/lit/ - Literature

Bump

The most important facet of this method is its consistency. By this word I wish to bring forth the idea of lack of internal contradictions. Contradictions are identified by comparing implications at the similar level of vertical growth. That is to say that implications that are largely separated from each other, even if seemingly opposing each other may not really contradict, as they are describing or explaining phenomena at differing scales. This kind of inconsistency is the result of certain character of the object of the argument(hence forth called system of interest) called emergence to which I feel the need to devote an entire article.

Once the argument is free of inconsistencies it is labeled a Theory.

As its obvious, arguments can completely be self contained as long as the facts of nature they are based on remain fixed to a certain number and tied to a certain intent. When the arguer wishes to expand the intent, that is when the Horizontal growth occurs.

The natural facts invoked above need satisfy certain requirements before a meaningful argument can be construed from them. Firstly, they all need to correspond to the same object. The word object does not mean a singled out entity. It could be a group or even an argument itself. This allows the facts to be developed towards understanding of this object. This is the intent or the motive of the argument. Every argument is motivated by the will to explore or explain.

As for the framework, it is created as follows: The facts of nature concerning the current object of interest (which is being argued) are identified and laid down. We use common sense to extend the entailment of the facts to ideas we term as implications. The implications are a form of knowledge themselves as well as roots of knowledge as they themselves are propagators of implications. This process we call an argument. The propagation itself is the vertical growth of an argument. The choice of axis albeit arbitrary, will play a meaningful role later when I discuss what corresponds to horizontal growth. Another important character of the structure of an argument is the level of the implications. The higher the implication is, in the propagation of the argument, the weaker it is bound to its base fundamental axioms.

How does one gain knowledge? Quite haphazardly, the real answer is. We gain it by very many means and very many ways. Since knowledge pours in through myriad channels, the quality and purity of it, depends strongly on the method of acquisition. A scholar who pursues knowledge as the goal of his existence needs to formalize this method so that he can identify and discriminate the worthwhile portion with a grace that manifests as an art as opposed to a practice.

To begin with formalization, we must first identify if there are some natural elements to the process of formalization itself. This question in fact can not be answered through a formal method as it automatically invokes the self-reference paradox. What we need, is to realize that all fundamental arguments are arrived at using common sense. Common sense is nothing but the identification of facts of nature as axiomatic foundations of frameworks we build to explore information. The reason such frameworks need to be built is because the words Knowledge or Information have no real meaning outside of sentient comprehension. Which implies that such frameworks are not natural facts themselves. Stones do not acquire knowledge after all. This may not be the only or the most useful way of gaining knowledge, but that is not the object of this exercise. The real aim here is to find a way and then develop it further. What if a better means is discovered in the future? We then simply choose to adopt the new one. Until then, the current format persists.

Look. I really need to sleep now despite myself because I have to take a lecture tomorrow. BUT. I promise I will continue this discussion. Thanks for all of it. No really.

And good night.

>>2678194
But the essential word here is Aesthetic experience. It is essentially a choice when an option of having Aesthetic and Strategic experience is mutually exclusive. This is in fact an issue in gaming nowadays.

Look. I should tell you that you are criticizing me from an disadvantaged position. Those articles are written with a particular audience in mind and from a perspective with assumes the Axiom of Necessity (hi there). So do understand that your top-down view is not compatible with them. The entire idea is in fact to create one where it can be shown that such a view is the highest point of achievement in gaming. It takes a lot to convince people. /Untermesnch

>>2678174
>>2678192
>You just can't see that because the base you're working from is totally different

Rather:

You just can't see that because the base you're working FOR is totally different. I do understand what you mean. But you have to see where I am posting unfortunately. Yeah. Untermensch.

>>2678174
Well. As I said, I reserve the word simulation for entirely general situation. That's probably not discussed in that article but one written quite earlier. And there you should find the reason why I do not emphasize one "genre" being superior to other. Simply because Gaming is targeted with entertainment in mind for Niche groups. You belong to the "hardcore" category. There are people who play Farmville too. Not that I identify with them or consider their choice particularly equivalent but rather I consider it a choice in itself.

>>2678073
As usual I failed to put it correctly. I meant that the Overman is disinterested in the world from the sense being disinterested in people. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra he is clearly mocking them. How far can take this attitude to be a character?

>>2678081
Its disappearing because of new fucking rules. Newfags on codex are not allowed to post until moderated. Some idiot cooked up these things because Bioware fans decided to storm codex one day. You will become unmoderated when the mod decides you are sincere.

I would be delighted if you read the rest of the stuff.

The word simulation is missing for a good reason. Because I reserve it for something else entirely.

>>2678040
Also, I would claim that Nietzsche-an Overman is strangely disinterested. I say strangely, because probably that is strange to me. But is such a disinterest a critical part of being or becoming or both?

>>2678040
>who are intensely skilled but by the same token quite crippled.

This is the sentence I was trying to look for in terms of opinion.

Anyway. I just "acquired" Modern Criticism and theory third edition. Here's the link:

http://www.badongo.com/de/cfile/26791695

>>2677983
>1

Yes. All human behavior. Is this not what is implied by Hegelian materialism and its derivatives?

>2

All right. I meant the overman.

>3
By that I mean the concentration of ideals within a person. Probably still unclear. Speaking cleanly, individuals with exceptional traits in certain faculties.

>>2677955
:)

Well. Nice to know you are doing well old friend.

As to what makes good rpgs, why not read on what I have to say on that in detail? Or have you already been sneaking into the 'dex?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/principles-of-game-design-basics-intermezzo-realism
-in-video-games.69743/

I tried reading Eagleton, but he's obscene. Can I get something more neutral and structured? I like structured.

Also: Giff Modern Criticism and Theory plox.

>>2677890
So I am assuming that you do not buy into the assertion that human behavior is economic behavior? Of course you don't. What do you buy into? Do you have anything to say on how would you describe Nietzsche-an man? Would you claim or oppose that he is described by some form of Individualistic exceptionalism?

>>2677917
Yes. It was one of the nice ones.

>>2677904
Sorry to interrupt this thread for a quick question, but you suggested some books on literary theory. Can you suggest them again?

Also, how are you doing you fag?

Hi Ed.

Hey OP. Are you sure that these are the only Literary theories out there? Do you think that they are probably only modernist or post-modernist views?

If you realized that NOW then you were doing it wrong anyway. Go home. Clean your nose.

>>2677525
Not when they are clearly delineated in their use. Is this D&E? If s, hi!

The recognition that previous models were made by flawed people and the idiotic assumption that this makes the models themselves flawed.

Hi Op.

In your reading you will come across a lot of people who will claim that they have deciphered how the world works.

The question you should be asking is if thats:

1) Possible?
2) To who, if it is?

Besides that probably the important question you should primarily address is what do they all mean when they answer this question. Since many of them reach different and even contradictory answers, its probably a sound start to check what you are expecting to find in the first place.

If you, like me, are not looking for anything in particular but just the means to understand what is the best way to acquire knowledge then look to Aristotle for inspiration. It is not his method but the way he constructs a method, is something you will find particularly enlightening: he is clearly working with what is essentially the most rational way of thinking. Unfortunately I can't explain that last and ambiguous sounding statement since I am working on that topic too.

>>2673651
Not necessarily so. But it can overturn the entire foundation on which the second Galactic empire is formed by breeding and creating aliens who will no longer work towards the former goals of Seldon's plan or even Galaxia.