Game News Video Games And Male Gaze

[Gragt]

Basically Gabriel Knight is a jerk who investigates a serie of murders mostly out of boredom, at least in the first game since by the next episode he accepts it as his legacy, and likes beautiful women. As you can imagine, he's not really the kind of person ready for commitment and his various relationships are the affairs of a few days or even one night. And of course there is some female fascination for the bad boy side of our modern day dandy, which I guess would twist a few feminist panties in a bunch. Mind you, one of the great marks of the serie is its somewhat realistic characterisation where characters are a bit more than glorified sign posts and the emotional growth of Gabriel over time, but still it's another game where you play a man, and a jerk at that, which is part of the agenda for patriarchy.

 

[circ]

Wasn't GK written or atleast designed by a woman though? PARADOX

 

[laclongquan]

The whole fucking reason this instead of every game out there with sexy female outfits become the focus of very loud argument is the fucking NUN clothes for fuck's sake.

Wrong on both counts dipshit. The feminists DO complain about every game out there with sexy female outfits. And the main issue here isn't the nun clothes (though they add to it), it's that the big bad man is slaughtering a bunch of oversexualized women. Rape imagery, male dominance, objectification of women, sexual repression. The same shit the Borderhouse and countless over-privileged liberals have been crying about since time immemorial.

Read my statement again, Mastermind. Who give a flying monkey about feminists? They dont make big arguments on Net. It's everyone.

 

[SCO]

http://johncwright.l...com/362167.html

....There are feminists who object to tales where knights and princes disguised as curls or shepherd boys rescue princesses chained to rocks from the leviathan in the sea, and carry her off on his white charger, or, better yet, carry her aloft in his winged shoes to a royal wedding. The feminist called such tales, where the princess is merely the prize to be won, examples of male chauvinism.

Blind vipers!

Were only their eyes opened, they would call this female chauvinism, because this is a type or a shadow of the rescue of all the soul of the Church by our beloved Bridegroom. He saves us not to win us as a prize; he saves us because he prizes us, and knows us worthy to be won. Compared to Him, we are all women, our souls are female, they receive like soil receiving a seed the inspiration and infusion from which new life shall grow in us. Speak no more of Man’s search for God. Speak instead of God perusing and wooing Man, and carrying off our souls like Psyche in the arms of Eros....

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Mrowak

You may find point 1 odd here - your own counterpart implies inaction and idleness - perpetual bitterness over something that cannot be achieved. This is not the case with discussing subjective opinions with fellow and unfellow madmen. The commotion resulting from our squabbling is enough for ideas to develop and use in own projects. The sheer fact that we put labels or something makes us amass new knowledge which can be used at later date. That something does happen spurrs the wheels of change.

You are not amassing new knowledge, as there is no knowledge in subjectivity: All you are learning in your subjectivity is, again, a delusion. If A is -true- there is no need to discuss it, you just show its existence and LOL.

So when you and your bros discuss stuff you are not learning anything, you are just -exactly- like a bunch of madmen in an assylum discussing how the one is napoleon, the other talks daily with reticulans, etc.

Thus why I focus on the -you- instead of the -them-.

You can change the world and you can change yourself. Both reach the exact same end (delusion) so both have the exact same value. One of them is far harder than the other, and one of them requires far more resources than the other. Then, one of them requires much more time, time in which you will not be being enjoying the fruits of them, say, making the same games you like.

Which means there are two ways of crossing the street. You can just, you know, walk over there and be done with it, or you can get a teaspoon, go to your basement, and spends the next fifty years going at it. And then, what? You have obtained exactly the same result (a delusion), and thus one of the methods is quite not smart.

Also, wheels of change? Again, your interpretation of the events is subjective. You can spurr the wheels of change (take teaspoon, go basement, use teaspoon on wall, spend fifty years making a tunnel) or you can simply change your own delusion (cross the street) and reach the exact same objective (you and the world share the same delusion) without even a ten percent of the effort.

That's the point of all this: The value you see in that different world is also subjective. I.E: It exists not outside your head. Therefore, nothing has been gained and nothing has been lost. It's just a lot of effort, work, and suffering -about nothing-.

I cannot agree with that simply because without any form of consensus there's no framework for objectivity to exists. You cannot make a single statement without any form of consensus creeping in. Even the world of mathematics - which is all about objectivity and accurate description of reality is full of constructs that work only because we agreed upon that.

Your tendency to overthink stuff we have already discussed.

If you want me to describe part by part the dog just so I can express an idea, then let's not talk. I am not losing my time over that shit.

Then, you are confusing objectivity with the communication of objectivity. Is impossible to communicate in an objective manner, at least without stupidly complex descriptions? Sure. Which only reinforces my point as it is you who is saying communication is something more than a form of entertainment and a way to establish common delusions for coordination, not I.

Say, we are discussing now. You know me already, I discuss like this because I find it to be fun and given we are kind of online friends I don't have to get angry at you while doing so. However, does it have a meaning beyond that fun? We can change our way of thinking about this or that, sure, that's part of the debate game, but when you don't think like I do, does that make you a moron who is wrong? Eh, no.

What I am discussing is, again, why pick then the delussion which is not fun instead of the delusion which is fun? By your current delusion, for example, many games that are released you don't enjoy. Is that the games' fault? No, it is yours. If you wanted you could simply change the lens through which you weight shit and enjoy them. Or, say, the other way around: Let's say you want to become part of the in people, yet they will scoff at you and call you names if you are found playing old school harcore role playing games. You can not become an in person, you can live a paranoid life hidding who you truly are, or you can simply change the way you interpretate the impulses you receive from the outer world so that you stop enjoying them. Dungeon crawling? Pfff. How moronic.

Of course you can try and make the in people accept you as you are, but then this is not a feel good movie and they will just not give a fuck about neither your nor your arguments. And if you did so the results would have been the same as before: You are now part of the in people, yet one of the methods required a ridiculous amount of effort while the other only implied switching one delusion for another.

And then you is a perception as well, a delusional construct you have built around something.

It could even be argued, then, than objectivity itself either does not exist or it is impossible to reach, as we are forever alienated from the -real world- by means of perception (i.e: Our senses send our brain impulses, our brain turns those impulses into what we experience. There are too many steps in between for us to blindly trust the reality our brain constructs as, you know, real, as for all I know I am right now enjoying a straightjacket and talking to the stickguy drawn in the wall, under which it reads "Mrowak"). Which, again, only reinforces my point: If there is no truth to be found, what's the point of judgement? For example, they believe A games are good and B games are awful, and you believe otherwise. Given, according to your own declaration, objective truth in the matter is impossible to reach, what's the point of even going about it? The objective result is, still, we are discussing all this shit over -which fantasy we all accept-.

Which goes back to the point, why not simply choose the one more convenient to your objectives (be entertained, find pleasure) or let everyone to her own delusion?

That I was discussing at the beginning, madmen judging madmen. I.E: How hypocrital and pointless the entire attitude seemed to me, as there is no objectivity on it. You passing a judgement on them that satisfies your delusion is exactly like them watching hot murderous nuns. You are fapping. Inside your mind.

Ewww.

That's an image I could have lived without, let me tell you.

I will only add that even those illusory concepts affect the reality and change objective facts about it. I mean look at something so simple as marketing - which is created to influence subjective opinions of individuals with illusions to generate extra revenue in the process. If one decided to willingly accept everything marketing throws at you... well... where does your will start and their begin? IMO, staying true to core values and altering reality in their defence is crucial. And objectivity is overrated. :/

I never denied any of this. I denied those guys being objectively wrong, which were your words.

I never spoke of accepting everything marketing tells you to accept, either. I just made a question: "why not"? I was discussing this from a merely practical perspective: If you were to do so, you would have X. You don't do so, what do you have instead of X? Play the same ten games for the rest of eternity? *shrug* Sure, go ahead.

This is something I very much agree with. The moment you change your approach from "Jesus fucking Christ - what did those idiots say, again?" to "ok, that is completely wrong. Let's try to reason with those guys." you win. If this is what you mean by "changing the subjective prism" then yes, you are right.

Ehm, "that is completely wrong" ? Do you really want me to call Probatio Diabolica on that?

Actually, that's exactly what I'm going to do.

Probatio Diabolica. You are declaring something to be completely wrong, yet given it is impossible to demonstrate the non existence of something the burden of proofs fall on you and you have to demonstrate how it is completely wrong. Otherwise we accept it simply is, and that you acting on it being completely wrong is no different from a madman acting upon the dancing pornstar ponnies all around. Or no different than, say, a fanatical xtian telling everyone how you are a monster because you don't share his insane beliefs.

Jump to it.



And just so we are clear, my point from the begining was about how pointless it was to judge them and not about you needing to embrace their delusions.

Now I have Dilithium to farm and my fingers hurt. If I forgot to answer something important, please do tell me so.

 

[Mrowak]

Sukeban Cho

Have I ever told you how formidable you can be?

Yes, I know what you have been saying all along that we are a bunch of childish idiots wasting our lives over nothing - arguing over sandcastless that do not even exist. The thing is the sheer fact that the argument exists already changes reality around us - stuff just happens - like games are created to fill the niche market. Without that buzz nothing like that would have taken place. Look at it as byproduct of our squabbling over delusions, but stuff like that is an objective fact.

Secondly, as a community Codex is not a bad place for discussing things such as game mechanics, structure of the games and so on. We actually have some pretty knowledgeable members from various disciplines - programming, artistic modelling, quest design, world design etc etc. Yes the bulk of discussion is not "No U", but you learn stuff through osmosis, learn of the new possibilities, learn of the new titles with interesting features, learn how those features could be used elsewhere. Yes, a lot of it may be just delusion but ultimately - as always - it falls to our subjective knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff. We will fail a lot, but eventually we will get it right. What we get from it? Developers who share our vision of the product, and the fact that we are becoming better at communicating what we want.

Thirdly, communication. Remember that we are learning to converse about gaming - a structure that only starts gaining more and more prominence in the cutural world. Moreover, we are people from all around the globe, hailing from various walks of lives, with various degrees of knowledge on the subject. We are learning the ropes here. And, as you might have noticed, not everyone of us studied rhetorics. It is a little bit like trying to talk about measuring a board without any yardstick (and no one agrees what the board is ). So we start with saying:

A: One unit of is the distance from here to that tree.
B: No, where I come from one unit of is the distance from here to that building.
C: You guys got it all wrong...
...
ZZZ: ok, so what if we set the like this...

Sure it's a madman talk, but I guess, before any "perception of objectivity" can start, we have to get the units right. We do so by finding out the common denominator (delusion) and getting rid of it. Does it mean all conversations will be pointless?

Besides learning along the way that some person from e.g. Russia has the same opinions delusions like you is kinda comforting. Even discovering the differences in opinion and trying to elevate your ego isn't that pointless (I wouldn't say as you graphically put it, it's "fapping inside your mind" but the need for acceptance and conflict is something so basic that must be fulfilled at any level of human interaction. Denying that is like denying the "female/male gaze" - it's just unnatural). Plus it's not only in the sense that "hey, a fellow madman" but also in the fact the people around the world are essentailly the same so why not build something on similarities instead of differences... and this is not as obvious as it sounds (e.g. to the generation of my parents it isn't, at all).

Lastly, talking with other madmen makes you realise how much of the subjective stuff is really your own subjectivity - and how much is derived from external sources that aim to shape you into nothing but a paying consumer - marketing. It is one thing when you recognize marketing for what it is and willingly accept its promises, it is another when you are shaped by it. Coming back to our coin and glamour: a typical Codexer would recognize that there's something fishy with the coin, and dispose of it; you would recognize that it was just an illusion, but you'd cherish the fact that something magical happened to you and make the stone your keepsake; a lesser person would get the coin, become ultra-happy, keep it for himself out of being a miser, then when the time would come he really, really needed he would find a stone and not even realize it was a trick all along (which would make him susceptible to more fairy hoax, not saying anything about the emotional state he landed in). Indeed, the primary reason the whole argument started was exactly this phenomenon: putting scantly-clad ladies - who are pleasing to the eye indeed - is a elaborate hoax, and nothing else.

I admit, that your approach in the situation like that is the healthiest one. Playing games and enjoying them for what they are instead of losing your sleep over someone, somewhere liking something is the more rationale thing to do - this is the sentiment I happen to share. But that doesn't mean I cannot express what I would like to see here. The fact that I enjoy havng illusory coin doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy having the real coin as well.

There are more reasons, for our madman talk (like, subjectivity is so inherently woven into our emotional state that it pays to know what drives other people forward, to take advantage of it and elevate your own position - yes, just like marketing does) but let's end it here. I meant not to make your fingertips hurt this time, but it didn't turn out so well. Let's try to put it more and more compact, shall we?

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Mrowak

Have I ever told you how formidable you can be?

...

Though you should be careful with that, we both know what plot twist lies down the road if you start saying those things while debating the nature of reality with a witch.

Yes, I know what you have been saying all along that we are a bunch of childish idiots wasting our lives over nothing - arguing over sandcastless that do not even exist.

I would say that extends to everyone, everywhere. If you remove subjective attributes all you are left with is a bunch of morons killing each other over shit that doesn't even exist.

The thing is the sheer fact that the argument exists already changes reality around us - stuff just happens - like games are created to fill the niche market. Without that buzz nothing like that would have taken place. Look at it as byproduct of our squabbling over delusions, but stuff like that is an objective fact.

Which only goes to show the problem I was mentioning.

You enjoy A type of games, which no one makes anymore. Then you squabble and argue and get butthurt for years, and then someone throws you a bone.

You enjoy A type of games, which no one makes anymore. Then you switch your delusion to one allowing you to enjoy B, C, and D instead, which everyone still makes. You have something new to play every day.

In one hand we have a huge amount of effort for some measly reward. In the other hand we have a measly effort for a huge reward.

With one having the exact same objective value as the other (both being delusions) why pick the former one instead of the later one?

Sure it's a madman talk, but I guess, before any "perception of objectivity" can start, we have to get the units right. We do so by finding out the common denominator (delusion) and getting rid of it. Does it mean all conversations will be pointless?

But that perception of objectivity you are mentioning is also a delusion, however consensual. Five guys and gals sharing a delusion does not make that delusion more real than a single guy or gal experiencing it.

Which brings us back to the example of the locked box. You have a locked box, and there's no way to open it. You and other four guys investigate all you can about the box, elaborate a bunch of theories, and then start discussing among yourselves on the topic of the box and its content.

