The future is defined by dumb politics as much as anything though so the good news is if you're socially credible you'll get tons of these thoughts but the bad news is if you're socially non credible they will steal all your thoughts and leave you empty headed
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
not precisely sure we’re on the same page regarding how thoughts work
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @Alephwyr @averykimball
Most people don't notice because nothing in their being is outside of consensus reality (ie, there are large and agreed upon datasets defining how they experience things so of course they end up experiencing normality), but some people (usually accidentally) get outside of it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Alephwyr
consensus reality isn’t wrong, tho it just has no authority greater than individual reality (which has no authority over reality, of which we have no direct experience)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
Reality is being perpetually cannibalized and reconstituted by a process of bottomless recursion known as human perception.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Alephwyr @averykimball
I want you to think of reality less as a sequence of events and more like a brain that has suffered a cataclysm, leaving the hapless owner to confabulate past experiences according to shaky logic. Or a forest that mostly burned down and then regrew in a completely different way.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Alephwyr @averykimball
why privilege the real over the imaginal anyway? > real things tend to last longer { but are no more meaningful as a result }
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CountJ0ecool @Alephwyr
why not? anything can be imagined, but without a criterion of quality about what *should* be imagined, why imagine anything at all? even solipsists and hedonists (tacitly) privilege reality, just the reductive, comfortable, parts of reality (their own cope)
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball @CountJ0ecool
Once you really understand the chaos entailed by subjectivism, you can only believe in rationalism, even if it's just the rationalism of a subjectivist; rationalism builds walkable ground that won't fall out from under, subjective nonsense about angels, gods, and ghosts does not.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Kierkegaard says faith is more solid ground than fact. I must conclude Kierkegaard has not tried both.
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr @CountJ0ecool
(classical) rationalism is foundationally subjectivist- and its “unshakiness” is *exactly* like the unshakiness of faith, another subjectivist moral technology kant’s a prioris are Idealist, after all
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball @CountJ0ecool
I mean more like Popper. Pre-Yudkowskian Tarskian scientism basically.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.