[MD] Speed of Lighting, Roar of thunder...

[Magnus Berg]

> [Krimel]
> ... so let's deconstruct...
> _____________________________________________
>>> FRANK!
>>> Perspectives, worlds, real worlds, being, becoming are human concepts
>>> ( patterns ). Stepping out of the human world is a human concept (
>>> pattern ).No one gets outta here alive, bubba. Not getting outta here
>>> alive is a human concept ( pattern ).
>
> [Krimel]
> True dat!
> Life without concepts is life on life support.
> For those who object, I recommend advanced directives.
> If you want to stay plugged in, you are going to have be engaged.
> The decision isn't between concept and no-concept...
> It's a matter of which concepts.
>
> So yeah, decision, concept and no-concept are concepts. Either grab one or
> STFU.
> ______________________________________________
>
> First: As I recall Frank is Ron (Xacto) in ultra-cool sarcastic mode.
> (See his awesome post flushing post. OMG that was good!)

Not so cool on my part, cause it's a bloody waste of time.


> So the proposer of the Kulpian Illusion points out that whatever the "real
> world" is; we live, not with "it," but with our conceptions of "it."

If you by "we live" only mean the intellectual part of life, then yes. 
But if you include eating, farting, running and fucking, then it comes 
up pretty darned short.


> I am on board with that. I say in agreement, that we have no choice but to
> create and use concepts to describe "Shit Happening."
> We are never arguing about "Shit".
> We argue about our concepts of "Shit"
> We don't give a shit about "Shit"
> We care about our concepts of "Shit"

Sure, we can't *argue* about shit which is not conceptualized, but life 
isn't, as I said above, solely about arguing.

> Some, mainly Marsha, seem to think, "meh," to ALL concepts. You can take
> than or leave them. They are illusions in the sense of falsity, dreams,
> fake, chicanery. I say and I think Ron agrees that illusions are not false
> at all. They are alternative points of view.
> Point of View (POV) is our constant companion. While we live, we have at
> least one.

Well, POV is perhaps not a good acronym to use here. If I see it, I 
think Pattern of Value, not Point of View.

Also, I thought the Point of View we should be using here is the MoQ. 
Then we may have different opinions about what that MoQ is.

> So I said:
> "Life without concepts is life on life support."
> In other words without concepts, we are comatose.
> So either pick a set of concepts and use them or Shut the Fuck Up and sip
> your saline drip.

As I said above, I disagree. I wouldn't *want* a life without concepts, 
but it would certainly be more than what you think.

I'm pretty sure many animals doesn't conceptualize much, but it seems 
they live a pretty good life anyway.

> [Magnus]
> I'm actually not sure it was the point of Pirsig's gravity example. I
> mean, he didn't have the tools of the levels when he wrote that in ZMM.
> To me, it's just a clear cut example of the creation of an intellectual
> pattern, the concept, or theory of gravity in this case.
>
> Gravity, on the other hand, is an inorganic pattern that has existed
> since the big bang. I have no idea why people would want to deny that
> when it's so plain to see the connection.
>
> [Krimel]
> I think that actually was the point of Pirsig's example.
> The levels do buttkiss to improve upon the notion.

And as I've said, I think they can do quite a bit more than that.

> [Magnus]
> What I'm saying is that since we have this tool of the levels, and since
> it *is* a rather good fit for dividing this undefined which is going on
> outside our concepts of it, why not try to make it a better fit?
>
> [Krimel]
> Because people have been cutting themselves on those tools for 10 years.
> I'd rather be on life support that continue that tradition.

So, I'm the only one with a good enough toolbox.

> [Magnus]
> In fact, why assume that whatever is going on is more complicated than
> it has to be? If nobody is here designing it, how *could* it be very
> complicated? And isn't the levels an example of the most simple
> construction? One static level does whatever it can using the static
> rules it has to work with, and then when that level is done and reaches
> a kind of static state, then the next level can work with that and
> create more dynamic things.
>
> I do *not* understand the rationale for not even trying to make that
> better fit.
>
> [Krimel]
> As I recall I have mentioned before that I carry a Leatherman Squirt in my
> pocket all the time. It has a knife, file, pliers screwdrivers etc. It is
> really handy for fixing lots of small stuff in a pinch. But if I spent most
> of my time fixing small stuff, The Squirt would suck. I would need more
> specialized tools. Perhaps a box full of them. Since I don't need to fix
> shit that often, I don't carry a box of tools. I pack the Squirt.
>
> I don't tell handymen they are fools for over complicating to problem. But
> that is partly because, the way the Squirt is designed, I have cut myself
> with it way too many times.

Yes, yes, yes. I've heard that before. You gave up. You're a quitter. 
Nothing more than that.

But just because you gave up doesn't mean everyone else has to. Have you 
*proven* that it's impossible to make a working toolbox? Have you even 
looked at other boxes and shown that they don't work? No, you just took 
the one spelled out for in Lila and at the first sign of crumbling, you 
tossed it away and started bitching about its shortcomings.

> [Krimel]
> I decided to carry the Squirt because after years of carrying a Leatherman
> Juice, I decided to was too big, too much baggage. When I carried the Juice,
> I did a lot of computer repair and it was very good for that.
>
> I try to keep my toolkit as simple and as light as possible but I almost
> always have one with me. I am uncomfortable flying because Homeland Security
> forces me to check the tools I love.
>
> At present I love the Squirt.
> In the past I loved the Juice.
> I choose, moment to moment, which tool works for the tasks at hand.
> At the level of tools I have many lovers.

Sure, that might work for fixing broken computers, but we're only 
talking about one context here, and it's the universe.

	Magnus