After many months like that you all decide the content must surely be, I don't know, a plush toy of a black cat.

That's still a delusion. You are believing something as true, yet there is no way to confirm whether it is true or not. In that particular case (as it is impossible to open the box) both the existence and the non existence of the plush toy are impossible to demonstrate.

Up until the very moment the box is opened they have no objective knowledge of what lies inside. What truth did all the squabbling and discussion bring, then? Another delusion.

This kind of example can get a bit weird, though, given -even- if what the box contains is actually a plush toy of a black cat you five believing it is -still- a delusion, given you -don't know- what the box contains.

Go down that road far enough and your world will become a very surreal place.

Lastly, talking with other madmen makes you realise how much of the subjective stuff is really your own subjectivity - and how much is derived from external sources that aim to shape you into nothing but a paying consumer - marketing.

One of the most important days of my life was when I actually discovered that while marketing is doing nothing but create a delusion for you to swallow, the delusion it creates can be very enjoyable if you suspend your disbelief for a little while.

Most people tend to react negatively to the very idea of them being manipulated, yet we are constantly both manipulating and being manipulated in every single thing we do. So I don't believe the point is that they are trying to manipulate you, but which would be the result of such a manipulation? Would it be fun or not? Would it be pleasurable or not? If someone manipulates you in a way that advances your own agenda (say, having a lot of fun and enjoying shit) what's there to criticize or be sad about? You letting yourself be manipulated would actually be the right choice of action to move such agenda forward.

This is much more important when we are discussing delussions. Your worldview is a delusion, and my worldview is a delusion. The worldview being offered to you by marketing is a delusion, too. When you abandon, at least partially, the idea of absolute truth (which is in itself pretty much impossible to sustain if you are required to offer concise arguments about it, as anyone with half a brain is going to call Probatio Diabolica and end your party before it starts) then it becomes about nothing more than buying and selling worldviews.

I am selling you one. Your parents sold you one. Your girlfriend is selling you one, and your best friend too. DarkUnderlord is selling you a worldview, and the Hivemind itself does too. The one offered to you by, for example, Idol Culture, which is more or less marketing taken to the next level, is nothing but the same than those, only done with much higher production values. Who cares if it is not real? None of the others are, either.

The reason I am discussing this, however, is not to change what you believe as much as to demonstrate the irreality of it all. To actually believe in the delusions you hold because of past experiences, the way you were raised, and more is exactly the same as swallowing hook, line, and sinker the worldview being given to you by some random media group, while you could instead be picking the ones which are more conductive to pleasure, fun, and joy instead.

Which brings us back to the question I made before, or maybe I thought I did it but didn't actually do it. Or something.

All worldviews being delusions, why embrace the one that is not making you as happy as you could be by picking a different one?

I admit, that your approach in the situation like that is the healthiest one. Playing games and enjoying them for what they are instead of losing your sleep over someone, somewhere liking something is the more rationale thing to do - this is the sentiment I happen to share. But that doesn't mean I cannot express what I would like to see here. The fact that I enjoy havng illusory coin doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy having the real coin as well.

But which is the real coin in this case?

The initial delusion, imposed on you by accident and context, is no more real than the later delusion, chosen by you.

 

[circ]

Dongs.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Stop arguing over dongs that don't exist.

You open a box and there's a cut dong inside. Yet, was there a cut dong inside before you opened the box or was the act of opening the box what created the cut dong inside?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

The answer doesn't matter because the box is a portal to the dong dimension and by opening it you have doomed the entire galaxy.

 

[Condiments]

When I skipped to the last page after reading the first, I was not expecting it to come to this. I'm going to try my best form an argument here so bare with me.

Which only goes to show the problem I was mentioning.

You enjoy A type of games, which no one makes anymore. Then you squabble and argue and get butthurt for years, and then someone throws you a bone.

You enjoy A type of games, which no one makes anymore. Then you switch your delusion to one allowing you to enjoy B, C, and D instead, which everyone still makes. You have something new to play every day.

In one hand we have a huge amount of effort for some measly reward. In the other hand we have a measly effort for a huge reward.

With one having the exact same objective value as the other (both being delusions) why pick the former one instead of the later one?

Why then do people not take this path of least resistance by seeking the enjoyment from the other games of B, C, and D? Why do sites such as the Codex exist, when other possible avenues of enjoyment can be easily taken? Our inclination for self-flagellation? While I cannot presume to answer this question in its totality, perhaps we seek things based off our past experiences, and feelings innate to ourselves. I personally could be seeking the plentiful experiences of first person shooters available, I do not, on basis of my feelings and beliefs formed off collective experience throughout the years of playing videogames. As such, we come to sites through the need to profess our beliefs/delusions, and seek others perspectives that speak to and expand our own.

That is why I always get perplexed at the frequency in which these subjectivity arguments crop up in forum discussions. Isn't it inherent to very nature of these discussions that we discuss our subjective perspectives and beliefs? If such things could be objectively defined, there would be no room for discussion, merely informing facts. The fun comes from both professing, and refining our own beliefs/delusions through conflict with the various great personalities on this site.

But that perception of objectivity you are mentioning is also a delusion, however consensual. Five guys and gals sharing a delusion does not make that delusion more real than a single guy or gal experiencing it.

Which brings us back to the example of the locked box. You have a locked box, and there's no way to open it. You and other four guys investigate all you can about the box, elaborate a bunch of theories, and then start discussing among yourselves on the topic of the box and its content.

After many months like that you all decide the content must surely be, I don't know, a plush toy of a black cat.

That's still a delusion. You are believing something as true, yet there is no way to confirm whether it is true or not. In that particular case (as it is impossible to open the box) both the existence and the non existence of the plush toy are impossible to demonstrate.

Up until the very moment the box is opened they have no objective knowledge of what lies inside. What truth did all the squabbling and discussion bring, then? Another delusion.

This kind of example can get a bit weird, though, given -even- if what the box contains is actually a plush toy of a black cat you five believing it is -still- a delusion, given you -don't know- what the box contains.

Go down that road far enough and your world will become a very surreal place.

Tell me about it! One of the more important arguments that has driven me is Decartes meditations about universal doubt. My young mind was exposed to situation of the omnipotent evil demon who presents the illusion of our complete external reality. So in the sense of your situation, reality(body/senses/etc.) is the box, and the observer is your mental perspective. We can be sure we exist, as the box exists, but we can only pose beliefs/delusions onto the true nature of the box's contents. While the question exposed my mind to long thought sessions of mindfuckery and nihilistic cynicism, I feel more solid in my own perspective than before. I can never be sure of the existence of those I speak to, the life I live, and the things I experience as they are, I still must piece together what is true to me or my belief. Life then sort of became a spiritual journey, a quest to find my own answer.

While reality exists unto ourselves, I don't think we should withhold our beliefs from others nor close our ears to others. Nor should we simply relinquish our perspective on superfluousness(Probatio Diabolica) of holding belief. Its my right, as a sentient being of the unknowable universe, to assign meaning to reality as I see fit.:D

You box argument reminds me of Schrodinger's cat(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat).

 

[BelisariuS.F]

You enjoy A type of games, which no one makes anymore. Then you squabble and argue and get butthurt for years, and then someone throws you a bone.

You enjoy A type of games, which no one makes anymore. Then you switch your delusion to one allowing you to enjoy B, C, and D instead, which everyone still makes. You have something new to play every day.

In one hand we have a huge amount of effort for some measly reward. In the other hand we have a measly effort for a huge reward.

With one having the exact same objective value as the other (both being delusions) why pick the former one instead of the later one?

Because humans cannot just simply PICK which experiences will be enjoyable for them (or "switch delusions", as you call it). You cannot say "i will be enjoying Call of Duty" and suddenly your mind starts generating positive feelings while you are playing CoD. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Stop arguing over dongs that don't exist.

You open a box and there's a cut dong inside. Yet, was there a cut dong inside before you opened the box or was the act of opening the box what created the cut dong inside?

Darned if I do, darned if I don’t.

(Saying commonly attributed to Captain Shrek, Circa 2007)

Your view of Science is religious. Drop it. Science (the method) is a means to CONVENIENCE while one tries to reduce the apparent influence of relative ideas from frameworks that govern logical thinking.

Take for example the Gun in the box. Did your act of opening the box put it there? Or you saw it in there after you opened it?

The fact is that Science DOES NOT CLAIM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. What it says is:

Its convenient to imagine the later BECAUSE it allows greater generalization of such events through causality without resorting to subjectivity.

So Scientific method is NOT claiming that to know the nature of reality but rather choosing which Nature (Explanation) is the most convenient one. Here convenient turns out to mean yielding more verifiable (Empirically) knowledge.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Why then do people not take this path of least resistance by seeking the enjoyment from the other games of B, C, and D? Why do sites such as the Codex exist, when other possible avenues of enjoyment can be easily taken? Our inclination for self-flagellation? While I cannot presume to answer this question in its totality, perhaps we seek things based off our past experiences, and feelings innate to ourselves. I personally could be seeking the plentiful experiences of first person shooters available, I do not, on basis of my feelings and beliefs formed off collective experience throughout the years of playing videogames. As such, we come to sites through the need to profess our beliefs/delusions, and seek others perspectives that speak to and expand our own.

I believe most people interacts with others mostly to define their identity, express it, and reinforce it through the results of those interactions, as they can only observe themselves through the interactions they have with things outside of them.

Which I believe is pretty amusing, because...

For a normal situation, your senses perceive something. Then they send impulses to your brain telling it what they perceived, which, in turn, the brain turns into a model or reconstruction of what is happening. Then you interpretate that model or representation by means of a prism based on your previous experiences and your interpretation of them. This is, in itself, kind of a mess.

However, it is even more ridiculous when it comes to observing the self. You interact with something, and then external agents observe that interaction. Their senses translate it into impulses that are sent to their brain so that it can build a model or representation of it, which then they judge and interpretate based on their own previous experiences and their interpretation of those previous experiences. Then they express the result to their best of their ability, which is often not good enough. This reaction your senses perceive, translate into impulses that then your brain turns into a model or representation so that you can interpretate it based on your previous experiences and your interpretation of those previous experiences.

It's a clusterfuck, and that's without going into details and intrincacies.

Which in turn can only mean that if we are only able to observe ourselves by our interactions with external agents our idea of "self" or identity is not only a delusion, but a delusional interpretation of a delusional interpretation of a delusion.

I guess that's why all the people I know interested in this topic, and other related topics, kind of fall into one of three groups: Those that find it liberating and go "HELL YEAH!", those that do their best to keep their distance and treat it like an intellectual experiment or exercise, and those that find it traumatizing and go sob in a corner while clutching their heads.

That is why I always get perplexed at the frequency in which these subjectivity arguments crop up in forum discussions. Isn't it inherent to very nature of these discussions that we discuss our subjective perspectives and beliefs? If such things could be objectively defined, there would be no room for discussion, merely informing facts. The fun comes from both professing, and refining our own beliefs/delusions through conflict with the various great personalities on this site.

You are totally right on that, and I do believe the discussions, the debates, the trolling, and the shitstorms can be interesting and fun, and even educative.

I was mostly focusing on the -judging-, though, and the attitude leading into all kind of shit that wouldn't take place if we all remembered we are just discussing delusions for shit and giggles, and that none of it is objectively true at the end of the day. And given I think he's pretty cool most of the time I thought interesting to bring this to his attention.

Think about it as the rethoric equivalent of "Baka!" and stepping on his foot with hardcore heels.

Tell me about it! One of the more important arguments that has driven me is Decartes meditations about universal doubt. My young mind was exposed to situation of the omnipotent evil demon who presents the illusion of our complete external reality. So in the sense of your situation, reality(body/senses/etc.) is the box, and the observer is your mental perspective. We can be sure we exist, as the box exists, but we can only pose beliefs/delusions onto the true nature of the box's contents. While the question exposed my mind to long thought sessions of mindfuckery and nihilistic cynicism, I feel more solid in my own perspective than before. I can never be sure of the existence of those I speak to, the life I live, and the things I experience as they are, I still must piece together what is true to me or my belief. Life then sort of became a spiritual journey, a quest to find my own answer.

Totally. It is a very interesting state the one in which one understands that even when recognizing all perception as delusion, including the perception of "self", there is still the fact -we exist- as an undefined something inside another undefined something, as the only thing we can prove without involving perception is that something is perceiving, and then must conclude that something must be inside something else (as a part needs of a whole, and a thing must exist inside another thing) or be everything in and out of itself.

The only logical reaction to that I was able to find was to shrug and see where it all goes, which is both liberating and despairing.

[system] Black Cat Sukeban Cho influence gained!

While reality exists unto ourselves, I don't think we should withhold our beliefs from others nor close our ears to others. Nor should we simply relinquish our perspective on superfluousness(Probatio Diabolica) of holding belief. Its my right, as a sentient being of the unknowable universe, to assign meaning to reality as I see fit.:D

Of course it is your right. I am myself pretty adamant follower of the "If shit's subjective then fuck off and let me do my own thing" school of though.

As I said above my point only was that if we recognize and understand the subjectivity of experience, perception, and reality itself then taking shit seriously, in one paw, and picking the way that leads to us causing ourselves or others pain, in the other paw, is, say, not the most logical thingie to do. In other words you can like or dislike whatever you want, and live the delusion you want to live, but judging things as -objectively- true or -objectively- false, as -objectively- good or -objectively- bad, is pretty nonsensical under those conditions.

That aside, one has to give Probatio Diabolica two things:

1. It is a really useful tool to stop getting carried away by shit. (i.e: This is true? Then prove it. This is not true? That's impossible to prove. This is what you enjoy believing? Alrighty. *shrug*)

2. It is a wave motion gun of massive butthurt.

Nothing spells OUCH just like having your passionate speech and deeply seated convictions be nullified on a rethorical technicality with naught but a handwave and a LOL. It is fun to do, and it is a delightful pain when someone does it to you.

You box argument reminds me of Schrodinger's cat(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat).

That was the inspiration, actually.

Because humans cannot just simply PICK which experiences will be enjoyable for them (or "switch delusions", as you call it). You cannot say "i will be enjoying Call of Duty" and suddenly your mind starts generating positive feelings while you are playing CoD. It doesn't work that way.

In my experience that's simply not true, but you are free to believe otherwise. That's a very long and very taxing topic to discuss if you have already made up your mind on it not being possible.



