h a l f b a k e r yOK, we're here. Now what?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The Noise
The purposeful noise defeats the meaningful message. | |
Your typical day begins when the silence! ends and the alarmclock sounds. This is usually followed by a quiet breakfast or the practiced manic panic of lateness. Birds can still be heard chirping as the world begins to start resonating with internal combustion engines, including the starting of your
own, of close proximal importance. You turn on the radio and experience the sweet music of the high-tech-nuclear-electric info-knowledge generation-network, and arrive at work as the reverberation of everything useful leads you to reflect inwardly on "The Discursive Laws of Thermodynamics".
The Noise
http://www.facebook.com/TheNoiseBand
[normzone, Dec 14 2012]
Postmodernist Essay Generator
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Communications from Elsewhere [sninctown, Dec 16 2012]
[link]
|
| |
Now that you say it, it seems so obvious. |
|
| |
Y'know, it's probably a bad idea to actually ingest
whatever it is [Alterother] has been supplying you
with. |
|
| |
Why because of the silence? |
|
| |
Do I have to explain this? Thats how meaningless everything has become. Think about the humming of an electric light. How annoying that is. Then think about the serene humming of human being. Which one do you turn off? |
|
| |
The purposeful noise sickens and transforms meaningful messages into noise. As a result communications become more purposeful, rather than to create meaning, such as revealing the underlying politics of the very purposeful messages. |
|
| |
Now think about moronic people in a group who purposely make a sound like Bluaughgh, or an equivalent look or gesture or something stupid like that when someone is speaking their mind. That noise is actually powerful over some people. That's democracy. Then those idiots go do something purposeful and have meaningless sex as a reward because they saw the 1960s on a TV show called the Wonder Years. |
|
| |
[sticks fingers in ears] La la, La la, La la etc. |
|
| |
I think about the humming of a hummingbird! |
|
| |
I have to deal with small groups of manipulators on a regular basis. Everything you say reeks of disdain for the will. I'm going to go outside and eat some randomly selected mud now and some worms. |
|
| |
This website is the halfbakery, understand? A website for ____ thought ___ ideas. |
|
| |
You're poorly of the out? |
|
| |
That's funny. You're saying the second one is confusing. |
|
| |
I had no part in this, but it makes perfect sense to me. [+] |
|
| |
It hasn't started making sense yet. |
|
| |
I'm not sure we share the same sentiment... |
|
| |
No, it's 'I kind of get what [rcarty] is driving at'. |
|
| |
//Your typical day begins when the silence! ends and the alarmclock sounds// You need to ditch the alarmclock and get a bright bedside light on a timer switch to wake you up instead. |
|
| |
I have a half-formed notion regarding the collective
frequency of the Universe which, for lack of a better term,
I currently call 'The Great Note'. I don't share my theory
with very many people, since it is very much in its infancy,
but [rcarty] seems to be grokking on the same
wavelength at the moment. |
|
| |
In very figurative terms, I believe that all of existence
produces a unified 'note' on an ever-shifting frequency, of
which all things (rocks, stars, trees, our bodies and the
souls that inhabit them, etc.) are harmonic variations. I
also believe that it is possible, under very rare and largely
unknown circumstances, for an individual to 'hear' the
Great Note (metaphorically speaking; it's not an actual
sound). |
|
| |
That's about as clearly as I can explain it without drawing
big circles on the wall, and Jenny's hidden my crayons. |
|
| |
I think Alterother is on the right track but is confusing existential crisis with the crisis of existence. I know those two things melt together into one big confusing mess. The immensity of the void that we can't know, and the immensity of the world that is all too apparent. |
|
| |
No it's not: global economy. |
|
| |
// I believe that all of existence produces a
unified 'note' on an ever-shifting frequency, of
which all things (rocks, stars, trees, our bodies
and the souls that inhabit them, etc.) are
harmonic variations.// |
|
| |
That's an excellent example of a triple point. It's
that point in idea phase-space where complete
bollocks, fundamental physics and philosophy can
coexist. |
|
| |
I say Alterother is on the right track because he's clearly not satisfied with the current explanations for things surrounding existential crisis because they are quite hollow, but unfortunately they underly just about everything in the world that brings about crisis of existence. That's only crazy to someone who has on some level accepted or disregarded the need for explanations, or has not had an existential crisis, and who has not found a substantial crisis of existence to identify with it, or understand it. Even if he got really crazy and started drawing with his severed finger I'd still understand. |
|
| |
The bottom line for me is not to concieve great plans, as stupid idiots who often challenge someone who has a problem with things are apt to do, but for searching out meaning where there is none, or sheer falsities, then the right course of action if any becomes nothing but apparent. Alterother is doing just that, and undoubtedly he has had scorn heaped upon him. he thsus becomes a crisis in another's existence. That's an unstable process. |
