did the real world tests and determined it's simply not feasible, at least in the concept of some near "magic bullet" or "common sense" solution to all energy problems being ignored for no reason other than because people aren't yelling about it loud enough OR there's some, I can't even imagine, anti-human conspiracy of people that just want everything to be as terrible and inefficient as possible for reasons that surpass all available logic. I mean, it basically has to be one of the two.
There should be a new TV show, you being Newman and me (or the preferred TPF member of your choosing) being Kramer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUCulRiK0o0
(purposely not embedded since external playback is disabled for this particular clip)
I think people would watch us. Or you all. Whomever. :smile:
I do not believe Magma Energy is impossible; and even if it were, how would everyone in the environment movement over the past 40 years know that, such that they campaigned for limits to growth instead?
There's an explanation you haven't considered; what one might describe as a concatenation of partial views and short term interests, conspiring to exclude a middle ground Magma Energy solution.
I think the Magma Energy Project was ended by the administration of Ronald Reagan in the 1980's - and one can imagine there were reasons relating to fossil fuel markets, and geopolitics, to say nothing of electoral politics, that he would do so. His economic politics were very right wing; a position that today is fertile ground for climate change denial.
The equal and opposite response from the left can be seen in the Greenpeace founder Dr Patrick Moore, in 1986 - being drummed out of the organisation for suggesting we need to invest in nuclear energy. He complained the organisation "took a sharp turn to the political left" and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas".
Today, the radical left is fertile ground for anti-capitalist, anti-western neo marxism - using sustainability as a critique of capitalism, that is all about weaponizing the climate and ecological problem - and wholly uninterested in productive solutions.
Then there's the energy industry itself; in my view, not above spending money to keep new entrants off the market. I believe the oil industry funds radical left wing activism, precisely because it alienates the general public from concern with the climate and environment. Just Stop Oil for example, was funded by Aileen Getty - granddaughter of oil baron JP Getty.
In short, there are a lot of interests that bear upon the subject, that may conspire, incidentally, to exclude a Magma Energy approach to the climate crisis - without ever being aware they are doing so. It may be, by explaining all this - cutting the Gordian Knot of a tangle of perspectives, each of those positions is re-conceptualized, such that all legitimate interests align in a Magma Energy solution to the climate crisis none had considered because they were maintaining a position relative to others.
We've been shooting people in the streets here for 400 years including, I'm sure, a few Aussies. Why the outrage now?
while wearing digital watches!
29.
I would like to hear the police account. It looked like the protestors were in another area and there were other people walking near the reporter, so I'm not sure why they decided to wing her in the leg with a rubber bullet. I saw her interviewed later, and she seemed nice enough, more confused than angry. It was bizarre.
So, the masterminds of industry are puppeteers jerking the strings of radical left wing activists in order to alienate the public. By that theory, we might suppose that you are an agent provocateur working for the Big Oil in order to turn environmentalists against left wing radicals and further confuse the general public.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy to account for market failures or market successes. Some ideas fly, some flop. I've hitched my wagon to enough falling stars to know that conviction is no guarantee of success.
In Trump’s America, the shooting of a journalist is not a one-off. Press freedom itself is under attack
If this is not troubling for you, then it seems you are a part of the problem. But hey, its your country.
Members of the forum should know by now that whatever I’m involved in I’m part of the problem.
I’d also like to say that when it comes to invective against the United States, you’re a piss-poor substitute for @Streetlight.
I'm working for a six year old boy, who was in school in 1978, reading an annual for a TV show, and turned the page and saw an image of a lunar landscape - Earth hung in the inky blackness of space like a moon. Astronauts in the foreground, working on some mechanical device. Habitation modules. A moon buggy skipping across the surface. A rocket ascending.
That boy thought the world would be amazing when he grew up; and he was devastated to learn that humankind is accelerating up a dead end street.
He was advised to start writing things down by someone who didn't want to listen to his despair; but found he could hardly write half a page before running into contradiction of what he had professed to believe earlier. Through a process of identifying and resolving contradictions in understanding, he arrived, at very long last at a worldview grounded in scientific rationalism - in terms of which he discovered there exists a very good answer to the climate and ecological threat; namely, Magma Energy; a technology that had been known to science all his life, but was ignored because it didn't suit anyone's immediate interests.
It didn't suit the interests of big oil, and it didn't suit the interests of radical left wing environmental activists - who, either by accident or design found themselves in a mutually beneficial conspiracy of opposition; a conspiracy against a six year old boy who thought the future would be amazing.
Glad to see, with the help of AI magic, you now "know thy self" or at least that part that writes "...the previous post's apparent Sokal-like hoax". More than at least one other can, 'hand on heart', claim even after the attempted illumination
almost honest smile
Don't make his mistake of being obscure and obtuse. Leave that, along with being provocative (for its own sake), to lesser mortals.
smile
As many prophets have found, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. And the world still kept turning.
Besides, Aus may need to recover most of its $300 billion when the subs don't turn up. So don't throw the first stone( referring to not being without our own sins), just flick pebbles.
Just a suggestion.
It can be argued that no nation is without its flaws, despite its citizens' blindness to their flaws.
pacifying smile
Agreed. Her subsequent down noting of the incident may have something to do with the interruptions to her work should she be required to testify in a court trial. Although, the fame gained may justify.
cynical smile
This is the first thing I learnt from TPF when I joined the first time.
groovy smile.
Astute, Javi. Pity you never mentioned this earlier. The shoutbox might have been even better, although T Clark's assertion doesn't seem to have markedly improved things....so far, it may be argued
Just an observation, not an assertion.
smile
I expect that in the near future this will be the opening passage of the holy Book of Karl, alternatively the Tablets of Stone.
:up:
Quoting kazan
What kind of smile?
I imagine that it will get scraped off the internet by a super-intelligent AGI, and in some small part inform its thinking with regard to the sustainability of human existence.
Why do you want to bore us all the way to hell, just to tap into it's blazing furnace, when we all know that true freedom is to be found in the other direction?
I really don't understand the question.
First, your emotional state is more your responsibility than mine. I don't read metaphysics, because it's complete nonsense. I would be bored if I read metaphysics, so I don't read it. It seems to me you are free to adopt the same strategy with regard to anything that you find uninteresting.
Second, I advocate for the development of Magma Energy to address the climate and ecological threat to civilisation, and ultimately, to life on Earth.
Third, I don't know what you mean by 'true freedom is to be found in the other direction.' I can only speculate. Are you talking about Heaven? Are you talking about Heaven on an individual basis, after death? Or as a species, after a climate Armageddon induced by continued fossil fuel use? Or for just one particular religious sect? What is it that we all know? And how do we know it?
I think he's talking about space, perhaps harvesting resources from asteroids or other planets or perhaps solar energy (either as is currently harvested or perhaps some hypothetical in-space system of some sort). That's all that comes to mind when he says "in the other direction" in reference to your "boring" (I see what he did there! Very creative.) idea.
I don't know y'know. I've always considered metaphysics to occur in the course of a subjectivist denial of the primacy of Galilean objectivism underlying science i.e. actual physics!
I suspect metaphysics is often adopted by religious types to undermine epistemology and rationalism in philosophy. For all we know, Metaphysician Undercover could very well believe the Earth is flat, fixed in the Heavens, and 4000 years old.
You’ve changed from our sweet, shy Spanish friend into a smarty-pants. I’m very proud.
:grin:
What’s wrong with @javi2541997’s eyebrows? Also, why is he hanging around with 60 year-old women.
What program do you use to generate your images? The ones I’ve tried won’t let me do celebrities and they’re very limited in the kinds of images they can create.
I thought my eyebrows were irrelevant until I posted pictures of myself in The Shoutbox.
You thought they were irrelevant only because you've never suffered the misery of dust finding its way into your eye. What we'd all give for just one hyper-vigilant brow, let alone two forminable barriers.
Any spare money I have after I pay for my viagra, Camel unfiltereds, and the payments on my dentures goes to the Philosophy Forum.
Genisys does everything. My phone will link to my tablet will link to my computer will link to my car...
Everything in my life uploaded and online 24/7. Totally connected.
Connected to what?
Opt for
Spot on
Donald Trump Jr.
Cellar door.
Prosperous AND sustainable future.
Magma Energy!
28.
What does it mean those numbers? It is not the first time I see you posting them.
I thought you were going to ask - why Cellar door?
Or about Magma Energy, or a prosperous and sustainable future.
The numbers?
I'm counting down, to test the prophetic powers of one of our most august members!
I forget which one. They're all so similar!
Testing members... :smirk: that sounds like a reasonable idea.
That's what I thought about Magma Energy!
Reasonable idea, I thought, epitome thereof.
Even if Gazprom's sceptical, I figured, Greta's bound to see reason.
Yet Just Stop Oil have Just Stopped.
Greta's protesting Gaza rather than Gazprom.
And the supposedly enlightened act to prevent challenges to their groupthink!
Could you define "reasonable"?
Please stop spamming the Shoutbox.
I can't. But, don't worry karl that's what dictionaries are for.
According to the Cambridge dictionary:
1. Reasonable: Based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical.
1.1. Teaching example: If you tell him what happened, I'm sure he'll understand - he's a reasonable man.
Should I reply to this, or...?
Why not post about something fun you did today, maybe a walk in the park you went on, or a new meal you've tried, with photos! Boy, do I love me some [s]voyeurism[/s] vicarious living. :lol:
We want to know the real karl. His human nature and desires. Yes, yes, we all advocate for something at the end of the day the world "just doesn't seem to understand." But you already have a thread about that.
This is for random, non-categorized, scattered thoughts and musings. Maybe fun poems or little short stories, stuff like that. I fear you've reached a level of ad nauseam in your refusal to change things up. So why don't you?
For example, I recently had to "re-chain" a chainsaw I bought for light work at a job site. It was annoying. I swear the bloody thing fought me every step of the way. I was about to throw in the towel and chalk up my difficulties to sheer incompetence or perhaps malformed equipment. But no, I powered through and now the thing is good as new. Ready to take on the world. Or at least a branch or two. :grin:
See, stuff like that. A Shoutbox is about the human connection you don't typically find in most areas of the forum, especially one such as this focused on pure logical and debate-oriented threads that exist to solve or discuss a problem. That's what people want to see more of. The real karl stone, and maybe fun little facts about his life or what he did today or will do tomorrow. No matter how small, no matter how mundane (to you), just make it worthwhile a stranger not interested in anything that already exists in a thread posted might enjoy, otherwise have brighten up their day, or at least offer some sort of deviation from their current doings or whatnot.
The corpse of a black goldfish
All of nature in the shape of a cat
I think they're going to put my cat on thyroid meds. She has a neck goiter and is losing weight. That's a common thing with old cats. They can also nuke her thyroid for like $1,500 or something and cure it. Maybe I'll do that. My wife took her in and told the vet that we'd likely spare no expense because there was nothing more important to her husband than that cat, even her.
I might have clarified some butter, but clarifying the already clarified is beyond me. I just want to make that clear if it wasn't already.
My grandmother had a goiter. They never nuked it. I don't think they had nuclear weapons back then. She died of something else.
I’m so proud.
There's a park near my office that is a preserved farm from before urban sprawl, reminding me of simpler times. I think I'd have done better then, although internet reception likely was poorer. I harken back to those days, but take comfort in knowing today will be someone else's tomorrow to harken back to.
Perhaps I've captured nostalgic optimism.
[sup]— Miryam Naddaf · Nature · Jun 11, 2025[/sup]
BrainGate2: Feasibility Study of an Intracortical Neural Interface System for Persons with Tetraplegia at UC Davis Health
:up:
Georgia is chock-full of unpreserved, non-nostalgic farms.
Don't you dare speak of Georgia and sully its good name sir! You are to speak only of the sewage infested confines of the northeast.
I like Georgia. Georgia is a friend of mine. You’re no Georgia.
It is well known that Georgia's peach juice is delicious. I might try it with ice cream.
Your choice. "Raised eyebrow smile", perhaps. To put Javi's seal on it, although any future "raised eyebrow smile" reference will not be and should not be understood as a Javi whistle.
Javi, glad to see you keep up with /on top of the smile. Emogies can't always spell it out with sufficient nuance for some of us.
As an aside, what should the total construction of a mixed metaphor used in a pun be called. Apart from the knee jerk, "Bad English" reaction.
Quoting unenlightened
Point duly noted. Someone had to clarify the butter to get the clarification, that is the ghee or the clarified butter whichever term is used in the particular cook book one might be using. Glad you did, for clarity's sake.
eyebrow waving smile
What about "denigrating malicious smile"?
Perhaps, it is more accurate to the times of nowadays.
Peach juice? I've never had that. Georgia is actually not the biggest peach producing state. We lead in peanuts, poultry, and pecans, all Ps for some reason.
Why do you use a peach in your licence plate then? I thought that had a reasonable meaning.
If you never had peach juice, what do you put in your smoothie? A boring cucumber? :brow:
A ONCE GREAT AMERICAN CITY HAS BEEN OCCUPIED! (Governor Newsom Press Office · Jun 10, 2025 · 1m:3s)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/GovPressOffice/status/1932447842683249033[/tweet]
LOS ANGELES WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY OBLITERATED! (Governor Newsom Press Office · Jun 10, 2025 · 1m:10s)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/GovPressOffice/status/1932515354435375531[/tweet]
Commenters generally don't have much humor
The Georgia coast is beautiful. Lots of Colonial history and Gilded Age history.
Perhaps something has taken him? Perhaps.
From experience, the medication for hyperthyroid works pretty well for a while, but you have to keep retesting her every six months or so, and upping the dosage. Inevitably, she will hate taking the medication and refuse, no matter what kind of treat you hide it in. Then, you'll have to force it, and she'll scratch and bite as if you're trying to kill her, until the point, God forbid, you might actually be. Then she'll die, because without the nukes (which is how they treat human beings), the disease is unstoppable.
In any case, medicating a cat is a real pain, be prepared to develop a good strategy.
She needs to take it easy.
Pineapple is the best.
I'll tell her, but she's busy right now and I dont want to disturb her.
I can see you want to destroy the world for ideological reasons.
You are a terrible human being.
That sounds very good, interesting, and unique. I think it is far more interesting than the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as "MI6."
Secret Service Bureaus are superb. I wonder if they have information about me or any compromising footage where I appear stealing wine in Mercadona.
Just so you’ll know, I did send a link to the video you recently posted here to the NSA.
:smile:
:scream:
What will happen now? I have two missed calls from an unknown number. I guess it is the governor of Georgia. He will ban me from entering their territory. I really hope I can still eat peaches.
Yes. I specialise in fallout. I can fallout of places you wouldn't think a cat could get into. I do believe I could fall out of a bottle of wine in Mercadona, so the NSA better just watch their step.
Story 2. A guy works for many years to save up enough money to have a huge chunk of ice mailed to him. He finally makes enough and purchases the ice from Amazon.com. He waits patiently, day by day for the arrival of the ice.
Were you thinking of Patagonia?
As the destination? I guess that would work. Maybe the starting point would be Argentina.
Why doesn't the guy just jump on an iceberg, with a parasol and a cooler full of beer, and take the free cruise?
You can buy bottled water produced from melted iceberg. It's apparently (though I've never tried it) the best tasting water on the planet. I'm skeptical, after all those years in the fridge, it's sure to pick up some odours. How else would those scientists be able to determine the historical composition of the atmosphere through coring the ice shield, if they weren't testing for dissolved odours?
Mar Chiquita, Buenos Aires (Argentina).
@Arcane Sandwich lives there.
There was once a guy who needed to bring a bottle of precious oil to a far-off village. He carefully filled the bottle and set off on his journey. Before setting off, he noticed a small hollow at the bottom of the bottle — an indentation. He thought to himself:
"Ah! What a waste of space! I can fit just a little more oil there!"
So he flipped the bottle upside-down to pour oil into the little hollow.
Of course, although he did not notice, all the oil in the top spilled out onto the ground.
And so he walked carefully, but the oil in the indentation slowly splashed out, so that when he arrived only a small amount was left, the villagers upset to have so little oil.
He told them no worries, he had plenty more oil, and so he flipped the bottle upright to show them.
A Yiddish tale.
He works for an e-commerce company. They don't ride icebergs.
Quoting Hanover
Is it really? That's cool.
I think it’s just @Hanover’s new catchphrase, replacing “True story.”
Yes, Chelm stories. Typical formula: misunderstood problem, backwards logic, simpleton characters. In short, Hanoverian tales.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wise_Men_of_Chelm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Bashevis_Singer
There has to be a connection.
This seems like a very @Metaphysician Undercover type of mini-discussion. If he would be so kind as to offer his (or her? I couldn't care less!) input.
I have tried to foster more positive feelings toward centipedes, and have been somewhat successful. A long-standing arachnophobia has improved too. Or, I just haven't come across big spiders lately. 3 years ago a big spider was lurking on a silk strand which stretched from the eves to the ground. It bothered me quite a bit, but I didn't haul out the flame thrower.
From a Wittgensteinian perspective, it would just mean our usage shifted and declassified those not of that designated height are no longer "human".
Deuteronomy 20:19:
When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?
Yes, yes they were.
Dude, how did you know that scripture?
Not to mention that "deuteronomy" is a really cool word. It reminds me of "cut loose like a deuce another runner in the night".
I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
Oh Mr. Knowledge of Witty Inventions, tell me how "cut loose like a deuce" is converted into "wrapped up like a douche", and this turns a boring song into an instant hit? Don't listen to that bullshit about the technician not being able to make the words sound like they were supposed to, due to some technical difficulty.
There is hidden meaning in everything.
I imagine there might be less bullying, but perhaps not, as you've not specifically precluded weight or size in general, as well as the phenomenon of forming groups.
Clothing would be simpler, thus dramatically affecting the social fabric, no pun intended. There would be one size for adults; that size of course being "Adult." It may make the production of clothing much simpler and streamlined; or it may not.
There would be no weight classes in boxing and similar sports, for one. As to what that would lead to (if anything) is uncertain. There would also be little need to separate inmates by size (perhaps, since again you did not specifically dictate 'if humans were the same size').
It's also possible there would be less officer involved shootings as if you're reasonably in shape the justifiable necessity to shoot the average person who matches your size is fairly low, or at least lower than someone you are dwarfed by.
It's certainly an interesting topic with many ramifications, large and small.
Better not. See enough of those on the current POTUS whenever he faces a "fake news" journalist or other persona non gratia.... is that what you are referring to in that ingrained/natural Euro-diplomatic way of yours?
You're really connecting into the smile environment, Javi.
non-malicious chuckle
I don't know to what extent I can consider myself as European, at least from a political perspective. Most of the powerful and interesting decisions are taken by France, Germany, and the UK. Spain is not relevant enough. I am not mad about this, and I believe it is better to be hidden nowadays.
villa 31 smile.
You're probably right. Same thing.
Like, don't count your shekels out loud in the marketplace. Good advice, hence, true story/old but persistent Yiddish proverb.
Which, in a juxtaposed way, ties in with the old Romany proverb: Don't count someone else's shekels where they can see or hear you.
Another true story
Non-malicious smile
Now you're taking the smile into uncharted regions. Thanks for the heads up/ link on the resistance, youth, multi national and inequality aspects of your "Villa 31" smile plus whatever else can be construed... a multi layered smile
simple appreciative smile
Mmnn? Can't have much meaning if it's hidden. Unless it's imagined.
Just a suggestion. Feel free to disagree.
Good to read you're in fine form. Some may suggest; iconoclastic and God fearing in the same breath.
wry smile
Favourite smile ever.
Enigmatic simile; like water for chocolate
OK then, what's the difference between a clever mistake and a Freudian Slip?
Actually that's a rhetorical question.
By definition a mistake is non-intentional. The concept or state of being "clever" requires conscious intention so as such the concept is, well, a non-concept. Absurd and invalid.
You're slipping, just a bit. Perhaps it's just early and you're just not quite on the top of your game insomuch. Cheers. :sparkle:
Or, maybe Hanny fucked with my head, making me think that a clever mistake is nothing other than a Witty hypocrisy.
Watch some NHL playoffs, and you'll see that the goalie often gets run over "accidentally on purpose" as the commentators say.
The concept of "a clever mistake" may be absurd and invalid, but as Witty demonstrates, it's also extremely useful, to those so inclined as to use it.
It's a mistake that would have been clever had it been intentional, suggesting an even more clever universe, imposing wittiness even within our mistakes.
"Hidden" doesn't imply forever obscured. You can locate hidden meanings if you look.
That is so true.
The opposite of that is seen in soccer, where someone flops to the ground after not having been run over accidentally or purposefully.
Trump's hair.
Discuss.
Yesterday, I ate pig meat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. What a delicious animal. But I had to do a lot of exercise in the park. Otherwise, my heart would be at serious risk.
1. Laugh and remind your neighbor that dogs are predators
2. Express horror at the mayhem
3. Say "Oh no!!" in a way you hope doesn't sound mocking, but shows a general concern for the welfare of all creatures, but accepting that inexplicable violence is part of nature, and sorry because you won't have as many eggs as you wanted, but you can get some more chickens, just keep the dog away from them, oh, you got rid of the dog, well, that's probably for the best.
That's conservative?
How is AI going to kill people and why wouldn't counter-AI attack evil AI leading to more and more advanced levels of attack and counter-attack, resulting in a stale mate where peace prevails. That's how I envision it, although the death of @Frank's neighbor's chickens to the mouth of a dog makes me think that sometimes things don't work out. But, then again, it did work out for the dog, so we need to be the dog in this analogy. It's a dog eat chicken world they always say.
How are all these people going to die?
Don't worry. I asked ChatGPT how it was going to kill that many people and it said it wasn't and that people are only trying to trick you into thinking that.
I’m not worried. I’m a white, middle class American. Clearly, I have nothing to fear from my good friend AI. Just curious.
I always imagined you part of the aristrocracy. Are you just being humble?
It's a prime characteristic of the aristocracy to be self-deprecating, (which is why Trump is so risible). But you wouldn't know that because the US has no aristocracy, just rich peasants. Mr T has the right idea though.
A common misunderstanding about artificial intelligence is caused by modern typological fonts. “AI” is not actually an acronym, it’s a guy’s name - Allen (AI) Thibideau, a French Canadian pastry chef.
This is the kind of problem that is caused by sans serif fonts.
"Live simply: use Helvetica"?
And don't miss 'comic sans' if you want to print leaflets and propaganda. :wink:
Expected value... Experts give a 5-10% chance it will kill all of us by the end of the century. Multiply that % by the likely population when and if it does so and you get an expected value of at least about 500 million dead.
It's like a 10% chance of winning ten dollars is as good as a 100% chance of winning one dollar. Only, this is bad.
Seriously though. This is very very bad.
https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-not-enough/
There's a 10% chance that a fly is at least 90% sunk in 50% of your ointment.
Flee fly Fo fum! I smell the blood of everyone!
It's happening guys. A line of caskets, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, each ceremoniously laid upon a black buggy pulled by a black horse (but for his white nose) are slowly being trotting down my street. Women with black lace covering their faces are weeping, men bent over, pounding their hands into the pavement (the pavement is black too) crying out. AI would stop the horses if it could, but it can't stop our foregone methods. Our only weapon against today is yesterday.
I ask you to turn off your lights, open your shutters, let the ancient sun shine upon your face, just as it did upon your ancestors. Let's take back yesterday.
Yudowsky is kind of a putz, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong.
Yeah, but it doesn't exactly mean he's right either.
I asked AI what happens if you add milk to orange jello and it told me this:
"Curdling: The citric acid in the orange jello mix can cause the milk proteins, primarily casein, to curdle and clump together. This happens because the acid lowers the pH of the milk, causing the proteins to coagulate. This can result in a lumpy, unappetizing mixture, sometimes described as looking like "snot"
AI is way too helpful to dispense with at this point.
Some perspective perhaps - in 1963 John F. Kennedy estimated that the chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis was somewhere between 30 and 50%.
I knew John Kennedy and you're no John Kennedy.
John Kennedy died before you were born. Be that as it may, you are correct - I am no John Kennedy.
It's a good thing we can't edit fonts; imagine the mess the shout box would be!
Google tells me (and Google is way more smarter than AI), (oops it was Google AI), that approximately 150,000 people die every day. Instead of multiplying that by 365.25, I asked Google how many people die in a year, and it said "Approximately 67.1 million people die each year worldwide. This translates to an average of about 184,000 deaths per day".
I see a discrepancy. Since it switched from 150,000 per day, to 184,000 per day, I think it actually killed those 34,000 extra people to justify its new numbers. 34,000 people killed every day by AI works out to about 1,241,850,000 killed in a century (if I didn't do a typo on my Google calculator).
You might think that those 34.000 people a day are not actually getting killed, but then what is happening to them?
I had to look him up and it turned out to be a deep rabbit hole. I'm more worried about the influence of these apocalyptic tech bros than I am about genocidal AI.
It is already a mess; and, if it were possible, I would put the letters of each word with different colours. Party circus time!
Killing an extra 34,000 to balance the books? Seems reasonable. Like, we all have to die anyway. It doesn't take AI to think of 34,000 people whose absence might be quite convenient.
He’s a buddy of Ray Kurzweil, who is the creepy king of singularity studies. As I said before, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong.
I thought we were not relevant enough to appear on your news. But the sad thing is the news is only about bad things. Yes, the incumbent government are having a struggling period because important members of the cabinet are corrupt, and they are now being prosecuted for corruption. I believed that Pedro Sánchez was smart enough to resign and call for new elections; but he will remain in office until 2027...
The opposition is likewise extremely negative, corrupt, and ineffective. I've given up on my country's politics.
In those days there were no digital machines and we had to make our own echos by hand. Nowadays AI does it for us with the millions of corpses it has hidden in cyberspace.
He meant that out of a hundred universes that had a Cuban missile crisis, 30-50 of them had nuclear wars.
What was not answered is that if you had 100 sets of 100 universe subsets how many of those subsets would the nuclear war occur in. Would you have 30 to 50 wars in each subset and so 100% of the subsets would therefore have wars, or would 30 to 50 of the subsets have war, but within those that had wars, it would occur 30 to 50 times?
If the former, it would be accurate to say wars occur 30 to 50% of the time 100% of the time. If the latter, it would be accurate to say wars occur 30 to 50% of the time 30 to 50% of the time.
This answers a question of another post as to what it means to say something happens a certain percent of the time a certain percent of the time. We also needn't limit it to just one subset, but we could say something lilke that happens 20% of the time 18% of the time 12 % of the time and so on.
I think.
When I was a kid we would just go to the top of a hill and yell the word "ECHO" and it would yell back "ECHO, ECHo, ECho, Echo, echo, ech, e, c."
At least you will have some punch and cakes. :yum:
Make it so, Number One.
Yes, although to be clear, as far as we know, there is only one universe.
That seems like an abrogation of your responsibilities. You'll leave Loblaw and T Clark (no relation) there to show your employees how much you value them.
Picnics require Gingham table cloths spread on the grass, and cold sausage rolls served out of a wicker hamper and some wine they used to drink before I was born.
This is a picnic table:
In the US, anything eaten at a picnic table is a picnic. It's the law.
Why do you have such a fixation on being clear?
In this particular case, I thought your statement was ambiguous and needed clarification.
Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task
[sup]— Nataliya Kos'myna · MIT Media Lab · Jun 10, 2025[/sup]
ChatGPT May Be Eroding Critical Thinking Skills, According to a New MIT Study
[sup]— Andrew R Chow · TIME · Jun 17, 2025[/sup]
How ChatGPT May Be Impacting Your Brain
[sup]— Marlynn Wei, Margaret Foley · Psychology Today · Jun 19, 2025[/sup]
Memorization has come up before. Personal "outsourcing" of memory to electronic devices can have an effect.
So if there's only one universe, what does having a 30% chance of nuclear war mean? How do you come up with the figure?
We have them in Europe too. I like them a lot. And I admit they're called picnic tables.
After that, some excuse for why we're out here like fishing or frisbee or whatever.
I think of picnics as the poor man's way of "going out" -- the parks are free to go to and if you bring your own food then you can have a good time without spending anymore than what you would have at home.
:brow:
Ok, fair enough.
Scotch eggs, pork pies...
The important thing is that you can spend all of 2 dollars to bring a bag of chips to the park without having frier equipment. They're not hot out of the cooker, but they are still fried potatoes with salt and anything else you might want.
So unlike "chips" in the British sense where, as I understand it, that means "freshly deep fried potatoes served with a sauce and sandwich" -- rather, more often than not, I think of a bag you buy at the grocery store.
Crisps, aye.
Sausage rolls, cucumber sandwiches, ginger beer ...
But you already have the word "chips" don't you? :chin:
But in certain circumstances I now know how to use the word "crisps" -- to differentiate between, when such a differentiation is expected.
How else are the kids to understand the contribution to thinking that Frege introduced?
Yes, it's a useful update. But while all Brits and Irish are aware that Americans call crisps chips, I suspect only a small portion of Americans (say, a truckful) know that chips are called crisps in Britain and Ireland.
I was in Britland and ordered a sammich or some such and I asked to substitute chips for crisps. The Britwaitress acted surprised and said "really?" I can't convey the way she said it without providing an audio file.
I feel I speak in pretty good Britvoice, but I'll let you be the judge.
But there was never anyone who had eaten crisps and eaten chips and thought they were different things, and learned later they were both Saturn, so I see a distinction.
I wish you would host that file somewhere online so I can actually play it.
Not that I'm especially desperate to hear your impersonation of a Britlady. Curious, sure.
https://jmp.sh/s/PbhcJjBZfvHXnLYbj4zV
Excellent. I mean that sincerely. You beautifully captured the grating, insufferable accent of Standard Southern British English.
I'd like to hear Spanish.
So you know, this is actually me and not a true Spaniard. I'm just that good at this.
https://jmp.sh/s/FylQBCgIu42onrESLl2O
Not bad but sounds more Mexican than Spanish to my ears.
Agreed. Now do Delaware.
North or south Delaware? County or ZIP code will help. I'm pretty precise with mid-Atlantic accents, particularly those influenced by the Philly/Baltimore/Jersey variations.
Epic Effort to Ground Physics in Math Opens Up the Secrets of Time
[sup]— Leila Sloman · Quanta · Jun 11, 2025[/sup]
Way to go guys :up:
Some other earlier work ...
Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states
[sup]— Denis J Evans, Debra J Searles · Physical Review E · Aug 1, 1994[/sup]
Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales
[sup]— G M Wang, E M Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J Searles, Denis J Evans · Physical Review Letters · Jul 15, 2002[/sup]
Somewhere around Deep Hole.
Do the insane really have rank, though? That speaks more of humanity as a whole, at least the society in question that placed them or allowed them to be there in the first place than the so-called insane themselves, I'd say. At least, it speaks just as much, I'd say. :confused:
After all this time I find out you are a pragmatist.
I am a wannabe poet and an eccentric pragmatist.
Or perhaps a pragmatic eccentric.
The random problem again.
The public bathroom you referenced as "random" was probably anything but "random", since the outcome of a young person getting drunk at a picnic is predictable, and will occur with a high degree of probability. What you refer to as "random" likely derives from the Middle English "random" meaning "an impetuous headlong rush". In other words, you dashed into the nearest public toilet to puke your guts out.
I have been there, done that -- though in the first case, I was 20 and got drunk very fast and very badly on really disgusting cheap slop. There was no picnic -- it was a warm spring evening on campus. We walked across the highway bridge to Bluff Siding in Wisconsin where the legal drinking age was 18. We followed the railroad back; we sat down (randomly) on the railroad track and proceeded to guzzle this sickening rot gut. Instant Inebriation! We crossed the Mississippi River on the railroad bridge -- no railings -- and then picked our way through a scrap metal yard before proceeding back to campus. Nausea lasted 2 days.
The second bad drunk was the result of drinking too much fairly good quality rosé wine. I was about 26 that time--a long time ago. Since then I have stuck to beer and sometimes whiskey and have had highly satisfactory drunkenness ever since.
One can get perfectly drunk on beer and it is safe and effective when used as directed.
What's the criteria for "perfectly drunk"?
I don't think I've found it yet. So... off I go to experiment further.
I advise against it.
Madrid (but I believe the rest of the cities do this) put bathrooms that look like cabinets in very random places. For example, you are walking in a large avenue, and ta-da! There are these random toilets.
On the other hand, these constructions are there to help people in an emergency. But I doubt if they were put to give a hand to drunk people. Imagine how many of these you would need then!
Folks tend to say: if you are drunk, go home! But no one notices that there are these bathrooms.
Quoting Outlander
I agree. A thing that is worth doing at all may not be worth doing well - like getting perfectly drunk. "Fairly drunk" is good enough.
Remember, Mr. Undiscovered Metaphysician, getting drunk can impair 100,000 dendrites making it impossible for your neurons to figure out how to put the key into the lock of your door, resulting in you sleeping on the ground.
OK, I get it. See, in Minnesota, we do not have random toilets. WE DO NOT PUT NICE TOILETS ON THE STREET, ¡EVER! and chilly upper-midwestern hospitality doesn't include welcoming your bladder, bowels, or stomach into the cafe or store unless you are buying--and maybe not even then. Banks would just as soon see you die in the gutter as provide a toilet.
In Minnesota strangers, visitors, citizens, et al are expected to take care of their physical needs somewhere else. At the airport. At the hotel. At the jail. At your office. Before you leave home. At the previous store you were in. Anywhere but here.
Even in parks, of which we have many -- hell, the Mississippi River flows through the middle of town -- there are few toilets. There also may not be trees, bushes, various visual obstacles behind which one might service one's bladder, bowels, or stomach. The police assume that sex will be had if there are privacy hedges (which is of course true). They want to surveil the whole park without having observation impeded by big bushes, thick trees, tall flowers, etc.
And, in the police view, no place is more likely to collect disgusting activity than a toilet.
In Minneapolis, it can truly be said, "if you a need a toilet quick, you are shit out of luck."
"Perfectly drunk" might be the same as "fairly drunk", I don't know.
I saw a pop up article where some scientist was arguing that one drink per year is the maximum amount anyone should have. One drink per year! How arbitrary, why not one every 250 days, or one every 500 days, or none for that matter? For that guy "perfectly drunk" is not drunk at all, except a very slight buzz once a year, maybe a glass of New Years Eve champagne or something.
This is from “That Mitchell and Webb Look,” a very funny television show from Britain back in the early 2000s.
My company's Atlanta office was once located in an office building set up like a motel. Each office fronted on an open courtyard and common facilities were located in separate locations at one end. The first time I visited, I said, to general amusement, that this was just what I expected in Georgia - that I'd have to go outdoors to go to the bathroom.
I see that they appropriately housed you in the yankee quarters.
Well, I was pleased to find the hotel I stayed in had indoor toilets. So, there is progress.
Slightly less than two drinks does seem to be the ideal amount.
I don’t remember where I saw it first, but it’s available online for free on YouTube or something. I actually bought some of the DVDs.
Da
I meant, yes.
Indoor toilets! Wow! I thought these only existed in indoor pools. "Indoor" and "outdoor" are two of my favourite English adjectives. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, they are adjectives and not adverbs!
"Behind a random tree" raises the issue of which side of a tree is "front" and which side is "behind", or for that matter, maybe it was "to the left of" or "to the right of" the tree. 1 round tree on a street; one could get lost in the relativity of it all.
Fun fact: if @Hanover had to become a fish, he would become a flounder because he would admire the ability to lay on his side whilst maintaining full situational awareness. He says the strangest things and unfortunately the stranger something is the more I'm inclined to remember it. Is that normal? That's probably normal... it has to be. :shade:
Coincidentally, or perhaps, not so coincidentally, I had fried flounder for dinner tonight.
I'm telling you guys this for two reasons: (1) this synchronicity with flounders is uncanny, and (2) I should likely rethink the size of my cooking pots because they pose a sinking hazard, particularly while boiling water.
Remenicent of the Dr No/ 007 theme music?
querying smile
And don't forget unseasonal rain showers, mosquitoes, flies, ants et al.
smile
PIg would be good,please. Good for the s/box and maybe for you too, Shawn.
concerned for Shawn smile
I love how we used didactic examples related to urinating, toilets, random bathrooms and outdoor/indoor places, but I think we have to move on. What do you think of bus stations? They could be indoor or outdoor buildings. Furthermore, most of them have toilets, because we need to pee before starting a long journey on the road!
There is an age, that some of us reach, when exposed to a new physical environment, particularly a public place, in which one will be spending some time, the first order of business is to locate the toilets and taking into account/consideration such things as the weather, one's current and near future state of hydration and one's personal conception of bladder content and withstandable pressure, one quickly calculates one's roaming range from said toilets. Having young children in tow that one is responsible for is another consideration.
A good reason for local council members to have a wide range of ages... about the only good reason for having some of the silly old farts.
Just an observation
enjoying the topic smile
As the Shoutbox descends into potty humour, the pigs are lurking.
Bothers me as a pig wouldn't do.
Descends, ascends - I see it more as a horizontal movement.
Also, you’ve misspelled “humor.” That seems to be a problem for many people here on the forum.
Here is a new observatory in Chile, coming on stream, named after Vera Rubin the somewhat under-celebrated discoverer of dark matter.
They announce several thousand new asteroids detected in a couple of days of operation, along with lots of variable stars and some very nice pictures that can be seen here.
Lots of details and endless thanks to each other, with commentary by my favourite Anton, available below, you might want to skip to around the middle:
And the website: https://rubinobservatory.org/explore/citizen-science
A joke.
You mean fourum don't you?
Sparkling mineral water is delicious, and it is preferable to drink it over Coca-Cola and the rest of the sodas.
My favourite sparkling mineral water brand is "Pellegrino" but Vichy Catalán is also nice.
Here in the US, we are required by law to drink at least a six pack of either Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola every week. If you were here, what you’ve written would be considered treason.
Interesting. I'd like Pepsi over Coca-Cola. Sorry if this is also a treason.
There is no going back after you try Borjomi.
In Georgia, it would be.
Incredible! Sparkling mineral water from Georgia. I believe it would be hard to find them here, but Madrid is a big city with different and random stuff. I guess there would be one shop that sells Borjomi, at least.
What Georgia? @Hanover's or @Jamal's?
Atlanta is home to Coca-Cola. Clarky is jealous of my great state, so he tries to anger me by discussing my arch enemy Pepsi. I try not to let it bother me, but it's hard not to let it get to me. Pepsi wakes up every morning trying to kill Coke, and that is infuriating to me.
I like Georgia. I have friends there. I like Coke too. I don’t like Pepsi. Let’s not mention RC cola. It’s true my heart was taken by Dr Pepper somewhere along the line. But drinking a Coke makes me nostalgic for my first love.
Do tell.
RC Draft is also amazing (not standard RC, RC Draft
We all look on you with awe.
Royal Navy comes to ‘rescue’ of Swedish submarine during major NATO exercise
[sup]— Royal Navy · Jun 19, 2025[/sup]
"Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20
Isn’t that a problem for your clients?
Are you kidding me? Please read on. I just put people in the cleft in the rock and they pass by me. It's really not all that hard. Sure, it's unconventional, but I don't want people to die for Christ sake.
“There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
Exodus 33:21 to 23.
However, numerous artists painted God's face. It's both interesting and risky. No work was ever more dangerous.
And the beds are burning.
curious smile
Does one have to beg, Shawn?
At least let one look upon the face of one of God's creatures.
big smile
Please, put a bib on you, because you often get dirty after eating, and I have to wash both the clothes and the tableware.
Oh, little Javi you are such a sweetheart!
...
I always wanted to be a ventriloquist.
She's kinda fat but very happy:
Mortimer Snerd and Edgar Bergen
Mr. Wances. :up:
[sup]— The Editorial Board · The Onion · Jun 20, 2025[/sup]
:D
A bit heavy handed for the Onion. Things must be worse than I thought.
The fatter she gets, the less happier she ought become, considering her fattening was not to make her happy, but was to make someone else happy.
China Unleashes Hackers Against Its Friend Russia, Seeking War Secrets
[sup]— Megha Rajagopalan, Jacob Judah · New York Times · Jun 19, 2025[/sup]
I guess it's espionage, looking for drone-related information, jamming, satellites, ...
She just likes being fat. Here's a secret, if you tell a pig it's getting bigger, they will squeal.
How do you know she's happy? She doesn't look happy to me, rather disgruntled. How can you even be sure it's a she?
Female pig’s tails curl clockwise. Male’s curl counterclockwise. I know for certain that’s true because I just made it up.
And, can you see the tail in that picture?
No, I was just describing a fictional procedure by which you could tell the difference. I never said it was a female.
Yes, I might be wrong about that pig. I think it's a gorgeous looking pig anyway.
There was once a kosher pig which was also forsaken...
I've seen that the method of getting a pig onto a truck is to twist its tail. I did not know that you had to twist a female pig's tail the opposite way as a male's or else the pig would not go and you'd break off the tail. Ouch!
It is said that once the messiah comes (Jesus didn't count for Jews you see), the pig will be made kosher, as even the symbol of impure will be pure.
It's a blessing and a curse. A blessing to be pure. A curse to be dinner. Especially in the early days after being made kosher, the previously bacon deprived Jews will have lost time to make up ravenously.
Protecting oneself with impurity is precisely why I rub horse dung behind my ears each morning.
Some people wash themselves with kerosene.
In the deepest caverns beneath the Kerosene Sea lies the most elusive iridescent Kaleidoscope Squid with flesh described as sweeter than mango tinged with the perfect bitterness of the vaporous fuel.
True story.
As a pig would be.
I think no. The broken glass was bought in Edinburgh. If I buy another on the Internet, it will lose its essence. The "new" glass would be a boring object.
Scotland is only 6 hours away. Go get another glass.
You could pack a couple of good books and a sandwich.
You don't need underwear in Scotland.
I will leave that assertion to @Jamal. :sweat:
There's a gift I give people for Christmas from time to time. I take a Christmas tree ornament, take a picture of it, and then break it. I put the broken pieces in a very small box - two inches round if possible, and glue the top on. Then I glue the picture on the cover of the box and put a small hole in it so you can put in the hook to hang it on the tree. I call it a Zen ornament, although someone I gave it to once called it Schrodinger's ornament.
So, that's what you should do. Put the broken pieces of the glass in a box about the size of the glass, glue a picture of the unbroken glass on the side, and put it on the shelf where you used to keep the glass. It's best if you use a picture of the actual glass that broke. I suppose you could use one you got elsewhere, but it wouldn't work as well.
If the broken glass is so cool, why did you throw it into the rubbish?
Everything is transient. Innis & Gunn Lager beer; the Innis & Gunn brewery, the Innis & Gunn glass, Edinburgh, Scotland, the British Isles, the British Empire, the sun which never sat on the British Empire, etc. We people are grass.
By the way, Innis & Gunn glasses are alienated products of mass production. No matter where you bought it, how you bought it, when you bought it, or how much Innis & Gunn alienated lager beer you drank from it, they are all the same. Order another pair of alienated Innis & Gunn glasses and rejoice in the wonder of Capitalist Production.
Originally, each glass was hand made by a skilled craftsman and hand painted, no two being alike. The glassery (as it was called) was owned by the laborers, and each was paid based upon need, with the remaining profits returned to the purchasers. This was the way for decades, until.Carol called Susan a cunt for talking to her man, then it went to shit, and like you said, capitalism, alienation, and everything else followed.
This characterization is very interesting. I believe drugs or substances are related to maladaptive beliefs and low self-esteem.
It seems like a nice idea, but you can't imagine how destructive the impact was to the glass. More than many pieces, it turned into shards. I even lost some in the large floor of the kitchen.
Because it turned into a messy broken object. More than "throwing it into the rubbish", I believe that I actually buried it down. It made me sad to see how that precious beer glass has become.
It is amazing how ordinary glass can shatter and spread across the floor and be difficult to clean up. A week later and bits of glass are still showing up.
Hey, how bad was the heat this past weekend? 40ºC or 104ºF is hot. Add humidity, and it's really bad. Stay hydrated and don't get over-heated! The US has been hot quite a bit, with lots of damaging storms.
Yes, it had been a tough week. That's the main reason why I dislike summer. Hot days make me feel very tired, and I have to be confined at home with the air con on. But I believe that the worst part is when night comes. It is still hot, like in tropical zones, and it is very difficult to sleep.
I believe that the beer was complementary with a tasty meal. Beer always stimulates appetite for myself.
The a/c was broken last night where I ate, and they apologized for the comfortable temperature.
I do like the a/c cold at night though. It is hard to sleep if it gets too hot and you have no fan or anything. The a/c takes care of the high humidity also.
Cold pisses me off.
But what can we do with the heat? I will not be 24/7 in a swimming pool or beach because this is disgusting. Furthermore, we are in a serious shortage of water, so it is not the best time to make ice or drink water constantly.
Heat pisses me off.
It's not like you're going to catch on fire. Just take a deep breath and accept the heat. Welcome it in like a cat and stretch out under the window.
Quoting javi2541997
Is there not enough water because the skies dried up or is it because demand is higher than there are water treatment plants? If it's the latter, then you need to talk to the water people and tell them to get to work. If it's the former, I'll talk to my people here and send you guys some coca-cola. It's refreshing. It'll cheer you guys up.
Imagine heating up sea water with an X-ray heating device to millions of degrees to seawater into steam and then to industrial water.
Cool, isn't it?
Are you sure? :rofl: The ultraviolet index is soaring.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, but I live (for the better and for the worse) in the laziest country of Europe, so don't ask people to work.
Quoting Hanover
Thank you! Don't forget the lemons! (We drink Coca-Cola with lemons here).
Very cool. I wish powerful people (the ones who pull the strings) would waste their fortune on that and not on stupid wars.
Quoting Hanover
Sorry javi, but I couldn't resist making fun of your slang. Who ever calls it "air con"? That sounds like an airline company.
And what's the purpose of the / in "a/c"?
Quoting Shawn
Why not just tow home some icebergs and melt them?
I searched on Brave how to say "aire acondicionado" in English. The answers were very good, but above all, it said that in the UK it is called "air con". I liked it so I posted it.
My British mates @fdrake @Jack Cummins or @unenlightened, could you please confirm that you say 'air con' in the UK?
I am also British, and I do say “aircon”. I am in Dénia and I need it.
I know, but I thought you liked to be called Scottish rather than British.
Quoting Jamal
I am glad you are back in Spain!
I am in La Mancha, and we also need an aircon urgently. But I don't know where to place it. The worst time is at night, and it makes it very difficult to sleep. I couldn't sleep a wink until 01:30.
I haven't heard people talking about 'air con' in Britain and, maybe, the slang is used by those fortunate enough to have it. As it is, I and many others are like roast potatoes, having the hottest weather ever. Don't be surprised if I write gibberish on the forum as my sleeping patterns are upside down, because I don't have 'air con' at all and my room feels like a furnace, night and day!
Understood. So, it is @fdrake who surely uses the slang since I remember installing an air con in his home in Manchester.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioning
The full system is called HVAC, pronounced H-vac. Maybe Brits say that. I'm not sure. They get weird with Hs. They'll say umble instead of humble. Maybe they say Vac instead of HVAC, fully foresaking the H.
Speaking of which, I've heard there are lands where the J is treated as an H. Maybe they say J-Vac. I'll ask @javi2541997. He might know.
- Anover/Janover
Exactly.
You are not mistaken. One example of those lands where J is treated as an H is "Blésen" (it is located in Romania).
Perhaps... but I think it is Kolozsvár, actually.
Thank you for thoughtfully excluding me, but I can acceptably be called either, depending on circumstances. Scotland is on the island of Great Britain, commonly known as Britain, therefore I'm not only Scottish but British too. Simplistic, perhaps, but that's the way I see it.
Quoting javi2541997
Thank you, it's good to be back.
That's right. As well as I am not only Spanish but also a Castilian, and folks in Cataluña and the Basque Country are both Spanish and Catalán/Basque.
In Cairns, the locals may need a cardy in the early mornun if it drops ta 15C. Brollies will wear out twice as quick in Cairns with so much rain this not so dry season.
Thoughts in an ancient dialect.
self effacing smile
After the way your last "Pig?" drew comments, why not?
And how are you traveling of late, Shawn? Ok, good, fantastic or.... choose your own description?
cheery smile
I think you should have posted 'piggy smile' instead.
I see you removed the part of my sentence in which I framed the matter in physically geographic terms, so that you could make this controversial political point. But that's ok, I don't mind :cool:
jajajaja.
I promise I didn't do it intentionally. :snicker:
How would it sound to laugh in Hs instead of Js?
I laugh in Xs. People generally enjoy that about me.
I don't know but Portuguese folks laugh in Ks. Try to imagine that!
In silent Ks, like in knife?
Considering the wide variety of pigs smiling or not (...hard to tell for many of us) that Shawn presents to us, posting a "piggy smile" could be misconstrued in too many ways, don't you think, Javi; particularly, with the two "different/competing" strands of that specific post?
But, who knows, another time it could be very, or more, appropriate, yes?
Please don't stop the suggestions coming. Including yours, everybody's suggestions are a strong point of S/box multi-logue, even when, sometimes, the image of a skinny dog, purging itself of something bad it has recently eaten, comes to mind; while at other times, the suggestions are more relatable to fog light switches being activated to help see the way ahead. And all of that which lies between. Such a rich realm of ideas.
dazzling smile...well sort of!
Yes, that's right. It is complex to determine if a pig is actually smiling because the act of smiling is something human. It is true that I often see that my dog puts his snout in a form that seems she is smiling as humans do. But the big question here is: are dogs and pigs aware that they smile when they are smiling?
naughty smile.
Quoting kazan
:lol:
Very difficult to answer the "other species" smile question. Have own a hound with an edgy sense of humour that several people claim he would look at you after you realized what he had done and laugh with his eyes at and with you. Coyote the Trickster stuff.
Evening meal preparation time here or shut the S/box time.
Cheers, Javi.
more tired than dazzling smile
I've not been around enough pigs to know when they're happy or sad, but it's not hard to figure out if your dog is happy.
Just in time for the 4th.
I’d give you a thumbs up if they were real shoes, but I suspect they’re novelty slippers, since you said they’re wool and they look soft like felt slippers. Correct me if I’m wrong, but so far it’s :down:
Love them.
Yes, this is me taking a nap in the wild:
:cool:
My parents were born in the 1960's. They are boomers.
I was born in the 60s and I'm Gen X.
Better, yes. The red shoes undercut the premature triumphalism, adding a gently satirical note, a fly in the ointment of independence.
I was born in the 90's and I am villero.
Those simple shoes, impregnated with so much meaning, not just feet.
Your cartoon would be more accurate if a scrawny George W. with at most 1 very ragged red shoe was stomping on a buff but supine George III.
A robust 4th of July!
How about barefoot and half-arsed?
Ensaladilla rusa - Olivier salad. :yum:
Edit: sorry my computer glitched and wanted to post by itself.
I was going to say. That's olivier salad? Where's the veggies? It looks more like American potato salad.
Veggies? No, no. Ensaladilla rusa goes without veggies. Just potatoes, eggs, and tuna.
It is 'Russian salad' but, surprisingly, it is called 'Olivier salad' in Russia.
I read up on this concoction, and it seems yours is a fairly spartan variety.
Truste me, Hanover.
Looks more like a baked Hallucigenia.
That is not like any Olivier salad I've ever seen. It looks like the Spanish Russian salad is not an Olivier salad after all.
I agree. Spanish Russian salad is far different from Olivier salad. However, both are excellent and refreshing on these hot days. :up:
RESPECT MY GASTRONOMY OR I MUTE YOU.
No, I am joking. I believe you would like too. @Hanover tried it a few hours ago and he has asked the waiter for another portion.
The ultimate is ceviche.
I feel like if you're mixing the egg salad, the tuna salad, and the potato salad, you're just stretching out the picnic leftovers. You then need to give it a fun name, like rainbow salad, so the kids will eat it. I feel like maybe that happened to you.
A lot of different things have happened to me at picnics... but that's another episode of my life, mate!
Beige salad.
I was at my company picnic, and the organizer thought it would be entertaining for the partners of the firm (which includes me) to line up to have water balloons thrown at us as a sort of pie in the face sort of humor. I left right before that but everyone else dutifully lined up.
I didn't say anything and let it go, but it really pissed me off. Like a crazy amount. As in, don't cast me in your idiot play, don't force others not as stubborn as me into your stupidity, and this feels like passive bullying. But to everyone else, they seemed not to care.
Am I just uptight? Is this my introversion in overdrive? Am I overly sensitive? I ask because it sparked some pissed offedness I usually don't feel.
Culture that feeling of pissed offedness. It goes really well with a couple gallons of beer. The two combined provide for a phenomenal enjoyment of life. But please stay out of jail.
Watch a robot play badminton against human players
[sup]— Jenna Ahart · Science/AAAS · May 28, 2025[/sup]
AIs tend toward some particular verbiage in paper abstracts:
Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary
[sup]— Dmitry Kobak, Rita González-Márquez, Em?ke-Ágnes Horvát, Jan Lause · Science Advances · Jul 2, 2025[/sup]
Yes, it is me.
I kinda work with pigs, but, not cops. I don't understand cops. Do you?
Cops are the obstacles which get in the way of having a phenomenally good time when you properly mix your pissed offedness with the appropriate amount of beer.
Canadians travelling to the US advised to not fucking do that
[sup]— Janel Comeau · The Beaverton · Jun 18, 2025[/sup]
No. Like when they say, "Sir, can I please see your driver's license?," I always get confused and think they mean they want me to play with their gun. When they say, "Sir, stop going for my gun," I think they mean "fight harder." Typically we figure out the confusion and we just laugh and laugh.
I believe if you show them an actual pig, they will rejoice.
The Nuclear Club Might Soon Double
[sup]— Ross Andersen · The Atlantic · Jul 8, 2025[/sup]
(Trump's clownery has played a part.)
Polish politicians, for example, could surely make a case for having their own nuclear deterrence.
Currently scheduled in about a week or so:
The Big Story: Nuclear War and the Future of National Security
[sup]— Jeffrey Goldberg, Ross Andersen, Tom Nichols, Missy Ryan · The Atlantic · Jul 15, 2025[/sup]
For a long time I've held that "A fact is a true sentence"
And now I'm starting to think I need to add to it -- "A fact is a true sentence which refers to the world"
Truly revolutionary thoughts**.
**EDIT: I can't help but make fun of myself. What this would mean for me, though, is that there are some truths that are not referring to the world, which is a weird thought when not subscribing to transcendental idealism.
Here’s what Stephen J. Gould had to say -
And so was it a fact that Pluto was a planet and now it's a fact that it's not? Or was it thought to be a fact Pluto was a planet and then it was discovered it was not? Are truths not necessarily facts? If that is the case, then facts are epistimological evaluations, not ontological statements. This would mean you don't ground facts in truth.
Facts would be just provisional taxonomic labels under this theory, unrelated to whether the facts correspond to reality.
I don't like this theory. It's of the sort that dispenses with metaphysics, reducing philosophy to talk analysis.
How does "which refers to the world" modify your sentence? Do you not define "the world" as "anything and everything," or are you taking "the world" to mean something limited, like the physical world?
Your opinion is that I should bring forth a pig to a police officer for his observation and that the result will be his rejocing?
I question your advice.
Alas.
This, of course, just offers me a basis for faith, which is always the result I seek, but that's just self-awareness speaking.
Thoughts?
I started to think about sentences which might be true regardless of context. In the extreme tautologies, but those are not interesting.
Ethical beliefs might fit here, but it'd be contentious as to which ethical belief fits so I'd prefer to give the category as an example rather than a particular belief.
But in that vein -- ye olde Kant had a good theory about universalizing the subjective principles one holds to. Supposing "the world" refers to "all of which I experience" and a person holds to a principle then that principle -- though not universally true -- is practically true within the world without referring to the world.
I guess what I'm trying to tangle with is the notion of transcendental truths that are somehow still part of philosophy rather than faith, with a "materialist" perspective that cares about others.
Is this a modal logic question, as in
?P = "Necessarily P" vs. ?P = "Possibly P"
As in, it is necessarily true in all possible worlds that some moral truth exists versus it is only possibly true that such a moral truth exists in world that exists under certain constructs?
I make this comparison because Kant references the universalization of morality (“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”) so it would necessarily have to extent across all possible worlds.
Anyway, feel free to correct me. I feel like we're drifting between two different foundations (possible world language versus a priori moral necessity language, but it's good to be eclectic.
That looks like a basic justification for esotericism, mysticism, or religion: since the truth cannot be reached rationally/conceptually, we have to open ourselves to a different kind of personal experience.
I don't agree but the idea is solid and digestible.
The similarity and contrast with Adorno is striking: concepts tend to vitiate truth and we have to open ourselves to the non-conceptual—but without abandoning rationality and conceptualization.
Both approaches are based on the concept of a reality hidden behind appearances, one in metaphysical terms and the other in social terms.
Metaphysics is just a bunch of stories we tell ourselves. And by "we" I mean philosophers. And by "tell ourselves" I mean make up. Then we pretend what we have made up comes from somewhere outside ourselves rather than inside.
Do you deny metaphysical underpinnings, or just mean truth is inaccessible? Your previous post didn't deny truth. It just distinguished it from facts, which you explained were just temporary subjectively justified beliefs.
If there is a truth, even if it be inaccessible, and we don't demand a relationship between facts and truth, we're left with the oddity of the false fact, as in, it is a fact Pluto is a planet and that fact is false.
I don't know how that makes sense even in a Wittgensteinian logic because our language games don't allow for false facts. It violates usage.
The world is the world. It doesn’t have and it doesn’t need any underpinnings. Metaphysics is the underpinnings of how we think about the world. This is pretty close to my standard metaphysics spiel.
Quoting Hanover
I didn’t see your post as a follow up to your previous one. I guess I just thought you were feeling all profound and stuff. If we get into the whole justified true belief spiral, this will go on forever and get us nowhere. That’s something I believe and I know it’s true because it’s justified by my experience with just this question many times here on the forum.
Is what he not saw his negative God of mystery?
I wasn't defining knowledge. I was extrapolating the consequences of your definition of "facts," which you don't ground in truth, and so that allows for false facts. My question was how do you allow false facts to exist when that notion conceptually borders on nonsense other than to say you're fatigued from thinking about it and you're comfortable with your decision damnit.
Facts are the content of knowledge. If not, what is the relationship between the two?
Quoting Hanover
This is at JTB spiral I was talking about. Have you never participated in one of those discussions here on the forum? The idea of false facts is exactly what’s at the heart of JTB concept. And that’s before they bring in the bologna of the Gettier problem.
Calling something nonsense does not make it so.
Or perhaps, they are the sum of the whole. Which, mind you, the parts are not always the sum of the whole, meaning, sometimes, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Let's take knowledge of pain. Something we can all agree is universally shared by basically any and every human being. What facts are there to be construed? "It hurts", "it brings displeasure", "my biological nervous system and nerve endings are receiving sensations that when relayed to my brain creates intense feelings of an undesired nature and thus propels me to move away, often non-consciously by automatic reflex". Okay. Great. So what of these facts? Are they not, by themselves, inherently useless without the larger understanding (ie. the whole vs. the sum of the parts).
We sometimes mislabel our ideas as facts simply because we are ignorant of a greater knowledge that would make our prior misconceptions seem foolish and to be revealed as the falsehoods they are. Sure, the pain thing is not a great example. But say, our youthful misconceptions of right and wrong, for example.
I don’t know what this means in this context.
Quoting Outlander
The fact to be construed is that you feel pain. Generally speaking, since you’re the only one who has access to that experience directly, you get to decide on the truth or falsity of that statement.
Quoting Outlander
Did you read the Stephen J Gould quote I put in my previous post? I think that addresses this comment.
So you told me facts were provisional agreements, and I objected on the basis that such definition permitted untrue facts, which resulted in nonsense. And here you suggest a fact to be a content of knowledge, which is to either equate truth to fact or to simply tell me nothing other than facts are things you know.Quoting T Clark
No, that's not the Gettier problem. Gettier deals with true (true true true, I say it for emphasis) beliefs with unknowingly incorrect justifications. It does not suggest a false fact. False facts are the product not of knowledge problems but of truth theories. JTB is not not not (for emphasis) a truth theory. It is a knowledge theory. That you've not required truth (truth truth truth) to correspond to reality (metaphysics!), and you've asserted a pragmatism, you end up with facts (as you, not I) defined them that don't correspond to what is.
This isn't JTB rigamarole.
So does this preclude the idea of, forgive me, "untrue knowledge", or at least, information that is, by all intents and purposes true at a given moment of receiving, that could in fact change rapidly? Say, it's raining outside. Outside where? Outside the location of which I either currently reside, or perhaps where the person I am communicating said knowledge resides. It's conditional (not sure if you equate that word with 'provisional', I do but not judging you). Yet even beyond the context of what the person its intended to reach, if this is deceptive in some way, there's the fact that yes, it may stop raining by the time you go outside to verify if this fact is justified or not.
Again I'm eager to see the reply of the person your remark was intended for, but, just a personal commentary, if that's alright. Perhaps this may clarify one or more things for one or more persons who are engaged or wish to engage in this particular line of thought.
Untrue facts. Curious. Certainly if its "untrueness" is known beforehand, this is but a lie. But otherwise, this is simply a mistake. An inaccurate statement. Though some inaccurate statements can indeed stand the test of time. How fascinating.
Now, untrue knowledge? Hm. Conviction of belief may equate to knowledge in one's mind. So does a misjudgement or misassessment ie. "I saw a man pull out a gun so I shot him" (when in reality it was an oddly shaped phone or some sort of pager).
I am curious as to how the two differ in your mind (and the mind of all who wish to participate).
Without just throwing up one's metaphorical hands and nursing at the teat of Socratic dogma (the only thing I know is that I know nothing), I wonder if there's a more or less agreed upon (or better yet, universally non-debatable) definition or standard for processing such deviations.
To simplify.
Can you believe a fact to be a fact that is not a fact? Certainly. This is called a misunderstanding.
Can you have knowledge that is not based on a single true fact? If so, would this not be considered a delusion.
Or is this not so at all?
Thanks, and good morning. :grin:
I'm inclined to say that knowledge is about the interpretation of facts. To know is to be able to understand the facts, which is about context and relationships between facts.
If knowledge is a justified true belief, then a belief that is untrue would not be knowledge by definition.
Rapidly changing information isn't what Clarky was referencing. He was referencing fallibism, just the basic scientific notion we can accept propositions (e.g. it is raining) as true without certainty, meaning we might later learn we were wrong in our beliefs (as in when we later learned Pluto wasn’t a planet) . My pushback was to require an acknowledgement that that position was pragmatic only and it left the metaphysical problem unanswered. That problem is whether it is actually raining or not (ontology) versus how sure you can be about it (epistemology).
As in, do we acknowledge we aspire to know what actually is, placing scientific discovery as pursuit of truth, or do we just say we arrive at a well founded belief and make no suggestion we're any closer to truth. Is Pluto's status planet one day, satellite another, meteor another, a lost spaceship the next, just whatever works from day to day, or is it actually something and we can be wrong when we say it's the other?
Absolutely! but what has changed is not Pluto, but the way we use the term "planet". Language evolves and thereby eternal truths can change. A bachelor used to be an unmarried man, but now it is a brand of soup.
https://www.philosophy.com
(or a simple Google search for the word "philosophy" will do)
Now as to whether said phenomenon is an "evolution" and not a "devolution", that is where we disagree. :wink:
Though I do wonder if there's not some sort of irony in the naming of a makeup/vanity product with the word that is generally agreed upon to be the pursuit or otherwise "love of" wisdom. :chin:
It's just all so very curious.
I suppose you're right on the Pluto detail, so let me stipulate the facts better to force the question I'm asking, which you pretty much answered anyway, but precision in the Shoutbox is always required with it being the primary news source for most the planet.
Let us assume that Pluto were thought to spin in a way that made it a planet, but Jacko recognized its peculiar spin made it fail to be a planet, the question then is whether Pluto was a planet yesterday before Jacko's discovery but not a planet today due to the discovery.
In my new example, we don't have a change in definition. We have a change in knowledge. Pluto's always been a Disney dog. That goes unchanged, which is what you said. This varies from what @t clark says because he won't anchor in reality, but just in best knowledge, although I won't speak for him, so he can correct me if I'm wrong. Although he'll grumble and dismiss all this because that too is an eternal truth.
i understand. Of course, "justified" basically means "sounds good to me" which as I'm sure you're aware of can vary greatly, to the point of legal insanity.
Quoting Hanover
In the grand scheme of things, isn't all information and states of being or knowledge "rapidly changing"? Say we're on an island, a large one, that has everything sustainable, and we call that "the world", for basically all intents and purposes that is our world, and have done so for thousands of years uninterrupted. Then one day, I guess the ocean lowers (somehow) and we discover there was an entire world beneath what we thought was devoid of life. Or something like that. You understand. Basically, to me, the distinction between "rapidly changing information" and the general concept of fallibism seems poorly drawn, if drawn at all. As you say, Pluto apparently is not a planet. But perhaps it might be found that the scientist made an error and it was actually spinning the right way the whole time. Stuff like this can happen. Can it not?
Quoting Hanover
Well, sure, unless one declares themself as some sort of god or being who otherwise "knows all there is to know" (we call that arrogance where I come from), there is always the possibility or rather realistic chance that there is more to know, even if such information or knowledge is relatively trivial or irrelevant to anything one considers, you know, relevant.
Quoting Hanover
Interesting. Would you consider "ontology" synonymous with "absolute reality" or some sort of similar concept? I.E. if the cat in Schrodinger's box is biologically alive by all standardized modern medical definition? Would you in turn equate "epistemology" with what we call the "scientific method", a widely agreed upon, observable, and thus generally reliable method of determining "what's what", per se?
Quoting Hanover
This is exactly the most (I suppose confounding and hard to pin down) elusive point, or specifically the real argument of you two's exchange. In my opinion. Beautifully put. I'm only glad you're not some sort of sniper and me some sort of unfriendly. :grin:
Good question.
It seems to me that the CI would be necessary, i.e. hold in all possible (moral?) worlds. I'm just spitballing here, but supposing the Kingdom of Ends formulation of the CI: The first formulation would hold for any possible instantiation of a Kingdom of Ends, but the universalizing maxims which a particular kingdom ends might hold to would only hold for those worlds rather than for every Kingdom of Ends.
This, though, going against what I think Kant intended -- that there was only one kingdom of ends.
Perhaps in the long run, but in the short run the process of universalizing our maxims yields multiple kingdoms of ends that are at odds with one another.
EDIT: To note -- each of these kingdom of ends are a result of universalizing different subjective maxims which pass the first formulation of the CI, i.e. they are self-consistent in their universalization (when they apply to all actors who follow said maxim it doesn't "contradict" the maxim, or what I take that to mean is make the maxim impossible to follow, hence the lying example).
No.
Adorno saw suffering, and considered the need give voice to suffering to be the motivation of philosophy properly so-called. Thus, from feeling and seeing, to concepts and knowledge.
I see them as very different. The tides are constantly ebbing and flowing so from T-1 to T-100 there are perhaps billiions of variations. However at T-42, it is in a definite state, however complex that might be. T-42 is in State 42 and that be that.
Fallibalism would just say that our understanding of State 42 might be very wrong, but it doesn't suggest there is no true state of State 42, but just one of general agreement.
As the quote from Gould indicates, there are only provisional facts and, thus, only provisional truth. That's not a particularly controversial, nor nonsensical, idea.
Quoting Hanover
I shouldn't have mentioned Gettier. My point was only that JTB was wrongheaded even before you brought in Gettier. Then it becomes silly.
Quoting Hanover
First off, pragmatism is a metaphysical position. Beyond that, we can never be sure anything we believe is actually true and yet we have to act on the information we have. As I see it, that is a much more important idea than your "false facts."
Quoting Hanover
This is exactly JTB rigamarole.
Maybe in a broader context that makes sense, but I think we're talking in a very narrow area, as we philosophers are wont.
Here's what I generally say when we get into this kind of discussion, which we do once every few weeks. Knowledge is actionable belief. Adequately justified belief which takes into account uncertainty about what we think we know and the consequences of being wrong. Knowledge is belief from an engineering perspective. Said the engineer.
Yes, this is correct.
I've always tried to keep extended philosophical ideas out of the Shoutbox, but, as you note, they are starting to seep in around the edges. I would feel worse about it except that the primary culprits are moderators themselves.
I will agree the fact I will grumble is as close to eternal truth as we can get. At least in the Shoutbox.
If I wanted to be provocative here, I might say reality is nothing more than best knowledge. But I wouldn't want to alarm any of the meek souls here.
Which area? I thought it was about knowledge in general.
I totes get being bitched slapped by reality offers a certain understanding otherwise not afforded the coddled, so that's well taken, but the centrality of that might be overstated, although my knowledge of this is limited to less than 15 minutes and two short lines of threadmeat.
But whatever it was that I was saying, I get the elusiveness of truth, but organizing a system around its irrelevance seems not philosophy at all, but just sticking to what is obvious. If I was going to do that, I'd be a mindless engineer, building bridges I knew were true and right just based upon the fact that they didn't fall down.
You are slipping down the slope of idealism, a place where I might just be a figment of your imagination. I know you're not just a figment of my imagination because my imagination would make you into something far more interesting, probably involving Brooke Shields.
If all that you touch and all that you see is all that reality will ever be, then you are a Pink Floydian idealist. Actually I have to re-write that:
If all that you feel and all that you perceive is all that reality will ever be, then you are a Pink Floydian idealist.
Better.
Whenever this subject comes up, people act as if knowledge, truth, and facts only apply to propositions when they rarely do. Who cares if Pluto is a planet? If I know that, maybe I can win with the home addition of Jeopardy. Let’s talk about the celestial mechanics of the solar system. If I know enough about that maybe I can send astronauts to mars.
Do you have Jeopardy over there?
Ms. Shields seems like a very nice person. We both know she deserves better than that.
How do you apply a truth value to an event? The proposition "Your mama has green hair" has a truth value, in that it is either true or false. If your mama has green hair, and I just see it, do I say "true" while looking at her hair? At what sorts of things would I look at and say "false"? Would that happen if I knew I was seeing double because I was drunk? I'd walk around saying "false" and everyone would know I couldn't see right?
What is not having Jeopardy over there?
You have to answer a Jeopardy question with a question.
What are you referring to here? Who or what do you think is guilty of this? Why do you think so? Are you trying hard to be cryptic, because it’s appropriate for your role as mystic guru?
I really wasn't trying to be cryptic. Organizing a system of philosophy around the irrelevance of the metaphysical doesn't seem like philosophy to me. That appears the approach of Wittgenstein and to linguistic philosophers to some extent generally and definitely Clarky
I think we have to figure out what the underlying structure of reality is else we're just talking about what is obvious, like how to talk, how to build bridges, or whatever.
No clever crypticism on my part, just old fashioned unclarity.
Would this suggest that there are differing rationalities (as in differing types of rational ways of thinking) that could yield conflicting results, yet they all are rational? If yes, maybe give an example of two contradictory universal rules built on rationality to see if that could really exist. That would suggest reason can give two equally reasonable yet conflicting universal truths. If I'm following what you're saying.
I believe you now.
Quoting Hanover
But who or what is doing this? I mean, aside from TC. The rejection of metaphysics is important to a lot of modern philosophy, starting with Hume and taken into the mainstream with Kant, but “organizing a system of philosophy around the irrelevance of the metaphysical” is an odd and I think inaccurate general description. For one thing, the rejection of metaphysics normally entails the rejection of systems. You’re just piling on eccentric interpretation upon eccentric interpretation upon eccentric interpretation with little direct engagement with what I’ve said or referred to.
Let's take Kant's maxim to never lie.
Would it undermine the maxim in the first sense of the CI if we added one exception, such as "Never lie, unless it is to an axe murderer"?
I don't think so. I think, given that the majority of the people are not axe murderers all this would undermine is communication between a person hiding the victim and the axe murderer -- so anyone who is an axe murderer would know that everyone will lie to them insofar that they understand that he's an axe murderer. So the axe murderer, agreeing to the maxim "Never lie, unless to an axe murderer" will hide his axe in order to ensure that people tell him the truth.
It seems to me both maxims pass the first formulation of the CI, and cannot both be universally true in a kingdom of ends, i.e. where all actors act in accord with the rational universalized maxims. So you end up with at least two different possible moral-worlds even while following the first criteria of the CI just by having different maxims with respect to the same action.
Which seems a reasonable sort of thing to observe -- insofar that humans are rational at all, we certainly observe that they seem to care about different things with respect to what's moral. Perhaps there's a contingent that's simply not-rational which the CI will cut out as not really worth thinking about when it comes to practical ethics. But then it seems to me that we can still derive different universal maxims that are consistent with themselves when universalized, but not necessarily consistent with every possible universal maxim a rational agent might choose to universalize.
Quoting Hanover
Yup. And it's certainly controversial, and even difficult to defend when you try to get into the nitty gritty of it -- how else than by reason do I identify these conclusions, and does that then not suggest that there's some other overarching standard by which these two standards are judged to which we could appeal to?
I'd say the how else is "the passions, we don't start at a rational place exactly so there's nothing more to appeal to", but that's controversial of course.
And now I've broken my promise to stop talking philosophy in the Shoutbox room.
Maybe put it into a direct question what you're looking that I better respond to. Our exchange has been very limited on this, and my general position is that foundational metaphysical assumptions can only be ignored, not avoided. At some level the grounding of the theory will be necessary, and usually it's a matter of exploration to determine what that is.
Kant, for example, might be an idealist unless we assert a causative effect of the noumena, which might be more than he's willing to allow.
My position is not eccentric and surely not intended to be obscure. It's ideosyncractic possibly as I look for the God effect in everything, but that's not necessarily confirmation bias, but it's because without metaphysical grounding that can be identified, there is nothing to hold up whatever philosophical position you assert.
I'll give another example. Wittgenstein requires that players of language games all be of the same form of life. That is a simple suggestion at the outset that we all have something generally in common (culture, biology, or something else) in order to even engage in coversation. But that "form of life" means something more (to me at least) because its vagueness most likely means "someone who thinks like me" and that is a problem. It's a problem because thought is internal, and it is where meaning happens, which, I'd submit, means I can talk to you because you mean the same things I mean when I say things. Now we've unraveled the whole meaning is use. Meaning is now some mental process I have that is similar to yours and that is not about use. It is about what our "form" is.
Open to criticism though.
I’ll have you know I have a reputation as the greatest metaphysician since Donald Trump Jr.
You're a slippery customer.
Quoting Hanover
But there's no argument in your post for this. It's clear to me that the meaning you find internally (talking to yourself) is parasitic on the meaning that happens in interaction between people.
But this is the kind of thing I mean. I started by making an innocent comparison between your esotericism and negative dialectics, and now you're talking about Wittgenstein for some reason. So I don't understand where you're going. Too wishy washy.
Like these?
Quoting Jamal
Quoting Jamal
Probably this is partially true, but it's also probably true that I treated the Shoutbox like everyone was shouting, which means whatever I said to you was attached to what was said to others in the room generally. I just assumed everyone read everyone else's comments and we were yelling across the table. But you might be right. I might not have mentioned Wittgenstein except in my head until I said it out loud and thought I brought it up. Quoting Jamal
Yeah, but I said in one post I had about 15 minutes of knowledge about the negative dialectics, which you've been carrying on about for months now in pretty deep analysis. I truly have no idea what you're talking about in that regard other than some quick Wiki reads.
You did make a comment about how my view was both similar and not to Adorno, which I surmised meant something along the lines of my taking a mystical approach due to the limitations of philosophy, yet Adorno (perhaps) taking the approach we've got to do the best with what we've got (thus my flashlight analogy is going to see what it's going to see) and we must assume from the darkness of what we don't see that we're missing something. And that, right or wrong (and I think you said it was wrong), was my thinking when I said AHA! there's the metaphysical underpinning. I found it. He sees the structure in the negative, in what's missing and from the dark he finds the light. That could be entirely wrong, but it's cool in its own regard. If he didn't say it, then I did, and I'll take credit for it.
I see what you mean now. I really do. You were asking "What the hell are you talking about? You're starting in mid-conversation." I took your question to mean, "Why are you accusing me of saying all this horseshit. I just said something about Adorno. Step back." And I was like, "Why do you think I'm suggesting anything more than you've said. I'm talking about something entirely different from what you said." Then we clarified it all and laughed and laughed.
Fair enough.
Quoting Hanover
From my standpoint it's laughter without clarification. Clarification is to philosophy as explaining a joke is to humour.
Quoting Sir2u
I wonder if the cost comparison would change if we included the costs for disposal of unrecycled paper to the cost of the paper made from pulp.
I don't know. Can't they just put the old paper in the washing machine, blend it up into paper soup and make paper? How is that more expensive that cutting down a freaking tree and chopping it up?
Or maybe paper is made from the waste product of plywood manufacturing?
Aren't those all components of raw wood processing?
Cool?
Of course. Our understanding of a non-static system will naturally result in "nothing we can observe" (the lowest designation) to "the highest thing we can observe" (the highest designation). That's common sense. Obviously at that point, once said concepts are either mathematically or otherwise "common-sensibly" declared or codified, they have meaning.
Quoting Hanover
I would argue the understanding of State 42 is not wrong but the system or process of discernment that led to said system is simply not as efficient or accurate as it could be. Hot take. :lol:
At least, that it serves its purpose for the time and serves it well. As well as one could hope for. It's the most intelligent thing and way of action that could result in something that has utility. No different than saying "a new plank of wood on a walkway in place of an old plank that has lost its constitutional integrity (ie. has become rotted) is the best choice of action to prevent what is socially understood as undesirable (ie. death or injury). Of course. 100%. Simply, perhaps one day, when we discover a better method people will laugh at how we used to do things and call it "barbaric", "stupid", or simply "illogical." Is this not the course of human progress, historically proven?
Imagine toilet paper that has Heidegger's Being and Time laser printed onto it.
Or the Bible.
Wiping your ass with the Bible is so passe. I'm sure the first guy who did it shocked the crowd, but now it's just what people do who can't come up with better ways to go viral.
The paper will have a chemical in it that turns beet red when it interacts with fecal matter. That way, the unsuspecting toilet user will wipe as normal, but when he looks down at his accomplishment, he will think he's profusely bleeding rectally. Imagine his face at the ER when he learns it was just his roommate messing around with him and that he's not dying of cancer. Priceless.
Here’s a better one. Get some poison ivy and wipe it on the toilet paper. Then carefully reroll it.
You can read it while you're pooping.
Quoting Hanover
Ok, but I don't really like beets.
Funny you should say that because I used to hate beets, but as I have aged, they have become one of my favorite root vegetables. I prefer fresh boiled and then sliced into chunks to where I have to still cut them with my fork to eat.
