Intrinsic Value

My enormous ego requires the entire forum to follow me around and tell me I'm pretty and cater to my whim.

You can imagine my confusion.

If this is supposed to be my theory about you, it's not.

My question came up from
1) your sense that I was evading and what I took as an assumption on your part about what someone does when they are here and if they are not doing it they are evading. I felt like it was a limited sense on your part about what might be a learning interaction - for me, but also for both parties.
2) when you wrote about the minds being changed by the interactions, regardless (my interp), it seemed like, perhaps, you were exploring the idea that, for example, my mind, might be changing even though I am doing something that could be looked at as evading.

These together made me wonder what you thought you were doing. It suddenly seemed useful to get a sense of what intentions are because I think they affect how we take other people's actions here.
I was in an extremely playful mood during all those posts last night, pardon. i was having fun. The thing about my gynormous ego actually came from a fairly oddparents episode I saw the other day. It was really funny. Timmy had wished himself and a very popular girl at school to be the only people in the world, so she demanded him to follow her around all day and call her pretty. It was much funnier on the cartoon than writing it here, pardon.

I was just making fun of myself in a way that was funny to me. Sorry man, I'll try to explain myself in a post that addresses yoru last full post at some point soon....
If out there is also in here it does change the ball game.

Do you 'know' that? Do you just 'feel' it? Is that the same thing? I think it only really changes it if you aren't interested in justifying the game you're playing - which is a perfectly legitimate choice. I think that if we try to justify it, if we choose to analyze it, the words thing seems to come up and the ball game seems set into the circle model.

We are not strangers here in a universe that is neutral.

I'm not sure what that implies in terms of the circle thingy, or rather how to contrast it. Could you explain a little more?

I am skeptical that mind's change through rational discourse. Especially if the minds are very 'clever' I include both of us in that.

Well this I certainly understand. Indeed it's highly questionable, but I think it can in several ways.

I think we have very little control of the protection devices that make us slide over steps in logic, miss connotation confusions, miss that we denied the use of the argument we are using now a few minutes back, etc.

Yes and no. I agree that what you say is always in play to some degree, yet I think the process can still yield growth. I don't think I'd have conceived of english or calculus on my own. Coming to understand either in whatever limited manner I do, definateley changed my mind. In fact as I mentioned briefly in a random thought post, I think every interaction changes us to some degree.

For instance, I'm quite certain that learning about calculus, statistics and economics changed my world view fundamentally. I think those topics meet the criteria "rational discourse", or did I flub your context again? I think you're right to an extent in that all that shit happens, but I doubt that it is always happening all the time in every minute detail.

Maybe that stuff is just "coursework" and doesn't apply to what you meant, but in every course I took I always attacked the instructor's claims if I had a chance, just to gauge how they fit in my mind as compared to their expectations if nothing else. Moreso though I do that stuff to try to find the limits of the scope of whatever claim is being made. Bah I'm too wordy here sorry.

I think in relation to your position my interest is more in seeing if I can keep it out of my head where it once used to bother me, while at the same time noticing the details of it. To not be persuaded and also to feel into and express the contradictions I feel inherent in it.

Well you seem to be doing well then, as far as it seem from here.

I think I do understand what you mean. I've been there. I've had a belief system that was much more like yours. I am not evading you.

No I didn't think you were evading me. I thought you were indicating that you evade certain thoughts, some of which I offer and you were demonstrating to me how you evade them. I was saying "here's this thought" and you were saying "okay this is how this thought is avoided", like that. Putting it back at you like "he you can avoid them a lot easier by just ignoring me" seemed funny to me at the time, I see it didn't really work.

Does that seem like my side of the interaction? I think I have been asking intelligent questions and pointing out potential implications and contradictions in your philosophy.

Yes you're very pretty, how may I serve you?

(please find the humor there)

And yes I'd agree you've been courteous and as helpful as you can be, while earnestly engaging in the matters at hand.

As far as accomplishing: I can restate what I said above: it is to see that the model you have is no longer seductive to me by presenting my problems with it and noticing myself in the interaction.

I see. Well I seriously don't mean to be rude or dismissive, but I am not concerned with how seductive it is or isn't to anyone. I want to know if it can or should be denied or not, and what that does or doesn't imply about all the shit I frame with it, all that shit.

This of course includes taking your responses seriously and if, as examples, I hit a 'oh, my god I hadn't thought about it that way' or 'ooh, he's right I am losing out over there,' or 'righteo, that is a blind spot on my part,' I check in out on my own and in relation to you to see what's there.

Well I'm trying to do the same I think.

you do realize how hard it would be for me to prove or disprove your theory.

hmm... no not really. probably not easy I'd think, but you seem to have the tools, maybe you could do it easy. I dunno.

We can use deductive logic on it, but especially via the internet we have problems of interpretation. The objects are the same. To make us both very crude.

Yeah I really wish there was a better language for this stuff and I was fluent in it.. the missing body language thing is a real big bitch.

'It's a chair'
'no, its a chair, for you, we just both happen to have similar experiences of it'
'no it's a chair'

Hmm... you see, if you and I weren't talking epistemology, etc... fuck yeah get out of my chair you bastard, or oh hey sorry for being in your chair... I'm a bastard. I got no problem with that. It's practical. It's generally pointless to discuss the merits of the actuality of the chair or not. But I come here to discuss weird cases like how we know that shit, etc. In that case, the middle line from above becomes pertinent because of the context.

1) I find that you seem to be presenting a version of what must be true in aboslute terms, but you qualify this, occasionally, as your perspective. If you go back to the what I called Boolean 0 and attendant arguments, I think you will see that you are presenting what must be and is universally.

I am... but from my own perspective. I'm saying, if my perspective on this is correct, then here are the aparent universal implications. You seem to find that unfair or in some way ignorant. To me it's just establishing context.

You may qualify this now or ask me to provide another model. But as far as experiencing you I find you at least as certain - in both the main senses - of your position being right and having as much an absolute position as, for example, Greenberg. Your absolute position contains this subjectivity clause, but it still seems absolute to me.

Well I've splained it enough, for now I'll just say "okay".

2) I think it limits me by encouraging me to add an asterisk to my experiences.

Hmm.. yes I understand what you mean I think.

In the context of knowing, yeah I think the asterisks become more and more necessary, because we're dissecting the very stuff we're using to undertake the discussion of it.

I guess I could say the same thing. I used to do more what you are doing - I think - and found it was not as pleasurable or fit my experiences.

As you wish of course.

yeah. I don't want that layer as a rule. I want that layer as intuitively brought in. Now I feel my perspective may be distorting. Other times I do not have this added layer.

oh man I totally understand and again, I address this through context. some contexts demand specific attention IMO, others... no. i don't think this conversation is possible though without it.

Oh, yeah. (mock hackles go up) Well utilitarianism has no flavor, buddy.

Well maybe some textbook crackpot crap, but I'm talking about real utility man!

I think a position that all one knows is subjective knowledge is a funny fit with utilitarianism.

Oh I don't subscribe to isms usually, I don't think so. maybe fuck i dunno, but i ask you to excuse my philosophical free-styling if you don't mind. otherwise you'll find me more and more annoying, and I'd rather be able to continue a conversation with you without pissing you off.

It's like 'my little objectivity'. It's almost like you have reversed the traditional. I certainly hope you use a lot of intuition when judging the utility of something. I think the conscious mind is too small to get at all benefits.

It's intrinsic! Lol. Yeah it's hard to explain man. I think I'm looking at utility as a term in value. I could have said "value" in place of utility there and meant the same thing. Utility being the realization of something valued perhaps, or "the actual impact of the thing on the larger structure of mind". Whereas value I use sometimes the same, and sometimes to connotate potential utility or something. Crap I'm getting tired but felt like I needed to muscle through this, sorry if you feel like you came for caviar and only got mcdonalds... lol. *snore*
I am the alpha and the omega - of me.



Dualistic god(the dead, philosphical (work(horse)))-puckey?