For my next trick, I&#39;ll need a volunteer...

And that makes me want to say "Awww shucks." But I won't.

From:

wouldn't the first observer be the one to define his surroundings ie "name the animals" and everyone following just adding reinforcement to the definition?

From:

There is no first observer. Observation occurs on a second by second basis, and we have no idea that today is like yesterday, or that tomorrow will be like today? What tomorrow? What Yesterday? All we have is Now, and memories. Now and Plans.

I am God, and I keep the world moving.

I am the Devil, and I try to trip it up, at every turn.

Aren't you? Don't you?

From:

nah, too much responsibility.

i prefer to trip up others, keeps it interesting =)
when yer fallin, you're still movin forward.
(that and stagnation is the slow death)

From:

Responsibility is one of my very favourite things, in myself and others. So I'm all about it.

From:

No, "paternalism" is one of your 'very favorite (sic) things.' Even presuming that you are correct (a much biiger conversation than I have time for at the moment), you only take responsibility FOR the reality of others with which you interfere. Rarely at best, do you assume responsibility to those fated to continue those linear experiences. If questioned, you respond (in paraphrase) that, "[you] know better." "Knowing better" of course is very subjective norm upon which to place such power. Certainly, we are societally conditioned to recognize the authority of those in positions to know better (e.g. parents, teachers, political and religious leaders, etc.) only to discover later that their 'knowing better' was relative at best. What you do not confront, however, is autonomy. The very core countervalue to your illiberal metaphysical paternalism. On the one hand, freedom of the mind, if freedom it is, is best valued by those that earn and invest in it (see John Locke). On the other, and more relevant, hand, though it be anti-Mill/Rousseau-ian, are individuals not at liberty to remain slaves? Are you fit to cut off the liberty of an individual for the sake of their metaphysical welfare? Are you better than the Pope, who you decry for the same behavior? Certainly, you will respond, and rightly so, that I have left 'personal' responsibility out of my diatribe. But, if you espouse a doctrine of personal responsibility (because you want to sound like Clarence Thomas), you must accept the very Nietzchian, or even Aristotolian, possibility that the most responsibility that some individuals are suited for is to tend the lesser meta-planes of thought. You can't be the ubermench without having someone to compare yourself to. And Levi-Strauss would suggest that even if personal responsibility for you exists in one realm, it is neither bad nor innapprpriate that those with lesser ambitions or capacities bear responsibility in a different sphere. Furthermore, even if you perceive that their actions in their sphere have ramifications outside that sphere, is it not you as opposed to them, who can see these ripples as textures in the greater plane that you must navigate because it is your choice to enter it? Is a man not free to be stupid? May he not be a lesser man of his own creation? Does experience not bare out that the sighted must navigate around the blind, for the blind can take no more responsibility than they already do? Could there not be a value in being blind instrinsic to the sightless? At this point you will certainly say that if you could but show them a little, they would certainly recognize the value of greater thought. However, you know as well as I, that once you have seen you cannot un-see. And even if they would choose the insular world, it is lost to them, and they have no choice but to wander forward, disatisfied men in a greater context. For you will have taken from them that quintessential element or both freedom and responsibility, 'choice.' Having done all this. WOuld you give each person you impact (in a very Kantian kind of way) deprive you of the life you take from them? How many times are you willing to die? For only if you are willing to disgorge the reasonable potential value of the quantum possibilities you remove from others by anything more than your incidental interference, you have not taken full responsibility. You are only being paternal. And do not now try to hide behind incidental interference, because you well know that the motive to interfere, deprives the action, despite its level of cunning, of its incidental quality.

Sorry Raven's, had I not done this, Coyote would not have allowed me to sleep.

From:

I liked Coyote better when he just threw glitter at Ravens feet.

From:

That's what you get for only listening to Raven's version of the story

From:

the hell ya talkin bout? I'm the one coyote sent to walmart at three in the mornin for his "big surprise".

hell, it was my idea to rearrange Ravens furniture while he was tryin to pick up all the shineys.

Though Coyote did short sheet the bed.

bastard gets all the classics -grumble-

From:

Who do you think made them classic?

From:

That side genrally has more Violence ^_^

From:

violence is just dancing with a couple sudden interuptions

-throws glitter-

(ya ever feel like the missing member of siegfriend and roy trio with all this glitter and poof flyin around?)

From:

Ooooh Shiny.

From:

This is a circle in which I've traveled often. The problem resting in the central question of to whom is what guaranteed? If everyone has the right to their levels of ignorance and inaction (which I fully grant that they do), then do I don't also have the right to strive to bring them out of that place?

One cannot unsee what one has seen, most of the time. Not without a full system restart, anyway. But one can only ever compare what one has with what one knows one does Not have. Slavery is only slavery in comparrison to freedom. Without freedom, slavery is simply Life. By that same token, one cannot unsee the basic inequality in being perpetually Less Than someone else. Therefore, any with eyes will know that the scraps they have lend them the power only to work the remote, more like than not, and that those who have the full table spread before them have the greater options.

Mixed metaphors abound.

My point is simply this: I understand and respect that some will not want to "ascend," "transcend," "descend" on, in any other way, Scend their personal limitations. This is because they don't seem them as limitations. They see them as The Way Things Are™. Comforting, careful, wonderful. Natural, and therefore Good, because pretty much Everyone commits taht falacy, at some point or another. I respect that, I really do. But I also think that I have the Right to put the options out there, for all who Are ready, who Do want for "more" (It's not more; it's barely even different). Because the space has to be filled, and if I want to fill it, who's to say I shouldn't?

If others don't want it to be filled? They can not Watch This Space.

The same goes for the rest of you.

From:

Butting in.

The way things are, is how they are. There's no fighting this, and I used to go through an argument much like this when I was introduced to many people of the Otherkin communities...

I'm trying to open things up. I'm shredding that damned veil. Thing is, you have those who defend it, those who don't do anything. It all balances. It's all a dynamic cycle. If it weren't supposed to be that way, whether for Someone, or simply in that it's How Shit Works, it would be different, and the rules would be different. If there weren't supposed to be those doing what I do, I wouldn't be Able to. Reality has it's own complex system of checks and balances, and it's difficult to step outside those bounds. Look at all the effort one has to throw into Working, before something happens, let alone something useful.

From:

My problem is that so many people in this argument don't differentiate between the subjective and objective point of view. We're all in the bad habit of making fundamental, teleological, epistomological statements (e.g. human beings possess transcendent capacity) and deontological normative statments (e.g. human beings should seek to exist at their greatest potential [note: that even the deontological statement here contains a teleological lining, see Rawls,"a thin theory of the good]). The relationship between each person's normative and epistomological viewpoint allows us to plot them objectively on the grid - in the normative field. We spend a great deal of time in all debates mapping our position in the normative field, presuming (a)that it is inherently superior to the positions of others and (b) that if we can map that position sufficiently that its superiority will necome evident to all others. The fallibility of this position is evidenced by the very existence of normative disagreement among very intelligent philosophers. You are correct, there are those who will want to shred the vail, those who will defend it, and those who will think that only certain persons can transcend the veil based either on inherent capacity or energy invested. The debate is eternal and irresolvable because it reflects normative disagreement. The norms espoused by those in every position look equal under perspective neutral analysis. Therein is my point, though. Beating someone over the head with the doctrine of greater awareness is like beating them over the head with the Bible. Only your perspective justifies it. As wrong as we tend to think the Bible thumpers are, there is no basis upon which to say, "no, you're idiots." Their experences support their convictions as strongly as our experiences support ours. I wonder sometimes if there is a genetic or even selective metaphysical component. All I want to do is raise the level of debate - get some people out into the ontological. There are all of these view points, what do we do with them? I know what I think for myself, but it's very hard to tell other people WHY they should agree with me. There of course is the leap. I cannot convice people to traverse the normativechasm. I cannot even describe the differences between the viewpoints until I look down on the field. Once in that perspective, I can then start to talk about what's going on. The problem is that there is not a good way to get others up off the field to have the discussion without intruding upon their autonomy and beating the,over the head - which doesn't tend to work, in my experience. Which is why, when people include me in conversation, I try to trap them in their own subjective limitations. That is Coyote's method. Trick people into teaching themselves. It is sort of a backhanded loophole, but it does get the ball rolling. Hey, had Coyote not motivated people to do it for me, I wouldn't be here.

From:

I don't think we're talking about subjective/objective anymore, but more about free will and the nature of influence and infringement. We have/were given free will (and who says it's free if it was Given?), and that includes the free will to infringe upon others'. It's a personal decision on what you place higher, really. Someone's security in remaining ignorant (and yes, the past week or so has shown examples of this being a sanity-saving measure) or your mission of enlightening them?

For some, it's not a decision, but something that's as much a reflex as breathing. Ideally, I'd like to become the change I want to see in the world. Tear a hole in things simply by existing. People see what they want to see, and either will or won't. I honestly don't care if people agree with me, simply that I make the option for them to look and see, there.

I know there's more to touch on, here. But I'm getting sleepy, and your post needs divisions. All the words are swimming....

From:

We haven't left the subjective/objective distinction. Any timeyou put yourself in a position of saying "this is better than that" it's usually subjective. "Free will should be exercised" is a subjective statement. It's subject to experience, personal bias, belief structure. All of these are individual, or at best group norms. It poses the question "why?" Alternately, it is objective to say that there is a range of positions about the use, existence and relevance of free will. But once we have done that there is still the subjective decision as to what to do with it. We will never all agree that one path is better than any other. But we can have a more thorough discussion - allow individuals to make moreinformed decisions. Which I think was where

wolven was going originally.

Your goals are noble, but you have to realize that there will necessessarily be others who disagree with you. That inevitablity both supports and counters your position.

I'm also not necessarily talking about just the potential and appropriate states of being. This debate exists in the realm of any normative question.

From:

Yes. I've personally left behind the sub/ob distinction, because anything we're going to talk about is subjective. It's our point of view, and our experience, and IMO, if it comes out of a person's mouth, it's subjective. We cannot, by nature, experience or express objectively; the best we can do is notice that which colours our perceptions and expressions, and see the bias.

That's the fun part. If something counters the position, it also supports it. It's part of it all, in any case.

From:

Ignoring the distinction does not negate its relevance. Certainly, each person must choose a subjective position, we're cowards if we don't. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a position and defend it. Only that (1) you should know why you believe it and (2) realize that there are going to be reasonably defensible other perspectives.

Certainly, as we move out and look down at the normative field, there is the problem of our objective position being relationally subjective - that there are other positions from which to examine the field. What seems relevant, however, is that we can get out and look down. the position is functionally objective. If we get all the conversants in the same objective position, we can then map that pespective. It at least allows for meaning substantive discussion.

Finally, in response to counter and support - On the one hand that is a matter of characterisation. On the other you're saying that words have no meaning. in response to the first, the evaluating party has to determine which characterization has value - either a question of subjectivity or epistomology. In the second case, no one can say anything. We have to rule out the "no meaning" proposition. If words have no meaning we can't actually say anything. Epistomology also counters this position. We collectively give words meaning. We can agree on the definitions of words. Certainly there are shades of meaning and those are open for discussion - but no meaning at all is not a real possibility.

From:

...And me, and that guy over there, and the cat staring at the door waiting for us to pay attention to it...

I'm not sure I have much else to say to this. :P

From: