He’s a chatty fellow, isn’t he.
Oh, indeed, but the chatty fellow I am most curious about is Zoot Allures. He also chose not to return to ILP – after his stint in prison. Instead, he created his own forum. But the last time he “visted” that was 8 months ago. And now it is practically defunct.
I wonder if he ended up back in prison.
And better him back here than Turd. Turd was just another right wing objectivist to the best of my own recollection. Though clearly very intelligent and articulate at times.
Turd is the brain Trump’s ego shit out.
Turd was one of my favorite posters. When you see his name at the top of a post, you don’t already know everything that he’s going to say. Agree or disagree with what he says, the guy is intelligent.
Also, Turd, if you’re reading this, I think it’s funny that you joining a prohibitionist party is something that makes you think of me. And, I totally read your entire post, even though it was technically too long. You know I hate those long posts, and those ones where 2 dickheads quote each other until there’s like 50 quotes.
[More from “Turd”. Incidentally, it also contains stuff in a conversation we’ve been having about my blindness.]
I do a lot with other wavelengths in infared and thermography, where you have to provide a false color scheme to contrast what is caught on camera. I can to a certain extent at say, 850nm which is invisible to the human eye see blood vessels the eye can’t see. In some sense it isn’t real, and that sense is the sense of a skeptic philosopher such as Sextus Empericus, who tried to show the unreality of the world via method and demonstration of paradoxical expectations. A example would be a oar on a canoe sticking through clear water, to a sighted person it looks like the geometry bends, but to you reaching down you must feel it exists as we expect it to, unless something turkey bizarre is happening. Our senses are streamlined for creatures of a certain size, between that of a tiny fish and a giant blue whale or brontasauros, on a planet that had plenty of oxygen and dependable rates of sunlight and night, and dependable gravity. Our competitive ecosystem on the animal side exists in this. Everything uses the senses a little different, some like Octopus vs Humans quite different at times and even then a lot evolved in parallel due to the limiting constraints of the economy of size in nature, that imposes itself on evolution. It isn’t a issue to lose a sense in a species with multiple senses as long as the individuals remain competitive and can survive, same as a society ethically degrading in losing a institution once important and central but no longer needed. But due to the interdependent nature of the mind, how our species not merely networks cognition but specializes on the level of personality, it really shows at times how we perceive the commonality of knowing. We have a commonwealth of common things we observe and manipulate that is the mediocrity of technological communion, I’m not even talking democracy, I’m talking car broke down and a stranger spots the issue and offers to fix it with a wrench level. When someone seems to have less ability to perceive not due to intelligence but sensory, people are going to instinctively back off. Your a point of confusion and challenges them over and beyond what they are used to thinking involving problem solving, or worst add troubles to exposition in explaining sufficiently how things are in a way you can understand when it is easier to just shut up and mind their own business. Notice the exact opposite is the case when you increase sensory data. I can see and detect things in ranges others can’t, and while it isn’t super human, purely technique or technological which can be bought or learned, people mistake and take it for science and insight. It can be either, but isn’t inherently, and while it can lend to greater understanding of things known or even hidden, more data usually just means more confusion. Most people don’t specialize in cognitive cycles of sensing and knowing, and much less are confused about the theory beyond the human norm, in creatures other than humans, plants and machines, and grand theories for general rules of communications. This is a central aspect to my philosophy of size. Your inability to see things doesn’t make you overridingly alien, for example, while you can’t see things, a object once presumed or otherwise aware of can be predicated, and even for a language philosopher like say, the forum member Faust, who only sees the world through a portion of the left hemisphere via the dictates of language and nothing but through that, you’ll likely process the vast majority of predicates the exact same was as a sighted person. But would your dreams follow the rules of visual hypnagogic constructs if nothing to something like in the Pythagorean Tables, ten dualities that govern the process of being and becoming in the mind visually? From what you described in your dreams yes to a extent but also no. That is challenging, and most are unaware of the challenge, and only a philosopher would be intrigued. Given ILP have currently no resident philosophers, it is no surprise nobody has taken interest in comparing your inner world and understanding to theirs. It is quite possible at points you’ve found faster and more dependable and insightful ways to think that a sighted person wouldn’t, in areas it never would of occurred to us such as elementary logic. The brain is quite adaptable. The positions and dualism that someone like Iambiguous constantly assert and fight in is of little concern, the divide between Object and Subject, originality and unique awareness and systematic thought isn’t something to debate for me but rather something compared later in ethics, in relations. Just as ethics govern the community, it governs the mind. I don’t shy away from the mind, every aspect, example take Fixed Cross and Sauwelios or even Satyr- they assert Satanism for it’s liberation of the mind in much the same way you assert Parliamentry Socerignty for it’s supreme flexibility and freedom to legislate ingeniously… but both systems are limiting in many ways… there is no protections against a tyranny of minorities or majorities in England or firm written rights, the unwritten constitution is quite malleable. Three hundred years ago it was central the truth trumped class privledge and social harmony in the courts, today it is increasingly the opposite. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is increasingly non-British ideals. Nietzscheans fear aspects of their mind like guilt, pity, weakness, shame, innocence… at least linguistically and ideologically, not sure how sincere they really are at all times. I’m not afraid to look at these and learn how they network, benefits and liabilities. Same for high vices such as torture or killing or mass murder or suicide or transgenderism etc. I know naturally much of that is not good and plenty of good reason and historical precedent to not implement it or do silly stuff like inject random drugs into my system- but I’ll go as far as rational prudence and good health allows to inquire and study- I have a infinite supply of broken and dying crackheads to question and examine for example. As a result, world is a far more open place for me than for them. I’ve seen and thought things that would make them deeply disturbed but can better handle most of it, and rarely am I shocked or belittled as they expect. They are the weaker for their efforts, as they went against time tested standards of better living humanity long established less as a iron rule and more to prevent the constant cycle of tragedies events and prone to suck them into when operating impulsively, without foresight or in ignorance. They call this “nature” and take great pride in it. They say they are most evolved and know better, then inject death into themselves and die. I am mocked as a fool for warning them against this stupidity. I get mocked and ignored for warning them that the logic and reasoning the brought them to this eventuality was fundamentally flawed. But I do grasp perhaps better than them why the human mind is so structured to allow for this. All too often men have personalities that selectively nativists the senses and mind, a unique sensation or motivation becomes increasingly generic as it is processed in the mind, a breakdown of genericness occurs, life feels wrong and isn’t able to match past experiences or expectations they feel they can have or deserve, stuff they thing they can achieve or substitute through a shortcut. Sometimes men have succeeded. All too often they do not, and they die mocking the artificiality of ethics which they say are not real, created by men and was imposed on them. They die champion liberated libertines while others who didn’t choose the idiot route of the dodo lives on. One half of those winning survivors followed ethics and morality, the other half are at least historically novel and deserve to be seen as great men and are due emulation and study. None of those damn fools on the forum remotely qualify. Most all are shipwrecks who can’t even shine as survivors of their own mistakes. Someone like a Christian or Buddhist saint who could go out into the wilderness and improve themselves and the human condition through trial and understanding. Like the Egyptian Hermès Trigementius who went out into the mesquito swamps to meditate and figure out the mind and teach others how it is mapped and mastered, something anyone can do. All I see is pools of sterile sodomy, dark ignorance and death amongst them, a occasional wail and cry of ecstasy from a drug simulating a cognitive reaction they didn’t earn or deserve from actual living and endeavoring to the tasks it evolved to express that at… and after that cry they die. I remember one of the moderators long ago died in the rain laying in the road watching his hand wiggle, drug abuser. The hypnogogic stages and pleasure pain centers of our brain were definitely not streamlined and designed for this end. A community doesn’t long proper from this mindset, it decays and falls apart. Philosophical communities cannot long last, and whatever few random gains they made for philosophy will soon be lost as they go extinct. So I hate and despise them, but I don’t ever shy away. Just they are hardly few, but everywhere, and I can find a buttfucking atheist satanist convinced of his superiority right down the street doing drugs and sacrificing squirrels while listing to Death Metal, and have talked to many before they died, and staired with silent curiosity and disbelief seeing friends gather around asking why, cursing god and the times. Why not just blame the damn idiot for this, or the mourning fools who claimed to be friends for abandoning these cadavers prematurely to the ceaseless drumbeat of death. The one thing I turn against is such a weak minded death, it is the one aspect of mind I cannot embrace. If I had to sacrifice I would for the sake of others, the ethical community seeking survival, for the young or good… but it would have to be a good deal and I would still strive to cheat death. These damn fools, they will debate you how they have it all figured out, whole silly systems of metaphysics, then a week later they are zipped up in a black bag and loaded on a ambulance. That’s what their opinions are worth, a black bag and a toe tag, behold these supermen.
If you can post that too, but that is hopefully the last. Have a good day.
A can of alphabet soup could accomplish the same.
I can’t speak to the truth of that, but whoever wrote that wall of text is an egotist on crusade against egotists, obsessed with the offense that FC may have absorbed what was proselytized and consequently afraid of someone who isn’t even here, characterizing those who actually are here as Nazis, arrogantly trivializing work as unworthy to be read without even reading it, pedestalizing himself as too exceptional to be soiled by the plebs but still managing to post on a site that he does not wish to post for fear someone might steal his precious perspective which is “Of what fucking use is this pride and ego?”! The whole way through I kept thinking “This is how Trump would be if he had a brain.”
I’m sorry if that offends you, but it is what it is. Lucky KT didn’t get to him first.
