I don’t know about what they mean by it on 4chan, but “what has been seen cannot be unseen” applies to certain styles of literary criticism, and I’m not even sure whether some of it is really “what has been “seen” cannot be unseen”.
This is heading straight into mindkiller territory, but there’s a style of reading which involves tracking everything that might be offensive in a story. The thing is, sometimes what looks like reasonable deductions of background beliefs is a result, but it’s a hell of a way to treat fiction as a matter of habit.
Edit: It’s a good thing I read all the way through the comments again before posting my paraphrase of Eliezer’s bit in Amputation of Destiny about there being an “extra lion”.
I suspect Lewis would technically agree with every part of that comment except the obstinate and absurd suggestion that a flat world with a blue dome around it—through which people can sometimes see the Emperor’s teeth mountains surrounding the dome—has a different origin from our world.
Offensive to whom? If you personally aren’t really offended by anything, are you immune to this?
In three worlds collide there’s the non-consensual sex plot point that some people misunderstood as being misogynist rather than the result of EY selecting a particularly unusual point in culturespace. Is this the kind of analysis you are talking about?
I really just don’t see how this meme could infect you unless you already have a disposition of looking for things to take offense to.
In three worlds collide there’s the non-consensual sex plot point that some people misunderstood as being misogynist rather than the result of EY selecting a particularly unusual point in culturespace. Is this the kind of analysis you are talking about?
People thought that was misogynist? Wasn’t it a male being abhorred by a culture in which he may not be forced by a woman? Unless my memory fails me that’s totally the wrong offense to be taking. :)
The point as I understand it was to have the humans not have exactly our moral system. Morals evolve over time, and most people in any given generation would be shocked by the ethical and moral attitudes of people a few generations down the line. This attitude of the population reflects that. It also helps broaden the scope of the questions raised by not making one of the moral systems identical to our general moral system, so we don’t immediately look at the morality of the humans and just say “but that’s the right system!”
Overall, while I think I understand why Eliezer did this, it seems to be a very tiny benefit for a very large distraction. Overall, a net negative in getting his points across.
You know, I almost made a flippant remark about the abolition of “bodily pain, embarrassment, and romantic troubles” meaning an end to rape (oh no!) when I remembered untranslatable 4 which is arguably even better, so...
More seriously, I don’t quite understand your question. There doesn’t have to be something wrong with them for them to value different things than we do, such that a victory for them is a loss for us.
I’d need some evidence. The best would be a method that worked for me. I’m not sure how it could be demonstrated convincingly on other people, but I’m open to suggestions.
Also, does your method (if that’s what you’re implying) work for visual images?
It was a joke, since general beliefs are about plausible intellectual patterns. So long as you refuse to be convinced otherwise, your opinion is automatically at least partially right.
I don’t know about what they mean by it on 4chan, but “what has been seen cannot be unseen” applies to certain styles of literary criticism, and I’m not even sure whether some of it is really “what has been “seen” cannot be unseen”.
“What has been seen cannot be unseen” refers to disgusting images that one wishes one could forget.
It’s hard to unsee plausible intellectual patterns, too.
Can you give an example? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
This is heading straight into mindkiller territory, but there’s a style of reading which involves tracking everything that might be offensive in a story. The thing is, sometimes what looks like reasonable deductions of background beliefs is a result, but it’s a hell of a way to treat fiction as a matter of habit.
Yes, you might start to think of Aslan as a sapient blood cell for a cosmic horror.
(If you want the details and don’t see them after following that link, one of the later comments on this lovely page lays out the major points.)
the trees, man, the treeees
they’re eating the univerrrrse
(That was an awesome link, thank you.)
Edit: It’s a good thing I read all the way through the comments again before posting my paraphrase of Eliezer’s bit in Amputation of Destiny about there being an “extra lion”.
Ha, any time.
I suspect Lewis would technically agree with every part of that comment except the obstinate and absurd suggestion that a flat world with a blue dome around it—through which people can sometimes see the Emperor’s
teethmountains surrounding the dome—has a different origin from our world.Offensive to whom? If you personally aren’t really offended by anything, are you immune to this?
In three worlds collide there’s the non-consensual sex plot point that some people misunderstood as being misogynist rather than the result of EY selecting a particularly unusual point in culturespace. Is this the kind of analysis you are talking about?
I really just don’t see how this meme could infect you unless you already have a disposition of looking for things to take offense to.
Do you have any other examples?
People thought that was misogynist? Wasn’t it a male being abhorred by a culture in which he may not be forced by a woman? Unless my memory fails me that’s totally the wrong offense to be taking. :)
Was there a point to that bit of the story? I’m not objecting to it, I just suspect that I may have missed something; it seemed kind of random.
The point as I understand it was to have the humans not have exactly our moral system. Morals evolve over time, and most people in any given generation would be shocked by the ethical and moral attitudes of people a few generations down the line. This attitude of the population reflects that. It also helps broaden the scope of the questions raised by not making one of the moral systems identical to our general moral system, so we don’t immediately look at the morality of the humans and just say “but that’s the right system!”
Overall, while I think I understand why Eliezer did this, it seems to be a very tiny benefit for a very large distraction. Overall, a net negative in getting his points across.
It also has the potential to undermine the point of the story if a reader finds non-consensual sex as abhorrent as eating babies.
Babyeaters vs Superhappies vs Libertarapists:
Whoever wins, we lose.
What’s wrong with the superhappies?
You know, I almost made a flippant remark about the abolition of “bodily pain, embarrassment, and romantic troubles” meaning an end to rape (oh no!) when I remembered untranslatable 4 which is arguably even better, so...
More seriously, I don’t quite understand your question. There doesn’t have to be something wrong with them for them to value different things than we do, such that a victory for them is a loss for us.
OK, thanks, I agree with you.
Could I convince you otherwise?
I’d need some evidence. The best would be a method that worked for me. I’m not sure how it could be demonstrated convincingly on other people, but I’m open to suggestions.
Also, does your method (if that’s what you’re implying) work for visual images?
It was a joke, since general beliefs are about plausible intellectual patterns. So long as you refuse to be convinced otherwise, your opinion is automatically at least partially right.