Conquer Club

While watching a movie, reading a story, or delving into a rigorous yet rewarding academic journal, I step away at times and then type. What I type is not purely of my own words or from my own personality, but rather the source of this production is derived from an imitation of the works of others. A simple accent, a mere dialogue, or a 30-page serious-face article can all be incorporated into "my self." Simply put, I perceive their style, and then type with abandon.


(1) Do you fair denizens of CC experience something of this nature?

Writing doesn't necessarily have to the act. It can be designing a product, having a conversation, simply thinking about something in a particular manner, or even masturbating--for those who dip into the crass yet sensual side of things.

I repeat, do you behave in a similar manner?



(2) And furthermore, what does it mean to say "I am writing this"? How much are we shaped by our experiences influenced by others, and how does such an influence interact with our "true selves," if there is such a thing?


(for the lurkers, a poll)

No, disagree, but still interested in your arguments.

Do you mean writing a sort of stream of consciousness as you're reading an article?

Definitely. One doesn't create in a vacuum. Some percentage of everyone's persona is derivative, whether they choose to admit it or not.

BigBallinStalin wrote:While watching a movie, reading a story, or delving into a rigorous yet rewarding academic journal, I step away at times and then type. What I type is not purely of my own words or from my own personality, but rather the source of this production is derived from an imitation of the works of others. A simple accent, a mere dialogue, or a 30-page serious-face article can all be incorporated into "my self." Simply put, I perceive their style, and then type with abandon.


(1) Do you fair denizens of CC experience something of this nature?

Writing doesn't necessarily have to the act. It can be designing a product, having a conversation, simply thinking about something in a particular manner, or even masturbating--for those who dip into the crass yet sensual side of things.

I repeat, do you behave in a similar manner?



(2) And furthermore, what does it mean to say "I am writing this"? How much are we shaped by our experiences influenced by others, and how does such an influence interact with our "true selves," if there is such a thing?


(for the lurkers, a poll)

Absolutely, and purposefully. Friends, Family Guy, Steward, Colbert....and many more. Ive worked the comedy into regular conversation over the years that its almost ridiculous. Family guy was certainly the most useless, I simply lack the ability to recreate an animated show based on random flashbacks to the 80's, but god damn if I didnt try. Colbert style is perhaps the easiest, because he pretty much treats every single situation and topic the same way, so its very flexible, and also not as obvious, so I get away with it much more often. Also, it seems to work with women more than men, which I am absolutely fine with.

And certainly CC has had a great impact, but with a few exceptions and the major one being that I am far more educated now, I would say it was a negative influence. Not because I have not had a plethora of great people and great friends, but instead because I was foolish enough to read the drivel and pointless posts from pointless players and posters, and somewhere along the way, I definitely lost some of who I was, but luckily I still have the memory of it, and try to piece it back together as best I can, and incorporating some of the new stuff along the way.

I think your entire premise is practically an example of evolution, and like evolution, not every change is good, and most are random, but overall, if you are careful, you can learn and adapt to the world in a new, more competitive way and if we copy the right people, move forward.

If however you watch Fox News...well, then Go f*ck yourself.

If I understand what you're saying, and I'm certainly not sure that I do...well yes, of course I think about what I'm reading and consider it seriously (even with fiction). And so of course it's going to affect my viewpoints at times. Doesn't everyone? Isn't it essentially unavoidable, unless you're Phatscotty, natty_dread or Night Strike?

There is nothing new. Everything is merely just a retelling of points long ago raised.

Dukasaur wrote:Definitely. One doesn't create in a vacuum. Some percentage of everyone's persona is derivative, whether they choose to admit it or not.

basically this.

which is not to say that all art is imitation. part of what makes art art is the rearrangement of existing elements in a new and meaningful way.

AAFitz wrote:Absolutely, and purposefully. Friends, Family Guy, Steward, Colbert....and many more. Ive worked the comedy into regular conversation over the years that its almost ridiculous. Family guy was certainly the most useless, I simply lack the ability to recreate an animated show based on random flashbacks to the 80's, but god damn if I didnt try. Colbert style is perhaps the easiest, because he pretty much treats every single situation and topic the same way, so its very flexible, and also not as obvious, so I get away with it much more often. Also, it seems to work with women more than men, which I am absolutely fine with.

And certainly CC has had a great impact, but with a few exceptions and the major one being that I am far more educated now, I would say it was a negative influence. Not because I have not had a plethora of great people and great friends, but instead because I was foolish enough to read the drivel and pointless posts from pointless players and posters, and somewhere along the way, I definitely lost some of who I was, but luckily I still have the memory of it, and try to piece it back together as best I can, and incorporating some of the new stuff along the way.

I think your entire premise is practically an example of evolution, and like evolution, not every change is good, and most are random, but overall, if you are careful, you can learn and adapt to the world in a new, more competitive way and if we copy the right people, move forward.

If however you watch Fox News...well, then Go f*ck yourself.

so basically, media are beneficial to you if they agree with your preconceived biases (stewarT, colbert, family guy), and you react negatively to any viewpoints that challenge your own (CC forum posters).

glad to finally see confirmation of what i have suspected for a long time. i don't think you're alone, either.

john9blue wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Definitely. One doesn't create in a vacuum. Some percentage of everyone's persona is derivative, whether they choose to admit it or not.

basically this.

which is not to say that all art is imitation. part of what makes art art is the rearrangement of existing elements in a new and meaningful way.

AAFitz wrote:Absolutely, and purposefully. Friends, Family Guy, Steward, Colbert....and many more. Ive worked the comedy into regular conversation over the years that its almost ridiculous. Family guy was certainly the most useless, I simply lack the ability to recreate an animated show based on random flashbacks to the 80's, but god damn if I didnt try. Colbert style is perhaps the easiest, because he pretty much treats every single situation and topic the same way, so its very flexible, and also not as obvious, so I get away with it much more often. Also, it seems to work with women more than men, which I am absolutely fine with.

And certainly CC has had a great impact, but with a few exceptions and the major one being that I am far more educated now, I would say it was a negative influence. Not because I have not had a plethora of great people and great friends, but instead because I was foolish enough to read the drivel and pointless posts from pointless players and posters, and somewhere along the way, I definitely lost some of who I was, but luckily I still have the memory of it, and try to piece it back together as best I can, and incorporating some of the new stuff along the way.

I think your entire premise is practically an example of evolution, and like evolution, not every change is good, and most are random, but overall, if you are careful, you can learn and adapt to the world in a new, more competitive way and if we copy the right people, move forward.

If however you watch Fox News...well, then Go f*ck yourself.

so basically, media are beneficial to you if they agree with your preconceived biases (stewarT, colbert, family guy), and you react negatively to any viewpoints that challenge your own (CC forum posters).

glad to finally see confirmation of what i have suspected for a long time. i don't think you're alone, either.

or...I was just giving an example of imitation for any familiar to the Jon Stewart show, who often sings GFY to fox.

I am sorry I perhaps tainted such an honest post, with a bit of inurface comedy at the end...but I just couldnt help myself.

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Absolutely, and purposefully. Friends, Family Guy, Steward, Colbert....and many more. Ive worked the comedy into regular conversation over the years that its almost ridiculous. Family guy was certainly the most useless, I simply lack the ability to recreate an animated show based on random flashbacks to the 80's, but god damn if I didnt try. Colbert style is perhaps the easiest, because he pretty much treats every single situation and topic the same way, so its very flexible, and also not as obvious, so I get away with it much more often. Also, it seems to work with women more than men, which I am absolutely fine with.

And certainly CC has had a great impact, but with a few exceptions and the major one being that I am far more educated now, I would say it was a negative influence. Not because I have not had a plethora of great people and great friends, but instead because I was foolish enough to read the drivel and pointless posts from pointless players and posters, and somewhere along the way, I definitely lost some of who I was, but luckily I still have the memory of it, and try to piece it back together as best I can, and incorporating some of the new stuff along the way.

I think your entire premise is practically an example of evolution, and like evolution, not every change is good, and most are random, but overall, if you are careful, you can learn and adapt to the world in a new, more competitive way and if we copy the right people, move forward.

If however you watch Fox News...well, then Go f*ck yourself.

so basically, media are beneficial to you if they agree with your preconceived biases (stewarT, colbert, family guy), and you react negatively to any viewpoints that challenge your own (CC forum posters).

glad to finally see confirmation of what i have suspected for a long time. i don't think you're alone, either.

or...I was just giving an example of imitation for any familiar to the Jon Stewart show, who often sings GFY to fox.

I am sorry I perhaps tainted such an honest post, with a bit of inurface comedy at the end...but I just couldnt help myself.

i took issue with the first two paragraphs.

what i took from your post is that stewart and colbert have been positive influences on your thinking because they already agree with you, whereas conservative posters on this forum have been a negative influence on you because they disagree with you.

which is exactly the opposite of how things actually work. a true open-minded skeptic would enjoy people challenging their opinions, and not waste their time watching comedy shows that espouse beliefs that they already agree with.