Edit:

Captain Shrek

Yet we are discussing a topic closer to the fundamental nature of reality, which is outside the scope of the scientific method. Thus we use a mixture of philosophy, rethoric, and abstract logic to do so. Why should we drop it? You don't have to participate if you don't like that kind of thingie.

 

[Menckenstein]

The answer doesn't matter because the box is a portal to the dong dimension and by opening it you have doomed the entire galaxy.

The distasteful rape apocalypse is upon us.

 

[Gragt]

Lots of female talk in this thread.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

The answer doesn't matter because the box is a portal to the dong dimension and by opening it you have doomed the entire galaxy.

the chinese philosophy of harmonious balance in nature tells us that to assuage this calamity we must seek out the fabled portal of endless cooters and have the two invading dimensions merge into the pulsating musky equilibrium of an orgiastic new earth nirvana

like if deus ex took place entirely in a cyberpunk second life

digital ghostwalking with tantric encryption shields past blackice security dong protocols

 

[Menckenstein]

The Memeacculate Conception.

 

[Mrowak]

Again, I am a little bit late. Originally I intended to cover some points raised in the excellent post by Condiments and your equally well-put response to him... but it got all wordy again.

Mrowak

The thing is the sheer fact that the argument exists already changes reality around us - stuff just happens - like games are created to fill the niche market. Without that buzz nothing like that would have taken place. Look at it as byproduct of our squabbling over delusions, but stuff like that is an objective fact.

Which only goes to show the problem I was mentioning.

You enjoy A type of games, which no one makes anymore. Then you squabble and argue and get butthurt for years, and then someone throws you a bone.

You enjoy A type of games, which no one makes anymore. Then you switch your delusion to one allowing you to enjoy B, C, and D instead, which everyone still makes. You have something new to play every day.

In one hand we have a huge amount of effort for some measly reward. In the other hand we have a measly effort for a huge reward.

With one having the exact same objective value as the other (both being delusions) why pick the former one instead of the later one?

You know, to me this is a little bit like contending yourself with driving a car, when you realise that the same technology can be used to create a flying machine (this may be your [group] delusion).

I mean the Wright Brothers were not the first people who attempted to build such a device. In fact, before they event drove the first screw there were rampant discussions with plenty of theories and hypotheses on aerodynamics lots of which was proved totally wrong in practice and in discussion, but eventually we flew away. Many of the scientists and amateours with wild thories are lost to history on account of their errors, but then the sheer fact that the communication existed helped in the endeavour (securing finances, recruiting more madmen whose wild ideas may have proved correct, spreading the knowledge etc).

Sure we could have content ourselves with just driving a car - why even attempt something which is impossible when you can enjoy yourself with a car ride? Why even bother when you know how impossible this is? Instead of wasting your time and energy on debating garbage, let's just use what we have.

Even such talks of the madmen drive the progress in some direction - whether it is in science or in humanities (look how literature evolves, how certain schools and styles are common to the people that actually knew each other and talked about their ideas).

Of course, you'd be right in saying that you can enjoy driving a car AND squabbling about airships and aerodynamics. Also, subjectively people who'd deny themselves the pleasure of driving a car because they have an aeroplane to build would look quite silly... but the same applies to those who'd shun the idea of man flying in a machine. Because of the emotional investemnt, however, that would not stop either side from throwing rotten tomatoes at each other.

I like your line of thought but to my mind excessive use of this approach could lead to idleness. Without contraries is no progression.

Now you could say that in our case the amount of effort put here is too high for the prospective rewards... But who is to say what rewards will be, at this point? Once upon a time the Lumière brothers claimed their invention was just a circus attraction. It took a couple of really crazy madmen (such as Georges Méliès) and all the people they infected with their madness to prove them wrong.

Sure it's a madman talk, but I guess, before any "perception of objectivity" can start, we have to get the units right. We do so by finding out the common denominator (delusion) and getting rid of it. Does it mean all conversations will be pointless?

But that perception of objectivity you are mentioning is also a delusion, however consensual. Five guys and gals sharing a delusion does not make that delusion more real than a single guy or gal experiencing it.

Which brings us back to the example of the locked box. You have a locked box, and there's no way to open it. You and other four guys investigate all you can about the box, elaborate a bunch of theories, and then start discussing among yourselves on the topic of the box and its content.

After many months like that you all decide the content must surely be, I don't know, a plush toy of a black cat.

That's still a delusion. You are believing something as true, yet there is no way to confirm whether it is true or not. In that particular case (as it is impossible to open the box) both the existence and the non existence of the plush toy are impossible to demonstrate.

Up until the very moment the box is opened they have no objective knowledge of what lies inside. What truth did all the squabbling and discussion bring, then? Another delusion.

This kind of example can get a bit weird, though, given -even- if what the box contains is actually a plush toy of a black cat you five believing it is -still- a delusion, given you -don't know- what the box contains.

Go down that road far enough and your world will become a very surreal place.

I don't quite get the example with the box. IMO (subjective) Schrödinger's cat really doesn't apply here. The reason is simple - I know what the object of my analysis is - it is a game or a game trailer - not a great unknown locked from my sight. I see what it is and what it does. Furthermore, I realise it is composed of elements that form other constructs I know e.g. films, novels, Microsoft Excel software and Coca-Cola commercial. I may not exactly know how each of those parts work, but hey there are plenty of people who will explain that to me: Book writers/reviewers, programmers, marketing people, or just lads and lasses who are passionate about their hobbies. Yes, it may be all a collective delusion but the odds are reduced by our knowledge, experience and sheer communication - their are our "anchors into reality" (I would write objective facts, but you denied me that with your red truth ).

BTW, actually what I described always happens in any form of information technology. For instance, in order to make a webstore, you really really need to understand how commerce works in general (perhaps ask your client, consult more experienced programmers, use a book AND find other examples of e-stores - they'll be your anchors).

Lastly, talking with other madmen makes you realise how much of the subjective stuff is really your own subjectivity - and how much is derived from external sources that aim to shape you into nothing but a paying consumer - marketing.

One of the most important days of my life was when I actually discovered that while marketing is doing nothing but create a delusion for you to swallow, the delusion it creates can be very enjoyable if you suspend your disbelief for a little while.

Most people tend to react negatively to the very idea of them being manipulated, yet we are constantly both manipulating and being manipulated in every single thing we do. So I don't believe the point is that they are trying to manipulate you, but which would be the result of such a manipulation? Would it be fun or not? Would it be pleasurable or not? If someone manipulates you in a way that advances your own agenda (say, having a lot of fun and enjoying shit) what's there to criticize or be sad about? You letting yourself be manipulated would actually be the right choice of action to move such agenda forward.

This is much more important when we are discussing delussions. Your worldview is a delusion, and my worldview is a delusion. The worldview being offered to you by marketing is a delusion, too. When you abandon, at least partially, the idea of absolute truth (which is in itself pretty much impossible to sustain if you are required to offer concise arguments about it, as anyone with half a brain is going to call Probatio Diabolica and end your party before it starts) then it becomes about nothing more than buying and selling worldviews.

