Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
DISS BE THE PILOPHSY OF GORK & MORK

1: PUNCH HARDER

2: PUNCH LEFT HOOK WHEN THY NOT LOOKING

THE NEXT NUMBER I CAN'T THINK OF: BIG STRONGEST

THE LAST NUMBER: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
 
I mean, that is fair. I am just used to stress testing philosophical ideas because it is a useful tool to find their limits, but as you say, its not universally applicable.

And on my tangential note, I do think that the ideal here is constant improvement rather than static optimality, because the Truth being unachievable, for me, means that it is something worth ever striving for and coming closer and closer, even if one can never reach it and its still lightyears away, so any "optimal" grid must, by definition, become outdated eventually until the impossible of knowing is achieved, which it won't because its impossible, at least for an unupdated human brain.

The theory goes that just as truth cannot be contained within a grid, you need not be restricted to grids. Flitting between them is practice for no longer needing them, what Discordianism calls 'illumination', allegedly achieved in symbiosis with one's pineal gland. But that's all part of the more mystical parts of the doctrine that I only really vibed with on an aesthetic level, and a philosophy limited to collecting and practicing useful and beautiful worldviews is one that I've found to be useful and beautiful.
 
The theory goes that just as truth cannot be contained within a grid, you need not be restricted to grids. Flitting between them is practice for no longer needing them, what Discordianism calls 'illumination', allegedly achieved in symbiosis with one's pineal gland. But that's all part of the more mystical parts of the doctrine that I only really vibed with on an aesthetic level, and a philosophy limited to collecting and practicing useful and beautiful worldviews is one that I've found to be useful and beautiful.

That's fair too. I have been using grid as a shorthand, but a hypothetical achievement of the Truth would require holistic understanding.
 
Good lord, that Shallya's face is disturbing...
It was painted by a guy explicitly called "Grotty-o". I'd not expect quality.

More seriously, though, I'd assumed that Shallya's appearance there was intentionally meant to look like a man in drag, as a nod by GW's commissioned artist to the Renaissance artist habit of using male models when painting women - Michelangelo was criticised even by his contemporaries for it and then doubled down.

Put through the British Comedy lens that most GW works pass through to get their requisite satire content, which traditionally includes a lot of drag artists and, yeah, that's what Shallya looks like in in-universe Tilean art.
 
Last edited:
Man, the inside of mathilde's head is havin a real one today, huh lads

fascinating sets of conversations happening, love this thread
 
Binary thinking is a useful tool when done correctly. "This event happened" is a either true, or false. If it's not entirely true then we can call it false- Schrodinger's cat doesn't care the nuances, it cares about if dead or not dead.

So there's a lot of mileage to be gotten from drawing out binary decision trees rather than thinking that since most things are spectrums binaries are a trap.


I would highly encourage both of you to take a similar course if you can. Metaphysics of Identity was the name.

Sorry, missed that one due to it being an edit.

I have taken philosophy courses myself. Thought it was obvious. Not that exact one though.

I agree, binary thinking is often a handy shortcut. Its why humans developed it. It often offers evolutionary advantage, and it is genuinely useful with no downsides in many more practical problems. Its even really, genuinely fully true on occassion, as I said myself. Chairness, imo, has at least one binary state that makes it not a chair if it is turned off.

None of that means taking it as the default is not a trap. The same way humanity's evolved depth perception can result in false results thanks to optical illusions (which is not "just" a novel party trick, optical illusions to trick the brain have been used in warfare and resulted in death of combatants) despite being unmistakably an evolutionary advantage, binary thinking can even moreso trap one in false assumptions.

Even given your example, many a events can be more accurately be described on more complicated spectrums. For example, a concert is an event. So let's say the singer came, sang a single song, then left. Did the concert happen?

