|
|
Post by Daedalus on Apr 10, 2017 7:00:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zaferion on Apr 10, 2017 7:24:38 GMT
I understand what he means though. I struggle a lot with depression, and in times where I have nothing to do, nothing going for me, when I'm just laying around all day eating and watching Daria on repeat, I don't feel like I'm doing anything with my life. I'm merely surviving--to wit, all I'm managing to do is not die. But when I have something to do, when I have a purpose (be it a job or a hobby or whatever), and I succeed in that purpose, I flourish. I get that feeling of validation and accomplishment. tl;dr What Yssie is saying is that having a purpose and a goal is much better than not having one. He just words things weirdly. edit: Yay, Annie's hair is getting kind of long again! It's almost long enough to go off the page in panel 2. Is Annie's short hair supposed to be symbolic of the emotional damage Anthony caused her? Cuz it's working. Annie's short hair is a gaping, oozing emotional wound for me and I'm ready for it to go away. |
|
|
|
Post by theonethatgotaway on Apr 10, 2017 8:17:47 GMT
I understand what he means though. I struggle a lot with depression, and in times where I have nothing to do, nothing going for me, when I'm just laying around all day eating and watching Daria on repeat, I don't feel like I'm doing anything with my life. I'm merely surviving--to wit, all I'm managing to do is not die. But when I have something to do, when I have a purpose (be it a job or a hobby or whatever), and I succeed in that purpose, I flourish. I get that feeling of validation and accomplishment. tl;dr What Yssie is saying is that having a purpose and a goal is much better than not having one. He just words things weirdly. edit: Yay, Annie's hair is getting kind of long again! It's almost long enough to go off the page in panel 2. Is Annie's short hair supposed to be symbolic of the emotional damage Anthony caused her? Cuz it's working. Annie's short hair is a gaping, oozing emotional wound for me and I'm ready for it to go away. That's also how I see it. The difference between surviving and LIVING. What's that saying? "Some people die at 80, but they've stopped living a long time ago" or something in that regard? Y's just saying that as an animal, he could do whatever he wanted, within the limits of his capabilities, and as long as it meant he could first take care of his basic needs. Now, thanks to the big C to the Oyote, he sees that there is so much more in life, but also a lot more he has to control. There's a fine balance, and like a man on a slackline, he's only most alive when he's balancing somewhere in the middle. |
|
|
|
Post by rainofsteel on Apr 10, 2017 9:35:38 GMT
Tom,
I disagree. Hugs are necessary, but not always available.
|
|
cb3
New Member
Posts: 36 
|
Post by cb3 on Apr 10, 2017 9:36:13 GMT
Annie looks older in the final panel, and it suits her too.
Perhaps Red's words have got through to her and Annie has had a bit of overdue introspection. I'm interested to see where this will lead. I'm still waiting for the scooby gang to have a post-Jeanne debrief.
|
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Apr 10, 2017 11:07:40 GMT
I don't think Ysengrin understands the concept of hugs. He looks apathetic to the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 10, 2017 12:47:05 GMT
I was amused by Tom's mention on twitter that he imagined Ysengrin voiced by Clancy Brown. He specifically spoke of Clancy Brown's role in "Carnivale", but I thought of his role in the animated series "Gargoyles", where he was the voice actor for Wolf, a mercenary who is transformed into a wolf-man. (Ysengrin moves in the opposite direction, of course - starting off as a "regular wolf", but, thanks to Coyote's "gift", now walking upright in his tree-armor.)
To zaferion: I missed the bit about Annie's hair growing longer (I focus more on the dialogue than the visuals when I first read the page), but I see that as a good sign; I've missed Annie's old long-haired look.
|
|
|
|
Post by noone3 on Apr 10, 2017 13:27:06 GMT
Is she talking about future career? I've heard psychopomps are hiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepycros on Apr 10, 2017 15:05:33 GMT
Is this... is this the first time in the entire series that Annie has been visibly thoughtful and concerned about her place in the world? If her encounter with Red caused this, then it's worth it. She should really put some thought into how she uses her friends for her interests (harsh way of putting it). Is this the life she always wants to lead? Now we get to find out what her end goal is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Apr 10, 2017 18:19:43 GMT
Is this... is this the first time in the entire series that Annie has been visibly thoughtful and concerned about her place in the world? If her encounter with Red caused this, then it's worth it. She should really put some thought into how she uses her friends for her interests (harsh way of putting it). Is this the life she always wants to lead? Now we get to find out what her end goal is. Might be a bit due to Red. Probably a lot due to the fact that she was coerced into some kind of deal with the Psychopomps... |
|
|
|
Post by arf on Apr 10, 2017 23:00:22 GMT
Annie looks older in the final panel, and it suits her too. Perhaps Red's words have got through to her and Annie has had a bit of overdue introspection. I'm interested to see where this will lead. I'm still waiting for the scooby gang to have a post-Jeanne debrief. Annie's shoulder is hiding the severity of the cut, so you can imagine it being longer. However, looking back, it's true: Annie's hair is slowly growing back out. Also looking at panel 3, and looking back at another panel 3. Not. creepy. at. all. |
|
|
|
Post by OGRuddawg on Apr 11, 2017 0:41:44 GMT
Is this... is this the first time in the entire series that Annie has been visibly thoughtful and concerned about her place in the world? If her encounter with Red caused this, then it's worth it. She should really put some thought into how she uses her friends for her interests (harsh way of putting it). Is this the life she always wants to lead? Now we get to find out what her end goal is. Might be a bit due to Red. Probably a lot due to the fact that she was coerced into some kind of deal with the Psychopomps... Oh, it's definitely the deal with the psychopomps that is weighing on her mind. It's a deal she didn't want to make, and I bet the underhanded way they secured the deal makes her think of the manipulative tactics used by the Court. Annie has always prided herself on independence and free agency, and now she's been coerced into what seems to be a long-term if not lifelong commitment. That can't sit well with her. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 11, 2017 0:44:40 GMT
Actually I suspect it's a lot longer commitment than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Apr 11, 2017 3:47:10 GMT
Is this... is this the first time in the entire series that Annie has been visibly thoughtful and concerned about her place in the world? If her encounter with Red caused this, then it's worth it. She should really put some thought into how she uses her friends for her interests (harsh way of putting it). Is this the life she always wants to lead? Now we get to find out what her end goal is. I still really don't like this interpretation for a couple of reasons. For one, it robs the other characters of their agency. We know that it wasn't just Annie that wanted to do something about Jeanne. Multiple past chapters with Annie, Kat, Parley and Smitty demonstrate this very well. So when it's painted like Annie was the only one who wanted and everyone else just followed her lead, it takes away from their characters. For two, the fact that this is a supposedly objective interpretation of events that is not left for us to figure out on our own but is spoon fed to us in the space of one chapter....bothers me. Just from a storytelling perspective, it's simple to the point of irritatingly condescending and boring. For three, it's sort of one dimensional. It's not a whole bunch a kids, all of whom might not have realized what they were getting into and all had different reasons for wanting to do what they did, it's one girl's wish and that, putting aside issues with characterization, is again boring story wise. It makes everything cardboard. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 11, 2017 4:51:49 GMT
