Jump to content

Deus ex Machina: the Will of The Force ...


Recommended Posts

I'm leaving too... The Force wasn't meant to be a diety, and it doesn't have to be in order to seek balance... It can still be the 'f'orce, if you actually listen to the movies (where they say all the things Kreia says, without the insanity factor).

 

I'm bored... (I don't know about Rosbjerg's, but I sure as heck hope my clothes exist... :thumbsup: ).

Geekified Star Wars Geek

 

Heart of the Force, Arm of the Force

 

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"

-Obi-wan to Anakin (NOT advocating Grey-Jedidom)

 

"The Force doesn't control people, Kreia controls people."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm leaving too... The Force wasn't meant to be a diety, and it doesn't have to be in order to seek balance... It can still be the 'f'orce, if you actually listen to the movies (where they say all the things Kreia says, without the insanity factor).

 

I'm bored... (I don't know about Rosbjerg's, but I sure as heck hope my clothes exist... :thumbsup: ).

 

Yeah, I guess we've covered Eastern, Western and everything in between.

 

I just wish that the dialogue in the game actually made sense. It's just too vague. Characters contrdict themselves in adjacent sentences of the same monologue, whilst agreeing and disagreeing with other characters in adjacent monlogues!

I get the impression that the philosophical underpinnings were not part of the core writing effort. The writers seem to have just added some suitably mystical philoso-babble at tactical places within the story to add some flavour.

 

Hmmm, I feel a bit like those anoraks that find anachronistical, geographical and continuity mistakes in films (like "That bird doesn't inhabit the Amazon, it's a native of Finland!", and "That Victorian Urn should not have been present in the Georgian era of the War of Independence ...").

 

Oi vey. :-

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

And another reason I like my "Force has a Will" plot is that K2 becomes a step backwards in the over-arching story.

 

In K3, "The Anti-Force League" are trying to accomplish what Kreia was trying to do. She would be re-defined from a mad, extremist psychopath to a gifted, driven visionary. (Which has happenned throughout history.)

 

And the Exile is just a fish in the Force's aquarium.

 

So Revan would have worked all this out, and either convert/kill the Exile. (Harks to Blizzard's Warcraft III plot.)

 

And the Force could be defeated, but this is only a temporary remission, before it comes back with a vengence in 4000 years.

 

The Force is the "Empire", the "Authority" against which all oppostion is "hopeless".

 

... But it was just a dream ....

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Metadigital,

 

I think I can agree with the point I think you are trying to make and that is really a question, "Is there, in fact, a plot to KOTOR II?".

 

And if there is a plot, is it

Kreia trying to kill the Force?

or the

Exile trying to find himself?

.

 

And if it is about the former then why didn't we get more of a backstory on that?

 

I have argued this on other threads...Kreia IS THE PRINCIPLE HERE and we needed to know her story more than we needed to know the Exile's...why does she believe as she does? Flashbacks into her past would have made the difference. I have heard that they were not allowed to do flashbacks but that would have made the difference. Instead, it does, in a sense, seem like psyco-babble used to cover up some of the weaker areas.

 

All in all, a well-presented story but we needed a bit more resolution (and explaination) than what we got.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Since we don't share the same world view I don't think we will ever agree on this .. you trust what can be measured, repeated and proved by math, I just view it as a religion like everything else .. Scientific theories can be seemingly perfect and all indications may point to the fact that this particular atom will do like this, but suddenly a new theory arises, on a even smaller scale it did something completely different, and the first theory was inadequate and even wrong .. So in my mind that makes the entire system fallible, since we will never (at least not in any comfortably forseeable future) be able to grasp *everything*, so we will never be able to fully explain the systematics of the Universe .. and when the picture is incomplete then you will never truely know if it's wrong or right, no matter how consistent it is! (imo)

 

I think you're confusing the fallibility of us with the system of science. Just because I botch making a violin does not mean that violin making is inherently flawed. Sometimes our understanding of things takes time and effort. Science builds upon the earlier works of others. It is generally the process of accretion and not mass 'blinding flashes of insight'. Newtonian physics didn't stop being useful for everyday things after Einstein came along. While relativity handled the common cases and more 'edge' cases it is overkill for determining the arc of a thrown baseball.

 

No, science will never answer everything (for example, moral issues), but it will eventually tell us how the physical universe works. The power of science is that because it is testable, because it is open to new information science is self-correcting and it allows us to overcome our own fallibility.

