Question for Beta quadra: no lands left to conquer

[Linas]

How do You face this problem?

[1981slater]

Conquer the seas

[Linas]

Humor, right.

[Linas]

and that's like 55 and 5 ?

[Brilliand]

Find some Alphas to generate more lands for you to conquer? Heck, what sort of lands are you conquering that don't have some sort of defender giving you constant trouble?

[Absurd]

and that's like 55 and 5 ?

124 and 14.

Find some Alphas to generate more lands for you to conquer? Heck, what sort of lands are you conquering that don't have some sort of defender giving you constant trouble?

The Moon, I think.

[krieger]

Erect an empire to stand the test of time. The stage past conquest is the most glorious of all. ****** never started his rise to power with world wars and genocides in mind, they were just stepping stones. He wanted to found neo-Berlin.

[Absurd]

****** never started his rise to power with world wars and genocides in mind, they were just stepping stones. He wanted to found neo-Berlin.

What ?

[somavision]

How do You face this problem?

Where do you live? I claim it as my own.

Submit as my vassal or suffer being hit by a big stick.

[silverchris9]

Write poetry. Of all things not impossible, the most difficult.

Alternatively, try to become a good person (by which, yes, I mean a good Christian).

[DirectorAbbie]

Where do you live? I claim it as my own.

Submit as my vassal or suffer being hit by a big stick.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

[Brilliand]

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

If you want a fight, speaking loudly is more effective.

[MatthewZ]

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

You're going to get shot for toting a big stick around.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What's to stop re-invasions?

[Creepy-male]

Well this is a ridiculous question because there are plenty of lands to conquer....

but I guess if your really desperate, switch sides to those you have conquered and do what they could not! Rinse and Repeat, and you'll never face boredom again.

[Gilly]

Write poetry. Of all things not impossible, the most difficult.

Wrong. Writing poetry is easy; making art is hard. Not every poem is art.

Alternatively, try to become a good person (by which, yes, I mean a good Christian).

Only Christians are good people? You're a shitty Christian.

[Gilly]

The greatest territory yet unmapped is the human brain.

[Rubicon]

The greatest territory yet unmapped is the human brain.

lol true

[silverchris9]

Wrong. Writing poetry is easy; making art is hard. Not every poem is art.

I use the word poetry to refer to anything that's actually art. I actually use the word poetry to refer to any work of literature that is insightful or perceptive.

Only Christians are good people? You're a shitty Christian.

Not at all. No one's a good person. And every person is good insofar as they are. So Shakespeare was a great person. But then he also wasn't.

Serious answer: I was really just saying "good person" to avoid saying "good Christian," but then I realized I was being unclear. It's pretty easy to be a moderately average okay good person, unless you're in really tough circumstances. And it's totally possible to be a great person without being a Christian (i.e., most of the poets). But what I meant was specifically the whole business about humbling yourself and submitting to the authority of others/God/the church, which was effectively a reference to my own life.

And yes, I am a shitty Christian, and am even shittier for having said that in the way I said it. Have you read St. Simeon Stylites by Tennyson?

The greatest territory yet unmapped is the human brain.

Shakespeare. The mind is more interesting than the brain anyway (to whatever degree that distinction is valid, which, to my mind, is an awful lot, but I think you think differently on the matter). But yeah. See the badly worded signature. More interested in the psyche than in the brain, but I think its actually sorta the same thing from two different angles.

[olduser]

This topic presents itself as cultures develop integral types. China is an example of a nation very much in a Beta phase of development as they struggle to rise to prominence as a developed nation. Eventually they will finish this phase. There is plenty of stuff left to conquer-- it doesn't involve violence always.

[Gilly]

I use the word poetry to refer to anything that's actually art. I actually use the word poetry to refer to any work of literature that is insightful or perceptive.

Fair.

[quote]Not at all. No one's a good person. And every person is good insofar as they are. So Shakespeare was a great person. But then he also wasn't. [quote]

And yes, I am a shitty Christian, and am even shittier for having said that in the way I said it. Have you read St. Simeon Stylites by Tennyson?

I'll bite. No.

Shakespeare. The mind is more interesting than the brain anyway (to whatever degree that distinction is valid, which, to my mind, is an awful lot, but I think you think differently on the matter). But yeah. See the badly worded signature. More interested in the psyche than in the brain, but I think its actually sorta the same thing from two different angles.

See, I disagree, because the mind only goes so far; if we limit our study to what is accessible to us consciously, then we're just running around in circles and splitting hairs. The brain has infinitely more potential, not only on a pure level, but also in the sense that understanding the brain can help us understand the mind better than we do by simple observation. Serotonin and dopamine have nothing to do with my mind directly, but if I didn't know about them I sure couldn't manipulate it as effectively.

[discojoe]

I'M INTERRUPTING THIS TOPIC WITH AN OBNOXIOUSLY OFF-TOPIC POST DESIGNED TO PROVOKE THE IRE (ATTENTION) OF ANYONE WILLING TO BITE.

[electric sheep]

Try taking over Afghanistan. People have been trying to conquer that place for thousands of years. As far as I know it's the last level in the empire conquest game. No one's been able to beat it yet.

[discojoe]

Try taking over Afghanistan. People have been trying to conquer that place for thousands of years. As far as I know it's the last level in the empire conquest game. No one's been able to beat it yet.

The mountainous terrain makes it politically unmanageable.

[silverchris9]

I'll bite. No.

I didn't mean much by it, it was just that it's somewhat analogous to why I'm a worse Christian for asserting that I'm a shitty Christian. It's like "look how humble I can be" and on top of that it's an argumentative strategy. You shouldn't use central doctrines of the Christian faith to win an argument, etc. Stylites' speech about his Christianity is similarly counter-productive. The more he talks about how Christian and saintly he is, the less Christian and the less saintly he is. The more he demands that God recognize his goodness, the less goodness he has.

See, I disagree, because the mind only goes so far; if we limit our study to what is accessible to us consciously, then we're just running around in circles and splitting hairs. The brain has infinitely more potential, not only on a pure level, but also in the sense that understanding the brain can help us understand the mind better than we do by simple observation. Serotonin and dopamine have nothing to do with my mind directly, but if I didn't know about them I sure couldn't manipulate it as effectively.

Meh. I think it's certainly a very valuable avenue of study, but I don't see any scientists who know as much about people as the poets do. But then, I'm really just prizing my.profession/favorite thing over everything else. Plus, like all english majors, I have a bias against the scientists. They get cooler stuff. Between, theater and poetry, science and sports are like my mighty opposites. Also, I think Freud figured out an awful lot about the unconscious through means that were rather more like a poet than like a scientist, or at least someone in the hard sciences (i.e., observing and analyzing human behavior, rather than examining physiology, how aspects of the physical body relate to behavior).

Also, I was prepared to agree with your last statement, and I really do agree in principle/meaning, but I can't help saying that you don't really have to know shit about serotonin or dopamine in order to chemically manipulate them. But then, you said effectively, and I guess you are right there.

[Gilly]

I didn't mean much by it, it was just that it's somewhat analogous to why I'm a worse Christian for asserting that I'm a shitty Christian. It's like "look how humble I can be" and on top of that it's an argumentative strategy. You shouldn't use central doctrines of the Christian faith to win an argument, etc. Stylites' speech about his Christianity is similarly counter-productive. The more he talks about how Christian and saintly he is, the less Christian and the less saintly he is. The more he demands that God recognize his goodness, the less goodness he has.

...and you're an even shittier Christian for insisting upon being shitty for being humble. Funny how there's no right way to turn when you're lost in a maze of cognitive dissonance, isn't it?

Meh. I think it's certainly a very valuable avenue of study, but I don't see any scientists who know as much about people as the poets do. But then, I'm really just prizing my.profession/favorite thing over everything else. Plus, like all english majors, I have a bias against the scientists. They get cooler stuff. Between, theater and poetry, science and sports are like my mighty opposites. Also, I think Freud figured out an awful lot about the unconscious through means that were rather more like a poet than like a scientist, or at least someone in the hard sciences (i.e., observing and analyzing human behavior, rather than examining physiology, how aspects of the physical body relate to behavior).