|
| |
Alienation is one of the areas I have focussed on, and it is clear to me that there has been vast alienations of meaning in various realms. For example in science, a scienticianologist will look at the lifecycle of a human being, then to satisfy their crisis of existence mainly to make some sort of idea or something as Alterother too is expressing, will for example create a theory about "role modelling" and that because humans grow into adults, and there is a good example of an adult, then everyone must grow into that example because that's rational and based on science. But really the truth is people grow to be adults and anyone can act any way they damn well want, and they do. And then there is a subsequent layer of alienation when someone else comes along and interprets the theory as science, and prescribes that it ought to happen, and if it does not the person is dysfunctional. this is largely based on the need for functional types to perform roles in the service of the state etc. |
|
| |
I have a confession to make. I have no idea what an
"existential crisis" is. Is it doubt that one exists, or
a feeling that there should be a point to life that
one doesn't know, or self-doubt, or what? |
|
| |
hang on. Wikipedia beckons. |
|
| |
OK, I'm back and I'm educated. To precis the already
concise Wikipedia article, an existential crisis seems
to boil down to "Blimey, I'm going to die sometime;
and also, what's it all about anyway?" |
|
| |
Given that this sort of thing has been going on since
(presumably) as soon as mankind invented the word
"blimey", I'm not sure it can really be a crisis. |
|
| |
It seems to be the basis of every global conflict to this day. Do you see the difference and the interplay between crisis of existence and existential crisis? |
|
| |
That's too much at once. Lies have to decay where they are situated, not on a "page" in the Internet. |
|
| |
//It seems to be the basis of every global conflict
to this day. Do you see the difference and the
interplay between crisis of existence and
existential crisis?// |
|
| |
I dunno mate. The basis of global conflicts seems
to be more like "Oi! We want X" where
X=land/money/stuff/to kill the infidels. |
|
| |
Even small scale conflicts don't, as far as I know,
generally stem from existential crises, at least not
in the pubs round here. |
|
| |
On the other hand, I'm perhaps not an expert
since, apart from the usual brief and mundane
"What's it all about?" ponderings, I don't seem to
have had one of these crises. What happens after
you've had one? |
|
| |
Futility. It's clear meaning is being abandoned. |
|
| |
What is it's clear meaning? |
|
| |
Just because someone asks a question do they need an answer? How do you know I'm giving you the right one?Are you going to decide it's right? I wrote it. |
|
| |
There's different 'ways' of verifying correctness, but they are not necessarily methodologically correct. For example at least one comment has demonstrated the answer, but it is not made apparent. |
|
| |
[rcarty] is definitely grokking (what I call) The Great Note
here. I say that not to encourage him, nor to encourage or
discourage others, but because raw, unrefined reality is a
rare and beautiful thing to experience, and I'm happy for
him. |
|
| |
I especially like this part: |
|
| |
// That's only crazy to someone who has on some level
accepted or disregarded the need for explanations // |
|
| |
// a crisis in another's existence // |
|
| |
and Lord Buchanan (perhaps unknowingly) struck a chord
when he spotted the triad: complete bollocks (i.e. the
untried, unproven, and very likely insane), fundamental
physics, and philosophy can coexist if there are enough
curious people in the world who are willing to give each
equal merit in evaluation. |
|
| |
Sets of three are very significant in my spiritual/
philosophical/crackpot theory. For instance, I posit that
there are three Universes: the Universe Without (in which
you exist), the Universe Within (which exists within you),
and the Universe Itself* (which _is_ existence). The
Universe Without is composed of three fundamental
components: Matter, Energy, and Spirit. The Universe
Within is likewise composed of the complimentary
components
Body, Mind, and Soul. The Universe Itself is composed of
itself and the other two. |
|
| |
Explaining how the Three Universes are the x, y, and z
axes against which are plotted the dynamic and recursive
waveform of The Great
Note is difficult without the use of confusing metaphors,
interpretive gesticulation, and crayons, and it sounds crazy
even to
me. |
|
| |
* Please note that many of these terms are imperfect
placeholders that I use until I can determine how better to
describe things. It's all very rudimentary at the moment. |
|
| |
// I believe that all of existence produces a unified 'note' on an ever-shifting frequency, of which all things (rocks, stars, trees, our bodies and the souls that inhabit them, etc.) are harmonic variations. I also believe that it is possible, under very rare and largely unknown circumstances, for an individual to 'hear' the Great Note [Alterother] //
Baked by Frank Zappa. (not that that's a bad thing.)
Quote from the album, Lumpy Gravy": |
|
| |
“Everything in the universe is made of one element, which is a note, a single note. Atoms are really vibrations, you know, which are extensions of THE BIG NOTE, everything's one note. Everything, even the ponies.” |
|
| |
I hadn't heard or read that, but I already knew I wasn't
alone, and I also already knew that Frank Zappa was one of
those rare individuals with a wisdom that surpasses all
knowledge. Thanks for the quote! |
|
| |
//a unified 'note' on an ever-shifting frequency, of which all things ... are harmonic variations// |
|
| |
Well if you propose that all things are truly harmonics one might wonder about the mathematical relationship between all things and what pitch precisely the fundamental is at any one time. On the other hand if you propose inharmonic partials, it becomes mathematically trivial without losing necessarily the mystical resonance. |
|
| |
[alterether] Since you liked that, here is more: |
|
| |
Follow-up in album Civilization Phaze III:
-- Frank Zappa, 1994
5. "A Different Octave"
Spider: We are . . . actually the same note, but . . .
John: But different octave.
Spider: Right. We are 4,928 octaves below the big note
Girl #3: Are ya . . . are you trying to tell me that . . . that this whole universe revolves around one note?
Spider: No, it doesn't revolve around it; that's what it is. It's one note.
Spider: Everybody knows that lights are notes. Light, light, is just a vibration of the note, too. Everything is.
Girl #3: That one note makes everything else so insignificant
John: What about negative light?
Spider: Pigs use it for a tambourine, which is one of the reasons why their music is so hard to understand. |
|
| |
//complete bollocks (i.e. the untried, unproven, and very likely
insane), fundamental physics, and philosophy can coexist if there are
enough curious people in the world who are willing to give each equal
merit in evaluation.// |
|
| |
The thing is, the bollocksphere is effectively unlimited, and the value
of philosophy is effectively zero. Which means that any combination
involving philosophy has zero value; and any combination that involves
complete bollocks is an infinite set. Hence, any combination that
involves both complete bollocks and philosophy has an infinite number
of members with zero value, and thus has an undefined total value. |
|
| |
(1) All life is will, and all will is life
(2) All dust is life, and all life is dust, and
(3) All times are now, and all nows are times |
|
| |
two are randomly-generated bollocks, whereas one was generated by
someone who has a reputation for deep non-bollocky thinking. |
|
| |
Your mission is to (a) identify which is the allegedly non-bollocky
statement and (b) decipher its meaning. |
|
| |
My guess would be #3 (and because it is a guess I don't
know who, if anybody, said it, but I have a pretty solid top
ten). Bollocks or not, it is a concise description of the true
nature of Time as a field-state as opposed to the cognitive
artifice of time as a linear progression. |
|
| |
All three were bollocks, and any of them can be
interpreted from here to arseville and back. I
would guess that you went for the third one
because it has the word "time" in it, which we
know less about than dust, will or life.* |
|
| |
The antithesis of the third statement ("no time is
now, and now is not time") can equally have the
bones interpreted out of it. |
|
| |
In fact, I am pretty sure that if someone published
a worldview which consisted simply of the word
"of", it would provide a wealth of material for
deep pondering. I have a dictionary full of
philosophies. |
|
| |
And to return to one of the original questions, I
would fix the humming light and ask the person to
hum serenely elsewhere. There is usually a simple
solution to these little problems. |
|
| |
*This leads to an interesting possibility. It should be
able to turn many simple and mundane statements
into philosophies, by replacing well-understood
nouns with less-well-understood nouns. |
|
| |
Actually 1 is close to the basic philosophy of A. Schopenhauer. 2 seems to be early greek philosophy reflected elsewhere 3. is a strand of existentialism. |
|
| |
So, if my first three random bollocks-intensive
phrases = well-respected philosophies, does this not
imply that philosophy is bollocks? |
|
| |
Failing that, I am willing to accept any chair in
philosophy at a major university, on condition that
my personal presence is not required. (After all, "To
be absent is to be everything.") |
|
| |
Your thoughts cannot be random because your brain isn't a bucket of pingpong balls, also what goes in the bucket is not selected at random. |
|
| |
Excellent. So, basically, whatever bollocks I choose
to spout is important philosophy? |
|
| |
It's what you mean. I just drew a great picture of eyes receiving and a mouth dispensing pingpong balls. Just added another player and some paddles and a table and a net. |
|
| |
So, if a computer were to select words at random
from a list, within the constraints of grammar, it
