|
|
Post by todd on Aug 29, 2014 10:41:05 GMT
My great apologies if someone has already pointed this out, but obviously the Court didn't pay attention to their Star Trek lessons, particularly, "Never give a computer complete/sole control of a huge ship, or planet destroyer, or planetary government..." It never comes out well, hey?  (Though as noted by others, no threats made so far...and Kat IS considered a holy being by them robots.) They probably didn't anticipate anything like this - especially since only the robots seem to have known much about the "Creator Kat" religion (the bulk of Robot's preaching took place when the human characters were off-page). Though once the Court learns about this incident, I suspect it'll be changing a lot of its policies about the robots (if with the challenge that a) the robots make up enough of the everyday workforce in the Court that it can't simply get rid of them all and b) it wouldn't want to provoke a holy war with the robots seeing the Court as a religious persecutor. |
|
|
|
Post by cu on Aug 29, 2014 11:34:16 GMT
OK, so it is becoming more and more clear that GC is a comic about love-induced psychosis: Diego, Renard, Robot, the Ship... maybe add Jack, Randy and Parley too, as milder cases? Love can make you act in strange ways, indeed. As mere faithful readers, we can but hope to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Aug 29, 2014 14:02:26 GMT
OK, so it is becoming more and more clear that GC is a comic about love-induced psychosis: Diego, Renard, Robot, the Ship... maybe add Jack, Randy and Parley too, as milder cases? Love can make you act in strange ways, indeed. As mere faithful readers, we can but hope to understand. Anthony probably fits into this category as well. And Jeanne, who seemed to have an inkling she was going into danger but ignored the red flags. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepcircle on Sept 3, 2014 15:50:29 GMT
And if theoretical comparative xenobiology jokes are not your forte perhaps you should ignore this thread. i wasn't referring to the gill cleaning, i was referring to where you said "Bud may be in trouble, not sure he can compete in the size speed or endurance department with machine." |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 4, 2014 7:32:48 GMT
And if theoretical comparative xenobiology jokes are not your forte perhaps you should ignore this thread. i wasn't referring to the gill cleaning, i was referring to where you said "Bud may be in trouble, not sure he can compete in the size speed or endurance department with machine." Mind-bending as it might be, while joking I was also being serious at the same time. I imagine Court technology could easily fabricate a feeler capable of a wider range of motion and stimuli than Bud's limbs. A given limb could be both larger than Bud and capable of more dexterity per square centimeter so he would lose on both fronts. Mechanical construction provides a variety of advantages; it would effectively never fatigue nor ablate and could emit sound and/or light that would aid in killing harmful life forms, and may be designed to emit useful chemicals or stimulating vibrations that would be outside natural possibilities. Additionally it could be made with materials that would resist or poison marine life if that was desirable. The crunch of one silica-based encrustation against another might be considered erotic by merostomatazons, or a sign of fidelity (as that would mean that neither had been cleaned by another). A camera could be included so that images of the encounter could be recorded and uploaded to the internet. For science. But this is not my first speculation in this area on this forum, nor my first joke about it... I consider comic comic #948 to have opened the door to comparisons to both humor and human parallels... No need to get excited. I'm sure it's just a little etheric mimicry of some very beneficial gill-slit cleaning with some of Bud's specialized limbs. They probably just call it a kiss as an affectation, or because that's the closest human language gets. Carver's just got a dirty mind, or a failing grade in xenobiology, most likely. Or both.  Seeing just how they do procreation may be even more horrible unless they do the 'spawn millions of sperm and eggs' method rather than you know what. If it makes anyone feel any better I think it is very unlikely that merostomatazons reproduce via internal fertilization. You're probably more-or-less on target with the "spawn millions of sperm and eggs" thing but considering their size I'd guess fewer bigger eggs at deeper depths and protected by chemically-appropriate sediment. And that's only if they carry things through to actual reproductive sex; as a pair-bonded couple I assume they could content themselves with, er, ritualistic pre-mating behaviors. [edit] Clarification: Going by the comments on the comic and Formspring, what some people are thinking is happening is not happening, and is probably impossible anyway. Also, to the person who complained that merostomatazon is an invalid taxon: I assume a generic name is impossible, considering extra-dimensional origin, though as they're intelligent "merostomatazon" may actually be self-applied or a translated application of same. But I am impressed by your nerd-power. And welcome to the forums Toloc![/edit] |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Sept 4, 2014 7:56:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 4, 2014 23:20:16 GMT
A quote about love without illusions, something about seeing amusement parks when the lights are turned off and the rides are stopped, just passed through my mind but I'm too lazy to look it up in Bartlett's. Yet someone must build better and better amusement parks or they will disappear; is not such a person one who's love for the rides is more pure than the one who never desires to look past the illusions and the excitement? Plus there's a paycheck involved for riding. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepcircle on Sept 5, 2014 12:06:37 GMT
i see. well, my mistake for including you in that particular degree of sexual humour when i made my sweeping generalization of this discussion.
