Hill Giant's page

He's not intellectual, but he is intuitive. He notices things other might miss, but doesn't know what they mean in the grand scheme of things. He's tactless: he says what he sees and he doesn't understand why people get upset ("The emperor has no clothes.").

Confucian, Jewish, what's the diff?

Not a lot. We both eat Chinese food on Christmas.

If God made people, he made them imperfect - for the same reason storytellers do - because imperfect people are more interesting.

How Not to Do Evangelism, an insightful article on how to evangelize (anything).

To my mind, the "crystallized atheists" aren't indicative of all Golarion atheists, but rather 'unhappy nihilists': people who believe that not only does the universe have no objective purpose, but that it is impotent to try to apply a subjective purpose. Of course, if this is the case, then ironically the universe is kept in existence by people who believe that the universe has no inherent value.

To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.

Poor Bender, you're seeing things. You've been drinking too much, or too little, I forget how it works with you. Anyway, you haven't drunk exactly the right amount.

Now replace alcohol with suffering (or really any human experience) and you've got Taoism.

I don't think "atheism" is really the right word here. In real life, it means the rejection of the notion of gods. In Golarion, though, there is hard, irrefutable evidence that beings whom people call "gods" exist.

If I've learned anything, it's that there is nothing so irrefutable, that someone won't refute it.

Real people have (subjective) beliefs that are (objectively) wrong, why can't fictional characters? Remember, they don't have the same omnisicent view you do as a reader.

Why should Ezran believe that clerics get their spells from gods? He can cast spells, and he doesn't have faith in a god.

Fictional people should be as oblivious and obstinate as real people. Personally, I'd find it incredible if there weren't atheists on Golarion.

self-compassion

I believe my original point was that I felt pressured to 'do something with my life'. Something more 'substantial' than having a job and raising my child.

Wait, being an author is more 'substantial' than getting a decent job and having children?! Could you tell that to my mother? :-)

So…is it possible that having a fantasy to be an author but never actually writing anything to be published has made me exactly who I am 'supposed' to be?

From a certain perspective, yes.

An action which is not practical on the surface may be practical in other areas. Fantasizing about being a wizard won't help you cast spells, but it might improve your math skills, resource management, etc. Thinking about writing can certainly help you as a GM, and it may even have applications in whatever it is you actually do for a living. As to the practical applications of fantasizing about Anne Hathaway, uh, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Are you suggesting desire only exists in concert with action? 'cause then I can tell my wife I do not want to sleep with Anne Hathaway.

I would also include anticipatory action. While I can say from experience, if you want to be a writer, write; if you want to be a surgeon I don't recommend you start by cutting people open. Going to medical school is sufficient proof of desire.

To the specific point: Have you made advances to Ms. Hathaway? Which is to say, there is difference between fantasizing about and actually wanting something (as anyone on these forums should know).

…and is it possible that wanting to be an author but never actually writing anything to be published has made me exactly who I am 'supposed' to be?

You say you want to be an author, but if you don't actually write anything, then it's a lie; for all practical purposes you don't want to be an author.

I can see the sense of that. I certainly want my daughter to have a happy life and I see no harm in that. It motivates me to do what I can to see that she has a happy life but I also accept that she will not always be happy.

My brief flirtation with altruistic hedonism made me realize that my goal is not to have a happy life but to have a life I'm happy with.

I'm very curious as to why you feel that anyone wants you to "buy into" anything.

Excuse my idiom. I know no ones trying to convert me anymore than I'm trying to convert anyone else. (Why would I want to sell you my religion? It's my religion. Get your own, dammit.)

The discussion had turned to the similarities between Taoism and Buddhism, and then Courtfool quoted the line about wanting; I felt the need to clarify a distinction as I understand it between the two philosophies.

I don't exactly claim to be Taoist, but I will say I'm not a Buddhist, but more to point I know why I'm not a Buddhist. I am, however, a pluralist, and any philosophy that works for you and doesn't hurt me is good in my book.

Stop wanting stuff

I don't buy into the whole Buddhist avoiding desire thing. Want things, but want the things you actually want and not the things people tell you you want. People who tell you what to want want something from you (and it's probably not a thing you want to give them). Also, when discerning what you desire don't conflate the lesser physical thing with the greater abstract thing it represents (e.g. want the knowledge not the grade).

Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, and bandits and thieves will disappear.

I am not convinced. It seems that it is human nature to desire. One person may be able to repress this, but I do not think that would make others do the same. As soon as I have a better space in the cave to sleep, someone else is going to want it.

You only have to worry about thieves if the things you value are things that can be taken away. But there are many things that in giving away increase your own store: knowledge, love...

Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, and bandits and thieves will disappear.

I am not convinced. It seems that it is human nature to desire. One person may be able to repress this, but I do not think that would make others do the same. As soon as I have a better space in the cave to sleep, someone else is going to want it.

Why does desire have to be desire for more than the other guy has?

We've been sold this lie that money is a goal. Money isn't a goal, it's a tool. Having more money than everyone else is like having more hammers than anyone else; what does it gain you?

From my limited understanding of serial killers, I gain enjoyment from killing people. It satisfies a need.

After giving this some more thought, I'm conflicted.

On one hand I want to say, that's short term thinking. That clearly the benefits of a live person (assuming that person isn't trying to kill you) outweigh the lost benefits of not killing them.

On the other hand, I'm reminded of the Bandit's Tao from earlier in this thread. Suppose it is your purpose to attempt to kill people? Then I would be remiss not to inform you that it's other people's purposes to stop you. (Viz the previous hand: your freedom is no longer preferable to them.) Either you suffer by your own choice (resisting your nature), or by the choices of others (conflicting with other's natures). To which I say, sucks to be you. Some people exist to be object lessons for others.

And, I'm sure if we're still talking Tao anymore. "Dexter"?

So, be yourself?

Don't be yourself, you're better than that.

Which is to say, don't be yourself for the short-term, be yourself for the long-term (said long-term may exist beyond yourself).

What if I am a serial killer?

Since Samnell is playing the role of the Humanist who will tell you why you shouldn't kill people (I agree), I will take the role of the Socratist.

Let's start with definitions though. A "serial killer" is someone who has killed more than one person on more than one occasion. And for the sake of argument, let's assume you haven't killed anyone yet, but rather to be a serial killer is your stated intent.

What do you gain from killing people?

Anything that is possible is natural. The Way isn't about returning to nature because you can't leave nature. However, as Kirth pointed out, not all nature is agreeable to you. Your nature is always with you, find where it fits. That is the Way.

O.k. My perspective is skewed, but come on.

All education, while a necessary evil, is a stain upon the primal soul.

The writer here is wrong. The necessity of returning to your center does not make the traveling outward bad. Both are on the Way.

(Obliquely, viz: "His Dark Materials" and "Fraggle Rock".)

By articulating their experiences, it helps them to understand the stages they are going through. Once they can do this, it satisfies and neutralizes their rational minds. The process clears away intellectualism and leaves the true Tao, which is not subject to words or images.

I enjoy art as much as the next person, but I am not sure I want to neutralize my rational mind. The above quote seems to me to be hinting that the Tao works in mysterious ways. That sets off some warning flags for me.

I hate the phrasing of this because (like much Tao) it comes off anti-intellectual. However, I don't disagree. What the writer is talking about are the concepts of "affirmation" and "internalization".

Affirmation is articulating what you believe or desire to do. To yourself, to others, to your higher power of choice, doesn't matter. The act of consciously saying or writing it, makes you look at the idea, refine it, rationalize it, and internalize it.

The idea of internalizing is that if you think about the idea before hand, then when you need to apply that idea, you don't need to waste time considering it then and there, you can just act.

The thinking is as important as the acting, because if you act without knowing what you expect to achieve, who knows what you'll get?

Honestly, these threads are part of my affirmation. I can't quiet my mind and I don't have a higher power, but I can articulate.

An interesting take on this ruling from the Slacktivist.

Is the trick to find the beautiful? But if all things are 'good', does that mean all things are 'bad'? Is it a contradiction? Or, if all things are 'good' then there are no 'bad' things? Or has 'good' and 'bad' just become irrelevant?

Nothing is inherently better or worse than anything else. However, some things may be more or less preferable to you (and differently preferable to someone else).

Everything has a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is to be less preferable, so that you know what is more preferable.

Everything has a purpose. Most things are not purposed for you. That doesn't make the thing 'bad'.

There are no platonic ideals, because nothing exists in a vacuum. A chair is purposeful only in relation to an arse. There's no perfect chair because there is no perfect arse. But for every bottom there is a preferable chair.

In short: Tao is about finding a good seat.

I'd argue that any belief system, whether you believe in God, Bhudda, Allah, Science or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, that demands you hold yourself above or superior than other people is begging to start a Holy War.

It occurs to me that anyone who holds a philosophy that believes in supermen inevitable believes themselves to be one of these supermen; yet anyone who holds a philosophy that believes in saints must believe they themselves are not saints.

Samnell wrote:

I've tried, but he's got St. Sebastian and how do I compete with that? I mean, look at him!

Oh, my. Number 3 especially.

Seriously, you're not put off by the fact that he's shot full of arrows? To me that's a red flag that says, this person has unresolved issues. :-)

I don't have any problem with homosexuality, but am hesitant about homosexual marriage, because it opens up a huge door to allowing in terrorists and what would otherwise be illegal immigrants, and we are not ready for that.

You can't be serious?

WorryI do not know if I agree with this, but I do find it comforting.

The very wise Tao master Bo the Sheep from TV's Garfield and Friends said: "There are only two kinds of problems in the world: those you can solve and those you can't. There's no point worrying about the problems you can solve and their no use worrying about the one's you can't."

What happened to Knowledge being bad?

Some people confuse not acting with not thinking (which is why I get my Tao from children's television rather than philosophy books).

Almost everything in fiction is inspired by something else; I just like the inspiration to be further from the surface and obscured with originality. When I put the Garuda, Alchemist, and Gunslinger together well it just gets a bit transparent for my taste is all.

1) Unlike Perdido Street Station, in Pathfinder the Garuda, the Alchemist, and Gunslinger are each in three different products surrounded by a bunch of other stuff which is completely unlike that book.

2) What's wrong with an RPG having elements similar to a thing you like (or at the very least found memorable)? Isn't that we play these games?

After my wife, this would be my vote.

Cintia Dicker? I barely know 'er!

"Master, is there any special way to be disciplined at the Tao?
"Yes."
"What is it?"
"When you're hungry -- eat. When you're tired -- sleep."

Self-awareness is not the same as selfishness. You can take what you need without hurting others. Indeed, if you're doing it right, you can take what you need while helping others.

I believe Deng Ming-Dao is of the mind that knowledge is bad, but I do not agree. I can see that knowledge can be used for bad. I can see that knowledge can lead to a lack of humility. But I believe knowledge can be good too. Is knowledge of the tao bad?

I avoid reading books purportedly about Taoism because every one I've read has been dangerously close to anti-intellectual.

I try to think of the 'great' achievements of men. Medicine comes to mind. If everyone sits around mirroring the divine, who is going to invent Novocain? I appreciate Novocain. Maybe that is selfish, but I do not want to go back to a world without it.

Intelligence doesn't invent it discovers. No one invented Novocain. Someone looked for a way to alleviate pain and discovered the potential for the thing we call Novocain to exist already written into the universe.

You can't force the water to reflect the moon, you can only allow it to do so in its own way. In the same way, you can't force the universe to be the way you want it to be, you can only find the the parts that suit your needs.

(As with my heretic biblical interpretations, I can't guarantee the validity of my taoist story interpretations. :-) )

To me, the Way is an awareness of what you will accomplish by doing what you choose to do. Therefore the Way is not incompatible with any practice (such as a religion), as long the practitioner is aware of why they do it.

One of the things I've learned from the Civil Religious Discussion:

Tao is Grace is Cool. If you have to tell people you have it, then you don't.

How do you grade the results?

I don't believe in a absolute (that is, fundamental) morality, but I believe that any action can be measured against a consensual morality based on desired results.

I suspect most such judgments must by nature be there/not-there quantifications, although I recognize that many moralities place emphasis on the quantity or quality of certain emergent things (human lives, money, etc.).

This also assumes, of course, that the desired result is something that can be measure--that is to say, not supernatural. However, I would dare say, that in all cases where a non-measurable result is claimed as desirable, certain measurable quantities or qualities will be used to judged whether that supernatural result is to be achieved.

Hill Giant wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

How do you test morality?

By results, not by intent.

How do you grade the results?

Curly: Do you know what the secret of life is?

[holds up one finger]
Curly: This.
Mitch: Your finger?
Curly: One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and the rest don't mean s$$&.
Mitch: But, what is the "one thing?"
Curly: [smiles] That's what *you* have to find out.

(I may have less cryptic answer later.)

How do you test morality?

I mentioned this question to my muse and she gave me a beautiful metaphor about growing a garden that I won't try to paraphrase. It came down to this: How do you test morality? By results, not by intent.

Charity for selfish reasons is good; abuse with good intentions is evil.

(And to reiterate what I said about love: there is no definition without testing.)

How do you test good art?

This is a question that is important to me because I sell art in my day job. As I started to think about it I realized it was more complex than can really be summarized in one post. There is more than one way in which art can be "good". There is more than one way in which art can be "valuable". Some of these ways are are subjective and some are objective. Many can be studied mathematically. If anyone is honestly interested in my thoughts on art theory, feel free to start a new thread (let's not derail this one [too late!]). However, I will give a couple of simple, subjective tests you can use:

Q) Is [this art] good art?

