Malaikat Maut

I'm going to reorder your post to group similar thoughts. [quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1291759335' post='74792'] You seem to think a physical entity is objective for some reason. I'd like to ask how?[/quote] My thoughts on objective reality are tied directly to my Christian faith. The two are inseparable, as the infallibility of scripture is a fundamental tenet. God exists objectively as does the matter and energy of his creation as well as the physical laws He's established to govern them. Apart from that, I feel that the only logical positions are that everything exists or nothing. The subjective middle-ground is a philosophical cop-out which invariably leads one to circular reasoning, contradiction, and other logical instabilities. First and foremost, it laughs in the face of physics...which is kinda a big no no for most rational individuals. I've heard people try to argue that quantum mechanics allows or even necessitates subjective reality. Particle duality and wave-form collapse and all that. The issue then becomes that you're trying to leverage a branch of science that's famed for making unfathomably precise and repeatable predictions about the tiniest pieces of our observable world. Also, no one on this board even comes close to understanding quantum mechanics. In any case, if reality is subject to interpretation then you must accept that anything can be anything, which everyone knows is certainly not the case. If you and I were to take a Rorschach test, it would inspire us to imagine two entirely seperate things. However, we'd still be looking at black ink on white paper. I would never argue against the uniqueness of our thoughts, emotions, and experiences. It's just plain and simple that those things have no bearing on reality. Skepticism is far and away the most easily defensible in terms of pure logic. It requires no assumptions. Most people realize that the only thing they can ever prove or verify to be absolutely true is their own existence. I can never prove to myself that anything beyond myself truly exists, and you can never prove it to me either because you exist beyond myself. Again, nothing ground breaking here, but the mind can fabricate everything that I perceive as reality, including sensory perception. However, here I sit, typing on a keyboard and reading words on a screen that (hopefully) communicate meaning to another sentient entity. So, while skepticism is logically sound, it's highly impractical. Objectivism, on the other hand, requires few presuppositions. Mostly that sense perception is objective, and that the collective can be regarded as evidence or proof. [quote]Kafuuka has already mentionned some of the issues inherent here. The old you see red I see green argument for one.[/quote] Color can certainly be objectified. Red is light radiation with a wavelength between 480–405 THz while green exists between the frequencies ~575–525 THz. Objects that adsorb light radiation below and above 480 THz will appear red. There's no magic or mysticism to it, and, just like the Rorschach test, our individual perceptions of it don't at all change the reality. However, unlike the Rorschach test, color blindness has nothing to do with individuality or the subjectivity of our thoughts. It's a mechanical defect - one that Kafuuka admits can be tested for, which should immediately make the point that color is objective. [quote]So a question - what is the difference between the sound of words and the sound of music? Or the picture of a man and the word man?[/quote] Nothing. Sign language is a language, as is braille. Any symbol that holds a universally accepted meaning can be loosely defined as a "word" - accept that words, I would think, imply alphabetical symbols. I'm not a linguist...so I'm just guessing here. [quote]You also just refuted your own argument by using the word 'imagined', of course you can imagine infinity - but you can't ever experience it, because it has no start nor end, how then to know you are experiencing infinity? Are you suggesting imagination is a physical entity?[/quote] Well, my original premise was that people can communicate free of interpretation. I never claimed i could objectify abstracts, but rather communicate an abstract concept in an objective and understandable manner. [quote]Incidentally, how would you expect me to express a purely abstract conceptual matter when my claim is that this is impossible through language? This should be my challenge to you, not the other way around.[/quote] My proposal was that a pure abstract does not exist. I can't think of anything that I could not define using language, so why should I look for something I'm convinced doesn't exist when your argument depends on them? "- Conceptual meanings are subject to a lack of physical tie - A lack of physical tie means they can only be described, drawn, played etc - A lack of physical tie therefore makes language a tautology in a human system when it comes to conceptual matters" Of course, I can't truly articulate a concept, but that was never really my goal. I'm interested in communicating free of interpretation. [quote]If I take a noun like 'Chair' you might instantly assume you know what a chair is and that when you say the word chair everyone knows what you are talking about - yet you yourself with your pretzels without holes showed how easy it is for a mismatch. Chair could mean just anything you sit on, it could mean something with a back and four legs, it could mean many things. I could talk about my chair and you would think it was the 'average' chair you have come to associate with the word, but my 'average' chair is different.[/quote] We're back to my two previous two points. In the English language, the word chair has a fundamental definition. Some have two or more perhaps, but only one that is contextually appropriate. If the style of chair is pertinent to the discussion (or if the definition is in question), it can be discussed in no uncertain terms using language. It may be an oaken chair with the dimensions of "X" and a high back with further dimensions of "Y", four legs and a cushion upholstered in RED silk. If the style of chair isn't important, then who cares what people interpret it as? Perhaps the point was simply that you sat on something.

[quote name='Kafuuka' timestamp='1291754073' post='74775'] Certainly you jest? To refute that concepts exist that are without a physical tie and that cannot be expressed properly by words, you dare us to name one? [/quote] I've been thinking about it all day, and I haven't come up with anything that I can't explain in objective terms. Perhaps not physical terms, but in an objective and universally understood way. The topic was originally interpretation and not knowledge alone, mind you.

I haven't read all of these posts, but my immediate thought is this: I've never abused any system in MD, and I'd not like to be punished for the remiss or laziness of others. I don't believe that my WPs lack a description, but if they did it would be entirely out of my hands, although I earned them fairly. That doesn't seem right to me...

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1291673546' post='74698'] (Mali...based on title descript...a priori=cher, get it? little Philo student joke for you)[/quote] No [quote]"Surely two intelligent individuals can exchange information using language and avoid some manner or even all manner of interpretation." - how?[/quote] I'll tackle this first because I feel I can tie it in to Mur's and Awi's recent posts on the other topic as well. I have a few thoughts on this. First, I think that definitions and presuppositions can be established such that information can be exchanged objectively. Depending on how this is done, it can be very cumbersome and impractical, which is why we rely on generally accepted definitions. For instance, the sentence: The man ran fast. May become: The Homo sapien male propelled himself forward, upon his two legs, at a velocity of 1 meters per second. You're free to interpret that any way you'd like...you'll just be straight wrong as each term has an objective meaning which can likely be implied or ascertained purely from context. My second thought is that pertinent information can be objectified or defined and the remainder can be left to interpretation, as it won't change the outcome. This is going to depend on the topic of conversation, which will obviously dictate what is and is not important data. To continue with my original sentence, imagine we were debating what it means to be fast. Our example, "the man ran fast", may become "Something moved at a velocity of 1 meters per second." To tie this in to Mur's Pretzel (a new philosophical construct!), I believe that there are concepts and entities that can be objectively defined by language simply because of how I understand identity. Mur argued that the hole in a pretzel can't be defined independantly and that neither can a pretzel be defined independantly of its hole. I disagree. To use my previous two points, consider the sentence, "I ate a pretzel". The pretzel can be further explained in order to remove the need for interpretation. Simple use of the word "traditional" pretzel may imply the need for a hole and a twist or two, and the words soft or hard can further describe it. The words pretzel rod, pretzel bite, pretzel stick, can be used or even further expanded (using exact measurements perhaps?) as necessary to succinctly define the exact type of pretzel - which can also be defined in terms of ingredients used. To use my second point, perhaps the speaker doesn't care what his audience thinks of the pretzel, as it isn't important or doesn't change the information being transferred. Perhaps contextually the notion "I ate" is all that really needs to be communicated. [quote]One of the arguments on this theory (Spinoza stylie):- - Language is a series of words based on generally accepted meanings - Generally accepted meanings are two fold, either based on experience or a conceptual basis - Experiencial meanings are subject to the matter of physical interpretations - Conceptual meanings are subject to a lack of physical tie - A lack of physical tie means they can only be described, drawn, played etc - A lack of physical tie therefore makes language a tautology in a human system when it comes to conceptual matters (big flaw here, lets pick at it.) [/quote] I would challenge you to express a purely abstract, conceptual matter that can in no way be tied to objective or even physical entities. Even infinity can be imagined within the physical world. Stand between two mirrors.

To carry over a discussion that was raised in Mur's Christianity and Alchemy thread: [quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1291669189' post='74683'] The thing is...if you want to get really pedantic on the philosophy of language...language is nothing but interpretation. The intentional and effective fallacy. You can never speak or write and truly convey a meaning without an influence from the reader or listener interfering let alone the matter of your own sub-meaning influencing how or what you say. The concept itself as you put it is untouchable and indescribable, the interpretation itself is the only way to achieve it, call the bible a koan if you like. It isn't that it is conventient, which I object to just as much, it is that that is the nature of the beast. Historically speaking of events, Marcion is the man in charge here. I do not disagree that there are, as an example, objective morals. It is nigh on impossible to say they arn't objective if you dig deep enough bible or not. However, that isn't to say the bible is them or speaks of them anymore than looking at my table teaches me things. Maybe it makes it easier, maybe it makes it easier to trip. It's a brick wall no matter how you look at it, your bible is in your skull. I know these are touchy subjects, and I'm sorry for those that knee jerk to what I just said. I'm not sorry for saying it though. Z [/quote] [quote name='Malaikat Maut' timestamp='1291669944' post='74686'] Well, I'm willing to admit (and have) that language is, in itself, culturally bound on some level, but to say that language is >nothing< but interpretation seems false to me. I mean, even if that were the case, surely we all accept the same or similar presuppositions upon entering into a debate. For one thing, we all accept that English is the language to be spoken. Within that context alone the absolute meanings of words can be well established. Again, there is going to be some manner of cultural ideology and social limitations upon our speech, but nowhere near the 100% your post seems to suggest. Surely two intelligent individuals can exchange information using language and avoid some manner or even all manner of interpretation. Bias, no certainly not. But interpretation, I believe that's a possibility. Just because I understand something doesn't mean I need to accept it. If what you suggests is true (the way I understand it at least), then no one would ever learn or assimilate anything new... [/quote] [quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1291671281' post='74689'] I'm literally giving you a pedantic piece of linguistic philosophy. I don't say it is correct, but there is some truth in it I feel. I don't want to go into the entire debate because...if we do...it will never end. It would at least need a new topic, at the very least. Because of the above, but also because I don't want to just say that and give you nothing to your very valid response - To respond very briefly: It doesn't mean you can assimilate nothing new, it's just that your newness doesn't come from where you might think it would come from if you don't think...if you get my meaning. Definitions of words are defined by words, which makes that particular quandry quite the deeply dug pit. Z [/quote] Z, This is something that interest me, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to more fully expand on the topic. Also, I wanted to get the opinions of others...the more the merrier, I say.

Aysun, you need to consider this situation in terms of real life. Perhaps that may help you truly grasp the rights and entitlements you've forfeit in rebelling against the ruler and arbiter of Necrovion. In actuality, rebels would be executed on sight. There's no way they could continue to reap the benefits of the land they left, even if they continued to see themselves as loyal to it. "Man" up and act the part of a rebel. The fact that you even desire to take part shows weakness and a tad of hypocrisy.

[quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1291234980' post='74029'] I have a question tho, since I thought about money as an illusion long before, how would the most "true" system (so, not capitalism! ) [/quote] Capitalism and communism would both work in that regard, only communism becomes infeasible on a large scale. You have to recall that the "invisible hand" of supply and demand which governs capitalistic systems was not originally (or exclusively) meant to apply to an exchange of currency or wealth. It works with the exchange of labor or exported/imported goods - any two things that are deemed of equal value can be exchanged. It wasn't until the concepts of centralized banking and "soft currency" became popular that the illusion of money was created. It had nothing to do with capitalism - quite the opposite actually. Of course, if you think about it in the context of this thread, even hard currencies - those backed by a gold standard - still assume a stable value for gold. In any case, the concepts of capitalism and communism in their truest sense would both satisfy to dispel the illusion.

I agree with the subjective and relative nature of value. I'll never forget a lesson my father taught me when I was young. I had started collecting things like comic books and cards, and, when I thought I had something rare, I would look up its "value" in a price catalog. My dad told me, "things are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them". It seems like a simple concept but when you consider the imaginary "value" of money and how things like inflation truly work then it seems few people actually grasp it. Money isn't the only thing though, as I believe Mur hints at. There are many things that I call socially necessary illusions. Mere concepts that if the public or majority were to deny the whole of society may crumble or cease to exist the way it does now. Freedom is another such construct... I would, however, disagree with the thought that nothing has intrinsic value. In other words, I feel that not all things are valued in relation to something external to themselves. Though it's a discussion for another thread, I believe that human life possesses intrinsic value. At the very least it seems that humanity would stand in contradiction to Mur's thoughts on value not being linked to utility. We certainly don't value ourselves or our kind because we are rare, but rather because we are unique and "special". Our "usability" our cognition make us more valuable than other mammals.

Been on a huge Shawn Lane kick lately. Perhaps the greatest fusion jazz guitarist to have ever lived: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yf5eNVik_E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkLSoXSQcYQ

Some know but most do not that my wife and I recently had our first child, a wonderful little boy. Before he was born we had this poem engraved, along with his name, on a wooden plaque which now hangs on the wall of his room. I came to find out shortly thereafter that my father also dedicated the poem to me before I was born. Not only is it a wonderful piece, it holds great meaning for me personally. So, I've chosen to revive this thread by posting "If" by Rudyard Kipling [quote]If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or, being hated, don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise; If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with triumph and disaster And treat those two imposters just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to broken, And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools; If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breath a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on"; If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch; If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you; If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run - Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son![/quote]

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1291012662' post='73659'] However im not entirely sure it the game has lost anything from losing it... ...But for a spell to be removed, that hadnt been used much, i dont see much a loss. [/quote] I believe that awiiya's point wasn't to lament the removal of one particular spell, but rather to examine the broader implications of such a show of power and, perhaps, overly conservative decision making. It's the same argument that anyone in favor of individual responsibility and personal liberty will make against a growing bureaucracy. Today they've taken "X", so what's stopping them from tomorrow taking "Y" as well? awiiya isn't even suggesting that it will be so overt, but simply that, in an effort to reduce risk, the council may eventually remove ASPECTS of the game that make the world interesting. Perhaps not even interesting features but mere ideas or elements of risk that appeal to some.

The waves were crashing, pounding against the cliffs-- angry as if demanding the walls to fall into its body, hungry and consuming. Above, staring into the water, was a figure peering superiorly down upon those waves, perhaps thinking to himself of the way in which all things will end. Rain pelted his pale face, softly at first, but with growing intensity until the strength of the storm forced him to shield his eyes. He had watched the tempest approach over the tumultuous water, knowing that the lightning which reflected brilliantly upon its surface and the wind which drove its soothing waves would soon overtake the precipice upon which he stood. It was that eventuality – that foreknowledge of unavoidable circumstance – which occupied and provoked his thought. ‘Some things are better when observed at a distance than when experienced’, he mused as he sought the shelter of a small outcropping; no longer able to bear the ferocity of nature. And, with that thought fresh in his mind, he laid his head upon his arm, closed his eyes, and slept. Wet with early morning dew, the man woke to a cloudless sky wherein moonlight battled that of the Sun before a diminishing audience of stars. He watched as, one after another, the celestial lights blinked out until the heavens shown as seamless and pristine as a fine blue silk. He squinted his eyes against the light of the dawn and marveled at the serenity of the hilltop. The man took a breath and filled his lungs with clean sea air, purged and purified by the night’s squall. A brightly colored bird sang sweetly to the comforting rhythm of gently slapping waves as it bathed in a pool which had filled with rainwater. The man wondered what was more beautiful: the previous night’s wondrous display of power and intensity or the vibrant vitality awakened in the morning after. His thoughts were stirred anew as he turned his back to the ocean and descended the hillside toward his home. He had walked the path many times but this morning, though it maintained an air of familiarity, it was oddly different. The grasses and wildflowers which once lined the trail had become overgrown and now spilled into it. Its rocks, once jagged and porous, were smooth and worn. More than once he uncomfortably rolled his ankle as he attempted to navigate the rough passage, and he continuously glanced over his shoulder to get his bearings in relation to the stony cliff. It was still early morning when the welcoming scent of hickory smoke tickled his nose. Rounding one more bend his house came into view, and he could see the wispy vapor of wood-fired logs which streamed slowly from its single chimney. As he neared, he could see that the place had fallen into slight disarray, and he wondered what part the storm had played in shaping the current state of the path and of his modest home. For the most part all was as he remembered, only dull and faded as an old picture left too long in the light of the sun. The wooden door swung easily on its hinges as he turned its knob and gently pushed his way inside. “My love”, he called softly into the room but he received no answer. Orange flames danced upon the embers of expired logs within the fireplace, and beside it a rocking chair sway slowly in the light which cascade through an open window. The man maneuvered the tight living quarters intent on holding his wife, but was stopped as he looked into her face. The young and vibrant woman of his memory appeared to have aged threefold. The man forced a smile and tried to ask what had happened, tried to consider what had transpired while he was upon their hill, but, if his lover was at all aware of his presence she showed no outward signs of it. He watched as, with tears in her eyes, the woman stood and crossed the room. Rushing to her side, he spoke words of consolation. “Everything will be alright. I’m here now. Everything is ok”. He attempted to take her hand, but somehow couldn’t hold on to the one he loved. As she moved away from him again, he was left again to his thoughts as the last of the fire was extinguished and the embers quickly cooled. ‘Things are better when experienced firsthand than when merely beheld’, he lamented as his widow sought the shelter of her bed; no longer able to bear the ferocity of nature. And, with that thought fresh in his mind, he laid his head next to hers as she closed her eyes and slept.

I see value in players fostering or incenting a thirst for knowledge in other individual, and Peace and I had regularly made that a focus in our roleplays together when I was more active in game. If the goal of your movement is to excite people about the mysteries within the world of MagicDuel then I would certainly agree with it. I just don't believe that holding public research sessions or discussions on matters that are secret (and therefore valuable to some) is the way to go about it. To me it has to be something more intimate...it simply comes down to good RP. I'd add to Ivorak's statements that I feel it has to do with players (mostly veterans) maintaining the proper setting for their "characters". Now I know that not everyone roleplays in the absolute sense of the word, but we are all here in the same game world, in the same setting so to speak. It's important to keep that frame of reference as you interact with others around you, particularly new players. Put yourself in your character's shoes. This land is strange, and it's curious how we all got here in the first place... Just discussing some of these things with a new player may pique their interest and raise the awareness that things here are not what they seem.

[quote name='Ravenstrider' timestamp='1290185127' post='72581'] I was thinking that it would be good if the logs of these conversations could be made public on the forums. [/quote] So that the lazy or perhaps less interested among us may benefit from the work of others? By my understanding, the point has always been to reward the few who will peel back the layers of this fantastic and mysterious world while still providing enjoyment for those among us who wish merely to marvel at the unique and ingenious battle system. Those who currently find interest in research and discovery need no scheduled events or static locations from which to share their findings, and those with limited or no interest are frankly undeserving of the wonders of said discoveries. Myself included for the time being. In short, I think this is a bad idea, and one that stands in opposition to several game/world conventions, no spoilers being chief among them. Really though it just promotes laziness in some while providing no further motivation for those who are already doing the research.

The sparring ground rules don't apply to DST, as she's MP5.

[quote name='Atrumist' timestamp='1289337070' post='71773'] So you are against about how is she called in this situation, or you are against with how or why is she accused of? False or ambiguously? [/quote] The actions of a king or a leader should never be, and are never, observed at face value. The fact that Pample may or may not have been plotting treason is absolutely important. However, the related facts aren't open for discussion and neither will they be determined within this thread. What we can glean from it, however, is a sense of Jester's capacity for diplomacy and his abilities to lead and to unify a nation of people. So, let's look into that shall we? [quote name='Jester' timestamp='1289204916' post='71683'] This experiment did not work.[/quote] Right out of the gates something as important as the appointment and inauguration of a king's equal is likened to a rash and hastily conducted experiment. At least he apologizes for it... [quote name='Jester' timestamp='1289204916' post='71683']It was my fault for treating pamplemousse like an equal. I did not realize that pamplemousse was the kind of person that is manipulated easily.[/quote] Well, which is it then? The king's fault for making such a poor decision or Pample's fault for taking advantage? What began as an appropriate admission of failure quickly became a platform for cowardly ad hominem attacks. [quote]Since I was not controlling her, keith decided to. He turned her against me with almost no effort at all.[/quote] Once again, this seems like an excellent opportunity to admit wrong and prove to Necrovion that you've learned from the mistake. Why weren't you controlling your own queen? If you couldn't or weren't willing to lead such a powerful and prominent figure, why should anyone assume you could govern a kingdom? [quote]pample is far too weak to be a queen or any type of leadership position. I had high hopes for her, and she trashed them because keith moon told to her to.[/quote] And it concludes with more slander and ad hominem. Nothing of the future. Nothing of repairing damage done or the glory that is yet to belong to such a deserving people. Only embarrassment.

Keith and Pample are no strangers, Jester. Surely you know this. I don't doubt that your accusations are true, but surely she's owed more respect for her cunning than you seem willing to acknowledge. I would be unsurprised if tyranny had been the ploy all along. In fact, I seem to recall overhearing Pample and yourself openly discussing plans to overthrow elected royalty on the very eve of the first elections. Your alliance with her seems to show only your lack of foresight...and hindsight as the case may be.

[quote name='Fyrd Argentus' timestamp='1288713671' post='71340'] My mustache is older (33) than the average MD player, so I'm gonna pass on this one... though I have bought 3 copies of the Big Book on prostate cancer and given/loaned them all out. [/quote] I'd say your mustache is older than the average...mustache. 33? I don't know whether to commend you, commit you, or recommend a nice shampoo/conditioner blend.

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1288380596' post='71155'] Something I noticed - the majority of people that have posted are intuitive and feeling. Anybody want to analyze why? Awi [/quote] Well, the intricacies of the game are not overtly accessible, and require a great deal of intuition in order to discover and appreciate. I can certainly see where that comes from. As for the feeling portion, a large portion of the gameplay is based on the community. It's about dealing with other players and relating to various story lines. This requires sympathy and empathy while not necessarily demanding extroversion.

I've taken the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator before, and I straddle the line between ENTJ and INTJ. This time I was INTJ: Your Type is INTJ Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging Strength of the preferences % 22 38 38 11