Posts: 1,099
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2009
ironyak:
"The map is not the territory."
Yes. One of the fundamental truths. The one that helps to keep "truth" from becoming "Truth". I learned it from General Semantics (Alfred Korzybski and Neil Postman). Never heard of Baudrillard. Thanks for the link.
Anyway, the trouble is that "the map is not the territory" doesn't just refer to statistics vs reality, but the whole of our cognition vs reality. You are so sure that your whole cognition is the most accurate map of reality. And apparently any idea that doesn't match your map is to be dismissed as somehow inferior and ignorant, even compassionless and immoral.
Maybe so...but maybe not.
I'd say those possible dozen preventable deaths in Puna are somebody's auntie, parent, or child, but you don't seem to be swayed by that in any way. Why is this?
Swayed to what "position" exactly? Those projections _assume_ social distancing. I would very much like to see the same comparison model without social distancing, and then we could talk about the number of preventable deaths. And that would show, in part, how valuable and worthwhile social distancing is.
I have spent MANY hours trying to convince people to give a ****, you included. Whatever resistance you have to all this makes no sense to me nor to the facts at hand IMHO.
What resistance? Seriously. What are you talking about?
Again, I'm not sure this is the best venue for this discussion but am willing to try, again.
You're probably right. You can keep "calling me out" for whatever it is that I have failed you. You don't even need my permission! 
But rest assured that I sincerely Doubt that my map is the territory in the first place. So there's that.
Cheers,
Kirt
Normal
The new normal is designer masks. I hear paisley protects better than polka dots.
Posts: 2,466
Threads: 316
Joined: May 2008
Over one million cases now
Puna: Our roosters crow first
Puna: Our roosters crow first
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
knieft - Anyway, the trouble is that "the map is not the territory" doesn't just refer to statistics vs reality, but the whole of our cognition vs reality. You are so sure that your whole cognition is the most accurate map of reality. And apparently any idea that doesn't match your map is to be dismissed as somehow inferior and ignorant, even compassionless and immoral.
My map isn't the reality by any means - I am acutely aware of this (what the hell do you think all the links are about? I don't rest on my off-the-cuff opinion for almost anything) I could point to hundreds of books to show how seriously I take this (my cog sci shelf is way past 1,2, many . Regardless, my map is very well informed and hopefully oriented in a way that leads to whatever degree of positive outcome we can obtain from this. Sorry if I dismiss either the ostriches or the "isn't it interesting how insignificant and devoid of meaning life is" Nietzschean nihilistic perspective. You want to be dead, along with God, go for it, just try not to take a bunch of us with you please. (that's goes for everyone out there)
Point me to once where you highlighted the effect this event is having on people? You listen to David Kessler's interview on grief? You watched the videos of the kids dying in their beds and think about the kids you know? All I see is lots of small numerical percentages of deaths you keep highlighting. How can I believe the points you are making contain either compassion or morality when you have not bothered to include either?
When people quote statistics I just wish they had the balls to say what they are implying. Ok, 2,000,000 / 330,000,000 is 0.006 and... what exactly? Sucks to be them? Isn't that a tragedy it's more deaths than Cancer, Heart Disease, and Accidents all combined? F#ck em let God sort them out? What exactly is the point and implications of your statistical exercises?
And that would show, in part, how valuable and worthwhile social distancing is.
Valuable how exactly? Dollars and cents? Is it worth your time hanging out at home to only save 2 lives? 10 lives? 100? Again what is the number of dead required to say doing whatever we can is worthwhile? To you at least?
What resistance? Seriously. What are you talking about?
Either this is a joke or you lack self-awareness to an unfathomable degree. Maybe it's all just arguing for the f#ck of it? Idle entertainment while the world burns? Clearly it's not for me and I quickly reach my limit of bantering while you equivocate.
Or maybe you just want a card too?
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/...L._AC_.jpg
Posts: 1,099
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2009
ironyak:
You want to be dead, along with God, go for it, just try not to take a bunch of us with you please. (that's goes for everyone out there)
Get all pissed. You may be so far outta line that you think you're ahead. Self-awareness be damned...
No much more to talk about.
Cheers,
Kirt
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Again, you wanted to do this here... I tried man, but you insisted. You know how to get a hold of me if you actually want to talk.
Posts: 1,099
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2009
quote:
Originally posted by ironyak
Again, you wanted to do this here... I tried man, but you insisted. You know how to get a hold of me if you actually want to talk.
And what would be the point? This isn't a lack of communication.
Maybe get some sleep?
Kirt
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Maybe get some sleep?
Sleeping fine thanks! Lots of backyard activities, time with the family, fun movies marathons, etc... Not much of a sacrifice really. Save lives and chill - what's the complaint again?
You may be so far outta line that you think you're ahead. Self-awareness be damned...
You seem to be fine dismissing 2 million potential deaths in the U.S., but object to me being dismissive of yours? Why?
I'm not sure how many questions marks I need to put in a post to better invite you to explain your points. Almost every sentence in my last major post is an attempt to have you fully detail what are trying to say so that I and everyone else don't have to read into the implications. So please, you've offered up hints and insinuations, now just own and explain them? ?? ??? etc...
It feels like you're just lobbing "other points to consider" out there and not liking the return hits. Maybe wind up the pitches a little more?
I think you mistake communication for unqualified acceptance. You have ideas, I disagree with them (or what I can make from them), so it goes. Welcome to the internet? There are other ways to tackle this if you are so inclined.
Or not - regardless, feel free to challenge anything and everything I've said. Question my sources, my reasonings, my conclusions. I would expect to receive nothing less than what I give. That goes for everyone else as well (if you're not all dead or out trying to be
"It is only in our decisions that we are important." Jean-Paul Satre
ETA: Even better - "Evil is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete." Jean-Paul Satre
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
As much of this recent argument has centered around social and moral philosophy, figured this might be a good capstone (?) to the discussion so this thread can be used for other topics as well.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...o-the-test
"The epidemic forces everyone to confront deep questions of human existence, questions so profound that they have previously been answered, in many different ways, by the greatest philosophers. It’s a test of where all humans stand.
What is right and what is wrong? What can individuals expect from society, and what can society expect of them? Should others make sacrifices for me, and vice versa? Is it just to set economic limits to fighting a deadly disease?"
More at link - good overview of different moral philosophies being espoused during these times.
Posts: 789
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2013
|
