|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:55 pm
I just watched Episode 1 of Season 2. It was a good setup, although it makes Kirito looks like a bit of an idiot. Still, good things on the horizon, for sure.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:02 am
Well, he was never really great at things at the beginning. That, and if I understand it right, it is leaving his area of expertise (swords) in favor of guns . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:03 pm
I was speaking of how he began to wax philosophical at a point in the first episode, and he was hilariously incorrect, claiming that the real and virtual worlds are identical save for a difference in the amount of information they contain/transmit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:37 pm
Okay, without having seen his thought process, there is a certain logic in it. Take for instance the Matrix ideology. "Real" is the interpretations of your brain from the sensory input of your body. In a virtual world, where the sensory information is artificially induced, the brain and consciousness cannot reasonably tell the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:08 am
While I understand to perception it can be difficult to distinguish, I am not for the idea that perception defines your reality; to put it simply, I believe in absolutes, including an absolute reality apart from our perceptions of it.
What made me find it funny is that it's obvious that the physical body will die if logged in for too long and that you were born in the physical world. Thus, the question of which is real seemed a little strange to me, was all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:46 pm
Absoutles are dangerous things, my friend. They give rise to false dichotomies- the situation where something "will or won't." In life, there are thousands of shades of gray between the black and white of more issues than I can name here. Even flipping a coin seems to be heads or tails, but there is the minute chance of landing on the edge.
As for the show's example, I still need to watch it before I comment on it. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:34 am
Yet absolutes are an undeniably core part of my belief system (the following is all said through the lens of my religion, so most statements should be predicated w/ "I believe/think"). Whether or not a given person happens to know or think a given situation is right/wrong, does not have any bearing upon its actual rightness/wrongness. Now, there are obvious cases where right and wrong are very clear; however, in those cases where it is not, that doesn't make it gray. Facets of a complex situation are right/wrong individually, but the overall situation is also right/wrong despite bearing factors that might otherwise be considered to oppose it. Even in my religion, there are cases where law/love must be balanced. Now while I may come to one conclusion on a given matter and somebody may come to another, both could be right or wrong if the issue lacks one of the obvious right/wrong instances (choosing which breakfast cereal in the morning is not a moral dilemma). Even if 1 was right and 1 was wrong, humans are fallible beings, and my religion has the understanding that if you do not know it is wrong, you are not held _fully_ accountable for it (this assumes someone who is saved).
I would love to keep discussing this if you would. but I'd rather not rabbit trail or write too much until you've had a chance to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:15 pm
x Bam. I want a character in an rp with that power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:12 pm
That's a hell of a power, Chaos. eek the only RP I can think of where that might work was one I was in where every player had to create, play and control both a God/Goddess and a champion for them. It was interesting- if short-lived.
Yoder- You can continue all you wish. I agree with portions of what you have said, but the idea of moral absolution and absolutism is something that is difficult for me to accept. My religious practices have two rules concerning being good or evil (for lack of better terms). The first is that if the act does not harm anybody, go ahead. One should be able to seek happiness and do what feels right as long as nobody is harmed by the action. Theft harms the person or company that is the victim, violence harms the victim, cheating harms the heart of your partner, etc. Doing wrong is wrong.
Now, concerning the idea of being fully or non-fully accountable . . . that is where the other rule comes in. Whatever you do returns 3fold. If you are kind, that positivity will come back three times the amount from some way. If you are a negative person, you will be punished by the world for giving out that negativity. It isn't about saving as much as realizing that all actions have consequences. You want a good life, don't be a jerk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:41 pm
No kidding! That's definitely on the "reality warper" power level.
I assume the first rule only goes so far as one's ability to project? What I mean is that it is only if you can foresee how someone else could be harmed by said action.
Just to be clear, my usage of "saved" meant "salvation" in the religious sense. I was predicated my statement on an actual Christian, as non-Christians are held fully accountable regardless of their fore-knowledge of its wrongness.
As for #2, how do you rationalize the "problem of evil"/theodicy wherein good things happen to and people and vice-versa?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:35 pm
Correct on the first law/rule. Short of omnipotence, one cannot ever be truly capable of seeing how your actions will affect every possible domino effect. Just at the very least make choices that will either not harm others, or preferably benefit others with yourself.
Concerning the bad things to good people? Honestly, it all predicates to the colloquialism . . . "stuff happens." It isn't about what the world does to you as much as how you handle it. You are responsible for yourself, and the Law of Three encourages you to do good in your world for your own sake if for no other reason. Together, the laws explain that you should do good and not be negative to others or yourself.
I am not concerned with the idea of salvation, as in my theocracy there is no heaven or hell. Instead, there are several lands to which you can be sent based on your preference of season. I also am very fond of the idea that is represented in the movie "What Dreams May Come." The idea that everybody makes their own world, a place comprised of their thoughts and fantasies, their own private version of perfection. The only way to be sent somewhere else i.e. a place of torture is to betray yourself in a fundamental way in which you spend eternity literally torturing yourself. the idea of beating yourself up to the point of really damaging your psyche/soul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:57 pm
Okay, so we ultimately agree on that (taking our differing worldviews into account, of course): in cases where it is not absolutely clear as to the rightness/wrongness of an issue, we must use our best judgement.
Okay, so you don't see the karmic Law of 3 as absolute, just a common tendency. I assume you would extend the this law to actions against one's self as well, right?
All right, so the Law of 3 is essentially a principle of practicality. In my religion, people usually obey out of Love, Duty, or Practicality; though Love is the correct option, so many do so for the other 2 reasons instead.
I wasn't trying to say you should care about salvation/heaven/hell. I only meant to clarify what I had said, as in reply it seemed like you might have misunderstood (perhaps I did instead).
Huh, that's an interesting take on the afterlife. I assume you didn't develop that belief solely from the reference movies, so I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:20 pm
Yes, we do agree that we should use our best judgement to do the right thing and do no harm, preferably help ourselves and others.
The law of 3 wouldn't make sense if you demanded it or even expected it all at once. If you gave an apple to a homeless man, it would be silly to expect a free salad at the next restaurant. And yes, oneself is also in there. It's all about how you treat existance and all things in it. If you are a douchebag, things will not turn out well. If you are a kind soul, things should at least be pleasant and give you reason to smile. Nothing is absolute, even those that are walking saints will have a bad day sooner or later.
Practicality is a rather harsh word for it in my opinion . . . but not one I can refute. At worst, it is a tool to help reinforce not harming others for your own aims. You remind me of the saying I've seen in many places. If you are evil, you do not lack religion, you lack empathy. Or something like that. Basically saying that claiming a faith is not the same thing as living the ideals of that faith. Oddly enough, most faiths say the same thing with different notes. Be a good person, don't harm others, etc.
I am not trying to quantify or belittle anything, my friend. Just making sure we are on the same page. ^_^;;;
My faith is officially called eclectic Pagan, or Wiccan. I've picked up pieces of things here and there that suit my view on faith. I'm not entirely sure where the ideas all came from except comments from those that share my belief structure mentioning ideas like the Winterlands, the Falllands, the Summerlands . . . areas of a specific season that speaks to your heart, where you can find peace and joy. Not everybody wants a sun-lit field. That is not entirely compatible with the reference movie, but I adore the idea that we all get to mould our own little version of paradise in the next world as long as we do not destroy ourselves emotionally with hatred and betrayal and guilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:11 pm
Yes, we just have different standards to which our judgement must apply.
Oh, I would never expect retribution to be instantaneous; the world simply couldn't work that way.
You used to have an objectivist quote (about enlightened self-interest, a term I believe Ayn Rand coined) in your siggy, which is why I used the terms "practical" and "pragmatic."
Oh yes, I agree heartily. Many terrible things are done in the name of religion, but that doesn't make those people truly a part of the religion.
Even though I am not a pluralist (belief that all religions are correct), it is true that the vast majority have elements of truth at their core; they are not entirely correct, but the element at least is enough to draw people to it (among other factors). Very few religions are beyond the moral limits of your belief system, as people wouldn't agree with them otherwise since they would be nigh-impossible to rationalize logically.
Okay, no harm done. I guess we both thought the other misunderstood.
All right, though I don't think you are hardcore wiccan, as I don't think you participate in their religious ceremonies, correct?
It is definitely an interesting idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
