No offense, but apart from a few things and some really good information I was not that impressed. I understand and very much appreciate his final sentiment however also. But it was two things that soured it for me so let me explain.
The first one was about optical illusion. He said that you "Cannot" do it, and "It is impossible" etc etc to tell. For one I know that is a lie/ignorance because I can easily phase both views in or out, or even phase them both in. Likewise there are other people who can do this that are not magicians.
I was actually told by someone in casual conversation that I DID NOT know that this constituted me being evolutionary inferior/backwards on account that since i could not experience it as the illusion perse I was not acting within the intended desire of the art/joke etc... If that is not ridiculous thinking I dont know what is.
The second one was about illusion of choice, I do not feel that this is a illusion of choice issue I think it has to with as he said complexity and not knowing what we want. What I see most people doing even on such forms is really delegating choices backwards to standing "meta-decisions" even in places where it would not be good for them, I do not see them as not making choices except in the sense of not really considering the new option as its own, seriously, and within its own... "framing"?
Unfortunately I do not have much on hand to back me up but this is from strenuous observation. Perhaps this is a philosophy of science rather than a science/data issue?
3 comments:
Have you read The Drunkard's Walk? If you like this video (and I certainly did) then The Drunkard's Walk will rock your world.
Actually, I posted about it the other day if you're interested.
http://runesoup.com/2010/03/7-essential-chaos-magic-books-that-arent-about-magic/
Thanks Gorden. I checked out your blog earlier today. Good stuff. I have added this to my list of to be purchased books.
No offense, but apart from a few things and some really good information I was not that impressed. I understand and very much appreciate his final sentiment however also. But it was two things that soured it for me so let me explain.
The first one was about optical illusion. He said that you "Cannot" do it, and "It is impossible" etc etc to tell. For one I know that is a lie/ignorance because I can easily phase both views in or out, or even phase them both in. Likewise there are other people who can do this that are not magicians.
I was actually told by someone in casual conversation that I DID NOT know that this constituted me being evolutionary inferior/backwards on account that since i could not experience it as the illusion perse I was not acting within the intended desire of the art/joke etc... If that is not ridiculous thinking I dont know what is.
The second one was about illusion of choice, I do not feel that this is a illusion of choice issue I think it has to with as he said complexity and not knowing what we want. What I see most people doing even on such forms is really delegating choices backwards to standing "meta-decisions" even in places where it would not be good for them, I do not see them as not making choices except in the sense of not really considering the new option as its own, seriously, and within its own... "framing"?
Unfortunately I do not have much on hand to back me up but this is from strenuous observation. Perhaps this is a philosophy of science rather than a science/data issue?
Frater EST
C IAO
Post a Comment