The Ozzman
Melted by feels
It's not going to come to that because of the Hippocratic Oath but keep thinking your train of logic is right
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Matt
Active Member
So that's a pretty low blow there. What the fuck did you say you do again? I'm interested to hear how you utilize your immense intellect on a day to day basis.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Eh I figured you or Dak would say something. I work at an insurance company and I pretty much sit around all day. It sucks but everyone knows I'm really fucking smart so they don't really question what I'm doing.Mathiäs;10986844 said:
It's nice when I have lots of problems to solve as my job is project based but it's also nice to jam to tunes all day.
If I hadn't gone to college I would've done the military assuming my color blindness wouldn't have been a factor.
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding, and I definitely am willing to believe that there are people out there who place their religious beliefs over their professional ethical codes.
And oh, it has already happened: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-parents-and-theres-nothing-illegal-about-it/
rms
Active Member
Been out since January 2013, I don't know if this comment is serious/joke so I won't really respond anyways
Dak
mentat
Of course. While you and I and the other frequenters of this thread snap our white, male, cisgendered fingers and the world jumps, this is not the case for pretty much anyone else (asian male exception). But the holywars I speak of are entirely amongst the "victim classes" or those desiring of some victim status (even when, absurdity of absurdites, the privileged make a sad attempt at privilege denial).
As a sidenote to the fantasy of Orwellian oppression: It's not so much illusion but soft and subtle, and certainly not restricted to The Gubmint.
Only barely. And bubblewrapping everything is beyond simple acknowledgement - unless that's exactly what it is. The implications of that are too uncomfortable though.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
rms
Active Member
Ein, did you see this? Bet you remember Buff State..Free speech ain't no laughin' matter
http://buffstaterecord.com/4942/news/usg-freezes-record-budget-over-april-fools-issue/
http://buffstaterecord.com/4942/news/usg-freezes-record-budget-over-april-fools-issue/
Dak
mentat
Taking this out of that shit thread, which - incidentally - functions as an example of what
calls the following into question:
People don't want to forego critique entirely, they just want to forego meaningful critique. Very badly do they want this. They will hate and murder to forego meaningful critique of anything. We need our religions, our idols. Break one and we will build another just as dead as the person who broke the previous one.
Where does this imperative spring from? Why inclusion because inclusion, or change because change?
calls the following into question:
People don't want to forego critique entirely, they just want to forego meaningful critique. Very badly do they want this. They will hate and murder to forego meaningful critique of anything. We need our religions, our idols. Break one and we will build another just as dead as the person who broke the previous one.
Where does this imperative spring from? Why inclusion because inclusion, or change because change?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Correct... which is exactly why I'm arguing.
It springs from paradox. Duh.
Edit:
I didn't see it.
Dak
mentat
I don't see new ideals (not that inclusion and change are new ideals) springing from any paradoxes. Let us say that liberalism is winning even as it loses (or even vice versa - not quite a true paradox): that doesn't tell me anything about how to respond to hearing this. Should I cheer? Be indifferent? Dig in and fight to turn the losing to winning? Paradox doesn't tell me.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Taking convention as our example: all conventions exclude someone somehow, and all conventions aim to repeat the same. Any conventions that are disrupted, or dismantled, will surely be replaced by new ones because we appeal to convention in our behavior - they govern our every waking thought and move. How do we square this with the fact that no convention is absolute (they are all socially constructed) and thus has no metaphysical claim on perpetuating itself? What does this paradox tell us?
It tells us that critique of any and all conventions is basically automatic - conventions expose their limitations, compel their own critique; because if no convention is absolute, then there is no guarantee that its excluded subjects will always be viewed in a negative light (even if they might appear so currently). Yielding to complacency and blind repetition increases the likelihood that convention turns into hegemonic terror; the critique of the paradox of convention combats this.
Finally, inclusion constitutes exclusion. You can't have one without the other. I'm not making the argument that either inclusion/exclusion or change are necessary. I'm saying they simply are. Phrasing the question in terms of "inclusion because inclusion" or "change because change" misses the point. There is no "why"; there just is what there is.
Change happens regardless. Convention, particularly blind conservatism, invites damaging resistance to what happens regardless.
Taking convention as our example: all conventions exclude someone somehow, and all conventions aim to repeat the same. Any conventions that are disrupted, or dismantled, will surely be replaced by new ones because we appeal to convention in our behavior - they govern our every waking thought and move. How do we square this with the fact that no convention is absolute (they are all socially constructed) and thus has no metaphysical claim on perpetuating itself? What does this paradox tell us?
It tells us that critique of any and all conventions is basically automatic - conventions expose their limitations, compel their own critique; because if no convention is absolute, then there is no guarantee that its excluded subjects will always be viewed in a negative light (even if they might appear so currently). Yielding to complacency and blind repetition increases the likelihood that convention turns into hegemonic terror; the critique of the paradox of convention combats this.
Finally, inclusion constitutes exclusion. You can't have one without the other. I'm not making the argument that either inclusion/exclusion or change are necessary. I'm saying they simply are. Phrasing the question in terms of "inclusion because inclusion" or "change because change" misses the point. There is no "why"; there just is what there is.
Change happens regardless. Convention, particularly blind conservatism, invites damaging resistance to what happens regardless.
Dak
mentat
^That's acceptable.