Baron Von PWN wrote:Do you mean writing a sort of stream of consciousness as you're reading an article?

NO!

Excuse me. No, sir, I do not mean that. I guess one could say that I'm describing "motivation" or "inspiration" by others, and how that relates to one's conception of one's own identity.

Two main points:

1. What I produce is not entirely of my own ability but rather a vague borrowing from others; however, that which is borrowed can range from a 30-page article or from simply viewing an actor speaking in a certain manner.

2. And if (1) is the case, then how does the influence from others mesh with the concept of "self"?


For example, I could say, "I am who I am," or "I did this." However, that isn't entirely true for we all are shaped at varying degrees by others. So, in essence, "what does it mean to say "I"? In other words, "what is the 'self'"?

Are we merely the result of our experiences with others, which are then filtered through one's ever-changing "mental apparatus" (brain/mind)?

How much control do you really exhibit over your own development or self?

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:While watching a movie, reading a story, or delving into a rigorous yet rewarding academic journal, I step away at times and then type. What I type is not purely of my own words or from my own personality, but rather the source of this production is derived from an imitation of the works of others. A simple accent, a mere dialogue, or a 30-page serious-face article can all be incorporated into "my self." Simply put, I perceive their style, and then type with abandon.


(1) Do you fair denizens of CC experience something of this nature?

Writing doesn't necessarily have to the act. It can be designing a product, having a conversation, simply thinking about something in a particular manner, or even masturbating--for those who dip into the crass yet sensual side of things.

I repeat, do you behave in a similar manner?



(2) And furthermore, what does it mean to say "I am writing this"? How much are we shaped by our experiences influenced by others, and how does such an influence interact with our "true selves," if there is such a thing?


(for the lurkers, a poll)

Absolutely, and purposefully. Friends, Family Guy, Steward, Colbert....and many more. Ive worked the comedy into regular conversation over the years that its almost ridiculous. Family guy was certainly the most useless, I simply lack the ability to recreate an animated show based on random flashbacks to the 80's, but god damn if I didnt try. Colbert style is perhaps the easiest, because he pretty much treats every single situation and topic the same way, so its very flexible, and also not as obvious, so I get away with it much more often. Also, it seems to work with women more than men, which I am absolutely fine with.

And certainly CC has had a great impact, but with a few exceptions and the major one being that I am far more educated now, I would say it was a negative influence. Not because I have not had a plethora of great people and great friends, but instead because I was foolish enough to read the drivel and pointless posts from pointless players and posters, and somewhere along the way, I definitely lost some of who I was, but luckily I still have the memory of it, and try to piece it back together as best I can, and incorporating some of the new stuff along the way.

I think your entire premise is practically an example of evolution, and like evolution, not every change is good, and most are random, but overall, if you are careful, you can learn and adapt to the world in a new, more competitive way and if we copy the right people, move forward.

If however you watch Fox News...well, then Go f*ck yourself.

haha, well said. Nice ending.

I also really enjoy mimicking Colbert's interview style. It's excellent for loosening up people on extremely serious topics, and it can be used to effectively persuade someone or at least enable them to be more inclined to listen to your more serious points.

Woodruff wrote:If I understand what you're saying, and I'm certainly not sure that I do...well yes, of course I think about what I'm reading and consider it seriously (even with fiction). And so of course it's going to affect my viewpoints at times. Doesn't everyone? Isn't it essentially unavoidable, unless you're Phatscotty, natty_dread or Night Strike?

Basically, I'm talking about the extension of yourself after and while being influenced from the extensions of others, and how that relates to your own concept of self. (see my above response to BVP for further clarification).

"Extension" meaning anything which you produce, be it a writing, a lecture, menial (seemingly "everyday") work, or even a conversation.

john9blue wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Definitely. One doesn't create in a vacuum. Some percentage of everyone's persona is derivative, whether they choose to admit it or not.

basically this.

which is not to say that all art is imitation. part of what makes art art is the rearrangement of existing elements in a new and meaningful way.

Yes, exactly. But I'd also substitute "art" with one's "self."

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Definitely. One doesn't create in a vacuum. Some percentage of everyone's persona is derivative, whether they choose to admit it or not.

basically this.

which is not to say that all art is imitation. part of what makes art art is the rearrangement of existing elements in a new and meaningful way.

