New Social Thread

[Einherjar86]

I disagree. Regardless of how we expect nature to conform to our ideas, classifications, and expectations, it does exactly as it does, because it neither knows, cares, nor is affected by them.

I agree with this, Dak.

There is, however, an "it", and it rejoices or languishes under our actions as we seek to bend reality around us. Whether or not we classify a white tail deer as such, or as Odocoileus virginianus matters not to the deer nor affects it. Whether we decide it is food though, and treat it as such does render affect, and we do not even need language or structured thought to do so.

This I'm confused about. How can nature be an "it" if it has no unified essence? You yourself said nature doesn't care; it doesn't care specifically because it isn't some interconnected organic whole. There isn't a holistic entity that can be called "nature."

Our classification of a deer is intimately tied to our knowledge of it as potential food, so how can the two be so different? When something is classified as a deer, a part of us acknowledges that it is edible.

However, I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say us treating it as food renders affect. Do you mean the deer experiences an emotional response? That I don't agree with. Do you mean that its obliteration from the world has an effect on the environment around us? That might be so; but this effect isn't quantifiable, nor is it part of an order that can be measured and predicted. There is no "supposed to" when it comes to nature. Other than our immediate survival and sustainability, there is no moral value to preserving nature. Nature has no concern over whether or not it subsists.

Our aspiring to ever higher plateaus of intellectualism are mostly vanity in the grand scheme of things, and we really do hold our mental faculties in much higher regard than does the the whole of this universe, as the universe is quite decidedly oblivious to us, which is as much a statement to our falling short as anything.

I don't necessarily find fault with this. Although I don't condemn higher plateaus of intellectualism. As I said before, there is benefit to acquiring new knowledge.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm not that familiar with analytic philosophy, but you sound like you walked straight out of their camp.

I have to emphatically disagree with your above comments. I think that we biologically adapt/evolve to our surroundings, but our application of language to nature, the attempt to account for the universe mathematically, the entire system of Linnaean classification; none of these are forms of us adapting to our surroundings. They are blatant impositions upon an inhuman realm.

Regardless of what language or system we use symbolically to describe our perceptions there will never be an artificial order in the universe that we control, and it's definitely not chance or chaos ( by definition) but what would be the alternative? nature. that the universe (everything that exist) has always been here and you can not discuss anything that was here before or what parallels existence because a zero doesn't exist. You have to take what exist as a fact and start with what exist and continue to see how much you can learn about it. Abstractions do not exist. Only the reality in which we are aware and identify with.

I digress and will turn to the philosophy section of the site if any of you would like to discuss this further.

 

[Dak]

This I'm confused about. How can nature be an "it" if it has no unified essence? You yourself said nature doesn't care; it doesn't care specifically because it isn't some interconnected organic whole. There isn't a holistic entity that can be called "nature."

Our classification of a deer is intimately tied to our knowledge of it as potential food, so how can the two be so different? When something is classified as a deer, a part of us acknowledges that it is edible.

However, I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say us treating it as food renders affect. Do you mean the deer experiences an emotional response? That I don't agree with. Do you mean that its obliteration from the world has an effect on the environment around us? That might be so; but this effect isn't quantifiable, nor is it part of an order that can be measured and predicted. There is no "supposed to" when it comes to nature. Other than our immediate survival and sustainability, there is no moral value to preserving nature. Nature has no concern over whether or not it subsists.

I meant only that we perceive the construction of atoms we have labeled as a "Deer" as a source of nourishment, which precipitates actions to kill and consume said source of nourishment, and the actions have an affect on nature. What we call the source of food doesn't really matter.

I don't necessarily find fault with this. Although I don't condemn higher plateaus of intellectualism. As I said before, there is benefit to acquiring new knowledge.

Of course I am not saying that knowledge itself is bad, I meant merely that our stance, especially the more learned we are, should be one of ever more humility in the face of the unknown, since the more we learn, we are simultaneously made aware of how much we do not know.

Scientists are not gods, our finite and miniscule amount of current achievement and flounderings vs total truth/knowledge should temper our strides and pride. Instead we vaguely illuminate a new square inch of knowledge, vastly mis-interpret misuse/mispply the knowledge, and boast as if we have conquered worlds and have created new utopias.

 

[unknown]

so apparently somebody from Russia was trying to access my account on here with the following IP address: 188.186.11.228

has this happened to anybody else?

 

[Pessimism]

Putin's after your metal dollars. WATCH OUT!

 

[Zephyrus]

So I've been listening to more Aggrotech/EMB/Industrial than I have Metal on a consistent basis for a couple months now. You guys better do something about me before I turn into a Cybergoth on you.

You should have seen this coming when I was the only one on the forum (beside that guy who does all the hard drugs) who was into Industrial Black Metal.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Some chick I know called me Brohime today, wtf does that mean?

I looked it up and found it on Urban Dictionary as poor white trash. Does this bitch think she's being slick or what!

 

[Cronopio]

Give her teh buttsecks.

 

[Pessimism]

BROSEF, CALM THOSE BEEFROLLS BEFORE YOU START SHIT WHICH YOUR ASS CAN'T HANDLE.

 

[King Richard]

come at me bro

 

[King Richard]

Hey Mort, recommend me some non-metal bands. Something with catchy vocals, especially something with harmonic vocals mixed in.

 

[waif]

I will stand in for Mort to recommend Miley Cyrus.

 

[King Richard]

if you didnt fuck decent broads id call you a fag right now (no offense mathias)

 

[Mort Divine]

Hey Mort, recommend me some non-metal bands. Something with catchy vocals, especially something with harmonic vocals mixed in.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGT-xhrtIVw&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Der Morgenstern]

White Lies seem alright. My gf likes them.

 

[waif]

I like White Lies as well but I don't think they really meet those criteria.

if you didnt fuck decent broads id call you a fag right now (no offense mathias)

Never actually heard her music, I was just trying to play into the mort = pedophile joke. Can't ever let that one die.

 

[Cronopio]

CALM THE FUCK DOWN, WILL YA

 

[Blind Guardian]

 

[King Richard]

I guess I should have specified bands with male vocalists with good range too. Monotone vocalists are boring ya know?

It's not that I don't like female vocalists, it's just that after time their vocals get annoying to me for some reason. The Eisley song was good, but that's not my cup of tea. Ra Ra Riot was interesting, I'm going to check them out for sure. The rest of that stuff didn't tickle my fancy.

I was looking for either of these styles or a combination of both:





God I fucking love Bret Bollinger's voice (Pepper vocalist). <33333333

 

[Mort Divine]

Haha, fair enough. I think most of what I tend to listen to outside of metal is filled mostly with female vocalists. Let me take a look at some other stuff




(don't know how i forgot them)