The history of logic is a tortured one- it began as a curious story of mankind vying for sanity but with time became distorted into a drama of maniacs obsessed with reality.
To a layman eager to learn, philosophy has become most appealing when not understandable- and this has been the lure of epistemology: the exotic and peculiar pulled from thin air and patched together with room enough for apologists.
The idea is simple: something is high if not reachable, great if not reasonable, and profound if its nature unknowable- therefore, the monstrous approach that the epistemelog uses to understand nature itself also makes a monster of the simple, the clean, and the knowable. At the very least, it keeps this philosopher’s hobby (or in Witgenstennian/ Gendankeny terms, glossoepiglottic "games") intact and, most importantly, in business.

So this begs the question for those too inebriated with a private knowledge of knowing something that only a ‘chosen’ few know:
What is the point?
You’ve just delineated why the Matrix is real.
Ok.
What now?
A history lesson to prove its validity?

So there is an objective world that the Sophists and Plato fought over like women, and somewhere down the line entered a Descartes to muddy the water with his non-material soul. Mankind has since then been thrust into a feisty debacle between idealists and materialists that can’t seem to agree over whether a goat sitting in a mud puddle miles away on a farm actually exists without one’s mind there to perceive it.
The problem here is not that a man is questioning his own knowledge but that matter or things concerning matter has become a problem where before it was only a fixture to sit on when pondering the more tangible, more vexing problems of government, social structure, technology, and justice.
One imagines Rodin’s figure deep in contemplation- but instead of those contemplative frowns expending their energy on the use of his knowledge in the form of a tool, he’s actually sitting there pondering the very existence of the rock that he sits on, its relative representation in his mind and whether he could in fact be certain of it holding up his buttocks.
And Berkely perks his ears up. Matter? A problem? No problem.
All one has to do is enter this mad carnival and blow matter into oblivion with some sleight-of-hand dialectic to prove that matter does not even exist.

Conclusion:
Logic is mind- its licensed to every man and not be ransomed by separate fields of study in order to keep it from him- how he uses Logia is the most powerful accomplishment on this planet as it bends nature to man's will. Logic being his heritage as a human, only by using it can he moderate his function in his universe.
Knowing this, epistemology seems to be an entity used to suffocate logic and when the lights are out all that’s left on stage resembles a useless yet charming puzzle.
Its a wonder then that among all the philosophers the most serious and stubborn among them, with a fragile right to be, are epistemologs.

Logic can be taught to (stupid) machines..., it's far more simple than the natural language. People (mostly) do not arrive at great discoveries by using logic but in a kind of a "flash".
The world comes to you in a stream/wave of sensory info...logic separates the countables from this stream....and so doing it destroys the "the thing as it is" replacing it with a "version of the thing". Logic is a lantern which when brought into a dark cave puts a single spot in full light but simultaneously makes you eyes less receptive for the objects which do not lay at the light spot. It is sensible to put the light off from time to time, and watch the cave as it is...THAT's what machines cannot do...therefore not using logic is (makes you) more human that using logic.

When it comes to logic, the trouble with humans is that they do not perceive the world directly - rather through the model created in the mind.

Of course, the model is not a perfect one; our minds, being physical and finite, only have limited computing power. It follows that we will only be able to understand things up to a point. Most would agree that this point is rather high when compared with an animal or even a small child, but no matter how high it is we will always need axioms: a set of rules to base an argument on which are accepted as true without proof.

Epistemologists, those who study the philosophy of knowledge and thinking, are right up shit-creek without a paddle. To use a 'popular' example: it is utterly impossible to prove/disprove an existence like that of The Matrix since inputs to your brain from you eyes should be indistinguishable from those from a computer - especially if you've only ever experienced one or the other. Similarly, in the case of The Matrix, it would be impossible to determine whether your brain was flesh or silicon.

In this instance, the best that could be postulated is there is existence and I am in it.

The tools of logic are (to my thinking): processing power of the brain; our memory; interaction with the perceived world. All of these are subject to the arbitrary laws of our world.

Therefore, usage of logic can only be used to piece together what lies inside of existence, not beyond.

Full apologies for:
- References to The Matrix
- Scandalous usage of Descartes' celebrated quote

Of course, the model is not a perfect one; our minds, being physical and finite, only have limited computing power. It follows that we will only be able to understand things up to a point. Most would agree that this point is rather high when compared with an animal or even a small child, but no matter how high it is we will always need axioms: a set of rules to base an argument on which are accepted as true without proof.



If this point you speak of is in the domain of the countables then the (stupid) machines already overeached the capacity of the adult mind (IBM's Deep Blue beat Kasparov in chess). But if the uncountable knowledge (eg. ethics or estetics) is the knowledge primary to the survival and quality of life then you can look at a child and learn from it a lesson or two (eg. openness or trueness to your own self)

(who said that that the technology course we took is a form of escapism from the reality, an illusion of controll which we hold over the countables while the uncountables are the core (sense) of life...Nietzsche? R. M. Pirsig?..don't remember..)

I never like to compare the brain, and/organism with man-made or machine-made computer. it is a bad anlogy. nor to demean animals etc as being less able to understand. remeber, we can sense scent like a dog.....etc. we ALL have our value. and we constatly change.....
i like this:
"Taking a cue from Michael Polyani (1958), I distinguish between two types of epistemology: KNOWING THAT, and KNOWING HOW. "Knowing that" is what I refer to as "participatory epistemology" involving the direct immersion or blending of subjectivity with the phenomenon being investigated. "Knowing how" is the objectifying epistemology familiar to modern science, where the phenomenon is abstracted for measurement and casual analysis. The first kind of epistemology involves knowing as MEANING. the second inolves knowing through MECHANISM." (Radical Nature: Rediscovering the Soul of Matter, by Christian de Quincey)

We need more knowledge in the non-technology areas of existence, international law, different form of cooperation than free market provides for, decent living conditions for all people...we know THAT; we have technology to provide decent living conditions for all thus we know HOW; but we do not have the ETHICS to do that. (So we have encreasingly murderous terorist movements all over the earth and soon we will develop a bomb protected suits an walk around in scafanders...)

I would think that rather, epistemology explores the basis for logic. Certainly one will base their logic on their experience and is fully correct to do so, but considering epistemology requires one to examine the validity of that experience as it applies to one's self and whatever group to consider. Epistemology helps explain why people come to different "logical" conclusions about the world.

If this point you speak of is in the domain of the countables then the (stupid) machines already overeached the capacity of the adult mind (IBM's Deep Blue beat Kasparov in chess).
Yes, of course modern artificial machines have more raw number crunching ability than we do. Although, I don't think this is relevant to what I said - the machine does not understand.

This point I speak of is a personal theoretical limit. If one can think of ethics then obviously this is not restricted to the domain of the 'countables'.

But if the uncountable knowledge (eg. ethics or estetics) is the knowledge primary to the survival and quality of life then you can look at a child and learn from it a lesson or two (eg. openness or trueness to your own self)

You may learn a lesson from a small child but the chances are you have a greater field of understanding. I don't like treading on this kind of ground, when being so general I think it's only fair to ignore outliers. My point, is there is a point and it is lower than some metaphysists might like.

Procop:
Logic can be taught to (stupid) machines..., it's far more simple than the natural language. People (mostly) do not arrive at great discoveries by using logic but in a kind of a "flash".
A stupid machine, like a toy car, is predetermined.
Yes, I realize we're getting into the murky pigshit of free will, but there is a general difference between memorizing words and using them as language.
The latter would be what I feel is logic.

You make it too simplistic.

Logic is a lantern which when brought into a dark cave puts a single spot in full light but simultaneously makes you eyes less receptive for the objects which do not lay at the light spot. It is sensible to put the light off from time to time, and watch the cave as it is...THAT's what machines cannot do...therefore not using logic is (makes you) more human that using logic.
I certainly don't think so (though I like the metaphor)
Logic is a block of dynamite blowing that cave to bits and using those pieces for art, weapons and architecture.

To wit- for all the thousand and one lines of code that go into this machine, built by men, none show the flexibility of what I feel is human logic.
There is a stark difference between conditioned reflexes and creative reactions. An empty robot the former, a healthy human the latter.
What a machine does not have is the simple logic or 'flash' of what was so common to McGuyver. Pardon my being crude.

Blue_Uk:
When it comes to logic, the trouble with humans is that they do not perceive the world directly - rather through the model created in the mind.
True.
But it works...so?
Something like morality, say, being an abstract is subjective and understandably fluid- but I see no reason to question the hard reality of the keys I’m typing on.

However, something like the insatiable curiosity of a scientist needing to see for himself the lowest particulars of matter in either quarks or strings is understandable- but some stuffy academic sitting in his chair, scribbling out puzzles of nonsense?

Epistemologists, those who study the philosophy of knowledge and thinking, are right up shit-creek without a paddle. To use a 'popular' example: it is utterly impossible to prove/disprove an existence like that of The Matrix since inputs to your brain from you eyes should be indistinguishable from those from a computer - especially if you've only ever experienced one or the other. Similarly, in the case of The Matrix, it would be impossible to determine whether your brain was flesh or silicon.

All pointless ruminations- other than to realize we can only know there is a limit to the knowable, and to recognize that limit without creating apologetic fantasies beyond that point.

Therefore:
You may learn a lesson from a small child but the chances are you have a greater field of understanding. I don't like treading on this kind of ground, when being so general I think it's only fair to ignore outliers. My point, is there is a point and it is lower than some metaphysists might like.
Touche.

In this instance, the best that could be postulated is there is existence and I am in it.
Yes, now what do I do with it.
Sit here and try, like Hume, to observe myself existing and prove that I don't an am only perception?
Or get up and go work on a motor?

Full apologies for:
- References to The Matrix
- Scandalous usage of Descartes' celebrated quote
*chuckle*
Shut up.


Wes:
I would think that rather, epistemology explores the basis for logic. Certainly one will base their logic on their experience and is fully correct to do so, but considering epistemology requires one to examine the validity of that experience as it applies to one's self and whatever group to consider. Epistemology helps explain why people come to different "logical" conclusions about the world.
Oh no don't get me wrong- I don’t see futility in a men internalizing themselves to examine their knowledge.
This makes him what he is- its only the barbarism of using language to make all kinds of useless puzzles and cheeky paradox among the "cognoscenti".
It betrays a dishonest scholatcism:

"In the end it is the dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professional periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company, and dreads even the irritating realism of his home. He wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb the people of his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy (gend: or logic) do not interest him, they frighten him; he does not feel any passion for pulling things together....He further retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer after layer of technical terminology.
He ceases to become a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist"

That said- I hear Kant had a brain tumor.

@Blue_UK

Yes, the point (as you describe it) is positioned appr. as you place it but what's the reason for it's relatively low position...is this (low) limit due to the capacity of the logic or due to the capacity of the mind?

(You can formulate/describe only simple truths in logic, the mind is capable to consider uncountables..uncountables are subjected to different sets of rules (like eg. Quantum Physics) they behave disoderly and can have diffrent value at different place (eg. violence - sometimes appalling, sometimes justified)) and still mind can sort them out (can satisfactorily operate with uncountables) and reach results by doing that....


To use/trust your brain only for/in counting the countables is like delivering pizza's in a Ferrari... :)

Gendy you beautiful bastard.

LOL.

That was sweet.

I see your point quite clearly. I agree perhaps to the extreme. Mental masturbation is useless if it only yields solutionless problems or worse, the same because of your sorry, stubborn ass refuses to admit practical evidence. There are libraries full of the dried up mental protein that littered the skulls of its authors. So infatuated with its texture they were, that they had to make sure we all see it.

Wesmorris:
Mental masturbation is useless if it only yields solutionless problems or worse, the same because of your sorry, stubborn ass refuses to admit practical evidence. There are libraries full of the dried up mental protein that littered the skulls of its authors. So infatuated with its texture they were, that they had to make sure we all see it.
Bingo.
Perhaps the clearest, most eloquent dribble out of you yet.

ProCop:

Bug off and stop polluting my thread.

ProCop:

Bug off and stop polluting my thread.



<i>Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. </I>

Pro, you've completely misunderstood what was only meant as brief point.

It's not a very low point at all! It just boils down to "Know what's unprovable and don't blather on about them like school children". It was not said in responce to anything btw.

Gendy, I'm sorry for dignifying the question.

It just boils down to "Know what's unprovable and don't blather on about them like school children".


But how can you <i>know</i> what's <i>unprovable</i> (contradiction? - you can only <i> know </i> what's provable the rest is indeterminate...) but I am satisfied to let it rest where you guys want to have it...I took it (wrongly) the thread being brainstorming of sorts had I known it I would have never mingled in a thread as serious as this one... feel a kind of embarassed about it .../.

Anyway, where was I...

Gendanken,
When it comes to logic, the trouble with humans is that they do not perceive the world directly - rather through the model created in the mind.
True.
But it works...so?
Something like morality, say, being an abstract is subjective and understandably fluid- but I see no reason to question the hard reality of the keys I’m typing on.
I wouldn't question them either, but you're right, this is not directly pivotal to epistemology. What are more relevant are the axioms, or 'Matters of fact' which are not always based on ones own memories or knowledge of cause and effect (Hume, who I have only just read about here (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4t.htm#intro) seems to agree, see Matter of Fact and Belief as a Habit).

a useless yet charming puzzle... Mental masturbation...

'Mental masturbation' is perfectly OK by me. I think it is rarely fruitless; to have clearer thinking (the presumed product) would better your productivity.

Procop:
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons.
He also said a human was a plucked chicken with a soul, both being bipeds.
And I always picture a plucked chicken when it comes to confused, quotedropping gimps such as yourself.

Look..I can quote too!
"Like, fuck off?"- Spinoza, Ethics

Blue_Uk:
I wouldn't question them either, but you're right, this is not directly pivotal to epistemology. What are more relevant are the axioms, or 'Matters of fact' which are not always based on ones own memories or knowledge of cause and effect (Hume, who I have only just read about here seems to agree, see Matter of Fact and Belief as a Habit).

Hume is odd- if one reads his “Enquiry on Human Understanding” you see a man vying to keep things simple, being an empiricist.
He stresses both the need for intellectualism and sentimentalism in the human condition- which is nothing new really, think hermaphroditism.

But he seems to stress objectivity and logic more than he does otherwise and you get a sense of his being a practical scientist- yet you still see him surrendering to these same metaphysical puzzles I find in almost all philsophy- the worst being Kant's. Its almost as if all the brightest minds were religious.

I believe metaphysics, being sibling of epistemology, should be simply used for finding out the limits to our knowledge as opposed to peeping out in the 'beyond' and imagine something there.

'Mental masturbation' is perfectly OK by me. I think it is rarely fruitless; to have clearer thinking (the presumed product) would better your productivity
But to the philosopher who just came on himself after reading his own theory, his onanism doesn't seem "fruitless".
Ha.

Very dirty indeed. Thanks for a new word by the way. (onanism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=onanism&r=67))

Gendanken,

And Berkely perks his ears up. Matter? A problem? No problem.

Once again a Simpsons quote comes to the fore.
What is mind? No matter.
What is matter? Never mind.
I think that Homer might have "borrowed" this one. Not entirely sure.

Heh. While looking to make sure that I had this quote structured right, I found this one on the same page:
I can't believe it! Reading and writing actually paid off!
I'm sorry. I can't resist. One more and I'll stop.
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
I think that all these quotes stand on their own and don't really need commentary. So, if you are confused as to their relevance, I will gladly explain my intent.

One interesting thing (I think) about the ability to use Simpsons quotes in such a way is that for all the solemnity and acceptance of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Russel, and all the other stuffy old heads one can draw wisdom and knowledge from such a "low-brow" source as a popular animated series.

And here's a South Park quote to explain the wisdom of the Simpsons:
Simpsons did it!
Meaning that the Simpsons have been on the air for so long and dwells on so many levels of sophistication that any experience or concept that you can think of has somehow made into an episode of the Simpsons.

I have been looking into epistomology just a bit over the past week or two, one of the main concepts of knowledge is justified true belief. However, in the 60's, Gettier showed that one can have a justified true belief that does not count as knowledge, therefore there must be a further criteria to base knowledge on. So, I propose that the next level of criteria be that it must have been on the Simpsons. Once it has passed the Simpons test, then it will be knowledge.

Whaddya think? :D



Anyway, to come back to topic...

To a layman eager to learn, philosophy has become most appealing when not understandable- and this has been the lure of epistemology: the exotic and peculiar pulled from thin air and patched together with room enough for apologists.

I don't think I agree with your use of "layman" here. You have laid down a far too general statement. Rather, I would say that that this type of obfuscatory logic appeals to a certain type of individual.

From your description of this "epistemolog", I draw an image of a talking head rather than a true thinker. Which means that the ideal of his knowledge would be obscurity. Because by learning to obfuscate, he learns to throw off those who seek to understand him. One who comes to understand this faker would understand his fakery. So, the greatest lesson he would ever learn is how to confuse and dodge the issue.

Sleight of hand and trickery. A magician is born.

Imitation and plagiarism. A parrot is born.

A magician with a parrot on his shoulder? Or a parrot with a magician's eye for trickery? An epistemolog? Glossoepiglottic tactitioner?

The language needs to be sorted out, I think.

Epistomology is not inherently unworthy of study. It certainly has some things to say and might very well help one to clear up his way of thinking. (Although, I find it suspect that it took 2500 years for Gettier to poke a hole in the Justified True Belief of Plato. And in such a simple manner.) But, the thing to remember is that one should apply lessons learned from epistomology to one's own thoughts rather than to seek to make the thoughts of other epistomologists the sole content of one's mind. Grave digging, isn't it?

Glossoepiglottic games are not necessarily bad either. Some delight in them. In fact, I know someone whose name starts with a G that loves to play with words. Is this a bad thing? The bad part would come from the intent of the magician. To obfuscate and to obscure. To trick and confuse. (Although, trickery is not always bad. Remember the coyote.)

So, we are dealing with a certain type of individual. Correct?


What a machine does not have is the simple logic or 'flash' of what was so common to McGuyver. Pardon my being crude.

Cruder than the Simpsons? :p Never be ashamed of crudity. Socrates was once considered crude, I'm sure. Now he's the height of understanding to some individuals who would credit all our thoughts and minds to thinkers of 2500 years ago.

Anyway, this "logic" that you are speaking of is more of an intuitive flash. It moves away from the rational and allows the emotional to choose new patterns for the old. It is a shifting that a machine is incapable of because a machine prefers nothing. What is is. But, to a man, perception is malleable.

Logic depends on illogic. And vice versa.

We are human. Somewhat chaotic, somewhat orderly. This is our gift and our curse.

Sometimes those intuitive flashes lead to madness and despair. Sometimes they lead to heights of passion. Sometimes to depths of calculation. One never knows where one will be once the flash has passed and the world has been remade in that instant.

Who knows, one might even find that matter has ceased to be.


I believe metaphysics, being sibling of epistemology, should be simply used for finding out the limits to our knowledge as opposed to peeping out in the 'beyond' and imagine something there.

Metaphysics have been abused greatly down the years. Everything that is illogical and doesn't fit into other categories finds itself placed under the heading "metaphysics". At least by those who wish to legitimize their particular branch of study and thought.

The thing is that one can never tell where a thought might lead in the end. The fruits of our modern technology were once the wet dreams of some metaphysician of days past. Chances are that very few of the actual advancements were made by the dreamer himself, but perhaps he inspired others to come later and to think "outside the box". HG Wells wrote of submarines and technology that has since become reality. Some of it anyway. Still working on the time machine.

The problem is that "pyramid power" is metaphysics. Hippies with crystals dangling from their ceilings consider themselves metaphysicians because they have a glibness of tongue that allows them to confuse their stoned counterparts and make them say "whoah!" (Speaking of Keannu. :p) Anyone with any kooky unfounded theory can throw his words under the heading of metaphysics and get away with it.

There needs to be a redefinition of metaphysics. There needs to be a means of stating reasonable inquiry as opposed to unreasonable inquiry without going into extreme amount of details. But, for the most part, if someone says "metaphysics" nowadays, it means head for the hills because you're about to hear a line of shit.


But to the philosopher who just came on himself after reading his own theory, his onanism doesn't seem "fruitless".

As long as he has something handy to clean himself up afterwards other than the paper on which he just wrote his theory... But, I have to ask, why is it onanism? If he came on himself on account of the beauty and purity of his theory (or whatever reason) then where does the coitus interruptus come from? It seems to me like he left it in. Or would he need to cum on his theory for this to be so? In which case, he better laminate it first... Or have a spare copy handy.

As to mental masturbation, I see no real problem with it. It's a form of exercise. But, the problem again comes down to what is done with it. One man's mental masturbation might be anothers final theory.

Weren't we just talking about whether a man is a philospher if he depended on ambiguity to allow others to "interpret" meaning into a meaningless babble? Sounds like we're talking about the same thing here. I wonder if Philocrazy will make an appearance?


Hmm. Could probably touch on another point or two, but this is long enough at the moment. Save it for later.

Invert:
I think that all these quotes stand on their own and don't really need commentary. So, if you are confused as to their relevance, I will gladly explain my intent.


I think that, for the lowbrow, its comforting to see "those stuffy old heads" brought down to size by Homer Simpson.
To him, Simpson quotes become almost like a defense against intimidating philosophy.
Do you know what's so appealing about comedians?
They can skillfully sneer at something like Bill Gates and the man in the audience with a measly programming degree who's never had a career in that field because he is incompetent can cuddle his broken ego by laughing at excellence.