I still really don't like this interpretation for a couple of reasons. For one, it robs the other characters of their agency [...]. For two, the fact that this is a supposedly objective interpretation of events that is not left for us to figure out on our own but is spoon fed to us in the space of one chapter....bothers me. i agree. i don't think red's interpretation of annie's motives and methods should be taken as truth, and i don't think tom intended it to be. certainly there was some truth to the part about how annie convinced ayilu to help, but the manipulating her friends part rings false. i think (and could certainly be way off base) that that chapter was meant to do two things; first, make annie actually stop and think about the effects of her actions on others more (which she does need to work on, but that's just part of growing up) and two, contrast the forest perspective and the human/court perspective on duty and social relationships having just read through a year and a half worth of comics at once in order to catch up, i noticed social attitudes/expectations and how they differ from society to society as a reoccurring theme that i hadn't really payed attention to when i was reading one page at a time. i expect this to come back (as so many things in gc do) and get discussed with kat or parley and smitty so that annie can move on from it |
|
|
|
Post by KMar on Apr 11, 2017 10:30:54 GMT
If I remember my philosophy classes right, Ysengrin sounds quite like Hegel now? ("order and purpose")
|
|
|
|
Post by Igniz on Apr 11, 2017 15:26:10 GMT
That's Hegel's "philosophy of nature": the contemplation of nature reveals an order which bespokes purpose, and such purpose bespokes reason. Furthermore, he goes on to say that this indicates that nature itself is the embodiment of ideas, and thus, nature reveals as the work of Spirit. Science is successful because (as previously noted by Kant) it can compel nature to yield answers to its questions, and these answers belong to the world of ideas. All of this brings reminds of the Forest, Coyote and the Court, don't you think? Anyway, it's a pretty good conversation we have here (far deeper and meaningful of what we saw in the previous chapter, if you ask me), and "Dr. Neo Cortex" (do you get the reference?) does have a valid point. I'm waiting next page to see where the dialogue leads to., but I lean more towards Annie bringing out the point in regards of her "contract" with Psychopomp Ltd. than her conversation with the communist jerk. By the way, regarding Annie's hair looking a little longer, I think this be a reflection of her growing, maturing and having tamed the "fire inside", as well as to be healing from her psychological wounds from the Anthony chapters. I still really don't like this interpretation for a couple of reasons. For one, it robs the other characters of their agency [...]. For two, the fact that this is a supposedly objective interpretation of events that is not left for us to figure out on our own but is spoon fed to us in the space of one chapter....bothers me. +1 i agree. i don't think red's interpretation of annie's motives and methods should be taken as truth, and i don't think tom intended it to be. certainly there was some truth to the part about how annie convinced ayilu to help, but the manipulating her friends part rings false. [...] i expect this to come back (as so many things in gc do) and get discussed with kat or parley and smitty so that annie can move on from it Ditto. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 17:50:59 GMT
Red's argument, if taken objectively, falls flat, since Annie's friends expressly wanted to help her put Jeanne to rest; Parley especially had a personal motivation, prepared by Tom in Ch. 30, and mentioned by her as early as Chapter 35. They all knew that this would be dangerous, too (beginning of Ch. 45, or whichever was The Realm Of The Dead). "You are a cipher, forming bonds with people, siphoning their strength against their will," same old; take up thy lady friend and walk, Roxanne. Annie, though, still feels guilt over e.g. cheating with her homework by copying from Kat without asking her, especially since she got caught by someone whose judgment she values -- as had happened with Eglamore and Renard on different matters -- and Kat overheard it; of course she forgave her friend at once, but since Annie is a bit like her father, she won't live that down so easily -- see also: Tony oscillating between over-cautiousness ("unacceptable!"), paralyzing remorse (presently preventing him from making up with his daughter, still) and uninhibited passion (cutting off his hand). Never mind that the "crime" itself is hardly noteworthy; that she didn't ask, avoiding Kat's feelings and judgment (as she did when she chose to spend her vacation in the Forest), amounts to treating her like a clerk providing a menial service: no masks about that. That's where Red could attack her: a good memory, and growing self-awareness. Both of which Red mostly lacks, from what we've seen (with one exception that redeems her otherwise character: Jeanne's attack on Ayilu. Interesting turn of the story that Jeanne -- even distorted into that combative, agonized spirit -- should force to the surface all those buried loves -- joyaux ensevelis? -- by her actions; see also Parley/Smith.) That's Hegel's "philosophy of nature": the contemplation of nature reveals an order which bespokes purpose, and such purpose bespokes reason. Furthermore, he goes on to say that this indicates that nature itself is the embodiment of ideas, and thus, nature reveals as the work of Spirit. Science is successful because (as previously noted by Kant) it can compel nature to yield answers to its questions, and these answers belong to the world of ideas. All of this brings reminds of the Forest, Coyote and the Court, don't you think? I don't understand Hegel on this much at all, who seems to define his terms in terms that also stay blank, as is the case here: "contemplation", "nature", "order", "purpose", "reason", "idea", and especially "Spirit". I feel drowned splashed on the toes by a sea of vague weight and nominal style. Perhaps this is some kind of gem puzzle for me to solve? Otherwise, can you define these terms for someone like me, who doesn't know much about Hegel? To me, the overview you give appears to suggest that science as understood by Hegel is Man's endeavor to become God create order where there was none, and that perhaps by morphic resonance he goes on to imbue his surroundings with precisely the order he has imagined, having convinced himself with rigour that he is, indeed, not imagining it. I wouldn't agree with that. Could fit as a fine framework for a book, nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Apr 12, 2017 3:10:31 GMT
That's Hegel's "philosophy of nature": the contemplation of nature reveals an order which bespokes purpose, and such purpose bespokes reason. Furthermore, he goes on to say that this indicates that nature itself is the embodiment of ideas, and thus, nature reveals as the work of Spirit. Science is successful because (as previously noted by Kant) it can compel nature to yield answers to its questions, and these answers belong to the world of ideas. All of this brings reminds of the Forest, Coyote and the Court, don't you think? I don't understand Hegel on this much at all, who seems to define his terms in terms that also stay blank, as is the case here: "contemplation", "nature", "order", "purpose", "reason", "idea", and especially "Spirit". I feel drowned splashed on the toes by a sea of vague weight and nominal style. Perhaps this is some kind of gem puzzle for me to solve? Otherwise, can you define these terms for someone like me, who doesn't know much about Hegel? To me, the overview you give appears to suggest that science as understood by Hegel is Man's endeavor to become God create order where there was none, and that perhaps by morphic resonance he goes on to imbue his surroundings with precisely the order he has imagined, having convinced himself with rigour that he is, indeed, not imagining it. I wouldn't agree with that. Could fit as a fine framework for a book, nonetheless. I think what he means, instead of us imposing order where none exists, us examining the world around us reveals that there is in fact order to seeming chaos. From there you get to the argument that there is purpose to the other, and reason underlying the purpose. Because those are hallmarks of intelligence (that is, they show that nature is the embodiment of an idea), there must be some intelligence (some "Spirit") behind the world. A quick Google shows that Hegel was working from a Protestant Christian worldview, so this reads essentially as a kind of argument for the existence of God. The brief version, in my words: The world has a logic to it; logic is a product of a reasoning mind; therefore nature shows us the work of a reasoning mind. And the bit about science, to my reading, isn't about imposing order where there is none and then convincing ourselves we have the order, but about being able to find, in nature, answers to our questions about the world. Put another way: our science compels the world around us to give us an answer to our questions, it does not impose an answer where none exists. I could be way off base, but that's what I read ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Apr 12, 2017 4:38:38 GMT
I don't understand Hegel on this much at all, who seems to define his terms in terms that also stay blank, as is the case here: "contemplation", "nature", "order", "purpose", "reason", "idea", and especially "Spirit". I feel drowned splashed on the toes by a sea of vague weight and nominal style. Perhaps this is some kind of gem puzzle for me to solve? Otherwise, can you define these terms for someone like me, who doesn't know much about Hegel? To me, the overview you give appears to suggest that science as understood by Hegel is Man's endeavor to become God create order where there was none, and that perhaps by morphic resonance he goes on to imbue his surroundings with precisely the order he has imagined, having convinced himself with rigour that he is, indeed, not imagining it. I wouldn't agree with that. Could fit as a fine framework for a book, nonetheless. I think what he means, instead of us imposing order where none exists, us examining the world around us reveals that there is in fact order to seeming chaos. From there you get to the argument that there is purpose to the other, and reason underlying the purpose. Because those are hallmarks of intelligence (that is, they show that nature is the embodiment of an idea), there must be some intelligence (some "Spirit") behind the world. A quick Google shows that Hegel was working from a Protestant Christian worldview, so this reads essentially as a kind of argument for the existence of God. The brief version, in my words: The world has a logic to it; logic is a product of a reasoning mind; therefore nature shows us the work of a reasoning mind. And the bit about science, to my reading, isn't about imposing order where there is none and then convincing ourselves we have the order, but about being able to find, in nature, answers to our questions about the world. Put another way: our science compels the world around us to give us an answer to our questions, it does not impose an answer where none exists. I could be way off base, but that's what I read ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That's how I understood it too. Humans are not creating order where there was none; rather, we're discovering the order that was there all along. The fact that we rational beings can rationally ask questions about the world and get consistent answers indicates that the world itself is rational, and thus is the product of a rational mind. (I haven't read Hegel, but that's what I got from Igniz's summary, and it's similar to other stuff I've run across in Christian theology.) I'm not quite sure how this relates to what Ysengrin's saying, but it's interesting, anyway.  (Actually, it's rather contrary to how the Gunnerverse operates, isn't it? There, the etheric principle of "It just works" has a certain irrationality to it--which is why Kat finds it so objectionable. Also, Coyote's theory and the Court's ether experiments show that humans are in fact shaping the fabric of reality, imposing order where none exists. Though, perhaps, without anticipating all the consequences.) |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 12, 2017 11:30:36 GMT
Annie's shoulder is hiding the severity of the cut, so you can imagine it being longer. However, looking back, it's true: Annie's hair is slowly growing back out. Also looking at panel 3, and looking back at another panel 3. Not. creepy. at. all. Was wondering why Coyote briefly "goes skeletal" in panel 6 of that old page (1089) - in the light of the stolen memory, as it were... could it be that briefly the light of "truth" - Ys true memory of events - pierces through Coyote's disguise and shows him for the "unreal" thing he really is? |
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Apr 12, 2017 16:00:19 GMT
Annie's shoulder is hiding the severity of the cut, so you can imagine it being longer. However, looking back, it's true: Annie's hair is slowly growing back out. Also looking at panel 3, and looking back at another panel 3. Not. creepy. at. all. Was wondering why Coyote briefly "goes skeletal" in panel 6 of that old page (1089) - in the light of the stolen memory, as it were... could it be that briefly the light of "truth" - Ys true memory of events - pierces through Coyote's disguise and shows him for the "unreal" thing he really is? It's become my theory that Coyote is more than just a trickster, but also a little bit of a God of Death. Look at this his origin story: a dying man seeing the power of a god behind a creature that will soon eat him. He has, at the least, an association with death. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 20:33:38 GMT
Zox Tomana, Runningflame -- Seems reasonable, thank you. This thought is not unique to Hegel. That science is about discovering order in nature, and that such an order hints at the mind of its designer (or that therein lies the way to discover clues re: the nature of the afterlife) has been expressed lucidly by others such as Roger Bacon or Alhazen (or Nabokov). Still this part, which seems to be Hegel's innovation, From there you get to the argument that there is purpose to the other, and reason underlying the purpose. seems unsound to me. If I shuffle a deck of cards, then leaf through it and find all four Queens in a batch, why does that imply that there is a purpose to such an order -- that a vital spirit of the universe wanted to transmit a sign to me, that this isn't lifeless matter fueling the gambles of imagination? My variant reading describes Coyote's theory of how he came to exist (or how I read that), which is why I briefly assumed his voice and joked about how that could make a "fine framework for a book" -- we're reading it.