 

 

2. I could ask you for the same .. prove that what you believe is 100% right! neither of us can .. sure you think you are closer since you have a more intricate system, but imo that's eluding yourself, like you think I am.. complexity and consistency is never foolproof evidence!

 

but you are searching for a 'truth' none-the-less .. and I respect that!

 

The thing is, I can point you towards the computer you are using to post to this board. :-D If you want to prove that human perception is so fallible that we can't trust our communication with others or that we can't share our perceptions accurately, then you'll need to explain away every manufactured item around us for starters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Metadigital,

 

I think I can agree with the point I think you are trying to make and that is really a question, "Is there, in fact, a plot to KOTOR II?". 

 

And if there is a plot, is it

Kreia trying to kill the Force?

or the

Exile trying to find himself?

.

 

And if it is about the former then why didn't we get more of a backstory on that? 

 

I have argued this on other threads...Kreia IS THE PRINCIPLE HERE and we needed to know her story more than we needed to know the Exile's...why does she believe as she does?  Flashbacks into her past would have made the difference.  I have heard that they were not allowed to do flashbacks but that would have made the difference.  Instead, it does, in a sense, seem like psyco-babble used to cover up some of the weaker areas.

 

All in all, a well-presented story but we needed a bit more resolution (and explaination) than what we got.

 

 

Ooh, pick the dropout! I know!

 

Part XII: The Feeding of Malachor V

Time frame: 3,955 - 3,953 B.B.Y.

Period name: Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords

 

It is a period of uncertainty across the galaxy. After a long and vicious battle in the deepest area of the STAR FORGE, Dark Lord of the Sith DARTH REVAN succeeds in destroying his ex-apprentice DARTH MALAK. After recovering from the duel, Revan seeks out the secret dark outposts he established during the Mandalorian War. Journeying to the Outer Rim in the EBON HAWK, Revan is focused with a single purpose: locating the source of the dark power on MALACHOR V. Those awaiting Revan's arrival, including members of the Sith and the Jedi, are shocked when he fails to return from this pilgrimage. It is unknown whether Revan destroyed or resurrected the primal Sith forces on this forbidden planetoid.

 

The turmoil of the previous decade has had a detrimental effect on the surviving members of the Jedi Order. Disillusionment and despair persists in the wake of the war both throughout the Old Republic, and within the Jedi Order itself. Furthering exacerbating the malaise is the corruption of Darth Revan and Darth Malak, and the untold harm their actions had brought to the Republic. These three reasons were cited by many the impetus for the disbanding of the Jedi. While the Jedi mull over their troubles, the battle-hardened Mandalorian hero CANDEROUS ORDO returns to the homeworld of DXUN, seeking to rebuild his clan, and find a new purpose in the galaxy. Through prowess and cunning, he rises to eventually become Mandalore.

 

JEDI MASTER KREIA, Revan's old mentor, is still haunted by guilt, wondering whether it was her teaching that resulted in Revan's fall to the dark side, and begins to search for him. Sensing his last location, she travels to Malachor V, but is unable to shield her emotions, and is completely consumed by the dark side of the Force. She is lost to the Jedi, spending the next several years on Malachor V, learning its secrets, and eventually becoming The master of the Sith academy there. Guided by Kreia's influence, Sith assassins once again begin to emerge silently from Malachor V and strike at isolated Jedi across the Republic, capturing some Jedi to turn to the dark side, and slaying those that resist. Taken to the dark side world of Malachor V to be fed to the planet's dark energies, these Jedi husks create even more assassins and DARK JEDI, feeding the planet's hunger.

 

 

And:

 

Part XIII: Ascension of the Sith

Time frame: 3,953 - 3,951 B.B.Y.

Period name: Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords

 

It is the beginning of the Jedi's decline throughout the Galaxy. Individual Jedi begin to leave the Jedi Order, and the Jedi Watchmen of many systems, disenchanted with the endless, pointless struggles, step down and exile themselves in unknown quadrants of the galaxy, echoing the disillusionment of Jedi Master JOLEE BINDO. These are referred to by scribes of the time as the LOST JEDI. With their numbers already thinned by the war with DARTH MALAK, the Jedi Order is reduced to less than one hundred surviving Jedi Knights. As the numbers of Jedi continue to dwindle, the remaining practitioners of the light side of the Force believe the Lost Jedi to have forsaken the Order, but in fact, many of them are victims of Sith Assassins, or are being captured and imprisoned on the dark side world of MALACHOR V, waiting to be converted to the dark side of the Force. Under the watchful gaze of a corrupted Jedi KREIA, many of these Jedi die, but some are converted.

