Jump to content

Aenivae_Ikeda

Members
  • Posts

    556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Legacy Profile Fields

  • LOCATION
    Melbourne, Australia

Aenivae_Ikeda's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Palin again... Now I have to go repress all internal acknowledgment that she exists once more. I'm gonna internalize this one, you can count on it.
  2. Newman ran a good business too. He's a great example of how effective capitalism and humanitarianism can be. On a side note; "It's an interesting fact of science that the beard grows after death." "What?" "BEARD!" "Okay. "Also, equally interesting, is that the toenails never grow like the beard." "Huh?" "BEARD! Are you deaf? I always clip my fingernails and remember to clip those of my toes as well. And they never seem to grow." "Could you cut them when you aren't paying attention?" "I don't think so." Ophelia enters from stage left at a run, pauses to see if she is being followed then disappears beyond stage right. Hamlet appears shortly after in pursuit, the buttons of his trousers undone. =\
  3. It begs the question as to whether or not there is such a thing as true selflessness, or acts of genuine altruism, and how would you define that? I don't think either of the options would be particularly ethical (being as we're discussing this I think ethics is more apt than morals =P). I like the Buddhist description of ethical behavior being "that which achieves harmony by allowing compassion to oneself, and compassion for everything else." But Kant has some good ideas on it too. Here's an idea- When I saw The Dark Knight it was very much like watching a battle of the philosophers. The Joker being Nietzsche, Two-Face being Kant, and Batman being Plato. They are all three very different ethical codes but each with it's own substance. The Joker being the example of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Killing, instilling fear, and chaos in order to make people take control of things, and participate rather than sit in apathy. Batman would be an example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons(arguably). His crusade is really a vendetta that just happens to result in good things. So which is better, or how would you define ethics?
  4. I don't know if someone mentioned this before me, and if so I apologize, but have you ever heard of the Drake Equation? Carl Sagan (as always) does a good job explaining it, and you can find a video of it on youtube I believe.
  5. One of the things I liked most about Suresh was that he didn't have any powers and was simply enthusiastic about knowledge. Most of his character has always been very human so it was a bit of a let-down to see him with powers. Even if he ends up losing them, it wasn't fun to see him so detached from his usual self.
  6. Also I recommend reading T.S. Elliot's East Coker, specifically part V, but you should go through all of it. http://www.tristan.icom43.net/quartets/coker.html
  7. @ Scathane No, I don't mean to say that I disagree with that many things will be subjective, but I think that the process in which someone goes about doing something requires a subjective analysis from others for it to escape being stagnant. The root of this idea is the same behind asking a friend something. You trust that person, and value their opinion for reasons that are both your own and their own. So basically this is just an online version of that. I have no reason to distrust any of you, and while I may not share the same opinion as someone else on a particular subject I can acknowledge that the opinion they have is, in large part, a reflection of their personality in a given situation. And you can learn from that simply by trying to understand that different personality, and in matters of artistic endeavors you need to be able to explore and evaluate personalities that are not your own, and be able to express those through yourself in an external way. So really the aim is just to trust the potential good of another's perspective when it relates to something you are doing, and something they are doing. Going back to the example of meter in poetry, one person's method of analyzing the overall importance and purpose of meter within poetry can cause someone who was uninterested in poetry or meter before to do some exploring on their own. It's one thing to read the dictionary definition of meter, which is necessary, but it's another thing to psychologically understand the myriad of it's uses when you read another person's definition of it. Does that make sense? @ Tofu Kurt Vonnegut's style of writing addresses your last issue really well. Vonnegut has a tendency of giving personality to things that you wouldn't expect to have them, like a bottle of champagne. In that he's explains things in a quick, personifying manner, which avoids going off on a tangent of a specific mood, or idea he has. Likewise he has a way of taking personality away from things to demonstrate a point. In Slaughter House Five he takes away the mysticism and the personality of death by saying "So it goes." Which drawn out is saying, "Something died, did you know that? I was just checking to see if you knew that. Because that's what happened, and that's all that happened. It just is." And that in turn takes the emphasis of a character's personality and life off of how they died, making who they were more important. Something worth checking out.
  8. Rather it shouldn't be just a forum of statements about personal skills, but a way of collaborating over how to improve weak points of specific skills, and possibly even statements of a person's ambition within a field so that cross-analysis is available. Like if I wanted other people's take on how to improve meter within a poem, then I could get multiple inputs on how people think of meter, and try and find a way of better comprehending meter based on my prior knowledge and the interpretations of others as well my interpretations of their explanations. . Someone might not know what meter is, you can define it and then offer a personal explanation for it so that you understand how you think about more effectively, and someone else has essentially learned a new aspect of writing.