|
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 12, 2017 21:25:09 GMT
I'm not quite sure how this relates to what Ysengrin's saying, but it's interesting, anyway. (Actually, it's rather contrary to how the Gunnerverse operates, isn't it? There, the etheric principle of "It just works" has a certain irrationality to it--which is why Kat finds it so objectionable. Also, Coyote's theory and the Court's ether experiments show that humans are in fact shaping the fabric of reality, imposing order where none exists. Though, perhaps, without anticipating all the consequences.) i don't think etherics in the court don't have logic, it's more that the beings most heavily involved in it don't apply logic to it the way a scientist would? "it just works" doesn't reflect the system, it reflects a speaker who didn't care to find out why. i would also argue that the court isn't imposing order but rather imposing their will; there was an order, it just wasn't the order the court wanted... (i want to post these thoughts but i also am way overdue for a comprehensive reread so this is a disclaimer that i might be forgetting something that disproves the above statements) |
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Apr 13, 2017 0:17:48 GMT
Still this part, which seems to be Hegel's innovation, From there you get to the argument that there is purpose to the other, and reason underlying the purpose. seems unsound to me. If I shuffle a deck of cards, then leaf through it and find all four Queens in a batch, why does that imply that there is a purpose to such an order -- that a vital spirit of the universe wanted to transmit a sign to me, that this isn't lifeless matter fueling the gambles of imagination? My variant reading describes Coyote's theory of how he came to exist (or how I read that), which is why I briefly assumed his voice and joked about how that could make a "fine framework for a book" -- we're reading it. If you shuffle the pack of cards, and then go through it you might be able to find all four Queens in a row, but if you try to make a more general description which can tell you what card comes next... if you've randomized the cards, there won't be a model you can impose which predicts what card is where outside of actually going through and naming all the cards and their positions. Continuous, random shuffling has a remote possibility of putting the cards in some kind of predictable order, but if you pick up a deck of cards and find that they are in an order such that you can predict which card comes next (say... all four aces in a particular order, then all the twos in the same, then all the threes in the same, then the fours... at that point you can safely assume you can reliably predict what card is where in the deck), and that your predictions match the reality of the deck, what is more likely? That the deck has been randomly shuffled, or that I put the cards in a particular order? To extend this to the natural world: after looking at the world, we can build consistently reliable models that predict the future given a certain set of circumstances. If I launch a ball of iron with a given weight, at a given angle, with a given amount of force, anyone who's taken basic physics can predict how far it will go and how quickly it will get there. Sure, totally random processes could bring that about... but how likely is it that it would be so reproducible across hundreds of years? It is more likely that there is some kind of order governing the movement of objects. Hegel proposes that, since we find that kind of order in the world, that it is highly unlikely that it is not the result of a mind, much like an ordered deck of cards is not likely to be the product of random shuffling. Gunnerkigg Court certainly does seem to incorporate what you said, though: that man's imposition of order on the world actually creates that order (the existence of Coyote and other such things) via the power of the Ether. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 3:16:42 GMT
Zox TomanaWell, if "most likely" were sufficient to deduce something, it might not be called Riemann's hypothesis by this point, etc. I admit that this is kind of weak. But (I pay royalties to keef for this sentence) the great mystery is how "something" came from "nothing". It's possible that the creation of "something", the expanding universe with its beautiful set of orderly rules, was a very unlikely outcome of the initial state of "nothing" (or call it primordial chaos) akin to bogosort falling into place on the first try -- but thanks to infinite typing monkeys, it was absolutely sure to happen "sooner or later" (i.e. given infinite repeats). And there were perhaps universes far less stable that died to their own confusion ("best of possible worlds", you know the kind), although this isn't necessary. We agree that there is order in the world, but what I question is that order implies purpose implies reason. Let me try again, with more emphasis on the second implication. You may find on your way a dusty pack of cards with the queens all batched together. This could be a fluke. Follow the path and find a hundred such packs in a row. Now it's unlikely to be a fluke. Agreed, let's round it up and assume that something must have designed this to happen: order implying purpose. But can you deduce what this purpose is? You could guess at it from analogy (i.e. remembrance), from your awareness of the framework (are you in an experimental mystery story?) or from an act of faith. Nothing might ever confirm this guess to you, or your species. If you tried to guess at this riddle-bearing pattern without further context, you would fail: reason is helpless