Biggier - Human (inter)action and meaning

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Biggier - Human (inter)action and meaning

Postby Dave Toast » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:05 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Biggier (On TPG multiple times and likewise here): Besides, what point could possibly be more important than this one: how OUGHT we to think, feel and behave around others in an essentially absurd and meaningless world?

I suspect, however, that most folks are so nonplussed by my own particular answer [that, essentially, there is no answer], they avoid being reminded of it like the plague.<hr>

Hey Biggie, you still reading here?

I'd like to have a stab at working through the above with you, and maybe others will have something to offer along the way. It would be nice, at least for me, and it would be more conducive to reaching some sort of resolution, if we could just stick to the matter at hand, and refrain from the polemics you so enjoy. I would suggest that if you really do want to find the semblance of an answer to this type of question, you would be better served by not confusing the issue and not complicating the matter with irrelevancy.

If you're up for it, I'd like you to first consider your question and assess what you really want to ask, and how you want to phrase it. As it stands, the conclusion is implicit in the premise: The world is meaningless, and therefore there can be no 'ought'. However, I think the question is flawed in that it means to relate human actions to the world, as opposed to humans. Here's how I think the question you are asking should be phrased:

If meaning is informed by value, and individual human values are arbitrarily arrived at, how might we arrive at a less arbitrary, and so more meaningful (as defined by less meaningless) system according to which humans ought to act?

(Note that we will not be considering free will with regard to the question of the arbitrariness of human values.)

Please indicate if you concur with this phraseology. If you do, perhaps offer your initial thoughts on the matter and we can move on from there.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

---

Postby suergaz » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:16 am

The world as opposed to humans Toast?! What rot. How can biggie take this absurdity seriously you snooty pedant. I say it must be polemics all the way!
suergaz
 

Re: ---

Postby Dave Toast » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:20 am

Fuck off.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

---

Postby suergaz » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:23 am

That's what Marsha once said to me! But she gave me her handkerchief when she did so. All I get from you is that jittery quivering like you want to break out the fists.
suergaz
 

Re: ---

Postby Dave Toast » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:41 am

Don't be silly.

But then why not.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

---

Postby suergaz » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:49 am

Fisticuffs are a delicacy where I come from. We save them for special occasions.
suergaz
 

Re: ---

Postby Dave Toast » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:54 am

I'm sure you'd agree that it would be quite special, at least for me, to meet you.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

----

Postby suergaz » Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:58 am

But I need my fists in case I decide to play the piano one day.
suergaz
 

Re: Biggier - Human (inter)action and meaning

Postby birdofhermes » Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:26 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>I suspect, however, that most folks are so nonplussed by my own particular answer [that, essentially, there is no answer], they avoid being reminded of it like the plague.<hr>
One clue to his dishonesty is that he poses such questions and asks why it is that the enlightenment cannot address them, yet he himself realizes there is no one answer, and mocks those who try.

Good luck, I say.
birdofhermes
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Biggier - Human (inter)action and meaning

Postby WolfsonJakk » Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:03 am

I would like to see this exchange between Toast and Big. Perhaps the cage would be best so that there might not be interferance from others. I think this discussion, if civil and focused on topics rather than imagined individual failings, would be beneficial to those who participate or read.

Tharan
WolfsonJakk
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm

Biggier - Human (inter)action and meaning

Postby DEL » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:34 pm

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Dave Toast
If meaning is informed by value, and individual human values are arbitrarily arrived at, how might we arrive at a less arbitrary, and so more meaningful (as defined by less meaningless) system according to which humans ought to act?<hr>


There are 2 parallel worlds of human behaviour with contending values.
1. The world of land value.
2. The world of money value.

Where land is priority values are based around the stability and preservation of the collective values, traditions, culture, laws etc.

Where money is the priority values are based around individuality, independance, freedom, movement and exchange etc.

These 2 world values produce very different kinds of behaviour.
DEL
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:31 pm

Re: Biggier - Human (inter)action and meaning

Postby Dave Toast » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:58 pm

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Zag: But I need my fists in case I decide to play the piano one day.<hr>

I suppose I could just strangle you.


Quote:
Quote:<hr>What rot. How can biggie take this absurdity seriously you snooty pedant.<hr>

This from the guy who pulls Matt up for missing a T, and looks down his nose at all.


Quote:
Quote:<hr>The world as opposed to humans Toast?!<hr>

Yes, the world as opposed to humans. The world has no meaning of it's own, it can't, it has no values with which to imbue meaning. Humans have values though, and a concept of meaning. Therefore any exploration and refinement of this meaning must relate to humans, no matter how transient and arbitrary individual human values may seem. What are you missing here, do you think the world has values, or do you think humans don't?


