Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 15:14:01 GMT
I actually think the Piper's speech would have less oomph without the contrast of the sober words of the Guide. It is hard to explain, but if it was just the piper's speech, they would have floated a bit aimless on the page, being burdened with too many impression of having to linger in the reader's mind. Instead, it reads like a wondrous flash, a quick soaring into the higher spheres of the mind and then brought as quickly to the ground by the Guide. I hadn't thought of this; I can accept it. In a sense, I did get pulled back to Earth by the Interface as well. The difference between us, then, is our judgment of the cadence; you think it's a gentle knock of a plum and I think it's a sullen plummet*. So you're saying that I'm making the same mistake as the Interface?  I won't concede a nautic iota here -- I've given a reason why I define a writer's work as necessarily philosophical, beyond the techniques of representing reality (which are no small part, which require effort to learn, but which are comparatively trivial). I would also argue that philosophy has it hard enough to dominate life, as you claim -- because mathematics is, at least to my definition, not part of it. Incidentally, you might like Stanisław Lem's "Technology and Ethics", a collection of short stories. I blame individuation and perhaps a general rise in sea level (how topical). It's an analogy followed by self-irony. The point is that "Gunnerkrigg Court contains an ecosystem of characters etc." fails to express anything about what makes Gunnerkrigg Court a good webcomic and is less "productive" than silence, and the word "ecosystem" is replaceable at will in this context (such as by deleting the "eco-" prefix). The "seven musicians" line is just meant as a joke: paraphrasing Descartes and Spinoza doesn't seem to have helped illustrate my point as I had intended, after which I quoted Shakespeare and Milton (to different purposes), and I find it funny to shoot myself in the back (no harm done: not silver) by pretending that this was the prelude to a slippery slope of increasingly absurd quote-mining. What's more, music is indeed an art form in which a distinction between "plotlines" and "motifs" does not exist (citation needed), and the question about why the former are demanded by literature is meant earnestly. On this, I emphatically recommend Raymond Queneau's "Exercises in Style", even more so than Lem. You'll see. The same thing, I think*. Why are you motivated to engage me? I figure that it's because you think you have something to contribute to my "ocean", or to an imaginary silent reader's, or even just to your own's; and you fight, however "gently" (it is basic dignity, but thanks nonetheless), to convince my oceanic "immune system" to acquiesce some of your fluids (and I find the connotation too funny to resist). You'd probably shake your opponent's hand after any game. Another cliché that is probably necessary to understand me when unfamiliar is that I take games most seriously. On that note, Sure. But to get to that point, the Interface chose to snap the bucket. Was this better than to heed the call of help and withdraw the Great Wave? Since it would be unfair to leave that question to you first: I think it was at least better than that, yes. The Interface was acting callously, perhaps even for her own benefit only (which she imagines is the benefit of all her kin, as she identifies it), but this doesn't change that the Piper appears to approve of the change, and that the resulting bliss seems worth far more than momentary discomfort. Both of these are, of course, emotions. You struck out "exchanging fluids", and yet left this sentence in. I'm getting mixed messages here, damn it. * The footnote for both sentences is "WE COME IN PEACE". Don't mind it. Independently of where I got the idea, I think a good use of a resurfacing footnote (which this isn't) would demonstrate a link between plotlines and motifs, though. |
|
|
|
Post by autumnn on Apr 4, 2020 15:20:01 GMT
I particularly don't like the "ecosystem" line; I consider it an abuse of technical terms anticlimactically drafted by a sentimental truism. Wow, this is some r/iamverysmart material. You seem to like hearing yourself talk, judging by the lengths you've gone to do just that in this thread, but nothing you say is insightful in the least. This is the dumbest game of "gotcha!" I've ever seen - pretending you're smart because you caught Tom out not using the literal dictionary definition of the word. Going on at length about how a word can't be used figuratively makes you anything but intelligent, though. Wait, you do you realise that it's being used figuratively! So why are you playing dumb, calling it a technical term and going on about the literal