muddi [he/him]

  • 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 29th, 2020

help-circle



  • The circular reasoning I got after proposing to use a code formatter:

    • Why are you nitpicking on PRs? Let’s use a linter instead
    • Yes we already have a linter for compliance sake
    • Oh it’s turned off though. I don’t like it.
    • No we can’t use it actually, it’s a third party one and it’s not compliant.
    • We can’t use the first party one. It’s not extensive enough.
    • No we shouldn’t extend it with our own custom rules. It’s too much maintenance.
    • I refuse to use any IDE formatting shortcuts or plugins, and will commit my code as I feel. The problem is not how I write my code.
    • Why are you still discussing this? Didn’t you figure out how to use a linter yet?

    We’re still at square one with this after a year or so



  • I’ve seen this type of comment in scifi threads. It was about that one planet-consciousness in the Foundation series, some guy thought it would be hell to lose his individuality. But I think that people are confusing privacy or autonomy with individuality.

    Also the fact that individuality is already illusory to begin with – we are social animals, and if we truly tried to be absolutely individual, we’d end up as a feral child or some bizarre hermit. And ironically we live in an age where we are so alienated not just from others but our own selves, and our very species-essence as well






  • I guess if getting new data is not allowed, then interpolation or extrapolation would be the next best option. Interpolation would be connecting existing thoughts to form or find new ones in between. Extrapolation would be following a train of thought to its ultimate end. This could be done in either the diffused or focused mental states. I like to draw up diagrams for this so I can see the blank spots to fill or direction things seem to be going.

    There is also the semantics of the question. It’s actually quite an ancient topic, where our thoughts come from. What does “original” mean? The thought originating in our mind, or from some higher realm? I won’t go too deep into this, just bringing it up to think about it. The only thing I wanted to say is that maybe our mind is not entirely free and agentive, but actually there is a “darkness that comes before” to reference The Second Apocalypse which we can’t conquer, but are conquered by.

    On a lighter note, and from my own experience, it is definitely possible to generate new thoughts outside of that diffuse cloud of repeated thoughts formed on the storehouse of experience accumulated so far in our lives. Following practices of mindfulness, we can learn to recognize the noise of our mind and separate those “thoughts” from what we might call more agentive thoughts that we can control over, wherever they come from. I do meditations in these styles and achieve a mental state beyond the diffuse and focused, kind of inverse to dreaming (cf. turiya for this kind of formulation of a fourth state of mind). In this state, you can come to understand things which you could probably never do in the other mental states. Those thoughts feel “cleaner” as if coming from a true origin rather than bounced around a cloud of repeated thoughts like you mention.

    But I feel like maybe these thoughts are not exactly the ones you are looking for. They are removed from our everyday sense of living, and not really invested in disciplines we have come up with socially as humans. It would be like asking if a caveman 500,000 years ago would have come up with the solution to how to fix a bug in the code I just wrote. It would have been an original thought for him sure, but kind of besides the point.

    Edit: as an example for the interpolation/extrapolation, consider sentences like “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo” or actual usages of this sort of thing in literature:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirātārjunīya#Linguistic_ingenuity

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating_Poet_in_the_Stone_Den

    The interesting part is that constrained thinking is what produces this


  • Think of it dialectically, not in a polar way. So called “good” and “bad” have to come together in one for one to be able to surpass the apparent duality. Any enlightenment, individual or social, should come from the stage after good/bad

    This is what the sages will say, on the individual level: it’s not so much good vs bad as useful or not useful (to some end). We need to understand and maybe learn to control what this “end” is. Similar thing with socialism: it’s not class war for the sake of one class winning, but rather abolishing class as a system altogether









  • Freedom of speech is about not being censored by the government, not private citizens hosting a platform for a spectrum of opinions.

    Compare it to something like freedom of religion: should private citizens engage in a spectrum of religious rituals, including violent rituals of extreme cults?

    The issue isn’t how enthusiastic individual private citizens are about the freedoms granted to them from the government. Someone may truly enjoy yelling “fire” in public buildings, but the effect on the public is what causes concern.

    Should you censor a person for this? That’s another debate, but I’m just explaining where the concern, assuming you have concern, should be placed.