Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Transilvania

1 [2] 3 ... 8
Interzone / Re: How forums work.
« on: April 11, 2014, 02:11:23 PM »
Heidegger deceived himself. He wanted a new language so badly, one to revolutionize the practice of philosophy, that he inscribed himself in a box of his own making. I say this without any reference to Hannah Arendt's comments on the dude either- she uses the exact same phrasing I did. Perhaps I unconsciously sourced her on this but, it stands. That being said, Heidegger's philosophy says nothing, absolutely, and is a cautionary tale in philosophical nonsense.

Heidegger says, with great pride: "People say that Heidegger is a fox." This is the true story of Heidegger the fox: Once upon a time there was a fox who was so lacking in slyness that he not only kept getting caught in traps but couldn't even tell the difference between a trap and a non-trap. This fox suffered from another failing as well. There was something wrong with his fur, so that he was completely without natural protection against the hardships of a fox's life. After he had spent his entire youth prowling around the traps of people, and now that not one intact piece of fur, so to speak, was left on him, this fox decided to withdraw from the fox world altogether and to set about making himself a burrow. In his shocking ignorance of the difference between traps, he hit on an idea completely new and unheard of among foxes: He built a trap as his burrow. He set himself inside it, passed it off as a normal burrow—not out of cunning, but because he had always thought others' traps were their burrows—and then decided to become sly in his own way and outfit for others the trap he had built himself and that suited only him. This again demonstrated great ignorance about traps: No one would go into his trap, because he was sitting inside it himself. This annoyed him. After all, everyone knows that, despite their slyness, all foxes occasionally get caught in traps. Why should a fox trap—especially one built by a fox with more experience of traps than any other—not be a match for the traps of human beings and hunters? Obviously because this trap did not reveal itself clearly enough as the trap it was! And so it occurred to our fox to decorate his trap beautifully and to hang up equivocal signs everywhere on it that quite clearly said: "Come here, everyone; this is a trap, the most beautiful trap in the world." From this point on it was clear that no fox could stray into this trap by mistake. Nevertheless, many came. For this trap was our fox's burrow, and if you wanted to visit him where he was at home, you had to step into his trap. Everyone except our fox could, of course, step out of it again. It was cut, literally, to his own measurement. But the fox who lived in the trap said proudly: "So many are visiting me in my trap that I have become the best of all foxes." And there is some truth in that, too: Nobody knows the nature of traps better than one who sits in a trap his whole life long.

Interzone / Re: The menace of intellect.
« on: April 10, 2014, 11:47:55 AM »
This reminds one of Nicholas of Cusa.

"Nicholas begins with a single trope or symbol to lay out the parallels between his teachings in the three books, that of the “maximum.” God is the absolute Maximum; the universe is a created image of God, the “contracted” or restricted maximum. Christ unites the first two as the Maximum at once absolute-and-contracted. “Contraction” is a metaphor for the finite statusstatus of creatures, all of whom are limited images of God. “Absolute” is used in its etymological sense of “free from” (ab-solutus) to characterize God's infinity. As absolute maximum God is both unlimited and transcendent, unreachable by human conceptions that measure the limited or contracted realm of moremore and less. Once Cusanus conceptualizes human knowing as measuring, he proposes that our knowledge also cannot measure exactly the essence of any limited thing. A fortiori, when it comes to the unlimited God, Nicholas asserts that “there is no proportion between finite and infinite.” The infinite God remains beyond our ken. Human efforts to understand the depth and implications of this assertion are what will render our ignorance “learn-ed.”"


Interzone / Re: If you want it done right...
« on: April 07, 2014, 09:49:33 AM »
The expenditure of doing things right is making those who cannot do it right, or choose not to out of indolence angry. Because they cannot or will not uplift themselves from the mire, they hate others who demonstrably do. But because that group is amoral, they can only think for themselves (in this regard). They cannot be expected to uphold anything, which is why the inversion of the punitive/victim dichotomy that is a la mode in all varieties of marxism's applications is so congenial to them. If you can't be moral, change the meaning of moral!

Interzone / Re: How forums work.
« on: April 06, 2014, 05:32:01 PM »
Detachment from reality is often subtle we might say- the implicit context we have for life has been supplanted or buried in the far reaches of your sofa (probably close to that penny you've never been able to find in the boundless upholstery). This is the inexorable and cruel way life tends to work. What matters is always incredibly obvious, and our collective inability to locate it is the modern tragicomedic work. The more you search, the farther you get from the goal. Releasing the question to the wind (presumably, crow, you've seen a not entirely dopey hunter do so to one of your own kind) while meant to be edifying results in another further paradox- our lives turn inherently away from the truth further. The 'inexorable' seems to be embodied in this way (though if I'm off the mark, please inform me)

Which ultimately suggests that we're not getting any close to 'solving' the meaning of life, and even when we relinquish the question, it grows ever more remote.

FORUMS though. yeah. You seem to be on the money with that one.

The cold response rings in the basement: "But Forums ARE Life! Don't judge me, or I'll judge you even MORE on my forum you jerk!" Doritos rustling!

Interzone / Try-hard
« on: March 28, 2014, 07:31:58 AM »
Something I've been thinking about. The only people who need to exert effort are those who believe exerting effort will produce results commensurate to the effort put in. All the better if they get unexpected 'returns' on it.

That being said, the 'enlightened' way of thinking about this is to realize the maximum of exertion in ANY field yields the best possible rewards for what one could call himself, and by extension, everybody around them. So there are distinct ways of viewing the spending of energy.

I'm not saying that an economical approach to using our inner reserves is not worthwhile. It oftentimes takes the most power to subject ourselves to such a regimen.

The question is, what of those who do not have to try hard in most areas of their life? Seeing as most other things are insufficient to challenge them, do the brave among them tackle nigh-insurmountable peaks to get the thrill of the challenge? It seems that this is part and parcel of the problem with modern society- it programs a difficulty level tailored for all, thus making life seem 'worthless' and this by extension gnaws at the root of being.

Do we say everything comes together when we sufficiently challenge ourselves? It is a way of indirectly giving to others, that's for sure. It is not a charity to anybody but yourself, but all 'receive from your splendour'.

I apologize for shallow or muddle headed thinking. I admit to a degree of naivete in most areas of life, so what I say may ring limpid and self-evident to you blokes.

Interzone / Re: Too easy.
« on: March 28, 2014, 07:22:35 AM »
Are we only subject to our foibles when we are subject to ourselves? I suppose the phrasing begs the question.

Interzone / Re: What is Death?
« on: March 28, 2014, 07:16:32 AM »
I don't know, I really do not wish to pursue dumb semantic games but a death and an extinction are two different things- as death implies an in-built mechanism to future creation, extinction implies well... An end to such endeavours.

In a sense, extinction provides room for future creative prospect, but this is just terminological poopery.

*Or are they really any different?

Interzone / Re: The Void.
« on: March 26, 2014, 02:51:11 PM »
Above the stream of Panta Rhei we see a never ending river. When we consciously dunk our heads in it, we may lose ourselves by lingering a bit too long- but in doses, it's something else.

I guess?

The Objectivist dogma seems to suggest that all must be done for the 'self' and 'my consciousness'.

Combining this with Machiavelli's pragmatism (or using it as a way to get what you want) seems to be the height of egotistical thinking. Or, is Machiavelli no longer pragmatic in this scenario because it is applied with regards to a 'self-serving' morality?

Is the problem ultimately the self based philosophy of Obj.? Or even broader: is Objectivism just an 'excuse' to apply stuff for one's own gain?

This may seem rather obvious, but I'm trying to grab a bit of advice on the issue- because I don't see it as difficult for some person stuffed with themselves to go ahead and abuse Machiavelli's terminology like this: "I am a prince. I am not constrained by morality. I will do anything and everything to get what I want."

The prince always just struck me as what is realistically needed to manage a country, but not some term to be applied to self-bloated folks. Or am I walking a dangerous line here unawares?

Interzone / Gustave Le Bon & crowd psychology
« on: February 13, 2012, 01:24:52 AM »
In my history class in school, we're reading a work published in 1896 which rather accurately mirrors ANUS's sentiments on crowds- especially as they appear in the age of modernity.

I have a link to the PDF file  so check it out if interested: www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsocserv.mcmaster.ca%2Fecon%2Fugcm%2F3ll3%2Flebon%2FCrowds.pdf&ei=YMA1T9neLoKL2AXHzsH3Aw&usg=AFQjCNGqdFCEszVf8rmFosfq8-bGnvx-dA&sig2=J6Xl1Y8pJRt5-08hI3XAiw

Interzone / Re: Liberals love to gather and do nothing
« on: September 29, 2011, 04:56:27 PM »
Liberals are so quick to blame everything else around them without ever actually evaluating themselves or their own beliefs. If they got the absolute equality they wanted and still everything went down the shitter, who/what would they blame then?

Interzone / Re: Glad you're dead
« on: September 28, 2011, 06:52:06 PM »
For a generation with such destructive/inorganic/pointless end-results, it seems pop-culture martyrdom is the only way to (really) be worth anything to anybody outside of your 'personal sphere' in the long run.

Interzone / Re: The universe is fatalistic
« on: August 24, 2011, 06:53:05 PM »
Perhaps pre-big bang existed as everything at once. The essences of everything we deem separate nowadays would all have been unified as one thing. Once the big bang occurred, this 'one' split into 'many'; all different facets relating back to the original. This pre-big bang essence may have served as genetic material for 'existence', with the event itself triggering a sort of instantaneous transcription/translation process, from representations of reality (DNA) to reality itself (proteins).

Metal / Re: A-list metal
« on: August 23, 2011, 08:20:01 PM »
Shouldn't there be an official DLA review for Prong's "Beg to Differ" given that it's referred to as the band's "opus" on their page?

Interzone / Re: Pokemon
« on: August 23, 2011, 07:51:50 PM »
For Pokemon, the Gold/Silver generation was probably the peak in terms of fun (nostalgia playing a role as well). I agree with the Mass Effect 2 recommendation, it's a very good RPG by any measure. I'd also like to suggest Chrono Trigger/Cross for the SNES/PS1 in case anybody hasn't played them yet.

1 [2] 3 ... 8