dictionary definitions...? "Everyone knows that emotion, experience, and knowledge are a figurative ecosystem already" is what this sentence boils down to, first conceding that there's nothing wrong with Tom's wording, and then moving on to critique not the wording but rather the concept expressed in the dialogue. But you're so far detached from making any kind of point by this stage of blabbering that you don't seem to realise what you're saying. You're criticising Robot's dialogue bubble for 'soothing ourselves over our birthright' because 'anyone knows' it already, but... the person Robot is speaking to doesn't know it!, and it's not their birthright at all!!! Come oooon. Robot is explaining the interconnectivity to someone who doesn't know what such interconnectivity is like, and they used a figurative word to convey the level of interconnectivity. That's it. That's freaking it. That's about all I have patience for. I just wanted to say I think everything you write, of which there's quite a lot of, not only fails to add anything of meaning but actually detracts from the conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 4, 2020 15:43:28 GMT
I do think that this was one of the best chapters in recent years, but with the exception of p. 2283 (and p. 2282 because I like the link with Jeanne's perception of her sword), it could have done largely without words -- I particularly don't like the "ecosystem" line; I consider it an abuse of technical terms anticlimactically drafted by a sentimental truism. For another example, I think page 2286 likewise would be better wordless. The bucket, the ocean, the Interface all don't require any explanation (or am I seriously underestimating the Internet's stupidity), especially not since we were already going to learn, within the same chapter, whose representation the Interface is (although if bicarbonat's trace was the author's intended route, that was well-designed), something "we" would have been brooding about even if the Piper had not shown any curiosity. I don't understand how "ecoystem" was used anticlimactically. And I think you would get an entirely different feel if this chapter was done largely without words. Robot's voice functions here as a recurring motif, guiding both Dannybot and the events, making it clear this is done at Robot's will, this is orchestrated by him (and Kat). Was that voice not there, it would have felt more that Dannybot did this more voluntarily. But we all know he was kinda thrown in it. The voice is a slightly sinister note. About the concerns whether this new mind makes a difference: well, it could allow them entrance to the Ether, for what that is worth. I do not understand the philosophical discussion this has evolved into, but I agree with wies that, while the chapter might have worked with less words, the guide's way of speaking is an integral part. All these "you must"s, "you need to"s and "you will"s, showing that no, the robots do not really get a choice. This would not have been adequately conveyed by the pictures alone (not without additional ones at least). |
|
|
|
Post by autumnn on Apr 4, 2020 15:54:27 GMT
I do not understand the philosophical discussion this has evolved into, but I agree with wies that, while the chapter might have worked with less words, the guide's way of speaking is an integral part. All these "you must"s, "you need to"s and "you will"s, showing that no, the robots do not really get a choice. This would not have been adequately conveyed by the pictures alone (not without additional ones at least). There's no philosophical discussion here, although somebody would like you to believe there is. Our resident self-proclaimed philosopher just likes using big words to belabour a point and make it seem like they have a deep, philosophical critique when they're really doing nothing but blowing hot air. e.g. "abuse of technical terms" to say, in normal words, "the author used the word 'ecosystem' figuratively". If they just said the latter sentence like a normal person, it would be easy to understand, but their wording is intentionally opaque and difficult to parse at a glance, because they seem to think that makes themselves more intelligent. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 4, 2020 16:08:54 GMT
Well, since it will take me time to construct a considerate reply to all here, I will therefore state quickly that I think you are being way too harsh on Korba here. Korba clearly uses language in an uncommonly meticulous way, yes, but that doesn't mean there is no substance. In fact, Korba said that they (I don't know which pronouns I should use here) know it is meant figuratively, they just disagree with the connatations of it and how it represents the human mind.(as I understand it) That is a valid argument, even though I disagree with it.