 

 

And, if we look at a bit of game dialogue, we further find that Kreia hates the Jedi council (most likely for 'torturing' her) and the Sith Lords (for doing the same, pretty much). She spent most of her time w/ the Jedi, and naturally would want to punish them the most, with the Death of all living things. She trains her weapon against the Sith (the Exile).

 

As Atris says, the attempt at killing the Force by killing all life is insanity.

 

Oh, and an interesting tidbit: When Brianna asks what the Force feels like, and you talk about its loss, Kreia pipes in and says (amongst other things) that it is like having a student, and giving all of you to them, only to have them turn on you and forget you. If you read the above quotes, then it is evident that most of her things were wrapped around Revan, and her hatred of the Council for what they have done to her (through, supposedly, her apprentices).

 

I fortell a deep (and pointless) look at the Greek pantheon in this thread's future... <_< . I again take my leave.

Geekified Star Wars Geek

 

Heart of the Force, Arm of the Force

 

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"

-Obi-wan to Anakin (NOT advocating Grey-Jedidom)

 

"The Force doesn't control people, Kreia controls people."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Metadigital,

... And if there is a plot, is it

Kreia trying to kill the Force?

or the

Exile trying to find himself?

.

 

And if it is about the former then why didn't we get more of a backstory on that? 

...

Ooh, pick the dropout! I know!

Part XII: The Feeding of Malachor V

... planetoid. ...

 

JEDI MASTER KREIA, Revan's old mentor, is still haunted by guilt, wondering whether it was her teaching that resulted in Revan's fall to the dark side, and begins to search for him. Sensing his last location, she travels to Malachor V, but is unable to shield her emotions, and is completely consumed by the dark side of the Force. She is lost to the Jedi, spending the next several years on Malachor V, learning its secrets, and eventually becoming The master of the Sith academy there. ... And:

Part XIII: Ascension of the Sith

Time frame: 3,953 - 3,951 B.B.Y.

... It is the beginning of the Jedi's decline throughout the Galaxy. Individual Jedi begin to leave the Jedi Order, and the Jedi Watchmen of many systems, disenchanted with the endless, pointless struggles, step down and exile themselves in unknown quadrants of the galaxy, echoing the disillusionment of Jedi Master JOLEE BINDO. ...

... I fortell a deep (and pointless) look at the Greek pantheon in this thread's future... <_< . I again take my leave.

Hey, Plano Skywalker asked metadigital, not the dropout! :p

 

Planetoid? Small planet? Okay, I guess that's because it's a clump of debris -- I'll let that slip.

 

Well, now we have been appraised of the plot, the game makes a lot more sense. It's a pity the edited excerpt we learn from the narrative arc of K2 is so abstract that none of this is even guessable.

 

No need to delve into classical, norse, eastern or modern interpretations of mythology for this (and none spring readily to mind). Why a summary of this wasn't forthcoming in the game is the real mystery. After the confrontation

with the remnants of the Jedi Council

there is approximately twenty minutes of FMV and follow-the-bouncing-ball dialogue. At the end of the game there is another opportunity. Maybe the Force could have even given the PC a vision of the past (I know that's allowed). One thing that isn't unclear is the philosophy of the publishers. :thumbsup:"

 

And I still say that all references to the wound/echo in the Force are inconclusive at best (and downright contradictory at worst). :(

 

:)

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
[1]I think you're confusing the fallibility of us with the system of science.    Just because I botch making a violin does not mean that violin making is inherently flawed.  Sometimes our understanding of things takes time and effort.  Science builds upon the earlier works of others.  It is generally the process of accretion and not mass 'blinding flashes of insight'.  Newtonian physics didn't stop being useful for everyday things after Einstein came along.  While relativity handled the common cases and more 'edge' cases it is overkill for determining the arc of a thrown baseball.

 

No, science will never answer everything (for example, moral issues), but it will eventually tell us how the physical universe works.  The power of science is that because it is testable, because it is open to new information science is self-correcting and it allows us to overcome our own fallibility.