Trump doesn’t like reading either.
The President Who Doesn’t Read
Wolff quotes economic adviser Gary Cohn writing in an email: “It’s worse than you can imagine … Trump won’t read anything—not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers, nothing. He gets up halfway through meetings with world leaders because he is bored.”
What is it exactly that you don’t like about Trump? I’m asking for a dickhead.
Here is one, that he can become so germaine as to get lost, merely as to what he means, unlike Turd, who actually is lost.
At least that’s how Trump is superior to Turd, he can be placed in time and place, whereas Turd is implacable.
I do refer to Turd not not only because he has been brought up in conjunction within the forum, but because he really is above judgement, unlike Trump, who has been so easily dismissed.
One is more self critical then the other, and Turf has taken himself out of the arena of judgement, wisely, whereas Trump stays the course, even to the point of acting out the Schwarzenegger syndrome: of having ulterior motives of going back to show biz, cause that’s where the big bucks are anyway, and all this political stuff was fab. (and free) PR.
Otherwise the guy is ok. Reagun was Oscar contender. , though Trump is merely second rate vaudeville
Turd was and presumably still is a very smart guy, though I sometimes couldn’t really get what he was up to. His posts often has this posted for minds exactly like his own air to them. I hope he’s doing well out there and unstalks himself.
Can’t help but wonder what Turd’s take on Trump is now. How, for example, he might compare and contrast him with Putin.
Also, is he still an objectivist?
Hope he comes back. Hope Zoot comes back.
They both contributed stuff that kept you on your toes.
That isn’t self-evident?
Pretty sure everyone is an objectivist unless they put a little disclaimer that they might be wrong…right?
Yes it’s hard to say it’s objectively true that there is no objective truth in order to practice the religion of no-religion.
Maybe I can steal a line of reasoning from the atheists who disavow anti-theism by asserting that atheism is not the proposition that god doesn’t exist, but simply being unconvinced that he does.
Maybe I’m more a-objectivist than anti-objectivist 
It’s more complicated than that. Scientists would say that their conclusions are open to revision - iow any theory might later fall apart - but be sure of their epistemology. In fact most are. So they are objectivists at a meta-level but not at the everyday level of any particular conclusion about mice, republicans or quarks. And they have objective beliefs about perception, knowledge, what one cannot say for certain and so on. And even if you say ‘I could be wrong’ this is also an objectivist claim, in fact based on other objectivist beliefs. You are saying that it is possible you are wrong. Perhaps it isn’t possible that you are wrong. Further whatever beliefs you have that indicate that it is possible are also beliefs you hold objectively. Ideas about perception, fallibility, etc. Some people are under the illusion that if they speak in probabilities they evade being objectivists. But this is not the case. How would they even know it is an issue of probabilities? Non-objectivists can’t even refer to their own emotional states or introspective information as ‘the case’ or ‘possibly the case’, since even their feelings, thoughts and beliefs would the be claimed to be known or, know to seem a certain way. Unless they want to claim that their feelings, thoughts and so on are not part of the universe. The use of the word ‘seem’ is another way people try to avoid being objectivists. But to say something seems a certain way, even just to them, is again an objectivist claim. Maybe it doesn’t, in fact, seem that way to you. If they want to say, but of course I know how it seems to me: well, 1) now they are making a claim without a disclaimer and 2) they would need to prove that. Either their proof works, which means they have a bunch of objective beliefs since they would need to use these in the proof, or the proof does not work and, well, then they’d be wrong. I’ve never met someone who was not an objectivist. Unless it was someone who just didn’t communicate. I think you could be a kind of hermit non-objectivist, keeping mum on just about everything, and perhaps be consistant. And that’s not even going into psychology. Like is it possible to really not have any beliefs in practice? I doubt it. I have seen any examples of one. I have seen the claim that one is not an objectivist, and making that claim, even with a disclaimer is already blowing it.
Being an a-objectivist is much safer ground, but the a-objectivist does not have the luxury the atheists have since they,the atheists get their category through a specific single type of not believing.
How would even an a-objectivist know they are not convinced? How could they be sure. Best to keep mum.
and if they say, they don’t know, but it seems like they are not convinced, how do they know it seems that way. Seeming is still part of the universe and to claim something seems X, is making a claim about reality. If you want to argue it is about internal reality or experienced reality- well how the hell do you know that some things are internal or merely experienced (a certain way) rather than something else.
Most non-objectivists are, in terms of presentation, clear about not believe in X, 100 per cent, but when it comes to their epistemology or their interpretation of the own internal states and beliefs, they are objectivists. And this isn’t even getting into the superiority they give off in relation to objectivists, which is also based on some level in some kind of objectivism. It may be possible to be a consistant a objectivist, but my guess is those guys are not getting into any discussions or debates about stuff. They just eating when hungry, tending their gardens and patting the dog out in the woods somewhere.