I just think anyone who is willing to isolate and exclude the influence of hard science in any realm of study is just ignoring part of the truth.

Also, I was prepared to agree with your last statement, and I really do agree in principle/meaning, but I can't help saying that you don't really have to know shit about serotonin or dopamine in order to chemically manipulate them. But then, you said effectively, and I guess you are right there.

Well, studying how things work is not just about knowing the processes that go on, what results they produce, etc; it's just part of ascertaining a more encompassing holistic perspective on how we work.

[Animal]

Meh. I think it's certainly a very valuable avenue of study, but I don't see any scientists who know as much about people as the poets do. But then, I'm really just prizing my.profession/favorite thing over everything else. Plus, like all english majors, I have a bias against the scientists. They get cooler stuff. Between, theater and poetry, science and sports are like my mighty opposites. Also, I think Freud figured out an awful lot about the unconscious through means that were rather more like a poet than like a scientist, or at least someone in the hard sciences (i.e., observing and analyzing human behavior, rather than examining physiology, how aspects of the physical body relate to behavior).

Science will not tell you about people in the language of the humanities which cannot see far beyond our own storylines. This is useful, but limited. Science can however tell you about human beings as part of the ecology we are sprung out of. It is about stepping out of our storylines into the possibility of seeing the world around us on its own terms. In the Duino Elegies, Rilke writes, "To whom can we turn to in our need? Neither angels nor humans. And even the perceptive animals know we are not quite at home in our world of interpretations." He was right. We aren't at home in our interpreted world. And it's because, on some level, we become aware that it's a house of cards.

I hope at some point you'll see beyond your "school of resentment of scientists" and come to see science -- not simply as an obstructionism to religiosity and art -- but as a genuine alternative wisdom tradition to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude. Most of the scientists I know will humbly acknowledge the limits of scientific inquiry -- that it can give a how and what but not always a why and that there is so much we have yet to know. Similarly, we as humanists need to acknowledge our own limits.

[olduser]

Science will not tell you about people in the language of humanism which cannot see far beyond our own storylines. This is useful, but limited. Science can however tell you about human beings as part of the ecology we are sprung out of. It is about stepping out of our storylines into the possibility of seeing the world around us on its own terms. In the Duino Elegies, Rilke writes, "To whom can we turn to in our need? Neither angels nor humans. And even the perceptive animals know we are not quite at home in our world of interpretations." He was right. We aren't at home in our interpreted world. And it's because, on some level, we become aware that it's a house of cards.

I hope at some point you'll see beyond your "school of resentment of scientists" and come to see science -- not simply as an obstructionism to religiosity and art -- but as a genuine alternative wisdom tradition to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude.

Excellent post. Beats my response, as a scientist, which was, "fuck you asshole!!!"

[FDG]

The mountainous terrain makes it politically unmanageable.

What about Graubunden and Tyrol?

[silverchris9]

...and you're an even shittier Christian for insisting upon being shitty for being humble. Funny how there's no right way to turn when you're lost in a maze of cognitive dissonance, isn't it?

Sure.

I just think anyone who is willing to isolate and exclude the influence of hard science in any realm of study is just ignoring part of the truth.

Do you mean the comment about Freud? Certainly scientific ways of going about things, scientific method, etc., played a role in what he and Jung did, but (correct me if I'm wrong), their methods were really more humanistic than scientific, no? Psychoanalysis (however discredited it now is) is basically literary criticism on a human being, no?

That said, yes, of course, our understanding of the human being is profoundly influenced by the hard sciences of course. Even in the wonderful world of poetry, half my metaphors are stolen from/influenced by scientists.

Science will not tell you about people in the language of the humanities which cannot see far beyond our own storylines. This is useful, but limited. Science can however tell you about human beings as part of the ecology we are sprung out of. It is about stepping out of our storylines into the possibility of seeing the world around us on its own terms. In the Duino Elegies, Rilke writes, "To whom can we turn to in our need? Neither angels nor humans. And even the perceptive animals know we are not quite at home in our world of interpretations." He was right. We aren't at home in our interpreted world. And it's because, on some level, we become aware that it's a house of cards.

I don't think it's possible to "see the world on its own terms" through science or through anything else. At least, it's much more difficult to do so than we imagine. Our interpretations are a house of cards, but objectivity is a lot harder to achieve than simply trusting the "facts" of science, if for no other reason than that those facts have to be interpreted for them to mean anything. I think great art actually progresses much further towards objectivity, or seeing the world without any interpretations, filters, assumptions, etc., than science does. Science is necessarily bound by its assumptions, which I think is something scientists accept. Great art at least tries to transcend its assumptions.

I hope at some point you'll see beyond your "school of resentment of scientists" and come to see science -- not simply as an obstructionism to religiosity and art -- but as a genuine alternative wisdom tradition to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude. Most of the scientists I know will humbly acknowledge the limits of scientific inquiry -- that it can give a how and what but not always a why and that there is so much we have yet to know. Similarly, we as humanists need to acknowledge our own limits.

ha. I suppose you rather nailed me with the school of resentment of science. You're right; we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to scientists. They have achieved a lot. They have enlarged our world. But no more than the humanistic disciplines certainly, and with no less mixed results, ethically speaking (although the disciplines themselves and the information they discover are equally value-neutral). Yet the culture at large vastly prizes science over art, not only as a way of finding truth, but also as a source of value. That's what frustrates me. But I do probably go too far in the opposite direction. Science is not merely an obstruction (although the over-valuing of science as a means of achieving truth does obstruct and mislead, but I realize that is philosophy, or science-as-cultural-force, not strictly science itself).

I think the limits of literature/the humanities are a lot farther out than they're made out to be right now. So much of our communication and our meaning relies on metaphors crafted by writers, or those who learned to speak (and therefore think) better by reading literature. Emerson said in The Poet, "The people fancy they hate poetry, but they are all themselves poets and mystics" insofar as they believe in signs. Even me believing, for instance, "owning a home" = stability, respectability, a necessary part of the "American Dream"/happiness, etc., that's a cultural sign. Or believing that I'm more of a man if I own an enormous gas-guzzling SUV. That's a cultural sign. It takes language, representation, art to create these cultural signs, and as such it takes language, representation, and art to change them. The humanities are so fundamental to our lives because language (and more broadly, relationships between concrete signifiers or "images" and abstract signifieds or "ideas") is so fundamental to our lives. Scientific methods can vastly improve our understanding of the signifier-signified relationship, as seen in the great achievements of the so-called "social sciences." But humanistic methods are, to me, more immediately and intimately connected to this relationship, and as such have more capacity to act upon it. Art, I think, is more powerful than we give it credit for.

[Animal]

I don't think it's possible to "see the world on its own terms" through science or through anything else. At least, it's much more difficult to do so than we imagine. Our interpretations are a house of cards, but objectivity is a lot harder to achieve than simply trusting the "facts" of science, if for no other reason than that those facts have to be interpreted for them to mean anything. I think great art actually progresses much further towards objectivity, or seeing the world without any interpretations, filters, assumptions, etc., than science does. Science is necessarily bound by its assumptions, which I think is something scientists accept. Great art at least tries to transcend its assumptions.

I think you're being disingenuous. Scientists do not work off of assumption – they work off of observation. Any assumptions scientists make must be tested against observation of the actual phenomena at play. The scientific method is about challenging assumptions with empirical evidence. This has its limits, but science can tell us enough about the “truth” to tell us which antibiotics will prevent you from dying if you have a bacterial infection and how to engineer a bridge so that it is both environmentally efficient and won't collapse, etc.

ha. I suppose you rather nailed me with the school of resentment of science. You're right; we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to scientists. They have achieved a lot. They have enlarged our world. But no more than the humanistic disciplines certainly, and with no less mixed results, ethically speaking (although the disciplines themselves and the information they discover are equally value-neutral). Yet the culture at large vastly prizes science over art, not only as a way of finding truth, but also as a source of value. That's what frustrates me. But I do probably go too far in the opposite direction. Science is not merely an obstruction (although the over-valuing of science as a means of achieving truth does obstruct and mislead, but I realize that is philosophy, or science-as-cultural-force, not strictly science itself).

