the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

posted 31 Mar 2004, 23:03 in Author Q & AThe conditioning of Kellhus by Replay, Auditor

I agree that believability plays a big part in what makes an epic fantasy great, and it is also one of the reasons that i do not read all that much in the genre. There is nearly always some dark lord who has lived for millenia, yet never changes and continues to act evily just for the sake of acting evily. I guess its a common problem with the fantasy genre, in that the writers can get so caught up in the great freedom they are allowed when creating their worlds and characters, that they often overlook just how believable what they have created really is. The genre can be pretty forgiving though, esepcially if you have believability in other areas. Steven Eriksons books are a good example of this, where he has created such a vivid world and history, that you can overlook the fact that some his characters are hundreds of thousands of years old yet still act like spoilt teenagers (Kallor for example). As for myself, the series i have been planning will be as real as i can make it in every single area. Even what you would call the magic can be considered in the realm of possibility. Of course, readers will still have to suspend belief while they consider the possibilites presented in the book, but i think thats a good thing as it is often where the wonder and awe of the world/story you have created seeps through. view post


posted 02 Apr 2004, 16:04 in Member Written WorksMy Book - A Faceless Shadow by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

All right. Thanks. I am enjoying your story, btw. view post


A few questions posted 02 Apr 2004, 21:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Harren, Commoner

First of all, I want to thank you for writing this. I really love TDTCB, the world and the characters, and I'm eagerly awaiting the next book. I have a few questions: 1)For some reason, I am always interested in the far, distant places; on the map of Earwa, we see Zeum, west of Kian, and Eanna, east of the Kayarsus-mountains. Will we see/hear more about them later on? Do there live people in Eanna? I assume they do in Zeum, as the Xerius mentioned being visited by a Zeumi two years ago. 2) On the excerpts on the 'prince of nothing'-website, there was an old Kuniuri poem about Men, Nonmen and Sranc, above the second prologue, but it was left out of the book; was this for any particular reason? Thank you! view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 02:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Anonymous, Subdidact

I have Chasm City by Alastair Reynolds, The Gunslinger by Stephen King and Last Light of the Sun by Guy Gavriel Kay on the way from Amazon.ca. Like you, Edge, I was trying to decide between a Reynolds book and Illium. Heard a lot of good things about it but decided to go with Reynolds as Revelation Space was amazing. Also currently rereading the Return of the King. Love seeing how Jackson threw in so many lines from the book, and even gave them to different characters if the original character didn't make it to the big screen. Definitely shows that Jackson and his crew were faithful to the books even if they couldn't adapt it scene for scene. view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 02:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by LooseCannon, Peralogue

Err that was me. Looks like I am yet another victim of the dreaded log-in curse ;). view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 10:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Iceman, Candidate

[quote="Replay":2atrdf2f]I guess you could say that is what the whole survival of the fittest is about (though perhaps a better name would be survival of the best, or even survival of the highest value).[/quote:2atrdf2f] This is a common mistake. The survival of the fittest is just that, survival of the fittest not survival of the “best”. It does not assign a value to those that survives or doesn’t survive. Survival is a consequence of the shifting environment. What was best in one environment might be lethal in another environment. This is my first post in this forum, and I didn’t expect it to be on this subject, but… Personally, I’m an atheist. I don’t think there is a God or a Supreme Being out there, not because I haven’t seen any evidence on that, but because, based on our current knowledge of science, I fail to see the reason why there should be. I don’t have any problem with the fact that something is moral to some people are morally wrong to others. To me there is no ultimate right or wrong, but there are things that I consider being right or wrong based on my own moral concept. Morality is relative. The morality of a society is the average of the individual morality of the members of that society, and will shift over time. It’s not that long ago that ‘racial hygiene’ and measures to improve that were considered as morally right. I’m not talking about just the Nazis, but the entire western world. In my country forced sterilisation of people with ‘undesired genetics’ (usually people belonging to the travelling people) continued for decades after WWII. Some of the strongest supporters of this policy were also among the most ardent adversaries of Nazism. view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 11:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Welcome aboard Harren, and thanks for the kind words! With regards to your questions: yes, both Zeum and Eanna are inhabited, and both have roles to play in the darkness that comes after (forgive me - I couldn't resist!) - Zeum moreso. The excerpt on the website (which I hope to replace with something from TWP shortly, BTW - my webguy's gone working as a cybercrime detective for the RCMP and I'm ramping up to teach myself Frontpage) is actually from the Canadian edition of TDTCB. My original British editor, Darren Nash, asked for several changes, including splitting the Prologue in two, and getting rid of the nursery rhyme to avoid 'name overload' at the beginning of the book. To be honest, I'm not sure which version I like better... view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 11:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

So if you're right, and rightness and wrongness is just 'personal,' you're only right because... you personally choose to be? Isn't that incoherent? I've always loved the following quote: "Guilt? It's this mechanism we use to control people. It's a kind of social control mechanism - and it's VERY unhealthy." --Ted Bundy view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 13:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Anonymous, Subdidact

Morality is a social construct. It’s a necessity for the continued survival of that society. The morality of an individual is usually based on the ‘inherited’ morality of the society, adjusted for personal experience. If your individual morality is too far from the moral of the society, like with Ted Bundy, you end up in conflict with that society. Sometimes you manage to convince everybody (or enough) that you are right and they are wrong (i.e. the US Civil Rights Movement) but mostly you end up dead, in jail or excluded from that society. So ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ is not just personal, but influenced by the rest of society. When you judge that something is right or wrong, whether it’s something done by yourself or your neighbour, or someone in another time/place/culture, you do that based on your personal moral which in turn is influenced by the morality of your society. If you personally believe that killing someone because they irritate you is acceptable, it would be hypocritical of you to say that that doing so is wrong just because everyone else thinks so. You might choose not to kill people irritating you because you know that otherwise you’ll end up punished by the society. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t do it because it’s ‘wrong’, but because it’s ‘inconvenient’ to do so. view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 13:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Iceman, Candidate

That was my reply above. Didn't realise I was logged out. view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 14:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

What is the fittest if not the best able to survive? As for morals/value being a social contsruct, well your free to believe that if you want-- i doubt anything i say will change your way of thinking. All i would ask is for you to have an open mind and try an experiment: put your hand in a fire, and then keep repeating that there is no value. Of course, youll probably come up with an answer to that that fits into your world view, the logical mind is clever like that (and also why it should never be relied on). view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Iceman, Candidate

It’s true that what is fittest is best able to survive, but only in any given environment. If the environment changes so does the ability to survive, and the environment is constantly changing. What has the fire experiment to do with morals/value? Doesn’t seem like it comes from someone with an open mind. I believe that morals are a social construct, and can’t see anything wrong with that. You can’t reject something just because it’s a social construct. view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 16:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Title by Iceman, Candidate

I really feels that this ought to be up to that poor guy who's actually writing the books :wink: But I do prefer TTT (apparently like everyone else that has voiced their oppinion) view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 19:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

"Morality is a social construct. It’s a necessity for the continued survival of that society." In other words, morality is (as Bundy says) just a control mechanism, an illusion society uses to conserve its inherited structures of power. It's not that murder is wrong, it's just that - given the murder-averse society we happen to live in - it's pretty stupid, unless your goal happens to be incarceration or execution. In other words, morality is just window-dressing for power - which is to say, a version of nihilism. Kellhus would approve! :wink: But there's a more difficult question: What makes YOUR argument right or wrong, Iceman? In order for you to be right, it seems to me that rightness and wrongness must be absolutes of some kind. But that simply contradicts your initial thesis, doesn't it? view post


posted 05 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

First off, want to apologize for my comment about the logical mind. I wanted to make a point about logic but it came out totally wrong, and in the end turned out to be more an attack than anything (which it shouldnt be, as i know i am just as susceptible to falling into its traps). Secondly, you asked what does that experiment have to do with value? Well, i would have thought it has everything to do with it. If there was no value, you could keep your hand there and let it burn. Of course, that would not happen--you would remove your hand without even thinking about it. Why? Because your hand is more useful (more valuable) if is able to operate properly (which it couldnt if it was burnt to a crisp). The pain sensors in your body were developed for this, so that the body would know when it is being damaged and be able to do something about it; so that it could continue to operate better (value again) than it could if injured. In a way though, your right--morality is kind of a social construct (well a certain type of morality anyway). It is a way of behaving that makes a society better. But it is not the individual rules made up by society that are so important (though they are in a way), as these are sometimes open to change. It is the "makes a society better" part that is important. Because if there is no value, why bother making a society better? Because if there is no value, [b:qe8vjm6d]how[/b:qe8vjm6d] is it even possible to make a society better? (especially since better just about equals value). I could say alot more but im not sure if it would be good to do so. Its a very hard topic to discuss (you can get too caught up arguing over the individual manifestations of it, and end up ingnoring the source) and im certainly no expert on it. It might be worth you reading Zen and the Art of Motocycle Maintenance, as the author of that has a good outlook on value and morality (though i often felt there was something he was missing) and he explains it really well. If you dont want to buy the book, theres a link to an online version of it in another thread on this board. view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 00:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Clarkesworld Books, Peralogue

Mozilla (or whatever it's name is this month) is definitely worth using over IE if for nothing more than tabbed browsing. I go nuts switching back to IE at work. -Neil view post


Visiting the US? posted 06 Apr 2004, 00:04 in Tour and Signing InformationVisiting the US? by Clarkesworld Books, Peralogue

Any chance that there will be some visits to the US when the hardcover edition is published here? -Neil view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 00:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Malarion, Candidate

Dear god, they're trying to dumb-down the British edition! I thought that was an American thing. Glad I had my copy shipped across the Atlantic now (plus the cover design etc is much better in the Canadian release). As I'm getting done with book 2. Got to keep things consistant. :wink: view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 06:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Iceman, Candidate

I think there might be some misunderstanding here. I never claimed that there were no values; of course there are values out there. I only said that there were no intrinsic values in evolution. You can’t say that a lion is better than a Tyrannosaurus Rex just because the lion exist today while the T Rex is extinct. They were adapted to completely different environments. But to go from “there are no values in evolution” to “there’s no values period” is a bit of a stretch. Are you confusing ‘social construct’ with ‘social constrain’. That would make your apparent disgust about morality being a social construct meaning. But in case you don’t and actually think that the idea of morality as a social construct is repulsing, let me ask you a few questions. Do you consider culture to be repulsive? I don’t mean a specific culture, but the concept of cultures. Cultures are clearly a social construct. (If you don’t agree with this statement please feel free to explain how you believe cultures came around.) True, there are cultures out there that we might find wrong or repulsive. Cannibalism or human sacrifice has been part of several cultures. I think we can all agree that these practices are wrong, and that cultures with these traits are ‘bad’ as long as they continue with these practices. (I’m here excluding cannibalism as a last resort for survival in extreme cases, since this is open for discussion.) But the concept of cultures can’t be wrong; otherwise we would never have this discussion. If cultures as a social construct are OK, why is morality as a social construct so bad? I have a few more points to argue, but this post is long enough as it is so I better get back to those later. view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 12:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Is the latter part of this a reply to me, Iceman? The question of constraints makes me think so, but the 'apparent disgust' comment makes me unsure. Maybe it was the Bundy example? Bringing that up was a bad teacher habit, I'm afraid: I like collecting outrageous and interesting examples to shock my students. When it comes to questions in moral philosophy, I take the old bumper sticker as my slogan: 'I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused.' Otherwise, before answering your questions, I'd ask that you answer my question from before first (here quoted): "What makes YOUR argument right or wrong, Iceman? In order for you to be right, it seems to me that rightness and wrongness must be absolutes of some kind. But that simply contradicts your initial thesis, doesn't it?" Quid pro quo! :D view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 13:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Iceman, Candidate

I’m just stating how I see things. I don’t make any claims that I’m the one with the right answer, and that all others are wrong. I consider ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ when it comes to morality to be relative. There are, as I mentioned in my previous post, some things that most agree on, but I’m not sure that makes it an absolute right. And to repeat what I previously said about ‘values’, just because I consider it to be no absolute ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ when it comes to morality, doesn’t mean that there are no ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ on other issues. Or, for that matter, that I can’t have an opinion on what is right on wrong in moral questions. All of my reply in my previous post was directed at Replay. Even if Ted Bundy consider ‘social construct’ as a ‘prison’, there was nothing in your post to indicate that you necessary did so. view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 14:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Harren, Commoner

Thanks for your quick reply :) There was another thing I stumbled on while rereading the book. It was somewhere at the end of the Emperor part, just before Harlot, when the Vulgar Holy War begins, and Calmemunis and the others march out. The date above this part was Late Autumn 4111, which is an error, I'd think, because even at the end of the book the Autumn had not arrived yet; it most probably simply was Late Autumn 4110, as that fits with the rest; but the strange part is that it begins with stating that Maithanet called his Holy War a year and a half earlier, while it happened only half a year before. Are these both errors? view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