Binary thinking cannot answer that fully truthfully. It can only be answered depending on WHY the question is asked. If the question is asked in order to find out whether the singer had an alibi, then yes, the concert happened, the singer was there. If the question is asked in order to find whether the concertgoers deserve a refund, then no, it didn't happen, they deserve one. But if one searches the abstract and full truth of the event, only nuance and spectrum can answer it. In that sense, binary thinking is helpful but won't give a complete answer, only a useful answer.
 
No grid is itself True, but they can help you understand Truth. The idea of finding the 'truest' grid makes no sense because truth is subjective and Truth is deeper than grids. The idea of finding the 'best' grid makes more sense, but is still self-defeating.

Or in Joerg von Zavstra's words:

He considers that for a while. "A man once sought to truly understand water, and followed every river he could find to its mouth. His conclusion was that the true nature of water is salty, and he died of thirst."
 
I had a thought.

If we're going to pass off this Portativ instrument as modestly holy to make people less suspicious of it...

Something that might involve some amount of religious iconography...

Should we name it... the Eikonophone?
 
On a tangential note, I don't believe that any one perception of reality can be most useful and most pleasant and most beautiful. Even if 'optimal' grids are a concept that makes any sense, you're still going to want a suite of them.
This strikes home. I've been thinking for a year or so about a post I saw on the secret histories subreddit. They explained that in the ruins of Gaza, lacking any genuine faith in a religion, they had made a shrine to a fictional diety of preservation and endurance from the Secret Histories universe. They said that even though they knew it wasn't real, in the lack of any other framework they could believe in, this one helped.

And I really loved that. It's ritual separated from faith, and it mirrors a lot of more subtle variations that (as an atheist) I'm very familiar with. Things like doing things "in honor of someone's memory."

The passage from the Principia that you posted resonates with me. I've spent some time wrestling with ethics and morality, partially in the context of a few classes and partially in the context of my own reading, and come to the general conclusion that there is no perfect morality, only tools that we have to decide between -- and that sometimes we should use one framework, and sometimes another.

I had read some of the Principia ten years or so ago when I was much younger, but didn't dig very deep; maybe I'll go back and try again.
The theory goes that just as truth cannot be contained within a grid, you need not be restricted to grids. Flitting between them is practice for no longer needing them, what Discordianism calls 'illumination', allegedly achieved in symbiosis with one's pineal gland. But that's all part of the more mystical parts of the doctrine that I only really vibed with on an aesthetic level, and a philosophy limited to collecting and practicing useful and beautiful worldviews is one that I've found to be useful and beautiful.
I'm a little disappointed that some of what I had read into the first passage you posted isn't how other parts approach it. On the other hand, discordianism, from what I remember, is exactly the kind of thing where you're supposed to just take what you like, so I can't complain.

What I found most interesting about the passage was the implication that humans are fundamentally divorced from any ability to grasp actual Truth by our desire to meaning-make*; that the process of approaching truth is impossible, because there is no metric by which to approach it; that any perspective is equally valid and we must make arbitrary decisions between them, and in doing so define what we call valid and invalid.**

I've always been skeptical of enlightenment of this style; I've run into similar sounding forms of enlightenment in Buddhism, though I've never investigated them in any depth. (Or rather than say that I'm skeptical of it, I suppose I should say that I don't find it convincing to say that it's anything other than a different, equally valid and invalid perspective on reality. Though given I've never investigated those arguments properly, it's a bit shallow to say I'm not convinced by them.)

* I clearly need to reread Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek; it says a lot about this, and I don't remember much of it.

** Shades of the way deconstruction is always tongue in cheek and aware that the same tools it is using to dismantle something can in turn be used on it.
 
I'm a little disappointed that some of what I had read into the first passage you posted isn't how other parts approach it. On the other hand, discordianism, from what I remember, is exactly the kind of thing where you're supposed to just take what you like, so I can't complain.

What I found most interesting about the passage was the implication that humans are fundamentally divorced from any ability to grasp actual Truth by our desire to meaning-make*; that the process of approaching truth is impossible, because there is no metric by which to approach it; that any perspective is equally valid and we must make arbitrary decisions between them, and in doing so define what we call valid and invalid.**

Discordianism can't entirely reject objective truth because is built on certain truths that it considers to be inherently more valid and certain illusions it considers to be inherently less valid. A central one is that if you build a worldview based on valuing order over chaos, then you chain yourself to destructive order and shut yourself off from creative chaos. The better path is to value creation over destruction, and thus reject both destructive chaos and destructive order. Discordianism is framed as embracing chaos because it exists in a society that overvalues order, not because it sees chaos as inherently better.

But yes, Discordianism is generally happy to be a buffet religion.
 
The theory goes that just as truth cannot be contained within a grid, you need not be restricted to grids. Flitting between them is practice for no longer needing them, what Discordianism calls 'illumination', allegedly achieved in symbiosis with one's pineal gland. But that's all part of the more mystical parts of the doctrine that I only really vibed with on an aesthetic level, and a philosophy limited to collecting and practicing useful and beautiful worldviews is one that I've found to be useful and beautiful.
Reminds me of Mage the Ascension games and their approach to magical paradigms.

At any rate I wonder if perspective grids were ever put to a grid itself. I am thinking end result would be a lot like Maslows hiararcy of needs where some grids would be at the bottom more useful for survival while others on top for self actualization with stuff like artsy grids.
 
The theory goes that just as truth cannot be contained within a grid, you need not be restricted to grids. Flitting between them is practice for no longer needing them, what Discordianism calls 'illumination', allegedly achieved in symbiosis with one's pineal gland. But that's all part of the more mystical parts of the doctrine that I only really vibed with on an aesthetic level, and a philosophy limited to collecting and practicing useful and beautiful worldviews is one that I've found to be useful and beautiful.
That sounds kinda like Disco Elysium, though I think that work didn't quite consider the multitudes within the protagonist to be a positive thing.
 
That sounds kinda like Disco Elysium, though I think that work didn't quite consider the multitudes within the protagonist to be a positive thing.

I mean... doesn't it? The protagonist's multitudes portray him as strange and perhaps others would see him as insane, but they consistently help him succeed and reach the truth, only really sabotaging him when he lets one get too strong or too weak.

His actual flaws, on the other hand, seem to be drug abuse and attachment to a certain event of the past, neither of which is inherently related to his multitidious nature.

So I dunno, a reading of the work where his inner council of voices is portrayed as a good thing and a reason for his success despite all odds is entirely possible.
 
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of DSLF, rules for crime. Meaty rules and information all-around, but normal crime isn't much to talk about here. Still, there's a few bits I'd like to share.

Page 26 starts off chapter 2 strong.
Philanthropic Verenans and reformist Shallyans explain that criminal behaviour in the cities of the Old World is the natural reaction to the intolerable living conditions of the poor. They argue that its root cause is the vast disparity in wealth between landed aristocrats, successful merchants, and those who live a hand-to-mouth existence in the slums. Such enlightened views are entirely drowned out by pretty much every other voice of authority, unified in condemnation of illegal activity and calling for the harsh punishment of criminals. Especially the poor ones.
Warhammer Fantasy is a fascinating hodgepodge of things from various different eras. I don't think this theory of crime existed until Victorian times. Warhammer is a good mashup of period-era thoughts, satire of modern-day things, and plain imagination, and it's vibrant as all hell.

Page 33, in the section talking about thief tools
Steel Mummit
Named for one of the legendary companions of Ranald, this is a small thin steel tool that can be slipped between a door and the jamb in the hope of levering a bolt aside. Whilst a crowbar is used to lever a door open despite a lock, and a lockpick is used to spring a lock open, a Steel Mummit acts on the bolt in the hope of jiggling it loose without the need to operate any mechanism. If a door is locked with a lock and key (not a padlock), or if it is bolted shut, a Steel Mummit may be used to open it if a Character passes a Hard (-20) Sleight of Hand Test.
What tool is this called in real life?