I am selling you one. Your parents sold you one. Your girlfriend is selling you one, and your best friend too. DarkUnderlord is selling you a worldview, and the Hivemind itself does too. The one offered to you by, for example, Idol Culture, which is more or less marketing taken to the next level, is nothing but the same than those, only done with much higher production values. Who cares if it is not real? None of the others are, either.

The reason I am discussing this, however, is not to change what you believe as much as to demonstrate the irreality of it all. To actually believe in the delusions you hold because of past experiences, the way you were raised, and more is exactly the same as swallowing hook, line, and sinker the worldview being given to you by some random media group, while you could instead be picking the ones which are more conductive to pleasure, fun, and joy instead.

Which brings us back to the question I made before, or maybe I thought I did it but didn't actually do it. Or something.

All worldviews being delusions, why embrace the one that is not making you as happy as you could be by picking a different one?

I can understand the joy of being manipulated... in the sense of what we are doing now to a degree. We try to convey our worldviews and there's some inkling in us that maybe, just maybe we will at least accept another's perception (When you "demonstrate the irreality of it all" for a brief moment I kinda see it from your perspective, I must say, and begin to agree with some of your views). I do not quite enjoy the thought of being manipulated on mass scale, however. I mean it is fine when I am faced with your worldview, DU's worldview, my girlfriend's worldview and so on. I am one man and they are single human beings I can reason with, share and dismiss their delusions. I can hardly fight with something that has far reach and influences thousands of minds adversely (in my subjective opinion), because it spreads like a virus. Ultimately, if not combated with other worldviews and objective knowledge (anchor points) it can become one and only. And when you have one worldview, where is your own free will? (Note here that I focused on what marketing *does* to me; not on what the object of marketing is)

This may be the legacy of me leaving in a former communist state, the historical knowledge of Nazism and its outbreak my country was affected by, or the history of repeatedly losing independency by my people, and some of my personal experience but there's that. You may argue that I'll be forever stuck in the form conditioned by my past and by historical facts... to which I say - not completely if I talk with the madmen who will show me there is the possibility to alter that form, without destroying it altogether.

I admit, that your approach in the situation like that is the healthiest one. Playing games and enjoying them for what they are instead of losing your sleep over someone, somewhere liking something is the more rationale thing to do - this is the sentiment I happen to share. But that doesn't mean I cannot express what I would like to see here. The fact that I enjoy havng illusory coin doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy having the real coin as well.

But which is the real coin in this case?

The initial delusion, imposed on you by accident and context, is no more real than the later delusion, chosen by you.

Ok, but this will be one of those "overthinking shit" thingies, I warn you. It will be all about a private delusion within a consensual delusion.

The problematic thing with the golden coin in that case is that its "idea" is artificial - it's purely man-made so its existence outside of the boundaries of human perception is doubtful. Without humanity to define that gold is for some precious metal (it is practically useless industrial application - it's only advantage is that it is largely unaffected by chemical reactions which makes it last in pure form) and that coin is a unit of currency that carries some value we agreed upon. In other words the objective truth is: a golden coin has value only because collectively humans agreed that in their subjective views gold is precious (due to the fact that it doesn't change the form and can be carried unchanged, and that's important for currency - pretty much vicious circle). This is one of the reasons I am not convinced by your dismissal of subjective values in forming objectivity. Whatever, let's call it an "anchor point" again.

More on topic, I know what the function of the golden coin is - it is supposed to buy me meal, ale and a stay at an inn. This is because in our common consensual delusion we agreed how golden coins work. Therefore the coin that can't buy me all that - it turns into stone - is not a real coin. The function, the utility we define in our private (you recognized the coin as enchanted and made it your keepsake out of sentiment) and consensual (golden coins have value as agreed in the society) delusions is the very thing the defines reality. Incidentally, whether the conditions of the consensual delusion or met or not affect objective facts - if I pay and stay at the inn I will be healthy and fine, if I try to "cheat" the inkeeper (his private subjectivity) I will be kicked out on the rain, get flu and die.

All in all, I cannot really agree that the shift of perception you are proposing on objects is manageable thing due to the nature of the world we live in - we are surrounded by subjectivity - private and consensual. What's more we are usually lost in it so we create anchor points - things we subjectively recognize as true - whether privately or in consensus with other people (like units of measurement, historical facts, rules in the society etc). Our own private subjectivity towards objects (as in "things") is never enough to change objective reality on account of how strongly embeded we are in the subjectivity of others (or maybe there is but in my subjectivity I just don't see the full picture, despite many excellent points you've presented ).

There's an exception, however, IMO - one which largely overlaps with what you are saying. Our own actions can be affected by subjective approaches and shifts of perspective changing both subjective and objective reality. For example the way you approach your work (you treat is as a chore or as a pleasure) changes its outcome in subjective eyes of people and as objective facts. The same is true about conversations with pretty much anyone - the "madmen" and "sane" people. For example, myself I decided to treat them as a pleasure.

I have to say, however, although I disagree with plenty of your points, I am very impressed by the way you use this framework of yours and how positively it affects you - which sort of makes a mockery of my reservations. This is quite inspiring and I admit that for me it is a great food for thought.

 

[shihonage]

Thread too deep

Knew it was a one-way ticket...

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Knew it was a one-way ticket...

Ticka won way, ticka won way! Won way, won way, won way ticka! *dances around*

There goes all my effort to defeat my Nine Muses adiction.



Mrowak

Of course, you'd be right in saying that you can enjoy driving a car AND squabbling about airships and aerodynamics. Also, subjectively people who'd deny themselves the pleasure of driving a car because they have an aeroplane to build would look quite silly... but the same applies to those who'd shun the idea of man flying in a machine. Because of the emotional investemnt, however, that would not stop either side from throwing rotten tomatoes at each other.

My argument, from the beginning, was against -judgement-. I never said you should content with this and that, given you should be free to pick whatever delusion makes you happy (as I have said, like, three thousand times already). I said you have no objective basis to judge anyone else's choice.

So those who shun the idea of flying in a machine are on their right to do so, what is stupid (and ilogical) is when they start talking shit about those who do. In the same way, my point wasn't that you did not have the right to enjoy games without T&A but that you have no logical basis to criticize those who prefer T&A uber alles.

So let's put the topic in context:

You know I fangirl both ultra commercial asian pop music from marketing hell and classic opera, as well as a lot of other shit. Is one objectively better than the other? You are free to prove it while I LOL and ROFL and LMAO all around. Is enjoying both objectively better than enjoying simply one or the other? You are free to prove it while I LOL and ROFL and LMAO all around. To those arguments I say: Omae wa mou shindeiru.

You are free, however, to enjoy either, or both, or neither, just don't fucking try to convince me you are being objective about it when your argument is not going to survive its first encounter with basic logic.

Thus the only stupid element I see in what I quoted above is the part about throwing rotten tomatos to each other, which is -exactly- what you did at the beginning.

The rest was us going down different branches with neither order nor reason, as we usually do.

I don't quite get the example with the box. IMO (subjective) Schrödinger's cat really doesn't apply here. The reason is simple - I know what the object of my analysis is - it is a game or a game trailer - not a great unknown locked from my sight.

That's not really true.

You know what the object of your analisis appears to be. However, you are not interacting with the object of your analisis but with the product of: 1, your own sensory limitations in perceiving the object. 2, any potential information decay between your senses and your brain. 3, your brain modeling capabilities. 4, the subjective lens by means of which you subject that model to analysis. And that's just the most basic representation of such process.