[quote="Iceman":rcxtz54u]I never claimed that there were no values; of course there are values out there. I only said that there were no intrinsic values in evolution. You can’t say that a lion is better than a Tyrannosaurus Rex just because the lion exist today while the T Rex is extinct. They were adapted to completely different environments. But to go from “there are no values in evolution” to “there’s no values period” is a bit of a stretch.[/quote:rcxtz54u] This is why i said value is such a hard topic to discuss. You get caught up in individual manifestations of value, and if you try and compare them you always run into problems. Is a t-rex better than a lion? I've no idea about that. What i was trying to get at is that if you look at just the T-rex iteself, you can see how it evolved to become a better killing machine. Again, it is this 'better' that is important. Being better means its of a higher value than an earlier version of whatever the T-rex was doesnt it? Basically, what i am saying is that nothing can evolve if there is no value. What is evolution except moving towards something better than it was? [quote="Iceman":rcxtz54u]Are you confusing ‘social construct’ with ‘social constrain’. That would make your apparent disgust about morality being a social construct meaning. But in case you don’t and actually think that the idea of morality as a social construct is repulsing, let me ask you a few questions. Do you consider culture to be repulsive? I don’t mean a specific culture, but the concept of cultures. Cultures are clearly a social construct.[/quote:rcxtz54u] Im not really sure what you mean by this. I have no disgust about morality being a social construct, and certainly dont find cultures replusive (nor the concept of them). Perhaps the problem is that we both have different meanings for the word morality? If you mean the laws, and what people would call the 'acceptable way of behaving' , then yeah, i can agree with you that they are social constructs. But the thing is, what is this morality except an extension of value? What are these laws and ways of behaving except an attempt to make the society better (of higher value)? Of course, you can run into problems again at this point by looking at the individual manifestations. For example, a hundred years ago, the height of morality was acting like a snob, not having sex before marriage and adding flowery words to your speach. So you could say that since moral rules seem to be changing, they are therefor an illusion and worth nothing. The thing is though, these moral rules are just as subject to evolving into something better as anything else is. It is that underlying value at work again. view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Just to clarify, Iceman: So you don't think all normativity is a social construct, that the rightness and wrongness pertaining to argument transcends social contexts, while the rightness and wrongness pertaining to morality does not? view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I know there was a typo in the first edition (the beginning of chapter 7)regarding the date you mention (as well as about 12 others we've found!). It should be Early Autumn 4111. What puzzles me, though, is that they didn't correct this for the mass paperback version... I distinctly remember noting it on the proofs for the reprint. Typos... It's like trying to strangle water. view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 18:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Iceman, Candidate

[quote:k65nz279]Perhaps the problem is that we both have different meanings for the word morality? If you mean the laws, and what people would call the 'acceptable way of behaving' , then yeah, i can agree with you that they are social constructs. But the thing is, what is this morality except an extension of value? What are these laws and ways of behaving except an attempt to make the society better (of higher value)?[/quote:k65nz279] If you leave out the ‘laws’ part, then that is an apt definition on what I mean by ‘morality’. What I don’t agree with is that there are some fundamental values behind. These ‘values’ are also just social constructs. If these values were universal, then every society would move towards the same goal. They are not. I also disagree with your statement that the society is evolving towards something better. That’s not always the case. Sometimes a society evolves into something worse. It’s now ten years since the Rwanda Genocide. If a society always moves towards something better, this would never have happened. To go back to evolution of animals. Those traits in among an animal species that makes it best capable of surviving and reproducing, are what is going to be most common in the next generation of that species. Say that those trait are more common in the new generation than the previous generation, does that makes the new generation ‘better’ than the previous? Only if the environment are exactly the same. If there have been drastic changes in the environment, that trait might actually be a bad trait causing large portion of that generation to succumb before they are able to reproduce. Evolution only evolves towards something better as long as the environment stays the same. As soon as the environment changes, which it does constantly, what have been gained by evolution could be lost in a heartbeat. [quote:k65nz279]So you don't think all normativity is a social construct, that the rightness and wrongness pertaining to argument transcends social contexts, while the rightness and wrongness pertaining to morality does not?[/quote:k65nz279] I’m afraid you lost me somewhat there, Scott. I’m not a native English speaker, nor have I studied philosophy. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘normativity’. To me there are no rightness or wrongness pertaining arguments on issues that can’t be proved. The statement ‘the sable-toothed tiger is extinct’ is ‘right’ in the sense that the tiger is actually extinct. The statement ‘boys wearing long hair’ cannot be proven to be right or wrong in the same sense. view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 19:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Sorry Iceman. Normativity is a technical term - I'm probably giving native speakers headaches too! It refers to the general category of rightness and wrongness that includes both the rightness and wrongness of argument and claims as well as the rightness and wrongness of morality as well. The reason I'm pressing you on this issue is that you seem to be staking out a roughly 'social constructivist' position, and before I can really give any arguments, I just need to know where you draw the lines. If you were a thoroughgoing social constructivist, then you would have to explain how your own arguments simply don't get swept up into the relativism you describe. If you're not, then you have explain how it is moral value can be a social construct (and therefore relative), when truth value is not. Believe it or not, most theorists grab the first horn of the dilemma (made famous by Plato) - but then only after doing away with the 'constructivist' side of their position, and opting for what's called 'contextualism.' The idea here is that there is no 'context independent' value (be it moral or otherwise). The rightness or wrongness of acts and claims is simply a function of all the contexts, social, historical, economic, personal, evolutionary, physical, and so on, that inform it. Though I don't subscribe to it myself, in my opinion it's a far superior position to social constructivism - and what I think you're tending toward in your replies to Replay, who's trying to bedevil you (as he should) with non-social contexts! The two MAJOR weaknesses of the position, however, have to do with accounting for the apparent objectivity of statements like those you made regarding sabre-tooth tigers, and the difficulty of making cross contextual judgements that seem otherwise obvious, like 'No matter what your point of view, the Holocaust was wrong.' It seems pretty clear that Hitler was off his rocker, no matter how many likeminded people he surrounded himself with. That said, contextualism remains one of the more powerful positions out there. I would never have guessed you weren't a native speaker, BTW. But then you guys have quite an education system in Norway - or so I'm told. view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 19:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Iceman, Candidate

If I understood your post correct, Scot, then you believe that I tend more towards ‘contextualism’. That might be. Since my argumentation is not based on any formal education, I’m only trying to explain my position. I might not use the ‘correct’ terms all the time. [quote:3d1k2mso]The two MAJOR weaknesses of the position, however, have to do with accounting for the apparent objectivity of statements like those you made regarding sabre-tooth tigers, and the difficulty of making cross contextual judgements that seem otherwise obvious, like 'No matter what your point of view, the Holocaust was wrong.' It seems pretty clear that Hitler was off his rocker, no matter how many likeminded people he surrounded himself with.[/quote:3d1k2mso] Ah, but the Holocaust is only wrong based on the morals of the societies of today (in most societies going back at least to the turn of the previous century). You might claim that Hitler was ‘off his rocker’. But you have to remember that only a few decades before, the Turks got away with another genocide. Hitler knew this and expected to get away with this, just like the Turks did. In fact the worldwide moral outcry didn’t start until after the German defeat. In the years before the war, and during the war, the voices decrying this were a meagre minority. At best it was just another point of the long list turning Hitler into a ‘devil’. His warfare and occupations were much higher on that list. Throughout history, the group of people that were considered among ‘us’ as opposed to ‘them’ have steadily increased. Bad thing happening to ‘them’ was not as bad as bad thing happening to some of ‘us’, in fact it could be a good thing. Canada and the US were founded on a Genocide that ended less than 150 years ago. Disclaimer: I by no means condone the Holocaust, or any other Genocide throughout history. view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

