Are messageboards addictive?
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Are messageboards addictive?
I’m fairly new to the message board scene, but it appears they are incredibly addictive...
Can one develop a psychological dependency to this medium of communication?
Can one develop a psychological dependency to this medium of communication?
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
MKFaizi
I was never a message board junkie.
I reckon I have been a Genius junkie, a few years back. I don't go to other boards.
I have written here for going on nine years. I no longer find it addictive. It was more addictive when I was interested in personalities. I have no such interests now. No interest in argument for the sake of argument. No interest in patter and chatter. No interest in upsmanship.
Ultimately, I don't give a shit what anyone thinks about this crappy thing or that crappy thing. I read for quality. Quality in thought and in writing thought is very rare.
Very, very rare.
Getting rarer by the minute.
Faizi
I reckon I have been a Genius junkie, a few years back. I don't go to other boards.
I have written here for going on nine years. I no longer find it addictive. It was more addictive when I was interested in personalities. I have no such interests now. No interest in argument for the sake of argument. No interest in patter and chatter. No interest in upsmanship.
Ultimately, I don't give a shit what anyone thinks about this crappy thing or that crappy thing. I read for quality. Quality in thought and in writing thought is very rare.
Very, very rare.
Getting rarer by the minute.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
No.Just out of curiousity Faizi, after nine years writing on forums to QRS, do you ever get the urge to meet any of them? I know that can't easily be done due to the distances, but it seems a long time and I wondered if you ever wanted to do that at all.
Back a few years ago, yes, probably.
Now, it does not matter to me. For one thing, I value solitude above anything. It is nice to come on line and write and get writing in return. But I have no desire for companionship or friendship.
As my real brother says, the Unabomber kind of had the right idea -- except for killing people. In the next year or so, I am hoping to move into a small cabin in the woods.
I used to be interested in personalities; people. Now, I am more interested in enlightenment -- not necessarily as defined by Genius. I get sick of the dogma. I am my own person. I have my own truth and I live by it as much as I can.
I am interested in some of the thinkers extolled here -- N, K, -- get tired of spelling out the names. I don't give a fuck about Buddhism. I can appreciate Weininger.
Philosophy is thought -- purely. Philosophy is not a contest.
In the past week or so, I feel less and less need to prove anything to anybody.
I write what I write and I think what I think without need to argue. I am not interested in argument.
Not interested in personalities or people. So, no, I am not interested in ever meeting in person QSR.
Faizi
The way I have looked at it, is that philosophy is a contest. But not between people. Between ideas or thoughts. It can be an internal contest in my own mind, or an external contest in this forum. A lot of the time ego, pride and vanity and all the rest can get mixed up with the ideas when the contest occurs, but I don't think that always invalidates the process.MKFaizi wrote:Philosophy is thought -- purely. Philosophy is not a contest.
In the past week or so, I feel less and less need to prove anything to anybody.
I write what I write and I think what I think without need to argue. I am not interested in argument.
I consider writing to the forum, to be proving ideas to myself as much as anyone else. It's a chance for others to try to disprove my ideas, and me to try to disprove their ideas. I enter the arena with the possibility of being killed, as well as the possibility of killing.
Any idiot can play argument volleyball. However, I do see criticism from others as a sign or an opportunity to grow in your own thinking. Solitude breeds delusion as much as thinking in a mob. Don't forget the world you interact with. If you're willing to listen, it'll show you more than what your face on a mirror ever could. The world reflects yourself because you project onto it your mind. It's a two-way street when you drive down idealism countryside. The actual is real and the real is ideal, or reality and ideas are united together.
Any philosopher worth his salt has always gone for idealism or the notion that empirical reality isn't what it seems to be. In other words: "You'd be an idiot to take everything you experience as real without question." Philosophy can't be science and when it does, it usually does a terrible job of imitating it. It can adopt the rigor and questioning methods of science, but even then it keeps finding itself where no natural science ever does.
It's deliciously tempting to do so. The pre-Socratic monist Thales said reality is an illusory appearance---everything's all water for goodness sake! The empirical philosopher Hume pointed out what we take for granted about reality is just a projection our habitual observation. Just because you see one thing following the next doesn't mean it actually does. He admitted causality is a useful notion, but don't hedge your bets on it. And this is coming from someone who says *experience is all that there is*! Hegel really ran off with the notion and became a philosophical punching bag for it. As much as people hate him and knock on his system, he still comes back to haunt us in some way or another. He did say philosophy springs from the culture. That might explain why I find much of American philosophy lifeless these days...
Philosophy ain't for the faint of heart. Prepare to step on toes along the way. Be prepared to have yours crushed. Even Kierkegaard has his enemies (the Hegelian disciples and he provoked the Corsair to ridicule him). Socrates was quite adept at pissing people off, even when the Athenians were going to banish him and spare his life.
You know the story with Jesus. Sure, they killed him. But the fact of the matter is, if they didn't, then we wouldn't have this fanatical movement called Christianity today. I've read various interpretations on the life of the "real" historical Jesus including the one expounded by Dominic Crossan. He submitted his research to strict criteria and utterly ran through with scholarship with the utmost detail. At the end, he admits that it's an interpretation or one version of who Jesus really was. I am of the view that the Gospel writers had much more in mind than simply retelling the teachings of Jesus. It was written to persuade an audience. And many other versions of Jesus's story (Gospel of Thomas, etc...) never made it in the Bible because it didn't fit the agenda of the Roman Catholics.
Whether you think the words of Jesus have any merit or not is something else. I am simply pointing out that history twists itself around over time in the oddest ways. The fact that we have people killing each other in the name of religions that propagate the Golden Rule of "loving thy neighbor as thyself" is more than telling. No religion is clean. The emperor Ashoka spread Buddhism in India through conquest.
Wars and force ain't pretty, but you can get a surprising amount of cultural flourishing. The Tao Te Ching came out during Warring States period and who can forget the works of Michaelangelo during the unbelievable tensions among the Italian states.
Everyone serious in philosophy wants to be a martyr for their ideas. That's what living your philosophy means. I have little precious time for those who can't live with their ideas. That's the main beef I've had with some of philosophers these days. They divorce themselves from their arguments and speculate in a vacuum. The philosophers who really cause a reaction are the ones worth grappling with. They're ones who really screw around with your mind and perceptions.
In spite of all the sado-masochistic tendencies, don't lose sight of the main goal. You're doing it to become more conscious and self-aware of yourself. Work on that self-projecting project Kierkegaard makes such a big deal about. Or wield a hammer like our pal Nietzsche does so well.
You think it's a contest? One day you'll die with your ideas just like your opponents will. Make the waiting room visit more meaningful and worthwhile. You may play logic checkers and gloss over magazines all you want. You still have a number waiting for you.
I want something more deep. More alive. Give me the Tao: being is becoming and becoming is being. Even the laws etched in stone weather and erode away. Causality can be such a bitch. Thank goodness it's too complicated for me to understand the whole of it. At least I can be a fool and think I have *free will* and I can "choose" things. It's better than believing in Santa Claus---I can tell you that!
Mr. Kant was confident that metaphysics will be around as long as human beings exist. We just can't help asking those questions---even if the possibility of obtaining the "correct" answers are cast into doubt. No surprise that the post-Kantian philosophers became more dogmatic and confident in reason after Kant shows us we can't know (though not as terribly as Hume or Pyrrho did). He concludes that we can't help commiting the transcendental illusion. We always return once more to where we started (a bit wiser from the wear.) Similarly Nietzsche says we're convalescent when we're at our most sober. Once more reason sublates experience and falls back upon it; once more man climbs up, transcends himself, and climbs down the mountain. Transcendental philosophy has an odd sense of humor.
