New Year [chat]
Here are some numbers for the year.
OVERALL
TOTAL POSTS: 663
PAGE VIEWS: 69,053
AVG. TIME ON SITE: 2min 3 sec
CONTENT
1) Hellgate London: Online Skill Tree (9,010 Views)
2) 32 Gig iPhone (8,067 Views)
3) WoW 3.0.2 Patch Notes: Laughing my Balls Off (3,360 Views)
4) Miley Cyrus Tentacle Porn Writes itself (2,327 Views)
5) Sarah Palilin's Baby (1,232 Views)
53 comments:
Interview with the vatican's chief astronomer.
clean Coal Watch:
"The drinking water in the area of last month's coal-sludge spill in eastern Tennessee is safe, but elevated levels of arsenic have been found in the sludge, authorities said."
"The use of undercover investigators as bait in Internet chats has become routine in Central Indiana. But the attraction for law enforcement -- the lack of an actual victim -- also became the basis for the reversal of two convictions against a Shelbyville man Wednesday by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That leaves in place a third related conviction."
some farker for the win!
God damn it.
Alright. 2009 is the year of Miley Cyrus Tentacle Porn. I can feel it this time.
Wow. I had no idea that people posted comments to my WoW patch thread. That's pretty cool.
I'm glad the conversation remained civil and academic.
Hercules, Prince of Power gets it. Thor, Son of Odin, does not.
For Ros and Adam
Radiant Silvergun may be coming to XBLA.
Movie over Garfield minus Garfield we have a new awesome tumlr thing of awesome. Out of Context Simpsons screenshots. from the first 9 seasons only, because those were the good ones.
See! this is grade A shit!
This is where the fun comes from
saw the Radiant Silvergun.
And wept for my thumbs.
Thumb weeping is new to me.
play Ikaruga?
Try Ikaruga w/ Lotsabuttons.
Ikaruga IS the hardest game i have ever played.
House Season 4 is fucking awesome.
This may be the result of my not having watched the season five times. Perhaps it is the novelty.
But, still, it's pretty fucking awesome
I forgot to add Last Week's Zero Punctuation when it was released last wednesday so I added it today and dated it for last wednesday. But that added another post to '08. So I had to update this chat thread's count of the '08 posts.
Then I entered into a self-argument about what constitutes an '08 post given that I added the new Zero Punctuation today (in the year our lord 2009) but merely dated it as being in 2008.
So, really, dates are meaingless, time is an illusion, and we will all die alone.
From TMQ:
'More Proof of the Decline of All Civilization:
The Egyptian government granted permission for the first time ever for a movie to be shot at the 5,000-year-old Great Pyramid of Giza. This permission went to producers of: "Transformers II." One of the greatest products of human civilization will be used as a prop for a computer-generated action movie about good-looking brainless people texting while pretending to be attacked by space-alien robots. King Khufu, there is no immortality, only sequels.'
I like it.
For the first time, ever, the pyramids are being treated in a reasonable fashion. For thousands of years human beings have reflected in awe upon these "zomg jew block stacks". But now, finally, they will be marginalized.
Now we need a CGI Robot battle over the Grand Canyon.
I don't even know where to begin on that. The great pyramid is about as awe inspiring as a thing can get to me.
Nothing done in modern times can compare to the amount of work put into what amounts to a grave.
The great pyramid at Giza is a truly wonderous creation indeed. You should read up on it some day, you will be quite amazed at what some ancient peoples with only the simplest of tools could create out of "zomg jew block stacks"
As much as I like masturbation I'm still able to recognize what masturbation is: self-concerned self-satisfaction.
I think "masturbation" is a fair term to use when talking about the products of humankind. Sure, the pyramids are really tall, but I think that the splendor and appeal found in these items by human beings is based upon the narcissism human beings have for their selves. Humans say "look at what those people did", embelish humanity as a whole, and so embelish their selves. If humanity gets +1 for stacking blocks then particular humans share in that +1.
It seems to be entirely skewed to assess the works of humankind from the perspective of humankind. Of course people will think that things people made are keen. The real question is what non-people think.
Why is a pyramid inspirational while an anthill is disregarded and run over by a lawnmower? Both are kinda shaped like a 3D triangle. Both are stacks of tiny pieces of whatnot. But from the human perspective the pyramid is significant whereas the anthill is underfoot and meaningless. Yet the anthill and the pyramids are fundamentally similar and, really, proportional to particular perspectives. It's all a question of which perspective is utilized. To an ant an anthill is impressive. To a person a pyramid is impressive.
Yet, absent those particular perspectives, neither is anything.
