/lit/ - Literature

>>10140497

You opened by claiming I'm spooked to hell, but point by point you seem to be suggesting that I have the right of the matter, or at least the landscape.

To the contentions, I said more exactly "If one is hopelessly in love with me, then love is my property." The other as an individual has nothing to do with the matter, and this goes better to your master/tool analogy, in that their hopeless love is the exact tether of such mastery.

Again, this prevents legitimate investiture. I cannot believe a thing is good unless it is good for me, much less seek to provide it for another. A sunset that I cannot see is still beautiful. Water to a man in the rubble does not slake my thirst, but in the very ideation I see value, something to fight for. You also confirmed my suspicion of interest as a zero sum game, in that my direct investiture (my loss) equates to your gain. This is entirely unrealistic. My donation to charity does not improve your station for having not been "spooked". You are not the better for refusing to believe in something greater than yourself. You are just more alienated.

Opinions seem to me exactly what we are talking about. What else is one's own thought, without perfect evidence, supported by only one's own authority? Your saying "This, that, the other thing, are good, bad, hilarious." Is simply a bias without external authority. If the facts do not directly support your statement, it is in fact coming from the infinitely subjective you. If the Egoist must reject all that he himself cannot prove, that is a strict cap on all investiture in perceptive reality.

I think you missed the point on God. It is something I believe myself, whether or not it is good for me, whether or not I can prove it. It is the choice that I make. Is it still vapor?

>>10008601

Kinda. The things that are closest on the tree should be much closer. Linguistics doesn't go to logic, we can have logic without linguistics. Higher level math is cognitively entirely separate from logic, especially in the linguistic sense. We do math in numbers, language in words/pictures/shapes but most importantly when picturing and not writing out in semantic concepts.

The neurocognitive definition of semantic memory is very different from the definition of any of its constituent words.


Offhand, I'm a senior in my undergrad who has done 2 years of neuro research with my professors, going to grad school for it. I'm on /lit/ because I like lit. I'll answer what I can about cognition, or point you in the right direction.