Page 44, Forger career's intro line
You possess the artistic gift of copying other people's artistic gifts with a convincing degree of precision.
This is funny. I'm reminded of this one character in DotR who's incredibly good at making the fake stuff he sells, whether it's paintings or booze or magic potions. His fake Bugman's Best tricked a bunch of dwarves and got at least one of them to go slayer over it.

Forger career quote
'You've been had, mate. I'd say no less than half of this clank is faked. Don't worry, the Imperial Mint of Nuln sent me to sort you out. You can exchange them for these new coins and I'll take the forgeries back with me.'
— Mariana d'Aubigny, Charlatan
We'd be able to simply do this without worrying about that pesky vow of poverty if we were to become a black magister.

Page 60 has random downtime events that can happen to your criminal gang. Here's one of them:
41-44: A Fortunate Friend – A Priest of Ranald has befriended the gang. This has caused members to forswear the use of violence and attempt daring heists.
The image is a good one, a guy rolls in and suddenly the local legbreakers get really pumped up and try to be discount Oceans 11.

Page 63 has a big box that I'd like to share in full, given its relevance.
THE BLACK ROSE LODGES
In the far eastern expanse of Stirland, beyond the Haunted Hills and Hunger Wood, lies the cursed lands of Sylvania. Legally under the auspices of the Elector Count of Stirland, for long stretches of its history darker powers have ruled over these lands. Many attempts to exert lawful rule have faltered, both in fear of, and under direct conflict with the unliving, as well as through common corruption and incompetence. One particular attempt to exert Imperial Law has in part succeeded, if not as intended. Twenty years ago, the elector of Stirland, determined that securing the roads to allow trade and transport to flow would perhaps be a suitable first step to taming the lost land. The task was given to Captain Otto Friedle of the 14th Stirland Expeditionary Force. Given the grimness of the task, he sought the toughest and meanest he could find, those willing to do things others weren't, including obtaining pardons for incarcerated soldiers, promising them their freedom for service. The force was formed into 'Lodges' deployed in mounted units at roadside taverns along the Sylvanian border, where they could ride out to support and protect travellers or react to threats.

While in principle it worked, the Expeditionary Force, dubbed the 'Black Rose Men' for its adoption of Morrite symbolism, were quick to realise a much more lucrative approach would be to sever their official ties, and provide protection directly to those travelling the cursed lands. The Black Rose Men still perform much of what the Elector Count had hoped, though they now supplement their income through criminal enterprises. Their main business is smuggling, in particular goods found only in the depths of Sylvania, including the grimoires and ritual artefacts of forbidden necromancy, but also freely engage in horse theft, kidnapping, and extortion.

The organisation is split into five localised chapters, each with their own symbology tattooed on their horses and worn as patches on their jackets. Like their name, these symbols often reflect the chilling regalia of Morr's cult, grinning skulls, perching ravens, the hourglass, and the balck rose. Despite still being head of the Seigfriedhof chapter, Friedle does not claim overall dominion of the organisation. In theory, the head of each chapter treats the others as equals, though in recent years, the head of the Essen chapter, Emerson Barghest, has come closest to being a spokesperson for the entire organisation.

The Seigfriedhof Lodge - Organisation Level 2
The Essen Lodge - Organisation Level 3
20 years ago would put this about 2 years from now in Divided Loyalties.

Page 68 gives us another relevant big block of text, this time detailing the Cult of Ranald's views on criminal organisations in general.
The Cult of Ranald
If one god's worship was welcome in a criminal organisation, surely it would be Ranald's? Nearly all thieves offer prayers to Ranald to bless their caper, the relationship between its priesthood and the heads of organised gangs is a complicated matter. Despite his patronage of the thief and rogue, Ranald's Cult believes strongly in freedom from tyranny and liberation of the individual from the oppression of despotic rulers. Unfortunately, rulers rarely get more despotic than those found at the heart of a criminal organisation.

To a devotee of the Cult of Ranald, the violence required by criminal organisations is sickening. The cult embraces theft as an art form, yet criminal organisations pursue it as a bloody business. No sincere Ranaldan would happily work for those who resort to bloodshed, no matter how much they offered in terms of a cut of the loot.

For devotees of Ranald, membership of a criminal gang is intolerable, and they find ways to escape the organisation. Such is the case of the charlatan Kurt von Shent, a member of the League of Gentlemen Entrepreneurs during Hugo Delftgruber's rule. Conscious of the brutal regime Henschmann would create, he adopted a new guise as Hans von Kleptor. Over time he became the most important Ranaldan priest at Marienburg's Gilt House Temple. As a follower of Ranald's strictures, he intends to unite the various facets of Ranald's cult in Marienburg as a counter to Henschmann's criminal regime.
I think this is a good illustration of the "pissing out the tent" reason Boney supplied for why the Cult of Ranald isn't a banned cult across the Old World. They aren't just better than the Chaos cults working in the shadows, they're better than virtually every other criminal organisation on the continent.

Page 68 also gives tells us about the religiosity of organised criminals.
Many organised criminals make a show of respecting the gods, wearing symbols of Sigmar or Ulric like other citizens of the Empire. Crime lords may bequeath generous donations to shrines in the poorer parts of town. The ringleaders of criminal gangs can be sincere believers, even miracle-working priests.
I honestly didn't expect miracle-casting priests doubling as mafia dons.


After this is the Cult of Taal, which I'm expecting will have more stuff for me to post excerpts from.
 
No grid is itself True, but they can help you understand Truth. The idea of finding the 'truest' grid makes no sense because truth is subjective and Truth is deeper than grids. The idea of finding the 'best' grid makes more sense, but is still self-defeating.
From a practical perspective, sure, you'll never find a truth that perfectly conceptualizes the whole Truth of everything you care for.

The (to my understanding true) idea that every truth in theory has a corresponding Truth still seems meaningful, though?

Most usefully, it means that any exceptions to the general heuristic of truth trying to approximate Truth would ideally have some layer of Truth-approximating truth underlying their existence.
Otherwise the grid must be locally suboptimal compared to some neighboring grid possessing this structure.
(Note that bounded rationality constraints like "I don't have bandwidth to work this out deeper" are valid Truth-approximators, being attempts to generalize optimization to partial-information problems with constrained compute resources)

("Truth-approximating" being defined as "there exists some portion of the Truth such that replacing this truth with one that perfectly mimics that Truth is neutral or beneficial over my theoretical preference ordering over worldviews"; see below re: the argument that such an ordering must exist)

On a tangential note, I don't believe that any one perception of reality can be most useful and most pleasant and most beautiful. Even if 'optimal' grids are a concept that makes any sense, you're still going to want a suite of them.
Beauty is a form of usefulness, isn't it?
It (and to my knowledge every other human preference) gets merged with all your other preferences when actually making decisions.
It isn't some kind of separate magisterium unaffected by considerations like "is the price of this art piece worth the beauty".

The only case where an 'optimal' grid is theoretically impossible (rather than just practically impossible) would be if your preferences are inconsistent.
(Not being isomorphic to a partial ordering or some more stringent variant of such is probably a sufficient definition of "inconsistent" for the above, though I suspect we can be a bit looser than that)

Even if your preferences create a consistent partial order (rather than a total order), there's still a meta-grid defining traversals and local equivalences over the optimal grids for each non-comparable preference-maximum.
Which is then at-least-as-good as any other grid, making it optimal.
 
Last edited:
While i appreciate that philosophy is something that invites discussion, its perhaps not entirely the place for it isn't it?
 
Objective truth is actually easy. Just be Lapace's demon* and define everything as math**. All you need is proper information*** and sufficient calculating ability****.

*Lapace's demon is impossible for several reasons, including thermodynamics.
**Math itself may depend on unproveable assumptions, as per Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
***The uncertanty principle states that it is impossible to know both a particle's exact position and exact momentum simultaneously.
****More than the entire universe itself.

See? Simple and easy! :V
 
But we defined this operation from first principles. How do we know that it actually matches our intuitive understanding of addition? Formally we'd have to show that (ℕ, +) is a commutative monoid, but for the purposes of this post, maybe we'll accept just a proof that 1+1=2:

1 + 1
= succ(∅) + succ(∅) [by the definition of 1]
= succ(succ(∅) + ∅) [by the second case of +]
= succ(succ(∅) ) [by the first case of +]
= 2 [by the definition of 2]


QED.

The Church numerals version of this is kinda fun, IIRC.
 
The Reikspiel name of Karak Eight Peaks focused on the majesty of the mountains, but the Khazalid name of Vala-Azril-Ungol tells another story. 'Queen of the Silver Depths' goes the translation, but the metal 'silver' is Agril.
Looking at the wiki page for Khazalid, it says agril means 'silver metal' while azril means 'silver'. Could agril mean silver-coloured metal, like steel, gromril, and silver, with azril meaning elemental silver? Not asking about Divided Loyalties where the meaning is well established, asking about canon.
 
From a practical perspective, sure, you'll never find a truth that perfectly conceptualizes the whole Truth of everything you care for.

The (to my understanding true) idea that every truth in theory has a corresponding Truth still seems meaningful, though?

Most usefully, it means that any exceptions to the general heuristic of truth trying to approximate Truth would ideally have some layer of Truth-approximating truth underlying their existence.
Otherwise the grid must be locally suboptimal compared to some neighboring grid possessing this structure.
(Note that bounded rationality constraints like "I don't have bandwidth to work this out deeper" are valid Truth-approximators, being attempts to generalize optimization to partial-information problems with constrained compute resources)

("Truth-approximating" being defined as "there exists some portion of the Truth such that replacing this truth with one that perfectly mimics that Truth is neutral or beneficial over my theoretical preference ordering over worldviews"; see below re: the argument that such an ordering must exist)

Beauty is a form of usefulness, isn't it?
It (and to my knowledge every other human preference) gets merged with all your other preferences when actually making decisions.
It isn't some kind of separate magisterium unaffected by considerations like "is the price of this art piece worth the beauty".

The only case where an 'optimal' grid is theoretically impossible (rather than just practically impossible) would be if your preferences are inconsistent.
(Not being isomorphic to a partial ordering or some more stringent variant of such is probably a sufficient definition of "inconsistent" for the above, though I suspect we can be a bit looser than that)

Even if your preferences create a consistent partial order (rather than a total order), there's still a meta-grid defining traversals and local equivalences over the optimal grids for each non-comparable preference-maximum.
Which is then at-least-as-good as any other grid, making it optimal.

I don't really understand why impractical perspectives and practical impossibilities are relevant when the philosophy centers around a rejection of the idea that any one philosophy can be all-encompassing. It itself posits that every philosophy will always break down at the extreme edge cases, so I don't understand why seeking out those edge cases is a useful endeavour when it requires you to cross outside the realm of anything that a person is ever going to encounter.

Also yes you can technically define 'beauty' to be a kind of 'usefulness' but you and everyone else knows exactly what I mean when I contrast the two.

The vibe I get is that you're making a good-faith attempt to engage with the ideas I'm presenting, but you're engaging with it like it's a university philosophy lecture with an indulgent professor and everyone's ready and happy to square up for a bit of intellectual combat, or at least busy themselves on their laptop while the few more engaged students do so, when that's not what this scenario is. The QM is discussing elements of his worldview and he's rolling with the diverged topic because those beliefs do manifest in the writing. This is not a philosophical boxing ring being laid out and it's not an invitation for any and all comers to get ready to rumble.

Looking at the wiki page for Khazalid, it says agril means 'silver metal' while azril means 'silver'. Could agril mean silver-coloured metal, like steel, gromril, and silver, with azril meaning elemental silver? Not asking about Divided Loyalties where the meaning is well established, asking about canon.

It's possible, but it would mean that the word 'azril' would have to be unrelated to the words 'az' and 'ril'.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top