I don’t agree with your thinking because it has logical holes.
The cloudless sky is pink.
You know, it helps when you reply to content and support your position.
Ecmandu.
The form needs no content to validate it’self. That is the driving force behind all that evolves the simulation.
The simulation/the mirroring is the content.
So how can a mirroring of a form follow formally, when the mirroring is a content of the form.
Or can it?
Would it be contentious if it did follow?
Simulations can be possessed, also, AI suffers.
That’s why mirrors are the preferred method. Plus mirrors allow for surprises, all the nuances that other methods don’t afford.
They have to be attached to your desire matrix to be meaningful though - always changing shape to suit desire. If your desire is to earn the love of your dreams sexually when you are homeless and the ugliest person ever, it may take you a few trillion years to “win this game”. Or you can make them love you right then and there, have sex with them immediately.
That’s the beauty of mirrors, your not doing it to the actual person, even though for all intents and purposes, it is the actual person.
There’s no contentiousness that arises when hyperdimensional mirrors are attached to the desire matrix. Nobody loses.
Even sadists and masochists can derive their feelings, even though they know for a fact that the person on the other side doesn’t think or have any senses or emotions. Reflected feelings are real. You really feel them. That persons reaction is exactly the same as if it were actually them. Etc…
What if the beauty of the mirrors after a few trillion years learns more about
what that beauty entails. What if, learning about it tends to abstract more and more ideas, on how to simulate beauty, so the beast will be less insufferable.
And then, as he gains steam, to force through which such insight is gained, he is not satisfied until he carries this burden upon beauty along , he nears what he thinks are the proximity to the limits. He may settle at some point, with that, satisfied that he may not want to live through infinite reincarnations to find his ideal.
Is he getting bored by so much time having passed, as by this time AI has already been able to mimic the mirror It’s self, so that there is almost no way a difference can be noted between what is simulated and what is mirrored?
At this point, to prove this point to himself, that the time has come to decide for himself not to further reincarnate, and presume sufficiently that no further reincarnations are necessary.
Can he presume finally, that he can reversely interject himself into paradise, and live happily ever after with eve?
Will the simulation need to remind Narcissus once and.for all that he doesen’t have to keep checking the mirror, whether he is still the same person, or whether he is still alive, or is he dead to a metaphor.
In other words did Narcissus learn something to avoid his repetitive punishment, and give him boost to his feeling that he was right in his decision to avoid another reincarnation?
Or, as long as he keeps checking, he may be unsure who he sees when he glances in the mirror, and until then, until he can stop, he must start presuming on faith, that it doesn’t matter what he looks like, ugly and homeless, because he learns that there is some beauty out there . somewhere, over the rainbow, who is meant for him.
He does not need at some point to have some wizard convince him. Or, does he?
Meno!
You’re into so many abusive narratives!
Zero sum worlds don’t work! Ever!
You’re still humoring the narratives of a zero sum world (even as archetypes)
You still haven’t figured out that it’s pointless and meaningless.
Of course I understand where You are coming from, and I raise the fallacies, critically, of course Wittgenstein was right to imply that the fallacies regarding the logical versus the phenomenological realms have limited applicability.
Saying that I am implying a formal solution that should be implemented, through the right side of the so called 'naturalistic fallacy., which proposes that what state of affairs we should construct objectively weighs over what we merely can.
Which leads to Michael Polanyi , who has initiated me into these matters.
The just of it is, that we have been substantially been transformed, some willingly , some not, into a world that you subscribe to: The world of forms. Your transposition , mirroring a connection ( logical) is obvious, and it simply is not hurtful for a masochist to embrace the inordinate pain that such transformations can deliver.
The reason for this can also be attended to: but let me just point out that Polany through the matrix he uses, never access to a zero sum…
That leads me to question the appearance of a masochist, being intentionally hurtful.Although masochism usually invested to it’s logical affect : sadism.
Unintentional description of hurt may form automatic systems where transformations forming logical automatic responses may appear as if that was the case.
Worry not, it’s not about conscious awareness here, and especially in the realm of archetypes.
