|
Post by darklao on Nov 14, 2012 12:54:56 GMT
But why does a river flow if it has no desires? Because like Jonesy, that river is totally super emo.
|
|
|
Post by agasa on Nov 14, 2012 13:00:02 GMT
But why does a river flow if it has no desires? Because like Jonesy, that river is totally super emo. Best Jonesdefinition ever. Someone should try and shop it.
|
|
alexh
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by alexh on Nov 14, 2012 13:18:04 GMT
Not to mention, a stone can be worn and shaped by its experiences. I guess that's technically the same thing, but still.
It's hard to imagine her as not having feelings, yet still being a mover and a shaker.
|
|
|
Post by shadmere on Nov 14, 2012 13:38:57 GMT
If Jones truly desired nothing could she be moving and talking? [Another way the definition is imperfect, most likely.] But why does a river flow if it has no desires? Because of gravity. A river takes no action. A river just water that's in a groove on an incline. That's like asking, "Why does a rock fall down, if it has no desires?" The answer is, "Because someone threw it in the air."
|
|
|
Post by aaroncampbell on Nov 14, 2012 13:52:16 GMT
Also like that Jones' way of showing the imperfection of the metaphor is basically saying that she and stone are alike, except stones aren't tough enough. Jones is the toughest. > Were she speaking to a stone, I imagine she'd say: "yes, I'm like a stone, but I'm not quite like you...." *Jones grabs a human from her drawer*"Therefore I define myself as a human, because I have a lot of qualities in common with them as well... " *Jones holds up the human*"of course the metaphor isn't perfect..." *Pop*Okaaaay, now that is disturbing. Also, now I need to get a new shirt and refill my coffee... LAUGHING ON LINE
|
|
|
Post by aaroncampbell on Nov 14, 2012 13:56:39 GMT
I wonder how many times Jones has given this little self-history speech? I imagine often enough that she's refined it a bit over "this tiny fraction of the earth's history", complete with the stone illustration.
Why? Does she merely want to answer the question satisfactorily, or is she trying to be theatrical/go for a particular dramatic effect? I realize this begs the question about motivation, but there we are.
|
|
|
Post by polkaking2 on Nov 14, 2012 14:12:30 GMT
So... Jones is symbolically Mother Earth? That's another interpretation of the idol/figurine. She actually caused the dust ring around the sun to coalesce around her?
|
|
|
Post by 0o0f on Nov 14, 2012 14:17:30 GMT
Yeah, I'm curious what moves Jones if she has no desires. If she was living, I guess she would be driven by a survival instinct (though that's a desire isn't it?), but she says she isn't.
I'm still curious what she is. Not if she's something specific from mythology, but uhm, what is she made of, and how? Does she have a purpose? I'm guessing she feels human enough to others touch, at least.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 14, 2012 14:31:38 GMT
If Jones truly desired nothing could she be moving and talking? [Another way the definition is imperfect, most likely.] But why does a river flow if it has no desires? Very zen, but if we say Jones moves and talks because she is in the form of a human and humans move and talk then we are left with the problem of why she chooses to do what she does and say what she says instead of doing or saying something else, and why she does not have emotions when humans have emotions. One could try to argue that the choices she makes are illusory, that she is incapable of doing or saying anything other than what she does, but that is the same thing as saying she has no free will. Etherically speaking it may be true that she has a function, that she exists for a purpose, but it is difficult to look at this chapter's timeline and say Jones remembers but never chooses to do something or refrains from doing something while humans do choose. I don't think we can deny Jones' free will without making deterministic arguments that could also be used on all other characters, arguments that would be difficult to swallow in this Gunnerverse where Zimmy exists. I suppose one could try to make a religious argument that Jones must be fully enlightened, but she has no presence in the ether and no ability to manipulate it, along with some other problems depending on what criteria you're using. Some of those could be fudged (like lack of memory of previous existences could be accounted for by her continuous existence since the Earth's formation) but her being mistaken about finding other beings like herself when humans appeared is evidence that if she is enlightened she wasn't always, that she achieved it, and that blows up the notion that her choices are illusory. So I think unless we want to say that Jones must be a puppet of something else that can make decisions that Jones herself can choose. She may be similar to Robot in the end but in the Gunnerverse even Robot can choose.
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Nov 14, 2012 14:33:32 GMT
I'd like to see if she can pop a diamond.... If I'm not mistaken, you can yourself do that with a hammer. I think a diamonds hardness refers to its resistance to scratching, right? Oh yeah, forgot that the hardness scale isn't about resistance to crushing.
|
|
|
Post by OrzBrain on Nov 14, 2012 14:48:27 GMT
Robot Etheric God Non-etheric God Earth Elemental Bison Boson Golem
Scratch one more. I don't even have a smarmy remark at this point. I think it's clear that Tom intends to set up another mystery rather than giving any answers. I don't know how I led myself to believe otherwise, that has been the unbroken pattern so far. See you all on Friday. I wouldn't scratch robot quite so fast. I'm pretty sure that the classes Alien Robot and Time Traveling Robot are wide open, with only Tom's possibly misleading say so against them. And for those that say she is something entirely new that Tom has invented, I say, there are very few entirely new things. The substance of every person's imagination is composed of things drawn from other people's imaginations, which in turn are drawn from those that came before them, mutating with each iteration but still derived from what came before. All too often that concept or idea which we hold to be most unique and original, which just seemed to come to us in a flash of inspiration, is drawn almost unchanged from a book we read or a movie we saw long ago and then forgot. And for those who say not to apply names to things, I have to wonder why you even bother to type. All human communication is the application of names to things.
|
|
|
Post by 0o0f on Nov 14, 2012 15:30:43 GMT
And for those that say she is something entirely new that Tom has invented, I say, there are very few entirely new things. There's a difference between being 100% original and directly basing your idea on something else. She could be similar to some myth (and inspired by it somehow), but that doesn't mean she is that myth. If she's supposed to be something Tom invented, then I commend his attempt at being original, at least.
|
|
Rymdljus
Full Member
Beautiful songbird
Posts: 207
|
Post by Rymdljus on Nov 14, 2012 16:00:30 GMT
I think the point is that it's pointless to say that she might be Lilith or something because she isn't based on any existing myths, according to Tom.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 14, 2012 16:17:04 GMT
Pop. Not crunch, crack, smash, or KRK. But POP. Stones are like bubble wrap to Jones. That's why she has a drawer of them. You can't pop just one. Mystery solved? She can have will without desire. Yes, but this doesn't explain all reactions unless it's applied to the goal of "perfect mimicry" just because, or something like this. If I'm not mistaken, you can yourself do that with a hammer. I think a diamonds hardness refers to its resistance to scratching, right? No, also "presing against something and seeing what mark it leaves". Of course, past the limit of elastic deformation it will be dust in any scenario.
|
|
|
Post by alexei on Nov 14, 2012 16:30:52 GMT
Kein Mensch glaubt wirklich, dass 'Jones' ein Golem ist!
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 14, 2012 16:36:31 GMT
She is animate, not inanimate. And there is some sort of will which moves her. She is not "a stone" - but she may be "stone". A golem is programmed, she has an independent will. In one of the Discworld books, a cop bought a golem but had the bill of sale made out to "bearer". Then stuffed the bill of sale inside the golem's head (which is how you traditionally program a golem - write the instructions on paper and put them in the thing's head). The consequences were... interesting.
|
|
|
Post by csj on Nov 14, 2012 16:42:25 GMT
"I felt a great disturbance in the Ether, as if millions of fans suddenly cried out in anguish and were suddenly silenced"
|
|
maximkat
Full Member
Look at my face, my face is amazing
Posts: 111
|
Post by maximkat on Nov 14, 2012 17:40:09 GMT
1. Does Jones keep a full drawer of props? 2. We need a new t-shirt.
|
|
Necropaxx
Full Member
The natural choice for a shoulder to cry on.
Posts: 135
|
Post by Necropaxx on Nov 14, 2012 17:44:25 GMT
Well of course she's a fatalist.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 14, 2012 17:54:43 GMT
Ok! No shaking hands with Jones.
|
|
|
Post by faythofdragons on Nov 14, 2012 17:59:37 GMT
Annie! Ask her about the stars!
|
|
|
Post by ribarnica on Nov 14, 2012 18:18:25 GMT
Ok, so she's not anything we've seen before - she's a jonesey. Now, I'm wondering... are there other joneseys? Here on earth? Elsewhere? Mars? Other inhabited planets? Hmmm....
|
|
|
Post by shadmere on Nov 14, 2012 18:34:23 GMT
Every planet has a Jones. The uninhabited ones are just very lonely.
|
|
|
Post by Marnath on Nov 14, 2012 18:53:30 GMT
Every planet has a Jones. The uninhabited ones are just very lonely. Loneliness is an emotion though, so they can't actually feel it.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 14, 2012 18:55:57 GMT
I'm glad Raph popped the first bubble about the pending definition battle, but I want to point out that yapping about definitions of words will not get you any possibility of drawing conclusions. This. I haven't even read the rest yet, but I already was about to say the same words. It so god darn is not an argument to say that "will is your tool to act upon, desire is secondary to that". Moreover: there was no definition of desire in that. It was as if the word "desire" would in itself explain what it is. And finally, "will is your tool..." excuse me, but who is this you and by what does (s)he use that tool called will? (so this question is not to you but to whoever said the above tool stuff). I think that it seems now, however, and this actually is nicely in coherence with the tool-speech, that Jones means by desire something like a strong emotional urge, something that in certain dogmatic ontologies one would put against reason. Now, lacking that does not yet necessarily make her completely passive, merely somewhat indifferent. I still find it curious, in a positive way, that people are more at ease in accepting dragons, magic, etheric entities and what not, than Kantian ontology.
|
|
|
Post by dante on Nov 14, 2012 19:33:02 GMT
1. Does Jones keep a full drawer of props? 2. We need a new t-shirt.
|
|
|
Post by seaofalchemy on Nov 14, 2012 20:08:55 GMT
1. Does Jones keep a full drawer of props? 2. We need a new t-shirt.
|
|
|
Post by 0o0f on Nov 14, 2012 20:10:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Belrisa on Nov 14, 2012 20:24:59 GMT
You can act against your desires, but not against your will, your will is your tool to act upon something, and it is prior to any desire, even if desires help themselves from will. You would also not act upon your desires if you lacked the will to do so. Wouldn't that just be a stronger desire triumphing over a weaker one? I'm no philosopher, but in my own experience, whenever I deny myself something I want, it is because there is something else that I want even more.
|
|
|
Post by phyzome on Nov 14, 2012 20:58:50 GMT
(for the definition people out there, I use 'sentient' in the lofty, thinking sense, not the being-able-to-respond-to-your-surroundings sense) You might be looking for the word "sapient".
|
|