Learning kreedz or studying?
30/01/2018 05:10Originally posted by KyU.Ktbh i owe kz game and comunity many thanks, i started kz and doing kz movies for fun, now i got a fulltime job motion graphic designer with pretty good salary, its up to you. kz is motivating much!!
true, im thankful to kz for opening my eyes to moviemaking .. now I'm working in the domain heh; still, what did all these wr geekers even do now? the skills don't relate to any real job out there, even tho it helps in life. ye fail english 420boyz?
Originally posted by throttleWhen you implement such categories as motivation, designation and definition of what does actually define "myself", it gets utterly terrible, because what you will see is nothing. There is nothing that you can truly call your's, being simply an information filter with a feedback. There is no yours and there is no else's. Motivation is arbitrary, imaginary, with a cause, that is a result of reluctance of doing something you need. An enormous nothing inside you. You will notice that everything what you defined as yours, as what suits you or you find comforting, is severely occasional and circumstantial, such as what you have chose to study. A great black hole doomed to be free. A blend of PTSD with an existential crisis is what you get in the end of that road.
„Motivation is arbitrary, imaginary“ „[...] is severely occasional and circumstantial„ Yes, and on a subsequent level of abstraction it's basically chemical reactions. But we can understand motivation, the goals we set and also the development of a certain self-perception through a psychological perspective. The level of needs and satisfaction is the one we can gain insight on and through which we can understand ourself, while we are numb to ontological categories like „mines and yours“ in the way you have just used them.
Don't get me wrong, these are interesting questions, but they usually have no influence on us if we don't dedicate ourself to such theoretical problems in a self-punishing manner. I have met people who got into existential crisis about the question whether or not it is possible to recognize reality. You can spent your whole lifetime writing articles about sceptical positions in epistemology, but the influence of your insights on your factual situation will be zero, because they are of no practical consequences. However, the fact that you can earn appreciation and money through writing these articles will have a huge impact on your life, because it is directly connected to your needs and potentials of satisfaction.
To create a analogy to your posting: „You didn't fail exams because of cs. You procrastinated through it. It is very important to understand that.“
You are not stuck in reluctance because of such philosophical issues, you actually have psychological problems which you try to explain through these thoughts and reflections. This way you possibly get a glimpse behind the everyday-curtain of ideology, you identify certain moments of necessarily false consciousness in your set of beliefs and perception of the world. And it might tell you something about the causes of these problems but in first place it is not a good way to cope with them.
I felt what Sartre described in „Nausea” and started reading lots of books to understand my feelings, when I should have just visited a decent psychologist instead. I am not writing this to make fun of your position, I identify with it (through projection) and because of this I feel the need to address this issue – you also mentioned suicide. I have met several people in my CS-days who had similar problems and although I think it is not likely that someone else is browsing the forums who could relate to this it is not impossible either, so it wont hurt to post this here. This is poorly written and structured, I was writing this in a hurry. I hope its useful in some way
30/01/2018 14:38Originally posted by CobrexOriginally posted by KyU.Ktbh i owe kz game and comunity many thanks, i started kz and doing kz movies for fun, now i got a fulltime job motion graphic designer with pretty good salary, its up to you. kz is motivating much!!
true, im thankful to kz for opening my eyes to moviemaking .. now I'm working in the domain heh; still, what did all these wr geekers even do now? the skills don't relate to any real job out there, even tho it helps in life. ye fail english 420boyz?
It's true that playing KZ doesn't directly attribute to any real life skill, but I like to believe that it made me learn how to push myself towards goals. Personally, I always took great care about doing well in school during my active period of KZ, and at the moment I'm finishing my engineering master's degree.
30/01/2018 16:26Originally posted by CobrexOriginally posted by KyU.Ktbh i owe kz game and comunity many thanks, i started kz and doing kz movies for fun, now i got a fulltime job motion graphic designer with pretty good salary, its up to you. kz is motivating much!!
true, im thankful to kz for opening my eyes to moviemaking .. now I'm working in the domain heh; still, what did all these wr geekers even do now? the skills don't relate to any real job out there, even tho it helps in life. ye fail english 420boyz?