anyway your choice and rendering of quote is a little opaque so, just so i don't misinterpret again, what EXACTLY does this quote illustrate about your thoughts on love?—that it is better to ride each chemical high for a month or a year and then dump the person as soon as you're bored or someone comes along who is sexier or makes better conversation?
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 5, 2014 12:21:04 GMT
i see. well, my mistake for including you in that particular degree of sexual humour when i made my sweeping generalization of this discussion. anyway your choice and rendering of quote is a little opaque so, just so i don't misinterpret again, what EXACTLY does this quote illustrate about your thoughts on love?—that it is better to ride each chemical high for a month or a year and then dump the person as soon as you're bored or someone comes along who is sexier or makes better conversation? That the one who loves without illusion loves the purest.  |
|
|
|
Post by sleepcircle on Sept 5, 2014 12:36:18 GMT
well, while i've heard a couple people reflect your sentiment before, most people have a lot more invested psychologically in relationships than you. and i don't think it's a matter of enlightenment either, because i know people who think they're enlightened and try their hardest to be enlightened and they're still miserable because of a break-up, and they can never really stop being sad when they think of it. i think it might actually be a biological difference on your part; i think you'd probably better not love anyone unless you've established confidently that they have—like, internalized and not just weakly professed—the same outlook as you, or you'll leave a lot of unhappy people behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 5, 2014 13:53:53 GMT
well, while i've heard a couple people reflect your sentiment before, most people have a lot more invested psychologically in relationships than you. and i don't think it's a matter of enlightenment either, because i know people who think they're enlightened and try their hardest to be enlightened and they're still miserable because of a break-up, and they can never really stop being sad when they think of it. i think it might actually be a biological difference on your part; i think you'd probably better not love anyone unless you've established confidently that they have—like, internalized and not just weakly professed—the same outlook as you, or you'll leave a lot of unhappy people behind. How do you know how much I have invested in relationships? I think you misconstrue my descriptions of physical actions for the comparable mental states across species, theoretical though this all may be. Even limiting the conversation to humans, surely you must concede that there is *something* on some level silly about the biological acts themselves- at least when contrasted with those stereotypes, myths, and preoccupations that culture wraps them in. This is also true on an emotional level and I think that is the key point which you may have missed. For example: If you see a lacrimal secretion you may infer sadness, but that same reaction may be caused by a dust mote in the eye, or an excess of joy. Exaggerated facial expressions are either instinctual or nearly-so for parents interacting with infants, which assists with picking up facial expressions from the earliest ages but some people are better than others. Some people are sociopaths who study human reactions but have no ability to relate these to their own feelings. Others are oversensitive and clumsy. We all collect evidence and compensate for our lack of telepathy as well as we are able but those who do so deliberately are generally better than those who do not. Those who take an interest in others are better at interacting with others than those who do not. And those with better vision are better at picking up subtle visual cues than those who can't. Therefore the one who is able to deconstruct romance and put it back together can be the more romantic, provided the proper motivation is supplied. Likewise the better lover is not the one who is blinded by the mystique but the one who knows where all the fiddly bits are and how they work. The latter does not preclude the former.  |
|
|
|
Post by sleepcircle on Sept 5, 2014 14:50:01 GMT
"How" do I know? I thought I knew because I thought you confirmed this in your last post but clearly I can't read your metaphors at all. I thought I could, but your turns of speech are constantly outmanoeuvring my ability to meaningfully link them with anything. although, I wasn't actually referring to your descriptions of physical actions any more, I was referring to your roller-coaster metaphor, about building bigger and better amusement parks.