For my part, I am fully enjoying this communication of our Oceans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 16:09:24 GMT
Then go post it on r/iamverysmart. In its entirety, please, including the passages quoted from Shakespeare and Milton, which is not to say that they increase my authority, but rather that if I've done nothing else today than motivate someone to read Shakespeare or Milton (rather than myself), I've probably done something good. I'd also argue that r/iamveryinvested would be a more fitting place to post about me, but I know I'm not entitled to your mercy, since I'm not even entitled to your patience. I will say this: maybe now wies will get why I said that thing about oceanic stand-offs. Moreover, you're right that, at least by style, that first sentence you've quoted is indeed awful and I should have thought of a better way to phrase it. You do not consider "ecosystem" to be a technical term? ...you consider it wrong to consult dictionaries, for that matter? That's philosophy, too. Over which we could argue for days, if you didn't think I was automatically devoid of merit. Your critique of me exactly matches my critique of certain lines spoken by the Interface in this chapter. That I thought it was necessary to write 5000 words about it -- that's ironic, yes, and might amuse people who would willingly visit r/iamverysmart for a few days, perhaps. I won't hide my contempt for that approach towards pretending to be smart, in turn. Your line about "patience" (which isn't a line in the sense that Euclid defines it, so I'm obviously a hypocrite) is a cop-out. You'd gleefully tear into more of me: you're just unable to. Yeah, the birthright line was a mistake. Let me admit that. On that note: Not yet, but soon it will be. That Robot is enraptured by something new to him is understandable, perhaps even necessary. It can still be a flaw. It can still lead to repeating the same mistakes. I never conceded this. The wording is wrong because a less specific word would have sufficed. I'd talked of "roses" and "flowers" is enough, and the rose only confuses the intent, then I should have used "flowers". This is debatable, but you certainly seem to approve of aggressively shaving down someone's words when you feel that they add nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 4, 2020 16:39:59 GMT
I won't concede a nautic iota here -- I've given a reason why I define a writer's work as necessarily philosophical, beyond the techniques of representing reality Sure! Just pointing out there are different ways to critique and engage with that work, some of which are more formally philosophical than others. Incidentally, you might like Stanisław Lem's "Technology and Ethics", a collection of short stories. Adding it to the ever expanding stuff-to-read. I blame individuation and perhaps a general rise in sea level (how topical). It's an analogy followed by self-irony. Ah! Thanks for explaining the ioke! It now holds water to me and is indeed funny. On this, I emphatically recommend Raymond Queneau's "Exercises in Style", even more so than Lem. Sounds even more to my alley! Thanks for these recommendations, though I don't guarantee I will read them, since there is so much interesting stuff to read and so little time.  The same thing, I think*. Why are you motivated to engage me? I figure that it's because you think you have something to contribute to my "ocean", or to an imaginary silent reader's, or even just to your own's; and you fight, however "gently" (it is basic dignity, but thanks nonetheless), to convince my oceanic "immune system" to acquiesce some of your fluids (and I find the connotation too funny to resist). Good question! To be honest, I felt you were too literal and harsh in your critisim of that particular page and the chapter in general (I now know the former was not the case, and that I agree with some parts of that critism) and I guess I wanted to give your ocean a new perspective on that chapter; and also indeed soften the effect of your critism in the ocean of the imaginary silent reader. Another cliché that is probably necessary to understand me when unfamiliar is that I take games most seriously. Noted indeed!  Sure. But to get to that point, the Interface chose to snap the bucket. Was this better than to heed the call of help and withdraw the Great Wave? Since it would be unfair to leave that question to you first: I think it was at least better than that, yes. The Interface was acting callously, perhaps even for her own benefit only (which she imagines is the benefit of all her kin, as she identifies it), but this doesn't change that the Piper appears to approve of the change, and that the resulting bliss seems worth far more than momentary discomfort. Both of these are, of course, emotions. I agree with all you have written here. You struck out "exchanging fluids", and yet left this sentence in. I'm getting mixed messages here, damn it. Ha! It seems language not only limits, but also adds! Altough you can consider that a limitation, of course.
