This vid is also linguistically interesting, since the people switch easily between Spanish and Catalan and back again, mixing it up together.

To quote the great Wittgenstein "meaning is use". Language and meaning are nuanced and complicated, but most of all, subjective and instrumental (by which I mean something we make up). This is why we frequently use otherwise restrictive and oversimplified analogies to illustrate specific points, and sometimes arbitrary (and always artificial) terms to sum up otherwise much more expansive phenomena.

In this case @Babymech used one to quite neatly surmise the different ways we interpret accidental puns and double meanings. Crude vs Prude was just a succinct way of labelling the two predominant archetypical responses to a potential double entendre.

One is to tend to overlook or ignore it (Prude)
One is to recognise and even call attention to it (Crude)

There were no value judgements implicit in the way @Babymech did this. You brought those yourself, projected them outwards and rather rudely set about insulting Babymech for the perceived slight/prejudicial remark.

The fact you got a rude response back was not validation, it was retaliation. You called him/her a dick basically without provocation!

"In some countries / regions, saying someone is crude is quite the insult."

A term charged with historical prejudicial hatred indeed! Absolutely no room for interpretation or innocent intention there. (And God forbid anyone anywhere ever be offended by something because they might have different associations with a words meanings and associations)

But let's just assume @Babymech was making a value judgement anyway. "Prude" and "Crude" create wildly varying emotional responses. From pride to shame. Who takes prescient? Who's right to not be offended counts most?

Much like considerably more sensitive words (like ones beginning with N and F for instance), context is absolutely everything. Words have no meaning outside of their context, they are entirely relativistic things. Even the cold hard definition in a dictionary is a contextual arrangement (in this case the dictionary & the linguistic paradigm which is documents).

If there was hatred in Babymech's heart when he/she made their comment I certainly did not recognise it. The same point made in a different way might have raised my ire too, but here I can only see a slight you brought to the table yourself so to speak.

I've done it myself before, but then I've also apologised for starting shit that wasn't really there before too

You would be correct if you detected a slightly snotty attitude in my reply, it pops up mostly when people start throwing around unsolicited abuse (or say unspeakably dumb things but I'm certainly not accusing you of that here, just a needless conflict). You'd be amazed how fast it can disappear though!

Much love.

Why doesn't Chomsky find a nice socialist system he can believe in, and fucking MOVE there!?

No, he has to live here, where he is free to spew his BS because he won't be happy until the US is a third-world shithole where everyone is miserable.

This talking-head linguist wants high energy prices, that will save the future. Give me a break. If he paid $4 a gallon for gas, he'd be blasting the oil industry. Now gas is a smidge cheaper, he's blasting production. He can't make up his mind. Maybe he can magic his ass from place to place.

Wow. I always knew he was smart but with his rant against online linguistic errors, my respect for him has gone past "11". <-- Quotes, literally, added for emphasis.

Check Tim Curry in that film 'Oscar' (1991) -His role as linguist Prof Thronton Poole reminds me of this cat's adept renderings....Incidentally, Sly Stallone's best role to date, including the Rocky films the same in which his acting fondled ballzackz....

And what you just said was relevant to anything other than your own narrow preconceived notions of what is or is not a worthwhile use of someone's time and property?

What I was doing was taking your initial argument and demonstrating the absurdity at it's core by extrapolating it's logical consequences. This is what one does when one has been taught to argue at a level beyond pre-school debating classes. I haven't just "read some Chomsky" I have spent my entire academic career studying Philosophy and linguistics/rhetoric.

Chomsky and I actually disagree on many things & frankly the fact you would choose him and not say Jacques Fresco, Jean Jacques Rousseau or Slavoj Zizek etc. with whom my beliefs have a much greater affinity suggest that you yourself have a paper thin grounding in the political and philosophical subjects you are trying to pull me up on. (and to be clear I don't fully agree with any of those people either, my political philosophy is based upon my own conclusions built up over years of study and consideration)


So lets be clear, generating $7000 of income is to you a pointless activity? (a point you have consistently refused to acknowledge as it undermines your entire argument). What about trying to entertain people? Are all attempts at comedy fruitless because they didn't make YOU laugh?