 

[2]The thing is, I can point you towards the computer you are using to post to this board.  :-D  If you want to prove that human perception is so fallible that we can't trust our communication with others or that we can't share our perceptions accurately, then you'll need to explain away every manufactured item around us for starters.

 

I can repeat my former post, and you can repeat yours, indefinitely .. The problem is; you view the world in the 'classical' logical sense, while I view it in the 'romantic' one .. thus you will apply your rules to my world view, which can't be done, and I will apply mine to yours, which is equally futile .. But because I'm as stubborn as you I won't back away from an argument, so even though this is going to sound like a broken record .. here goes..

 

1. I'm not confusing anything, I perfectly understand your way of thinking, I just don't believe in it .. and, in my opinion, if a part of a system is wrong, it's a general indication that fallacy is about! and you believe in the perfection (not as a state of perfection, but as a road to) of the system, which I don't either.. Since to me human perception is faulty and science *is* (in my view) based on human perception .. so no matter what it *will* (in my view) contain mistakes ..

 

2. and you can point all you want it still doesn't prove anything to me .. since you are pointing at your own interpretation of you percieve to be a computer .. which is something completly different to me .. for all I know we might not even see or experiance the same thing! indeed it might not even be there and this is just a very (very) strange dream of mine where I'm arguing with different sides of my own personality .. (and in a sense I am .. but that's another story for another time)

and I don't need to prove anything, because I can't .. you (or anyone else) will *never* be able to see what I see .. hence it's futile! and how would you prove the computer exist? .. ahh see now I'm applying my rules on yours, since in your mind the computer exists simply because it's there .. and I won't trust my perceptions .. this really is quite meaningless! but fun nonetheless .. :thumbsup:

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can repeat my former post, and you can repeat yours, indefinitely .. The problem is; you view the world in the 'classical' logical sense, while I view it in the 'romantic' one ...

... For all I know we might not even see or experiance the same thing! indeed it might not even be there and this is just a very (very) strange dream of mine where I'm arguing with different sides of my own personality .. (and in a sense I am .. but that's another story for another time)

and I don't need to prove anything, because I can't .. you (or anyone else) will *never* be able to see what I see ..

Welcome back!

What is your "romantic" view? I am intrigued...

There is a guy (in England, I believe) who is hooking himself up to the internet to allow others to control his body / see through his eyes. Also, there are a couple of different groups of scientists who are working on totally incompatible and different methods to augment the sight of blind people with cybernetics.

 

Of course this is all happenning in your dream, so you needed concern yourself.

 

Voices? Did anyone hear the other voices? (Quiet, I'm busy talking to my imaginary friends on the little boxey thing ... No, don't hurt them ... No I din't need to hurt them either ...) :(

 

:thumbsup:

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
JEDI MASTER KREIA, Revan's old mentor, is still haunted by guilt, wondering whether it was her teaching that resulted in Revan's fall to the dark side, and begins to search for him. Sensing his last location, she travels to Malachor V, but is unable to shield her emotions, and is completely consumed by the dark side of the Force. She is lost to the Jedi, spending the next several years on Malachor V, learning its secrets, and eventually becoming The master of the Sith academy there. Guided by Kreia's influence, Sith assassins once again begin to emerge silently from Malachor V and strike at isolated Jedi across the Republic, capturing some Jedi to turn to the dark side, and slaying those that resist. Taken to the dark side world of Malachor V to be fed to the planet's dark energies, these Jedi husks create even more assassins and DARK JEDI, feeding the planet's hunger.

 

 

 

 

Kreia is haunted by guilt? This is the sanitized, "canonical story" that will eventually get novelized by LA. This is NOT the Kreia that Joe Sixpack sees when he plays the game after bringing it home from Best Buy.

 

Master Vrook said that ALL of her pupils turned to the dark side.

 

Have you ever converted Atton over to a Jedi? Atton states that it was Revan who arranged to have Jedi captured and taken to the unknown regions to be brainwashed and turned into tralls of the dark side. Yes, that is right...Kreia is not stupid, if Malachor V could turn Revan to the dark side so completely then it could turn anyone to the dark side....she would have had to have been an idiot to go there.....UNLESS she was already leaning dark side....why else would all of her pupils turn to the dark side?

 

Kreia being mad is probably the best easy-out explaination for it. She's not evil, she's mad. But, again, a little more depth into her past and into the past of all of her pupils would have helped tie it together.

 

KOTOR II is NOT the Exile's story, it is Kreia's story.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a good point plano skywaler.

 

Self-discovery plots end up needing the amnesiasc beginning; unless the first person perspective is just the closest witness to the real story. Using the first person in this way frees the PC to be anything -- or more importantly nothing -- at the start, to be solely determined by their actions throughout the game.

 

This requires a little more thought and planning (different endings, like K1) but is ultimately more satisfying and feels far less artifical. Certainly the end product of K2 was a million miles away from a conhesive and immersive experience; I for one felt little empathy for any of the characters (except that one guy on Nar Shadarr who gets mugged) because it wasn't my story -- I felt as though I was reading someone else's.

 

And back on topic, there is plenty of scope to have a character -- let's call her Kreia -- be totally convinced that The Force has a Will. We could be immersed in one of those "too co-incidental to be random" type stories to implicate her as mad, then have some unexplainable (and therefore enigmatic) event happen at the end that leaves a doubt in your mind as you watch the credits roll...

 

Because in the real world we cannot even decide whether God exists or we have free will.

 

I remember a great skeptic, Isaac Asimov, related a story when he was talking with his wife as they potted around an old market. Conversation turned briefly to music, and he was reminded of an old religious song that he had not heard for decades (since he was a small boy) and he couldn't remember the name of ... seconds later they opened the door on an old bric-a-brac shop and the very song was playing over the loud speaker ...

:(:p:p:p:thumbsup::)

 

Synchronicity, anyone ...? :)

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can repeat my former post, and you can repeat yours, indefinitely .. The problem is; you view the world in the 'classical' logical sense, while I view it in the 'romantic' one ...

... For all I know we might not even see or experiance the same thing! indeed it might not even be there and this is just a very (very) strange dream of mine where I'm arguing with different sides of my own personality .. (and in a sense I am .. but that's another story for another time)

and I don't need to prove anything, because I can't .. you (or anyone else) will *never* be able to see what I see ..

Welcome back!

What is your "romantic" view? I am intrigued ...

I read an interesting review in the Sunday Times, yesterday, about the reprinting of Harry G. Frankfurt's "On Bull-nautghywordforcrap". Frankfurt is a Philosophy Professor emeritus from Yale, where he wrote the book as a treatise on the existence of a small trend that has since become endemic in our culture. Celebrity creation, promotion, publicity, advertising imagery (think cigarettes), etc.

 

The definition he uses is that, unlike outright lying or telling the truth -- which both share a respect for the truth in trying to conceal it or reveal it -- the BSer is not connected with, or concerned with, the truth. The BSer may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or what she thinks the facts to be. What she does attempt to deceive us about is her enterprise. Her only defining characteristic is that she is misrepresenting what she is up to.

 

(He was thinking about adding an appendix on spin to the reprint, but couldn't agree on a suitable definition.)

 

What is relevant to our discussion is Frankfurt's attack on the post-modern philosophers.

 

Postmodernists believe objective truth about the world was unattainable; all that remained was the pursuit of the truth about oneself, the project of sincerity. But it is much, much harder to establish the truth about onesself than about the world. To quote Frankfurt:

"As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them ... Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial -- notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is [bS]."

Which is kind of what we have been dancing around. Your search for enlightenment is doomed if you choose to ignore your senses; because the human mind is nothing if not a huge filter of experience, re-filtering and re-focusing the empirical into some sort of meaningful subjective lore.

 

In effect we can see the workings of the mind by the way it sees the world. (Sort of like how what someone writes tells us more about them then the subject on which they are writing.)

 

So here I am saving you from a bleak existence doomed to never know your own mind or the true nature of being. No need to thank me. My feelings of smug altruism are all that I need. :devil:" :blink:

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand me .. My point the entire time has been, that what you see is just your minds interpretation .. hence it's not trustworthy in a scientific sense! but really useful when searching for your own thruth and own meaning .. since you can analyse yourself by analysing your perception of reality!

 

and my romantic view, I discovered, is very close to Robert M. Pirsig's concept of "Quality"! which he elaborates on in his books "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and "Lila" ..

 

which would take an extremely long explanation .. but in an essence, which is really not doing justice to the idea, it's saying that the world is composed of nothing but moral values!

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get the discussion a bit down to earth again (or something!) you might want to take a look at the Episode III novelization. Which was, though not actually written by !George Lucas!, read and edited and revised by him several times.