Thus the object is inside a box which you can't open, as it is impossible to bypass such a process.

If you want to turn it the other way around there's an objective world out there (maybe...) but you are trapped inside a magical crystal bubble that distorts all images and sounds coming from the outside. How can you judge anything on an objective basis?

Let's use Saya No Uta as an example.

Spoiler

Which was the real world? Which was Saya actual appearance?

In either case it is logically impossible to say which one is the objective truth, or even if one of them is the objective truth at all, as both are based completely around the perceptions of observers whose perceptions we can't compare with an objective assesment to see how much they differ from each other.

So for all practical purposes "objective truth" is inside a box we can't open. Is it A, or is it B?

Which means objective truth is a zombie cat.

Where's my Nobel?

Furthermore, I realise it is composed of elements that form other constructs I know e.g. films, novels, Microsoft Excel software and Coca-Cola commercial. I may not exactly know how each of those parts work, but hey there are plenty of people who will explain that to me: Book writers/reviewers, programmers, marketing people, or just lads and lasses who are passionate about their hobbies. Yes, it may be all a collective delusion but the odds are reduced by our knowledge, experience and sheer communication - their are our "anchors into reality" (I would write objective facts, but you denied me that with your red truth ).

Those aren't your "anchors into reality" as that would imply those things they represent are objectively real. They are your anchors into a consensual delusion which is about as objective as God. Those things make sense only inside the context which spawned them, which again makes their value depend on the observer.

If you want to create a complex delusion based on delusions you enjoy, go ahead. My point was, again, there's nothing objective about that, so you can't objectively judge those whose choice is different to your own.

Then, it is implied in the way perception develops that perception isn't fixed. It follows there is a process through which it changes and mutates, and thus that by understanding the process we can manipulate it to become this instead of that. So there lies a question to be asked, I believe: Why should we leave the process in the hands of random chance instead of picking the delusion that would bring us the most X? X being pleasure, enjoyment, delight, fun, etc.

You can go and develop the delusion that will turn you into a grumpy old guy no one will like to be around, but what's the point of that? @_@

I can hardly fight with something that has far reach and influences thousands of minds adversely (in my subjective opinion), because it spreads like a virus. Ultimately, if not combated with other worldviews and objective knowledge (anchor points) it can become one and only. And when you have one worldview, where is your own free will? (Note here that I focused on what marketing *does* to me; not on what the object of marketing is)

We could ask where is free will to begin with if all of our actions are based on delusions. To put it in local parlance, if I give a C&C heavy game in Japanese to one of those dirty gaijin who can't into moonrunes, is it C&C at all when a giant boar forces Crispy out of self imposed virginity because he was picking choices based on what he imagined them to mean?

What he thought it said: "*roar* I will defeat you, evil yet very well endowed demon boar! *brandishes holy steel*"

What it said: "*giggles* I sure would love that which you propose, Mister Well Endowed Boar. *wink*"

C&C, yes or no? Discuss!

This is one of the reasons I am not convinced by your dismissal of subjective values in forming objectivity.

But that was exactly one of my points:

If you are giving value to something that value is not objective as it does not exist outside of the observer and objective does not means "That which is popularly accepted". The objective truth is that gold is a certain thing, yet it has no value outside particular consensual delusions that attribute one to it.

Going back to both the glamour example you can say there was a stone that the Pooka made you perceive as gold. Yet based on the exact same event you can say you were seeing a stone where gold was and that the pooka fred you from the delusion, or that there was a cut dong you were perceiving as a stone and the Pooka made you perceive as gold. Good thing she did not make you perceve it as a sandwich, which is what most Pookas would have done.

One can equally Probatio Diabolica out of existence them all.

All in all, I cannot really agree that the shift of perception you are proposing on objects is manageable thing due to the nature of the world we live in - we are surrounded by subjectivity - private and consensual.

The only shift in perception I am proposing is to recognize the delusions as delusions and thus act upon them logically. I never said you had to cut through all delusions with the sword of Prajna and become the Buddha of Role Playing Games.

My proposition was simply you should not be a judgemental jerk until the reasoning you are going to use to judge others can survive preschool level logic. That aside, enjoy your delusions as much as you want. Anyone who has managed to get lucid dreaming to work will tell you things don't need to be objectively real to be both bloody awesome and incredibly delightful. *shrug*

You should actually research a bit on what little is actually known and accepted on the topic of lucid dreaming to have several of your assumptions on reality go down in flames, it is quite fun.



Again, I'm sorry if I ignored or misread something but those posts are growing really big and I am starting to have trouble going through them without my attention being taken away by something shiny, and I get the feeling we are going in circles (though I don't really know, as I am forgetting were we have been XD). Maybe we should move back to the fundamental points we were trying to make before I get a headache. @_@

Neither catgirls nor fairies, nor butterflies, are precisely known for their ability to focus for long. To be honest I am starting to find hard to remember what we said and what we meant already.

 

[DragoFireheart]

*Skips most of the posts made*

Aren't games in a sense a reflection of our society? If the game is shit, the people that made it (and buy it) are shit? If the game is amazing, the people that made the game (and buy it) are amazing?

Therefore, if women want these games to have less "sexy" women with scantly clad clothing, wouldn't they need to change the people making/buying them? Wouldn't it be a better use of their energy to make games they feel represents themselves rather than trying to control others and violate their First Right Amendment?

Just saying...

 

[Roguey]

*Skips most of the posts made*

Aren't games in a sense a reflection of our society? If the game is shit, the people that made it (and buy it) are shit? If the game is amazing, the people that made the game (and buy it) are amazing?

Therefore, if women want these games to have less "sexy" women with scantly clad clothing, wouldn't they need to change the people making/buying them? Wouldn't it be a better use of their energy to make games they feel represents themselves rather than trying to control others and violate their First Right Amendment?

Just saying...

a) "If you don't like it, go make your own" is a lousy response.
b) "First Amendment rights"
I don't think any of them are proposing a US government ban on sexist games. Also freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

 

[Mrowak]

Let's start from the end:

This is one of the reasons I am not convinced by your dismissal of subjective values in forming objectivity.

But that was exactly one of my points:

Yeah. To be honest after writing that I went to bed being smug and all. When I woke up in the morning, even before reading your post, I realised that we are saying the same thing but we are drawing different conclusions from it.

A very brief retrospective. Basically what this discussion started from is me criticising the ladies from the trailer - or rather the function they played there (pandering, fanservice) You will remember, however, that although I agreed with the writer of the article in generalities I thought he overreacted in this case.

Then we started our banter which touched upon two issues:

1) How putting those ladies in the trailer can/cannot be objectively judged as "wrong"?

In consequence, because you are amazing witch of the left hand and I am an...

Spoiler

Maybe the only thing we have in common is that with us around any reality anywhere just doesn't stand a chance.

Sorry, I needed to lift the mood.

we started discussing:

2) Objectivity vs subjectivity! The meaningfulness/meaninglessness of judgment! Worldviews! Opinions! Facts! What is what and why?

In the mean time on account of our incompatible worldviews we made a couple of calls, arbitrary statements and general misunderstandings until we started talking on roughly the same wavelength. Sorry Cat, but even your definition of Objectivity which you keep using as your anchor in this argument isn't that objective. First, normally the definition is much more narrow, even in philosophy itself. Additionally, as vast as yours is, you cannot rule out that there exist objectivity which cannot be even fathomed by my humans or even splendorous witches.

