A few pre-requisite remarks: a) For the purpose of this post, I’m either a “male that can give birth” or a “female that can be inseminated by another female” and I hope you’ll see in what context this is relevant b) My capacity to “judge the character” of others has limitations, partly because I don’t like to judge them (so I have little experience) and partly because when I try to do it, I have limited knowledge about that “other”. c) The first part (the longest one) is almost exclusively about myself and could be entirely skipped over for what the second and especially the third one has to say.
Ok, here we go:
Part one: [PAST]
When I was very young, I had met Logic, Story Telling and Theology.
Logic was a great buddy, we played many funny games and we still keep in contact, we even call each other on our respective birthdays and all. Story Telling was with me in most of my difficult moments of my early life, and I can’t imagine a world without her. She even sung to me and made pretty drawings on paper and she said her aunt Art knew much more about that. Today, it’s more her sister, Communication, that keeps me company virtually all the time.
Theology, with her “porcelain face”, was there to tell me all the “don’ts” (sp?) and was mostly threatening me to be called upon my mistakes, as she saw them. Two important notes here:
First, I said “porcelain face”, because it seems to me so inflexible and unchangeable, yet “fragile”, even over long periods of time. I’m not saying she can’t express emotions or that she can’t smile, no, I’m saying for example that I’ve never seen her smile at all… Second, I learned only later that Theology was her name, she presented herself as “Orthodox Christian-ism” when I met her.
Growing up things got a lot more complicated, because even between these three acquaintances of mine, the relationships were not “clear”. I mean, Theology often said things that weren’t compatible with what Logic told me, Story Telling was somewhere in between, sometimes agreeing with Theology and other times with Logic. I must admit I liked what Logic said best, mainly because I was able to understand it and follow his reasoning, and that brought me joy. Theology often spoke of “mysteries” and didn’t explain to me what she was talking about. Story Telling, I liked her way of leaving me decide if what she said were quotes from Science Fiction (a guy that later I came to greatly love) or from the old Science or Theology or whatever.
By the way, the most important difference between my three early friends was what they claimed to know about Absolute Truth, that intangible old man that even today I agree he exists somewhere, but I still wait to meet someone who knows sure things about what he says. Theology said she knew it but can’t explain it, Story Telling was always playing with what he might say, while Logic only talked about him in very rigorous contexts, where I had to agree that Absolute Truth would say what Logic said.
So, add to that all the other people I’ve met afterwards! I’m sure I’m going to forget someone out of my story, but it’s not intentional. About those that I still remember, here’s a few things to describe my relationship with them.
In my early school years, I’ve met Literature, a nice lady, with her very nit-picking sister, Grammar, Mathematics, a very stern guy, but as he loved Logic I loved him almost by association. Art was there but we couldn’t play with her, we could only play with a few of her nephews, Music, Drawing, Sculpture and Dancing. As an interesting note, when we played with Dancing, Music almost always was there with us, and when Musing wasn’t there, Dancing was not only dull but even weird…
We also had other friends, like Physical Education (that looked sometimes like Dancing when smiling, and knew a lot of fun other people like his uncle Sports and all his children, from Swimming to Basket Ball, Tennis with his funny baby brother Table Tennis, and lots more, and had a lot of fun imitating them.) Oh, and I’ve almost forgot about the foreign student exchange program. We had friends from other countries, like French and English who sounded very strange at first, to the point of not understanding a word they said.
As a side note, Theology rarely came with us and play in school, but she was often waiting me at home with her porcelain face…
I also remember that before going to High School, I met History, a very old but full of life lady (and I realised that Story Telling was often quoting her), Geography, with her colourful drawings, Chemistry who smelled a lot and, last but not least, her very cute sister called Physics. (I’ll admit that I had a huge crush on Physics, my first true love, and that I think I’ll ever be in love with her on some level.)
All in all, I have to say it was a fun part of my life playing with those friends, especially when Communication was there and helped us whenever we tried to talk among us.
Then I got to High School and things got a lot more … less fun. All the people I knew became suddenly very serious and less and less play was there whenever we met. Plus, now the dating games begun, and that only added to the “seriousness”.
I’ve noticed it first with History and when I dated her, she always wanted me to remember all those tings about her. You know, not only her birthday and her favourite flowers, but also where she’s been, who she met, what was said there and on an on. I just couldn’t stand it after a while. Then Geography asked me out, and she was fun at first (I really liked her maps) but then she wanted me to remember where she had put all her things, how she called them, their size, colour, and on and on… Again, too much for me. I courted Literature for a while, and I loved her because she was much like Story Telling, but finally she demanded I learn by heart and reproduce a lot of stuff, like what people that criticise her had said, and what other critics said criticising the first ones and on and on… Nonetheless, I remember with joy all the poems she taught me and the very few instances when she liked my own “criticism” of them. Funny, when I think about it, I’ve never met her young sister, Poetry, I’ve only seen her letters.
Also, I’ve met for the first time Philosophy, very pretty, and she seemed to know so much. I’m still sure she knows much, but as I haven’t spent too much time with her, I am to this day lacking a lot in understanding what she was always talking about. I mention her because I think she is the one that really opened my “appetite” for that ubiquitous stuff called gold or pure joy or many other names. I use most of the time the term “knowledge” for it.
When Music, Drawing and Sculpture grew up, they were surely more and more beautiful, but at the same time less and less accessible. I mean, looking at me I understand why they didn’t wanted to spend much time in my presence. It was Dancing that didn’t care much of all that, and she remained a good friend, we often go out for a coffee or something. The others, I see them from time to time from afar, but they rarely respond to my hellos.
Another friend, that I kind of lost, was Mathematics. I came to appreciate him a lot, because he was always so right, but he became very fast very serious, and started talking with words that I couldn’t quite understand. So, I still respect him a lot, but our reciprocal letters are each time shorter and less frequent. I miss him in a way, and I hope I’ll meet him again and spend quality time together like in the old days. But I think I’m the one who has to learn much before making that step.
Chemistry was beautiful, but Physics was the real beauty that stole my heart. So I spent a lot of time with her, and many thought that after High School I’ll even marry her! I was considering it too, but she wanted to bring Mathematics with her whenever we met, you remember, the guy that wasn’t speaking my language any more, and they always talked between them in that incomprehensible gibberish (for my delicate ears) and at some point I became so paranoid that I thought they were talking about me and saying bad things right there in front of me. So I let her go, with much regret to this day.
Just before finishing High School, I met the buddy I work with now, Computer Science. He knows and talks about many cool stuff, computers, gadgets, information systems and the like and, today, lots of technologies ask for his help to such a degree that I think soon he’ll become the King or the world So I’m happy that we understand each other rather well, and that we can work together. It takes my mind off things that bother me otherwise.
Before getting to the present, I have to mention that in time I also came to meet many of the sisters of Orthodox Christian-ism, and that they all form a great family called Religion, where Theology is an important mother-figure, and has quite a few big daughters, and a few younger ones. On a funny note, I’d say that I don’t really know if the IPU Argument really is an accepted member of this family. Either way, the sisters don’t like each other much, and often get to conflictive discussions, as if they were envious of each other, and all they care is how many believe (in) them. As an outsider, I think it’s because they all seem to claim to be in possession of the knowledge about that elusive old man called Absolute Truth. The paradox is that they do say basically the same thing, but they put so much weight on the details that they will never agree with each other. The only thing they seem to all agree upon, is that the “ugly child” of Science, called Atheism, is not a good boy at all, and that somehow threatens them all…
End of part one.
- - -
INTERMISSION : I hope you’re not too bored, I’m getting to the end, soon. /INTERMISSION
- - -
Part two: [PRESENT]
My most serious relationship to this day (in terms of interest, not longevity) is the one I have with Epistemology. We even have a baby (whose name I’m intentionally not divulging). Epistemology was always nice to me and acted as if not only understood me, but even read my mind some times, as she said a lot of things that I thought I was very original to invent myself.