 

It gives no IT IS ACTUALLY LIKE THIS OR THAT answer either since characters only speculate about it themselves, but it's interesting and relevant nonetheless. AND it didn't make George Lucas edit it out or anything, so who knows . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you misunderstand me .. My point the entire time has been, that what you see is just your minds interpretation .. hence it's not trustworthy in a scientific sense! but really useful when searching for your own thruth and own meaning .. since you can analyse yourself by analysing your perception of reality!

 

and my romantic view, I discovered, is very close to Robert M. Pirsig's concept of "Quality"! which he elaborates on in his books "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and "Lila" ..

 

which would take an extremely long explanation .. but in an essence, which is really not doing justice to the idea, it's saying that the world is composed of nothing but moral values!

Okay, I am having trouble with one concept. You seek to understand yourself better by analysing your interpretations of the real world ... (i.e. Empiricism) which is scientific method, yet you eschew science as unreliable for being a type of Inductive Logic, discussed by David Hume: Hume highlighted the fact that our everyday reasoning depends on patterns of repeated experience rather than deductively valid arguments. For example we believe that bread will nourish us because it has in the past, but it is at least conceivable that bread in the future will poison us. Someone who insisted on sound deductive justifications for everything would starve to death, said Hume.

 

So you are a sort of progressive Inductive Reasoner, then, and not a strict conservative?

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate that I don't have so much time now .. which means I make mistakes in my arguments! grr.. and I have been a little extreme in my opinions to try and explain them, which have caused some inconsistensies!

 

So I will try to explain myself better this time .. I hope it works! ^_^

 

I believe in a modified Emperical view .. (quoting Robert Pirsig here) since it claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from senses or by thinking what the senses provide. But most empiricsts deny the validity of any knowledge gained through imaginiation, authority, tradition or purely theoretical reasoning!

and things like morality, religion and metaphysics are unverifiable. Because of the assumption that all these things are not objects and anything which can't be classified as an object or a subject isn't real .. but I believe these things are verifiable.. I still believe experiance is the starting point of all reality! But if we view quality or excellence as the ultimate reality then subjective thruths are possible, which means we must strive for, what we believe, is the highest excellence ..

 

my main grief with regular sience is that it sets object as the ultimate truth .. which in my mind cancels out alot of human ideas ..

 

(I hope this was adequate and not as inconsistent with everything else I've written, I've been working too long hours all week, so my time is short and my brain is fried .. which causes mistakes, by hey we are all human here .. at least I hope! but who knows ..)

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can repeat my former post, and you can repeat yours, indefinitely .. The problem is; you view the world in the 'classical' logical sense, while I view it in the 'romantic' one .. thus you will apply your rules to my world view, which can't be done, and I will apply mine to yours, which is equally futile .. But because I'm as stubborn as you I won't back away from an argument, so even though this is going to sound like a broken record .. here goes..

 

1. I'm not confusing anything, I perfectly understand your way of thinking, I just don't believe in it .. and, in my opinion, if a part of a system is wrong, it's a general indication that fallacy is about! and you believe in the perfection (not as a state of perfection, but as a road to) of the system, which I don't either.. Since to me human perception is faulty and science *is* (in my view) based on human perception .. so no matter what it *will* (in my view) contain mistakes ..

 

2. and you can point all you want it still doesn't prove anything to me .. since you are pointing at your own interpretation of you percieve to be a computer .. which is something completly different to me .. for all I know we might not even see or experiance the same thing! indeed it might not even be there and this is just a very (very) strange dream of mine where I'm arguing with different sides of my own personality .. (and in a sense I am .. but that's another story for another time)

and I don't need to prove anything, because I can't .. you (or anyone else) will *never* be able to see what I see .. hence it's futile! and how would you prove the computer exist? .. ahh see now I'm applying my rules on yours, since in your mind the computer exists simply because it's there .. and I won't trust my perceptions .. this really is quite meaningless! but fun nonetheless ..  :thumbsup:

 

1. Actually, according to your world view -- by your own definitions -- you don't "perfectly understand" my way of thinking. You'd have to use *my* world view to do that. ;-) In fact, your own understanding of your own theory would be flawed.

 

I think that's what I reject in the end about that particular world view. It is one of futility and despair. I mean, why bother with trying to learn anything or communicate anything. It's going to always be a failure. I'd rather have a more positive outlook. Yes, we'll make mistakes, but we can learn from them and understand things perfectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I took a more extreme stance to provoke a discussion .. but that's all part of the fun ..

 

But it's not futile to communicate, since I want to improve myself and learn, and the only way to do that is interact with your surroundings .. since I the best way to learn about myself is reflection upon my own reflection .. as I stated above, that's touching slighty on Satre's "We apply meaning to the world" .. So no it's not a world view of futility and despair! Am giving you a small sense of purpose by allowing you to express yourself and vice versa ..

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I must admit I took a more extreme stance to provoke a discussion .. but that's all part of the fun ..

 

But it's not futile to communicate, since I want to improve myself and learn, and the only way to do that is interact with your surroundings .. since I the best way to learn about myself is reflection upon my own reflection .. as I stated above, that's touching slighty on Satre's "We apply meaning to the world" .. So no it's not a world view of futility and despair! Am giving you a small sense of purpose by allowing you to express yourself and vice versa ..

So you don't really disbelieve science, more like a healthy skepticism of it?

 

Nothing wrong with that, especially with a lot of the garbage statistical mis-samples used for poor predictions which are, in turn, misquoted in the media to fill space on a slow-news day.

 

I had a dream when I was very young (about 5yo) that I was dreaming my life. I keep waiting to wake up.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes more like a healthy skepticism .. like I said two posts ago "my main grief with regular sience is that it sets object as the ultimate truth .. which in my mind cancels out alot of human ideas .."

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yes more like a healthy skepticism .. like I said two posts ago "my main grief with regular sience is that it sets object as the ultimate truth .. which in my mind cancels out alot of human ideas .."

Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand that. You mean that whatever the observable qualities of the object is authoritative? Because I can't see how that impedes ideas, and I can't see a (deductively) logical system working any other way ...

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

In science, things without substance, like morals, religion, art are unverifiable and in some cases labeled as not existing .. how can you meaure culture or faith? how can you describe it when using science? you can't .. you have to resort to some kind of psychology ..

 

that's inadequate to me, it's not good enough .. so I needed to expand my view of reality and perception .. something which only focus on the subject/object leaves out important things!

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In science, things without substance, like morals, religion, art are unverifiable and in some cases labeled as not existing .. how can you meaure culture or faith? how can you describe it when using science? you can't .. you have to resort to some kind of psychology ..

 

that's inadequate to me, it's not good enough .. so I needed to expand my view of reality and perception .. something which only focus on the subject/object leaves out important things!

Ah, now I understand.

 

That is because science is all about measuring. If you can't measure an hypothesis, then it is not hard science. It is psedoscience, like the soft sciences you mention.

 

This only means that if we can discover some repeatable, meaningful method to measure the pseudosciences, then (apart from the immediate benefit to humankind) you can be a believer!

 

I would suggest (parts of) psychology and morality are well on the way to this. We already have meanful ways to describe both the somatic aspects of psychology and even a moral compass to compare moral judgements with (measured against the Lawful-Chaotic / Good-Evil dual axis Alignment matrix). They just need some more work.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish you the best of luck with that then! ^_^ but I still don't believe that you will ever be able to truely measure such things, since your "religion" is rooted in substance .. but I would love to be proved wrong!

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish you the best of luck with that then! ^_^ but I still don't believe that you will ever be able to truely measure such things, since your "religion" is rooted in substance .. but I would love to be proved wrong!

As long as we can find a substantive, measureable part of, say, morality then we can begin to chart it.

 

I'm not saying its easy, but then again Newton didn't invent calculus by having a doodle on a pad. (Or gravity by being hit on the head with an apple, either.) Then again, the guy who discovered the molecular model for benzine did dream it (its circular, so two of the carbon atoms get to join with the one external molecules, which only works in a circular form. Dream. Also, I've heard that it is becoming more and more common for sheep to be seen crossing those cattle grids on their sides ... ever since one was caught doing it! Either they are gossiping, or their is some sort of synchronicity linkie thingie going on there ...)

 

:D

 

Also, to borrow a concept from the late Douglas Adams, it all depends on the question your asking, as to the answer you'll find. Morality can be scored in various ways, just as the behaviour of light can be predicted using the particle-wave dichotomy, depending on the application. You can use hedonistic economics as a measure, for instance, or place more value on the individual.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...