Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 08:45 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Trying to get a confession out of me? Nah! not this time, mate, not yet.

Dodgy
I know. So fresh after revelation of my predatory nature, I know I'm not worthy yet. Wait till I finish therapy, if you don't confess then, I'll get really pissed Dodgy Tongue

(22-08-2014 08:40 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yeah! I noticed.

I was tempted to point it out but you weren't ready.

Wink
See? This skill. Knowing when someone isn't ready. I want to get myself some of that, the fine art of perceiving personal boundaries. Evil people didn't allow me to have any. I'd love to keep the boundaries, only if I could see them. I wonder how did you retain or develop that ability. If you don't say, I'll go googling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 05:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Facts are meaningless without interpretation and connection into a systematic worldview. That needs a lot of divergent thinking, not just convergent. I think that is an objective process, but it can't be algorithmized. Which means, people will come at the same conclusions if they've got the same skill, but the skill can't be easily transferred. Practice will literally change you and the way how you experience theory and facts. Marathon running is an objective discipline, but you don't become a runner by studying it. There marathon experience plays a role in evaluation.

Well; there you go. Facts are subservient to ideology. Presuppositionalism.

Good luck with that.

(22-08-2014 05:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  In sociology this skill is called "theoretical sensitivity" and there's another called "sociological imagination". The latter is more of a personality trait, the former is more of a skill or expertise. There's no way of mass producing that. Or proving that I have these skills, for that matter. Or getting anyone admit that I do. I might be a million times right and accurate, but I don't know how to say it in a non-threatening and non-predatory way.

Hey, your narcissism is back!

Hello, old friend. Who's a big ego? Who? Awww, you are. You are, yes you are! Who's a big ego!

Protip: maybe you're not right. Until you can admit that to yourself, nobody will ever take you seriously - nor should they.

(22-08-2014 05:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm sorry, this must sound terrible. Another of my attempts to look smarter or more competent in some way, which you must of course vehemently deny in order to save face.

I don't give a shit about saving face. If you could stop pulling psychoanalysis straight from your anus, that would be helpful.

I suppose you can always pretend that's the case, in order to satisfy your self-serving circular psychobabble, but that doesn't make it so.

(22-08-2014 05:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, I'm getting a little sick of that. This is what I've been trying to get - get sick, upping the stakes until I do. I want to get sick of things that I should, when I should. I understood some of the influence I have on people and it was some terrible psychological arithmetics to do. You've been very helpful.

You're certainly neurologically atypical enough that you completely fail to realize what a stinking douche you are.

That much I grant you.

(22-08-2014 05:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  (FYI, that's the problem with trauma, it gets suppressed or sublimated in order to maintain sanity and self-respect, but then when it's safe, it's difficult to dig up and deconstruct, it tends to remain in personality in form of predatory habits, even though quite intellectually sublimated and even valued socially as a virtue)

wut. the actual. fuck.

...

Guy. Let me be very clear.

That's pathetically transparent bullshit.

What you have done is, very carefully, and very thoroughly, construct a worldview such that every possible response is affirmation of your presuppositions. It's self-reinforcing; a black hole of self-satisfying circular self-affirmation.

Are you truly, literally incapable of conceiving of a difference of opinion? All indications are yes. I guess that stems from your completely one-dimensional outlook. There is Right (you), there is Wrong (the other), and never the twain shall meet. After all; we've just heard how facts don't matter unless interpreted with sufficient Ideological Purity™. We've just heard how there is no valid understanding but that of the True Believer™.

So what do you do when people don't agree? People like everyone else in this thread? A good question. Evidently your recourse is to invent spurious pseudo-psych blithering to explain why other people - even other intelligent and educated people - could fail to agree with your obvious greatness (since in your eyes, it must be a failing).

Unfortunately the world does not work that way. If you continue harping on some delirious trauma your fucked-up worldview insists I must have suffered because how else could I fail to recognise your Self-Evident Superiority... Christfucker. What a joke.
(protip: no)

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
22-08-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 08:55 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
perceiving personal boundaries. Evil people didn't allow me to have any. I'd love to keep the boundaries, only if I could see them. I wonder how did you retain or develop that ability. If you don't say, I'll go googling.

I'm still learning it. It's trial and error, mostly.

A difficult marriage helped. In the aftermath, I began to see the boundaries that I failed to maintain.

Best practice methods (service management, project management, governance and others) were also very valuable as they apply (once the gobbledygook has been translated) to real life.

I now have relationship boundaries very well established by, for example, treating all relationships as transactions and appropriately categorising the relationship type (strategic, tactical, operational or commodity). And importantly, ensuring that the other parties are aware of this.