I think we also have to not confuse people with what they say they are. People reek their metaphysics and their epistemologies. They reek of it and they act in the world, objectively, from their metaphysics and epistemologies. They can add on disclaimers that they are sure of nothing, and still they affect others and themselves and the world with their certainties. And if they engage in philosophical discussions, well they seem to have little concern about presenting claims all over the place.
No, Turd is an objectivist in my view if, in regard to his value judgments, he makes the claim that in order to be deemed [by him] as a rational and virtuous human being others must share his own moral and political narratives.
Again, back to the objective truth embedded in the fact that you buy and sell stocks. Here one can be an objectivist in that it can, in fact, be demonstrated that you do this.
If in fact you do.
But is there an objective truth embedded in the belief [political prejudice] that one ought not to buy and sell stocks because this practice is immoral?
That capitalism itself inherently thrives on the exploitation of human beings?
And Turd, here, earlier, was definitely an objectivist, about morals, epistemologically in general. I doubt he would disagree.
Well, that’s one thing. Taking those moral and epistemological values and defending them in regard to a particular context another thing altogether.
And in that respect my own experience with him was par for the course.
And if he does ever choose to come back, I suspect that I can demonstrate it anew.
This is some excellent out of the box thinking, KT
But all I’m saying is if we are a product of, a function of, and generated by the universe, then there is no way to discern anything objectively about the universe because we cannot step outside ourselves and the universe in order to take an objective view, and all truth is a relationship found inside the universe itself and only applicable inside the game. And what exists depends equally on what kind of you you are as it does to what kind of thing the object is. Any sort of morality, if it exists at all, equally depends on the knower as it does the known. The sun cannot give light if there is nothing to receive it. Likewise, morality can’t exist unless there are beings to interpret morality through the subjective lens bestowed upon them by the known itself.
The analogy is simulation theory and if we’re inside a video game, what evidence inside the game can be used to discern truths about the outside world? And claiming that the lack of evidence is fundamental and absolute isn’t itself discerning a truth about the outside world, but is discerning a truth about the inside world and merely recognizing that there is a place we cannot go, like north of the north pole. We don’t need to visit north of the north pole to know there is no there there.
It is objectively true that there is no objective truth because truth is defined to be relational and not something that can exist independent of anything to behold it. If there is absolute truth sitting there all by itself only viewed by the perspective of actuality, then the perspective of actuality becomes the subject helping to define the absolute which then makes the absolute no longer absolute. The absolute is an infinite regression stemming from the fact that the knower and the known are one.
And the fact that Turd ridicules the nondualists testifies that he thinks he is separate from everything, but hasn’t posited by what mechanism he thinks he can behold it. He’s a limb on a tree thinking he’s not the tree.
Matt Dillahunty has discovered the best analogy for this. If there is a jar of jelly beans, does the fact that we do not believe there is an even number of jelly beans mean that we believe there is an odd number of jelly beans? Conviction that there are either even or odd numbers of jelly beans has not manifested and that’s how we know that we don’t know.
Set up experiments. Guess the evenness of jelly beans in lots of jars and then count them. If we’re right as much as we are wrong, then it means we could not have known and what we thought we knew was merely a random guess. But if we were correct too often, then it means we must have known and mistakenly believed that we didn’t.
Lack of manifestation. 1+1 appears as a question, then 2 manifests. If 564^367.6545675 is the question, then nothing manifests. Deer in headlights. If I’m drawing a blank, it means I don’t know.
Subject is made a certain way and object is made a certain way and the interaction between them is a reality that is unique to that combination. Your world is not the same as my world because my world has you in the external world and your world has me in the external world.
Right, those who say, don’t know; those who know, don’t say. The Vanaprastha has resigned from the game and has nothing to teach.
Usually people say what they wish they were, but aren’t. Like me, hypocritus magnanimous, serendipity is how I wish I were, but am not. Sure I stumble into good fortune on occasion, but happy-go-lucky I am not. I’m trying to be humble as best I can and didn’t want a self-flattering username as if I deserve some congratulations for the ideas I fell into of no power of my own, but I realize that humility is just another way of flattering myself. There is no escape from the game, even by resigning and petting the dog, and presumably that’s why most who obtain satori then renounce it and dive into the game more than ever.
If there is no way to escape, then what does that mean?
So, in other words, you are claiming that that analogy works and that the logic of the argument holds. You making objectivist claims.
Same issue.
Same issue, thought I can’t even follow this one.
More objectivist claims.
Though in this case, those who say they don’t know for sure, are actually via this claiming to know. Those who keep mum, might actually not be sure.
For example.
OK.
I don’t know what it means, and I’m not so worried about that. I don’t see a reason to escape from certainty that I’m certain of.