User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 18 of 18

  1. #11
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    I thought you got bored of me us

    Matt
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  2. #12
    Phantonym
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew_Z View Post
    And no one notices?
    This is a universally known truth that if you don't post, you don't exist. Oh, look, you posted, now you exist again. Welcome back.

  3. #13
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    The internet's a bitch like that. It's not that we don't care, it's just that people come along all the time and tell us we're important, that we matter and they will never leave us as they have found a new home. Then they leave us. It hurts us so each time someone else comes along and we care for them and they say they care for us too we're just that little bit more guarded and a little bit more jaded until one day we realise that all the people we used to care about have abandoned us and we vow to never care for another cyber being again. It's not you Matthew, it's the ones that left before you that made us these hollow shells of emotionless beings that don't care about anyone. You are but words on a page.

  4. #14
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Dont worry, no girl noticed my carriage also tho I was gone for 3 weeks -.-
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  5. #15
    Pose! Salt n' pepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    What? Who said that??

  6. #16
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sky is BLUE! View Post
    This is a universally known truth that if you don't post, you don't exist. Oh, look, you posted, now you exist again. Welcome back.
    Yes, I am trying to get my head around presence.

    Does it matter?

    Yes, for if I am not present, I am absent.

    I tried to play around with this on the, "Jack Who?", thread in the Graveyard. I tried to understand presence in terms of absence, in this case, Jack Flak's absence.

    I tried to think of it in existential terms, in terms of existence and non-existence, in terms of knowing that one day our existence will come to an end. I tried to think of life in terms of death.

    But all I got was the internet who is only concerned whether I post or I don't post.

    But I wonder if she is so impartial, for she makes it so easy to post, so easy to continue posting to you. And then she hooks me with your reply. I wait on your reply like a love-sick puppy. I even intellectualise my desire for your post by saying far too often, "The meaning of any post is its response", for we are co-respondents, or simply, correspondents. We respond to one another. We are responsible to one another.

    But the truth is I desire to correspond. I desire to correspond to you. The shameful truth is that I desire to be you. And I want you to be me.

    And who with any self respect is prepared to admit to a desire so vulnerable. Who would want to be made so vulnerable by desire? No wonder I intellectualise.

    But in my nakedness, am I desiring presence? Do I desire to be present in your mind? Do I desire to know you? The shameful answer is yes. And like Adam and Eve my shame is only covered by a fig leaf. And my only consolation is that you wear a fig leaf too.

    So here we are in the New Garden of Eden, the Noosphere, shyly glancing at each other out of the corner of our eyes. Driven by our desire to know. Driven to eat of the Tree of good and evil. By eating one another we bring not only evil into the world but good.

    So presence is not a thing unto itself. A presence on stage is a relationship between the performer and the audience. And so our presence here is simply a relationship.

    And here we naturally slip into metaphor, for a metaphor is a comparison of relationships.

    What shall I compare thee to? A summer's day? A bat on the wing? The tearing of the curtain in the Temple? Perhaps we are incomparable. We reach and reach, we post and post, and hope the Universe will reply.

    We cross ourselves in prayer and post a votive candle.

  7. #17
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    You are but words on a page.
    Indeed. This can be explained by the treatment of reality only in written form being entangled with fiction. The interwebs occupy a space that is neither real or unreal. This causes a confusion.

    Ironically, with fiction that is known to be ficticious we can suspend belief and feel for something that cannot exist in a tangible sense.

    And ironic that when reality bumps into the forum in the form of absence it is not given the same consideration as fiction when that fiction is present.

    We prefer the present lie to the absent truth.

    Radfords paradox is based on three premises which he claim to all be true. The first is that for one to have an emotional response to a story one must believe that that story actually exists or has existed. The second premise is that such beliefs are often lacking when we read stories, and the third is that we clearly have emotional responses to works of fiction. Because these premises contradict each other Radford came to the conclusion that emotional responses to fictional characters and events are irrational, incoherent, and inconsistent. Due to the fact that this appears to be a valid conclusion if the premises are true philosophers have questioned the premises the conclusion is based upon. The conclusion is in correct not because the logic is wrong but because they premises are incorrect. Emotions are unexplained and therefore it is impossible to In separate attacks against each of the premises philosophers have used logic to show how all of the premises could be untrue, therefore proving the paradox nonexistent and the conclusion invalid.

    Emotions arent understood. They are a product of our brain, something we fail to completely understand the operations of. Emotions are one of the most complex and enigmatic products of the brain. As a result of our lack of understanding of why we have certain emotions in certain situations there is no way of proving that we can only feel emotions to events we think are real. Because there is no proof either way philosophers can only attempt to find the most logical answer to this problem. Many, including R.T. Allen who wrote, A novelis not a presentation of facts. But true statements can be made about what happens in it and beliefs directed towards those events can be true or false. Once we realize that truth is not confined to the factual, the problem disappears, is an advocate of this position. I know from my own experience that I often have stronger emotional responses to characters in movies and books that I know are fake than to people I see on the evening news.

    The emotions we experience in response to fictional stories arent the same type of emotions that we experience in response to real life events. We always have a wide range of thoughts and experiences that will act as existence beliefs and our emotions can be based on those instead of actual existence beliefs. For many people to experience emotions for characters they need to have a willing suspension of disbelief. A term coined by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. This theory holds that to create a suspension of disbelief creates a different type of emotion, different from the type of emotions experienced in real life. Although there is no concrete evidence to support this claim, most people would agree that they usually feel less for someone they know is fake than someone in real life. This alone is enough to weaken Radfords conclusion.

    In some cases we are artificially creating the emotion in our minds to enjoy the movie or book more. In these instances we only have quasi-emotions for fictional characters. This argument is best summed up in a quote by Kendall Walton. it is only "make-believedly" true that we fear horror film monsters, feel sad for the Greek tragic heroes, etc. He admits that these characters move us in various ways, both physically and psychologicallythe similarities to real fear, sadness, etc. are strikingbut regardless of what our bodies tell us, or what we might say, think, or believe we are feeling, what we actually experience in such cases are only "quasi-emotions. I know from my own experience that I often try to recreate emotions from previous situations in order to become more involved in a book.

    Although the logic Radford used to come up with his conclusion is correct the three theories which refute the premises of his paradox make more logical sense than the all the premises being true. This isnt because it is possible to prove them true but simply because it is impossible to prove them untrue and a paradox being true is dependent on being supported by infallible logic.

    Colin Radford - Paradox of Fiction

  8. #18
    Phantonym
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Yes, I am trying to get my head around presence.

    Does it matter?

    Yes, for if I am not present, I am absent.

    I tried to play around with this on the, "Jack Who?", thread in the Graveyard. I tried to understand presence in terms of absence, in this case, Jack Flak's absence.

    I tried to think of it in existential terms, in terms of existence and non-existence, in terms of knowing that one day our existence will come to an end. I tried to think of life in terms of death.

    But all I got was the internet who is only concerned whether I post or I don't post.

    But I wonder if she is so impartial, for she makes it so easy to post, so easy to continue posting to you. And then she hooks me with your reply. I wait on your reply like a love-sick puppy. I even intellectualise my desire for your post by saying far too often, "The meaning of any post is its response", for we are co-respondents, or simply, correspondents. We respond to one another. We are responsible to one another.

    But the truth is I desire to correspond. I desire to correspond to you. The shameful truth is that I desire to be you. And I want you to be me.

    And who with any self respect is prepared to admit to a desire so vulnerable. Who would want to be made so vulnerable by desire? No wonder I intellectualise.

    But in my nakedness, am I desiring presence? Do I desire to be present in your mind? Do I desire to know you? The shameful answer is yes. And like Adam and Eve my shame is only covered by a fig leaf. And my only consolation is that you wear a fig leaf too.

    So here we are in the New Garden of Eden, the Noosphere, shyly glancing at each other out of the corner of our eyes. Driven by our desire to know. Driven to eat of the Tree of good and evil. By eating one another we bring not only evil into the world but good.

    So presence is not a thing unto itself. A presence on stage is a relationship between the performer and the audience. And so our presence here is simply a relationship.

    And here we naturally slip into metaphor, for a metaphor is a comparison of relationships.

    What shall I compare thee to? A summer's day? A bat on the wing? The tearing of the curtain in the Temple? Perhaps we are incomparable. We reach and reach, we post and post, and hope the Universe will reply.

    We cross ourselves in prayer and post a votive candle.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-07-2016, 09:27 AM
  2. Top Ten Reasons Why the Pope Handed in His Three-Week Notice
    By Totenkindly in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-12-2013, 01:59 PM
  3. School Bans Social Media for 1 Week
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-17-2010, 09:40 PM
  4. Oregon gov. tries foodstamps for a week
    By rivercrow in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-11-2007, 10:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO