Azthor

Have a happy birthday!

Now, I would not write a post merely to censor your choice of words. That was hardly my intention, read it this way: To be fair (to DD), (I must clarify) that was not an experience shared by all of the involved (lest someone get the wrong impression).

Within a given field, whenever conflict between two parties arises, their sway is given by their respective influence within the field. The spoils and losses are both likewise reaped in that influence, and inversely proportional to the party's influence in relation to its opponent. That, I believe, reflects what Mur has stated, though I may be mistaken. That, I assume, in the context of other recent posts. --- That, however, is only entirely true in a white room scenario, where only that field and those two parties exist, such that the field cannot expand or lose ground, nor can the parties, other than to one another. In other words, while I do think it accurately describes a tendency in social relations , it would be an oversimplification to assume it accurately describes them in their entirety. --- There are many layers we can add to that statement. For instance: A. the conflict for influence requires, itself, the investment of influence. As two parties are engaged in a conflict, they and their dominant field may be at their most vulnerable. B. influence from outside a field can be used to accrue influence in another field. The gain of influence within a field may translate to the loss of influence within another field. C. when a party uses a field's influence within another field successfully, it devalues the destination field's influence and increases the relative worth of the origin field's influence. D. parties never seek influence in a single field, to the exclusion of all else. Fields, though they may have their unique characteristics, are never entirely unique. E. a field is at its most influential when other fields fights over the right too interpret its symbolic capital according to their own internal paradigms, without, however, questioning its symbolic capital. And even then, those are only broad descriptions which, though they accurately represent behaviorist tendencies in social conflicts, come short of accurately describing individual cases; good models, albeit models nevertheless. --- The individual - anyone here, for instance - is already the individual case of the individual case in one such a model. One may reduce fields to institutions, those to individuals, and yet these to other categories of perception, and the more removed one from another, all the more insurmountable the task. Accurately describing the individual through sociology, as opposed to institutions, or accurately describing institutions through psychology, as opposed to the individual, are things we are very distant from; and that is without getting into the meta-analysis of those categories.

To be fair, that was not an experience shared by all of the involved.

Truth is nor the object nor the subject of science. Truth is beyond validation, and hence beyond recognition. Truth is not something our categories of perception can deal with, because it ultimately symbolizes that which always exists beyond our categories of perception. Truth is what one cannot speak of, and what one cannot speak of, one may as well remain silent as to, where scientific pretension is exclusively concerned. If truth must be spoken of, then no method can be applied, and only statements of faith have any worth. Theology and philosophy may deal with truth without incurring an internal error, science cannot. --- The question that should be asked is whether research in MD has any factor other than Mur's opinion by which it might be reviewed, or whether the sole defining review factor of research in MD is Mur's opinion. Is research in MD scientific or theological, as given by an assumed standard of truth handed out by Mur? --- The principles are a thing, and in theory, their obedience implies a strong review factor. The problem, as I see it, is that they are too internally flexible to be easily used: it is difficult to isolate a principle so that it might be used as a framework of reference. Does a theory conflict with the principle of Balance, is Balance actually obeyed through Cyclicity, or is equilibrium temporarily bent one way due to phenomena aligned toward the Light principle? Without a complete picture, I feel it is hard to make a statement. --- And even the phenomena can be confusing, what is a proper MD phenomenon? Certainly, I imagine a great deal of thought was put in many of MD's elements, such as the lands, but it would be naive to imagine Mur can premeditate everything; is there a way for us to always tell which is the case without Mur's direct input? Unless the principles hold the pretension to being applicable even outside MD, and that poses other questions altogether, then anything not premeditated by Mur is not necessarily a MD element for the purpose of review, and we may not necessarily tell otherwise without being explicitly informed of such. If, on the other hand, the principles might be applied outside MD, then they must be subjected to other standards altogether. Standards that have defined who each of us are and how we might think so much that to speak of them, even in opposition, is a mere reinforcement of their position; paradigms we were born into, one way or another. --- All of the above considered, I currently find it difficult to face research as something more than a topic of curiosity.

Likewise so, happy birthday!

Though I am rather late with this, happy birthday to both of you, Nimrodel and Menhir! Or rather, I hope you had a great birthday. :))

Happy birthday!

I must confess, I was not directly aware of the parallel work on this myself, or I'd have raised the issue on both ends - as is, communication problems probably arose from the further sectioning of the task among the Archivists, as well as what may have been reliance on the Alliance chat - not that such could have been avoided, in and of itself, as the sectioning was necessary.

Though the thread's locking has rendered the status redundant, this exchange is still open: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15514-wtb-coins-for-credits/

In the interest of being a general cheapskate and freeing poor MaGoHi from the clutches of slavery¹, I offer an exchange of cake - or rather, a piece thereof. It is a symbolic act of great importance among my people. Not that I'd expected an outsider to comprehend the sheer importance of this gesture and its deeply rooted significance among our forebearers. Regardless, I'd hope you wouldn't dare scorn the ancient cultural traditions of my people by accepting a far inferior offer of precious metals or other such menial things from a third party. We are very sensitive about that, specially after the Great Cake Partition of 1910. I find this quite the tasteful offer, myself. ¹Some individuals may seek to imply there is a measure of irony in this statement. Fortunately, I don't associate with any such people thus sorely lacking in proper judgement and reason.

At lest for the next few months, I am available.

Happy birthday(s)!

With "shouldn't" come the questions: "according to what, and whom, for what?" Our continued well-being, or sanity, perhaps? The sane and insane are symptomatic, and the pathology of symptoms is, without variation, symbolic in essence. The insane is the symbolically degenerated, the brilliant is the symbolically exalted. Modern cultures are hegemonic enough that we no longer often see truly extreme variations in standards - those elements that might seem outright bizarre or alien to another culture. But observation of the registers of the bygone institutions of other (and former) cultures, assuming at least some elements of consistency can be grasped through historical analysis, leads us to believe those symbolic standards may be at least somewhat subjective - that is to say, elastic - even if there may be some inherent element of inherent human nature (or nature in and of itself) to be found. The question is both provocative and alluring, and so because it is a highly political question; that is to say, it does not concern a matter where the viewpoint has been highly naturalized by individuals in society. As such, there is room for moral (read: habitual, arbitrary, and hence political) discussion. But there is no correct answer - there is no logical conclusion to be found (is there ever?). Personally, I do not have the unwavering faith in human thought necessary to believe knowledge is unconditionally desirable, and I also recognize that subjective ignorance can, in the right circumstances, achieve a given effect much more easily than any amount of knowledge - and knowledge is, in and of itself, a form of violence to be exerted upon the self. However, I am not sufficiently trusting of others to leave myself entirely to their design - and that is why I'd rather be aware of (or at least feel aware of) than not.

Happy (belated) birthday!