The baby is still very young, and only said a few words until now, and he’s learning to walk but still has a long way to go before his first step. The few that met him say he isn’t special at all, at best he is just like any common baby, but as a parent I still have the impression that he is not worthless, and that he will say great things in his day. But that remains to be seen. Also I’ll try not to push him “in your face” too much, it is not the purpose of this landmark.
While we are in the present, I’ll bring up something more about Religion and Science, the two most distinguishable families/figures in my life as a whole. Somehow they still seem not to do well together. It’s like they don’t speak the same way, not just different languages, but actually using different (and most of the time incompatible) means of communication. I know Communication is struggling to bring them together, but to this day the “gap” seems to grow more and more. Personally I’m sad about that and I am fortunate to have Epistemology near me, who seems to be the perfect one to understand those differences.
And this “conflict” is what actually prompted this landmark. How so? Well, I’ve recently received a very flaggerbastering (for lack of a better word) letter from the son that Physics and Mathematics had a while ago, that they called Quantum Physics. It is an open letter and Quantum Physics signed it like this : “What the BLEEP do We Know?!” I myself have seen three versions of it, one with this exact signature, one having added “Down the Rabbit Hole” and the most extended one that had “Extended Quantum Edition” added to it.
So here is where you all come in: Have you heard about it? Have you seen it? What do you think about it?
End of part two.
- - -
[insert here some funny ad, maybe a Youtube reference]
- - -
Part three :[FUTURE]
Here I’ll explain why I consider this to be an important point in my life, and therefore justify the Landmark status of this thread.
The letter claims that the baby of Quantum Physics could be not only the most searched for son, the Theory Of Everything (something that old Science always wanted to find) but that it could be a Whole new Paradigm, one that would be virtually “above” both families, Religion AND Science, leaving them behind in our search for Absolute Truth.
So, what this thread is all about is this new fellow, this new Paradigm that could one day “rule” over the Universe, as the letter suggests and tries to argument, or if not, it could fundamentally change our view about our own role in it.
I think it is conceptually very interesting, and that it could mark not only my future, but that of ALL of us, (if not for other reason, because this Paradigm claims that there is just ONE anyway). If you think that claim is “suspiciously” spiritual in nature, you haven’t begin to grasp the whole message of the letter.
I will leave it to you, to bring your knowledge here, and I’ll admit from the start that I don’t have extensive knowledge about this and that I hope I’ll learn a lot from you.
posted
I think that I have seen that child in the corner of my eye, but every time I turn to look at it more closely, it has some somehow changed it's shape and blended in with the surroundings. It seems to be a mite skittish. Perhaps I'll be able to greet him when we have both matured somewhat.
Let me just say that because something is spiritual doesn't automatically make it suspicious to me (at least not to me). Things become suspicious when all the parts don't seem to fit together. Only further exploration can then confirm whether the suspicion is warranted.
While I haven't been very close with Theology, your other two childhood friends are very familiar to me.
To be continued?
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
BTW, don't confuse what's presented in "What the BLEEP Do We Know" with real quantum physics. The stuff they talk about in that film is metaphysics and supernaturalist babble dressed up to sound scientific.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: Let me just say that because something is spiritual doesn't automatically make it suspicious to me (at least not to me). Things become suspicious when all the parts don't seem to fit together. Only further exploration can then confirm whether the suspicion is warranted.
Eduardo St. Elmo, It wasn’t my intention to say that “spiritual” should automatically be “suspicious”, that’s why I used the quotes. Yet, it seems to me that in analysing the content of the letter, our common friend Logic won’t be able to help us much. And that’s the beauty of it!
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: BTW, don't confuse what's presented in "What the BLEEP Do We Know" with real quantum physics. The stuff they talk about in that film is metaphysics and supernaturalist babble dressed up to sound scientific.
Quite true, that’s why I said that the “letter” is not about Quantum Physics but about an eventual result of it, the new Paradigm.
Plus, I’m not defending here the “supernaturalist babble”, because I don’t really understand all that. The question is more conceptual. Do we really need a new Paradigm to really understand the Universe? If Quantum Physics can’t give us the whole answer, can it at least “point us in the right direction”?
And before I forget, a necessary warning for those who plan to watch the “letter”: There are many people, not all with scientific background, that talk about those things. And some of their claims I found out-right outrageous. But that doesn’t mean necessarily that they have nothing worthy to say. At least in my book.
posted
Oh, it's very good for Story Telling (and Logic should, IMO, stay out of it most of the time), but when you see that's even beyond Science Fiction, you might start to wonder ...
posted
My physics teacher from last year showed us that "rabbit hole" film at the end of school and I really didn't like it. IIRC it presented a theory on some combination of what we perceive as reality and a separate realm of consciousness (or w/e). It also tried to present the idea that our brains talk to themselves from the future as a realistic theory. The film is hardly related to quantum mechanics.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I've seen it just the last week, and It presented some experiments about electrons and slits and stuff. Isn't that part at least, Quantum Mechanics? I should admit that I've seen three diferent versions of it, and that I can't say for sure if the "Rabit Hole" one had it, but I'm fairly sure it did.
Either way, I thank you for spending time on reading this thread (as to all that do) and I'd be inerested why do you think "the idea that our brains talk to themselves from the future" is an unrealistic theory.
quote:Originally posted by cmc: What's "the IPU argument"?
Well, you see, I was talking about different religions in that paragraph, and even if IPU reminds me always of religion (in general), I am aware that the IPU stands, in most of the contexts, for the “divinity” in that particular “set of beliefs”, therefore I couldn’t leave it as it was, to be on the same level with the other components of Theology (which I take as seriously as I can). So, Instead of “IPU” I used “IPU Argument” to make it more about the “system of beliefs” than about the particular “deity”. Does that make sense?
Or cutting to the chase: does that answer your question?
quote:Originally posted by cmc: Of course it's not the end...
I've never even HEARD of this creature!!! (and i'm one that usually at least hears whispers on the wind of unicorns... ESPECIALLY ones that are invisible and yet can somehow be defined as pink!)
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It also tried to present the idea that our brains talk to themselves from the future as a realistic theory.
Ha ha ha. I was doing this a lot in the fall, before I exhausted the truth within myself. I guess I never really explained that, which was rude of me.
I always thought that if I could go back and advise my younger self, I'd tell me to become an accountant. but some stuff happened. It would be a lot easier on me if you would just sign up for livejournal and we could friend each other, and you could see all this as it happened. Then you could explain it to me, because I'm not entirely sure what did happen.
But I decided that maybe instead of trying to fix my message to my past self, I should listen for a message from my future self. I don't know if that's what I got, but it made me very confused for a while until I just had to stop worrying about it so much.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Either way, I thank you for spending time on reading this thread (as to all that do) and I'd be inerested why do you think "the idea that our brains talk to themselves from the future" is an unrealistic theory.
The implied context of my statement is "given what we know now." Given what we know now it is not possible to go back in time because doing so would require going faster than the speed of light, which, given what we know now, is not possible. Obviously all of our current theories could be flawed, but it doesn't make much sense to make theories assuming that that is true.
The double-slit experiment is real but I think the film tried to imply that a conscious observer is required for quantum mechanics. As far as I know this is false. All that is required to make an observation on a particle in superposition is another particle.
I take no responsibility for misusing any quantum mechanics terminology. I can't even pretend to know much beyond basic information about it Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
cmc, if I’m “culpable” for at least one smile on your face, then all the trouble with this thread is worth it.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I always thought that if I could go back and advise my younger self, I'd tell me to become an accountant. but some stuff happened. It would be a lot easier on me if you would just sign up for livejournal and we could friend each other, and you could see all this as it happened. Then you could explain it to me, because I'm not entirely sure what did happen.