An example text conversion from yesterday:

Me: If I moved to KL or Oz, when the lease runs out, would you move with me?
Kelly (flatmate (a tactical relationship)): Are you asking me to marry you?

Very smart girl. She answered my tactical (or so I thought when I wrote it) question as though it was a strategic question.

She would have got more shock-value had she said "Yes, of course I'll marry you!" but she was being kind and simply, gently pointed out that my question was ambiguous... I meant it as a 'short-term planning' question but had we not had boundaries already established, she could have interpreted it as a 'long-term vision' question.

In fact, I think that's kinda how I ended up accidentally married all those years ago. See what I mean about being better with the design stance than the intention stance?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
22-08-2014, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 04:33 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 09:59 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm still learning it. It's trial and error, mostly.

A difficult marriage helped. In the aftermath, I began to see the boundaries that I failed to maintain.

Best practice methods (service management, project management, governance and others) were also very valuable as they apply (once the gobbledygook has been translated) to real life.

I now have relationship boundaries very well established by, for example, treating all relationships as transactions and appropriately categorising the relationship type (strategic, tactical, operational or commodity). And importantly, ensuring that the other parties are aware of this.

An example text conversion from yesterday:

Me: If I moved to KL or Oz, when the lease runs out, would you move with me?
Kelly (flatmate (a tactical relationship)): Are you asking me to marry you?

Very smart girl. She answered my tactical (or so I thought when I wrote it) question as though it was a strategic question.

She would have got more shock-value had she said "Yes, of course I'll marry you!" but she was being kind and simply, gently pointed out that my question was ambiguous... I meant it as a 'short-term planning' question but had we not had boundaries already established, she could have interpreted it as a 'long-term vision' question.

In fact, I think that's kinda how I ended up accidentally married all those years ago. See what I mean about being better with the design stance than the intention stance?
Yesterday? Wow, congratulations, you're lucky Thumbsup It's unexpected for me too, I'm a bit stunned. I hope you knew how to respond and all is going well! I hope it works for you both! So it's the solid skill of work, experience and years under the belt (I tend to forget that) and having many other people around. Family is a great idea too. That sounds very believable, though not a quick fix, as I see.
What do you mean by transactions? I can imagine the idea, relationships are like trading money, we start by small change and gradually build up to big banknotes. It is about having low confidence but building it up. But I have a huge blind spot in imagination about content of these transactions. It means to need something personal from other people and other people needing something personal from me. Not impersonal things like business. Remember, my narcissistic parents taught me to never have any needs or problems or weaknesses - to be "great and infallible" as Cjlr complains. It was Miranda rules parenting: anything you say or do can and will be used against you.

The things what I'm looking for are representations of essence of specific human relationships, especially relationships which are taken for granted by the society and thus not analyzed in essence. Specific stories usually don't help, because the're based on belonging pattern - study a field - get a job in the field. Attend a church, find a girlfriend in a church. There's nothing to generalize and I don't have the luxury of belonging anywhere. I don't know how this belonging thing works, or rather I get jolts of pain if I try to think about it.

Few people understand the represented essence of a relationship, that requires philosophical training (which I have). Few people need it. And even fewer people are capable of taking an experience and philosophically and artistically summing it up in essence. That is something incredibly rare. Moly has a few of such pearls of wisdom, but again, he takes dating or work skills for granted.
Frankly, I need the artistic essence because I can not figure this out by myself, it's not a riddle, it's a subconscious inhibition. When it's subconscious, it's a blind spot in imagination, when it surfaces, it's both blind and painful. I need feedback and the *just right* pieces of art or essence, I don't know what it is, but when I see it, I shit bricks.
Relationship is having someone who doesn't get defensive, offensive or into denial but instead mirrors us to ourselves. The most I can do alone is to process the accumulated suppressed pain that would prevent new experience.


(22-08-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Well; there you go. Facts are subservient to ideology. Presuppositionalism.

Good luck with that.
Nope, I did not say ideology. I'm philosophical. In philosophy there is a super-important question.
COMPARED TO WHAT?
Meaning of facts is subservient to interpretation. Context can completely change the meaning of facts. Are there any objective alternatives to ideology? I would say so, moral philosophy, for example.
How should life be lived? Do not say "by personal preference"; I ask how is that personal preference obtained, tested, refined and formulated? The answer is, that's the content of the discipline called moral philosophy.

(22-08-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: maybe you're not right. Until you can admit that to yourself, nobody will ever take you seriously - nor should they.
Maybe I'm not right, COMPARED TO WHAT?
Well, I thought that goes without saying, I might be wrong! Of course I might.
Now what changed? Nothing. I did my best and I did my best in judging other people's alternatives. Admitting that I may be wrong doesn't get me anywhere, it doesn't make me wiser or better informed. It doesn't change my course.

I think this "admitting" you speak of has deeper meaning, I just don't know what it is. Maybe a social ritual of conformity. Well, conformity to what?

(22-08-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What you have done is, very carefully, and very thoroughly, construct a worldview such that every possible response is affirmation of your presuppositions. It's self-reinforcing; a black hole of self-satisfying circular self-affirmation.
That is a serious accusation. I know what you mean, I have a great experience with getting in and out of such black holes. In the emotional and social area, you would be right, that is the whole point of self-therapy.

But as a worldview? That is a very difficult thing to prove. You would have to know my worldview in great detail and also know things like paradigm theory and metaanalysis. Again, I know what you mean, in Freudism no matter what you answer, you're a pervert. Of course I did my best to avoid that. This is actually a point in my master's thesis that I am preparing, I will try to solve just that kind of a problem.

I don't think I succumb to that particular problem. I harbor several worldviews, which are partially incommensurable as Thomas Kuhn would say about paradigms - or used to be, I united them quite recently. I keep my mental tabs, if something seems circular, then I downplay its importance, because obviously it's not producing any new data. But I do get a lot of new data empirically, which you are not privy to. That is the secret that keeps half of my mental edifices alive and kicking.

(22-08-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Are you truly, literally incapable of conceiving of a difference of opinion? All indications are yes. I guess that stems from your completely one-dimensional outlook. There is Right (you), there is Wrong (the other), and never the twain shall meet. After all; we've just heard how facts don't matter unless interpreted with sufficient Ideological Purity™. We've just heard how there is no valid understanding but that of the True Believer™.
You know that opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they are all full of shit. But facts aren't self-evident either.

According to the theory of Thomas Kuhn, facts have meaning within a paradigm. In physics, this paradigm is pretty fixed, it's dominant and it only changes in rare and short moments of scientific revolutions.
But social sciences have multiple simultaneous paradigms! You can think of such a paradigm as a context. Context can completely change meaning of facts. This is something we don't see in physics, because there's just one dominant paradigm and just one context: the physical reality. Social "reality" in people's heads has multiple equally or nearly good explanations.
[Image: 198398_424402037583038_642096662_n.jpg]
Furthermore, social sciences have by definition no controlled environment. If it's controlled environment, it's not society anymore. Therefore, social sciences use different methods.
I think what you call presuppositionalism is simply the inductive reasoning method. Also, the personality of a researcher is a factor and must be explicitly a part of the research, such as anthropology, Grounded Theory or the post-modern feminist standpoint theory. When people are involved, the purity of empiricism must give up some of its strongholds - and the technical importance of results gets downplayed accordingly. Nobody should mistake inductively created theory for deductively verified theory. I am the inductive guy, I gather data, generalize them and check for obvious errors against positive empirical knowledge. Not much to be proud of, so what? It's the best I can do.

Philosophy, OTOH is a whole new can of worms that is as distant from the social world as mathematics is from physics. Pretty close together, actually. Philosophy might as well be called verbal mathematics.

(22-08-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So what do you do when people don't agree? People like everyone else in this thread? A good question. Evidently your recourse is to invent spurious pseudo-psych blithering to explain why other people - even other intelligent and educated people - could fail to agree with your obvious greatness (since in your eyes, it must be a failing).
I wouldn't say obvious greatness, I'd say obvious difficulty and specialization. I do what I do, for what's that worth, which is hard to tell, because it's almost unique. Go figure. Unique doesn't mean great. It means a freak until millionaire.

If someone doesn't agree, there must be a reason for this.
In my experience usually, as a rule of thumb:
1) great minds think alike or can get through differences with metaanalysis, which happens to be the method of my master's thesis.
2) most people are non-philosophical, "educated" to be reflectors of culture, not thinkers.
3) I'm a largely self-educated, conceited asshole like Mark Twain, who said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education". I have both, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
22-08-2014, 05:36 PM
Re: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Congrats, after at least 4 times of being asked to prior, you've admitted you could be wrong. At least that's a reasonable remark that you claim it now. If you were honestly considering it, you wouldn't feel the need to simply judge other concepts, but could actually perceive and understand them reasonable. Which doesn't equate to accepting them.

Still the issue goes on that I've mentioned before. You don't seem willing or able to expound outside of the boxes you've already convinced. And you definitely show an affinity for boxing in ideas in different areas.