Quote:
Quote:<hr>I say it must be polemics all the way!<hr>

Of course you do, it is your nature which you must be true to. But I'm trying to be constructive here, and I wasn't addressing you, so your destructive opinion holds no sway. Go pull tongues elsewhere, so that I don't have to take this to the cage on account of your petty games.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

---

Postby suergaz » Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:09 pm

Toast

Quote:
Quote:<hr>This from the guy who pulls Matt up for missing a T, and looks down his nose at all.<hr>



What the fuck are you talking about fuck head? What's this 'T' shit? If I woke up and found myself looking down your nose, I'd waste myself.

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Yes, the world as opposed to humans. The world has no meaning of it's own, it can't, it has no values with which to imbue meaning. Humans have values though, and a concept of meaning. Therefore any exploration and refinement of this meaning must relate to humans, no matter how transient and arbitrary individual human values may seem. What are you missing here, do you think the world has values, or do you think humans don't?<hr>


My comment you're replying to was to show you Biggies use of the word world included the world of humans.

You have really outdone yourself here. Edited by: suergaz at: 2/24/04 10:28 pm
suergaz
 

Re: ---

Postby Dave Toast » Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:43 pm

Quote:
Quote:<hr>What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?<hr>

LOL, fuck head.


Quote:
Quote:<hr>What's this 'T' shit?<hr>

Calm down.

Matt said 'Egoism', and then followed it with an explanation implying egotism, with a T. Ergo, quite obviously he meant egotism, but you saw fit to be pedantic about it.


Quote:
Quote:<hr>If I woke up and found myself looking down your nose, I'd waste myself.<hr>

If I woke up at the same time, I'd do it for you.


Quote:
Quote:<hr>My comment you're replying was to show you Biggies use of the word world included the world of humans.<hr>

No shit, it is pure pedantry for the sake of it. If you had read properly in the first place, you would've seen that I first make the distinction between the non-valuing world and the valuing human, before then moving directly onto this very point that human values might seem just as meaningless, but it is not for the same reasons that the world is meaningless. I did that in the name of precision, not petty pedantry. Precision is kind of important if you want to be logical. Petty pedantry is kind of important if you've got nothing better to do. Go do something better, petty overman.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: ---

Postby suergaz » Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:48 pm

I was never pedantic. All I made him do was look up a dictionary, you decided to regurgitate one.


About what you call my petty pedantry for the sake of it, it is all yours. No shit you made your fucking distinctions. I have not disagreed with them. But you're suggesting Biggie needs you feeding him this putridity through a straw.
suergaz
 

Re: ---

Postby Dave Toast » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:10 pm

Not at all, I'm simply, from the get-go, establishing and qualifying definitions more precisely.

But fair enough, you seek to characterise my striving for precision on a point I put to Biggie as pedantry, I seek to charcterise your pedantry on my striving for precision as pedantry. Let's reduce that down. Me - striving for precision, you - pedantic.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: ---

Postby suergaz » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:19 pm

Toast:--
Quote:
Quote:<hr>Me - striving for precision<hr>


This is true.
suergaz
 

Re: ---

Postby MGregory » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:25 pm

Pedantic precision (American Heritage Dictionary):

egoism - (funny letters) n 1. The belief that self-interest is the just and proper motive force. 2. <span style="text-decoration:underline">Egotism.</span> --e'go*ist n. --e'go*is'tic or --e'go*is'ti*cal adj. --e'go*is'ti*cal*ly adv.
MGregory
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 2:46 pm

Re: ---

Postby suergaz » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:32 pm

egoism has funny letters?! But they have to be rearranged to be 'me is go'. There's nothing at all funny about them.
suergaz
 

Cause and effect.

Postby DEL » Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:27 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Dave Toast
Fuck off. <hr>


Why did you feel the need to reply in that fashion?
Do you think that was the best response?
Did you consider no response?
DEL
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:31 pm

Re: Cause and effect.

Postby Dave Toast » Thu Feb 26, 2004 4:40 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Did you consider no response?<hr>

Of course.


Quote:
Quote:<hr>Do you think that was the best response?<hr>

Best?


Quote:
Quote:<hr>Why did you feel the need to reply in that fashion?<hr>

I felt no need. It was because Zag was clearly just throwing a fly in the ointment, playing with his own shit. Making a point of pedantry and striking a pose, in the name of fucking up a thread that didn't need his commentary, because I was dancing with him elsewhere. It was also because I was at that moment dancing with him elsewhere. It just seemed aptly aggressive to reply with fuck off, when he'd finished his pedantry by trying to demolish my intention for the tone of the thread by saying it should be polemics all the way. It may have not fucked up the thread so badly if I hadn't replied, but I'm not that bothered, and it looks like Biggie's chosen to ignore GF anyway.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm


Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron