Jrix

Pretty sure. 99.99999999% sure. You got that backwards.

Why doesn't anyone or anything try to share/spread/teach, hate? That seems a much more noble and interesting affair. There is not a single fucking thing on this planet as far as I can tell, doing that. How is there 0 of that. But 1,000s of things spreading love. It's unfairly one-sided.

No. I find the interest in suffering to be interesting. Most values seem left up to someone's personal privacy.

Among them: wondering what people find interesting about suffering.

I don't see what's so interesting about suffering.

(Though if I were on the opposite end of the aisle, I would presume that someone's comments on "action" vs "self-reference", is yet more implicit testimony as to their worldview.)

You asked for my worldview and to the extent that it exists, I gave a fairly prudent account of it. It's dumbfounding that a narrative has emerged in which a simple question was asked and that simple question was not answered. In fairness, I did subsequently remark on why asking someone for their "worldview" is ridiculous; so perhaps my remarks there have taken precedence over the preceding discourse?

If someone's answer is deemed insufficient, it is a kind of decorum to remark on what is insufficient about it.

The hell?? In everything said, your take away is: 1. I am hostile 2. Caught with my pants down 3. I am projecting 4. Something about my logic (5.) "Out there" Even setting aside your nihilistic approach to conversation. > And what exactly was said? > But I'm sure you will be right there to rescue me and set me straight. Wouldn't the most basic of decency prompt one to participate in the exercise of discourse, before asking one to repeat or clarify?

The nonsense (but willing to go with "wrong" per your suggestion) of it has nothing to do with your intentions; there is nothing to "project", even if by some miracle there was a projection occurring. > It's just a question. > I simply asked The purported "simplicity" was already understood when I replied. There's no need to further emphasize that. At the very least, my (relatively) lengthy response suggests a disagreement on the matter of its simplicity. > But of course, you reacted with hostility. > I didn’t do this so that I would have more leverage on you- I did this so that I could get to know you. > As for me - I'm a 53 year old enlightened idealist - who couldn't fathom anything else for reality but consciousness I don't see what my emotional disposition has to do with anything with respect to my comments. Nor do I see what your personal accolades or reaffirmations of motivation have to do with anything. Wouldn't one think what was said; takes precedence over whatever our respective emotions are?

It's a question that implies actions aren't enough. Which seems ridiculous, because beliefs manifest in action. I wouldn't even think it "wrong". More, nonsensical. But now that you mention it, if there were ever an arrogant use of "wrong" with some justification, this seems like a decent candidate. Not only is one suggesting that actions aren't enough, but one is also suggesting: that self-reference replaces action that linguistic biases and errors endemic to self-reference don't exist that the many species of self-deception *should be* exacerbated (as self-reference tends to do) that another's beliefs matter at all independent of their action that self-reference ought precede action that one is not present enough to engage in action, such that this question is deemed necessary that the various ideological engines that capture individuals is to be given *the floor* that another's failure to articulate is a funnel into the veracity of their beliefs that (at least quite clearly in this case "out there"), a believed statement on the coordinates one's belief reside in relative to the corpus of beliefs

With respect to the above; it's similarly bizarre when someone asks what another's beliefs are. Beliefs manifest in one's actions. Asking someone to self-reference their beliefs makes no sense; and I can't imagine doing that.

The material constituents, or whatever cascade/milieu of consciousness that composes of reality, seems distantly secondary to the "stupidity" I mentioned above. If hypothetically, I scientifically proved the universe was made of superstrings or whatever, and that above-stupidity continued to exist, that would simply mean I don't know what's going on in a meaningful way. (I consider things concerned with the definition of "meaning" to be unavailable to communication.) That would weakly suppose consciousness, or rather, whatever subjective properties precede that notion of "stupidity", has a role in constructing reality, if not for the fact that in the absence of consciousness that stupidity is merely replaced with a kind of existential suicide; the same stupid sans subjectivity. I'm sure there's more recreational things to say, perhaps as it relates specifically to the scientific enterprise, but what I said prior is enough to capture my beliefs and the ignorance it's composed of. If there's more to explore outside those beliefs than my ignorance, than that ignorance ought be considered first.

Sorry, I thought your question was contextually related to the conversation. I don't feel I have a worldview on the scale of this kind of stuff so if I had to say, it'd be something like: The strangeness of replacing others, with abstractions, caricatures, and/or suspicion; and further, being concerned with another's intentions, seems too stupid to exist. Clearly though, this phenomenon exists, so something bizarre must be happening that is outside my capacities to make sense of. There are some marginal cases where this makes sense, such as in war, or a child raised in a scarcity-situation, but outside of those highly specific cases, it's functionally braindead. I'm presuming I'm ignorant on this matter though, hence the exploration of which this dialogue is included.

If my worldview incorporated things that are incapable of dreaming or interfacing with non-illusory reality, it would not occur to me to contrast my thoughts to them or consider their failures of consciousness. I wouldn't say this is a belief in as much as something resembling a "value".

My thought there is unrelated to provocation.

Is "saint" typically a euphemism for referring to the self, or are you using this term idiosyncratically?

Trees and mudcrabs fulfill the conditions of limitations of language. It does not seem lucid to regard things limited in language for their consciousness foibles.

If there is a separate class of entity that is genetically unable to interface with non-illusory reality, how come it's referred to as a "they", instead of like how people referred to mudcrabs or trees?

Right but is their failure on account of being unable to, or some particular conditions of what was previously mentioned as "underdeveloped" (though that word is more a placeholder for the set of things that are not "unable").

You indicated they're not lesser. As far as I can tell the notion of their lesserness is unrelated. I've appear to have lost you in that there's a distinction between "That which can dream" and "That which cannot dream" This does not seem puzzling enough for clarification.

If there is such a thing as a dreamer; and such a thing as that which cannot dream, then it would seem to me that seems like a separate class of entity.

How come manifesting the values the saints represent is not an option here?

Are normies underdeveloped, a separate class of entity; or is which one ambiguous?

Who's "they"?