Messages

Long philosophical rant ahead, first some foundation:
_________________________

Nature of the universe:

The amount of possible states the natural universe can find itself in is limited by natural laws and constants.
There are infinitely many states between two different states (like there are infinitely many real numbers between the natural numbers 1 and 2), i.e. the universe is analog.
Therefore, change (with time as a variable) from one state to another is natural if the graph of events leading to the new state (history draws a continuous graph) is continuous (if the current state can be understood in terms of cause and effect).

Supernatural events are either discontinuations (or cusps and such) in the graph of cause and effect, or such states that are impossible to acquire within the limitations set by natural laws and constants.

The natural universe is therefore a subset of the supernatural (and both are real/analog sets).

The possible states a supernatural universe can find itself in is unlimited.
_______________________________

Truth:

There is not always (if ever?) an objective, absolute truth.
Facts (which may be seen as absolutes) are only true within their definitions, i.e. a headline that proclaims 200 dead in plane accident requires definitions of what constitutes a person, an accident is, an airplane is and death is.

The meaning of definitions vary between people, some definitions have greater dispersion (e.g. many abstract things as good/right) or less tolerance for ambiguity (several definitions exist close to one another).

Sufficient/satisfying truths (and facts) are achieved when the rigidity and detail of the definitions are increased until there is only left an acceptable level (if any) of room for interpretation within the definitions.

Many concepts leave plenty of room for interpretation (e.g. the idea of what is good/right).
_____________________________________________

A truthful person:

1. does not provide made up/false facts
2. does not hide/leave out facts
3. does not provide pre-made cause-effect graphs to others, but allows them to draw their own according to their definitions

I see 3. as a necessity because of examples alike the following:
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
A somewhat truthful person would say:
"I broke the window BECAUSE James said I should do it WHEN we spoke earlier."
(This is an attempt to provide a pre-made cause-effect relation.)

A more truthful person would say:
"I said to James: Tell me to break the window."
"James said: Break the window."
"I broke the window."
(This allows a greater freedom for the listener to form a cause-effect scenario based on their definitions.)
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
3. does not always equal intentional twisting of facts, as the person providing the explanations might also believe his/her own rationalizations.
_____________________________________

Of love in relation to truth:

Love (in relation to truth) is part acceptance, fondness, respect, generally harboring of positive intent and feelings toward something.

A person surrounded by love (positive intentions and feelings from others toward that person) is more likely to tell the truth according to the above definition of truthfulness. This might be because (if we still possess the will to live) we do not wish to subject ourselves to anything that could hinder us from living (pursuing our goals) now and in the future.

Therefore, when not surrounded by love, we attempt to create positive, capable images of ourselves, change ourselves into something that others will hold in high esteem, accept, and follow 1., 2. and 3. only when it promotes or does not lower our value in the eyes of others.
________________________________________

Of selflessness:

I believe a degree of selflessness can be achieved through truth. You become an amalgam of all the interpretations that people have of you (after you have ceased to lie, explain yourself and hide possibly shameful parts of your identity).
Your steering does not longer come from the inside (identity), but the outside (reputation), you become to a greater degree a function of your environment and genes; Less of an individual agent, more of a piece in the puzzle.
___________________________________

Of God, the effect God creates in believers and if God can be replaced:

(Assumption: God is love and love promotes truth.)

Through believing in a (possibly supernatural) God (that knows us better than we do and that loves us), a believer rids him/herself of the lies they carry and become possibly free to act as selflessly as is humanly possible (selfishly since they might pursue a reward for their belief, eternal life, but this resides in the supernatural universe).

The same truthfulness can possibly be achieved without a perfect supernatural being, but I believe truth based on natural love/benefits to lead to a different society than truth from supernatural love.

I imagine that a person can be truthful if:
- They lose all hope and desire for a meaningful life through pursuing individuality (have nothing to lose, no fear)
- They get a satisfactory guarantee of no retaliatory action (confessions to priests, shrinks, anonymity)
- The accumulated love is enough to open them up

I imagine a society based on natural love (and such truth) to homogenize through those united with the greatest power (the majority) eliminating all individuals (minorities) with opposing values/viewpoints/truths.

Example:
Assumption: (Truthful society, everyone knows everything about everyone else, there are no secrets.)
70% of people are pedophiles, 30% are not and possibly find it appalling and would like to see the pedophiles suffer.
If the 30% manages to concentrate more power, they will wipe out/enslave/incarcerate the majority, but if the majority has greater power, the minority will submit/be enslaved/wiped out.
(Based on the assumption of human nature that the strongest pursue their interests)
________________________________

Conclusion:

I imagine a truthful natural society to homogenize.

A supernatural society on the other hand causes the same effect of selflessness, but possibly promotes equality despite differences, since the judge is superhuman and loves all who believe in him/her/it, therefore the believers interpret and act accordingly to what clues the supernatural being gives them.

Questions:
Do we need the supernatural to hold on to the concept of equality despite individual differences?
Do you see other possible (heterogeneous) forms for natural societies that value truth (possibility: Vast public forums with almost total guarantee for anonymity and no intellectual property [possibility to hide / hoard facts and data] )?

http://www.rlslog.net/lastfm-stumbleupon-photobucket-sold/
...and another statistic regarding you and your habits falls into the hands of an even bigger corporation possibly capable and intent to understand and manipulate you.

ferrofluid

cornstarch

Much of my thinking and (imaginary/percieved) problems are quite digital in nature. I sometimes pester my friends/aquintances that live according to ideologies/morals with questions or try to undermine their points of view.

My motives for doing this are curiosity, the thrill of competing (and possibly winning) but the end goal is usually understanding. Sometimes I get wound up and pick apart/analyze things too much, thankfully I have learned to slightly restrain myself so that I don't attack people's viewpoints as blatantly anymore if they don't wish to be challenged.

For example, my mother is religious, and in my teens I attacked her beliefs on several times. Sometimes she got defensive and upset since I just kept at it (and as a result snapped at me and yelled), but I needed it.
I needed to know the weaknesses in her belief-system, pierce a hole in it before I could see it from the inside, wear/adopt parts of it.

Why?
I have the momentum of a freight train when I find the determination. If I had adopted a seemingly perfect idea without knowing some of it's faults, I would perhaps have been going at 88 mph at the time I'd encountered that hole in the belief-system, been derailed. This might also have something to do with acceptance (I have not usually been embraced with open arms by others, but had to break/force my way in, make certain people are as dependent on me as I am of them, expose their vulnerabilities, see if they are on my level so I could become their equal, not their servant).

Shortly, if I was your brother, one possible reason could be a need to break down your defenses before I could side with you, build some kind of bridge between the opposing sides.

From http://www.copycrime.eu/

If IPRED2 is implemented without clear limits, "aiding, abetting, or inciting" copyright infringement on a "commercial scale" in the EU will become a crime.

Penalties for these brand new copycrimes will include permanent bans on doing business, seizure of assets, criminal records, and fines of up to â,¬100,000.

IPRED2's backers say these copycrimes are meant only for professional criminals selling fake merchandise. But Europe already has laws against these fraudsters. With many terms in IPRED2 left unclear or completely undefined - including "commercial scale" and "incitement" - IPRED2 will expand police authority and make suspects out of legitimate consumers and businesses, slowing innovation and limiting your digital rights.

Found via www.piratpartiet.se (I don't live there, this political party and it's agenda merely interests me):

Inskrivet av Nyhetsgruppen 25 april, 2007

Idag den 25 april beslöt EU-parlamentet att bifalla det kontroversiella direktivet IPRED2, som bl.a. gör fildelning till grov brottslighet. Direktivet klubbades på ett sätt så att dess kritiker menar att det i praktiken införs ett tanke- och argumentationsförbud kring upphovsrätten.

- Idag beslöt EU-parlamentet att vi riskerar fyra års fängelse om vi argumenterar för att piratkopiering är samhällspositivt, säger Rickard Falkvinge, partiledare för Piratpartiet. Eftersom det är en av huvudpunkterna i vårt partiprogram, så har i praktiken även partiet som sådant kriminaliserats, med hjälp av den nya brottsrubriceringen "anstiftan till fildelning".

Bad translation of the above quote:

Written by the Newsgroup on the 25th of april, 2007

Today on the 25th of april, the EU-parliament decided to accept the controversial directive IPRED2, which (among other things) makes file-sharing into rough* crime. The directive was passed in a way which in practice introduces a thought- and argumentationprohibition regarding copyright.

-The EU-parliament decided today that we will risk four years of prison if we argument in favor of piracy being beneficial to society, says Rickard Falkvinge, partyleader for the Pirate Party. Since it is one of the main points in our party program, in practice the party as it is has been criminalised, through the new label of crime "inciting to file-sharing".

Although the Pirate Party of Sweden might exaggerate and provide biased information, this doesn't seem promising. It might be time to bash Europe for a change.

*this is a bad and unclear way of saying it, I don't know the proper English law-terms, help is appreciated (feel even free to retranslate the whole thing).

I want to talk to the management please.

What if you are the management?

Dominant - Submissive
Male - Female
Masculine - Feminine
Master - Servant

I see these words/concepts in a way interlinked and possibly relating to the orientation of sexuality. Our genes determine our masculinity, our "power", so in a way sexual orientation is not our choice. The act, however, is, if we believe in the concept of choice.

A male that lacks animal (masculine) power might be directed toward homosexuality by its environment; The stronger males will hoard the females for themselves (leading to a disproportion between available males and females), while the "weaker" (more feminine) males will still have unsatisfied urges.
If the male does not utilise another male to satisfy these urges, that male is not neccessarily an homosexual, unless masturbation is seen as homosexual.
In fact, by some definition, any sexual conduct without the intent or possibility of reproduction could be seen as homosexual or deviant sexual behaviour.

In the case of lesbians, i'd believe that there are cases when a masculine female is "stronger" than the available males (or there is a female/male disproportion)
and she directs her urges upon another "weaker" (more feminine) female. Sometimes this could present itself as dominatrixes in heterosexual behaviour.

I believe we merely choose partners (from those we can dominate/submit to us) or are chosen (by those that exercise their power upon us or that we submit to), and every sexual encounter is an individual occurrence, a choice. I am not 100% heterosexual, I have kissed men and even found it pleasing, but choose to refrain from further "traditional" homosexual behaviour (penetration etc.), since it places a certain stigma upon the individual and I wouldn't gain anything from it, as my needs are usually fulfilled, and if the interest arises, I could even have a woman take my anal virginity with a dildo or something and still be heterosexual by some definitions.
----
The above is slightly influenced by Nietsche (I have been recently listening to some audio-lectures by Robert Solomon & Kathleen Higgins about him and his ideas) and the interpretation that (a struggle of) power describes well the underlying motives for human interaction, so this is from that perspective. Also, I have a feeling that everything connects in some cosmical way, so sexuality and human behaviour can probably be explained in several other ways as well and there are probably lots of individual examples that prevent this from being always accurate.

I haven't yet read all posts either (sorry), so this might be redundant, but I felt like writing something based on those that I did.

Anyway, this is a sad turn for this thread.

Good, if anyone feels inclined, I'd like to hear what you think of (mainly psychological) maturity. Does psychological maturity equal experience?
Can an inexperienced person be seen as mature if he/she takes chances and the outcome is favorable?
Where is the line between bravery and maturity drawn (assuming there are no certain outcomes)?

I blame pop culture http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/?p=5355

I blame Serge Kreutz.
http://www.sexualfront.com/

I on the other hand am both surprised and delighted this thread has turned out so well. Compared to other/earlier gun-related Internet-discussions I've followed, this one managed to introduce me to some some new points as well as re-hash old ones.

I am even slightly optimistic that the Internet might mature alongside me, so that I wouldn't have to resort to printed words or local bar drunkards by the time I turn 40.

I think you are getting better at expressing yourselves, resorting less to OMFG-outburts and making the whole discussion easier and more enjoyable to follow.

Anyways, thank you, and sorry that I don't currently have anything to add; I am exploring unrelated territory and my coherent thoughts as well as epiphanies/eurekas seem to flow toward those subjects.

The thought of a choir singing Bukowski brings a smile to my face.
http://www.poemhunter.com/charles-bukowski/

Song: Joanna Newsom - The Sprout and the Bean (youtube)
Comment: I think it sounds very children's-book-fairytale-like, gives me a nice drowsy feeling from listening.
How I discovered it: I had it on my computer, it played randomly one time when the player was on shuffle.
Fun fact: That thing is a harp. I don't see or hear them nearly often enough.

Helm:
Yes, you are right in this, probably expressed it better than I could.
I still hope that as the mass of nobodies communicating grows, it becomes increasingly difficult for corporations
and governments to monitor and control opinion forming.
Hopefully the internet retains a wild west edge, if not on Youtube, then on hundreds of small servers in basements
spewing out conspiracy theories and revolutionaries onto forums, message boards, other video blogs etc.

I don't think Youtube has much revolutionary capability for anything than the mentioned keeping people happy and living their insignificant lives, but I guess I would be more than satisfied with that (merely being happy and oblivious, living comfortably).
So, I still think it does more good than bad and is a step in the right direction.

An example regarding Andail's post (i.e. bloggers beware):

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/feature-articles/new-media-hell.php

You might be featured on such a site, blogging might even become the next emo-phenomenom, suffer a backlash worse than Vanilla Ice (This is one of the reasons I try not to release much of my personal information to the public). Opening up and recieving positive feedback might be a therapeutic experience, but you might also be picked out at random and follow the Star Wars Kid's footsteps.

Video-blogging (and the process of releasing those for public scrutiny) involves the positives that Geoffkhan and Andail mentioned (gaining verification of one's identity through the acceptance of others), but it stretches onto a larger scale and will hopefully change our societal values toward more humane/loving ones.

I think that this "broadcast yourself" attitude is kind of refreshing.
Normal "boring" people come out and tell their stories and suddenly people realize that we do not have to be Nobel prize winners to be interesting or accepted parts of our societies anymore.

I think it's better than worshipping the images that centered one-way communication  (television, movies, magazines, advertising) sends us.

Regular people become the heroes of their own lives, we don't always have to look up to the stars and celebrities and live our "pathetic" lives envious of P.Diddy who is probably on a yacht enjoying fine caviar, champagne and hundreds of loose young women.

So the "broadcast yourself" thing is an excellent development, if it can change attitudes toward the realization that the life of an ordinary person is worth living; 
That it will contain more than enough of happiness and sorrow for one lifetime.

I don't want to offend anyone, but I've always thought of life-blogging as very selfish and self-centered. I've never read personal blogs and I hope I never have to. I understand that for some people it acts as a diary and a way to vent, as you said, but I just find the whole culture of self-advertising so self-obsessive and attention-seeking.

Not offended, though I'd provide my viewpoint.
I have much respect for people that are capable of pouring out their unconscious without fear of retaliation.
I could never do personal video blogs that dealt with things I really cared about and placed them on display them for the world, I am still far too self-conscious and rely often in public on my crafted ego-shell which includes things like taste in music, movies etc, which I don't really consider a part of my identity anymore but merely of playing a role.

I'd love to explore the innermost crevices of my mind, and it seems that recording a video of the process of delving into the unconscious, exposing one's center, examining it and picking it apart could be a liberating and enlightening process, but I don't know if I could ever show it to anyone or even dare to watch it myself.

So I mainly do introspection through writing, which requires more thought and conscious effort, and therefore my unconscious mediates through the constructed role-ego-identity and is filtered by it.
This way, I guess my writings do not reveal as much of me as a video would, but it is a less dramatic (and longer) process of bringing together the unconscious and the public identity act.

Personal blogging is IMO a very important thing, a "spiritual" journey, and the good thing with personal blogging is probably that it challenges the observers to begin a journey of self-discovery of their own which they can reject by holding on to their constructed identities and attacking and ridiculing the poster.

Sure, in the beginning, those videos might only show the conscious self that is displayed in public, and seem self-obsessive or attention seeking, but such a process of pouring out one's heart to the world will hopefully lead to connecting the ugly unconscious as a part of the public identity, free the bloggers to be flawed but fuller individuals. Maybe at some point, everything of importance has been said and the blogging stops. Then those people have probably gained satisfactory knowledge of themselves.

All self-expression (art, music, writing) gives glimpses from the unconscious, this just might be the most dramatic option available.

I have never been much for playing computer games with/against strangers, so HOME does not really excite me but neither do the majority of multi-player Internet games.
For me, the Internet hasn't been able to fully mediate the sense of excitement when a handful of people share a physical space and compete against each other.

By itself, I don't think that HOME is a bad idea.
It might be more cumbersome than a chatroom/server list, but if you are only looking for a quick adrenaline fix, I don't see any reason to own a ps3 over a joystick containing Galaga and friends.

Immersion is an important part of gaming, and this seems directed toward people that have some interest in escaping reality as well as mashing buttons.
In fact, HOME can be thought of enhancing the immersion, eliminating menus by making them a part of the game/world as well.

Example: Imagine a WWII FPS where the chat-area is a medic tent and servers are represented by trucks parked outside that take people to the frontline. You'd jump aboard a truck and while the server loaded, you could look out from the back of the truck while it would be driving toward the battlefield. When the map has loaded, the truck stops and you are ready to jump out.

As long as it and the transitions run smooth, I am all for it.

Also, little big planet looks awesome.

Back in the day, I had Epic Pinball on my computer and a friend of mine had Pinball Dreams on his Amiga, so those are probably most close to my heart.

Also, windows 3d pinball was really awesome because once we found the .wav files that held the game sounds, we recorded curse-words over them on my uncle's computer. The plunger sound was exchanged to: "You are quite" and the rest of the sounds were from the basic 15-yo dictionary. At the time, it was quite hilarious to have the game swear at us with machine-gun speed while the ball bounced off bumpers and such.

It might be that it will eventually present itself as a redundant/imaginary concept for me as well (I haven't yet been able to find it's source/essence through reasoning and I guess it relies on a "feeling in my gut" for the most part).
Though this same thing applies in much of my thinking since I still feel closer to agnosticism and do not find philosophical materialism preferable to any other ontology. I am not certain there exists a objective physical reality, independent of observers, I do not really know if I exist.

I find imaginary constructs/beliefs useful, I am currently happy with believing in "free will" which is probably the best reason or explanation I can give.
I don't really value consistency and reason over everything, I guess adaptation is my highest value, adapting my beliefs to survive, to get the most out of my presumed existence.

Although, I am intrigued how you feel about not believing/understanding it.
Does it bother you that you believe that it does not exist? Are you better off without it? In that case, I might try it myself, take my reasoning a little further, peel off some beliefs I hold on to.