Yes, exactly. But I'd also substitute "art" with one's "self."

But which BBS am I to reply to, if any?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If I understand what you're saying, and I'm certainly not sure that I do...well yes, of course I think about what I'm reading and consider it seriously (even with fiction). And so of course it's going to affect my viewpoints at times. Doesn't everyone? Isn't it essentially unavoidable, unless you're Phatscotty, natty_dread or Night Strike?

Basically, I'm talking about the extension of yourself after and while being influenced from the extensions of others, and how that relates to your own concept of self. (see my above response to BVP for further clarification).

"Extension" meaning anything which you produce, be it a writing, a lecture, menial (seemingly "everyday") work, or even a conversation.

But which BBS am I to reply to, if any?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:While watching a movie, reading a story, or delving into a rigorous yet rewarding academic journal, I step away at times and then type. What I type is not purely of my own words or from my own personality, but rather the source of this production is derived from an imitation of the works of others. A simple accent, a mere dialogue, or a 30-page serious-face article can all be incorporated into "my self." Simply put, I perceive their style, and then type with abandon.


(1) Do you fair denizens of CC experience something of this nature?

Writing doesn't necessarily have to the act. It can be designing a product, having a conversation, simply thinking about something in a particular manner, or even masturbating--for those who dip into the crass yet sensual side of things.

I repeat, do you behave in a similar manner?



(2) And furthermore, what does it mean to say "I am writing this"? How much are we shaped by our experiences influenced by others, and how does such an influence interact with our "true selves," if there is such a thing?


(for the lurkers, a poll)

Absolutely, and purposefully. Friends, Family Guy, Steward, Colbert....and many more. Ive worked the comedy into regular conversation over the years that its almost ridiculous. Family guy was certainly the most useless, I simply lack the ability to recreate an animated show based on random flashbacks to the 80's, but god damn if I didnt try. Colbert style is perhaps the easiest, because he pretty much treats every single situation and topic the same way, so its very flexible, and also not as obvious, so I get away with it much more often. Also, it seems to work with women more than men, which I am absolutely fine with.

And certainly CC has had a great impact, but with a few exceptions and the major one being that I am far more educated now, I would say it was a negative influence. Not because I have not had a plethora of great people and great friends, but instead because I was foolish enough to read the drivel and pointless posts from pointless players and posters, and somewhere along the way, I definitely lost some of who I was, but luckily I still have the memory of it, and try to piece it back together as best I can, and incorporating some of the new stuff along the way.

I think your entire premise is practically an example of evolution, and like evolution, not every change is good, and most are random, but overall, if you are careful, you can learn and adapt to the world in a new, more competitive way and if we copy the right people, move forward.

If however you watch Fox News...well, then Go f*ck yourself.

haha, well said. Nice ending.

I also really enjoy mimicking Colbert's interview style. It's excellent for loosening up people on extremely serious topics, and it can be used to effectively persuade someone or at least enable them to be more inclined to listen to your more serious points.

But which BBS am I to reply to, if any?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:While watching a movie, reading a story, or delving into a rigorous yet rewarding academic journal, I step away at times and then type. What I type is not purely of my own words or from my own personality, but rather the source of this production is derived from an imitation of the works of others. A simple accent, a mere dialogue, or a 30-page serious-face article can all be incorporated into "my self." Simply put, I perceive their style, and then type with abandon.


(1) Do you fair denizens of CC experience something of this nature?

Writing doesn't necessarily have to the act. It can be designing a product, having a conversation, simply thinking about something in a particular manner, or even masturbating--for those who dip into the crass yet sensual side of things.

I repeat, do you behave in a similar manner?



(2) And furthermore, what does it mean to say "I am writing this"? How much are we shaped by our experiences influenced by others, and how does such an influence interact with our "true selves," if there is such a thing?


(for the lurkers, a poll)

Absolutely, and purposefully. Friends, Family Guy, Steward, Colbert....and many more. Ive worked the comedy into regular conversation over the years that its almost ridiculous. Family guy was certainly the most useless, I simply lack the ability to recreate an animated show based on random flashbacks to the 80's, but god damn if I didnt try. Colbert style is perhaps the easiest, because he pretty much treats every single situation and topic the same way, so its very flexible, and also not as obvious, so I get away with it much more often. Also, it seems to work with women more than men, which I am absolutely fine with.