Now on to learn more about that "exercises in style" which sounds promising to me. |
|
|
|
Post by autumnn on Apr 4, 2020 16:40:01 GMT
Your line about "patience" is a cop-out. You'd gleefully tear into more of me: you're just unable to. No, I don't think you understand. It is a chore to read what you write. Multiple people have said that what you write is confusing and difficult to understand, and it's only because you intentionally make it so, not because your writing is that profoundly deep. The thing that I am unable to do is continue reading those walls of text. My eyes glaze over because it takes so much effort to figure out what you're trying to say, and I'd rather not spend my entire day on that herculean task. Wies is right that I'm being very harsh and rude, though. I apologise for how hostile I'm being, but I would really appreciate it if you'd speak more normally, such that everyone can participate in the conversation without feeling like they're lost because they can't follow your diatribes that are altogether more lengthy than their actual meaning warrants. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 17:12:49 GMT
English is not my first language and I sometimes tire of using it. If I write e.g. "ossified idiom", I would want to say "verknöcherter Ausdruck" with a Hamburg sneer and I'll ask pyradonis (or someone else qualified) to judge whether that's still big-word pretentious. I can't believe it would be perceived as such, but I'm not at liberty to make it "boned outpress" (funnily, that would be seen as more pretentious, i.e. as though I thought myself capable of rewriting Oxen of the Sun; Goethe and Schiller made fun of the man* who invented "Bücherei" and "Abstand" over "Bibliothek" and "Distanz", who was incidentally not a great poet; yes, this whole parenthesis adds nothing to the discussion of p. 2287 of Gunnerkrigg Court, nor do I claim that it contains Deep Mind). I suggest we could also mutually click the Ignore button and be done with each other's posts forever. Nothing I write lays claim to being "profoundly deep", beyond that you imagine I do this (or that "big words" are used to that purpose, or Descartes or Milton or whoever; do you think I think that reading these makes me smart? no, I like reading them and happened to know that Milton thought angels could assume either sex, which I thought relevant as disproving speedwell's claim, the end). I'm amused that you criticize this by writing the same sentence four times, as well as unnecessarily explaining the Big Word "diatribe" or using the ornament "Herculean", which is no different from my adding "nautic" to "iota" or whatever. Pointless, "playful", sure. Doesn't make anyone deep. Or Greek. If people won't even bother with a bit of a labyrinth, they probably never had my best interests at heart in the first place. So I write like this. Not to sound "deep"; only to guard my "ocean" from those who see it as something to piss into. Which might indicate that it's shallow, sure. If people feel "lost" or "stupid" because they can't follow me, I can say right now: You are neither lost nor stupid. Thanks. Now read something you like. e: You aren't even being very harsh or rude, just non-zero on both accounts. And tiresome. Well, feeling's mutual. * Johann Heinrich Campe, if anyone cares. |
|
|
|
Post by migrantworker on Apr 4, 2020 17:16:29 GMT
Your line about "patience" is a cop-out. You'd gleefully tear into more of me: you're just unable to. No, I don't think you understand. It is a chore to read what you write. Multiple people have said that what you write is confusing and difficult to understand, and it's only because you intentionally make it so, not because your writing is that profoundly deep. The thing that I am unable to do is continue reading those walls of text. My eyes glaze over because it takes so much effort to figure out what you're trying to say, and I'd rather not spend my entire day on that herculean task. Wies is right that I'm being very harsh and rude, though. I apologise for how hostile I'm being, but I would really appreciate it if you'd speak more normally, such that everyone can participate in the conversation without feeling like they're lost because they can't follow your diatribes that are altogether more lengthy than their actual meaning warrants. Fortunately, there are solutions other than shooting the messenger. The chore of reading can be easily avoided by a prudent use of a mouse scroll wheel or a Down key on your keyboard, or your finger if you use a device with a touchscreen. You're welcome |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 4, 2020 18:37:09 GMT
Is it not a common interpretation that Angels and God are genderless? Common, but incorrect in the context of mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition until about the mid 1960s. I am aware of poetic passages in the Bible and Jewish poetry where God is compared to a mother, but it is clear that God and the angels are overwhelmingly regarded as male. It isn't traditional that God and the angels are genderless, it's progressive. Note that the Christian Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The first two are explicitly male. The third could be neutral... and is what came down and impregnated Mary, therefore is male. |
|
|
|
Post by crater on Apr 5, 2020 2:50:32 GMT
some of Robots panels always seem like the start of a cheesy horror movie
|
|
|
|
Post by arf on Apr 5, 2020 7:04:59 GMT
I wonder whether the "ocean" analogy was dreamed up by Kat, and that this is the source of the current friction between her and Paz. (I don't see the latter taking well to 'dropping' robot consciousnesses into one. See the side story "Traveller")
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 5, 2020 10:35:31 GMT
I wonder whether the "ocean" analogy was dreamed up by Kat, and that this is the source of the current friction between her and Paz. (I don't see the latter taking well to 'dropping' robot consciousnesses into one. See the side story "Traveller") |
|
|
|
Post by mordekai on Apr 5, 2020 13:30:25 GMT
My bet is Robot will create a male version of a combination of the features of his two parental figures, Kat and Annie... that is, he will look like a hypothetical son of Kat and Annie.
|
|
|
|
Post by mordekai on Apr 5, 2020 13:40:46 GMT
Common, but incorrect in the context of mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition until about the mid 1960s. I am aware of poetic passages in the Bible and Jewish poetry where God is compared to a mother, but it is clear that God and the angels are overwhelmingly regarded as male. It isn't traditional that God and the angels are genderless, it's progressive. Note that the Christian Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The first two are explicitly male. The third could be neutral... and is what came down and impregnated Mary, therefore is male. It's complicated. God and angels are regarded as non-physical beings that transcend matter, hence, they have no gender (according to Matthew 22:30 Jesus said that even resurrected humans, "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.").
Hell, angels, when described, often looked like eldritch horrors like many-eyed wheels within wheels or giants with bull legs and eagle wings and four faces...
BUT you have to take into account that, during Antiquity and for most of the Middle Ages and even Modern Age, men were considered the "default human" or "baseline human", and women as sort of crippled, imperfect men whose only redeeming quality was having a womb able to bear babies...
Hence, if something was genderless, but it was powerful, majestic, perfect, wise...etc., it was perceived as male. Hence, angels and God were technically genderless, but perceived as male...
|
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 5, 2020 16:24:15 GMT
Ah, crap, did Korba delete their account?  Understandable and warranted, but I know, while some disliked it, I will miss their posts. If, by chance, you might be reading this, just know that I hope you are taking care well of yourself and that the comic and other things you like may keep being stimulating for you. Bon voyage, mon ami! Anyway, enjoying this divine discussion, but since I know little about the historical perception of God and the angels, I will just remain on the sidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 5, 2020 16:59:56 GMT
It didn't stop the protestants.  Though to be fair, they saw it as a return to tradition. Imo, if an idea is alive in a community for more than one or two generations, it should be considered a tradition on its own? Certainly. But it is a newer, possibly more fragile, still-evolving tradition, compared with the older conservative Catholic (since ~350 CE) or conservative Protestant (since ~ 1570 CE) traditions it grew out of, and which still continue. The older traditions change much more slowly now (though significant disagreements within the Protestant fold tend to just fragment it, adding a new Protestant subgroup). The newer idea (a genderless god) has sort of merged with parallel ideas to build new, more liberal (or different, at least) wings to both groups. So yes, its a new tradition, but perhaps its still worthwhile to make some sort of distinction based on age(?) |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 5, 2020 17:27:33 GMT
Common, but incorrect in the context of mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition until about the mid 1960s. I am aware of poetic passages in the Bible and Jewish poetry where God is compared to a mother, but it is clear that God and the angels are overwhelmingly regarded as male. It isn't traditional that God and the angels are genderless, it's progressive. Note that the Christian Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The first two are explicitly male. The third could be neutral... and is what came down and impregnated Mary, therefore is male. Some earlier traditions identified the Spirit with "the Sophia of God" (the Father), Sophia being Greek for wisdom, and implying a female character. These fell into the Gnostic category, and were eventually suppressed by the gradually forming and evolving Catholic Church. As for the incarnation, it could be said that the Spirit was just the vehicle by which the Father did the incarnating, so the Spirit was perhaps still "undefined" in gender. edit: fixed weird autocorrect sead->dead |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 5, 2020 17:38:53 GMT
Ironically, if you look at the course of fetal development, it becomes obvious that WOMEN are the default human.
Heck, the mature human male still has some subtle signs of having been female. (And no I don't mean nipples - those are a sign of being a mammal.)
|
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 5, 2020 21:55:26 GMT
It didn't stop the protestants. Though to be fair, they saw it as a return to tradition. Imo, if an idea is alive in a community for more than one or two generations, it should be considered a tradition on its own? I've heard it said that the definition of a "tradition" in Southern California is "we did it like that last year". |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 7, 2020 2:42:49 GMT
Note that the Christian Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The first two are explicitly male. The third could be neutral... and is what came down and impregnated Mary, therefore is male. It's complicated. God and angels are regarded as non-physical beings that transcend matter, hence, they have no gender (according to Matthew 22:30 Jesus said that even resurrected humans, "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.").
Hell, angels, when described, often looked like eldritch horrors like many-eyed wheels within wheels or giants with bull legs and eagle wings and four faces...
BUT you have to take into account that, during Antiquity and for most of the Middle Ages and even Modern Age, men were considered the "default human" or "baseline human", and women as sort of crippled, imperfect men whose only redeeming quality was having a womb able to bear babies...
Hence, if something was genderless, but it was powerful, majestic, perfect, wise...etc., it was perceived as male. Hence, angels and God were technically genderless, but perceived as male...
Huh, I didn't know that characteristic (angels being perceived as male) of Kill Six Billion Demons was rooted in actual theology. |
|