What behaviour, practically here, with literal words, are you recommending. And not just 'deconstructing and reconstructing and taking apart the illusion' but 'what IS the illusion' and 'what have you found when you took the face off the clock and pulled apart all the pieces' and 'what is the proper motivation that is supplied'. Cause if you don't plan on telling me then i guess that this is all academic and that i was arguing about something that we don't even disagree on, because i analyze human behaviour almost obsessively in my efforts to figure out what makes people tick. I am just arguing with what I thought your conclusion was based on the way you phrased basically every sentence so far.
EDIT: No telepathy, see. I'm just using what I've studied to try and interpret what you're saying. Obviously you're an exceptional case because all my prior knowledge seems to be useless when it comes to reading you.
other edit: also dude do you normally call tears lacrimal secretions.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 5, 2014 16:33:28 GMT
other edit: also dude do you normally call tears lacrimal secretions. Nope. I chose those words to try to lead you to connect on your own that nonsexual example with the dirty jokes you found objectionable before. "How" do I know? I thought I knew because I thought you confirmed this in your last post but clearly I can't read your metaphors at all. I thought I could, but your turns of speech are constantly outmanoeuvring my ability to meaningfully link them with anything, although I wasn't referring to your descriptions of physical actions any more, I was referring to your roller-coaster metaphor, about building bigger and better amusement parks. It's a famous quote about how someone's enjoyment of an amusement park is never quite the same once they have experienced it before the lights are on and the attractions are in full swing. Bartlett's doesn't seem to have it, maybe I don't remember enough of the exact wording. In any case I rejected the dilemma you were trying to force on me in that post and simply said, "That the one who loves without illusion loves the purest" because that was my point in brief. What behaviour, practically here, with literal words, are you recommending. And not just 'deconstructing and reconstructing and taking apart the illusion' but 'what IS the illusion' and 'what have you found when you took the face off the clock and pulled apart all the pieces' and 'what is the motivation that is supplied'. Cause if you never planned on telling me then we were arguing about something that we don't even disagree on because i analyze human behaviour almost obsessively. I am just arguing with what I thought your conclusion was based on the way you phrased basically every sentence so far. I did tell you. If you want an oversimplification I guess you might say I'm arguing in favor of extending rationality to those aspects of life that are taboo. That's sort of like saying a book is made of wood, though. As to illusions, there are so many I'm not even sure where to start or to give generics or specific examples. One specific example that comes to mind is a girl that I knew many years ago; whenever she met a guy she liked she always had to convince herself that he was the guy she was going to marry in order to date him. I'm not telepathic but with the benefit of hindsight I'm pretty sure some of those were just rationalizations for one-night-stands that lasted two or three days. This behavior was cute as a teen but extended into her mid-twenties when she actually got married. The union suffered problems that I suspect might not have existed if she had been more honest with herself about why she was attracted to particular partners, thus allowing her to predict when her interest with a given partner would expire in the future. Underneath "the face of the clock?" I'm not sure you are looking for a metaphysical discussion but I think at least some of the things you value are emergent from biology that can be reduced to an extent. I'm not sure we really need to establish the nature of reality to have this conversation. All I need for my position to be valid is sense experience. Maybe what is tripping you up is that I am not advocating a behavior other than rationality, or a desired outcome other than what is desired, just that more desirable outcomes are obtainable through rationality than through acting irrationality however attractive that irrationality might seem. Moral, immoral, or amoral can be plugged into or projected onto that, which is I think what happened. EDIT: No telepathy, see. I'm just using what I've studied to try and interpret what you're saying. Obviously you're an exceptional case because all my prior knowledge seems to be useless when it comes to reading you. I can truthfully assure you that I am extremely ordinary. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepcircle on Sept 5, 2014 16:53:20 GMT
okay before i reply to any of that can you answer the other question i asked, which was what you meant by "provided the proper motivation is supplied". i'm sorry it wasn't clear, i would like a specific answer on this. what is "the motivation"
EDIT: and don't get all wound up (aha ha ha) about the metaphysical aspect of 'taking the face off the clock' here. I was making a colourful reference to looking at the mechanics of the thing without any of its decorations. you know, the theme park before it's open—that kind of thing.