A fun game is to pour the beet juice in the toilet bowl and then to call over your loved one and tell them that you are concerned with your profuse rectal bleeding. Panic along with them for a while until you give them the final punchline: "Sweet Petunia, it's just beet blood, not a gaping anal fissure!" And then you'll laugh and laugh.
But she'd be like, it's just a hemorrhoid, dear. Stop freaking out.
Yes, I love beets too. They are great in salads, either pickled or just plain.
The sheer volume of blood would lead to a more serious diagnosis. We're taking spilling out of the bowl, down the hall
Interesting interview with Habermas. If it's in The Nation it's not philosophy ;)
I'm interested in the book, but doubt that I'm signing up for 2000 pages-ish anytime soon. The quick version sounds interesting though -- a continuity from the ancient greeks through the medieval times with Christian notions supplying the basis for enlightenment... right up my ally in terms of things I'd enjoy reading.
Yes, I think my clear pigmented paper laser printing mechanism eliciting black tone is counterfeit proof ...
Money has never squealed so much.
The trouble is portraying green through pigmentation. One of those engineering problems I suppose...
Yes. The Grand Eye is looking and possibly wondering about how fast money is growing. Do you know inflation is tied with the very aspect of growth itself?
On the other hand, I am wondering when the union will be complete...
Quoting frank
Separating and disposing of un-recyclable paper, including removal of foreign objects like staples and clips, pieces of plastic, is one the extra costs of the recycling process. It has to be done mostly by hand. But the chemical processes used, removing the ink from the paper, are more expensive. Raw wood pulp is more uniform in color and consistency so it is cheaper to make into paper.
Our tenth anniversary is coming up.
More accurate, now.
And I joined on the 21st. And it was evening and it was morning on the second day.
I suggest a get together.
Cheesecake.
But cake. As well.
Likewise, pancakes.
But cake.
Festive atmospheric conditions have arose hereabouts.
Of course. What's a party without BBQ?
It's been a goodyear thus far. Wonder who is going to ruin it.
Pigs are forsaken animals, show some mercy to them. Why not eat something like salad instead?
Yes, salad!! I'll bring a pitcher of water and some stools to sit on. What else can we not bring to make for the perfect austerity party?
"Everyone" might be an overstatement.
I'll bring some beer since we recently had a discussion about beer in the chatbox. But, please don't get too desirous about it. We ration things here since we're experiencing austerity.
I know that trick. The pint glass that's not really a pint.
It's true, all of it. I'm guilty now.
Nothing worse. Menu says $x for a 20 oz draft, and they serve it to you in a 16 oz glass. In their accounting for the taxman, a fifth of every keg purchased is left over for (use your imagination). Austerity at its finest.
Goat cake.
Are goats satanic animals?
Goats are incredibly voracious animals. But a pig, well, some kind of lustful life they live.
Ergo, goats eat pig.
There's a reason that Pan, god of lust, is depicted as half-goat.
If they could digest metal that fence would have disappeared.
Stubborn bastards.
A pig is something more than a goat.
Thus, a pig is greater than a goat.
Down with the goat!
Make Goat American Again!
These coincidences are getting weird. You like beets. I like beets. Your cat loves green beans. I love green beans.
QED.
Pigs are good animals. Goats are Satanic.
Sad to say, I did not have a pimento cheese sandwich for lunch today. What’s more, I have never had a pimento cheese sandwich. I’m not even sure I’ve ever seen pimento cheese. And I don’t like Cocoa Puffs.
It's like a lobster roll, just with pimento cheese instead.
I’m not a lobster roll guy. I grew up around the Chesapeake Bay. It’s crabcakes for me.
[quote="Book of the goat" ]And the fool hath said in his heart, “The pig is a goodly beast, and the goat is of Satan.”
But thus saith the Lord:
“Who hath made the goat, and who hath made the pig?
Did not one Hand form them both upon the earth?”
The goat I set upon the mountains;
He leapeth upon the rocks and seeketh the high place.
He eateth all things, even the thorns and the briars;
Yea, he maketh clean what others leave desolate.
And the pig I set in the low places,
To root in the mire and to sleep in the shade.
Each in his kind, and each according to his portion.
But woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
That put bacon for incense and call it holy;
That scorn the goat because of the word spoken unto the wicked.
For it is written:
“He shall set the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left.”
But this He spake not of beasts, but of men;
Not of nature, but of the heart.
Shall the creature be condemned for the sin of the sinner?
Shall the image of the goat be cursed because of man’s rebellion?
Behold, the scapegoat bore the iniquity of Israel,
And went into the wilderness bearing the sins of the people.
Was he not chosen by lot before the Lord?
And the pig? It is called unclean among the children of Jacob.
Its hoof is cloven, but it cheweth not the cud.
Its belly is full, but its mind is dull.
It sleepeth in filth and knoweth not ascent.
Therefore judge not by appearances, nor by the sayings of men.
For the Lord looketh upon the heart of the beast and the measure of its striving.
The goat is not Satanic, nor is the pig righteous.
Each is as the Lord hath made it,
But the goat seeketh the heights, and the pig remaineth in the pit.
Blessed is he who understandeth the parable,
And seeth the beast as a mirror.[/quote]
"The Lord" here is of course the Great Goat, who is uneaten yet eats all.
See, I am in accordance with the fool. The fool is often right about things. Even king's hasth listened to them. Thus, the goat is satanic and the pig good to itself.
I grew up around Pimento Bay. We'd run our toes into the sand feeling for pimentoes at low tide. I could usually get a couple of buckets full.
When I was a kid, the only time we got pimentos was when we went out to nice restaurants and they brought us a bowl full as appetizers. Even with those we had to remove the green husks before we could get to the pimento inside.
Ah! That makes better sense. I think i was projecting how you might have gone searching for clams onto myself and using pimentos as an odd substitute. Honest mistake.
Yes, hello.
You're thinking of something else. Pimentos don't have husks,
I've missed you.
I'm not familiar with this "olive" you speak of.
Back in the good old days, we would suck the pimentos out of the husks. The husks themselves are inedible. We would then ask the waitress for more. They always got angry. I'm not sure why.
Absence for some makes the heart grow fonder, but for me, it made my eyes begin to wander.
My mother was named Olive, and the Good Lord removed her from this vale of tears many years since. But she looked less green and shapeless than that picture of her, which is frankly unrecognisable. I think it must be a species of pig.
That will probably continue unless you can convince me to stick around.
I only have eyes for you, Fred.
Nope. Nothing‘s changed here. I’m just happy to hear from you when we can.
:heart: Life is good here. Lots of uncertainty but lots of great stuff happening; lots of change. Still not feeling the philosophy bug, although I'm bummed I missed the contest.
Studying Philosophy Does Make People Better Thinkers
[sup]— Michael Prinzing, Michael Vazquez · Journal of the American Philosophical Association · Jul 11, 2025[/sup]
In other news...
The largest space solar arrays ever have successfully been deployed
[sup]— New Scientist · Jul 4, 2025 · 1m:3s[/sup]
Redwire completes first deployment test of lunar gateway solar array
[sup]— Jamie Whitney · Military Aerospace Electronics · Jul 8, 2025[/sup]
Look:
Are you verging on hipsteria? Do you have a disembodied forearm and hand on your shoulder?
Hipster or not, I can assure you that I don't know how to have a personal style regarding clothes, and I tend to wear basic t-shirts, basic trousers, basic shoes, etcetera. But I like coffee (a lot), and this may make me a bit of a hipster, actually.
I am not hip. I know this for certain because my children have all told me it’s true.
Simplest answer is because the true and full cost of resources that grow a tree are not calculated into the cost of non recycled (new) paper, whereas, every possible cost is calculated into the cost of recycled paper..... economic structures.
quick smile
Still, there are environmental benefits: Trees do not need to be felled to make recycled cardboard. Virgin cardboard requires more trees to fall.
There is no difference between recycled cardboard and virgin cardboard.
Recyclers may make $5 on a ton of baled cardboard. Not much for one ton, but when you gather, bale, and ship tens if thousands of tons of cardboard, a decent amount of profit can be garnered. Supply and demand can boost or shrink the profitability of recycling, just like it affects everything else.
Yes, you do know how to have a personal style regarding clothes: you wear basic t-shirts, basic trousers, and basic shoes. Just because your t-shirts lack hip statements, or your trousers are well pressed, and your shoes are black (and not pink and green) doesn't mean you don't have a personal style.
However, Javi, we like you the way you are.
I bet £1,000 that you don't like me as much as you do like windmills and tractors.
:brow:
Maybe he was outraged by too many windmills on this hill?
I was on that hill last Saturday. It is located in a small town in Ciudad Real. When I arrived at the windmills, I started to feel weird for unknown reasons, but I guess it was the manchego cheese and wine. So sad that Trump puts tariffs on these amazing and unique products!
By the way, there are even more windmills around, but they are scattered randomly. It is, by far, the most iconic building of Castilla (and I am proud of that).
I have some Castile soap. It's pepperminty and dries the skin, but provides a good lather. I thank your people for supplying me the hippie soap.
I think the hipster movement died out some years ago. What’s left is a phoney aesthetic for wealthy wankers who want to role play creativity. The so-called “hipster style” has been co-opted by anyone who thinks authenticity means facial hair, tattoos, and shitty plaid shirts. Ironically, all that “workwear” is now some of the most expensive clothing you can buy. If you’re picking up your fake-heritage designer gear at Mr Freedom, don’t be surprised when you’re shelling out $350 for a pair of Japanese selvedge jeans. Cunts.
Roasted pork chop, Spanish rice, Brussels sprouts and an onlooker.
I’m disappointed. I thought it was the cat’s dinner. Oh and have I mentioned that I love Brussels sprouts?
Isn't that what they always were?
Anyway, something like trust fund anarchists and sugar plum socialists.
By the way, how nice IS $350 Japanese selvedge denim? I've never actually touched any of it.
In the misty days of yore, long ago, Levi denim was 100% cotton, dark blue, stiff, and cut generously. Some people (hipsters of yore, in the misty days of long ago) soaked in a tub of hot water then dried the jeans while wearing them. The jeans shrank to fit. The better to show off one's thighs, buttocks, and basket. That was shortly before the horrifying age of polyester double knits, floral prints, very busy plaids, and shag carpeting, all on one body. Well, except for the shag carpeting, as far as I know.
I think it’s because they have more fat.
Before hipsters, there was hepcats. I think the word implies a person who's liver is seriously degraded from alcohol.
It's true of steaks and lamb too, and you pay for the weight of the uneaten bone, which is an additional hidden expense.
One wouldn't pay a premium for boney fish though, so it's not universal love of bone (philoosteo).
I suspect the reason goes back to our ancient canine roots, which also explains our natural inclination to fetch and to sit in exchange for a treat. We enjoy chewing on bones, only resisting that urge when among those we think we must impress. The test of friendship is to what degree you can be your true dog self, one paw holding down the bone on the table while you gnaw it with your turned face. I only do this before my children and my mailman, a delivery gentleman with whom I hold no secrets.
That is why we pay this high premium for the bone. The fish bone though, that's a cat thing, so it doesn't apply. We did not evolve from cats. They from us.
True story.
Yeah, but that's just, no offense, horseshit pseudo scientific speculation. This is the Shoutbox, a place of serious inquiry and discussion, not just your little creative writing nook.
Oh, Hanover. You’re just so cute.
Yeah, Castile soap is pretty good. Don't miss our pottery objects and clay decorative ware as well. They are pretty good, honestly.
https://franpesa.com/
Quoting Hanover
Well, that's anything but Spanish rice.