"Paradoxism"

[rogue_lettuce]

It's not HORRIBLE, it just comes across as a bit muddled. It's a bit like you got Dali, Nietzsche and some common clichés and threw them in a frying pan with loads of quick subject-changes as some seasoning.
I think you'd be better off trying to stick to one style and one subject, and explore it fully, so it comes across as less schizophrenic. But that's just my humble view on the matter, others seem to like it.

Oh, and I dont think this was the best sub-forum to post it in, but it's a hard call - I'd have put it in books/tv/radio/writing, since it's a piece of writing? Meh.

 

[Disjecta Membra]

the world's only inherently paradoxical cos ultimately "there is no truth"

 

[neon_mask]

It's not HORRIBLE, it just comes across as a bit muddled. It's a bit like you got Dali, Nietzsche and some common clichés and threw them in a frying pan with loads of quick subject-changes as some seasoning.
I think you'd be better off trying to stick to one style and one subject, and explore it fully, so it comes across as less schizophrenic. But that's just my humble view on the matter, others seem to like it.

Oh, and I dont think this was the best sub-forum to post it in, but it's a hard call - I'd have put it in books/tv/radio/writing, since it's a piece of writing? Meh.

I get what you're getting at....but then again it was more of a 'stream-of-counciousness' expiremental kinda thing.

I think Dillinger is gonna hate that this thread is kept alive.

 

[max_freakout]

the world's only inherently paradoxical cos ultimately "there is no truth"

ı thınk ıf you fully accept thıs, there ıs no paradox, everythıng makes perfect sense

 

[axon]

There's no such thing as a paradox (in the real world)! If you think you've found one, it just means you haven't worked out the underlying rules yet. And relax.

 

[neon_mask]

When you say in the real world, you mean that there are no physical manifestations of a paradox?

What are the underlying rules?

 

[max_freakout]

There's no such thing as a paradox (in the real world)! If you think you've found one, it just means you haven't worked out the underlying rules yet. And relax.

Every person ıs a paradox


what does 'self-control' mean? are you ın control of yourself? or are you under the control opf yourself?

you are one person, so you cant be both ın control and under control

therefore, self-control ıs a paradox, a 'strange loop'

 

[neon_mask]

As well, the 'things that be' that are made up of people in a society must consist of a paradox in some way...

 

[axon]

When you say in the real world, you mean that there are no physical manifestations of a paradox?

Yes, well put

What are the underlying rules?

Dunno.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Every person ?s a paradox


what does 'self-control' mean? are you ?n control of yourself? or are you under the control opf yourself?

you are one person, so you cant be both ?n control and under control

therefore, self-control ?s a paradox, a 'strange loop'

That's not a paradox. That is a word game.

 

[neon_mask]

Yes, well put

Ahh but there are! Like Max said, everyone is a paradox whether it be a social place in a hierarchy or how your brain functions....the idea is, once you've realized theses paradoxes of being human you can begin to self-actualize.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

once you've realized theses paradoxes of being human you can begin to self-actualize.

What does self-actualize mean?

 

[neon_mask]

What does self-actualize mean?

"Self-actualization is a term that has been used in various psychology theories, often in slightly different ways (e.g., Goldstein, Maslow, Rogers). The term was originally introduced by the organismic theorist Kurt Goldstein for the motive to realize all of one's potentialities. In his view, it is the master motive—indeed, the only real motive a person has, all others being merely manifestations of it. However, the concept was brought to prominence in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory as the final level of psychological development that can be achieved when all basic and meta needs are fulfilled and the "actualization" of the full personal potential takes place."

- wikipedia

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sounds like a load of sub-Buddhist guff to me.

 

[neon_mask]

I appreciate that intelligent reply, I hope we can do it again sometime.

 

[axon]

Ahh but there are! Like Max said, everyone is a paradox whether it be a social place in a hierarchy or how your brain functions....the idea is, once you've realized theses paradoxes of being human you can begin to self-actualize.

Nah, I don't think there are paradoxes.

 

[neon_mask]

Nah, I don't think there are paradoxes.

Care to elaborate?

 

[axon]

Well, I can't think of any
Basically, nature follows set rules even if we don't know what they are, and even if the rules rely on probabalistic phenomena rather than deterministic. A paradox simply implies that one of your assumptions about the system is wrong, not that the universe genuinely is contradictory.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

nothing is a paradox = everything is a paradox

 

[neon_mask]

Well, I can't think of any
Basically, nature follows set rules even if we don't know what they are, and even if the rules rely on probabalistic phenomena rather than deterministic. A paradox simply implies that one of your assumptions about the system is wrong, not that the universe genuinely is contradictory.

What I was implying was that everyone (and their reality) is a paradox simply based on how the brain operates. That being as it *almost* entirely functions as a robothood (not saying we're build of metal and wires ect..) but genetic code basically wires our brains to think inside a certain limitation. The paradox being the more we understand how automated we are, the freer we are from in (especially in terms of the evolution of the conscious). Just as in a social hierarchy...the more freedom someone attains, the more responsibility they have.

 

[max_freakout]

That's not a paradox. That is a word game.

same thıng!


ıt ıs a word game, whıch lıes rıght at the core of beıng a self-controllıng human beıng


ıf you possess the abılıty to excersıse self-control, then are you ın control of yourself? or under the control of yourself? you cant be both

 

[max_freakout]

What does self-actualize mean?

to become real, become actual, become yourself


ıt ıs the fınal stage of Maslow's hıerarchy of needs, before you explode through the top of the pyramıd (self-transcendence)

 

[max_freakout]

Nah, I don't think there are paradoxes.

thıs sentence ıs not true



ıs thıs ^ sentence true or false?

 

[max_freakout]

Sounds like a load of sub-Buddhist guff to me.

Maslow was certaınly ınfluenced by Buddhıst phılosophy

 

[max_freakout]

I don't think there are paradoxes.

ı just realısed, thıs ^IS a paradox!!!


ıf you dont thınk there are paradoxes, then what do you mean when you say "paradox"?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

same thıng!


ıt ıs a word game, whıch lıes rıght at the core of beıng a self-controllıng human beıng


ıf you possess the abılıty to excersıse self-control, then are you ın control of yourself? or under the control of yourself? you cant be both

Wittgenstein got many things wrong, most importantly his inability to imagine thought without language. In many ways his thought was imprisoned by language, as yours appears to be. But within that prison he realised one thing that you appear to have missed, namely that linguistic problems are precisely that - to be solved by correctly unpacking the meaning of what is being said. Words stand for ideas. They are not the ideas themselves.

 

[rogue_lettuce]

ıf you dont thınk there are paradoxes, then what do you mean when you say "paradox"?

Substitute "unicorn" for "paradox" and you'll find you're wrong

 

[neon_mask]

How come most threads lately trail off into trying to prove max wrong? Besides the fact that the context in which axon used 'I don't think there are paradoxes' doesn't make make it a paradox...the bickering is getting ridiculous

 

[max_freakout]

How come most threads lately trail off into trying to prove max wrong?

because of ego


you cant prove nothıng wrong

the posıtıon of the sceptıc ıs ırrefutable

 

[max_freakout]

Substitute "unicorn" for "paradox" and you'll find you're wrong

Plato's rıdedle of nonexıstence


nothıng doesnt exıst