OTHER EDIT: to be honest i'd rather have this discussion in a chat room or something. i honestly detest forum debates because there is just so much room for misunderstanding after misunderstanding to build up. this discussion probably wouldn't have actually gotten this big if we'd been able to catch inconsistencies in our understandings of what the conversation was about as the inconsistencies occurred, instead of having to dig around in a few paragraphs of prose an hour and a half after we forgot what the phrases we typed meant in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 5, 2014 18:10:10 GMT
okay before i reply to any of that can you answer the other question i asked, which was what you meant by "provided the proper motivation is supplied". i'm sorry it wasn't clear, i would like a specific answer on this. what is "the motivation" When I wrote, "The one who is able to deconstruct romance and put it back together can be the more romantic, provided the proper motivation is supplied." The motivation may be any desire to be romantic. Like I said, it may be an immoral desire, a moral one, or an amoral one. It could be honest or deceitful, healing or harmful. None of that changes the validity of the point. I didn't have anything in particular in mind, or rather I should say that I had everything in mind. EDIT: and don't get all wound up (aha ha ha) about the metaphysical aspect of 'taking the face off the clock' here. I was making a colourful reference to looking at the mechanics of the thing without any of its decorations. you know, the theme park before it's open—that kind of thing. Excellent. I will begin adding jokes to my posts again. Possibly dirty. OTHER EDIT: to be honest i'd rather have this discussion in a chat room or something. i honestly detest forum debates because there is just so much room for misunderstanding after misunderstanding to build up. this discussion probably wouldn't have actually gotten this big if we'd been able to catch inconsistencies in our understandings of what the conversation was about as the inconsistencies occurred, instead of having to dig around in a few paragraphs of prose an hour and a half after we forgot what the phrases we typed meant in the first place. I'm not sure about that; misunderstandings can happen fast in chat as well. But in any case I am limited by time constraints to drive-by posting. I could do this on PM if you like but annoying the forum with these discussions is one of my hobbies. The thread had died a natural death; I don't think anyone minded we hijacked it. If it makes you feel better I will use examples from the comic to illustrate my points. Besides, I think Keef is still reading. |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Sept 5, 2014 19:12:40 GMT
If it makes you feel better I will use examples from the comic to illustrate my points. Besides, I think Keef is still reading. Yes. And thinking about some things to say, but cultural and language difference get in the way a bit. Maybe part of the story here is that while sleepcircle is talking morals, imaginaryfriend is (mainly) talking biology. I don't mind though. I'm interested in both. Talking about biology; in animals like this, especially Arthropoda, where the female is a lot bigger than the male, consumption of love is often celebrated with the consumption of the male. So maybe Lindsey and Bud are still waiting for that really special moment. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 5, 2014 19:40:57 GMT
If it makes you feel better I will use examples from the comic to illustrate my points. Besides, I think Keef is still reading. Yes. And thinking about some things to say, but cultural and language difference get in the way a bit. Maybe part of the story here is that while sleepcircle is talking morals, imaginaryfriend is (mainly) talking biology. I don't mind though. I'm interested in both. Talking about biology; in animals like this, especially Arthropoda, where the female is a lot bigger than the male, consumption of love is often celebrated with the consumption of the male. So maybe Lindsey and Bud are still waiting for that really special moment. The eating of the Love Boat would be a delightful conclusion of the chapter. It would be like the Titanic movie, except the iceberg would be alive. And amorous. And possibly both would be having second thoughts about their choices (though the robots don't seem to mind death so maybe not). And seeing the kids scarper to the boats while the robot band plays would be a bonus. And Willie could sink into the depths for the bonus page while Jan looks on from a lifeboat and curses in olde English. Sadly the merostomatazon comes from a completely different path (which is why I said we couldn't supply a generic before) so the comparison is dodgy... but then again the gunnerverse functions on stories so a merostomatazon being *here* might have to play by earth rules for such a creature by being... etherically outvoted by legions of earthmen who know how such things should be? But I've been mainly talking biology because that's been most relevant to the comic. Observable things are also easier to visualize. I can make arguments from softer science and with intangibles but it gets twisty. And with observable phenomena I can make fun mental images in people's minds in my examples. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 6, 2014 1:28:39 GMT
OK, so it is becoming more and more clear that GC is a comic about love-induced psychosis: Diego, Renard, Robot, the Ship... maybe add Jack, Randy and Parley too, as milder cases? Love can make you act in strange ways, indeed. As mere faithful readers, we can but hope to understand. Anthony probably fits into this category as well. How? |
|
(Though as noted by others, no threats made so far...and Kat IS considered a holy being by them robots.)