against this isolate fact. Or call it atomic fact, perhaps. (Warning: I might misunderstand the terminology.) Hegel, if I understand you right, assumes that if we collect all the isolate facts, they make a web of sense through referring to each other, ever more growing towards reason's star, even though the parts are wholly unreasonable. This is a thought I'd agree with. And yet, nothing guarantees that even if everything was individually placed with purpose, that the grand purpose they reveal when understood as a whole by reason sheds any light on any of the purposes behind this or that individual object -- unless their entire purpose was to build this web, but assuming that seems to beg the question (the purpose of everything is to reveal reason, therefore purpose implies reason, therefore purpose reveals reason). That is: it may just be that the web of reason is precisely the product of reason, as it develops when reason is caged into time, and reveals, if there ever is an end to this process, perhaps the timeless form of reason, but nothing innate to objects that lack the ability of reasoning. (This begins to grow a bit murky.) Counter-arguments to my line here: * There is no sign without reference. No isolate fact at all. When we understand the purpose behind the greatest abstraction that unifies everything (presuming that this exists), there is nothing concrete to which it could not be subsumed. * There are no objects not endowed with "reason" (e.g. Schopenhauer as I understand him subsumes reason under the Will and then puts every subject as an equivalent expression of the Will, as well as every object as a representation of some subject: "easy peasy" -- but he is staunch on the divide between subject and object such that it is impossible for the subject, defined by its ability to perceive, to perceive anything else that perceives -- so that a subject is represented by an object to every other subject. I think I used too many words here.) * It must have been the same intelligence that designed the web that also directly designed the material world. (Gnostics would disagree.) * It must have been the same intelligence that designed the web that also created the intelligence that designed the material world. I'm sure you could find more I can't think of -- that's the fun of it, for us both. Edit: Found a pack of cards, so to speak -- in the comic: the 113 signature. Counter-argument: the purpose is precisely to avoid any deductible purpose. Edit II: Never mind the elephant in the room -- that the more one learns, the more difficult it becomes to keep in mind and develop links between it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 13, 2017 5:52:50 GMT
The problem with Hegel's idea is that large quantities of randomness often produce statistical order - and everything we can see without instruments, contains large quantities!
|
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Apr 13, 2017 16:52:45 GMT
The problem with Hegel's idea is that large quantities of randomness often produce statistical order - and everything we can see without instruments, contains large quantities! Yes, but that statistical order will be localized and won't apply to the whole set. The whole point of calling something random is to say that it is unordered. You can flip a coin 1000 times and have it land all heads 50 times in a row, or tails 25 times in a row, or perfectly alternate 30 times. Locally, the set it ordered, but overall the set is random. Interrogation on a local scale gives us the perception of order, but trying to apply local conclusions to the whole of the data shows that the perception is false. This isn't just a Hegel thing, this is important for the scientific endeavor as a whole. Newtonian physics do wonderfully in describing how the world works, but they needed refinement to describe things in more complex systems, or more extreme conditions (high speeds, near absolute zero temps, the extremely small, or incredibly massive). That's where Einstein steps in and gives us more refined descriptions of how the universe works. Taken together, the descriptions we have drawn up in our science have been shown to apply not just on our planet, but across the observable universe. @korba Before I respond to you, I'd like to try and make sure I understand what you're saying. Philosophical stuff waaaay too easily devolves into verbiage that is easily misunderstood. So the question is whether or not something being ordered implies that there is a reason behind it being ordered. If I am understanding you correctly, the objection you raise is that even if everything is perfectly ordered according to reasonable, logical relationships (generally what I understand to be meant by this is the universe being governed by consistent laws of physics), there is no guarantee that they are that way on purpose. In line with warrl, you might point to the existence of an overwhelming amount of randomness, and conclude that the only "reason" they are so ordered is that they just happen to be that way. And, a little bit separately: regarding the Riemann Hypothesis. Here is where there is a line between Mathematics and the rest of science. In Mathematics, you actually can prove something to be absolutely true. For the rest of the scientific endeavor, you simply build confidence in your model based on repeated showings that it describes the world around in a consistent, and predictive, fashion. This is as true for General Relativity (one of the most well tested models in history) as it is for Evolution. The Riemann Hypothesis is probably true. We can be pretty dang confident it is... but we don't have a mathematical, absolute proof of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 18:46:55 GMT
If I am understanding you correctly, the objection you raise is that even if everything is perfectly ordered according to reasonable, logical relationships (generally what I understand to be meant by this is the universe being governed by consistent laws of physics), there is no guarantee that they are that way on purpose. Yes, because their inception could have been a fantastically unlikely event (similarly to how us reasonable humans seem to be quite lonely in the universe supposedly governed by reason; "Great Filter" keyword, of course) but everything happening after that would, of course, fall under these consistent laws and could not be used to argue about the likelihood of -- well, however it may have begun. It's sufficient for those first principles to establish causality -- the initial "miracle" (that, as said, may not have been one) -- to let the whole universe dance to its order. (I am emphatically not claiming that the laws of physics arise from sheer disarray that just so happens to fall into place every time it is observed by reason.) I know. That was why I put "etc." at the end, cheekily: I assumed you were long familiar with the argument that there is no proof in empirical sciences beyond the underlying mathematics, but repeated observation in a controlled environment is nearly as good as that; still I found that it bears mentioning. The pertinent point comes after that. The other point, as stated above, is that reason may conclude that the whole universe overlaps with its own purpose, and yet might find itself unable to explain why this was revealed to it by a pack of cards with the queens in order, as opposed to anything else in the world. What's more, the development of reason -- linking isolate facts to each other, or explaining them as a consequence of posited first principles -- makes for an evolutionary advantage in a world governed by causality. This may tempt reason to detect its own workings in causality; but it may only be the instrument to prod causality with, which may not carry a designer's moral signature, as reason itself may have evolved from laws of physics, in paraphrase (compelled by a lack of knowledge): if a structure is built from these compounds interacting in that way at this or that temperature etc., then it will develop the ability to Know Thyself®. It can also be an evolutionary advantage to assume purpose behind reason, because that makes one use it more enthusiastically. |
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Apr 13, 2017 19:30:12 GMT
If I am understanding you correctly, the objection you raise is that even if everything is perfectly ordered according to reasonable, logical relationships (generally what I understand to be meant by this is the universe being governed by consistent laws of physics), there is no guarantee that they are that way on purpose. Yes, because their inception could have been a fantastically unlikely event (similarly to how us reasonable humans seem to be quite lonely in the universe supposedly governed by reason; "Great Filter" keyword, of course) but everything happening after that would, of course, fall under these consistent laws and could not be used to argue about the likelihood of -- well, however it may have begun. It's sufficient for those first principles to establish causality -- the initial "miracle" (that, as said, may not have been one) -- to let the whole universe dance to its order. (I am emphatically not claiming that the laws of physics arise from sheer disarray that just so happens to fall into place every time it is observed by reason.) <snip> Alright, just wanted to check. I'd agree with you that that is a sound position to take. The idea (which you later stated) that we had an initial event in which the chips happened to fall such that we have this particular order to the universe, and that our ability to reason and think and observe the universe arose from an evolutionary process is one taken by a vast number of people, particularly those in the sciences. It's not one I'm particularly fond of, after all I've read about how this or that constant had to be within this or that range at the very beginning in order for the universe to develop so that any kind of life might exist to observe said regular laws. Generally, part of the argument turns into an appeal to a multiverse so that you can have an infinite number of essentially randomly generated initial conditions and we just happen to be in a universe where those initial conditions were such that life could arise and obtain Know Thyself (Registered Trademark of Life, Inc.). To my mind, however, given that you literally cannot prove any such thing as a Multiverse (you can posit it as a consequence of this or that, but you can't prove it), such statements are basically as much a matter of faith as my own belief in God. The multiverse simply enjoys the veneer of scientific legitimacy because famous scientists came up with the idea. The World Wide Web: where a comic about fire-head girls selling their lives to psychopomps, robots romancing shadows, hair-clip delivering zombies, and Spaniards who can talk to animals inspires people to talk about Hegelian philosophy. What a world... (wide web) XD |
|
(Actually, it's rather contrary to how the Gunnerverse operates, isn't it? There, the etheric principle of "It just works" has a certain irrationality to it--which is why Kat finds it so objectionable. Also, Coyote's theory and the Court's ether experiments show that humans are in fact shaping the fabric of reality, imposing order where none exists. Though, perhaps, without anticipating all the consequences.)
