Unfortunately, the vagueness is to protect him, not to help you.
#1 would be a good start, and seems like it should be very easy to provide.
Why does it seem like it should be very easy to provide? I imagine if you set a 5-minute timer and really tried to come up with a list of reasons a person might be some combination of unable or unwilling to provide a concrete description of something, you would come up with more than one possible reason.
I appreciate you trying to explain. Please take my responses/questions as eager attempts to understand.
Unfortunately, the vagueness is to protect him, not to help you.
This boils down to “I can’t explain this, for reasons I also can’t explain”, right?
I mean, if you can’t explain it because if you do, the Secret Service will break into your house in a midnight raid to arrest you—fair enough. But you do understand, I’m sure, that this counts as “asked for an explanation or evidence, you failed to provide any”—yes?
Can we agree that the situation as it stands is “claims have been made, but not backed up in any meaningful way”?
I imagine if you set a 5-minute timer and really tried to come up with a list of reasons a person might be some combination of unable or unwilling to provide a concrete description of something, you would come up with more than one possible reason.
Unwilling? Yes, easily. (Most of them rather… well, ‘uncharitable’ is the word that’s typically used around here, but one I wouldn’t use myself; ‘disreputable’, perhaps. I can certainly think of some respectable reasons, though.)
Fair enough, I think I misunderstood you and also used a poor choice of words. I meant “unable” as in “unable to provide a concrete description that would actually promote understanding.”
By analogy, suppose a layperson was reading about Fermat’s Last Theorem and asked me for a concrete description of what a modular form is. On some level I could answer by quoting a textbook definition—that’s what would count as concrete to a mathematician. On another level there is basically no answer that I could give short of teaching this layperson complex analysis that would allow me to give a description that would meaningfully qualify as “concrete.”
All I wanted was for ialdabaoth to describe the thing he was talking about—the thing that could be analogized to “whispering in someone’s ear and making them twitch”. Perhaps his account would promote understand, perhaps it would not, but the account itself—being a simple reporting of events that transpired—would surely be perfectly plain.
I DID describe that thing! “Physically moving, with intent, to cut off the girl’s hair” is EXACTLY what “whispering in someone’s ear and making them twitch” is! EXACTLY. It’s not a different situation! But you seemed to want something more salacious, so I refused to give it to you. I want you to understand, but I’m not here to amuse you.
I… think there is a misunderstanding here, and perhaps it’s on my end, but it seems at least partly to be on yours.
First of all, I’m really not sure where you’re getting “salacious”, so let’s set that aside right away. Nothing even remotely like that is anywhere in what I wrote.
Secondly, let’s recap.
You said:
Hi there. I think I understand Val’s thing.
You then analogized this to the “whispering in someone’s ear” scenario. I asked what this is supposed to be analogy for; i.e., can you in fact do something to someone, and have them not understand what it is you did, or how? (This, presumably, would suggest to us that you had some capability that this other person did not; and this extra capability would be something-akin-to ‘enlightenment’.)
You also said some things about ‘sovereignty’, ‘agency’, and ‘Looking’. (These, too, it would seem—from your comments—are related somehow to Valentine’s ‘enlightenment’.)
So what I asked you was simple:
What is this unusual thing that you can do to someone, such that they are confused, or don’t know what you did or how; which signals some unusual capability that you possess?
Clearly, your story with the hair-clipper doesn’t qualify. In fact, it so obviously doesn’t qualify as an example of anything like what you implied you could provide an example of, that it did not even occur to me that you were, in fact, giving me what you thought was an example.
I mean—you (jokingly) threatened to cut off a woman’s hair. This showed her that there are some things she cares really viscerally about. Certainly a clever demonstration!
But what on earth has this to do with… well, any of what’s we’ve been discussing?
I’m sorry if I’m being dense, but I don’t see anything like a connection. Spell out your chain of reasoning, please. Even if I’m not convinced, I’d at least like to understand what you’re claiming.
THAT I tried to cut off her hair isn’t the “unusual thing”. HOW I tried to cut of her hair is the “unusual thing”. Specifically, the non-verbal signals of intent, dominance, objectification, and raw power, pointed directly at her, while threatening something she cared about, are the “unusual thing”.
I’m starting to think you were accusing me of believing in something supernatural?
I’m starting to think you were accusing me of believing in something supernatural?
Indeed not; I can’t possibly be accusing you of believing in anything supernatural, since it has been quite unclear to me what, if anything, you are claiming to believe.
Now, as of this last comment, the “if anything” part is withdrawn; clearly, you are saying something. But what? That’s what I’m still unsure of.
HOW I tried to cut of her hair is the “unusual thing”. Specifically, the non-verbal signals of intent, dominance, objectification, and raw power, pointed directly at her, while threatening something she cared about, are the “unusual thing”.
I don’t quite follow. Could you elaborate? What is unusual about these ‘signals’ (and what are they, in particular)?
Following the analogy, it would seem that the young lady in your account should have been confused about what you were doing, or how; and, perhaps, that I, or other unenlightened onlookers / those to whom you relate the story, should also be confused about this.
But nothing in your story seems confusing to me. Should it? What you did seems to me to have been clever, but straightforward (which is not to deny the cleverness!). I don’t have any trouble fitting it into my perfectly ordinary view of the world; nor, I suspect, would any “man in the street”. Should I? What am I missing?
Edit: Or is the claim here simply that ‘enlightenment’ (apologies, I know the term has been objected to—I mean whatever-state-you-have-achieved that is unusual and is the sort of thing being discussed—feel free to provide a better term) helps to generate this sort of cleverness (which, though not itself mysterious or unusual, is nonetheless clever, and thus useful—i.e., constitutes ‘cake’)? That would be a reasonable enough claim. Let me know if this is what you meant.
P.S. In a sibling thread, I asked you for a similar sort of account, but one that was pertinent to the topic at hand. You said you might provide one “another time”. This implies that there is such an account, and that the one you’ve provided so far isn’t it. But now you’re saying that what you already recounted is ‘it’. Again—what am I missing?
Unfortunately, the vagueness is to protect him, not to help you.
Why does it seem like it should be very easy to provide? I imagine if you set a 5-minute timer and really tried to come up with a list of reasons a person might be some combination of unable or unwilling to provide a concrete description of something, you would come up with more than one possible reason.
I appreciate this. Thank you.
This boils down to “I can’t explain this, for reasons I also can’t explain”, right?
I mean, if you can’t explain it because if you do, the Secret Service will break into your house in a midnight raid to arrest you—fair enough. But you do understand, I’m sure, that this counts as “asked for an explanation or evidence, you failed to provide any”—yes?
Can we agree that the situation as it stands is “claims have been made, but not backed up in any meaningful way”?
Unwilling? Yes, easily. (Most of them rather… well, ‘uncharitable’ is the word that’s typically used around here, but one I wouldn’t use myself; ‘disreputable’, perhaps. I can certainly think of some respectable reasons, though.)
Unable, though? No. What are some such reasons?
What would you get, if I agreed with this, that you want? (Try to use Focusing to answer this question.)
In the local dialect, really long inferential distances.
Long inferential distances would make you unable to report events that physically took place in the real world? How?
Fair enough, I think I misunderstood you and also used a poor choice of words. I meant “unable” as in “unable to provide a concrete description that would actually promote understanding.”
By analogy, suppose a layperson was reading about Fermat’s Last Theorem and asked me for a concrete description of what a modular form is. On some level I could answer by quoting a textbook definition—that’s what would count as concrete to a mathematician. On another level there is basically no answer that I could give short of teaching this layperson complex analysis that would allow me to give a description that would meaningfully qualify as “concrete.”
All I wanted was for ialdabaoth to describe the thing he was talking about—the thing that could be analogized to “whispering in someone’s ear and making them twitch”. Perhaps his account would promote understand, perhaps it would not, but the account itself—being a simple reporting of events that transpired—would surely be perfectly plain.
I DID describe that thing! “Physically moving, with intent, to cut off the girl’s hair” is EXACTLY what “whispering in someone’s ear and making them twitch” is! EXACTLY. It’s not a different situation! But you seemed to want something more salacious, so I refused to give it to you. I want you to understand, but I’m not here to amuse you.
I… think there is a misunderstanding here, and perhaps it’s on my end, but it seems at least partly to be on yours.
First of all, I’m really not sure where you’re getting “salacious”, so let’s set that aside right away. Nothing even remotely like that is anywhere in what I wrote.
Secondly, let’s recap.
You said:
You then analogized this to the “whispering in someone’s ear” scenario. I asked what this is supposed to be analogy for; i.e., can you in fact do something to someone, and have them not understand what it is you did, or how? (This, presumably, would suggest to us that you had some capability that this other person did not; and this extra capability would be something-akin-to ‘enlightenment’.)
You also said some things about ‘sovereignty’, ‘agency’, and ‘Looking’. (These, too, it would seem—from your comments—are related somehow to Valentine’s ‘enlightenment’.)
So what I asked you was simple:
What is this unusual thing that you can do to someone, such that they are confused, or don’t know what you did or how; which signals some unusual capability that you possess?
Clearly, your story with the hair-clipper doesn’t qualify. In fact, it so obviously doesn’t qualify as an example of anything like what you implied you could provide an example of, that it did not even occur to me that you were, in fact, giving me what you thought was an example.
I mean—you (jokingly) threatened to cut off a woman’s hair. This showed her that there are some things she cares really viscerally about. Certainly a clever demonstration!
But what on earth has this to do with… well, any of what’s we’ve been discussing?
I’m sorry if I’m being dense, but I don’t see anything like a connection. Spell out your chain of reasoning, please. Even if I’m not convinced, I’d at least like to understand what you’re claiming.
Ohhhh. Okay.
THAT I tried to cut off her hair isn’t the “unusual thing”. HOW I tried to cut of her hair is the “unusual thing”. Specifically, the non-verbal signals of intent, dominance, objectification, and raw power, pointed directly at her, while threatening something she cared about, are the “unusual thing”.
I’m starting to think you were accusing me of believing in something supernatural?
Indeed not; I can’t possibly be accusing you of believing in anything supernatural, since it has been quite unclear to me what, if anything, you are claiming to believe.
Now, as of this last comment, the “if anything” part is withdrawn; clearly, you are saying something. But what? That’s what I’m still unsure of.
I don’t quite follow. Could you elaborate? What is unusual about these ‘signals’ (and what are they, in particular)?
Following the analogy, it would seem that the young lady in your account should have been confused about what you were doing, or how; and, perhaps, that I, or other unenlightened onlookers / those to whom you relate the story, should also be confused about this.
But nothing in your story seems confusing to me. Should it? What you did seems to me to have been clever, but straightforward (which is not to deny the cleverness!). I don’t have any trouble fitting it into my perfectly ordinary view of the world; nor, I suspect, would any “man in the street”. Should I? What am I missing?
Edit: Or is the claim here simply that ‘enlightenment’ (apologies, I know the term has been objected to—I mean whatever-state-you-have-achieved that is unusual and is the sort of thing being discussed—feel free to provide a better term) helps to generate this sort of cleverness (which, though not itself mysterious or unusual, is nonetheless clever, and thus useful—i.e., constitutes ‘cake’)? That would be a reasonable enough claim. Let me know if this is what you meant.
P.S. In a sibling thread, I asked you for a similar sort of account, but one that was pertinent to the topic at hand. You said you might provide one “another time”. This implies that there is such an account, and that the one you’ve provided so far isn’t it. But now you’re saying that what you already recounted is ‘it’. Again—what am I missing?
Imagine trying to tell a hunter gatherer about why we build the Large Hadron Collider and tell him about how we discovered the Higgs Boson.
Then he asks you: “So it’s somehow like the ritual our medicine man does to speak with ghosts he otherwise couldn’t see?”
The inferential distance won’t allow you to give the hunter gather a good idea about the event that happens at the Large Hadron Collider.