381600+ entries in 0.127s
mircea_popescu: but this has little to do. you were discussing a particular application of the theory, with what i took as a view to reduce it to absurd.
mircea_popescu: and she throws out all their old shit cause now she knows better.
mircea_popescu: i pop into someone's house by the intermediate agency of his wife which is now my slave
mircea_popescu: <nubbins`> surely there must be something that makes mp a good judge and nubbins a poor one? << this implies that perhaps nubbins could move upwards in society, and contains implicit an equivalency of substance between the two. this isn't an accepted point between us.
mircea_popescu: nubbins is no such lord. we're going to have to explain why we presume.
mircea_popescu: mp is one of the lords. he makes art be. of course we can presume anything.
mircea_popescu: this naive "man at center of everything" goes well with the naive nominalism, but it's quite as nutty.
mircea_popescu: NOT the other way around, judge art by how it "makes" you weep or not.
mircea_popescu: there is no because in the correct statement. in fact, we can judge how good a nubbins you are by how adequately you weep when art is presented
mircea_popescu: these are not the same. and for that matter the latter's logically unsound.
mircea_popescu: mp said it's art, and it makes nubbins weep, vs nubbins thinks it;'s art because that's why he thinks he wept
mircea_popescu: when i say "it's art because X feels Y" i may be right. when you say "it's art because I feel Y" you're certain to be wrong.
mircea_popescu: it's quite a case of "you're cured if and when i say you're cured".
mircea_popescu: does the oncology patient go "all is well doc, i feel cured" ?
mircea_popescu: only in the minds of people who have no idea what it is.
mircea_popescu: obviously the surgeons are surgeons by decree rather than because "people" feel surgeonized by them
mircea_popescu: you don't discuss surgery in terms of the subjective impressions of patients. a similar discussion of any other craft is similarly out of place.
mircea_popescu: this may be true, but the subjection needn't be conscious.
mircea_popescu: you presume all action is with the voluntary subjection fo the subject
mircea_popescu: the remainder is the "to whom ?" approach, which reduces to social hierarchy.
mircea_popescu: the "to me" approach is unsound. this disqualifies it, perpetually and definitively.
mircea_popescu: it is the avatar of youth, but so are many other illogical topoi
mircea_popescu: looky, this trick where you go "mpex is too hard, i don;'t understand it ; therefore we must all glbse because there's no other way to do it" isn't logically sound.
mircea_popescu: except no one cares about any "to me" sentence. they're voiceless.
mircea_popescu: you might as well offer an explanation of art for spherical chickens that live in vacuums.
mircea_popescu: nubbins` yes, but your explanation requires people be equal and interchangeable, which is beyond naive.
mircea_popescu: incidentally, the miscasting as art as "that which yields emotional response" is roughly the reason trolling has become such a big deal culturally.
mircea_popescu: you might as well propose the cancer walk in the front door one day and begin jacking off.
mircea_popescu: more's the point : your example is counterfactual. i would never talk to some anodyne serf woman,
mircea_popescu: nubbins` you could slap her, or kidnap her to the same strong emotional response
mircea_popescu: nubbins` i dunno what cats have to do with this. is it an internet thing ?
mircea_popescu: one can't turn arround and expect all situations have equally low bars
mircea_popescu: nah, see, the equivocation at work here is that the requirements for being an observer in the foresrt with a falling tree are very low
mircea_popescu: this may be the best stating of the naive nominalism discussed above.
mircea_popescu: there are qualifications needed to be an observer. you don't become an observer of the battle of thermopylae just by stating yourself as an observer
mircea_popescu: the eiffel tower on yoru commode is not a piece of eiffel towers.
mircea_popescu: not whatever irreelvant stuff you're personally dreaming up all for yourself.
mircea_popescu: it's not germane to call it "the eiffel tower" in conversation.
mircea_popescu: it'd be "the eiffel tower of my commode", but only inasmuch as you are concerned.
mircea_popescu: for that matter, you may perhaps in time come to own a miniature of the eiffel tower, which you may emplace on your commode,
mircea_popescu: why do you expect solipsism to be considered by others ?
mircea_popescu: "unequivocally and inarguably a work of art" only in the republic of one constructed by your own living room, of which you are president.
mircea_popescu: but there's a difference between calling a dude a nigger for convenience, as the shortest word available,
mircea_popescu: that aside, there aren't really enough points given explicitly to make much of a call.
mircea_popescu: (naive nominalism is the view that convention enacts existence, and thus forumers are "ceo"s and their harebrained schemes "companies")
mircea_popescu: ah. well i wouldn't know "your" system. what you've written so far is coherent with naive nominalism, ie the ideology of all youths. occam requires it be described as such.
mircea_popescu: in all situations where a set of representations appears equivalent but one excludes all others, that's also the correct one, and the others are degenerate.
mircea_popescu: you know this because i can enact my point in your system, but you can't enact your point in mine.