Rather, I would say that that this type of obfuscatory logic appeals to a certain type of individual.
Hmm.
Well, the certain type of individual is an educrat starving for some form of distinction he cannot reap on his own.
My college 'professors' were laymen.

From your description of this "epistemolog", I draw an image of a talking head rather than a true thinker. Which means that the ideal of his knowledge would be obscurity. Because by learning to obfuscate, he learns to throw off those who seek to understand him. One who comes to understand this faker would understand his fakery. So, the greatest lesson he would ever learn is how to confuse and dodge the issue.

Sleight of hand and trickery. A magician is born.

Imitation and plagiarism. A parrot is born.
Or a magical parrot.
They attract other magical parrots, the worst being Chinese.
Courtesy of Mr. Kung-lung tsu, a sophist in post-Confuscionist China:

A white horse is not a horse
A white hard horse has one element.
Why is this so?
Hardness and whiteness have nothing in common.
Surely a horse and hardness have nothing in common.
And surely, whiteness and a horse have nothing in common.
Whiteness and a horse have in common nothing;
a horse and hardness have in common nothing;
and hardness and whiteness have in common nothing.
Therefore, whiteness and a horse have something in common;
a horse and hardness have something in common;
and hardness and whiteness have in common something.
And therefore whiteness and a horse have something in common
with hardness and a horse; and hardness and a horse
have something in common with hardness and whiteness;
and hardness and whiteness have something in common
with whiteness and a horse.
And therefore a white hard horse has something in common.
And therefore a white hard horse has one element in common.
A white hard horse has no element in common.
Why is this so?
Whiteness has nothing in common with hardness.
Hardness has nothing in common with a horse.
A horse has nothing in common with whiteness.
And therefore there is no white hard horse.
And therefore a white hard horse has no element in common.
Therefore a white hard horse is not white or hard.
Therefore a white hard horse is not a horse or white.
Therefore a white hard horse is not a horse or hard.
Therefore a hard horse is not a horse.
Therefore a hard whiteness is not hard or white.
Therefore a white hardness is not white or hard.
Therefore a white horse is not a horse.

Perhaps a white hard horse has a name in common.
Perhaps a white hard horse remains unnamed.
Therefore the people are unnamed.
If the people are named, they have elements in common.
If they have elements in common, they are a people.
Why is this so?
People have nothing in common.
A name has nothing in common.
A name is never common.


One would naturally look on this with contempt, but no! Someone decides for himself that Chinese philosophy is wisdom and thus worthy of respect, no matter how barbarous the attempt to butcher philosophy.
So he sits down and writes this discourse on Tsu's “brilliant” dialectic:

“KSLT was a philosophy of understanding in the Kantian senset. This is extremely important for it to be considered a do-ctrine of reason in the Kantian sense one could conclude that it is sophistic. This philosophy of understanding can be understood in two ways. Firstly, it developed around a centre, i.e., the knowing and grasping the essence ("wei" as order) of empirical individuals ("wu", "shih") by concepts ("chih") within the sphere of "concepts of understanding, the phenomenal world and theoretical knowledge of phenomenal world." In this connection, it strove to grasp the definiteness characteristic of understanding as thinking. Secondly, it established the autonomy of qualities (such as hardness, white-ness) as a part of the universal world.”

Notice the Kant reference. How telling.

Epistomology is not inherently unworthy of study. It certainly has some things to say and might very well help one to clear up his way of thinking. (Although, I find it suspect that it took 2500 years for Gettier to poke a hole in the Justified True Belief of Plato. And in such a simple manner.)
Ok.....

Well, how so?


But, the thing to remember is that one should apply lessons learned from epistomology to one's own thoughts rather than to seek to make the thoughts of other epistomologists the sole content of one's mind. Grave digging, isn't it?

Glossoepiglottic games are not necessarily bad either. Some delight in them. In fact, I know someone whose name starts with a G that loves to play with words. Is this a bad thing? The bad part would come from the intent of the magician. To obfuscate and to obscure. To trick and confuse. (Although, trickery is not always bad. Remember the coyote.)


Oh, don't get me wrong.
Hume, for example is a brilliant mind and I don't say this simply because he is appealing as a 'rebel'.
I say this because of his intellectual honesty and balance even if I am disillusioned by what seems to be a small capitulation towards the end- but no need to hold a man's curiosity against him.
Kant- did you know that his most readable work was inspired mostly by Hume's clarity?

What's more- there is a difference between Shakespeare's or for that matter Burgess's love of word games, but that is prose. Not a philosophy claiming to have solved human ailments.

This is nice, in Hume's opening chapters of his inquiry:

"It seems, then, that nature has pointed out a mixed kind of life as most suitable to the human race....Indulge your passion for science, says she (meaning mother nature), but let your science be human and such as may have a direct reference to action and society. Abstruse thought and profound researches I prohibit and will severely punish by the pensive melancholy which they introduce , by the endless uncertainty in which they involve you, and by the cold reception your pretended discoveries shall meet with when communicated. Be a philosopher, but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man."

Logic depends on illogic. And vice versa.

No.
It depends on either inductive or deductive reasoning. among other disciplines I'm too lazy to remember.

The thing is that one can never tell where a thought might lead in the end. The fruits of our modern technology were once the wet dreams of some metaphysician of days past. Chances are that very few of the actual advancements were made by the dreamer himself, but perhaps he inspired others to come later and to think "outside the box". HG Wells wrote of submarines and technology that has since become reality. Some of it anyway. Still working on the time machine.

The problem is that "pyramid power" is metaphysics. Hippies with crystals dangling from their ceilings consider themselves metaphysicians because they have a glibness of tongue that allows them to confuse their stoned counterparts and make them say "whoah!" (Speaking of Keannu. ) Anyone with any kooky unfounded theory can throw his words under the heading of metaphysics and get away with it.
Ha.

Pardon but both Jules Verne and H.G.Wells were science aficionados tied down by the limits of their time. Not metaphysicians.

Gendanken,

I think that, for the lowbrow, its comforting to see "those stuffy old heads" brought down to size by Homer Simpson.
To him, Simpson quotes become almost like a defense against intimidating philosophy.

That's all you got out of those quotes? That's too bad. I especially liked the clown college one. I bet a lot of epistemelogs have gone to clown college.

I feel that there is wisdom that can be drawn forth from the Simpsons. The ignorant look and laugh. The wise look, laugh, and learn. In a way, the Simpsons are something like Aesop's fables only more current and up to date.

Remember: Truth is where you find it. The epistimelog and the arrogant look only in textbooks for truth. They forget to make their own truth.

Another thing that the Simpsons have over certain stuffy old heads is that the Simpsons aren't afraid to laugh at themselves. Something more philosophers need to do. Nietzsche understood this. I wonder how many others did? Certainly not Kant I should think.

Do you know what's so appealing about comedians?
They can skillfully sneer at something like Bill Gates and the man in the audience with a measly programming degree who's never had a career in that field because he is incompetent can cuddle his broken ego by laughing at excellence.

Comedians are great, but I prefer a more visceral Gates-bashing. Did you ever see the picture of him when he got hit by the pie in the face? He had the most wonderful look of extreme terror and helplessness in his eye. To us it was a joke but to him it was the realization of mortality. He knew that it could have been an axe in the face just as easily as a pie. It wasn't a pie he was thinking but a cut throat. I bet he pissed his pants.

Well, the certain type of individual is an educrat starving for some form of distinction he cannot reap on his own.

Sounds about right.

My college 'professors' were laymen.

All of them?

Anyway, I suppose it depends on what field, right? Can't expect a math professor to understand philosophy. Or vice versa. However, there is the old saying of those who can do, those who can't teach. Pity for the young.

I begin to get an idea that you are using laymen in a non-standard usage. If you 'professors' were laymen, then it must speak more about attitude and/or personality than training. Am I right?

A white horse is not a horse...

My... head... hurts... the pain... the agony... why... did I read....
Seriously. That was screwed up. Maybe it reads better in chinese. It might be a play on words that doesn't translate. Fraggle? You reading this?

By the way, I hope you found this on the web and didn't type it in with your own hands. If you did, I'm sorry for you. I bet they hurt after touching that.

So he sits down and writes this discourse on Tsu's “brilliant” dialectic:


Who exactly is he? You're not going through a certain sibling's homework, are you?

Anyway, I think that is the best definition for stretching I've ever seen. However, he uses chinese terms and it's possible that it loses something in translation. But, it's hard to see what.

Ok.....

Well, how so?

Uh oh. I have only been digging into it very, very shallowly. Let me get back to you on this. I am sure that there is something useful within. Maybe I'm wrong.

What's more- there is a difference between Shakespeare's or for that matter Burgess's love of word games, but that is prose. Not a philosophy claiming to have solved human ailments.

Right. Prose is not necessarily philosophy but prose might be used in philosophy. Prose and word games might be an excellent method of instilling fun into a boring (to some) piece of logic.

Again, Nietzsche loved to play with words. The problem is that with word games comes the possibility that you lose the game. That you guess wrong.

Misunderstanding. Philosopher's bane.

However, as I stated earlier (and in other threads), one shouldn't expect ambiguity (word play) to make up for lack of content.

It seems, then, that nature has pointed out a mixed kind of life as most suitable to the human race....Indulge your passion for science, says she (meaning mother nature), but let your science be human and such as may have a direct reference to action and society.

In other words, make it a pie in the face and not an ambiguous snide comment on a dark stage. Althought, the snide comment might be said to refer to society.

Abstruse thought and profound researches I prohibit and will severely punish by the pensive melancholy which they introduce , by the endless uncertainty in which they involve you, and by the cold reception your pretended discoveries shall meet with when communicated. Be a philosopher, but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man."

And what is it that he claims it is to be a man? Just out of curiousity.

No.
It depends on either inductive or deductive reasoning. among other disciplines I'm too lazy to remember.

Sorry. I'm speaking of brain function rather than textbook logic. The brain requires an emotional (illogical) predilection for a preferred outcome in order to break the tie of logical reasoning. It's just like that quote from Durant you told me the other day:

"....we pretend to be constucting edifices of impartial thought, when actually we are selecting only such acts and agreements as will give dignity to some personal or patriotic wish", the Mansions.

Pardon but both Jules Verne and H.G.Wells were science aficionados tied down by the limits of their time. Not metaphysicians.

Doh! Yeah. Jules Verne, not HG Wells...

Anyway, it is true that they may have been science aficionados, but they were also wild thinkers who thought "outside the box."

Metaphysicians? Maybe not. But certainly not scientists. Certainly not mainstream.

Really if it wasn't for you this thread would be Muerte:

That's all you got out of those quotes? That's too bad. I especially liked the clown college one. I bet a lot of epistemelogs have gone to clown college.

I feel that there is wisdom that can be drawn forth from the Simpsons. The ignorant look and laugh. The wise look, laugh, and learn. In a way, the Simpsons are something like Aesop's fables only more current and up to date.

