Respect

Keep talking.

Moderators: Morphic, Blue Angel, The Fallen Ones

User avatar
squishy
Nephilim
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:26 pm

Post by squishy » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:00 pm

Anath wrote: Mmm hmm. And my post above is bringing up the point of: what if you get disinformation from this fictional "speaker" in the pub? So you might be lied to. And never knowing what effect that could have on the "speaker" elsewhere in his or her life, just because You trusted Him/Her. The "speaker' might get hurt. Or someone else might.
Yes, and even if the speaker in question isn't lying at all, s/he'll be telling her/his truth, from his/her perspective - and not expressing any impossible "view from nowhere" kind of ueber-Truth. Which makes the whole issue of "knowing" that we're dealing with even more complex - and the responsibility it'll always involve inestimably greater.

Still, the Internet is one of those media which as if by definition allow for, facilitate and encourage irresponsibility. The consequences are seen as absent, "virtual", never obliging or so distant that they couldn't be really underestimated. They're "there", not "here"; potential, not actual; never altogether "real". And who's supposed to be responsible for them? Who is responsible for these very words - the wooly, scarf-wearing squid going by the name of Squishy, the cat-stroking, mug-wielding human being in front of the screen, or something - somebody - still different?

I don't think the differences between pub meetings and net meetings can be easily relativized away; the scope and intensity of manipulation or distortion of any conveyed "truth" might be seen as the same, of course, but if the linguistic and behavioral conventions differ - and differ they do - I'd say it would be much safer if we wouldn't equalize the series of tubes encounters and "real life" ones here.
remember what the doorknob said
User avatar
ThomasB
Nephilim
Posts: 2654
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:07 pm

Post by ThomasB » Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:12 pm

Anath wrote:
ThomasB wrote:…Still up for the aforementioned pint moïtes ? ... I could have strangled the twat who stated that a writer friend of mine was dead, which proved to be false…
Before I go on....was this friend of yours ever on the old board?

[
…Nope ! It was in a totally non-Neph environment !
Oh, and yes, I agree with squishy's comment. What is fascinating (and slightly dangerous) with the 'net is that you can never be sure of what's going on or who you are adressing to (not to mention internet's almost tribal obsession with renaming oneself). "Tell me, what is reality ?" indeed (reality being usually nor as defined as you'd want to believe, but that's another matter all together !)
Fundraiser. You know, it's like Hellraiser, but without the Cenobites, the blood and all that.
IN NOMINE NEMO !
User avatar
Ngie
Leviathan
Posts: 1371
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:01 pm

Post by Ngie » Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:06 am

The internet is such a curious place (where)
we lay enstranged in our curious ways (and where)
memorys lay beside us
Anath
Moonchild
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:24 am

Post by Anath » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:29 am

ThomasB wrote:Oh, and yes, I agree with squishy's comment. What is fascinating (and slightly dangerous) with the 'net is that you can never be sure of what's going on or who you are adressing to (not to mention internet's almost tribal obsession with renaming oneself). "Tell me, what is reality ?" indeed (reality being usually nor as defined as you'd want to believe, but that's another matter all together !)
Well we'll all agree to disagree, I guess....because what Squishy was saying doesn't hold weight from one particular viewpoint: You can know someone for years and all of a sudden misread their verbal,/physical cues when they are trying to obfuscate as I was pointing out. Poker faces are really good weapons in a business man's arsenal, how well do I know this. In all situations you have to take the source as it is at that moment.

As for the simple act of renaming oneself, I'm not trying to be defensive, but even when I posted some time ago that I was changing my user name, I still felt it was absolutely my responsibility to let a few people know through pm and I posted a picture of myself that could be verified. I couldn't just walk on and say "Hi, I changed my name, but I'm still Mrs. Paul!".
User avatar
squishy
Nephilim
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:26 pm

Post by squishy » Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:02 am

Anath wrote: Well we'll all agree to disagree, I guess....because what Squishy was saying doesn't hold weight from one particular viewpoint: You can know someone for years and all of a sudden misread their verbal,/physical cues when they are trying to obfuscate as I was pointing out. Poker faces are really good weapons in a business man's arsenal, how well do I know this. In all situations you have to take the source as it is at that moment.
Oh, but you're absolutely right. However, I fail to see why what you're saying here should be mutually exclusive with my angry take on the Net. I was discussing one hazard, you're dealing with another; I guess they even could combine . . .
remember what the doorknob said
User avatar
ThomasB
Nephilim
Posts: 2654
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:07 pm

Post by ThomasB » Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:59 pm

Anath wrote:
ThomasB wrote:Oh, and yes, I agree with squishy's comment. What is fascinating (and slightly dangerous) with the 'net is that you can never be sure of what's going on or who you are adressing to (not to mention internet's almost tribal obsession with renaming oneself). "Tell me, what is reality ?" indeed (reality being usually nor as defined as you'd want to believe, but that's another matter all together !)
Well we'll all agree to disagree, I guess....because what Squishy was saying doesn't hold weight from one particular viewpoint: You can know someone for years and all of a sudden misread their verbal,/physical cues when they are trying to obfuscate as I was pointing out. Poker faces are really good weapons in a business man's arsenal, how well do I know this. In all situations you have to take the source as it is at that moment.

As for the simple act of renaming oneself, I'm not trying to be defensive, but even when I posted some time ago that I was changing my user name, I still felt it was absolutely my responsibility to let a few people know through pm and I posted a picture of myself that could be verified. I couldn't just walk on and say "Hi, I changed my name, but I'm still Mrs. Paul!".
Hem, I never said it was bad to use a name you choose instead of the one that was given to you. "tribal" meant that in lots of culture, names could evolve along with the individual's evolution. The net tribes have adopted this old tradition.
Heck, since I write under a pseudonym, I would be pretty much of a hypcrite if I dare comment on this !
Sorry if it was not clear…
Oh, ad yes, in this light, one might say we lie or disguise the truth constantly, even face to face, the way human intractions are woven. Whether it's for diplomacy or duplicity depends on the situation !
Fundraiser. You know, it's like Hellraiser, but without the Cenobites, the blood and all that.
IN NOMINE NEMO !
User avatar
Bau
Nephilim
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Bau » Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:55 am

I do agree with a lot of the points made here.

The way I see it it doesn't matter what medium you comunicate through, be it an annonomous chat or face to face with someone. How a persons standards of behaviour are, their character, are what they are. You can just as easily be lied to under any circumstance. In fact most people whether they realise it or not only show a certain side of themselves depending on the situation. And who hasn't been decived in a relationship by someone you thought you knew and trusted?Or heard stories about people leading 'double lives'?

Perhaps though the web does give some people what they feel is an excuse to use seeming anonimity to act out in ways they wouldn't otherwise, or because they aren't face to face with someone and don't risk direct confrontation.

anyway on a lighter note I think I've found the truest form of respect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHy8hRs_4A
User avatar
Bau
Nephilim
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Bau » Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:02 am

ThomasB wrote: Hem, I never said it was bad to use a name you choose instead of the one that was given to you. "tribal" meant that in lots of culture, names could evolve along with the individual's evolution. The net tribes have adopted this old tradition.
you know thats very true, and perhaps despite the tech there is a certain tribal aspect when it comes to web based interaction when you consider how symbolic the use is of things like screen names , avatars and other imagery, and even the types of chat groups and things that form. As far as tribal names , would 'nick' names fall under that also in a way?

though realy this is skirtting off topic again...
User avatar
ThomasB
Nephilim
Posts: 2654
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:07 pm

Post by ThomasB » Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:59 pm

Bau wrote:
ThomasB wrote: Hem, I never said it was bad to use a name you choose instead of the one that was given to you. "tribal" meant that in lots of culture, names could evolve along with the individual's evolution. The net tribes have adopted this old tradition.
you know thats very true, and perhaps despite the tech there is a certain tribal aspect when it comes to web based interaction when you consider how symbolic the use is of things like screen names , avatars and other imagery, and even the types of chat groups and things that form. As far as tribal names , would 'nick' names fall under that also in a way?

though realy this is skirtting off topic again...
It is, but nonetheless… :mrgreen:
Lots of tribal behaviours are ingrained in the human being and will always influence their interations. Actually Facebook and other bollocks are a bit this : forming virtual tribes. In fact, things like tribal tattoos, branding, piercings and such are more a drawback to more primal things. It's more modern because it's a kind of reappropriation of things denied by "normal" society. (especially now that despite a few select tribes which have a right to their difference, the exigence of conformity has never been bigger. Pretty soon, they'll reinstall the "lifestyle crime" invented by this dear adolf, and I'm sure most people would embrace it.) There's nothing wrong with that, except for those with delusions of grandeur.
Give a nude monkey a bunch of cellphones and convince him he can't live without them (as long as he forks the dough), enslave him if you want, but he'll still be a monkey.
The only difference is that now, everything is reappropriated by business, simply to make money. Now you find clothes that would have been "deviant" in 79 in every tartery (not to mention supermarket Rolling Stones or AC/DC T-shirts…)

And I'll stop there, I veered even more wildly off-topic ! *whistle*
Fundraiser. You know, it's like Hellraiser, but without the Cenobites, the blood and all that.
IN NOMINE NEMO !
User avatar
Bau
Nephilim
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Bau » Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:01 am

