here's a perspective: even three decades ago *we couldn't even consider that this might be a problem we should solve* we *create* these problems i'm not saying they aren't real, but if we solved *this*, another, just as dire would rise up, that we wouldn't even understand today
-
-
Replying to @averykimball
That is sample bias on your part, transsexualism dates back to antiquity and probably to pre civ based on archeological evidence. Even treatments date back to at least the Scythians. It is a more traditional thing than most of what you would call western civilizational tradition.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
not really relevant, our current concepts about this are not the same as theirs (or three decades ago, or even yesterday) you are a transformation, right now, driven by problems you see in the world
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
And explaining the texture of yogurt comprehensively requires knowledge of quantum mechanics. Who cares. The thing itself is the same regardless of epistemological limitations.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
quantum mechanics can't actually explain the texture of yogurt "comprehensively" it's not like qm has solved the problem of qualia other than that, i don't know what you mean
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
I mean ontologically. The QM components of chemistry are necessary to explain why yogurt has its consistency instead of just being solid like cheese.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
practically, weaker theories can do the same job, just depends on your pragmatics i suspect i'm going deeper than cheese
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
Weaker theories don't even consider it a real question, or at least don't have a basis to consider it one
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @averykimball @Alephwyr
we were talking about whether we could conceive of something, and whether how you are discontent now could even come about before does the world have an objective valuing that is somehow malignant separate from your valuing of it as malignant, or not?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The best I can do to make meaning out of the world as it appears to me is to identify with the devil. Hope that's sufficient!
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
i mean, if the devil is malevolence, then that's capitulation if the devil is a light-bringing denial of totalizing authority, then he's on my side
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
Both I think. I can't keep them straight anyway. I'm in too much pain.
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.