If you willingly go into discussions knowing you're equally as capable of bring mislead and open as the other side could be, your points may actually become impactful. When you resist such concepts, you unravel a conversation that'd more manic and unbeneficial to all.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
22-08-2014, 06:31 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 07:17 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 05:36 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Congrats, after at least 4 times of being asked to prior, you've admitted you could be wrong. At least that's a reasonable remark that you claim it now. If you were honestly considering it, you wouldn't feel the need to simply judge other concepts, but could actually perceive and understand them reasonable. Which doesn't equate to accepting them.
I could be wrong, but for years, when I specifically saw where and how I could be wrong, I actually did something about that, I changed my position. After a few years I have run out of ideas where specifically I could be wrong. Sorry Blush You surely deserve the great pleasure of finding errors and debunking them. But what you need is a dose of masochism, seeking out opposition by yourself, not confronting it passively on your home turf. That's how I got where I am.
If you think liberal social democracy is the only true and just system, great, go to the dark and scary libertarian boards and brace yourself. Either you show them the true way, or they will correct yours, you have nothing to lose but your chains! Big Grin That's how I learned atheism and skepticism about 8 years ago...and most of other things I know.

(22-08-2014 05:36 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Still the issue goes on that I've mentioned before. You don't seem willing or able to expound outside of the boxes you've already convinced. And you definitely show an affinity for boxing in ideas in different areas.

If you willingly go into discussions knowing you're equally as capable of bring mislead and open as the other side could be, your points may actually become impactful. When you resist such concepts, you unravel a conversation that'd more manic and unbeneficial to all.
Well, I ended up in these boxes after oscillating for years from the most conventional to the most radical stances. I left no stone unturned. Now I trust myself to recognize the true principle when I see it and even arrive at it myself if I get enough instances. I trust myself to see if there is any out of the box information.
This work and similar works changed me, re-wired my brain. I am literally a different person than back when I graduated high school and believed in welfare state political economy.
I have just one claim. If you do your own independent investigation and keenly discriminate the less consistent ideas from the more consistent, you will end up exactly where I did, no matter your starting position. If not, we can go over your steps and find where we started diverging and why. But please don't ask me to do the work for you. It's not a piece of information, it's a journey that changes what you are, you will not understand things the same way afterwards, you will value different kinds of evidence differently. This is what independent self-education does to people.
Maybe it does not matter what position people have, it matters how much effort and work did they put into getting there. Do not trust people disinterested in the subject itself, they are not willing to take on any responsibility for self-learning or risk non-conformity. This I have thought since the start years ago and I still think it now.

Computers mislead us to think that just because the brain is a computer, we can upload new knowledge into it. That is a dangerous lie. The school system will damage your brain with useless fragmented non-indexed tidbits of info, which will make you barely competent at a job, but you will never understand the big political picture. Teaching at school without personal interest, referencing and usage is a scam. This is why I study on the side as much as I study at school.

The way you are now, I would have to ask, what do you consider evidence? What is your current position? Then I could put forward a case, within your own worldview, that would get you a little closer to my worldview. Just a little, as much as your worldview allows. If you are pro-government, I could make a case for a bit smaller government, something like that. But that is an ineffectual thing to do, which is why I would rather talk about why it is immoral, useless and extremely harmful to spank and yell at children. Raise children peacefully and voluntarily and they will see involuntary (collectivist) social institutions as barbaric.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 08:22 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 08:40 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 08:35 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
Just for your information, I was getting stunned by revealing a nasty block in my psyche based around mutual abuse, control and addiction that develops between debating people.
I have been trying to pinpoint this block for the past few weeks. As the Red woman would say, ...for the subconscious is dark and full of terrors!

Yeah! I noticed.

I was tempted to point it out but you weren't ready.

Wink

Except what the actual fuck is a block in one's psyche? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2014, 08:25 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 08:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 08:40 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yeah! I noticed.

I was tempted to point it out but you weren't ready.

Wink

Except what the actual fuck is a block in one's psyche? Consider

Oh it's when your chi does not flow through all your chakras in unison. Facepalm

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 09:30 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 08:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 08:40 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yeah! I noticed.

I was tempted to point it out but you weren't ready.

Wink

Except what the actual fuck is a block in one's psyche? Consider

Shall we put that one down to poetic licence?

I think you know what he meant. Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 09:44 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 09:30 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 08:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except what the actual fuck is a block in one's psyche? Consider

Shall we put that one down to poetic licence?

I think you know what he meant. Tongue

No, really, I don't know what he means. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: