Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
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closer, even if one can never reach it and its still lightyears away, so any "optimal" grid must, by definition, become outdated eventually until the impossible of knowing is achieved, which it won't because its impossible, at least for an unupdated human brain.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."
 
Back
Top