In other news: BAM!
https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/peter-thiel-on-the-future-of-innovation-77628a43c0dd
Cowen didn't even blink in discussing NRx.
In other news: BAM!
https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/peter-thiel-on-the-future-of-innovation-77628a43c0dd
Cowen didn't even blink in discussing NRx.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Where does Cowen mention NRx? I don't have time to read/watch the whole thing, so I search the page but couldn't find it.
I find this fascinating. The prospect of privately owned cities simultaneously terrifies and excites me, namely because (at this point in history) I associate developed corporate business organization with advanced AI. That might be more speculative than analytic. Whatever, I don't care.
I'm not going to resist private ownership in the abstract. My wife and I have been having lots of conversations lately, and she has some incredibly interesting perspectives on late corporate capitalism. My concern with privately owned cities simply has to do with who owns them; and at this point in history (again) most of the people who have the funds to "buy a city" may not share the values of a vast majority of the poorer population. Anyway, maybe that's a moot point.
Recently I read (and subsequently taught) this really short piece by Deleuze in my class on simulation. I think it's a fairly accurate portrayal of modern corporate society. It's titled "Postscript on Societies of Control":
https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf
I find this fascinating. The prospect of privately owned cities simultaneously terrifies and excites me, namely because (at this point in history) I associate developed corporate business organization with advanced AI. That might be more speculative than analytic. Whatever, I don't care.
I'm not going to resist private ownership in the abstract. My wife and I have been having lots of conversations lately, and she has some incredibly interesting perspectives on late corporate capitalism. My concern with privately owned cities simply has to do with who owns them; and at this point in history (again) most of the people who have the funds to "buy a city" may not share the values of a vast majority of the poorer population. Anyway, maybe that's a moot point.
Recently I read (and subsequently taught) this really short piece by Deleuze in my class on simulation. I think it's a fairly accurate portrayal of modern corporate society. It's titled "Postscript on Societies of Control":
https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf
rms
Active Member
What's NRx?
But yeah, privately owned cities are interesting. Maybe they will pop up in Northern Canada when everything melts!
But yeah, privately owned cities are interesting. Maybe they will pop up in Northern Canada when everything melts!
Einherjar86
Active Member
NRx = "neoreaction"
It's a recent extreme facet of anti-Enlightenment, anti-liberalist philosophy. It has some good points. Some of it is far too conservative, in my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
It's a recent extreme facet of anti-Enlightenment, anti-liberalist philosophy. It has some good points. Some of it is far too conservative, in my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
Dak
mentat
The whole answer he gave to the audience questioneer at the end. Corporate city states are basically the rubber-meets-road organizational model for NRx. I don't have the time to speak to the rest of the comment atm.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Just starting reading about Terror management theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
Everything that humanity has ever accomplished beyond basic survival has been motivated by a fundamental and irreducible fear of non-existence. Our conception of self and self-esteem generally is simply a buffer against the anxiety that comes with recognizing that we will cease to be. Culture is just a massive shared delusion to mitigate our fear of the unknown and ultimately of death. Thus we want to imagine certain works of art as timeless or to place value in family lines and offspring, to project ourselves beyond death. We take comfort in our value systems and the structures that arise from them, whether that’s through conceptions of biological kinship, national/ political identity, religious faith, etc. This includes belief in the inherent value of ensuring the future of humanity through scientific progress. Indeed much of modern western life is devoted to the avoidance of death, the various euphemisms and stock phrases in mourning, the entire funeral home industry that serves to remove death from the ordinary course of life, from the home and onto the embalming table or into the crematorium. We build up the artifice to avoid the brutal reality. In short, everything that we’ve ever done and will ever do is motivated by nothing more than our existential terror in confronting death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
Everything that humanity has ever accomplished beyond basic survival has been motivated by a fundamental and irreducible fear of non-existence. Our conception of self and self-esteem generally is simply a buffer against the anxiety that comes with recognizing that we will cease to be. Culture is just a massive shared delusion to mitigate our fear of the unknown and ultimately of death. Thus we want to imagine certain works of art as timeless or to place value in family lines and offspring, to project ourselves beyond death. We take comfort in our value systems and the structures that arise from them, whether that’s through conceptions of biological kinship, national/ political identity, religious faith, etc. This includes belief in the inherent value of ensuring the future of humanity through scientific progress. Indeed much of modern western life is devoted to the avoidance of death, the various euphemisms and stock phrases in mourning, the entire funeral home industry that serves to remove death from the ordinary course of life, from the home and onto the embalming table or into the crematorium. We build up the artifice to avoid the brutal reality. In short, everything that we’ve ever done and will ever do is motivated by nothing more than our existential terror in confronting death.
Dak
mentat
I buy that to some degree. Maybe not as an all-encompassing explanation, but it certainly has to play a role, even if subconsciously. The "human action" explanation of economic motivation speaks of "trying to ease some discomfort", which could certainly be interpreted in darker tones such as these.
rms
Active Member
I took a sociology class that focused on death and dying, and this was covered. Watched a documentary/science experiment that focused on this theory. The premise was that if you took a test on a computer screen and flashed the words death at a subconscious/subliminal level..people were angrier. Had a fake scenario about giving judgments to those accused of crimes. One that stuck out as bogus to me was this test where they had to problem solve pouring some substance into a jar but saving the solid contents inside, and the best tool to use was an American flag...but no one used it because its a sacred cultural object, or some crap.