A) Do you like it? If yes, then it's good art. If no, it still may be good art, but not for you.

Q) How much is [this art] worth?

A) How much are you willing to pay for it? (Ancillary: Be a savvy shopper, though. Not everything retains its value once it walks out the door.)

Hill Giant wrote:

Yes! Like the bible says, "Test everything, keep the good." (Timothy IIRC).

A bit of a misquote.

It's actually from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- but that phrase is in the middle of a thought.

1 Thessalonians 5:20-22 wrote:

(20) Do not treat prophecies with contempt (21) but test them all; hold on to what is good, (22) reject every kind of evil.

Thanks. I admit I'm no biblical scholar. (I knew it started with a 'T'!) Still, it's good advice for lots of situations.

Let's do this one at a time.

Should you even test love?

Yes! Like the bible says, "Test everything, keep the good." (Timothy IIRC).

First of all we have to define love, because it's a rather nebulous word in English. I'm going to discuss interpersonal love.

Like anything you have to test love in good faith (so to speak). You can't test love a priori: e.g. "If you love me you will do this..." That's bad science and unloving on one's own part.

You can test love a posterior. "She made this sacrifice for me, so she probably loves me." That's a point of the story of the Good Samaritan: The Priest may profess love, but he doesn't stop. The Levite may profess love but he doesn't stop. The Samaritan, who we're suppose to hate for some reason, is the one who stops and helps. Who really is expressing love here? Now tell me Jesus isn't describing a test for love?

Everything can be quantified. Maybe not to the degree of this is more than that. For this discussion, the erroneous "who do you love more?". But everything that is can be defines as there/not-there. When someone says they love someone, and then they abuse that person, their actions demonstrate that their words are untrue. Without that, the most basic of tests, love has no meaning.

Not everything of value is testable. How do you test morality? How do you test good art? Should you even test love?

I actually have answers to those questions, but I'm not convinced you want to hear them. I've found that arguing for the sake of argument, to use Kirth's phrase, "results in net increase in suffering".

I wonder if there is some kind of 'process'. Step One - believe everything you were raised with. Step Two - increased knowledge causes rejection of previous beliefs. Step Three - further increased knowledge returns you to previous beliefs.

Or as some call it childhood, adolescence, adulthood.

I'm confused. Is anyone arguing that an "objective morality" is preferable to a "subjective morality", or is this purely a semantic argument?

I know I don't want to argue what constitutes reasonable doubt. Instead, here's a humorous link: Teach The Controversy T-Shirts

I read this article the other day where a physicist argued that since, using something akin to ridiculously large hadron collider, it is theoretically possible to create new universes, there exists the possibility that our universe was created in this way by entities from another universe.

I had already dismissed this as fluff, when a thought occurred to me this morning: We know the universe grows and dies, what if it also reproduces? And what if the means by which universes reproduce is by evolving sapient elements which then develop the means to create new universes?

Now, not all of these created universes will themselves reproduce, due to various chao-deterministic elements: gravity could be too weak, or space-time expansion too fast, or life within may (for whatever reason) never develop the means to create universes. Natural selection thus favors universes with scientifically advanced sapient life.

If one were to accept this theory, and desire the continuation of the multiverse, it becomes a metabiological imperative to work towards the means of creating universes.

Anyway, just spitballing here.

Hill Giant wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answer

Jack Vance put it best: "Of all questions, why? is the least pertinent. It begs the question; it assumes the larger part of its own response; to wit, that a sensible response exists."

And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.

I wish I had the rest of that paragraph handy, 'cause it's both funny and contextual. Anyway, my point is the youtuber's argument by 'why?' is ridiculous.

To say that something exist, therefore there must be a reason it exists is equivalent to saying that something exists therefore it must have a creator.

Once we establish that your supernatural entity of choice is the creator, we still have the question of who created said supernatural entity. Ergo, once we establish your supernatural entity as 'why?' the universe exists, we still have the question of 'why?' your supernatural entity exists.

At some point you have to accept that things just are. This isn't an attack on religion, it's an attack on bad logic.

5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answer

Jack Vance put it best: "Of all questions, why? is the least pertinent. It begs the question; it assumes the larger part of its own response; to wit, that a sensible response exists."

Erastil has a wife, but you've never heard of her because she's at home barefoot and pregnant like a good woman.

Kidding.

Actually, it would be interesting if Erastil's wife were nothing like him: a Mona Simpson to his Abe Simpson.

This post is #9,953. What happens when we hit 10,000? Do we break the boards? Do we win a prize?

The Nine Billion Names of God