Nothing really except english (which is still so far from being good) and country flags lel
Appreciate the response Kaffee!
It will be quite tough, to get into each other's categories, language basically, but I truly hope we both have the 'motivation'.
[blockquote]The level of needs and satisfaction is the one we can gain insight on and through which we can understand ourself, while we are numb to ontological categories like „mines and yours“ in the way you have just used them.
[/blockquote]
Everything comes within variety of cultures person is historically destined to be bearing, and it was mostly set by a circumstance, by a chance, a minute disturbance you weren't even aware of. Culture, for me, is what creates a social imbalance, an ideology that gives others a privelege, or, more importantly, deprives others from it.
Categories like "mine / yours" might sound abstract and estranged, but not for everyone, not at all, because of what I mentioned firstly. Another doubt comes with understanding that I used them not only in order to not get all the way down being specific and concrete, telling examples, but to summarize by the function it executes. The fundamental opposition of mine and yours can be called a "taste". Which will probably sound much closer to you, because of the emotional attachment to the category, or, especially, it's insides. Same with using "mine/yours" there.
So it's quite a longshot to think that such topic has no influence, plus I've ment to describe a situation where you get to it yourself, when you question yourself such. Obviously it will contain necessity in itself for a person. If the obsession is already there.
Surely there are practical consequences. You just neglect the weight of such approach because it's vastly not in touch with survival in a current socio-economic state. Doubting the absolutness of the latter will surely cause the importance of such philosophy. Do one need to doubt that? I would say that he may be no longer in position to not to doubt that, if he is already in a state when he defines such oppositions and brings such categories into analysis. Dialectics.
You, in your example, stated the needs of a person in a "in touch with reality" pattern which is obviously extremely fragile and subjective, especially in details. That gave you the opportunity to neglect any weight behind the position I've mentioned. The world is less chaotic to you then to me. Though I think I still yet to face all the greatest wonders of existence, even better then what I am aware of by this stage. A shit job, absurd responsibilities, bureaucracy and hypocrisy in a greater measures. I feel like that's the key point to understanding the basis of your position.
[blockquote]
You are not stuck in reluctance because of such philosophical issues, you actually have psychological problems which you try to explain through these thoughts and reflections. This way you possibly get a glimpse behind the everyday-curtain of ideology, you identify certain moments of necessarily false consciousness in your set of beliefs and perception of the world. And it might tell you something about the causes of these problems but in first place it is not a good way to cope with them.
[/blockquote]
Obviously not. I didn't write about that. I've just mentioned it in a barely related to me example.
The philosophy comes within a need, in the face of anxiety and troublesome existence, exactly. I determined the origin of it for myself, but it's not something you can solve with such boundary conditions, sitting in front of a psychologist. "Brother I've been there". The psychological tradition, either Gestalt or Neofreudism is still a culture, truly a religion to me, with it's own categories and the goal to cover all the possible human behavior by a "reasonable" explanation. That doesn't even pass Popper's verification principle, speaking about epistemology. It is not even scientific. I've been at a couple of psychotheurapists and psychologists and what I've found is a well-dressed dogmas. I've got to say that some of the Freud's analogies are extremely impressive, like his "identification" and the interference of individuality with the masses, which led to a whole branch in sociology science. But these are yet analogies. I can go deeply into my understanding of psychology apparatus, but only through your questions. Another gigantic topic.
Speaking about me - I enjoy "false consciousness" part. You must be in denial of something in order to have a perspective, or either leave it being chaotic, while taking a look from above. I cannot allow myself to call something truth or false, I've lost that ability long ago. All the standarts are crushing under the weight of dialectics, there is no ideal body, there is no better sex, there is no anything perfect and permanent. There is only your Consciousness (me) and the denial of it (matter), basically Hegel's philosophy. It interferes so much with me.