Remember: Truth is where you find it. The epistimelog and the arrogant look only in textbooks for truth. They forget to make their own truth.

Another thing that the Simpsons have over certain stuffy old heads is that the Simpsons aren't afraid to laugh at themselves. Something more philosophers need to do. Nietzsche understood this. I wonder how many others did? Certainly not Kant I should think.

Certainly not Kant, you're right, but I certainly don't blame him.
I do understand that he really wished for others to grasp his ideas on human knowledge ( writing and rewriting the same thesis about 3 times in order to 'clarify')- but he did not have the handle on language others did. So sometimes I don't think the man was being purposely obscure, and in what's something like an instruction manual one gets a sense that, for him, Hume was his Homer Simpson- so to speak.

"But to satisfy the conditions of the problem (g: meaning metaphysics), the opponents of the great thinker (g: great thinker meaning Hume and the opponents meaning 'stuffy old heads' like English philosopher J. Priestly or the German polymath Leibniz) should have penetrated very deeply into the nature of reason, so far as it is concerned with pure thinking- a task which did not suit them. They found a more convenient method of being defiant without any insight, viz., the appeal to common sense......I openly confess, the suggestion of David Hume was the very thing, which many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber....."- from his Prolegomena

He became something like Huxley- Hume's bulldog, even if he did not agree wholeheartedly.
And do you know why I feel he took to Hume? Because the man is clear and, comparably, succinct. That's why I like him as well- any writer that is clear, honest, pure. The same with Durant and Nietzche among others that my hands are too tired to drum up.

By the way, the lack of quotes around 'stuffy old heads' looks like rebellion.
HA.

Comedians are great, but I prefer a more visceral Gates-bashing. Did you ever see the picture of him when he got hit by the pie in the face? He had the most wonderful look of extreme terror and helplessness in his eye. To us it was a joke but to him it was the realization of mortality. He knew that it could have been an axe in the face just as easily as a pie. It wasn't a pie he was thinking but a cut throat. I bet he pissed his pants.

Or stuck a penny in his asscrack.
I've never heard of this 'pie' in his face- elaborate.

But I can absolutely imagine the self righteous grin on the person who smeared it on his face.

All of them?

Actually, no.
The art and philosophy professors were conducive to vomiting.

I begin to get an idea that you are using laymen in a non-standard usage. If you 'professors' were laymen, then it must speak more about attitude and/or personality than training. Am I right?

Yup.

My... head... hurts... the pain... the agony... why... did I read....
Seriously. That was screwed up. Maybe it reads better in chinese. It might be a play on words that doesn't translate. Fraggle? You reading this?

By the way, I hope you found this on the web and didn't type it in with your own hands. If you did, I'm sorry for you. I bet they hurt after touching that.

No, it was copy pasted.
But now my hands are hurting from having to type that passage up there from my book.
Godamn you.

Who exactly is he? You're not going through a certain sibling's homework, are you?

Fuck the sib.
He's a Chinese 'philosopher' of the Dialectic school of sophists and booga booga blahshma.
Chinese philosopher is usually an oxymoronic phrase.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9046434

Uh oh. I have only been digging into it very, very shallowly. Let me get back to you on this. I am sure that there is something useful within. Maybe I'm wrong.

I already knew you mostly skimmed and then commented, so I singled it out.
We women are fascinating with our pineal glands.

Really if it wasn't for you this thread would be Muerte:

Apparently so. What the fuck, fuckers? I mean, come on, I even brought in Homer Simpson philosophy. Surely that should draw in some fresh meat for you to chew on. Or do you think it was my mentioning Homer that pushed them out? If so. FUCK YOU ALL!

And do you know why I feel he took to Hume? Because the man is clear and, comparably, succinct. That's why I like him as well- any writer that is clear, honest, pure. The same with Durant and Nietzche among others that my hands are too tired to drum up.

You know what I like about Hume? His works can be found online for free. I've found Hume's complete works and I've got some reading ahead of me. You've mentioned Durant so many times that I have developed a great desire to read him. I've tried to find Durant's work online but no luck. I've found several of his articles, but I'm interested in his books, The Mansions of Philosophy and The Story of Civilization (You have a copy of The Mansions of Philosophy; don't you, Gendanken? Would be nice if you could make a date with an OCR scanner and upload a bit torrent of this book. I've just searched a couple of torrent sites and they're philosophy poor.)

As to Nietzsche being clear... Odd. I do think he was clear if one looks at his work with the right eyes. But he seems to be one of the most misunderstood philosophers of recent times. The most abused. The most misused. In many ways, his philosophy has been turned 180 degrees and used against his original intent. And almost right from the start. His own sister started the process. The bitch even tried to start a cult around him. Didn't she try to steal his body or something?

But, Nietzsche's lack of clarity lies in his joking nature. Those who approach his work with the dry and pompous air of the older generation of philosophers will likely miss his point altogether. They will take his joke and wordplay literally rather than reading between the lines. Rather than realizing that the joke was the point. That it is a joke. Lightness of feet.

The lack of clarity in other philosophers seem to be of a different variety altogether. More of a getting lost in the tangle of words than simply not getting the joke. Are there any other philosophers with such a joking nature as Nietzsche? I've not come across any, but that means nothing. I've not read a great variety of philosophy as you're well aware.


So, we have three types of misunderstanding before us at the moment. Nietzsche is a joker who is often misunderstood as serious when he is in fact joking. Kant who I am assuming is misunderstood because of the labrynth of his words. And we have the epistemelog who is misunderstood on purpose.

By the way, the lack of quotes around 'stuffy old heads' looks like rebellion.
HA.

Hmm. Imagine that.

And I take it that you are a conformist by your constant use of quotation marks?

Or stuck a penny in his asscrack.
I've never heard of this 'pie' in his face- elaborate.

But I can absolutely imagine the self righteous grin on the person who smeared it on his face.

Ok. First of all, I don't really have anything against Gates. However, his programming skills are questionable. What isn't questionable are his business skills. (Well, maybe morally questionable but that's besides the point.)

Next, you've never heard of the pie in the face? Damn. Here's some pics.

<img src="http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/bg1.jpg"><img src="http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/bg2.jpg"><img src="http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/bg3.jpg">

There's more, but only three pics per post, so they'll have to come later. Also, I'm leeching bandwidth here, so they may get changed. Here (http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/gates.html)'s a link to the page I'm leeching them off of. Here (http://www.bitstorm.org/gates/)'s a link to a page with an mpeg of it happening.

Hmm. I was going to keep on with this, but I'm going to go ahead and post because I have more pictures to post than just Bill for later sections of this post. So... Post.

Ok. The next three pics in the series:

<img src="http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/bg4.jpg"><img src="http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/bg5.jpg"><img src="http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/bg6.jpg">

Look at the first pic in this group. Look at his hand. You can tell that he's thinking that he's a dead man. "This is it Bill," he's thinking. Or more likely, "SHIT!" Nothing like the clarity of the realization of death.

And look at the last picture in the group. Doesn't it resemble an assassination attempt?

Alright. The last on Bill.

<img src="http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/bg7.jpg"><img src="http://home.epix.net/%7Etjwagner/bg8.jpg">

These show the coldness and the calm that come after he's had his face rubbed in his own mortality. Look at him. I bet he killed a prostitute or a child slave that night. What do you think? There's no mistaking the clarity of that look in his eye, is there?

Alright, I'm going to post this to finish it up with Bill and then make another post for the rest of your message.


Edit: Bah. I guess I'll go ahead and tack it in here. Not much left to answer.

But I can absolutely imagine the self righteous grin on the person who smeared it on his face.

I imagine so. It was a yippie if I remember right. Some clown (literally) that has pied many, many of the world's "elite".

But now my hands are hurting from having to type that passage up there from my book.
Godamn you.

Maybe it's lack of protein that makes your hands cramp up so much. I appreciate you hurting yourself to enlighten me, though. Keep it up.

Fuck the sib.
He's a Chinese 'philosopher' of the Dialectic school of sophists and booga booga blahshma.
Chinese philosopher is usually an oxymoronic phrase.

She's got a boyfriend, doesn't she?

But, as far as Kung-sun Lung goes, how could you not trust this guy?
<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3313&stc=1">
Looks like the cat who swallowed the canary. Would you buy a used car from him? I don't think I would. Especially after reading his little horse, white, hard piece. I still wonder if it doesn't lose something in the translation though.

I already knew you mostly skimmed and then commented, so I singled it out.
We women are fascinating with our pineal glands.

It couldn't have been that hard to figure out since I started out by saying that I had only been looking into it a bit the past week or two. And, the reasons are not to do with this thread, although this thread did cause me to go back and look a bit deeper than I had before.

I'm still not ready to give any specifics on good parts of epistemology that one might incorporate into their way of thinking (I've been more interested in planaria lately) but it seems from my reading that the purpose of epistemology is to simplify logic by classifying and categorizing knowledge as opposed to belief. The concept of justified true belief constituting knowledge makes sense; however, as Gottier showed, it is something that can't be considered a fast and solid rule.

So, it's possible that epistemology as whole is impossible to ever truly achieve it's goals as knowledge is not something that can really be whittled down to a simple set of criteria. Purpose is needed to shine a spotlight on the abstract patterns one sees and creates knowledge, rather than finding it.

So, it's possible that these epistemelogs become convoluted and confusing because of the impossibility of their task. They seek to define the indefinable. They are trying to divide by infinity by 0. What else can emerge except for confusion? However, I am still certain that there are aspects of this study that might be useful if one keeps on mind the limitations. There is little in this world that doesn't contain some useful concepts.

But, I could be wrong.

And now I have Hume to read as well as dig into planaria and cannabalism and epistemology and whatnot... So, the study of epistemology would likely be the one to suffer in the present group of interests that I have at the moment.

Did you ever see the picture of him when he got hit by the pie in the face? He had the most wonderful look of extreme terror and helplessness in his eye. To us it was a joke but to him it was the realization of mortality. He knew that it could have been an axe in the face just as easily as a pie. It wasn't a pie he was thinking but a cut throat. I bet he pissed his pants.
The "most wonderful" look of terror? Interesting. Why wonderful? Tall Poppy syndrome, we call it here in Australia. We're famous for it, but I tend to think it's fairly universal. A joke, you call it... to "us". A joke? Nay, far more than that. An attempt to bring someone "down to size". more like. And "us"... who is us? All those who aren't quite what Bill Gates is? All those who never achieved anything at all? You sound like you identify with them.
The pie thrower himself probably never achieved anything. So he gains recognition of his puny life by doing something different - throwing pies in the faces of those who have. Sounds... familiar.
Do you remember his name? I don't.

I doubt Bill pissed his pants at all. He probably felt little more than disgust - you see fear? I don't. Shock, perhaps. Initially.
I do agree with you on the helplessness though. Ask yourself where that came from. After all - he wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing, would he? Sort of like the big boy being chastised for finally turning around and stomping the little boy who's been at his heels all day. It would be viewed awry... so all he could do was remain calm and make a quip. Poor Bill.