Incidentally, please do not worry about the state of my own private querries, they are but like the connective of the pleasure bodies that infer certain, as of yet , merely partial reconstruction.
But here is a guy, who is an expert in Delouse and Gattari, his involvement here would be welcome if per chance he could take some time.
Incidentally do You know him - ?
Fill your mind with others and you won’t think for yourself - you’ve left no room in your mind.
[quote=“JohnJBannan”]
Fill your mind with others and you won’t think for yourself - you’ve left no room in your mind.[/
Removed for some reason
What was removed?
Some ad hoc halfway descent off the wall response
my answer to an answer to an answer to a question that need not, perhaps could not yet be answered because the question to it has not been yet directly, or even indirectly been asked.
Simply, where do presuming faith at the lowest level imply some intelligence designed to manifest the most obvious cliches so far;
Like, "dog is man’s best friend ", or reversely god could be his worst enemy?
If an atheist, that is.
No that’s not even worth an answer
Perhaps that which befits a likely answer: did I deconstruct , disassembly myself because of a conscious , or unconscious need to placate fear, of reversely, did god in his humor, did not think it the right time to let me know that my tonight’s2 pretensions have not yet been thoroughly by fire to avoid a free fall into the pits.
Are any ptetensions allowable even near the gates of hell, or are some destinies to face the ultimate challenge of letting go into the unlimited fires of the 7th living he’ll?
will my best friend the dog abandon me like in the temptation of Jacob?
Does the refiners’ fire mean a literal fall from grace rewardedmerelyby a figurative redemption?
Like a hungry dog I am satisfied only by a map no need to delve into private musings such as the varied intentions of god. Most of the above have been posed innumerable and answered satisfactorily anyways.
Ask me one question.
Sure. I can imagine a perfect cosmos where every being is in their OWN heaven forever. Think of it like “dream logic”. Have you ever had a dream where everything makes perfect sense, and then you wake up and think, “what the fuck was that?!”
We can reflect reality from platonic forms attached to what we always desire.
How can you claim that a good god exists considering that the above is in existences toolbox?
I asked Meno to ask me one question.
Btw, platonic forms are nonsense. They are only ideas without need to be real. Moreover, they are made of parts and could not be uncaused.
I did not find it from a genie. If that were through I could ask 3 questions.
Ok. has the type of question induced by the line “to be or not to be” ever affected existence inversely by other then reductive effects?
That is produced by arbitrary paradigmn?
Without platonic forms, we could not have categories…
Everything is infinitely different from everything else… we’d have to give every being a different name every instant… impossible.
The reason you hate platonic forms is that it’s the only other solution to the infinite regress problem other than “god”
You loathe it.
But I can prove it!
Forms are all infinitely different from each other. So we need templates to understand categories. Every triangle is so infinitely different than every other triangle that it’s impossible to have the category “triangleness” unless there was an eternal and unchanging, (never born, never dies) template of triangleness!
Triangleness is greater than ANY god you can or will ever conceive - and that’s why you hate eternal forms!
For the same reason, can not a circle, or a sphere have the same sort of formal reasoning behind them? Is not a circle a total congruence of triangles?
And can not spheres represent monads? And monads the re presentation of the ideal description of calculable effects?
And so on until the calculation comes to the infinitesimal.
Can the infinitesimal be the nothingness out of which the forms arise?
Is faith predicated on some ‘thing’ to bridge the unfathomable missing link without which everything else would be categorically denied?
I would hazard a yes on that.
Only God could produce such an effect. God said life is good.
Without minds, we could not have categories. Platonic forms having parts must be caused by those parts. They are not a substitute for the uncaused God.
In truth, platonic forms don’t bother me because they are caused or contingent. Something has to be uncaused. God is that logically correct uncaused thing.
“Something has to be uncaused. God is that logically correct uncaused thing.”
Some thing has to be uncaused may be mirrored with the proposition all things need to be caused.
If God is defined as causing Himself, then that modifies one argument out the 14, but does not defeat it.
Just proves that God has not to be created. He is self created.