[blockquote]„Motivation is arbitrary, imaginary“ „[...] is severely occasional and circumstantial„ Yes, and on a subsequent level of abstraction it's basically chemical reactions.[/blockquote]
There's a problem behind that sentence of yours. You replied materiastically on an idealistic approach. What you did is that you said the same on a different language, using materialistic interpretation of consciousness. It's irrelevant to the topic, but I really wanted to add this correction since this is a classic topic in epistemology. Being really close to neurosciences myself, I always wondered whether consciousness can be completely described from the matter perspective. The answer to this question comes within a classic restate of it - can a subject objectively (fully) cognize itself? Which sounds absurd even from here. When you really get it, what this question actually asks of, what is the problem here, why can't you just do that, you can no longer just believe in such possiblity because its simply absurd - categories from completely different planes of perspective are bashed together to describe themselves. Just wanted to have you trying to get your head around that. Every time you'll create a materialistic analogy to what is going on within 1 distinct process - a thought, a feeling - you still won't be able to "crack" the consciousness open. It stays in opposition to matter. Holism, congruency, the system and it's criteria, whole lot of categories will pop up to embed a doubt. Extremely exciting topic to discuss.
Once again thank you for your response. Always a pleasure.
This is a very interesting response. I didn't understand everything you wrote in its entirety, but some of the things you mentioned are surely worth a discussion, for example your critics on psychoanalysis... I think in your post you positively refer to dialectic but also you use Popper to reject Neofreudian theories. Popper strictly refuses dialectics and I understand Freud essentially as a dialectitian. His object of investigation doesn't allow an approach of classical formal logic, just think about the nature of dreams for example - it is a universe of contradictions. However, we could surely discuss why Freud was wrong in certain things and then I could explain why psychoanalysis might still be the best available approach to understand individual behaviour and many phenomena in society, but that would lead very far away from your original post
Also the last paragraph of your latest post is very interesting but I only want to add a few thoughts that are directly on topic now
Originally posted by throttleYou, in your example, stated the needs of a person in a "in touch with reality" pattern which is obviously extremely fragile and subjective, especially in details. That gave you the opportunity to neglect any weight behind the position I've mentioned.
This is true. I was using this comparison, because the way you described the problem that occurred to you seemed metaphysical. You stated that when you realized how „mines and yours“ coincides it dragged you into a personal crisis and this seemed really weird to me. I was asking myself how does that even relate to you as a person, to your self perception, and what practical consequences does it have, because in first place this is an identity statement between two entities. I think you can decide about this by accepting/rejecting Plato's theory of forms/ideas and so on... under this perspective it is a completely theoretical issue
But ofc „mines and yours“ are extremely influential categories when it comes to property, when it is asked what belongs to you in a sense of owning. When ownership not only relates to physical objects but also abstract things like attributes, then I understand how it could maybe cause problems to accept that there are a no such things as exclusive attributes, thoughts or other objects that constitute ones identity. Although I don't think this is necessarily a problem. It only interferes with you, if you have an exclusionary demand on the ~components~ of your identity. For sure distinction and exclusion is „the function it (mines/yours) executes“ for most people, but I would heavily criticize such an understanding of identity. I don't really get what's the deal if the things i like, the thoughts i have and all the other shit that forms my identity are not unique at all. I honestly don't care about this, but maybe i just don't understand the issue.
Anyways, what i originally wanted to mention is plain and simple: It is really rare that people collapse and break down because of abstract thought, this is more of a romantic idea and a way to euphemise different states of precarity people experience. Which is unfortunately most often practiced by themself. It's usually a lot more helpful to tell a professional about your life situation who could possibly explain to you whats wrong, than to focus on the topics that intellectually bother you and hope that more insight will result in relief. tldr: Don't kill yourself because of the wrong coping strategy. Ofc it is possible that this advice is useless to you
Nice. Let's dig in.
[blockquote]I think in your post you positively refer to dialectic but also you use Popper to reject Neofreudian theories. Popper strictly refuses dialectics and I understand Freud essentially as a dialectitian.[/blockquote]
I'm currently experiencing a turning moment in my philosophy. The dialectics, the Hegel's famous triad, his perspective on motion, chemism. Post-marxism and it's applications is what I'm currently interested in (Žižek appreciation society). The paradigm shift started not so long ago. (a year or two). But the basics I had was exactly the Kantian tradition (being a physicist in the first place) and epistemology, that's why it seems contradictionary to see both Popper and Hegel in one reference. I used the word "even" there just because of that, backing up the critics from with my old perspective.