What good is the absolute Truth then, if it's only going to sedate itself to death in sheer solitude? The mystery of it all is a *feature* and a bug! It'll make you rip your hair out, but you can always learn a dance step or two. Thinking Man's Minefield indeed. Watch your step.
The enlightenment of permanent bliss is soporific. It's looking forward going to heaven and playing harps for eternity. The same boring song. I'll save that for when I keel over and croak. The trip there is much more interesting.
I can't help but laugh with it because I know the last laugh is on me.
[EDIT: Added the culture and religion stuff.]
[EDIT 2: Added the note that I edited the culture and religion stuff]
Any philosopher worth his salt has always gone for idealism or the notion that empirical reality isn't what it seems to be. In other words: "You'd be an idiot to take everything you experience as real without question." Philosophy can't be science and when it does, it usually does a terrible job of imitating it. It can adopt the rigor and questioning methods of science, but even then it keeps finding itself where no natural science ever does.
It's deliciously tempting to do so. The pre-Socratic monist Thales said reality is an illusory appearance---everything's all water for goodness sake! The empirical philosopher Hume pointed out what we take for granted about reality is just a projection our habitual observation. Just because you see one thing following the next doesn't mean it actually does. He admitted causality is a useful notion, but don't hedge your bets on it. And this is coming from someone who says *experience is all that there is*! Hegel really ran off with the notion and became a philosophical punching bag for it. As much as people hate him and knock on his system, he still comes back to haunt us in some way or another. He did say philosophy springs from the culture. That might explain why I find much of American philosophy lifeless these days...
Philosophy ain't for the faint of heart. Prepare to step on toes along the way. Be prepared to have yours crushed. Even Kierkegaard has his enemies (the Hegelian disciples and he provoked the Corsair to ridicule him). Socrates was quite adept at pissing people off, even when the Athenians were going to banish him and spare his life.
You know the story with Jesus. Sure, they killed him. But the fact of the matter is, if they didn't, then we wouldn't have this fanatical movement called Christianity today. I've read various interpretations on the life of the "real" historical Jesus including the one expounded by Dominic Crossan. He submitted his research to strict criteria and utterly ran through with scholarship with the utmost detail. At the end, he admits that it's an interpretation or one version of who Jesus really was. I am of the view that the Gospel writers had much more in mind than simply retelling the teachings of Jesus. It was written to persuade an audience. And many other versions of Jesus's story (Gospel of Thomas, etc...) never made it in the Bible because it didn't fit the agenda of the Roman Catholics.
Whether you think the words of Jesus have any merit or not is something else. I am simply pointing out that history twists itself around over time in the oddest ways. The fact that we have people killing each other in the name of religions that propagate the Golden Rule of "loving thy neighbor as thyself" is more than telling. No religion is clean. The emperor Ashoka spread Buddhism in India through conquest.
Wars and force ain't pretty, but you can get a surprising amount of cultural flourishing. The Tao Te Ching came out during Warring States period and who can forget the works of Michaelangelo during the unbelievable tensions among the Italian states.
Everyone serious in philosophy wants to be a martyr for their ideas. That's what living your philosophy means. I have little precious time for those who can't live with their ideas. That's the main beef I've had with some of philosophers these days. They divorce themselves from their arguments and speculate in a vacuum. The philosophers who really cause a reaction are the ones worth grappling with. They're ones who really screw around with your mind and perceptions.
In spite of all the sado-masochistic tendencies, don't lose sight of the main goal. You're doing it to become more conscious and self-aware of yourself. Work on that self-projecting project Kierkegaard makes such a big deal about. Or wield a hammer like our pal Nietzsche does so well.
You think it's a contest? One day you'll die with your ideas just like your opponents will. Make the waiting room visit more meaningful and worthwhile. You may play logic checkers and gloss over magazines all you want. You still have a number waiting for you.
I want something more deep. More alive. Give me the Tao: being is becoming and becoming is being. Even the laws etched in stone weather and erode away. Causality can be such a bitch. Thank goodness it's too complicated for me to understand the whole of it. At least I can be a fool and think I have *free will* and I can "choose" things. It's better than believing in Santa Claus---I can tell you that!
Mr. Kant was confident that metaphysics will be around as long as human beings exist. We just can't help asking those questions---even if the possibility of obtaining the "correct" answers are cast into doubt. No surprise that the post-Kantian philosophers became more dogmatic and confident in reason after Kant shows us we can't know (though not as terribly as Hume or Pyrrho did). He concludes that we can't help commiting the transcendental illusion. We always return once more to where we started (a bit wiser from the wear.) Similarly Nietzsche says we're convalescent when we're at our most sober. Once more reason sublates experience and falls back upon it; once more man climbs up, transcends himself, and climbs down the mountain. Transcendental philosophy has an odd sense of humor.
What good is the absolute Truth then, if it's only going to sedate itself to death in sheer solitude? The mystery of it all is a *feature* and a bug! It'll make you rip your hair out, but you can always learn a dance step or two. Thinking Man's Minefield indeed. Watch your step.
The enlightenment of permanent bliss is soporific. It's looking forward going to heaven and playing harps for eternity. The same boring song. I'll save that for when I keel over and croak. The trip there is much more interesting.
I can't help but laugh with it because I know the last laugh is on me.
[EDIT: Added the culture and religion stuff.]
[EDIT 2: Added the note that I edited the culture and religion stuff]
Last edited by Terry on Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I assume you are referring to my post. I said that philosophy is a contest between ideas, not people, at least in the ideal sense. So in my practice of philosophy there are no opponents for me ideally. Although I stray from that ideal a lot.You think it's a contest? One day you'll die with your ideas just like your opponents will.
How do you know I or anyone else will die? If someone does die, how do you know that their ideas during life won't still be meaningful and worthwhile in some way? Do you claim to know what occurs to a persons consciousness after death?Make the waiting room visit more meaningful and worthwhile. You may play mental checkers and gloss over magazines all you want. You still have a number waiting for you.
Do you think causality is a law that could be eroded away by the weather?I want something more deep. More alive. Give me the Tao: being is becoming and becoming is being. Even the laws etched in stone weather and erode away. Causality can be such a bitch.
Is being foolish a worthwhile goal or outcome of philosophy for you?Thank goodness it's too complicated for me to understand the whole of it. At least I can be a fool and think I have *free will* and I can "choose" things. It's better than believing in Santa Claus---I can tell you that!
Do you judge the worth of truth on the utility or enjoyment it gives to you?What good is the absolute Truth then, if it's only going to sedate itself to death in sheer solitude? The mystery of it all is a *feature* and a bug! It'll make you rip your hair out, but you can always learn a dance step or two. Thinking Man's Minefield indeed. Watch your step.
You may not have opponents personified, but your ideas have opponents in other people's ideas. As long as you keep thinking it's a rat race (ideally or not), you will end up overlooking what you have in common with those you "compete" against.Jason wrote:I assume you are referring to my post. I said that philosophy is a contest between ideas, not people, at least in the ideal sense. So in my practice of philosophy there are no opponents for me ideally. Although I stray from that ideal a lot.
I assume you're a human being with a finite life span like me. Therefore, you will die. Whether you live afterward as something else, it is still a matter of fact that you are no longer a continuation of that human being you were before.How do you know I or anyone else will die? If someone does die, how do you know that their ideas during life won't still be meaningful and worthwhile in some way? Do you claim to know what occurs to a persons consciousness after death?
I prefer to leave such speculation up for grabs for when I die. All I know is that I, as a subject, fear death because I exist finitely. Consult your favorite theory of the afterlife.
Self-caused causality. Now that's a concept! Causality is a fixed concept in your mind (being), but the manifestation of causality in the concrete actuality is quite dynamic (becoming). So in a sense, yes. Buy a new one once your old one wears out after three months. Your mileage may vary, of course.Do you think causality is a law that could be eroded away by the weather?