I think the limits of literature/the humanities are a lot farther out than they're made out to be right now. So much of our communication and our meaning relies on metaphors crafted by writers, or those who learned to speak (and therefore think) better by reading literature. Emerson said in The Poet, "The people fancy they hate poetry, but they are all themselves poets and mystics" insofar as they believe in signs. Even me believing, for instance, "owning a home" = stability, respectability, a necessary part of the "American Dream"/happiness, etc., that's a cultural sign. Or believing that I'm more of a man if I own an enormous gas-guzzling SUV. That's a cultural sign. It takes language, representation, art to create these cultural signs, and as such it takes language, representation, and art to change them. The humanities are so fundamental to our lives because language (and more broadly, relationships between concrete signifiers or "images" and abstract signifieds or "ideas") is so fundamental to our lives. Scientific methods can vastly improve our understanding of the signifier-signified relationship, as seen in the great achievements of the so-called "social sciences." But humanistic methods are, to me, more immediately and intimately connected to this relationship, and as such have more capacity to act upon it. Art, I think, is more powerful than we give it credit for.

You remind me of a certain disgruntled graduate student I once had a discussion with who was lamenting a society that “glorifies the sciences and technology and neglects the humanities.” The reality is his qualms had more to do with his dismal prospects of skirting the poverty line upon graduation while his friends in the sciences were already making quite a bit more than any real grudge against science itself. It's been a long time since I've taken Socionics seriously, but I can't help but see your trivialization of science as a compensation for a oversensitive -PoLR by retreating into a sort of hyper-subjectivity that immunizes you from standards of objectivity.

The esteem in which society holds science is the result of the simple fact that science offers solutions to very ancient problems that the arts simply cannot. These problems are somewhat more fundamental in Maslow's hierarchy of needs than the lofty pursuit of truth for its own sake: Dante's Divina Comedia cannot help eliminate the threat of smallpox, polio or cholera for future generations like immunization can. Shostakovich's Symphony No. 14 cannot help bring unprecedented access to educational resources in the way broadband can. A poem by Ryokan cannot solve the logistics of sewage disposal in third world countries. Art can, however, inform the execution and administration of that science and technology. It can even rehumanize us in the age of consumerism.

Even your favorite Harold Bloom is symptomatic of what is wrong with the humanities in this country. He is well-read. In fact, he is so well-read that he is positively festering in the mire of his own knowledge. He's quite passionate about the virtues of Shakespeare. At those moments where he steps out of the convoluted self-referential nexus of his “anxiety of influence” he can quite persuasively articulate what Shakespeare has to offer us today. But, honestly, his knowledge is rather useless if it cannot reach people with power. He is a prolific writer, but his work has failed to penetrate the consciousness of the people who would most benefit from it. To the general public, he is merely the grumpy old professor who occasionally condescends from his ivory tower to take potshots at Stephen King and J.K. Rowling.

In a time when, as Thomas Benton writes, “we need more people who appreciate literature, history, philosophy, and art in the 'real world'” where it could inform the ethics of our policy-makers, our social workers and our scientists, the relegation of our humanists to the effete and ineffectual isolation of academia is quite unfortunate. My brother's Jiu-jitsu instructor has a poster on his wall with a quote from Mark Twain: “Actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often.” We need a movement of engaged humanists who do not merely use the shelter of academia as a conceit for decrying the problems of our society while hiding from them. We need more doctors who appreciate music and more poets who appreciate engineering. Hell, we need more poets like Keats, who are also doctors.

[mu4]

A few hundred years of reason did more to improve the moral understanding of man then thousands of years of "humanism".

All the trappings and chains of tradition and culture with its pretense to virtue only made the world a cesspool of degradation and pain.

It's not that science is something against humanity, rather it is no more then the direct study of god. But some people have the pretense of knowing god when all they know is sin.

[krieger]

science is impossible without a stable society founded on humanitarian traditions. The fundament of all science is the exchange of information between individuals, which necessitates that said individuals regard eachother as parties for cooperation rather than as threats or enemies. Today we take the idea of living alongside eachother without bashing in eachothers' heads for granted. It wasn't always like that.

