Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:I leave your assessment of me to you.

You said you wrote a book about it. To me, that was one of the most interesting things I've ever seen you write, here.

You're saying I need to up my game?

I dunno, BWE. It would seem there's more than a few people who find the level of discourse about this kind of stuff in this kind of forum so compelling that they're going to collect the ideas they come up with and write a book. There's something pathetic about that, because they seem to think their position is being tested by reading different opinions from anonymous sources. What I'm hoping is that you're not one of those. It's not that I can't imagine you have identified a theme, and all. What really helps in this context is for you to cite anyone else who's thinking about the same sorts of things, so we can at least guess at what you've written your book about. If all you can cite are the opinions you've read online, then we know which sort of author you are. You could always write a book about something in which you have real expertise, but maybe you don't have that much going, there. The bald fact that you've written a book about it (so you say) is empty boasting when you never write anything more cogent than the stuff you've written in this thread. Go read the way Spinozasgalt writes about philosophy on those rare occasions when she gets serious. It's as if she's read stuff by somebody other than anonymous shitheads online. Just for the record, I'm generally writing much more in your vein than I am in hers, which is why I find something funky about your claim. At least I see the difference.

BWE wrote:Just saw your ETA addition to this post. My heady days are over since I had a serious illness a few years ago. Lost a significant amount of both mental capacity and give a shit all in the same round. It's unlikely you'll ever see me write something deeply cogent on this forum or at least any more cogent than what I normally post. I hope that's acceptable to you. However, I am fairly well read beyond just forum posts.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:Just saw your ETA addition to this post. My heady days are over since I had a serious illness a few years ago. Lost a significant amount of both mental capacity and give a shit all in the same round. It's unlikely you'll ever see me write something deeply cogent on this forum or at least any more cogent than what I normally post. I hope that's acceptable to you. However, I am fairly well read beyond just forum posts.

If that's true (about your illness, I mean), I'm sorry to hear it. It's not as if I don't give a shit.

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:Just saw your ETA addition to this post. My heady days are over since I had a serious illness a few years ago. Lost a significant amount of both mental capacity and give a shit all in the same round. It's unlikely you'll ever see me write something deeply cogent on this forum or at least any more cogent than what I normally post. I hope that's acceptable to you. However, I am fairly well read beyond just forum posts.

If that's true (about your illness, I mean), I'm sorry to hear it. It's not as if I don't give a shit.

Oh it's true. Kind of like the second half of flowers for Algernon. More of a relief than a burden to tell the truth, I wasn't too far from thinking about semi retirement and it's a lot easier to just sit and enjoy my surroundings now. I do count myself lucky every time I get a paycheck still though. Main thing is I can't do sustained reading of complicated material or plucky writing now. I can still do most of the tasks I need to for work.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:Just saw your ETA addition to this post. My heady days are over since I had a serious illness a few years ago. Lost a significant amount of both mental capacity and give a shit all in the same round. It's unlikely you'll ever see me write something deeply cogent on this forum or at least any more cogent than what I normally post. I hope that's acceptable to you. However, I am fairly well read beyond just forum posts.

If that's true (about your illness, I mean), I'm sorry to hear it. It's not as if I don't give a shit.

Oh it's true. Kind of like the second half of flowers for Algernon. More of a relief than a burden to tell the truth, I wasn't too far from thinking about semi retirement and it's a lot easier to just sit and enjoy my surroundings now. I do count myself lucky every time I get a paycheck still though. Main thing is I can't do sustained reading of complicated material or plucky writing now. I can still do most of the tasks I need to for work.

I guess the old 'plucky' reflexes still kick in now and then, don't they? About it being more a relief than a burden, in general, I think I know what you mean. I don't really know why your tone of warning a few posts ago really set my teeth on edge, but it did. I can't take back the way I responded, even though I'd wish I could when I take your situation seriously into account. I could completely switch over to treating all this as nothing but fluff, but I don't think I ever will. I wouldn't do it just to prove I could. There are a handful of regular posters here whose best stuff I wait around to read, but someday it won't be enough to keep me coming back. This place is otherwise just a habit with me, and like most of us here, I have other hobbies and obligations.

BWE wrote:Well, I do think it is harmful to feel like you've got a hold of a truth because then you have to squeeze reality into it and it's never a perfect fit. It's an apparently irresistible urge for our species though so maybe I should just let people have their truths rather than trying to talk them out of it. But SoS's particular way of going about it caught my interest, or I found his approach interesting, I'm not sure which although I think his backstory is what intrigued me. Also, I'm a little bit of a sucker for Buddhist flavor although I'm not as keen on the culture and he's got that sprinkled throughout so maybe that's it. What seems the most interesting to me, and maybe to him, is that we are almost simultaneously on the exact same page and a million miles apart.

BWE wrote:lol. You'll just have to wonder I guess.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:lol. You'll just have to wonder I guess.

I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:lol. You'll just have to wonder I guess.

I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:lol. You'll just have to wonder I guess.

I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

BWE wrote:Other ways which don't sound so much like they are trying to tell other people which models to use. There are also other ways to do that.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:Other ways which don't sound so much like they are trying to tell other people which models to use. There are also other ways to do that.

Oh, I'm only speaking directly to believers in woodland sprites. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else what kind of model to use, unless they make a big deal out of it. It's not as if there's an ontology that tells someone what model to use. It's more about the kinds of shit that people incorporate into their models.

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:Other ways which don't sound so much like they are trying to tell other people which models to use. There are also other ways to do that.

Oh, I'm only speaking directly to believers in woodland sprites. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else what kind of model to use, unless they make a big deal out of it. It's not as if there's an ontology that tells someone what model to use. It's more about the kinds of shit that people incorporate into their models.

Full circle. In some cases, woodland sprites make a better model.

BWE wrote: In some cases, woodland sprites make a better model.