would automatically produce deep insights? |
|
| |
I think we're into an infinite regress. Based on zero
information content, you can build a great
philosophy, which will have zero information, from
which you can build, etc. |
|
| |
It may produce understandable sentences, but the insight will come from the observer. Directly feeding those seemingly random structured outputs into a paper shredder seems to be the way of the world though. The computer is kept around to be used. |
|
| |
Even if your multiple-choice trickery was a philosophical
trap designed to pull us crackpots further out of the
woodwork, m'lud, the joke's on you too, because now a
profoundish statement has been made, and you're the one
who made it. In declaring what you thought to be bollocks,
you have joined a long and proud lineage of whackjobs
who inadvertantly challenge the boundaries of modern
scientific blah blah blah... |
|
| |
// I would guess that you went for the third one because
it has the word "time" in it // |
|
| |
Actually, I bit on that one because it was relevant and
because I do a fair amount of thinking about the unaltered
(unobservable) nature of Time. I happen to think that the
so-called Copenhagen School started out on a good path
but zigged when they should have zagged, and I am
thoroughly convinced that A: I know approximately where
they went wrong (it involves a bit with a collapsible cat
and a number of people who took a certain metaphor far
too literally), and B: I am decidedly not the person
destined to set it all straight. |
|
| |
Like brains of sand through an hourglass those are the ways of our lives. |
|
| |
I think I've always been a whackjob (although that
expression has inadvertent connotations; I think
'crackpot' is more like it). |
|
| |
My point is that, if *any* piece of data, even
random noise, has equal import, then by
definition none of that data has any import. |
|
| |
The fact that shallow burblings are
indistinguishable from deep philosophical insights
implies that philosophy is deeply shallow. |
|
| |
Agreed to the latter point; it's like astrology, only with a
proud academic tradition. However, if you go about
making profoundy statements (especially if they contain
the word 'time'), you run the risk of generating actual
serious profundity, so watch yourself there. |
|
| |
After further consideration and a cup of inadvisably strong
yerba maté, I propose that crackpot bollocks is a vital
component of scientific innovation. |
|
| |
We are the delusional visionaries, and you need us. |
|
| |
Finally someone is talking some nonsense. |
|
| |
//My point is that, if *any* piece of data, even random
noise, has equal import, then by definition none of that
data has any import.// |
|
| |
Which is to say that import is only determinable as a
relative value. Thus, in economic terms, we can only speak
about marginal rather than absolute import. |
|
| |
Absolut import, on the other hand, is a separate matter,
involving high liquidity and a rapidly decreasing coefficient
of social friction. |
|
| |
The silence. The noise. The silence. What is both
noise and not-noise, while being neither? |
|
| |
I awaken to a light on a timer...it's a little less jarring
than a buzzer. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] I'm glad you enjoyed that bit of
postmodernist essay! (see link for infinitely more) I
deleted since it was copied/lightly-edited/pasted,
which I think is sort of cheating, but just this
once I'll make a followup argument: |
|
| |
Several discourses concerning social realism exist.
It could be said that if the postdeconstructive
paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose
between social realism and premodern theory. In a
sense, the subject is contextualised into a
postdeconstructive paradigm of discourse that
includes truth as a reality. But a number of
narratives concerning the role of the participant
as writer may be found. The subject is
interpolated into a textual paradigm of expression
that includes art as a whole. Thus, the subject is
interpolated into a postdeconstructive paradigm
of discourse that includes truth as a whole. |
|
| |
This is possible for several reasons. Broadness of meaning. Related concepts with simple conjunctions. Conceptualizations that encompass entire conflicts. The equivocation of meaning as logic. The use of words like 'could', 'includes' and 'may' which signify affirmation but lack certainty and precision. Also the really (un)charitable and hopeful(less) interpretation of the reader. Accuracy over precision. Several columns of several rows of apt words in a linguistic system can produce this. This is only an impressive example because the content is impressive. Agreeable contradictions of meaning ("we have to choose"). Truisms . The power to define words interdisciplinarily (interpolation). The accepted and false esoteric reducio absurdum of postmoderism. etc |
|
| |
Every good boy deserves fudge.
All nice men achieve success.
.... .... .... .... ........
Most tall animals reach fruit.
|
|
| |