Hey, this sounds familiar. It's the Copernican revolution of modern thought! We discover the laws of nature from observing nature and we *tell* nature what they are to her. What makes the law of causality any different?
I don't know. Why do you ask me if you know the answer? I'm just a fool.Do you think being foolish is a worthwhile goal of philosophy?
I'd have no use for it otherwise. If it'll make me a miserable asshole in the end then no thank you. I'm willing to suffer in the intermediate steps in order for the greater good of being a richer person in terms of conscious fulfillment, awareness capacity, and self-knowing. It's a process, and I am beginning to realize what I am capable of.Do you judge the worth of truth on the utility or enjoyment it gives to you?
Why do you seek enlightenment of the truth, Jason? Impress your friends? Clean your dishes with it? Bake tasty pastries?
Cosmic_Interloper writes:
'Are messageboards addictive?'
Tomas:
Guess that depends who's looking over your shoulder ... if it is characters (pixels) the likes of David Quinn, Kevin Solway ... then it be a good thing.
If it be the wanna philos of the commoner-class ... then it be a general waste of time with not much humor to 'tease the brain' with nary an intellectual smidgeon of Truth to toss back and forth.
I know the deaL - SHORT ANSWER.
Tomas
'Are messageboards addictive?'
Tomas:
Guess that depends who's looking over your shoulder ... if it is characters (pixels) the likes of David Quinn, Kevin Solway ... then it be a good thing.
If it be the wanna philos of the commoner-class ... then it be a general waste of time with not much humor to 'tease the brain' with nary an intellectual smidgeon of Truth to toss back and forth.
I know the deaL - SHORT ANSWER.
Tomas
What is addictive?
The board or the desire for feedback.
It is amazing the body of correspondence that the literati of past ages had among their contemporaries. Sometimes the only valid source for biography of writers scientists and thinkers of past times come not from their official body of work but their letters, even those supposed to be destryed on their deaths. John Milton, Darwin, John Locke, Mozart, Dodson, you name it. There seems to have been a need for this communication that was often passed around so as to almost be as public as a bulletin board. The sheer volume of some of the correspondence would lead one to think it was an addictive behavior. I suspect it is more some genetic encoding akin to the compulsion of children to pass notes , whisper or otherwise communicate under the ruler of the harshest teacher. I know in the Marines, standing as attention for CG's inspection with a DI standing but inches away we managed to convey messages to each other in great volume. I don't remember ever being deprived of the stimulation of communication in the longest most rigorous posting, except when standing guard on an islolated spot behind a warehouse. And there I communed with the things that go bump in the night. But I find the communication on a bulletin board, whether the topic is the esoterica of some botanical anomaly or some doggeral verse, important as a source of stimulation, an affirmation or an contradiction of my thought processes. Even the Ubermensch needs this.
It is amazing the body of correspondence that the literati of past ages had among their contemporaries. Sometimes the only valid source for biography of writers scientists and thinkers of past times come not from their official body of work but their letters, even those supposed to be destryed on their deaths. John Milton, Darwin, John Locke, Mozart, Dodson, you name it. There seems to have been a need for this communication that was often passed around so as to almost be as public as a bulletin board. The sheer volume of some of the correspondence would lead one to think it was an addictive behavior. I suspect it is more some genetic encoding akin to the compulsion of children to pass notes , whisper or otherwise communicate under the ruler of the harshest teacher. I know in the Marines, standing as attention for CG's inspection with a DI standing but inches away we managed to convey messages to each other in great volume. I don't remember ever being deprived of the stimulation of communication in the longest most rigorous posting, except when standing guard on an islolated spot behind a warehouse. And there I communed with the things that go bump in the night. But I find the communication on a bulletin board, whether the topic is the esoterica of some botanical anomaly or some doggeral verse, important as a source of stimulation, an affirmation or an contradiction of my thought processes. Even the Ubermensch needs this.
