Juice @ Juice @midwest.social

Posts

3

Comments

621

Joined

1 yr. ago

Lemmy: someone should make billionaires disappear

China: disappears billionaires

Lemmy: this is an outrage!

I have been saying this for years

Google is having problems, they can't make profits anymore. Its different because reddit was never profitable, but googles been profitable for years.

Edit: I said they can't make profits, but what I should have said is they can't innovate and produce new value, they can only cut expenses and squeeze consumers with subscriptions and advertisements in order to remain profitable. Eventually there won't be anything left to cut and will then cease to be profitable. Google is on the decline.

I can't wait for google to crash and burn. Bring back GeoCities and Netscape navigator.

Paint and read, and do political organizing or volunteering. Maybe play some guitar if my hands aren't fucked up with arthritis. Kick it strong with the grandkids. Probably some gaming too, my dad games quite a bit

I think I understand better now, thanks for clarifying. The otherkin discord server comment was so out of pocket I thought you were fucking with me. It actually wasn't a very helpful example, but I think I understand your other comment better now. Sorry for getting aggravated, its hard not to be made to be cynical by the internet. Thanks for the clarification, good luck on your journey.

You don't understand my philosophy, don't pretend to. I extended you the courtesy of a well thought out detailed and i think pretty intelligent response, and you talk to me about otherkin and dragons, supposedly because you think im too stupid for your spirituality. Enjoy your discord server.

Morticia Adams lookin fly

Oh har har

Why the fuck do I even bother I stg

You lost me. But imagination is rad and cool, and knowledge can be accessed through reason, and reason takes all different forms.

It almost sounds like you're talking about mysticism but you were just trashing mysticism. In any case, mysticism such as hermetic, qabbalic or taoist mysticism is a fantastic way to learn practical dialectics. Lots of people act like they understand it but clearly don't. Or don't apply it evenly which is kind of the same thing.

But are you just talking about pure subjectivity, experiencing the self as the self experiencing itself? Kind of an unconventional and interesting way to search for truth and knowledge.

I figured. Thanks again!

More like drink it

I agree with you in a lot of ways. I think you've correctly identified the problems of subject/object dualism as well as epistemic crisis which is probably the most prominent philosophical problem of our era. It creates all sorts of social problems some of which you correctly identify.

I think when you criticize objectivity, what you are actually criticizing is positivism, or empiricism. When you eliminate objectivity you eliminate the object. I don't think you're a solipsist who believes that nothing exists "out there" and that the entire physical universe and everyone in it are reducible to your mere experience of it. You acknowledge a whole variety of ontologies or ways of determining truth, and that contradictions emerge between different ones. This is all extremely important to understand. The piece I think is missing, the flaw in your logic is that you never really escape subject/object dualism by doing away with objectivity; you merely concentrate totally on the subjective. I assume you're working a lot of this stuff out on your own, which is amazing and precious -- I don't have much if any formal education beyond hs and a little art school myself and at one time not long ago arrived at very similar conclusions as yours. The formal logic I was missing was dialectical reasoning, the conclusion of which is a unity and interrelation between the subjective and objective. IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.

But I'm annoyed by all the down votes you are receiving when I think you are correct in identifying the problems -- you're still working out the solutions which is okay and good. But rather than have a discussion, we just down vote and go. Its incredible how attached people are to their deeply problematic ontological assumptions, despite not really understanding them. The fact is subject/object dualism as the basis of scientific inquiry (and hence industry) is woefully insufficient for interrogating reality. At one time it was historically progressive and relevant, but now it only serves to sustain existing power structures and the status quo.

I wish we had a chance to discuss this face to face, I'm sure it would be a lively debate and sharing of ideas! Given the medium unfortunately, I guess I'll just see you around. Thanks for the detailed explanation and keep on questioning. In my experience, immediately after believing I have things figured out I gain a new perspective that changes everything. Really keeps things interesting for those of us who want to understand things and aren't content with just taking it as it comes.

Theyre little bigger than a white tailed deer, if not in height, then in build. White tails are pretty lithe.

The Elk I got to pet was behind a fence, it was a wild elk but they were not shy. So yeah walking up to a wild animal, especially one as gigantic as these, not a great idea. But it was a controlled environment and it was a very cool experience!

That makes sense! I thought it looked big for a deer, and i'd been able to walk right up to very large "deer" species such as elk, but its smaller than an elk. The rest of the background is interesting and helpful, thanks!

Bravo!

How does one just walk up to an adult deer like this?

I wasn't asking for an explanation of the post, I was asking for an explanation of the view objectivity doesn't exist, and from another user in fact. I see that you also responded to it and I think your analysis and the way you link it with the post is clear and correct. I especially appreciate how your conclusion arrives at a deepening compassion and relation to the other although you don't explain exactly how to arrive at this, but if I missed that point in your response, I apologise. In my view is achieved not through decimation of the concept, but through unification of subject and object into a monist whole. But otherwise I agree with you, the existence of epistemological difference does not negate the entire field of ontology; it merely suggests a multitude that is socially determined and fluid.

I assume you were giving such a long and detailed explanation in the interest of accessibility, and not doing a bit -- for this I deeply appreciate your effort.