These show the coldness and the calm that come after he's had his face rubbed in his own mortality. Look at him. I bet he killed a prostitute or a child slave that night. What do you think? There's no mistaking the clarity of that look in his eye, is there?
Apparently, you have it very mistaken. Is it clarity, or non-comprehension of the motive? Could be either, or neither. Could be cold rage at someone so insignificant daring to touch him.

But I seriously doubt it had anything to do with the knowledge of his own mortality. After the initial shock, his first reaction would have been to lok at who threw the pie. And when he saw him, he probably saw something he knew of but could not comprehend. The clarity of recognition, perhaps?

Gendanken is right about the self righteousness of the pie thrower, though. That one is clear as crystal, isn't it?

We only see what we want to see. What is it you wanted to see, Invert?

Apparently so. What the fuck, fuckers? I mean, come on, I even brought in Homer Simpson philosophy. Surely that should draw in some fresh meat for you to chew on. Or do you think it was my mentioning Homer that pushed them out? If so. FUCK YOU ALL!

Ahem ... there is this ... Russell's Liberal decalogue ... and ... not all people here stick to it ... or they stick to it too literally ... I wonder why ...



So, we have three types of misunderstanding before us at the moment. Nietzsche is a joker who is often misunderstood as serious when he is in fact joking. Kant who I am assuming is misunderstood because of the labrynth of his words. And we have the epistemelog who is misunderstood on purpose.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter3.html

***

As for Bill Gates:

Bill is a bonny lad, leggo of him, Invert!


Look at the first pic in this group. Look at his hand. You can tell that he's thinking that he's a dead man. "This is it Bill," he's thinking. Or more likely, "SHIT!" Nothing like the clarity of the realization of death.

And look at the last picture in the group. Doesn't it resemble an assassination attempt?
/.../
These show the coldness and the calm that come after he's had his face rubbed in his own mortality. Look at him. I bet he killed a prostitute or a child slave that night. What do you think? There's no mistaking the clarity of that look in his eye, is there?

Ask yourself: "How would I feel, how would I look if someone threw a pie at me?"

What you say about someone says more about you than it does about the other person.

Fenris,

The "most wonderful" look of terror? Interesting. Why wonderful?

For the reasons stated. It was a moment of realization. I LOVE moments of realization. "Mr. Rabbit says, 'A moment of realization is worth a thousand prayers.' " Realization is a sudden coming together. A clarity. An epiphany. Realization is what life is all about.

You can say he only experienced a moment of shock and you're likely right in part. But, have no doubts, that pie in the face was an assault on Bill's mortality. It could very, VERY easily have been an assault rifle round, a knife, a sledge hammer, a computer monitor from a disgruntled computer manufacturer who had been bullied by Bill's bully-boys once too often. That pie was a sign of mortality and if Bill didn't realize that then he is a fool. And I don't think he's a fool.

I think he did experience a moment of terror. Brief perhaps. And fleeting. Quickly consumed by confusion, disgust, and rage. But all these emotions follow one another in succession. And they all stem from the realization of death (in this instance.)

A joke, you call it... to "us". A joke? Nay, far more than that. An attempt to bring someone "down to size". more like.

A joke? Yes. A joke. More than that? Maybe. But still a joke. "Down to size"? What do you think jokes do?

The difference between this and a comedian on a stage is the doing. The comedian uses words to inspire self-righteous laughter. He attacks with biting satire or a witty impression or whatever. But, this guy did more than talk. He did. Do you see why I brought him up? Gendanken is talking about those who do vs. those who talk about doing. This guy did something. He didn't just sit around and say, "Hey, Bill Gates is a real shithead." He pied the fucker. In his face.

And also brought up is the topic of humor. I've been talking about this as well in how it relates to philosophy. The stuffy old heads (Ha! Still no 'quotes'.) were stodgy, serious, dignified. How many other adjectives. Rarely do these men laugh. At themselves especially. If you can't laugh at yourself then you might as well just go home. "A study is humanity." And who better to study than ourselves. If you can laugh at others then you damn well better laugh at yourself too.

Nietzsche knew this. Nietzsche was a great joker. And he often turned the joke on himself.

And "us"... who is us? All those who aren't quite what Bill Gates is? All those who never achieved anything at all?

Who is us? Well there are various groups of us that might be placed in that innocuous word. There might be those whom you mention. Those envious people who despise their "betters".

Or it might just mean those who are watching and chuckling as a man gets a pie in the face.

Or it might mean those who don't particularly care for Bill's ogrish business tactics.

Or those who don't particularly care for the draconian security measures that he takes with his software.

Or it might mean anyone who is not Bill and who is not getting a pie in the face and experiencing the moment of realization I was mentioning earlier.

Or it might mean any of a million other interpretations of us.

I belong to two of the five options above and partial inclusion in two more. I'll leave it to you to decide which.

The pie thrower himself probably never achieved anything. So he gains recognition of his puny life by doing something different - throwing pies in the faces of those who have. Sounds... familiar.
Do you remember his name? I don't.

I did a search. The guy I thought it was is actually quite famous. Aron Pieman Kay. But, I don't think it was him after all. This from the Pieman's web site (http://www.pieman.org/noframes.htm) (Warning: Extremely crappy site and very anti-American. Don't bitch to me at the contents of this site): "But ever since a Belgian contingent fired a volley of fluffy projectiles at Bill Gates in 1998, it's been one fling after another." Which would indicate that it was not the Pieman but someone else entirely. However, it indicates that the pieing of Bill Gates sparked a resurgence in the pieing movement. Since then several people have been pied.

As I said, the Pieman is quite famous within his tribe. He's pied quite a few notables back in the day. Among them are McGeorge Bundy, G. Gordon Liddy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and William F. Buckley Jr. So you don't remember his name? I bet he doesn't care about that. He has plenty that do.

Sounds... familiar, you say? It should. It says on the site that the premier of Victoria, Australia, Steve Bracks got a pie in the face. (Not from the Pieman. He's retired.)

Apparently, you have it very mistaken.

Or perhaps you do?

Is it clarity, or non-comprehension of the motive? Could be either, or neither. Could be cold rage at someone so insignificant daring to touch him.

Yes. It could be any of the above and more likely all of the above. But, that look in his eye is rage. He could have killed somebody there, at that moment. And if you don't see that then I wonder about your ability to detect emotion from faces.

Gendanken is right about the self righteousness of the pie thrower, though. That one is clear as crystal, isn't it?

Undoubtably. But that doesn't change the fact that he did something rather than just talking about it. In this he is the same as Bill. Bill did something when he went and made a multibillion dollar software company. The pie-er did something when he planted a cream pie in his kisser.

We only see what we want to see. What is it you wanted to see, Invert?

Quite. And I could ask you the same question, Wolf.


Rosa,

Ahem ... there is this ... Russell's Liberal decalogue ... and ... not all people here stick to it ... or they stick to it too literally ... I wonder why ...

What?

Bill is a bonny lad, leggo of him, Invert!

Bonny he may be. Especially when whipping his child slaves, but a lad he is most certainly not.

Ask yourself: "How would I feel, how would I look if someone threw a pie at me?"

That is a question that can't be answered with reflection. It can only be answered with realization. Pie me and we'll find out. I find it likely that I'd likely go through a similar flurry of emotions as Bill. But, the difference being that I feel that I might take it in better humor at the end of the day. And also, I would go back to my broke-ass life while Bill went back to his mult-million dollar home on the shores of Lake Washington.

What you say about someone says more about you than it does about the other person.

Yes. It does. And also what you see in what someone says. And what you don't see.



And for both of you. This thread is not about Bill Gates. He was brought in to express a point. A point it seems that was missed in the eagerness to defend a man who does not ask for your defense. Who does not need your defense. Let's get back to epistemelogs, shall we?

"Ahem ... there is this ... Russell's Liberal decalogue ... and ... not all people here stick to it ... or they stick to it too literally ... I wonder why ... "

What?

Well, yes.
What does it look like when one follows those commandments?
I am a bit surprised that that thread got little attention, and I wonder why.
But yes, what does it look like when one follows those commandments? What does it make you following those commandments?

I don't mean to stray away from the topic of epistemologs, but Russell's Decalogue is a practical consideration one also has when thinking about philosophers of various kinds. About being right or wrong, pursuing certain standards of intelligent discourse and such. About the power of intelligence.


***

As for Bill:

It's so easy to laugh
It's so easy to hate
It takes guts to be gentle and kind

A wolf:

Do you remember his name? I don't.

And neither do I.
Neither does she, nor him, nor they, nor anyone.
The pie thrower was the guy sitting in the audience that day when the comedian was on stage with his golden sneer, laughing at brilliance and bringing oceans down to mud puddles so that the smallest man could dip his feet inside and smear more mud in with contempt. Because now he can possess it.
Sound familiar?

"I think that, for the lowbrow, its comforting to see "those stuffy old heads" brought down to size by Homer Simpson.
To him, Simpson quotes become almost like a defense against intimidating philosophy.
Do you know what's so appealing about comedians?
They can skillfully sneer at something like Bill Gates and the man in the audience with a measly programming degree who's never had a career in that field because he is incompetent can cuddle his broken ego by laughing at excellence."

That pie, that laugh, that sneer is redemption for a bottom feeder who holds excellence responsible for his ghastly incompetence.
That person's name was only remembered after a websearch.
Go figure.

Vert:
The difference between this and a comedian on a stage is the doing. The comedian uses words to inspire self-righteous laughter. He attacks with biting satire or a witty impression or whatever. But, this guy did more than talk. He did. Do you see why I brought him up? Gendanken is talking about those who do vs. those who talk about doing. This guy did something. He didn't just sit around and say, "Hey, Bill Gates is a real shithead." He pied the fucker. In his face.
Yet this is something like trying to distinguish one whore from another by saying that one swallows and one doesn't.

The thing tying both that comedian and this insolent prick, who'll never reach the heights Bill has, is a hateful resent for excellence.
What did I tell you, Invert?
They attack things as symbols, not people.

Its this thing that ties both that laughing idiot on stage and this pie throwing imbecile that I’m talking about.
Isn’t it disgusting? Wouldn’t it disgust you to find that a healthy child was starved by its mother in order to level him with her cripple? Or a healthy child whose legs were broken for the sake of an invalid.


Rosa:
Well, yes.
What does it look like when one follows those commandments?
I am a bit surprised that that thread got little attention, and I wonder why.
But yes, what does it look like when one follows those commandments? What does it make you following those commandments?

I don't mean to stray away from the topic of epistemologs, but Russell's Decalogue is a practical consideration one also has when thinking about philosophers of various kinds. About being right or wrong, pursuing certain standards of intelligent discourse and such. About the power of intelligence.

In other words, you actually believe people around here follow Russell?
I think its more like so and so clicking on the thread and being swamped by a 'long one'.
So he clicks right out of it.

Really, I can't blame them.

Gendanken,

That person's name was only remembered after a websearch.

Yes. It was remembered by me after a websearch. There are others to whom this name is well known and the pieman is considered a hero of the first order. The fact that I didn't remember is his name should tell you the importance that I attribute to him (little to none).

I agree with you and have never denied that he is a self-righteous fuck, but that does not negate the point that he did something as opposed to talking about it.

Yet this is something like trying to distinguish one whore from another by saying that one swallows and one doesn't.

No, it would be more like the difference between a whore and someone who talks about being a whore. Or maybe the difference between a whore who swallows and a whore who leads you to believe that she swallows but turns out she won't even let you in her mouth.

Action. This is what I'm on about. I understand your distaste of the example, but think about the number of times that you have brought up distasteful (to other) examples in order to drive various points home.

Can you get past your distaste to accept the point at the base?

The thing tying both that comedian and this insolent prick, who'll never reach the heights Bill has, is a hateful resent for excellence.
What did I tell you, Invert?
They attack things as symbols, not people.

Excellence? Let's clear this up real quick-like.

Bill Gates is a premier businessman. He bought DOS cheap and sold it expensive. He stole windows and made his fortune off of it. He's a businessman and a pirate. But he is not an example of a genius programmer.

Why do you look up to him?

In your original example you mention the programmer with the failed career in the audience nursing his wounded ego. This suggests to me that you see Gates as an example of an excellent programmer. If so, you're mistaken.

Gates has a stable of geniuses working for him. He himself is not a genius. But, he obviously has good business sense. He was also at the right place at the right time.

Have you seen Pirates of Silicon Valley? Anthony Michael Hall played Bill Gates. Excellent movie. I don't know as to the exact historical value it has, but it was said in this movie that Gates somehow managed to con his way into Steve Jobs' confidence. Jobs was an excellent judge of character (businessman and conman) and yet Gates outconned him and stole the windows software.

Jobs stole it from Xerox.

Gates stole it from Jobs.

Jobs is another example of a businessman. There is a true genius behind the creation of Apple though. Steve Wozniak is a genius. Now he is someone who you could look up to.

I would empathize if it was he that were hit by a pie in the way that Gates was. But, you know what? Woz is somewhat like Einstein in that he is a humble and somewhat self-effacing person. What you might call a brilliant retard. No one would want to pie him with the same self-righteous glee with which Gates was attacked. Woz is not a businessman. Not a warrior.

Business. I'm sorry, but I don't look up to businessmen. I have higher goals and aspirations. Butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers all have their uses of course, but I don't really look up to the candlestick mogul.

Do you? Really?

They attack things as symbols, not people.

Yes. I understand what you're saying. It is likely that the pieman wasn't attacking a man. He was attacking a symbol of a 'fat cat'.

Ironically, in the use of the story to convey a point, I have made the pieman into a symbol. Symbolic of those who do as opposed to those who speak. Gates has also been made somewhat symbolic with the icing on the cake, "moment of realization" and the "clarity of the look in his eye" that I added to the basic point.

For that matter, you have also made the pieman a symbol. You've made him a symbol for all the little petty little piss-ants that try to topple giants out of spite. You know nothing about his reasons for pieing Gates. For all you know, Gates might very well have raped his mother. Or any of a thousand other legitimate personal reasons. Dislike of specific business practices among them.

But, I imagine you're probably right about the pieman's motives.

Isn’t it disgusting? Wouldn’t it disgust you to find that a healthy child was starved by its mother in order to level him with her cripple? Or a healthy child whose legs were broken for the sake of an invalid.

I thought you were going to perform the forbidden experiment on your child someday, Gendaken? But, I suppose that would be for the sake of science rather than an invalid?

Anyway, of course I would find your example disgusting. But this is not exactly the case here. A pie in the face did not permanently injure or even dramatically traumatize Gates. Unless you accept my argument that there was moment of realization of mortality from this attack. And, even if there was, I imagine that realization faded fairly quickly as the rage settled in.



Gendanken, let me ask you a question. Do you laugh at yourself? Or do you take yourself completely and 100% seriously 24/7?

What should be done to an individual who seems to have lost the ability to laugh at themselves? Do you consider this a strength or a weakness?

Aren't we all ridiculous at times? And those who refuse to allow their ridiculous human natures to show? What of them? Are they gods? Or in denial?

Look. I agree that I shouldn't be so interested in seeing Bill's realization. I should be looking rather at my own, but at times one may use stories in a metaphorical manner. This was my intent. In the end, it is my moment of realization that I care about. Bill can take care of himself.


Anyway, I'm going to have to look deeper into epistemology and find something useful in it to steer this thread back on course and off the topic of Bill's pie? Damnit.


Rosa,

What does it look like when one follows those commandments?

I really don't think it would look like anything. The first commandment seems to be the most important and it says to do what you will. So, to follow the commandments is also to not follow the commandments. Therefore it doesn't look like anything. It just looks like life.

I am a bit surprised that that thread got little attention, and I wonder why.

I'm a bit surprised myself. I think the word "liberal" might have turned people off. Or maybe Gendanken is right and my long post sent them scurrying (even though I don't really see it as that long.) Maybe it's because you never went back to reply and reinvigorate it. Why don't you go back and respond to the replies you have already and see what happens?

Maybe the planets were just out of alignment? Threads are strange sometimes.

I don't mean to stray away from the topic of epistemologs, but Russell's Decalogue is a practical consideration one also has when thinking about philosophers of various kinds. About being right or wrong, pursuing certain standards of intelligent discourse and such. About the power of intelligence.

It seems that we have gone away from the topic possibly never to return. The pie in Bill's eye is evidently too powerful a symbol to ignore...

Anyway, why don't you expand on what you're saying here? Stop teasing.

It's so easy to laugh

Except at yourself.

It takes guts to be gentle and kind

Guts? Why so? Being gentle and kind is an excellent way of patting yourself on the back, wouldn't you agree?

In other words, you actually believe people around here follow Russell?

*a grin that only a girl wearing a hot pink shirt is capable of*

I have seen that people here like to consider themselves "rational", "value intelligence and reason", "good arguments", "humanity", "multiculturalism", and we're all oh so nice ... One would expect that "Oh, Russell? How wonderful! Yes, yes, yes!" But none of it. I have my suspections why.

There's ne'er a villain dwelling in all Denmark
But he's an arrant knave.


I think its more like so and so clicking on the thread and being swamped by a 'long one'.
So he clicks right out of it.

Really, I can't blame them.

And I can't help myself (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/LoD.html)

"Nevertheless, whatever certitude and evidence I may find in these demonstrations, I cannot therefore persuade myself that they are level to the comprehension of all. But just as in geometry there are many of the demonstrations of Archimedes, Apollonius, Pappus, and others, which, though received by all as highly evident and certain (because indeed they manifestly contain nothing which, considered by itself, it is not very easy to understand, and no consequents that are inaccurately related to their antecedents), are nevertheless understood by a very limited number, because they are somewhat long, and demand the whole attention of the reader: so in the same way, although I consider the demonstrations of which I here make use, to be equal or even superior to the geometrical in certitude and evidence, I am afraid, nevertheless, that they will not be adequately understood by many, as well because they also are somewhat long and involved, as chiefly because they require the mind to be entirely free from prejudice, and able with ease to detach itself from the commerce of the senses."


***

Action. This is what I'm on about. I understand your distaste of the example, but think about the number of times that you have brought up distasteful (to other) examples in order to drive various points home.

So you say yes! to revolution?


Bill Gates is a premier businessman. He bought DOS cheap and sold it expensive. He stole windows and made his fortune off of it. He's a businessman and a pirate. But he is not an example of a genius programmer.

Why do you look up to him?
/.../
Gates has a stable of geniuses working for him. He himself is not a genius. But, he obviously has good business sense. He was also at the right place at the right time.

Look, Invert, I suggest you read a biography of Thomas Alva Edison, for example. Edison lost loads of money due to not patenting his inventions. He patented the light bulb, but did not patent the procedure for puring glass for the bulbs -- even though he invented that too; so some French guy snatched this patent from him. And the money.
Gates is just being thorough, working very hard not to repeat Edison's mistakes.

And, to make one more comparison: Edison was known for his odd ways of leading the business: there were no account books, no bills saved, no bureaucracy, no accountants, nothing of that kind in the beginning, it was all based on Edison's memory and his "skills" of making business. Once, he was asked how he manages to keep the business together using such non-standard and chaotic manners, how he organizes it, and Edison replied: "I am the organization!"
Gates does this today in practice too.


Steve Wozniak is a genius. Now he is someone who you could look up to.

Bill is cuter! :p


I would empathize if it was he that were hit by a pie in the way that Gates was. But, you know what? Woz is somewhat like Einstein in that he is a humble and somewhat self-effacing person. What you might call a brilliant retard. No one would want to pie him with the same self-righteous glee with which Gates was attacked. Woz is not a businessman. Not a warrior.

The Wozniak is like Tesla ... No, Edison is my prefered kind of genius to look up to!


Gendanken, let me ask you a question. Do you laugh at yourself? Or do you take yourself completely and 100% seriously 24/7?

What should be done to an individual who seems to have lost the ability to laugh at themselves? Do you consider this a strength or a weakness?

Aren't we all ridiculous at times? And those who refuse to allow their ridiculous human natures to show? What of them? Are they gods? Or in denial?

A part of being able to laugh at oneself includes *the time* one is willing to laugh at oneself. Being forced into such a situation won't result in laughing at yourself, and I think it shouldn't either.
One thing is for Bush to make fun of himself at some speech at a banquet, but he wouldn't laugh at himself if attacked.


I really don't think it would look like anything. The first commandment seems to be the most important and it says to do what you will. So, to follow the commandments is also to not follow the commandments. Therefore it doesn't look like anything. It just looks like life.

Then why the commandments at all?!


I'm a bit surprised myself. I think the word "liberal" might have turned people off. Or maybe Gendanken is right and my long post sent them scurrying (even though I don't really see it as that long.) Maybe it's because you never went back to reply and reinvigorate it. Why don't you go back and respond to the replies you have already and see what happens?

I'll get back there, and if you don't show up, I'll beat you up.


“ It's so easy to laugh ”
Except at yourself.
“ It takes guts to be gentle and kind ”
Guts? Why so? Being gentle and kind is an excellent way of patting yourself on the back, wouldn't you agree?

Khmm. Does "The Smiths" say anything to you? The album "The queen is dead"?

Rosa,

So you say yes! to revolution?

I used to. Now I'm not so sure. Revolutions usually put the self-righteous pigs that Gendanken and Fenris are talking about on top. And also by toppling and established order for a new order, one crosses a line and makes it more likely for there to be a new revolution shortly after. And another after that. And etc.... Look at South America (well, it's quieted down down there somewhat but for a while it was quite hectic).

Basically, the revolution is just meet the new boss same as the old boss. It's better to work from the inside, IMO.

