Damn you G.E. Moore/

[wolven7]

White Zombie - [El Phantasmo and the Chicken-Run Blast-O-Rama]--- In his response to Sidgwick's hedonistic ethics, Moore posits that if we were only conscious of the sensation of pleasure, not even being conscious of the fact that we were conscious, then we would not have any true way by which to access the Good. Sidwick held that Consciousness of Pleasure was the ultimate good, you see.

But, as I read that, I had to stop, because the thought came to me: What the Hell is he calling consciousness? What is anyone calling consciousness, these days, and ever, but, specifically, in Moore's case, it seems a bit off.

Is consciousness consciousness, without consciousness of consciousness?

If I don't experience myself experiencing something, how then can *I* truly be said to be experiencing it?

Strange.

The Lounge Lizards - [Fatty Walks]--- Also, thanks to wacko1138, for this: Worry surrounding the impending startup of CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

I'm glad I'm not the only one worried.

Comments

Throw on the Aurelius

[karishi.livejournal.com]

He was among the first to posit the fractal-pattern of the self-observed observer, which has since appeared as the concept of "second and third thoughts" in The Wee Free Men.
He said the observer can't ever be fully seen, because the "I" making the observation that it's observing isn't fully observed, at the time. I think I got that sentence right.
If you're unaware that you're having pleasure, and just having it, that's okay.
If you're aware that you're having pleasure, you require judgment. A decision must be made regarding the pleasure you're aware that you're having, which worst of all is something along the lines of "Is it GOOD that I'm having pleasure?" and sometimes even "Do I derive pleasure from the fact that I'm having pleasure?"
If so, presumably you can simply accept that you have an infinite pleasure loop and not attempt to follow each instance of the loop's path all the way out. I expect a similar situation arises as the response to Aurelius' point: Once you recognize the pattern, and are relatively certain that it will continue ad nauseum, it can be treated as a single unit, and thus, well, observed.

Re: Throw on the Aurelius

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Precisely the method to which I subscribe.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

SOmething fucked.

'Hadron' makes me think of 'Hadrosaurus'. 'Hadrosaurus' makes me think of 'duckbill'. 'Duckbill' makes me think of 'ducks'. 'Large Hadron Collider' makes me think of colliding ducks at high rates of speed.

That is all.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That is absolutely hilarious. ^_^