[quote="iceman":2zqkw7bi]If you leave out the ‘laws’ part, then that is an apt definition on what I mean by ‘morality’. What I don’t agree with is that there are some fundamental values behind. These ‘values’ are also just social constructs. If these values were universal, then every society would move towards the same goal. [/quote:2zqkw7bi] Theres the problem i was talking about before, if you try and compare values or morals against others, then you find that they are not universal. The thing is, i agree that their not universal. People and societies are for the most part always acting out of conditoning, so as conditions differ, so will what people feel is better. Again though, this still does not negate that there is something there called Value at work. Perhaps the problem is, is that it is very parodixical in nature, so very hard to grasp/explain. And who knows, perhaps most societys are moving towards the same goal (if that goal is just to impove; to make life better for its citizens). As the saying goes, there are many roads that lead to Rome. This does not mean that those roads have to look alike though. Perhaps some roads even take two or three times as long to get to same point. [quote="iceman":2zqkw7bi]I also disagree with your statement that the society is evolving towards something better. That’s not always the case. Sometimes a society evolves into something worse. It’s now ten years since the Rwanda Genocide. If a society always moves towards something better, this would never have happened. [/quote:2zqkw7bi] Your right its not always the case, sometimes it happens that dangerous people get ahold of power and then abuse it. But i bet over time this has, and will continue to, get harder and harder to do. When people realise they dont have to stand for it, and that there are better ways that they can adopt. A great example of this is what has happened in China over the past 50 or so years. Theres alot more i could add to this, such as how their are differing viewpoints etc, but i think its best to stop here. I think that this is a subject where if you think to much about it, you could end up going mad :) view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Iceman, Candidate

I think where we might differ, Replay, is that I consider both Value and Morale as something that differs from society to society based on their spesific cultural history, environment, etc. [i:g715mukq]Edit:[/i:g715mukq] [quote:g715mukq]I would never have guessed you weren't a native speaker, BTW. But then you guys have quite an education system in Norway - or so I'm told.[/quote:g715mukq] Yeah, definitely the worst education system in Northern Europe. :wink: [i:g715mukq]Edit2:[/i:g715mukq] Just read this from the author profile at www.princeofnothing.com: [quote:g715mukq]In the winter of 2000, he moved back to London, Ontario, to complete his dissertation, which is entitled [b:g715mukq]Truth and Context[/b:g715mukq]. [/quote:g715mukq] Should have known better than to start this kind of discussion with this guy... :lol: view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 22:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

[quote="iceman":35hlf9to]I think where we might differ, Replay, is that I consider both Value and Morale as something that differs from society to society based on their spesific cultural history, environment, etc. [/quote:35hlf9to] No i dont think we really differ on that point all that much. All i was trying to do was point to the source of those values/morals, though im not sure how well i succeeded with that. I think perhaps its best we end this particular discussion here though. Its been nice talking about the subject, but i don't really think either of us will really end up agreeing. Besides, i try not to be too attached to any belief or outlook--they tend to get in the way of learning and cause more problems than they are worth--and this particular one is one that i have been trying to drop for a while now (though i did enjoy exploring it whilst posting here). Better that i don't continue to feed it :) view post


posted 06 Apr 2004, 23:04 in Writing TipsGreat News - and please post what work you are all doing. by Ilnaulro, Commoner

It is old christian, iirc, and is just one of those old words nobody uses any more. More to the point, it is very apt for the book as well as being a cool word, don't you think? view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 09:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Harren, Commoner

Shouldn't it be 4110? view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 11:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

You know what, you're wrong and you're right. I have to look at things more closely, but I think there's a COLOSSAL screw-up in the time line in the transition between 4110 and 4111. There was a typo in the first version of the book, but that came later. But this. Heaven's to betsy - my first writer's nightmare... If I was Ford I'd order a recall! I'm not sure how it precisely happened, but I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that I wrote the thing over such a long period of time and was dealing with material from several different drafts when I cobbled together the final manuscript - that and my big fat sloppy ASS! view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Malarion, Candidate

Don't take this the wrong way, mate, but the fact you have made a mistake makes me happy. Its nice to know you are human. I'm (attempting) to write a book myself and I've been having logistical nightmares with army numbers, dates, the time required for messages to reach one side of the nation to the other, and just god damned piecing the whole thing together. There is hope for us all (and the fact that such a mistake - which few of us will probably ever notice bothers you is a sure indication of the pride and quality you are putting into this story, which bodes well for us readers). HAve fun sorting it out for the second edition. :D :P view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 16:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionThe LOTR Films by Elfstone4Evenstar, Commoner

Amazing, Fantastic, Brilliant, Excellent, Exceptional, Glorious, Illustrious, Magnificent, Outstanding, Splendid, Superb .... Need I go on? :wink: view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 16:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionThe LOTR Films by Replay, Auditor

I liked the first film, but the other two did nothing for me. Whilst i can see that they did a fairly good job with them, i think the director just overplayed some of the scenes too much. There were just too many cheesy emotional moments in them for my taste. Plus some of his changes were a bit dubious. He would have done better sticking closer to the book in some parts. view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 17:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionThe LOTR Films by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

As a standalond cinematic experience, I think they were excellent. For me, they were the first fantasy films which did not feel like fantasy but like medieval history. As they relate to the books, there is no comparison. view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 17:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Yes, tabs should definitely be added to IE if they want to stay competitive. view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 17:04 in Writing TipsGreat News - and please post what work you are all doing. by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Quite. It will certainly get people's attention. view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 18:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Sorry, but if you don't mind I would like to step into the ring and say something here, having missed most of this discussion until today. I think that what Replay is talking about with the intrinsic nature of values is halfway right, but needs to be combined with what Iceman is saying. Value derives its meaning (or value) from what we percieve to suit the environment best. They are related, but I believe one is the human perception of suitability. Thus we value strong physiques because historically they were valued (the social value) because prehistorically they were best suited (hunting and gathering). They form a related chain. On the other hand, I do believe, as I have stated before, that morals have no grounding save in the common whim of man, which does have a basis in values which has a basis in suitability. In this way everyone is morally "right," just different. Just how much difference the mean (average) morality is willing to tolerate determines at what point laws are made or wars waged. The interesting point Scott made was (if I am interpreting this correctly, Scott) that if the person stating that there is "one right morality and it is mine" is actually right, then everyone else is wrong. I feel that this is closely related to religion. We have multiple conflicting religions all claiming to be correct. This cannot be true. They must all be semi-correct or one must be correct and the rest utter rot. Sorry about continuing, but I find it quite fascinating. What do you think about opening a philossphy section? view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 18:04 in Tour and Signing InformationVisiting the US? by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Like Seattle Washington? :D view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 19:04 in Tour and Signing InformationVisiting the US? by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

My publicist is still busy hashing out my schedule, but the money looks tight, and I doubt I'll make it out of car striking distance of Ontario. Maybe someday, Jack, but for now I'm bound to my trusty, 14 year old VW... I will try to make it out to sign some books, though, Neil. view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 19:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

A philosophy section would be a good idea - people expecting a long and fruitful discussion about TWP on this thread are in for a surprise! Without sounding too presumptuous, let me put my teaching cap on for a moment, if only so that we can pin down our views and see where each of us stands. The crucial difference at stake here is the question of where rightness/wrongness (normativity) comes from - a question of 'what comes before,' in fact. The big split is between those who think rightness/wrongness follows from human action and those who think rightness/wrongness precedes human action. Do we 'take' things to be right or wrong, or do we 'recognize' them as such. Both of these general positions are widely held and fiercely fought within philosophical circles. The primary problem with the former is moral relativism: if right or wrong are simply the result of individuals or communities taking certain things 'as' right or wrong, then it becomes (seemingly) impossible to make cross individual or communal moral judgments that are anything other than expressions of bias. In fact, ALL moral judgments start seeming arbitrary and entirely unjustified - expressions of power, in effect. Morality starts looking suspiciously amoral. Consider the Holocaust. If the most you can say is "Well, I find it repugnant NOW, but it was obviously the right thing to do when you consider the context back THEN," there's a sense in which you're not making any moral judgment at all. There's a powerful sense in which moral relativism doesn't so much explain morality as it explains it away... And how can it be otherwise, if the rightness or wrongness of genocide becomes a matter of timing? This cuts against some deep seated intuitions. The primary problem with the latter is 'spookiness': if right or wrong are external to individuals or communities, if they are something judgments must be brought into accord with, then just where do they reside? There's many, many possible answers on this side of the question. Some say nature, others say transcendental categories, still others say consequences - and one can't forget divine revelation. After thousands of years of bickering, all philosophers have been able to do is clarify the shape of the disagreements. No one has come even close to providing a knockdown answer one way or another. It starts looking as though we're searching for something - absolute yardsticks of right and wrong - that simply doesn't exist. Things are in quite a muddle. view post


posted 07 Apr 2004, 21:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

I think things will always be in a muddle as well. I dont really think the logical mind can ever come close to grasping "it" (or whatever you want to call it: god, nature, the source, the unknown, or even that which comes before - though i think "it" serves better). Sure it can paint some pretty pictures, but that is all they are and not reality itself. That is not to say it cannot be experienced though, especially if we are "it" made manifest. In a way, that is what most religions are about at their core (though some have strayed from it): reconnecting with reality/the universe through practice. Even the word religion basically means this in its anceint Latin form. Philosophy can have its uses though--it can often point to the truth, even if it cannot grasp it--and i think it would be good to have a philosphy section on this site. Plus i think man has a natural love of wisdom and likes to discuss it. view post


posted 08 Apr 2004, 01:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Thanks Malarion. I'll still be gnashing my teeth to nubs, though. It's like noticing your kid has six fingers the moment before sending it through the kindergarten doors. view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 11:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Euron, Commoner

Has anyone else read Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan? It's an SF book that I just read and really enjoyed. It's extremely fast paced (a bit of a crime thriller really) and dark and hard-edged. Bleak, bleak, bleak stuff. But fun though! There are quite a few SF ideas thrown about, but they certainly don't get in the way of the story. I liked it a lot. view post


Getting the words down. posted 09 Apr 2004, 12:04 in Writing TipsGetting the words down. by Euron, Commoner

I've been into writing (at least in theory!) for a while and I'm always interested in how people go about actually getting their stories onto paper - habits and tricks to avoid the agony of writer's block etc. At first I used to feel quite a lot of pressure to make my first draft as good as I possibly could. I'd type a sentence and then fiddle with it for a while until I liked it. This just didn't work at all as it made my volume of output depressingly feeble and it also made the whole process painful (and therefore very easy to avoid with excuses). Then I read somewhere that it can be much easier to try to separate the creative aspect of writing (coming up with ideas) from the analytical (making it all work and sound good). This made enormous sense to me as these two ways of thinking are really different and I had been trying to do them at the same time. So now, for my first draft, I just write whatever comes into my head - almost deliberately making it bad! No editing. I use a pen and paper as well (condemning myself to some massively dull typing later) to avoid the temptation of easy editing. Obviously I still try to write well, but even if I know that a sentence is poor and has zero chance of surviving as I'm writing it, I try not to worry too much. If there's a tricky part I'm not quite sure how to phrase - I just write straight through it and worry later. For me, it makes the process more fun and I'm able to produce quite a lot of words to bolster my morale! Obviously, many of those words need to be smothered in their beds when I look at them again later, but a lot can be polished up. And a few emerge just as I want them first time, perhaps in a way I wouldn't have achieved if I'd been using the stiffer old technique. When I go back later with my analytical hat on, it's much easier and more fun to assess something that already exists. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear if other people write in a similar way, or about any other habits people have to help them get down to the business of writing. view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Writing TipsGetting the words down. by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

What usually happens to me is this: I start with an idea I feel is brilliant, and I'm totally pumped about it. I spend a few days or even weeks thinking about it and fiddling with it, then start writing. I get a couple of typed pages into it, take a break, and come back and read it. Sometimes I think it's okay and sometimes I think it's crap, but I never really like it. Then I pick up a book and do some reading and am blown away by the authors writing. I feel there is no way I could do my storyline and world justice, so I just stop writing and stick to reading. That is the general pattern, and I don't really write much because I always feel that way and It just isn't worth it. My favorite part is coming up with plots and worlds anyway. view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 16:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Six fingers could be handy. You could hold more. Actually, if you correct this screw up in later editions (which I assume you will), this one will become very valuable in all likelihood. view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 16:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I do believe that Morality is a total human construct. However, I also think it has deep seated roots in our evolutionary past. The do unto others as you would have others do unto you sort of mentality. If you kill your neighbor, your other neighbor will kill you before you kill him. The fundamentals of morality have a grounding in basic logic, which is why we have certain seeming 'global' standards. I'm going to do that section. view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 16:04 in Tour and Signing InformationVisiting the US? by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

We should raise a plane ticket fund! JK. view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 16:04 in The Warrior ProphetRelease Dates by Anonymous, Subdidact

It looks like TWP was moved back to June, does anyone know the revised release date? view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 17:04 in Author Q & AThe Series That Comes After? by Euron, Commoner

The thought of eventually having three trilogies to tell this great story is pretty exciting! I also like the idea of returning to the same characters twenty years later to see just how they've changed, perhaps not even realising that some of them are characters we already know until crucial details are revealed. Ohhh, it's gonna be good. :D view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Malarion, Candidate

Six fingers on my wifes hand wouldn't be that great. Another set of rings would be demanded. :cry: view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 21:04 in Tour and Signing InformationVisiting the US? by Wil, Head Moderator