- - - emphasis added - - - Excuse me, but from the context I’m not sure if you’re talking to yourself (from a future perspective) or if that’s addressed to me (suminonA). If the former, ignore this reply , If the latter, you can contact me by PM.
Either way, I'm willing to explain here, if anyone is interested, what I understood of what they said about that "influence from the future" experiment, and its "failings", as I see them.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Either way, I thank you for spending time on reading this thread (as to all that do) and I'd be inerested why do you think "the idea that our brains talk to themselves from the future" is an unrealistic theory.
The implied context of my statement is "given what we know now." Given what we know now it is not possible to go back in time because doing so would require going faster than the speed of light, which, given what we know now, is not possible. Obviously all of our current theories could be flawed, but it doesn't make much sense to make theories assuming that that is true.
See, I think that Out Of Context can damage a lot of Communication’s work.
I’m glad you explained the context, as this gives me the opportunity to explain mine: You say that “Obviously all of our current theories could be flawed”, and that’s exactly the crux of the question. Talking from the perspective of the larger context where Einstein’s Special Relativity actually showed how our “intuition” about things so basic as “time and space” were fundamentally flawed because or the limitations in our “normal experiences”, this new Paradigm seems to imply that some new discoveries are pointing toward other “fundamental flaws” about how we perceive and influence the Universe. This is why I ask the question. That’s why I think the question could be interesting even for those that never get “acquainted” whit the letter I’m talking about in my landmark.
If no one thinks that a new Paradigm is useful (or even possible), then looking for it is a moot point.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The double-slit experiment is real but I think the film tried to imply that a conscious observer is required for quantum mechanics. As far as I know this is false. All that is required to make an observation on a particle in superposition is another particle.
I take no responsibility for misusing any quantum mechanics terminology. I can't even pretend to know much beyond basic information about it
- - - emphasis added - - - Well, this brings the obvious question: How do you know?
BTW, imagine the irony of having two people (I join the club) with limited knowledge about Quantum Physics, talking about the possibility and/or the need of a new Paradigm, that is supposed to be “above” Science AND Religion simultaneously …
posted
I suppose it could be future me talking to myself, since I did in fact take out a new livejournal account around that time.
But the overall cumulation of failures in my life leads me to think that if I am getting messages from my future self, my future self has forgotten what it is like being me.
I find your description of yourself unenlightening. Dare I ask you to elaborate?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I find your description of yourself unenlightening. Dare I ask you to elaborate?
Wow, I never would have expected to hear that. Are you saying that my landmark doesn't bring any new information about me, or that it seems to you that my enlightenment seems very low?
I'd like to hear what do you call "enlightenment", BTW.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The double-slit experiment is real but I think the film tried to imply that a conscious observer is required for quantum mechanics. As far as I know this is false. All that is required to make an observation on a particle in superposition is another particle.
I take no responsibility for misusing any quantum mechanics terminology. I can't even pretend to know much beyond basic information about it
- - - emphasis added - - - Well, this brings the obvious question: How do you know?
I'm pretty sure I read it in one of my books, which I can try to find if you want. Anyways, I know that the qubits they are designing for quantum computers will not work with any outside interference. Interactions with particles outside of the computer invalid the results ("computer" used loosely here, I don't think they've ever successfully combined more than a few qubits).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant this part, the part which characterizes your "self" in this small play.
quote:a) For the purpose of this post, I’m either a “male that can give birth” or a “female that can be inseminated by another female” and I hope you’ll see in what context this is relevant [Wink]
Are you comparing your Self to some kind of quantum state that does not exist in reality?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I meant this part, the part which characterizes your "self" in this small play.
quote:a) For the purpose of this post, I’m either a “male that can give birth” or a “female that can be inseminated by another female” and I hope you’ll see in what context this is relevant [Wink]
Are you comparing your Self to some kind of quantum state that does not exist in reality?
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I'm pretty sure I read it in one of my books, which I can try to find if you want.
No, that’s ok. My sources are also mainly books, as I didn’t follow specialised courses on this. (No teacher involved). But I hope you see my concern. Even if all our books agree, they still might be wrong, and that’s what the letter is suggesting to be the case.
quote:Anyways, I know that the qubits they are designing for quantum computers will not work with any outside interference. Interactions with particles outside of the computer invalid the results ("computer" used loosely here, I don't think they've ever successfully combined more than a few qubits).
Hey, I did hear about something like that (elsewhere). A quantum state computer, which, as opposed to those used now, not only could store information at “atom level”, but had three basic states (and not only "0" and "1" as the current ones). Unfortunately, I can’t find the reference again and I know nothing more about it…
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I meant this part, the part which characterizes your "self" in this small play.
quote:a) For the purpose of this post, I’m either a “male that can give birth” or a “female that can be inseminated by another female” and I hope you’ll see in what context this is relevant [Wink]
Are you comparing your Self to some kind of quantum state that does not exist in reality?
No, I mean for the metaphor to work.
A.
Ah, well, it is opaque to me. I do not understand. Do you mean in the sense that you are having a child with Theology?
I guess what I was getting at is how you define your Self if all these concepts are separate players, and then I realized that you did attempt to define yourself, and I didn't comprehend it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Ah, well, it is opaque to me. I do not understand. Do you mean in the sense that you are having a child with Theology?
I guess what I was getting at is how you define your Self if all these concepts are separate players, and then I realized that you did attempt to define yourself, and I didn't comprehend it.
You are close. I “had a child” with Epistemology. Funny that you make that confusion, while you are one of the few participating in the “recent life” of one particular thread …
I’m sorry if my “story” is opaque to you. It is, by far, the longest chain of metaphors I’ve ever used at once. Try to think about it this way: The “friends” are real, they are just not the “flesh and blood” kind. The relation-ship with them, and the “chronology” is also real. As real as "dating" equals "some interest" and "marriage" equals "intense interest".
I needed the metaphors to “anthropomorphise” them, which is how I expressed my creativity in this particular case.
posted
I think it's pretty clear that A doesn't want us to know. IMO, that subverts the entire point of landmark posts, but YMMV.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean in a view of reality in which various concepts are people, what is a person? It doesn't have to be you, individually.
Also, I finally read an article about Epistemology. I think I'm generally more concerned with Ontology, or have been in the past, but I can see the importance of Epistemology as well. I've read a lot of pop epistemology in Peck, Warner, and Eckart Tolle (which I referenced in your other thread).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's pretty clear that A doesn't want us to know. IMO, that subverts the entire point of landmark posts, but YMMV.
Are you saying that this thread is not a landmark? It doesn't say anything (important) about me at all?
I had the impression that it shows in great detail "where I'm coming from" in terms of "influences/knowledge". But hey, only you (all) can be a judge of that. If I failed in this landmark, it's my failure and I take responsibility for it.
A.
PS: what does "YMMV" stand for?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*runs and hugs A. for asking that question* Now I can admit that I have searched my brain high and low for something that makes sense - even tried to search on-line for what it means, to no avail. Best I could come up with is 'your mind may vary'.
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The first 10 Google hits for "YMMV" give the correct definition.
That might be, but as long as my communication level with TomDavidson approaches zero, I can't make such a prediction. Plus, it doesn't hurt to ask, does it?
posted
I'm not sure if Tom has ever written a landmark. Though it is not hard to find out about him. I think he's not self-conscious at all (not a criticism) and so the concept of writing one is a little strange to him. But he does read and comment on a lot of them.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I had the impression that it shows in great detail "where I'm coming from" in terms of "influences/knowledge".
Strictly speaking, it's a great deal of detail on what you want us to know about what you claim are your influences.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I mean in a view of reality in which various concepts are people, what is a person? It doesn't have to be you, individually.