[blockquote]That doesn't even pass Popper's verification principle, speaking about epistemology. It is not even scientific.[/blockquote]
The definition of science now is surely different to me, and what Popper's actually stated (third world model, other works) is surely neo-kantian and in contradiction to dialectics, being a metaphysical approach in the first place (first world to him is the world of "Ding an sich" in which I obviously doubt currently, defining matter like I did there.
[blockquote]There is only your Consciousness (me) and the denial of it (matter)[/blockquote]
I had a period when I believed in that myself. Extremely interested in your argumentation.
[blockquote] I could explain why psychoanalysis might still be the best available approach to understand individual behaviour and many phenomena in society[/blockquote]
The whole problem with opposition popped up from the political philosophy. It comes from the problem. It is closely related to understanding how can communism / anarcho-communism can be even executed. Because within such political structure, the identity dissolves... or not? That is one of those topics I won't be writing about out in the open, at least because I'm feeling uneducated enough. But this might give you a clue, a circumstance about what is going on with this opposition within my philosophy.
[blockquote]I don't really get what's the deal if the things i like, the thoughts i have and all the other shit that forms my identity are not unique at all. I honestly don't care about this, but maybe i just don't understand the issue.
[/blockquote]
It's a bit different. Whether you think you are unique or not - It's an awareness of the deeper issue - things you like are not what "you" like, they came and the will go within a circumstance. Thoughts that you have are not "yours", they are the consequence of an external stimulus. The music you enjoy, you enjoy it because of those circumstances, even subconscious and unthought of. Generally, your consciousness is a representation of an external stimuli. You are. That's, in Freud's terms, ego crushing, truly a ballbusting feeling to grasp. I've experienced depersonalization a couple of times, under severe stress it attacked, would never wish someone that. And this spectra of phenomena in being of self even doesn't fullfill what actually comes out from the opposition (Ironically I write it like bra and ket vectors, but the synthesis of this opposition literally break the boundaries between this two categories, because in motion, other's becoming mine and vice versa, constantly). Theres another big question locked within it - Choice and Will, which unleash the "determinism" topic.
[blockquote]Anyways, what i originally wanted to mention is plain and simple: It is really rare that people collapse and break down because of abstract thought, this is more of a romantic idea and a way to euphemise different states of precarity people experience.[/blockquote]
Yeah, this bothers me often, I always keep an eye on the origin of doubt, but not metaphysically, obviously. I'm not going to fall everything onto one substantial reason. Dialectial approach provides exactly the opposite. Here, psychology and it's heritage is an important tool.
[blockquote]Don't kill yourself because of the wrong coping strategy. Ofc it is possible that this advice is useless to you[/blockquote]
The latter is correct. To me, suicide was always an impulsive decision in the end. But until that decision, the thought keeps growing bigger, and gets enough space to be a tool for problem solving. Once the taboo is killed inside of you, the idea germinates within you, every existential (even a simple friendship conflict can become one) issue pours more oil to the fire. To be honest, I have quite an exeperience in this question, I've been places, seen people. Always a very diverse and engaging topic.
Thank you for your time Kaffee, cheers!
badgamer would say learning kreedz :P
joking, but its worth mentioning he won 500e at the tournament...with summed ~10min playing :D
04/02/2018 15:30Originally posted by JocAbadgamer would say learning kreedz :P
joking, but its worth mentioning he won 500e at the tournament...with summed ~10min playing :D
Dunno who sponsored this and how it summed up in such a huge prize pool for a dying game like this but they would rather split it into more cups, i wouldn't be surprised if the next cup will have like 50 euros as a total. justsayin'
idk...just saw yesterday...https://sourceruns.org/ streamed (hl1, poratl and other runs, interesting 'community'), and there were donations...i like that idea, to limit award (cash) for an tournament and then transfer the rest for the next one...
i made a mistake, he didnt win 500e cuz
1st place winner will receive 70%
2nd place winner will receive 30%
Please log in to post replies.