ThomasB wrote:
Bau wrote:
ThomasB wrote: Hem, I never said it was bad to use a name you choose instead of the one that was given to you. "tribal" meant that in lots of culture, names could evolve along with the individual's evolution. The net tribes have adopted this old tradition.
you know thats very true, and perhaps despite the tech there is a certain tribal aspect when it comes to web based interaction when you consider how symbolic the use is of things like screen names , avatars and other imagery, and even the types of chat groups and things that form. As far as tribal names , would 'nick' names fall under that also in a way?

though realy this is skirtting off topic again...
It is, but nonetheless… :mrgreen:
Lots of tribal behaviours are ingrained in the human being and will always influence their interations. Actually Facebook and other bollocks are a bit this : forming virtual tribes. In fact, things like tribal tattoos, branding, piercings and such are more a drawback to more primal things. It's more modern because it's a kind of reappropriation of things denied by "normal" society. (especially now that despite a few select tribes which have a right to their difference, the exigence of conformity has never been bigger. Pretty soon, they'll reinstall the "lifestyle crime" invented by this dear adolf, and I'm sure most people would embrace it.) There's nothing wrong with that, except for those with delusions of grandeur.
Give a nude monkey a bunch of cellphones and convince him he can't live without them (as long as he forks the dough), enslave him if you want, but he'll still be a monkey.
The only difference is that now, everything is reappropriated by business, simply to make money. Now you find clothes that would have been "deviant" in 79 in every tartery (not to mention supermarket Rolling Stones or AC/DC T-shirts…)

And I'll stop there, I veered even more wildly off-topic ! *whistle*
I agree with much of what you said, especialy the monkey part, *notworthy* and I certainly respect your opinion *whistle*
User avatar
squishy
Nephilim
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:26 pm

Post by squishy » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:36 am

Bau wrote:I agree with much of what you said, especialy the monkey part, *notworthy* and I certainly respect your opinion *whistle*
A feeble effort to undigress the thread? :wink: :wink: :wink:
remember what the doorknob said
User avatar
Bau
Nephilim
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Bau » Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:05 pm

squishy wrote:
Bau wrote:I agree with much of what you said, especialy the monkey part, *notworthy* and I certainly respect your opinion *whistle*
A feeble effort to undigress the thread? :wink: :wink: :wink:
:?: no, a feeble attempt to give it the illusion that it is still on topic whilst intentionaly keeping it off topic *whistle* :wink:

why, do you think that is disrespectful of me?
User avatar
ThomasB
Nephilim
Posts: 2654
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:07 pm

Post by ThomasB » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:04 pm

Bau wrote:
squishy wrote:
Bau wrote:I agree with much of what you said, especialy the monkey part, *notworthy* and I certainly respect your opinion *whistle*
A feeble effort to undigress the thread? :wink: :wink: :wink:
:?: no, a feeble attempt to give it the illusion that it is still on topic whilst intentionaly keeping it off topic *whistle* :wink:
why, do you think that is disrespectful of me?
Most certainly not.
BTW as far as respecting opinions, I point out that I'd rather have discussions with people who either have a different take on things (especially on subjects I don't have any direct knowledge of, like say, corporate world) or even disagree with me, but can argue their point without getting hysterical about it. Remember how that old bastard Churchill defined a fanatic : Someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject…)
Usually, discussions where everyone agrees are 1/Boring after a short while, and 2/not really enlightening ! "Agreeing to disagree", as hey say, is the most interesting conversation there is. And/or people with more knowledge than you, who can correct or enlightened. What I like is when someone, in just one sentence, can make you see things in a way you haven't considered before, but just feels… Right.
(I point out that apart from a very few topics — You know, where you draw the line. Like, racism can't be any good, and THAT is non-negociable, though the modalities can be discussed — I don't believe in one absolute truth. In fact, my most favourite literary/fiction topic is distortion of truth, or the way things viewed as "truth" can be influenced. It's obvious in modern criminolgy, for instance. But it's another totally different matter altogether !!!)
But I take your respect with the uttermost… Erm, respect !!! *notworthy*
Have I un-un-undigressed the discussion enough ? :mrgreen:
Fundraiser. You know, it's like Hellraiser, but without the Cenobites, the blood and all that.
IN NOMINE NEMO !
User avatar
Bau
Nephilim
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Bau » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:11 am

truth is truth I don't know if it can be any more absolute than what it is. As far as the distortion of the truth, that would then be a lie. As for a hidden truth, I think that is different. If it is a matter of perception then the truth is many faceted.
User avatar
squishy
Nephilim
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:26 pm

Post by squishy » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:26 am

Marduk wrote:the truth is allways many-faced; can one be faced
past, which measures your stand. Thru generations,
thru enviroment, lust and fear distorts its most.
After that, self digest and giving; and then you
realise, there´s no truth, just being.
Wallace Stevens,
"On the Road Home"

It was when I said,
"There is no such thing as the truth,"
That the grapes seemed fatter.
The fox ran out of his hole.

You. . . You said,
"There are many truths,
But they are not parts of a truth."
Then the tree, at night, began to change,

Smoking through green and smoking blue.
We were two figures in a wood.
We said we stood alone.

It was when I said,
"Words are not forms of a single word.
In the sum of the parts, there are only the parts.
The world must be measured by eye";

It was when you said,
"The idols have seen lots of poverty,
Snakes and gold and lice,
But not the truth";

It was at that time, that the silence was largest
And longest, the night was roundest,
The fragments of the autumn warmest,
Closest and strongest.

Sorry, folks. I'd told you I am a geek ;)
remember what the doorknob said
User avatar
Bau
Nephilim
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Bau » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:08 pm

and what of the paradox of this paradox??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

one might argue that there has to be truth because if there was not truth than everything would be a lie and that in itself would be a truth.


It remindes me of the paradox infinity theories in mathamatics

though realy I think the truth is not in the words but in the numbers
User avatar
Lord Mureth
Nephilim
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm
Contact:

Post by Lord Mureth » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:15 pm

My motto is: It's all as long as a yard on a foxes' toothbrush.
User avatar
squishy
Nephilim
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:26 pm

Post by squishy » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:29 pm

Bau wrote:and what of the paradox of this paradox??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

one might argue that there has to be truth because if there was not truth than everything would be a lie and that in itself would be a truth.
Oh but of course. Which, again, cast an unpleasant shadow on "truth" as much as (the "truth") of its lack, reducing them both, and that which is implicated in their discourse, to a bucket of inane babble.

But doesn't the poem point, or try to point at least, in the direction beyond all that truth-no truth nonsense?
remember what the doorknob said
User avatar
Bau
Nephilim
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Bau » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:54 am

squishy wrote:
Bau wrote:and what of the paradox of this paradox??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

one might argue that there has to be truth because if there was not truth than everything would be a lie and that in itself would be a truth.
Oh but of course. Which, again, cast an unpleasant shadow on "truth" as much as (the "truth") of its lack, reducing them both, and that which is implicated in their discourse, to a bucket of inane babble.

But doesn't the poem point, or try to point at least, in the direction beyond all that truth-no truth nonsense?
no realy I don't see this at all

if there was no sence of truth there would be no search for it, if there was no search for it, there woud be no quest for knowledge, if there was no quest for knowledge there would be no computers, of which there would be no reading this for you. So are you reading this or is this a halucination of yours? If a halucination are you and your existance as well? What are you? Are you at all?
User avatar
squishy
Nephilim
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:26 pm

Post by squishy » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:18 am

Bau wrote:
squishy wrote:
Bau wrote:and what of the paradox of this paradox??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

one might argue that there has to be truth because if there was not truth than everything would be a lie and that in itself would be a truth.
Oh but of course. Which, again, cast an unpleasant shadow on "truth" as much as (the "truth") of its lack, reducing them both, and that which is implicated in their discourse, to a bucket of inane babble.

But doesn't the poem point, or try to point at least, in the direction beyond all that truth-no truth nonsense?
no realy I don't see this at all

if there was no sence of truth there would be no search for it, if there was no search for it, there woud be no quest for knowledge, if there was no quest for knowledge there would be no computers, of which there would be no reading this for you. So are you reading this or is this a halucination of yours? If a halucination are you and your existance as well? What are you? Are you at all?
Well, Bau, I think it's just got religious again ;) :) I'm not interested in ontology; I think it's just so much drivel which never relates to experience.

Your first train of ifs is unintelligible to me. "[S]ence of truth" doesn't mean that "truth" is a valid category; it only means men are obssesed with it for some reason. Btw, what kind of "truth" are you talking about? ("'What is truth?', said jesting Pilate?") As far as your four questions go, we cannot but get PROFOUNDLY religious here.

If you used the word "being" in its strict sense, that is (1) being in-oneself, ultimately independent and separable from your "environment", and (2) being timeless, that is ultimately (at least in some part) transcendent to all time, unchanging - I can honestly, quite resolutely and with no anxiety - or so I hope, at least - answer no; I am not (myself). But that is the philosophical definition of being - which means it's an inhuman, ridiculous and useless definition at best, mortifying at worst.

"'Is' and 'is not' are the twin prongs on which all mankind is impaled", quoting those wiser than me (and not interested in any philosophical babble, but far more useful things). I don't believe - or want to believe or need, I think, to believe - in the ultimate difference between the self and other, or in their ultimate identity. So, in a nut shell, I don't see any permanent "core" - of myself or anything else, for that matter, and can quite willingly and eagerly put my own being into clear quotation marks.

Told you it'd get really religious, didn't I? ;)
remember what the doorknob said
Post Reply