  9. Regrettably this topic is going to seem absurd coming from me, being as I don't keep up with the discussions here that often anymore, but I had a weird sort of idea/question for everyone. The purpose of it is for a sort of general knowledge of subjects feedback, so it very much relies on multiple people. Anyways, the question(or questions.) is(or are) what is/are your passion(s), and how educated would you say you are in them? Mine for example are sociology, cognitive science, writing, drawing, and music. In sociology I am decently versed(much higher than average knowledge, but still not anything impressive on the university level), and am currently studying it in partnership with cognitive science, which I am fairly above what would be the average knowledge of it. But like with sociology it's nothing impressive on a professional level. My writing is well developed in many respects. When doing something artistic my style is very well pieced together and fluid, but needs work when dealing with transitions. Poetically my style needs a lot of work with how I externally communicate- I tend to be too ambiguous and stream of consciousness oriented so it's hard to read it cohesively. There's a lot of things I could mention here but I don't want to go off on a rant if no one is interested in the general idea of this topic. Thus the above is just an example. Drawing- Average Music- Slightly above average So, the point is for people who are more well versed in a field or want to try and pick up on others can write down what their fields are, their level of understanding, and then there's a sort of feedback loop of offering technical knowledge as well as personal knowledge, observations and what not. I just thought it might be an interesting way to sort of build one's own understanding of something by both trying to semi-teach and semi-learn and all that good stuff. Good idea? Yay, nay? Ways to improve upon it?
  10. I knew there was something fishy going on here! We have to stop it before it's too late! But first we have to find out what "it" really is. ...
  11. Basically the rules are like this. Two players; Black and white, each with a bag of white or black stones. Each player places a stone each turn. The game is usually played on a 19X19 square grid, with players placing stones on the intersections, not the squares. The idea is to capture territory, which you do by sealing off sections of the board with groups of stones that can't be killed. So it works in your favor to make formations of stones that don't use many stones(because each intersection counts for a point, so you don't want to fill your points.) that way you retain as much territory as possible with the least amount of stones. The intersections surrounding a stone horizontally and vertically are called it's liberties, and if the opposite player takes all of those away by placing on them then the stone with no liberties dies. This applies to groups of stones as well. The rules are very simple but the actual strategic and tactical aspects of the game are widely complex and convoluted. If someone wants me to explain the rules in a game and demonstrate just how complex it can get then get a gokgs.com account and look up my account name which is Hsean, and I'll gladly do a tutorial.
  12. You can purchase a board that usually comes with two bags of stones, but if you go to gokgs.com then you can play it online. I wouldn't call it tutoring but I can teach the basic rules and the theory up to the rank I'm at. More than happy to actually.
  13. Sephiroth indeed. I also like how most of the Disney villains came out in Kingdom Hearts. Ultimately though, Rufus Shinra from Final Fantasy VII came out. The whole Shinra villain is well done, and all the Turks within it are good villains with pretty cool personalities (except Elaine). Rufus though is just well put together as the quintessential bad-guy, and he manages to break free from that label in a number of ways while still holding true to it. If that makes sense.
  14. Anyone familiar with the game Go? It's a board game that developed out of connect 5 in India, and then Chess, and Chinese Checkers, and all those other games developed out of it. There's some pretty interesting things surrounding it, I thought you guys might find it interesting. The number of possible games on a Go board exceeds the estimated number of neutrons in the known universe. So, it's speculated that no two Go games have ever been identical. Also, interesting psychology note. There's a ranking system in the game that starts with what is called Kyu, and then goes to what is called Dan(Dawn). It starts with 30Kyu being the lowest, then goes down to 1Kyu, and then starts from 1Dan up to 8Dan. Interesting thing here is that between 30 and 17Kyu you only use the language portions of your brain to understand the board, and after that you switch to primarilly using the spacial centers of your brain until a certain area of rank where you combine both areas. So it's remarked that Go, eventually, will cause you to use the entirety of your brain to think out situations on the board. Anyone who has seen the movie Pi/3.14 or A Beautiful Mind has seen Go before. There's a good quote about Go in Pi that says something to the effect of; The ancient Japanese considered the Go board to be the perfect model of the universe. At first glance it may seem structured and ordered, but it actually represents endless systems of chaos because of it's infinite possibility. As the board is filled those systems become less and less until numerous patterns underlying the formations of the stones and their relationship to the board, and each other, appear. So yeah, just checking if anyone played or was interested in learning.
  15. I've been set on Ron Paul from the beginning. I'm not really opposed to big government entirely, but for the most part it seems less effective and more expensive than the market. Besides that, all of the candidates are spouting off these massive programs that aren't going to work because the amount of money needed to invest in their success while either paying off a massive debt, or continuing to maintain a massive foreign policy. Not that these programs couldn't be instituted, it's just the degree of expense they require is absurd. Accountability, and management, over and over again to prevent corruption. And without those then you lose money and efficiency to corruption. All that jazz. So I think a small government is most beneficial at this point until everything is fine and dandy once again. But, since that's not going to happen I have to either go for Obama or Huckabee- Although Obama seems a little absurd in his ideas to diplomatically talk Iran and Syria into leaving Iraq alone after we've left.

Copyright (c) 1999-2022 by SWRebellion Community - All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters. Star Wars(TM) is a registered trademark of LucasFilm, Ltd. We are not affiliated with LucasFilm or Walt Disney. This is a fan site and online gaming community (non-profit). Powered by Invision Community

×
×
  • Create New...