Sovin and I live in Central Washington, Seattle's just a hop over the pass. view post


posted 09 Apr 2004, 23:04 in Writing TipsGetting the words down. by Kellais, Commoner

Hey Sovin Nai Why don't you show us something of your writing and/or of your world-building (documents, maps etc.) . I'd really like to see some of it... Kellais view post


posted 10 Apr 2004, 00:04 in Writing TipsGetting the words down. by Malarion, Candidate

Sorry to hear about your dispair, Sovin. Imagining is a fun bit about the writing process, and the easiest...sometimes. Given practise, however, I think you'll eventually find that the writing part will eventually grow to fill that role. I was the same as ou once, completely embittered against my own style, but keeping at it makes a real diference. Type away a complete pile of rubbish, by all means, and then bin it. After that you'll find you've stepped up a league. Writing, like everything, is not easy. Practice makes perfect. And so I'll add my agreement to what Euron said. Get it all down, and then go back and edit. If you edit entirely as you write you'll never get going. Also, and this is important in Fantasy writing. Get your world right. Get your story right. Work..work...work...work on it. It will take an unimaginable amount of dedication to succeed. In my case, I've been working on it since I was 10. I'm now 27 and I'm still learning. Never give in. view post


posted 10 Apr 2004, 05:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Clarkesworld Books, Peralogue

Altered Carbon is really good. You should pick up the sequel, Broken Angels! -Neil view post


posted 11 Apr 2004, 11:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Edge, Peralogue

Also a big fan of Richard Morgan. Read [i:3qarsozr] Altered Carbon [/i:3qarsozr] and have both [i:3qarsozr] Broken Angels [/i:3qarsozr] and [i:3qarsozr] Market Forces [/i:3qarsozr] in the To Be Read Pile. Just finisned Neal Stephenson's [i:3qarsozr] The Confusion [/i:3qarsozr] the sequel to [i:3qarsozr] Quicksilver [/i:3qarsozr]. Another thumping good read from Stephenson, weighing in at a massive 815 pages in paperback. view post


posted 11 Apr 2004, 12:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionThe LOTR Films by Edge, Peralogue

Loved the movies. Thought RotK was the best. Was disappointed about Saruman being cut though. Can't understand how Jackson could not have trimmed five minutes from somewhere else so that he could have been included. We will have to wait until the extended edition comes out to see if it was justified. view post


posted 12 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Writing TipsGetting the words down. by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Thanks. I'll work on digging some of it up. I'm not sure how much I've kept. view post


posted 12 Apr 2004, 15:04 in The Warrior ProphetRelease Dates by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Hey ur-lord. Which country are you talking about? I'm assuming Canada? view post


posted 12 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

But maybe because it's sixth and extra and special and all that you could argue that it doesn't get rings? view post


posted 12 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Tour and Signing InformationVisiting the US? by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Where are you, ur-lord? It sounds like Seattle. view post


posted 12 Apr 2004, 18:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Since we've thrown evolution into the salad, let's pursue it, since it offers some interesting analogies, I think, to what's at stake in our moral debate. Consider 'sexual pleasure.' We engage in sexual behaviour for its own sake, because it's pleasurable. From an evolutionary perspective, however, sexual pleasure is simply SUBREPTIVE - which is just a fancy way of saying we think we do it because it's pleasurable, when in fact we do it to facilitate the reproduction of our genes. The same, evolutionary psychologists would say, is true of love. What we call 'love' simply facilitates the long-term pair-bonding required to successfully rear human offspring to the age of reproduction. In other words, love is just a SUBREPTION, an illusion that commits us to behaviours that (in this case) are evolutionarily effective. And the same, many would argue, goes for morality as well. Morality is simply something that generates the social cohesion necessary to produce the stable communities required to successfuly rear human offspring to reproductive age. Another subreption. Can this be right? Smacks of nihilism to me... view post


posted 12 Apr 2004, 19:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by LooseCannon, Peralogue

On a completely unrelated note I saw a cow on TV a few weeks ago that has a third leg growing out of it's forehead. Thank you, that is all. view post


posted 12 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Author Q & AA few questions by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

That would be my cow. view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 02:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Loof, Peralogue

I use windows Xp at home since its easyest, and i dont realy feel i have a need for the kind of controll switching to linux would offer. Also since i like to play a computergame from time to time and getting a game to run on linux is even more trublesome.... *shrugs* At school they use sun solaris systems but i have never gotten around to realy learn them. My browser of choice is Mozilla for several reasons, tab's being one of them. I have some experience with programing (thats what im studying i just havent gotten that far yet) mainly C++ and java. I Have also taken a course or two in html mysql and php altho i have forgotten most of it since im more interested in aplication programing then in database codeing or scripting. view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 02:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Loof, Peralogue

Right now I'm reading Claw of the Councilator, by Gene Wolfe. It's a good book although im not quite as blown away as some peopel seem to be. After i finish with new sun series i think the next book in order would be American Gods, by Gaiman. Or maybe i will go for Altered Carbon which is also gathering dust in the bookself now that you remind me ;-) Last book i read like several others here, was Midnight Tides. Liked it alot and it is probably rakend second among Eriksons books after Memories of Ice acording to me. Altho i do think he overdid the comedy a bit in parts of this one... but then it was good comedy ;-) view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

It seems to me that Linux would be the best programming platform. It certainly is the best scripting platform, in my experience. view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

That sounds quite right to me, nihilism or what have you. The big thing that I feel most people don't understand when discussing this is that just because Morality has no absolute grounding [i:b4lctlkj]does not demean it in any way[/i:b4lctlkj]. People say that without god anyone can do anything and feel fine about it, but I disagree. Arguably, those that behave in a "moral" fashion but don't believe in a god are more moral than those who do, because most of the god inspired morality stems from a fear of retribution, whereas those individuals who are moral to be moral do it because they feel it to be right or the will of society. That was a long sentence. view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 17:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

From an evolutionary standpoint, morality is an illusion that tricks us to behave in ways that maximize reproductive success. Save this deception, there's no point, no purpose... The problem isn't that this 'demeans morality,' it's that it renders it MEANINGLESS. Does your life, or any life for that matter, have any meaning? And remember, to say something like 'It has the meaning I give it' simply begs the question, which is simply whether there's any such thing to give at all... From an evolutionary standpoint, we've simply fooled ourselves into thinking our lives have value and purpose. view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 17:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

Cu'jara, from a few of your other posts i figured you didn't agree with nihilism, yet wasn't what you described in your last post exactly that? Or am I missing something? view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 18:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I'm just trying to tease out the implications of affirming an evolutionary account of morals. view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 19:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

So do you believe that morality is an illusion and meaningless then or not? view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 21:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by LooseCannon, Peralogue

I have a dual-boot of Redhat Linux 9 and Windows XP on my Laptop and just XP on my desktop. I use vmware at home on my PC so that way I can install several different OS's whenever I need to without them affecting my hard drive. You might want to give that a try, Loof if you are interested. www.vmware.com I like Linux but I do find that Windows XP beats it just for the overall graphics and multimedia aspect. And I prefer Outlook 2003 over the garbage e-mail clients that come with X Windows. Also, I heard that the next version of IE (7.0 I imagine) will feature tabbed browsing as well as a built in pop-up blocker to counter Mozilla. view post


posted 13 Apr 2004, 21:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by LooseCannon, Peralogue

I liked American Gods, took me a while to get into it but the last 200 pages or so went by very quickly for me. The book reminded me a lot of Steven King's style for some reason. Been meaning to read Neverwhere for over a year now :oops: Rereading Gardens of the Moon by Erikson at the moment. First time in a couple of years so it is refreshing to start from the beginning again. Also, I finished the Gunslinger last weekend and must say I enjoyed it. Some of the stuff at the end about the time nexus, etc was very interesting. Can't wait to get the rest. view post


My World (In Progress) posted 13 Apr 2004, 21:04 in Member Written WorksMy World (In Progress) by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Here is a preliminary map design I have started working on. More is forthcoming. view post


posted 14 Apr 2004, 02:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Loof, Peralogue

Thanks for the tip and yeah i have been thinking about going witha dual os setup for a while... but since i have never felt i had the time to realy learn a new OS I have never gotten around to it. As to what is the best programing platform, i think the diference is marginal at best. At least if what you want (like me) is a good IDE (integrated developing enviroment, or something like that) since most of the good ones atleast for java which im working in now exist for both linux, windows and unix platforms. And since most unix/linus programers use emacs to code in and it exists for windows too the reasons to switch OS based on programing needs are'nt that many. About the only one i can think of is gcc which is suposed to be the most eficent compiler around, and since im not selling anything yet i dont realy have a need for that either ;-) view post


Hmn posted 14 Apr 2004, 05:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Norsirai, Commoner

Loathe as I am to speak for Cu'jara, I think one thing he's trying to tease out is that morality is [i:2ko3mrmv]not[/i:2ko3mrmv] an illusion, nor meaningless. The reductionist stances he posed out for us a few posts earlier, indeed, are [i:2ko3mrmv]ripe[/i:2ko3mrmv] with implications. Of which, the first and foremost to my mind is that they lack logical follow-through. It's easy to think, and perhaps it may even be right (though I do not agree with this) that the pleasure of sex is an illusion merely wrought to heighten fecundity-- that love, might very well be nothing more than the proverbial weaving of straw into gold, to deepen the luster and hue of successful child rearing. The thoughts of evolutionary psychology that he's briefly related seem to shortsightedly ignore something, as if the [i:2ko3mrmv]purpose[/i:2ko3mrmv] behind the drive to propagate is merely to sow the seed, rather than an ordered latticework that frames up the forms of life itself. The two might seem the same, but they only seem that way. It appears to me, that such stoppered streams of thought only observe that the clothes are being mended by the fact that we must wear them, that the dishes and floors are being washed simply because they must be cleansed... while ultimately failing to note the diligent and beautiful stepsister behind all the work, if you will. That being, that whether the joy of sex is real or a red herring of the psyche, whether love is a fancy bred in the heart or in the head, what seems to be overlooked is that beneath the reality or the unreality, there is an implication of underlying purpose, irregardless of either. I believe it is this, which he is alluding to, however I'm sure he'll speak on it shortly. Whether I'm right, or wrong. :wink: view post


posted 14 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I find there's also a certain satisfaction in not using Microsoft products, though. I love the idea of opensource and like to support it. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 01:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Loof, Peralogue

Yeah I can agree with the openscorce sentiment. But i have never understood the not useing microsoft producs as a principle stand... sure i dont agree with some of their policys but if they make the product that best suits my need I will make it easy for myself and use it, if not i will use what I find most likeable =) But then as i said i have never realy learned Linux so when i do i might find i like it more and switch... who knows *shrugs* view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 01:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by LooseCannon, Peralogue

I've read articles that speculate if Linux ever manages to make its way onto a majority of desktop computers there could be an increase in viruses and software exploits. That is probably the only bad thing about open source - everyone can see the code and look for ways to exploit it. Of course on the flip side decent-minded people can see the code as well and alert developers to any potential flaw in their kernel code. Anyway, my point is that a lot of the flak Microsoft takes about all their critical patches is not entirely fair. They are just an easier target because people that use their software are the average computer user (read: idiot ;)) while users of Linux tend to keep their systems updated and patched and know enough not to click on shady file attachments. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 01:04 in Member Written WorksMy Book - A Faceless Shadow by LooseCannon, Peralogue

The pic of the map has been "temporarily removed" at your site, Mal. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 12:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I was trying to wait out Jack for a response - but no such luck! :lol: I think evolutionary (like social constructivist) accounts of morality simply come to nihilism in the end. And nihilism, I think, is the scourge of our day, something that's gnawing at our culture from the inside. That said, I absolutely refuse to paper over the problem. This is one demon that must be stared in the eye. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 13:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

Ok, thanks for making that clear. There was some confusion over the way you actually wrote that recent post--it seemed more like you were arguing for nihilism. I can agree with you that nihilism is a scourge of our day, but am not sure why you would say that evolutionary accounts of morality come down to that. Would you mind explaining a bit more? Perhaps the problem is we both have different views on what evolution is, or are perhaps looking at it from different angles. That is always the problem with the discussions such as these--especially on a internet forum--it is always hard to know where the other is coming from. p.s. Norsirai: Nice analogy with the stepsister. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 14:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

The evolutionary side is easy: no matter how much we 'affirm' our moral intuitions, the fact remains they're simply arbitrary, subreptive artifacts of an arbitrary evolutionary history. The social context side is somewhat more tricky. But in the end, I would argue, it all comes down to games of power and control. Rightness and wrongness become the determination of dominant groups and their memes - nothing more. For me, the big thing is that once you reflect on either of these approaches, it becomes unclear why morality should have any hold on you. 'That's just evolution screwing with you.' 'That's just what society says.' If statements like this are TRUE, why shouldn't we ALL say them? One could argue that you should act in this or that way to avoid incarceration or psychological dissonance, but it all comes down to self-interest - feeding the animal. Right or wrong collapse into desire (as the emotivists would say is the case). At issue here is the question of whether self-sacrifice, like dying to save your child (or your country, faith, etc.), has any meaning. I'm not interested in knowing whether I'm acting in accordance with my evolutionary design or my social conditioning; what I want to KNOW (as opposed to merely believe) is whether this act is RIGHT. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 19:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":3j3oo7ux]The evolutionary side is easy: no matter how much we 'affirm' our moral intuitions, the fact remains they're simply arbitrary, subreptive artifacts of an arbitrary evolutionary history. The social context side is somewhat more tricky. But in the end, I would argue, it all comes down to games of power and control. Rightness and wrongness become the determination of dominant groups and their memes - nothing more.[/quote:3j3oo7ux] I can kind of see what you are saying, especially from the social context side. For instance, just because someone in power says something is moral, it does not have to mean that it is. The problem i have though is that these points seem too much like blanket statements that leave out more than they include. At a basic level i think morality is not really about power or control, but more about a way of living that benifits not only yourself, but others also. Deep down everyone wants peace, happiness, and to suffer as little as possible, and because we recognise that others are really no different from ourselves, we know that they also want these same things. So we have these guidelines which we call morality; guidelines that help make everyones lives better. For instance, you would not like to be robbed, killed or abused in any other way, so you do not do these things to others. Im not saying that these guidelines are set in stone though, in fact i think they are as open to change as anything. We are always having new experiences and gaining new information that we did not have before, so can continue to refine what it means to act morally. Again, on the evolutionary side i can kind of see where your coming from e.g. Just because evolution has made us act a certain way to help propagate the species, it does not mean we have to continue acting that way. But then is that not evolution in itself? Once, all we cared about was surviving and did whatever was necassary, whereas today we care abit more about how our actions affect others (though there is still some conditioning left over from earlier times). So even though you could say evolution tells us to have offspring, is this really true? If it is, would it not also be true to say that evolution has made us see that perhaps having offspring wouldnt be the best thing? That our views have evolved and we can see that adding more to this already overcrowded planet might not be quite so good? This is what i trying to get at earlier when i was talking about evolution. I think the problem is though that when you mention the word, most people tend to think of it in just a biological sense. But really, it is hard to see that there is anything that evolution does not touch. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

The satisfaction I mean about not using MS products is not a principles one, just nice to change and see something different and especially, free. I hate how much software costs. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Member Written WorksMy World (In Progress) by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Here is the first page I have written. I'm just starting to experiment with characters and the environment. I'd love to hear peoples' reaction. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I'll start by saying that I read down to cu'jara's post about waiting for me, and then made this post. So I have not read anything after that, and I hope that this post will make sense in context. The question does life have any meaning? No, I don't think it does. Meaning is an illusion we create to be happier and better motivated to procreate. In many ways it is like the matrix's idea, that what we experience is just to keep us happy. That is what I think, but i believe in that illusion because it makes me happier. But, honestly, I don't think that there really is any meaning or purpose save self perpetuation. That is scary. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 20:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

After reading the rest of the posts, I mus say I agree with you, RePlay. Cu'Jara, I don't think that is or ever will be a way to KNOW because there is nothing to KNOW. It all comes down to belief. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 21:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

You bite your bullets, Jack. Hard not to respect that. "At a basic level i think morality is not really about power or control, but more about a way of living that benifits not only yourself, but others also." This is what I was driving at with the self-sacrifice bit. But as far as non-biological evolution, I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. People often use the word 'evolution' as a synonym for 'progress' - is that what you mean? view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 22:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

Yeh, i guess you could call it progress (though to me something does not seem right about that). It is like if you have a view on something and then someone comes along with information that you did not have before. When you include this new information, your view evolves into something better than it was before. Science is a good example of this. A while ago, what Newton said about gravity was the truth, but then along came Einstein who looked at it with a different view and gained more information. He then added this to the already established truth, and made a stronger truth about gravity. And then of course along came the modern physicists who have even more information about the world than Einstien, and are working to make an even stronger truth. The same goes for societies: There is some kind of change, and if that change works out to be better, then it is adopted. It is perhaps alot more complicated than that, but at its core, i dont think it is really all that different from the evolution that takes place in biology. view post


posted 15 Apr 2004, 23:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionOS's and Browsers by Loof, Peralogue

Yeah costs are high for alot of software, although the development time for most software is rather long so in some ways its understandable. One thing thats realy irritating is how much more ecpencive server software can be compared to homeuse counterparts, even if they are both based on the same foundation so to speak. view post


posted 16 Apr 2004, 01:04 in Member Written WorksMy World (In Progress) by LooseCannon, Peralogue

I think it is a decent opening to a novel. Might even be good as the first chapter following a prologue that has some action in it and fills in some of the backstory (i.e. the usual formula you see in fantasy books). Two things that didn't seem to fit were the use of the word 'wetlanders' which seems sort of ripped off from a Wheel of Time book and the desert being described as stretching for miles and having never been crossed by these wetlanders. It doesn't sound daunting enough. Perhaps "hundreds of miles of barren desert" or something more descriptive like that. But good stuff. I know how hard it is to put to paper what you create in your mind. That is why I don't do it :P view post


posted 16 Apr 2004, 01:04 in Literature DiscussionStephen Erikson's Books by LooseCannon, Peralogue

I'm rereading GOTM for probably the fourth time (I think) and the first time in a few years and I am discovering a few tidbits I hadn't noticed before. Erikson has admitted that there are a few inconsistencies between this book and later books (some characters undergo sex changes as well as some erroneous dates) but it does become clear as you go back and read the books over. Btw, are you done reading GOTM yet, Wil? view post


posted 16 Apr 2004, 05:04 in Literature DiscussionStephen Erikson's Books by Wil, Head Moderator

Yeah, I'm about 300 pages into Memories of Ice. I ripped through GOTM and Deadhouse Gates. So far I love them, their really easy to read but not simple (if that makes ANY sense). I'm loving all the characters! view post


posted 16 Apr 2004, 15:04 in Philosophy DiscussionOn The Warrior Prophet by Replay, Auditor

[quote="Sovin Nai":3ruo2xyt]After reading the rest of the posts, I mus say I agree with you, RePlay. Cu'Jara, I don't think that is or ever will be a way to KNOW because there is nothing to KNOW. It all comes down to belief.[/quote:3ruo2xyt] I can agree that in the ultimate sense, there is nothing to know (not that there is nothing there, just that it is unknowable--if that makes sense :)) Im not sure it comes down to belief though. Perhaps what it really comes down to is experience/action. The problem is that it is nigh on impossible to accurately describe any experience. Even if you take something simple such as a nice cold and refreshing drink on a hot sunny day, can you really explain that experience to anyone? Can words really grasp the fullness of what that drink was like? Sure, the logical mind can cut the experience to pieces; can perhaps start talking about how tastebuds work, or how the temperature of the drink lowered your own, but does any of this ever get close to how the drink actuallly refreshed you? how the drink actually tasted? And what if that drink was lemon flavoured, and the person you were explaining it to had never even tasted lemon? How do you explain that? Of course you could bring up some similarities; some frame of reference from other tastes, but does that really tell you what lemon tastes like? The only real way for someone to understand what that drink was like is to drink it for themselves. Years of debating over what it is really like is never going to compare with that actual simple experience. All you would really have is, as you said, a belief over what it is really like. Now try and imagine what it must be like to try and describe something that has very little frame of reference. Something that doesnt really fit into our normal way of thinking/looking at the world. And just how do you go about explaining it to someone who has not had anything close to the same experience? view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.