"Immature", "funny" and "necessary" are all highly subjective concepts.

Clearly YOU didn't find it funny, others (about 7 fucking million in fact!) did.

Clearly YOU thought the video creator lacked maturity, plenty of people would regard his sense of timing, context and dare I say it low level satire as indicative of a potentially very mature and cognicent individual. (not saying he is but the evidence supports either notion)

But most of all NOTHING in the universe is demonstrably necessary, not even the universe itself. The very concept of necessity or usefulness is entirely subjective in it's nature. We as humans invented it, nature has no such qualms, it simply exists and continues to do so (unless you wan't to bring God into this at which point my eyes will likely glaze over).

This did start as your observation regarding the "pointless" destruction of a phone, an observation I was suggesting had it's basis in little more than your own narrow preconceptions about what is and is not a laudable use of ones time and resources.

The point about other evils in the world was an (unsuccessful) attempt to point out the absurdity of getting your knickers in a twist about something so trivial it's almost funny. What you consider a serious problem on the global level specifically is less important than the simple fact that this dude smashing up a phone is utterly negligible by comparison to virtually anything one might care to mention. The best counter you have here far as I can see is to suggest that everything is pointless/subjective which would naturally be totally self defeating. (or to backtrack and redefine your position as one of mere distaste and aesthetic preference rather than an objective truth as you did)

Maybe your a Randist or an anarcho-capitalist or something. That's fine and while I might disagree with the premise of those positions their proponents would support my core notion just the same. i.e. getting angry and this dude smashing up his phone is by a country mile the most inconsequential and asinine point of contention in this whole discussion.


Also to be clear, I utterly reject the entire notion of the left/right wing paradigm and you're attempt to once again put my argument in a box of your own design (i.e. straw man again) is not going to work.

I'm not anti capitalist I'm anti Nepotism and Cronyism. My own ideas about how to fix the world involve both capitalist and socialist principles (along with replacing "democracy" with "meritocracy"). If you had enquired further rather than just generalising my suggestions into a straw man to support your own argument you may have had the opportunity to realise this and engage with the ideas intellectually (rather than as a reactionary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Learn to think critically instead of dressing up your own prejudices as objective facts (and attacking the arguer instead of the argument itself).

Some might consider an inability to separate subjective preconceptions from objective facts a far greater sign of immaturity. One of the reasons children are considered immature is because they cannot tell or control where their own Ego stops and other peoples begin. (though naturally this is itself a subjective notion and should probably never be defined as an objective truth either)

I don't expect you to respond like a Harvard professor but please at least engage with the content of the argument rather than painting me into a box and trying to assassinate my character. I'm sure you're probably a reasonably intelligent person and I'm always happy to back down or take back arguments if I'm presented with a well thought out reason why I might be wrong etc.

Happy to be the 10th vote for this.

That guy was a total twat. I only wish the camera had showed his face so that if I passed him on the street I could call him out for being a twat.

The actual comment from Paul Robinson in the New York Times in 1979 (which Chomsky paraphrased in this talk) is as follows:

"Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual. On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded. The 'Chomsky problem' is to explain how these two fit together."

Chomsky's coming to Japan next month and my wife and I are going to try to see him give a talk on linguistics (unfortunately his other talk on democracy and capitalism booked up as soon as it was announced).

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

We could use a *linguistics channel. Language is a beautiful thing.

*promote

The physics professor and the doctor of linguistics? Yeah, probably.

I feel ya man, took Intro to Linguistics sophomore year and was blown away by how far it was from how I thought it was.

Linguist porn.

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

First if your reliance on Aristotelian Logic to attack my Dialectic argument. When I said you were using the language with which I described to counter instead of addressing the underlying concept it was to this I was alluding (not clearly enough it seems).
Philosophers (good ones anyway) have largely up on traditional Aristotelian logic as a means to extrapolate objective truth because it functions only upon linguistic syntax. The very fact that such a fundamental assertion as "nothing is true" is mutually contradictory as a prime example of this. The language we use to describe and frame the problem simultaneously limits our ability to comprehend it. As I suspect you well know deeper conceptual matters are often too deep to be fully expressed by mere syntax based language.
Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt? I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)


Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.
The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!
We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

R>=0 (R= distance between two points)



The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0), while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.
Or if you want to put your scientific head on for a moment they represent the Left and Right hand brain (all truths are relative, one can approach this from a purely psychological/neuroscience position and argue the same case just with less colourful imagery ).

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.


For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

There is only one Moral imperative observable in nature. "Nothing is true and everything is permitted"

"Nothing is true..." :

All concepts of truth are relative and dependant upon a supporting paradigm(s) to facilitate meaning and context. To say "killing is wrong" would only be meaningful within a structure that defines both A. the intended meaning of the terms used (i.e. linguistic convention) and B. the causal relationships and imperatives of the ethical code/structure under which one is operating
(e.g. Christians might say "because God will get you", or Deontologists might say "because the act is always more important than the consequence, or Consequentialists that say the opposite of the Deontologists etc.)
Either way "Truth" is just a meaningless noise leaving ones mouth unless there is at least some intellectual structure in which to define it. Ascribing "truth" to "God" is just another such intellectual structure.

"......everything is permitted":

Given all moral/ethical imperatives are by their very nature intellectual constructs and that none (as we define them) appear irrefutably to occur in nature we must conclude that the only "moral judge/authority" that provably exists in the cosmos must be our own minds (you can't even prove 100% that other minds necessarily exist). The only acts prohibited by nature are those defined by its physical laws, one cannot commit a physical action that does not have an equal and opposite reaction for instance. Thus "everything is permitted".
However as the fact that ones own mind is and can be the only moral authority it is also implicit in this "truth" (see what I did there?) that one should endeavour to not be found wanting in the eyes of this ethical arbiter. After all your own conscience is the one person you can never avoid! Thus "everything is permitted" when "truly" understood (again lol) does not encourage one to "do what you want" but rather to consider your every action with the utmost care. No one knows your true motivations & desires better than your own sub-conscious and no one could ever punish you as hard for your mistakes.

Hardened violent criminals who repent their crimes rarely do so because prison is an unpleasant environment (they are often hardened men, accustomed to physical hardship). They repent because the enforced solitude forces them to confront themselves!

Thus I assert; moral behaviour is a product of wisdom and self awareness only! Anything else is brainwashing and (often dangerous) delusion as it deprives one of the true (and complicated) reasons for why some choices/beliefs would be mistakes. (e.g. the sexual repression of Christian culture that still remains firmly in place amongst many (most) atheists).

Love is the law, Love under will.
And do what thau wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Personally (American, btw), I find a lot of things that technically may be the same phonetically, I nonetheless pronounce slightly differently depending on the spelling. For instance, the 'f' sound in, say, philanthropic, I pronounce slightly differently. It's not something I could put into writing really, but when spelled with a "ph" I hold that sound slightly longer, it's a little breathier, and don't press my teeth against my lip so much or so abruptly, as I would were it spelled with an 'f.' A linguist would probably have a better vocabulary to describe this, but it's also the same for 'c' when it makes an 's' sound. There are many other examples as well. Another, off the top of my head is "can't." Were it spelled with an 'k', the 'a' sound would be more abrupt than when I pronounce it's proper spelling. "Ake" I would pronounce slightly differencly from "ache". It's subtle, but the 'ch' sound does make it in there.

Maybe this is just me, and all things being equal, I would prefer simplified spellings, but I nevertheless pronounce things with a subtle difference depending on how they're spelled.