That’s an interesting question, and unfortunately I haven’t thought about that. So I’ll have to improvise a bit:
In a view of reality in which various concepts are people, a person is a blob of matter, heavy and mushy, even disgusting in its chemical “chaos”, compared with the beauty and lightness of the “pure” people. Let’s not be mistaken, the matter has the impression of knowing the concepts, but only marginally, it could even have the “intuition” that those pure concepts really exist “somewhere”, in an intangible dimension, in any case outside of its perception of Time. In such a world, my “landmark” would be at most a “dream” of such a blob, where it has the impression of being able to interact directly with the pure world.
posted
No proof is required. But what you have done, to use an analogy, is to apply for a job at a small bakery by making a gussied-up confection of cream and shortbread standing ten feet tall, with marzipan flowers and little curliques of kiwi-flavored frosting. And instead of baking it in front of us, you delivered it to us and said, "Here. This is what I bake."
Now I have to decide whether I want ginormous, elaborate confectionery, or whether I'd rather just have a loaf of bread. I have to decide whether I think you're capable of turning out a confection of that quality on a timely basis in my own humble kitchen, or whether it's something you can only make in your own time, using your own materials. I need to decide whether you can make pumpernickel.
To my mind, landmark threads are a way of saying, "Here's what I taste like. This bread is who I am." Depending on how long you've been here, they're either a job application or a boxed set with some B-sides. Your post is slathered in what amounts to frosting, so I don't know what you're filled with; are you jelly, dried fruit, chopped nuts, heavy cream, or sponge cake? When I encounter someone who clearly knows enough about baking to have normally developed an instinctual understanding of this, I can't help wondering, "Why so much frosting? Why doesn't s/he want me to taste the actual cake?"
You have an enormous number of metaphorical friends, each carefully positioned on the stage so that they turn your life into a narrative. But life isn't narrative, is fundamentally not a narrative, and I know nothing more about you from that narrative that I didn't know before -- except that you are the sort of person who likes to put his or her life into a narrative framework.
Well, that's not completely true. Since you believe that telling us your reaction to various subjects of study actually constitutes a self-description, I assume that you're a male between 19 and 23 years old. But that's just me, guessing, because I don't know you at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomDavidson, first of all, let me thank you for your extensive reply/explanation. I think I can learn valuable things from it. Also, I’ll compliment you on your analogy; it really helped me to see clearly what you were trying to say. Yep, that’s how I “function”: on analogies, parallels and metaphors. (Whenever Logic doesn't do the trick.)
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No proof is required. But what you have done, to use an analogy, is to apply for a job at a small bakery by making a gussied-up confection of cream and shortbread standing ten feet tall, with marzipan flowers and little curliques of kiwi-flavored frosting. And instead of baking it in front of us, you delivered it to us and said, "Here. This is what I bake."
Now I have to decide whether I want ginormous, elaborate confectionery, or whether I'd rather just have a loaf of bread. I have to decide whether I think you're capable of turning out a confection of that quality on a timely basis in my own humble kitchen, or whether it's something you can only make in your own time, using your own materials. I need to decide whether you can make pumpernickel.
I would have never expected for my story to be perceived as such a shallow, bragging and exaggerated thing. It is obvious nonetheless that my “application” was misplaced. At least now I know why.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To my mind, landmark threads are a way of saying, "Here's what I taste like. This bread is who I am." Depending on how long you've been here, they're either a job application or a boxed set with some B-sides. Your post is slathered in what amounts to frosting, so I don't know what you're filled with; are you jelly, dried fruit, chopped nuts, heavy cream, or sponge cake? When I encounter someone who clearly knows enough about baking to have normally developed an instinctual understanding of this, I can't help wondering, "Why so much frosting? Why doesn't s/he want me to taste the actual cake?"
I would have never have guessed how you see the landmarks. It is an original way, I give you that.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You have an enormous number of metaphorical friends, each carefully positioned on the stage so that they turn your life into a narrative. But life isn't narrative, is fundamentally not a narrative, and I know nothing more about you from that narrative that I didn't know before -- except that you are the sort of person who likes to put his or her life into a narrative framework.
- - - emphasis added - - -
You are exactly right about the part I bolded! At least that was not lost on you. As for my life actually being a “narrative” or not, I guess I won’t be able to convince you about that. Remember at least that I was quite happy that I found such a “clever” way to describe my life, and not having to exaggerate one bit. The fact that it sounds like a “narrative” was just a bonus, and even so, I was afraid it would be quite boring. Your finding it so “over the top” reminds me that it’s all just a matter of interpretation.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, that's not completely true. Since you believe that telling us your reaction to various subjects of study actually constitutes a self-description, I assume that you're a male between 19 and 23 years old. But that's just me, guessing, because I don't know you at all.
See, you did it! And I think very few can avoid doing that. You had to think of me as either a male of a female, in a quite narrow age range. It’s a pity you didn’t take a guess about my native language. If I think about it, it’s sort of ironic, given that I have practically gave that piece of information away in my first landmark.
And for the age, you might find that it wasn’t such a “blind guess”, at least for the “lower bound”. But if you question my sincerity in this landmark, the details about finishing High-School are also possibly “made up”.
Indulge me a few guesses too:
If I told you that I’m a 22 years old male, you’d think: “well, tell me something I don’t know!” If I told you that I’m a 14 year old girl, you’d think: “what a brat, liar and bombastic, the worst kind! (plus, she lied about High-School too!)” If I told you that I’m 35, you’d pity me for my immaturity (and probably not say anything).
All to say that whatever the case, I prefer you to see me of the age that my posts make it to appear to you, because being sincere on my part, that’s how I find your sincere opinion about my “maturity”, and you treating me the way you think I deserve. On my own merit, as far as “merit” can be proven on a forum.
A.
PS: So finally, this wasn’t such a bad idea after all: Let’s turn this the other way around: What have YOU (all) learned about me in these 25 months that passed since I joined Hatrack? (gender, age range and native language included )
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if you question my sincerity in this landmark, the details about finishing High-School are also possibly “made up”.
It actually upsets me a little to think that you might be glad to hear that I originally was going to say 16-19, but then decided to react as if the high school bits could be trusted.
I'm not a big fan of dramatic personae.
------
quote:Indulge me a few guesses too:
If I told you that I’m a 22 years old male, you’d think: “well, tell me something I don’t know!” If I told you that I’m a 14 year old girl, you’d think: “what a brat, liar and bombastic, the worst kind! (plus, she lied about High-School too!)” If I told you that I’m 35, you’d pity me for my immaturity (and probably not say anything).
Not quite. If you told me you were 22, I'd think "So this'll last for about another year, unless he pulls a Danzig." If you told me you were a young girl, I'd think, "Man, it's a shame she felt like she needed to hide like that." And if you told me that you were 35, I would conclude that you were either very immature or engaging in some form of selfish performance art -- but, in either case, would not say anything. *laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry about it. I wouldn't be this confrontational if I didn't find you at least a little intriguing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This may only be loosely related, I'm not entirely sure actually. But I will say that I can totally sympathize with a desire to keep multiple personal facts opaque or hidden on a forum such as Hatrack.
Prejudice is a bit of a loaded word now, but dislike of *unconscious* prejudice is pretty close to the idea that I want to get across. The idea is when you're a member of a minority group, especially if you're a member of multiple minority groups, there is a bit of a concern that your efforts to discuss and debate an idea may be distracted away from by prejudgement. Sure, you can cut through it eventually, but that may very well often not be particularly *fun*.
I would never go to the extent of actively making up details, but going a bit out of the way to obscure them, I can sympathetise with that. Especially if I did not go through the experience of being shifted from one minority group to almost the opposite minority group during life.
I know for sure I would be extremely uncomfortable with the same approach on the Orney(?) board as I use here.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