On the issue number 1):

You know I fangirl both ultra commercial asian pop music from marketing hell and classic opera, as well as a lot of other shit. Is one objectively better than the other? You are free to prove it while I LOL and ROFL and LMAO all around. Is enjoying both objectively better than enjoying simply one or the other? You are free to prove it while I LOL and ROFL and LMAO all around. To those arguments I say: Omae wa mou shindeiru.

打ち殺さないで! ピース! I want to live, so this is part of the reason I've never even attempted this discussion on this with you! I knew what the outcome would be!

But seriously, this discussion just wouldn't make sense. It could only serve me to learn about both sorts of entertainment but that would require completely different approach.

You are free, however, to enjoy either, or both, or neither, just don't fucking try to convince me you are being objective about it when your argument is not going to survive its first encounter with basic logic.

As I said many times before, yes I share the same sentiment. Maybe for other reason, but I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't have used the example you quoted.

Thus the only stupid element I see in what I quoted above is the part about throwing rotten tomatos to each other, which is -exactly- what you did at the beginning.

Did I throw a rotten tomato? Really? Maybe I did... But who did it splatter on? As far as I can recall I attacked e.g. the pandering and fanservice itself - concrete qualities and the actions they aimed to accomplish. Last time I checked qualities and actions do not get mad ay anyone. Plus. now that I know your take on objectivity and subjectivity I can explain you on your times why I did what I did. I did it because from empiric evidence, studies and my personal experience - all of which is a mixture of mine and collective delusions - the method used there threatens the very foundation of our collective delusion - society. That idea is: all delusions are valuable and they should not be threatened by a single, dominat one, one which puts everything else below it and potentially destroys the basic channals of exchanging those delusions (communication). You will find the translation in my previous post.

Yeah, it kinda sounds overblown and full of pathos (and pathetic ), but that's introspection for you. Also, the reasons I value worldviews and opinions I highlighted in a number of previous posts. Yes this may be subjective, but as we know everything is. Such mere inconvenience shouldn't stop us from talking.

I will only add that for example, that the trailer in question had the quality I stand against, doesn't mean it didn't have many others merits one can enjoy. In fact despite our subjectivity we both recognized the same qualities in it - "it's pandering and merketing" and "it's fun". We got a different emotional response and in my case it drove me to express mild criticism (this quality is useless for me. I cannot take the full enjoyment from it - in the same way you cannot take the full enjoyment from finding the golden coin when I know it's fake. Marketing and glamour share a lot in common, indeed), in yours it drove you to overlook the first quality. Even then, despite our initial differences we can enjoy the same thing for what it is by shifting perspective (Well, this coin won't buy me a meal but it looks pretty).

I just can't help but feel sorry at the people who'll fail to recognise marketing/glamour for what it is (subjective judgment), succumb to its function (it being a hoax) and do something they will likely, in their subjective view, regret later on. There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance. The more we know the more paths we can chose from. Yes, that too may be true only in some subjective, collective reality.

Speaking of judgment, now the issue numer 2) if you are still interested (this was not the part of our original argument and I doubt we will ever achieve any consensus here.):

I don't quite get the example with the box. IMO (subjective) Schrödinger's cat really doesn't apply here. The reason is simple - I know what the object of my analysis is - it is a game or a game trailer - not a great unknown locked from my sight.

That's not really true.

You know what the object of your analisis appears to be. However, you are not interacting with the object of your analisis but with the product of: 1, your own sensory limitations in perceiving the object. 2, any potential information decay between your senses and your brain. 3, your brain modeling capabilities. 4, the subjective lens by means of which you subject that model to analysis. And that's just the most basic representation of such process.

Thus the object is inside a box which you can't open, as it is impossible to bypass such a process.

If you want to turn it the other way around there's an objective world out there (maybe...) but you are trapped inside a magical crystal bubble that distorts all images and sounds coming from the outside. How can you judge anything on an objective basis?

So basically, what you are saying is that to all intents and purposes we are half-blind and half-deaf and can't rely on anything in the world, even ourselves because we may be wrong... Ok, so what is the moral of all this? That we judge everything on a subjective basis. That we have to do it in order to live to survive in the world around us that laughs at every corner at the deficiency of our perception. So we make the use of our deficient senses and our deficient brain to pave our path through it. We create delusions we then exchange with other madmen, and then together we construct even more impressive delusions from what we find in common with each other which creates a fragment we collectively and subjectively call reality (from now on: "collective reality").

In order to do that we need judgment, however. We need something in our brain that tells us what the next course of action can/might/should/must be. Otherwise, where's one's will, again? Where's your will when you deny yourself your judgment? How having shuned your judgment can you face even those small glimpses of objective reality if you can't use the information in any way?

Those aren't your "anchors into reality" as that would imply those things they represent are objectively real. They are your anchors into a consensual delusion

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. These are the fragments of objective reality which we are "sure" at the given moment in time and we can use to modify the consensual piece and perhaps the objective reality. We take advantage of those anchors at every point in our lives making our life decisions, befriending other people or making a scientific discovery. Yes we need judgement to judge other people for what they are and what they represent (I suspect I am extrapolating too far).

Those things make sense only inside the context which spawned them, which again makes their value depend on the observer.

Or "consensual reality", or even objective reality (because they may have their value there - we cannot rule that out as we cannot say what exactly objective reality looks like). Everything the observer, the consensual reality and objective reality are the contexts - they have to be connected in some way. One is within another... Now collective realities - those can overlap or be completely separated. That's why communication is the key to make realities overlap. Again one of the reasons judgment is important.

My proposition was simply you should not be a judgemental jerk...

Ouch. That kinda hurt.

I really do make my business not to attack people for their beliefs, nor do I feel the constant need to inflate my ego at every corner by "proving" myself "right". I do, however, feel the need to question and doubt and accept nothing at face value which may be the reason we can't quite see eye to eye so often. Hence I attack objects and subjects of people's attention rather than people. I need to do that for many reason - one being to understand the world around with the limited tools that I have. And we know how touchy we all can become when someone else starts to question what we like/dislike. It's interesting how efficiently this propels the vicious circle of hatred. :whistle:

....until the reasoning you are going to use to judge others can survive preschool level logic. That aside, enjoy your delusions as much as you want. Anyone who has managed to get lucid dreaming to work will tell you things don't need to be objectively real to be both bloody awesome and incredibly delightful. *shrug*

Yes! By all means! If you get lucid dreaming to work in subjective construct of reality take the fullest advantage of it! Be bloody awesome just because you can; just because are the one in control; just for the shits and giggles and having a good time or for whatever other reason that catches your fancy!! Do that in whatever subjective reality you want and have a great time! But just make yourself sure you are the one in control, ok? Yes, it's all subjective but being used and thrown away from your dream is no fun at all (unless someone subjectively enjoys it @_@).

Neither catgirls nor fairies, nor butterflies, are precisely known for their ability to focus for long. To be honest I am starting to find hard to remember what we said and what we meant already.

Catgirls, fairies and butterflies are not alone in this predicament. Hence the start...

 

[Excommunicator]

What a positively vile thread.