Seems to me that if what is being projected on the curtain is interesting enough, then what is revealed when the curtain is pulled back hardly invalidates the epiphany. The insight that to be omniscient is to be blind makes so much sense of so much in so many directions I scarcely know where to begin. One is the logical corollary: To see is inherently not to be omniscient. As Humpty Dumpty said, "If you can see what I mean, you've sharper eyes than most."
I'm quite taken with the discussions about or with Mr Chat, whether the focus is on Mr Agüera y Arcas or Mr Murch. Really thought-provoking.
BUT, well, I've been catching up on the news that Oliver Sacks was a sort of fabulist. I have not read any books or even a single essay by Sacks, but I've read a book about him, and that's Mr Weschler's biographical memoir, an excellent read. I'd love to know Ren's thoughts about the matter. (Very recently he shared thoughts on Kapuściński and the question of that reporter's fidelity to the truth.) And as for the Murch/Mr Chat chats, Ren probes at the nature of Mr Chat's responses to Murch, and how much Murch manipulates the discussion or becomes the puppet-master. in the light of the Sacks revelations, even that "18%" figure starts to feel an insufficient acknowledgement of a crooked game being played with readers.
Chat knows what you’ve been reading and the thinking generated by your reading, available in your books; it mirrors the way you think and finds your kin — it finds your thinking family. If you were engineers it could quickly find your school books and solve what can be solved by getting other engineers to the party. It all looks brilliant to you because it does your unfinished work for you. There is no end to thought or to machine learning, and the more you learn (easily) from Chat the less “new” insight or skill. Laziness is to us what boredom used to be to Baudelaire. What is between the complete sentences Chat can’t have
"4. Self-recognition → self-blinding → self-recognition"
Seems to me that if what is being projected on the curtain is interesting enough, then what is revealed when the curtain is pulled back hardly invalidates the epiphany. The insight that to be omniscient is to be blind makes so much sense of so much in so many directions I scarcely know where to begin. One is the logical corollary: To see is inherently not to be omniscient. As Humpty Dumpty said, "If you can see what I mean, you've sharper eyes than most."
I'm quite taken with the discussions about or with Mr Chat, whether the focus is on Mr Agüera y Arcas or Mr Murch. Really thought-provoking.
BUT, well, I've been catching up on the news that Oliver Sacks was a sort of fabulist. I have not read any books or even a single essay by Sacks, but I've read a book about him, and that's Mr Weschler's biographical memoir, an excellent read. I'd love to know Ren's thoughts about the matter. (Very recently he shared thoughts on Kapuściński and the question of that reporter's fidelity to the truth.) And as for the Murch/Mr Chat chats, Ren probes at the nature of Mr Chat's responses to Murch, and how much Murch manipulates the discussion or becomes the puppet-master. in the light of the Sacks revelations, even that "18%" figure starts to feel an insufficient acknowledgement of a crooked game being played with readers.
Incredible post Lawrence, thank you
Chat knows what you’ve been reading and the thinking generated by your reading, available in your books; it mirrors the way you think and finds your kin — it finds your thinking family. If you were engineers it could quickly find your school books and solve what can be solved by getting other engineers to the party. It all looks brilliant to you because it does your unfinished work for you. There is no end to thought or to machine learning, and the more you learn (easily) from Chat the less “new” insight or skill. Laziness is to us what boredom used to be to Baudelaire. What is between the complete sentences Chat can’t have