[mu4]

science is impossible without a stable society founded on humanitarian traditions. The fundament of all science is the exchange of information between individuals, which necessitates that said individuals regard eachother as parties for cooperation rather than as threats or enemies. Today we take the idea of living alongside eachother without bashing in eachothers' heads for granted. It wasn't always like that.

You mean stable societies that won wars against their opponents and enslaved them for hundreds of years because of technological prowess.

Our needs to gather together is not merely for our defense and peace, but sometimes, in fact often, to brutalize those that are weaker and less advanced for profit.

The history of man is often the history of "us's" and "them's"... usually a us kill some them, for god, for money, for goodness. Living alongside other is not something anyone should take granted, because it's still hardly there.

The fundamental of science is about truth rather then deception. All this trash about the peaceful societies built on humanitarian values...

Yes, I have some blankets to give and opium to sell. All full of deception and lies.

[Animal]

hkkmr, are you sure you know what humanism is? Because reason is a pillar of humanism. Modern science grew out of the humanistic tradition.

[mu4]

In a time when, as Thomas Benton writes, “we need more people who appreciate literature, history, philosophy, and art in the 'real world'” where it could inform the ethics of our policy-makers, our social workers and our scientists, the relegation of our humanists to the effete and ineffectual isolation of academia is quite unfortunate. My brother's Jiu-jitsu instructor has a poster on his wall with a quote from Mark Twain: “Actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often.” We need a movement of engaged humanists who do not merely use the shelter of academia as a conceit for decrying the problems of our society while hiding from them. We need more doctors who appreciate music and more poets who appreciate engineering. Hell, we need more poets like Keats, who are also doctors.

There is no lack of people who appreciate literature, history, philosophy, and art in the 'real world' nor in science.

The unfortunately thing is that there is also no lack of people who appreciate vanity, artifice and pretense instead of mere common decency.

[mu4]

hkkmr, are you sure you know what humanism is? Because reason is a pillar of humanism. Modern science grew out of the humanistic tradition.

Of course, because science is humanism. But "humanism" is often not humanism but pretense and folly.

[Beautiful sky]

A few hundred years of reason did more to improve the moral understanding of man then thousands of years of "humanism".

All the trappings and chains of tradition and culture with its pretense to virtue only made the world a cesspool of degradation and pain.

It's not that science is something against humanity, rather it is no more then the direct study of god. But some people have the pretense of knowing god when all they know is sin.

That's not entirely true, under Queen Nefertiti (ESTj) and Amenhotep IV (ISTp), a single religion was established, but historians report that country exprienced the most prosperous and generous time.

I guess a humanitarian is a better deffinition for me..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian

[tereg]

Science will not tell you about people in the language of the humanities which cannot see far beyond our own storylines. This is useful, but limited. Science can however tell you about human beings as part of the ecology we are sprung out of. It is about stepping out of our storylines into the possibility of seeing the world around us on its own terms. In the Duino Elegies, Rilke writes, "To whom can we turn to in our need? Neither angels nor humans. And even the perceptive animals know we are not quite at home in our world of interpretations." He was right. We aren't at home in our interpreted world. And it's because, on some level, we become aware that it's a house of cards.

I hope at some point you'll see beyond your "school of resentment of scientists" and come to see science -- not simply as an obstructionism to religiosity and art -- but as a genuine alternative wisdom tradition to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude. Most of the scientists I know will humbly acknowledge the limits of scientific inquiry -- that it can give a how and what but not always a why and that there is so much we have yet to know. Similarly, we as humanists need to acknowledge our own limits.

Reminds me of this, particularly 3:18-4:10

[Animal]

There is no lack of people who appreciate literature, history, philosophy, and art in the 'real world' nor in science.

My experience actually agrees with you. Some of the most insightful patrons of art and readers of literature I know are scientists. My pediatrician growing up loved to quote from Hemingway, lol. My friend's sponsor for a opera study-abroad program in Italy was an engineer. However, I think people would benefit from being more aware of the possibility that being human is more than being a consumer.

The unfortunately thing is that there is also no lack of people who appreciate vanity, artifice and pretense instead of mere common decency.

I probably agree with you, depending on what you mean by common decency?