So, yeah, person:pyramid::ant:anthill. And as a person I ought to think a pyramid keen just as an ant would think an anthill keen.
But I'm aware of the reasons for which I ought to think a pyramid keen. And I recognize that those reasons are biased and stupid.
So I don't care. Because indifference comes from operating under a much larger context and perspective. And I'm pretty sure that larger contexts are far more accurate than limited and particular contexts.
Unless I'm wrong. But I really don't see how that can be the case.
That's a nice start to a paper "Ants have Anthills; Peoples have Peoplehills"
Because if I can get people to realize their antness I can solve every problem ever.
An anthill is no comparison. Anthills would be closer compared to landfills than pyramids.
The pyramids, espcially the Great pyramid of Giza, are architectural masterpieces. Show me an anthill that has stood for 4,500 years. Show me an anthill that is geometrically sound within a percentage of a perfect square (or a circle for that matter, as that would be closer for an anthill). Show me an anthill built by what amounts to roughly a quarter of a percentage of the entirety of the world's population of ants over a full lifetime of a generation of those ants, then I will grant your comparison.
You look at the pyramids as piles of rocks, but they are so much more. It is similar to looking at a computer, and viewing it as a heat generating paper weight.
Don't forget the astronomical resonances with the pyramids... pointing in cardinal directions, to an accuracy of something way below a single degree.
The question is why those particular things have meaning and significance.
"Show me an anthill that has stood for 4,500 years."
Whence the significance of durational existance? Parrots live longer than humans. Parrots and tortoises are more significant because they last longer?
"Show me an anthill that is geometrically sound within a percentage of a perfect square (or a circle for that matter, as that would be closer for an anthill)."
Geometrical soundness is only what we define to be geometrically sound. Perhaps ants have their own set of guidelines for measurements by which their anthills are accurate. Or maybe the significance is in inaccuracy. Perhaps there is some utility or beauty to be found in something which is assembled not towards some geometric standard but rather another standard. Anthills can be rebuilt quickly. Pyramids cannot be rebuilt quickly. Is that insignificant?
"Show me an anthill built by what amounts to roughly a quarter of a percentage of the entirety of the world's population of ants over a full lifetime of a generation of those ants"
Why would the number of people working on a thing determine a thing's significance? If a thing required that many people to construct is not there a question to be raised of the merit of spending that amount of resources on something so needless?
I'm not saying that you can't draw significance from those particular things. But obviously you don't think those things are wholly significant on their own uncontexualized. Pyramids last longer than anthills therefore etc. Parrots last longer than humans therefore etc. I really don't think you'd grant that longevity of existance denotes some sort of significance. Otherwise you'd be hard pressed to argue that a 25 year old person has a reasonble justification for cutting down a 500 year old tree. If we're just looking at longevity.
If it's more than just longevity and so a combination of things plus longevity then you have to explain why that particular combination denotes significance.
One cannot simply argue "this thing is geometrically accurate" and somehow supposed that people will care. Even if we try to focus upon the tools used to get that accuracy and compare it to the technology we have today...one still has to explain why geometrical accuracy matters.
Because it doesn't matter except to people who think it matters.
Which is why Ethics is dumb and I hate pragmatism.
The significance of the pyramids is in the geometrical soundness, yes. Because ancient peoples took the time to learn about these things, we can use that knowledge to build better buildings, cars, planes, etc. to live the easy lives we now live, which we take for granted.
The pyramids represent the architectural advances people of the ancient world made that we build off of every day.
And just to be sure you know, an anthill is basically an ant colony's trash pile, leftovers from digging out the series of tunnels the ants live in.
Because indifference comes from operating under a much larger context and perspective.
Yes.
Concerning ants and anthills
The pyramids represent the architectural advances people of the ancient world made that we build off of every day.
Most photographed barn, anyone?
"Because ancient peoples took the time to learn about these things, we can use that knowledge to build better buildings, cars, planes, etc. to live the easy lives we now live, which we take for granted."
Ok, this is an argument I've been having with one of my friends here. And since you have a better personality maybe you can articulate a better reponse. This is what I read your comment to be saying:
"X matters to human beings because X matters to human beings."
It's a tautology.
Yes, you're invoking the notion of "comfortable living" and "humankind's progress" and "knowledge" and "behoovement" and all sorts of compelling vocabulary which would make a humanist jizz in its pants.
But, really, all you're arguing for is that X behooves human beings so X behooves human beings. You seem to be convoluting, I would say, "behooves human beings" with "is good" or "is meaningful" or "is keen".
And I'm trying to understand the reason for which you are convoluting those things other than your being a human being. Independent the whole "yey humanity" thing why would pyramids matter?
"Most photographed barn, anyone?"
Oh sure. I bet you would say that people only take pictures of the most photographed barn because it has the title of the most photographed barn. I bet you would say that the barn itself is insignificant and its only significance comes from its being perceived to be significant.
But that fucking barn is the most photographed barn. It's photographed for a reason. And that reason isn't just its being the most photographed barn.
Sure, no one knows what the fuck the reason is....but it's the most photographed barn, god damn it. So I'm going to take a picture.
.... but.. J.. the entire premise of that argument is flawed from the get go.
Human Beings can't be pinned down to a single homogenous group, if you're talking about "Things that matter to Human Beings".
You, yourself, right here, prove that.
You're fundamentally misreading Kyle's position, AND straitjacketing him into saying something else, in order to joust at your newest.. or.. oldest... windmill, here.
Why do the pyramids matter?
Why does the Lincoln Memorial matter?
Why does HBO's John Adams matter?
or the Dewey Library?
They're cultural memorials. They're foundational achievements beyond what we generally consider possible.
They're the old world Large Hadron Collider and Sorkin's most soaring optimistic speech rolled into a single geometric form.
I mean... seriously, dude. You get shot down or something recently, and aren't willing/capable of saying so out loud yet?
You're seriously, obstinately, dismissing entire fields of discussion to make a point that has a foundation you personally undermine.
Way to take what I say, then try to tell me I said something completely different.
I didn't say "X matters to human beings because X matters to human beings.". I said X matters to human beings because Y matters to human beings.
The pyramids matter because we take comfort in our modern society. Pyramids != comfort in our modern society in the least. I would really like to see the argument that makes it true.
Grr. I'm in a mood to continue this argument, and J's not back yet.
I really want to just shout "Is there No One Else!"
but.. I feel like he needs to reply before I can rightly claim use of that phrase.
Is there anything in existence that you do see as significant? Should we let everything around us collapse and disintegrate? Ignore all that we have learned merely because there is no significance to you?
Finally, someone who can articulate what I have been trying to say all along.
A war on 'terror' can't exist, anymore than a war on socialism, or hate, or even apathy. We can combat these things, but an outright war isn't possible because there is no final state we can reach in which we have won. These things are abstracts. Abstracts can not be defeated. The best we can hope for in any case is to diminish their use. The same goes for our war on drugs. We need a specific enemy in order to have a war, otherwise we are stuck doing one of two things. Fighting everyone out of paranoia or pretending.
To say that a thing "is significant" or "is meaningful" is to denote an objective quality onto the thing. "Meaning" and "significance" are, structurally, objective qualities.
The problem is we happy post-modernists realize that "meaning" and "significance" only occur within contexts. "Significiance" and "meaning" are subjective. In one context pyramids are significant. In another context pyramids are not significant. That's how it would be articulated.
The problem is that it makes no sense to say that "meaning" is contextual, that "significance" is contextual. Because that is not what "meaning" and "significance" mean.
It is not the case that "meaning" or "significance" can be transformed from objective to subjective qualities. Rather, once one loses objectivity one loses meaning and significance.
So pyramids are significant to some human beings. Great. Except when one adds "to some human beings" one loses "significant". "Significant" is unqualified, uncontextualized. A "significant" which is qualified or contextualized is not actually "significant". It is something else.
Rip that up.
"These things are abstracts. Abstracts can not be defeated."
Well...abstracts do not exist. So, yes, abstracts can not be defeated...but that's because abstracts do not exist. There is no such thing as an abstract.
Of course, particular things do not exist either.
So, yeah.
Of course, it's also possible that meaning and significance are subjective and contextual. It's entirely possible that it is sensible to speak of "meaning" in a context or "significance" in a context. There are different contexts, sure, so in some contexts the pyramids are significant and in other contexts the pyramids are not significant.
Except then we go back to the anthill / pyramid comparison. And that gets a bit more tricky now because we've found that contexts are what matter and not the thing in itself. So if one attempts to compare and contrasts anthills and pyramids in terms of significance one seems to be stuck given that the context dictates the significance and meaning of the thing rather than the thing in itself having significance or meaning.
So now it's almost as if significance and meaning are, what's the word, "relative" to a context? So pyramids are significant relative to a context; anthills are significant relative to a context.
Hmm...relative. I wonder if there is an -ism for that. I wonder if that -ism breaks everything.
Well, of course, "break" will only be "break" relative to some context.
To say that a thing "is significant" or "is meaningful" is to denote an objective quality onto the thing. "Meaning" and "significance" are, structurally, objective qualities.
Not in the least. They are subjective. All adjectives, by nature, are relative and therefore subjective. No adjective denotes an objective quality onto something. When I state something is fast, it is fast relative to my understanding of speed. When I say something is red, it is red relative to my understanding of color. When I say something is significant, it is significant relative to my understanding of that which makes something significant.
Wait...how did all of this start? Oh yeah.
The producers of Transformers 2 wanted to use the Pyramids as a backdrop to CGI in their movies. Some people thought this insulting, or something, given the significance of the pyramids. Other people thought this awesome, or something, given how absurd it is to think that stacks of jew blocks are significant.
So different people, operating from different contexts, had different perspectives and reactions to a thing.
Are the pyramids significant? To some people.
Relativism.
"Not in the least. They are subjective. All adjectives, by nature, are relative and therefore subjective. No adjective denotes an objective quality onto something. When I state something is fast, it is fast relative to my understanding of speed. When I say something is red, it is red relative to my understanding of color."
Maybe.
I remain undecided on this issue. I think that people seem to use adjectives objectively unless in speaking the adjective it is qualified and contextualized. Let's use a fun example.
I say "World of Warcraft is enjoyable". Mikey says "World of Warcraft is shit". I really do not think that within those statements exists an unspoken understood qualifier of "relative to my concept of ideal gameplay". I think that I am making an objective claim; Mikey is making an objective claim.
When we were driving around Indy trying to decide on eateries? I do not think that we were operating with understood qualifiers of context to denote subjective meaning onto our food preferences. I think "Penn Station is yummy" was an objective claim.
I'm still not sure, though. Maybe there exist an abundance of unspoken qualifiers to language. Maybe. But I really do not think that there exists some hidden depth of understanding "behind" every statement, ever.
When George W. Bush says "terrorism bad" do you really think that "within" that statement exists a plethora of metaphysical qualifiers and contextual modifications to the claim? I sort of doubt it.
When Morgan Webb says that a game is "unplayable" do you really suspect that within her operative framework of reality she understands her claims to be contextual and based upon particular metaphysical understandings of "playability"? I mostly doubt it.
I tend to side with the "people are stupid" approach to language. So if someone says "apple red" i do not think they understand a heirarchy of redness and so infer a relation to that heirarchy in their assessment. I think they are saying "apple red".
And that I have no problem with. But to state:
"For the first time, ever, the pyramids are being treated in a reasonable fashion. For thousands of years human beings have reflected in awe upon these "zomg jew block stacks". But now, finally, they will be marginalized."
is to declare the pyramids to be insignificant to everyone regardless of context, to which I vehemently disagree.
Perhaps they are being treated reasonably in your worldview, but in mine this is an atrocity, and will in no way marginalize their significance to me.
Of course they aren't thinking about it, but these are relative statements implicitly. One doesn't need to think about something to make it relative.
A person driving in a car on a highway says they are traveling 60 miles per hour. This person doesn't think, "Relative to the road beneath me, I am traveling 60 miles per hour in an easterly direction. They just say, "I'm going 60 miles per hour on 70 east." This is still a relative statement, though. They are traveling 2 mph relative to the car next to them, traveling 120 miles per hour in an easterly direction relative to the car in the oncoming lane, a little over 765 miles per hour relative to the center of the earth, 67,000 miles per hour relative to the sun, or even 550,000 mph relative to the center of the milky way galaxy.
All they know and think about is that they are traveling 60 mph. They don't think relative to what, it is just implicitly relative to the "stationary" ground beneath them.
Also, -J- wants to fuck 13
Watch Alpha Dog. You will be sure to be pleased.
"is to declare the pyramids to be insignificant to everyone regardless of context, to which I vehemently disagree.
"
If significance is contextual then non-contextually everything is insignificant. Regardless of the context? Everything IS insignificant given that significance is contextual.
"Of course they aren't thinking about it, but these are relative statements implicitly. One doesn't need to think about something to make it relative."
Attributing "implicit" assumptions to people is tricky business if only because one is "attributing" something rather than objectively determining a thing to be.
Can we ever objectively determine something to be though?
Is it January the 8th already?
Where does the time go...
"Can we ever objectively determine something to be though?"
Sure.
Boo server restarts.
New Diablo 3 Screenshots
Want.
"And now, Jason Statham. I don't know how much say he has in the films he makes. But I get the impression that he reads the scripts. And if the script doesn't make him want to drive a bulldozer through a cake store, I'll bet he punches the script through a wall."
Post a Comment