But, the idea of revolution is still sexy. I'll give it that.

Look, Invert, I suggest you read a biography of Thomas Alva Edison, for example.

Funny. Thomas Edison. I had been thinking about mentioning him but was afraid of opening up another can of worms. Well, you didn't mention him in the way I mean, so here's the can and I'm opening it.

Edison and Gates have something else in common. Much of Edison's genius was because he had a stable of geniuses working for him who he eploited. I'm unsure of exactly how many of his inventions were actually someone elses invention but I know there were a few.

As to the patent thing. I understand. But I still don't like it. Software piracy is rampant and Gates has a right to be concerned by it. But, nothing he has done has stopped the pirates for more than a heartbeat. All it does is piss of legitimate customers. Me.

The Wozniak is like Tesla ... No, Edison is my prefered kind of genius to look up to!

Should have known you'd go for the stolid Edison rather than the mad scientist Tesla. I prefer Tesla.

A part of being able to laugh at oneself includes *the time* one is willing to laugh at oneself. Being forced into such a situation won't result in laughing at yourself, and I think it shouldn't either.
One thing is for Bush to make fun of himself at some speech at a banquet, but he wouldn't laugh at himself if attacked.

Good point. I've mentioned this elsewhere but you've said it better here than I did there.

But, what of the man who refuses to laugh at himself ever? Should that be allowed?

Then why the commandments at all?!

He was probably bored one day. That first commandment basically says just to read the commandments and judge for yourself. To me that's what it says.

I'll get back there, and if you don't show up, I'll beat you up.

I'm used to it by now. ;)

Khmm. Does "The Smiths" say anything to you? The album "The queen is dead"?

Never heard it. The Smiths. They're an old punk band, right? Sorry, never heard their work.

Rosa:
*a grin that only a girl wearing a hot pink shirt is capable of*

I have seen that people here like to consider themselves "rational", "value intelligence and reason", "good arguments", "humanity", "multiculturalism", and we're all oh so nice ... One would expect that "Oh, Russell? How wonderful! Yes, yes, yes!" But none of it. I have my suspections why.

There's ne'er a villain dwelling in all Denmark
But he's an arrant knave.

*a grin that only a chick in ripped jeans is capable of*

And has this any to do with Game theory?

Look, Invert, I suggest you read a biography of Thomas Alva Edison, for example. Edison lost loads of money due to not patenting his inventions. He patented the light bulb, but did not patent the procedure for puring glass for the bulbs -- even though he invented that too; so some French guy snatched this patent from him. And the money.
Gates is just being thorough, working very hard not to repeat Edison's mistakes.

And, to make one more comparison: Edison was known for his odd ways of leading the business: there were no account books, no bills saved, no bureaucracy, no accountants, nothing of that kind in the beginning, it was all based on Edison's memory and his "skills" of making business. Once, he was asked how he manages to keep the business together using such non-standard and chaotic manners, how he organizes it, and Edison replied: "I am the organization!"
Gates does this today in practice too.

Excellent point.

I have come to realize that Vert does not despise him for his success, but still allows his own distaste for the material to make the man a symbol for it.
And its what he sees as arrogance that perpetuates it.

For example:
But, you know what? Woz is somewhat like Einstein in that he is a humble and somewhat self-effacing person. What you might call a brilliant retard. No one would want to pie him with the same self-righteous glee with which Gates was attacked. Woz is not a businessman. Not a warrior.

And what if he wasn't?
What if this brilliant man who you feel is humble was supercilious and held you in contempt?
Tesla was not this way and neither was Einstein, but Bohr, I hear, was.

Gendanken, let me ask you a question. Do you laugh at yourself? Or do you take yourself completely and 100% seriously 24/7?

What should be done to an individual who seems to have lost the ability to laugh at themselves? Do you consider this a strength or a weakness?
When I'm being devious, surely.

Yet you make it seem as if 'laughing at oneself' is done in humility.

Gendanken,

I have come to realize that Vert does not despise him for his success, but still allows his own distaste for the material to make the man a symbol for it.
And its what he sees as arrogance that perpetuates it.

You're at least partly right. My distaste for the effects that Bill Gates has on my life has made him a symbol to me. A symbol of interference in my full utilization of my personal computer. I also have some issues with his business tactics; but as I don't care to be a businessman, his business tactics are of no real concern to me. Hell, if anything I'd emulate them if I did choose to enter business. They obviously work.

I'll admit that. I've never met the man and therefore he has become a symbol to me. I should keep this in mind in the future. I've never really had a problem with symbolizing people, but the way you speak of it has made me think twice about it.

However, I am human and abstraction is my inheritence. Making men and stories into symbols is part of that inheritence.

But, as to arrogance... perhaps. I don't think the term is quite right. It has the wrong connotations but certainly is close to a word that doesn't exactly exist.

And what if he wasn't?
What if this brilliant man who you feel is humble was supercilious and held you in contempt?
Tesla was not this way and neither was Einstein, but Bohr, I hear, was.

I bet Bohr would be a likely target for a pie. Also Oppenheimer.

You latched on to the word humble and I should have realized that you were going to. But, you totally ignored the warrior aspect. A warrior should expect an assault. And you can bet your ass that Gates, Bohr, and Oppenheimer all expected attacks on them from their battles. But, the pie is a sort of an attack that they don't expect. It is an attack that makes them look foolish. It doesn't attack them on their preferred battleground. It leaves them with egg on their face.

Call it guerilla warfare.

Do you know how drugs were legalized in Amsterdam? Silliness and laughter. Picture a room full of kids in clown make-up and cream pies flying while a bunch of stuffy-heads in powdered wigs tried desperately to maintain their dignity.

"What if this brilliant man who you feel is humble was supercilious and held you in contempt?"

Indeed. What if? How important is humility? Well, I know a few people that aren't humble that I respect. Some of them even despise me. Would I pie them? Maybe. Maybe not.

The question is am I the type of person that would act and plant a pie in his face? Or would I just sit around talking about it all day?

I certainly don't think that I would pie someone for the reasons that you've been going on about, but I would pie just about anybody and someone who takes themselves far too seriously is just asking for it.

When I'm being devious, surely.

Oh come now. This is a laughing with yourself, not at yourself. Don't you ever marvel at the ridiculousness of yourself? At the ludicrousness of life? I think you have. But, will you admit it? That's the question.

You do see it as a weakness, don't you? You don't have to hate yourself to laugh at yourself. Laughter is not always about contempt.

What is the surest way for people not to hold someone in contempt when that person stands there with pie on his face? If that person would crack a joke and show that he understands the humor of the situation. How many would be pie-assassins have had their victories stolen out from under them by victims who agreed that it was funny?

Yet you make it seem as if 'laughing at oneself' is done in humility.

I'm talking about humor. Humility is implied somehow, but it is more about willingness to take a look at yourself and accept the truth. That while you may be a great person, a great mind, a powerful god, you are also a funny little person who still has to squeeze shit from his bowels on a daily business. Everyone shits. And everyone's shit stinks.


Look at it this way. Your epistemelog refuses to believe in his ignorance and therefore he weaves a web of confusion to cover himself. Right?

Now, we are dealing with real minds here so they're not pretending to be something they're not (even though you seem to equate Gates with a genius programmer I don't think he does). But, some of these forget that they are not only the leaders in their fields. They're also funny little humans who should laugh at their own flatulence on occasion.

See?

How sad is it when the room is full of fart and no one will claim it as their own? Laugh, damnit. Blame it on the barking spider and in so doing claim the fart. It's yours, damnit.

Is it humility? You tell me.

I used to. Now I'm not so sure. Revolutions usually put the self-righteous pigs that Gendanken and Fenris are talking about on top. And also by toppling and established order for a new order, one crosses a line and makes it more likely for there to be a new revolution shortly after. And another after that. And etc.... Look at South America (well, it's quieted down down there somewhat but for a while it was quite hectic).

Basically, the revolution is just meet the new boss same as the old boss. It's better to work from the inside, IMO.

To use one of your favourite terms: It is all about *balance*. Revolution ain't good, but just sitting there isn't good either.


Funny. Thomas Edison. I had been thinking about mentioning him but was afraid of opening up another can of worms. Well, you didn't mention him in the way I mean, so here's the can and I'm opening it.

Edison and Gates have something else in common. Much of Edison's genius was because he had a stable of geniuses working for him who he eploited. I'm unsure of exactly how many of his inventions were actually someone elses invention but I know there were a few.

Science is business, and anyone denying it is a romantic fool. That's all.


Good point. I've mentioned this elsewhere but you've said it better here than I did there.

:p


But, what of the man who refuses to laugh at himself ever? Should that be allowed?

Allowed -- by whom? It is eventually about *you* and what you find acceptable in people you consider close to you, or wish that they would be close to you. It's about your personal preferences when it comes to friends. Here, you have to stand up fpr yourself and decide what you will allow and what you won't allow.


“ Then why the commandments at all?! ”
He was probably bored one day. That first commandment basically says just to read the commandments and judge for yourself. To me that's what it says.

Then Russell has said nothing.


Never heard it. The Smiths. They're an old punk band, right? Sorry, never heard their work.

I guess you should have, they're kinda cult.

***

*a grin that only a chick in ripped jeans is capable of*

And has this any to do with Game theory?

EVERYTHING. I just wish people knew what they were doing and that this isn't necessarily good in the grand picture.

"If I know something, it is possible that you also know it or get to know it, so it may be in my interest to keep this information to myself."
But crying "Brotherhood, commitment, loyality!" has no room in such a world.

Rosa,

To use one of your favourite terms: It is all about *balance*. Revolution ain't good, but just sitting there isn't good either.

Agreed. That's why I proposed working within the system.

Science is business, and anyone denying it is a romantic fool. That's all.

Then I'm a romantic fool. Big surprise, eh?

Look. Of course science has aspects of business. Profit. Patent. Innovation. Competition. Etc... But, any scientist who cares more about the business side of science rather than the joy of discovery is not worth his salt. To me.

Tesla is a marvelous example. He moved to Colorado and shot lightning at the sky. Not very businesslike. But his work was wondrous and magical.

But, it was also somewhat businesslike. If he ever finished his death ray he would have made his fortune. ...Or taken over the midwest and installed himself as Overlord of Teslania.

Allowed -- by whom? It is eventually about *you* and what you find acceptable in people you consider close to you, or wish that they would be close to you. It's about your personal preferences when it comes to friends. Here, you have to stand up fpr yourself and decide what you will allow and what you won't allow.

Yes. There's that personal judgement once again. And one might symbolize events that happen to those that aren't of the tribe to try to elucidate preferences both to others and to self. And, in so doing, one might learn from others that one seems to be doing something quite different from the original intent and therefore should think twice about what it is that I've done in telling a story and why.

Life is a process of discovery.

Then Russell has said nothing.

Basically. But at least he said it.

I guess you should have, they're kinda cult.

That's why I've heard of them.

Rosa:
EVERYTHING. I just wish people knew what they were doing and that this isn't necessarily good in the grand picture.

"If I know something, it is possible that you also know it or get to know it, so it may be in my interest to keep this information to myself."
But crying "Brotherhood, commitment, loyality!" has no room in such a world.
Cryptic fucking eyewash.

Vert:

I'll admit that. I've never met the man and therefore he has become a symbol to me. I should keep this in mind in the future. I've never really had a problem with symbolizing people, but the way you speak of it has made me think twice about it.

However, I am human and abstraction is my inheritence. Making men and stories into symbols is part of that inheritence.
And a man making other men the focus of his shameful guilt and lack is also common.
Very common.
Keep your pants on- not you.

I still say you'd love Mr. Gates if he came off like Rodney Dangerfield- you know, laughing at himself and making himself small so the smaller could like him.

But, as to arrogance... perhaps. I don't think the term is quite right. It has the wrong connotations but certainly is close to a word that doesn't exactly exist
I actually think the word *is* arrogance- the arrogant tend to spark the inferior qualities in people, but this is not a good in itself.
Arrogance can be an affectation performed by a weakling, but by this simple nature that people find so intimidating they are elevated not by power but by the inferior submission to an idea.

I can even tie this to the topic- Derrida, for example, was incredibly dedicated to his work of deconstructing metaphysics, has written countless books, and I hear he smoked pipes around those he conversed with and at lectures.
Even though he's simply bullshit.
Therefore, the most arrogant philosophy tends to be the most popular- saying much for this postmodernist craze....crap.

You latched on to the word humble and I should have realized that you were going to. But, you totally ignored the warrior aspect. A warrior should expect an assault. And you can bet your ass that Gates, Bohr, and Oppenheimer all expected attacks on them from their battles. But, the pie is a sort of an attack that they don't expect. It is an attack that makes them look foolish. It doesn't attack them on their preferred battleground. It leaves them with egg on their face.
And what is this preferred battleground?

I don't think they even think of fighting, let alone having to deal with jealous nobodies trying to make some muddled point with a pie- of all things.

Indeed. What if? How important is humility? Well, I know a few people that aren't humble that I respect. Some of them even despise me. Would I pie them? Maybe. Maybe not.

Why the 'maybe'?
Respect?

he question is am I the type of person that would act and plant a pie in his face? Or would I just sit around talking about it all day?

No, I got your point about 'action'.
What concerns me is 'motive'

Oh come now. This is a laughing with yourself, not at yourself. Don't you ever marvel at the ridiculousness of yourself? At the ludicrousness of life? I think you have. But, will you admit it? That's the question.

You do see it as a weakness, don't you? You don't have to hate yourself to laugh at yourself. Laughter is not always about contempt.


Uhm- dude?
I sit around thinking on Spengler's Ceaser (a lie now) or on the curious idea of imprisonment being impossible or some tricky math problem or the color bands on resistors or sex.

Laughing at myself is not a thing to think about, if happens, happens. If not, not. Don't care- let alone long enough to think it a weakness.
Would you like to hear that I laugh at myself?

Cryptic fucking eyewash.

No, Game Theory.

Gendanken,

I still say you'd love Mr. Gates if he came off like Rodney Dangerfield- you know, laughing at himself and making himself small so the smaller could like him.

See, it all comes down to size, yes? (And they say size doesn't matter... :rolleyes: ) It all depends on what you want. Do you want money? Power? Fame? Prestige? If so, then Bill Gates is larger than you. And should be a role model. But, if you want things of more import than anything that Gates has shown mastery of then he is a small man. Just as small and common as that poor schmuck living under the overpass.

I don't aspire to business. I aspire to knowledge.

Gates is nothing to me except an inconvenience because of his tedious fucking software and his attempts at invasion of privacy and his totalitarian licensing policies. His business tactics do seem somewhat deplorable at times, but as I've said, I don't really care about that.

But, I would like to see that he doesn't take himself so seriously as he appears to. Yes, I would. It has nothing to do with size. But, in the end, it really doesn't matter to me one whit.

I actually think the word *is* arrogance- the arrogant tend to spark the inferior qualities in people, but this is not a good in itself.
Arrogance can be an affectation performed by a weakling, but by this simple nature that people find so intimidating they are elevated not by power but by the inferior submission to an idea.

Good point. Maybe arrogance does fit. It's not so much about where these people stand on some arbitrary "greatness" level. The great and small are capable of arrogance. Just like both great and small are capable of humility.

It's about... the ability to look inside yourself honestly. I think.

Look at it this way. To be honest about oneself is the most difficult thing for anyone to do, yes? Much of our minds have evolved specifically to delude ourselves about ourselves. It is part of mental health.

And yet, there are levels of not looking into oneself honestly. Some are able to somewhat while others are not able to in the least.

But, there is an easy test to see whether someone is looking at themselves honestly.
How?
Because if they are really honest with themselves then they cannot avoid the foolishness of the human condition.
Being able to laugh at yourself is a sign of honesty.
It can also be just the opposite, of course.
There is a balance that must be maintained between arrogance and humility.
Too much of either is a sign of dishonesty.

Now, another thing to consider is that one's self-honesty has nothing to do with honesty to others. One doesn't have to share the revelations of self to other. But, human nature judges. Yes? And if there is not some sign of this self-honesty then it leads to distrust of that person.

Therefore, the most arrogant philosophy tends to be the most popular- saying much for this postmodernist craze....crap.

Arrogance and your epistemelog kind of go hand in hand, don't they?

The ununderstableness of a particular philosophy lends itself to authority if you claim to be one who can understand. Yes?

I remember reading somewhere that only three men fully understood the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity. This was an old statement circa WWII, but there is an arrogance to it if you were one of those who understood the ununderstandable.

Check out the brain on Brad. Royale with cheese.

And what is this preferred battleground?

Varies. Gates' battleground is in business. He competes STRONGLY with any who oppose him in the field of software design. Operating system software especially. Do you deny this? Do you think that all the anti-trust lawsuits and accusations of physcial threats against computer manufacturers are all spurious?

Gates is a master warrior in his field. He battles with the best of them and he fulfills himself in so doing.

Oppenheimer was a sort of a politician, yes? He was a scientist of course. And quite intelligent, but in the end didn't he battle on more personal levels? Didn't he enter into an almost political arena? Investors and such. Cocktail parties and schmoozing.

He was a warrior. I think that I recall some scuttlebutt about how it was Oppenheimer that kept Einstein out of the Manhattan Project. Could be wrong on that.

I don't think they even think of fighting, let alone having to deal with jealous nobodies trying to make some muddled point with a pie- of all things.

I think you're wrong about that. I think they get an extreme thrill from crushing their enemies. And you can't crash your enemies without battle.

Why the 'maybe'?
Respect?

Why the maybe?
Not entirely sure. This is the hardest question that you've posed to answer.
I answer it in the original statement when I say "I certainly don't think that I would pie someone for the reasons that you've been going on about, but I would pie just about anybody and someone who takes themselves far too seriously is just asking for it."
But this doesn't explain why the maybe.
How do I explain this?
...
I said that there are those I know and respect that are not humble and some of whom don't even like me. And I may or may not pie them. So, that rules out respect as I was talking about those I respect.
It's hard to say. I don't have a list of criteria. It's like I'm saying in Rosa's Russel thread. It's about judgement.

I think that I would pie someone I respected but was overly arrogant if I felt that they might benefit from it. If they were capable of learning something from it. From stepping back and away from themselves for a moment and look at how funny they, a human after all, can be. And how it doesn't matter if they are funny. How it doesn't really make them small. How it just makes them alive. Makes them human. Which they are. And cannot deny however they try.

And the maybe not would be if I didn't feel that it would do any good. But, what I would do in this case is a different sort of pieing. A little pointing at humor here. A leg-pulling there. This and that. To prepare for a revelation of humanity.

We are all ridiculously funny creatures. And it is because of this that the things we are capable of are even more amazing. It's a simple thing to understand, yet many don't care to see it.


And then you have to figure in whether or not I feel like it. If I don't care about someone then I wouldn't really go through all the trouble of pieing them. After all, there is the aftermath to consider. And I would expect to end up with pie on my face as well.

Laughing at myself is not a thing to think about, if happens, happens. If not, not. Don't care- let alone long enough to think it a weakness.
Would you like to hear that I laugh at myself?

You're thinking about it now. Aren't you? Long enough to dismiss it as something not even worth a moment of thought when discussing it.

And, yes, I would like to hear that you laugh at yourself. Not to make you small. Not at all. But to reinforce my impression of your honesty.

Invert:
But, I would like to see that he doesn't take himself so seriously as he appears to. Yes, I would. It has nothing to do with size.
But why does it even bother you that he takes himself seriously?
You try to cop out at the end by saying it, and I quote, doesn't bother you one 'whit'- but still find yourself motivated to subtract from his nature.

I think that I would pie someone I respected but was overly arrogant if I felt that they might benefit from it. If they were capable of learning something from it. From stepping back and away from themselves for a moment and look at how funny they, a human after all, can be. And how it doesn't matter if they are funny. How it doesn't really make them small. How it just makes them alive. Makes them human. Which they are. And cannot deny however they try
Just keep in mind there are people who exude the heroic and people hate them for it, the way women hate a girl with prettier eyes and hair.

Women cope with this by resorting to men, easily accomplished by the stupidest housewife.
But when it comes to greatness and excellence, people feel a choice needs to be made- between the world or this person- and the abstract nature and the requirements cripple them.
So they devour themselves with jealousy and people like that idiot avenge themselves with a pie.

Do I say this is you? No- since business is not what you aspire to, but its still not your place to remind anyone of anything.

But, there is an easy test to see whether someone is looking at themselves honestly.
How?
Because if they are really honest with themselves then they cannot avoid the foolishness of the human condition.
Being able to laugh at yourself is a sign of honesty.
It can also be just the opposite, of course.
There is a balance that must be maintained between arrogance and humility.
Too much of either is a sign of dishonesty
By far your most excellent point.
There is nothing I would add or take away from this.

But why does it even bother you that he takes himself seriously?
You try to cop out at the end by saying it, and I quote, doesn't bother you one 'whit'- but still find yourself motivated to subtract from his nature.

It doesn't really. I think I go most of my life without ever once thinking about Bill Gates taking himself too seriously. It crosses my mind on occasion when I run afoul of his software policies. Or when I see news of his antitrust battles on television. Or when I hear that he is trying to buy linux so that he can destroy it. Or when my html standards compliant browser doesn't show a website correctly because so many web designers use nonstandard code because Gates feels that he is above specifications.

He makes the rules, he doesn't follow them.

Just keep in mind there are people who exude the heroic and people hate them for it, the way women hate a girl with prettier eyes and hair.


Of course, you're right. And one should be careful to keep this in mind. And I don't doubt that some bit of this might very well be tinging my vision