And certainly CC has had a great impact, but with a few exceptions and the major one being that I am far more educated now, I would say it was a negative influence. Not because I have not had a plethora of great people and great friends, but instead because I was foolish enough to read the drivel and pointless posts from pointless players and posters, and somewhere along the way, I definitely lost some of who I was, but luckily I still have the memory of it, and try to piece it back together as best I can, and incorporating some of the new stuff along the way.

I think your entire premise is practically an example of evolution, and like evolution, not every change is good, and most are random, but overall, if you are careful, you can learn and adapt to the world in a new, more competitive way and if we copy the right people, move forward.

If however you watch Fox News...well, then Go f*ck yourself.

haha, well said. Nice ending.

I also really enjoy mimicking Colbert's interview style. It's excellent for loosening up people on extremely serious topics, and it can be used to effectively persuade someone or at least enable them to be more inclined to listen to your more serious points.

But which BBS am I to reply to, if any?

I don't believe I am influenced to such an extent, however it does bring a direct influence to my mood and tone, if I view something dramatic I take a more diplomatic view of things, a comedy might make me come off as more snarky, etc.

By the way, the period in the syntax makes that last option sound like a hostage situation "I have no idea what's going on. I'm afraid"

There's no justice in spamming this thread, Symmetry, and you might be mature enough to also know that derailing it would be wrong as well.

Would you please refrain from spamming and/or derailing any of my threads? As rational and inherently good adults, can we voluntarily agree to such a reasonable request?

If not, then don't post here--simply PM me.

Aye- BBS, I'll leave off, apologies. I've had a bad day, and got irritated. If you can get a mod to delete my spam, I'm ok with that.

Symmetry wrote:Aye- BBS, I'll leave off, apologies. I've had a bad day, and got irritated. If you can get a mod to delete my spam, I'm ok with that.

No worries, Sym. As the late yet great Freud once said, "Man's basest desire involves masturbating while licking his mother's cunt."

It's been awhile since I've read any Freud though.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I never really understood how the life of a human being begins at the stage of conception. (a) Why not before?

Cuz without fertilization the egg will never be anything more than an egg. After fertilization the egg starts the process of creating a future human being. It seems a logical starting point to me since before that point in time there is only the potentiality of a human being and after there is a very good possibility, considering everything goes without a hitch. To me its about potentiality versus actuality.

AH! A Process of a Future human being.

Still isn't a human being though... :p


Yeah, I'm familiar with the potentiality --> actuality argument, but that ain't this thread.

This is not an argument I've plucked from somewhere else, it's my own but w/e. Of course its not a little miniature guy/girl swimming around in the egg but its something that will eventually be a little guy/girl. Why doesn't the aspect of time enter into the question?
Or are you arguing that an egg is the same thing as a chicken?

But ideas can be legendary. The potentiality--> actuality approach stems from Aristotle and perhaps before him. He was using it (in Posterior Analytics, I think) to describe the process of a "thing becoming to be" and a "thing not becoming to be" in order to explain first what the thing is. In other words, in some cases, we examine the actuality (i.e. outcome) in order to explain what it is--from before. Thus, it's about using posterior analysis to explain prior things. (IIRC).

Our language is embedded, and so are 'one's own' ideas, so I'm hesitant whenever I claim that "this argument is my own." Of course, new ideas can be forged, but in only in reference to prior ideas because a self-contained language free of others' influence (private language) would no longer become a public language (English, and all the ideas in which it encompasses). In other words, a private language cannot be discernible if it does not relate to a public language. You'd have to use a private language to justify that an idea/argument is 100% your own, but in doing so, you must admit that you would not be able to articulate your idea without the influence of your use of the public language. In turn, your own argument/idea can't be 100% your own.

For example, the first paragraph I got mainly from Aristotle, but also from my interpretation and also other people's interpretations of Aristotle (remix). The second paragraph I recall from mainly Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and the rest of it, I'm not sure. In the context of our discussion, since one's language is not really one's own, then one's ideas can't really be one's own.


Does the development or remix of prior ideas lead to the actualization of an 'original' idea? In this sense, is 'your' idea actually original? Yes and no. Sometimes, an original idea can be created independently by two separated persons, but who's to say that the role of the same set of past ideas both influenced them toward that same outcome? So, in this sense, it's not original, and not one's own argument. There's this ambiguity here...


Anyway, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! we're talking about the "stage of conception = human life" argument. We'll deal with the potentiality argument later (perhaps in this thread if no challenger approaches to defend the "SoC = HL" argument).