Universal algorithm

[Guitar's Cry]

Two different plays: the first is from "As You Like It," spoken by Jaques, while the second is "Macbeth," spoken by Macbeth.

I know. Just felt the "Tomorrow" speech has a similar theme of life being "acted" out, strutting and fretting our time on stages.

 

[Ostronomos]

Two different plays: the first is from "As You Like It," spoken by Jaques, while the second is "Macbeth," spoken by Macbeth.

I love the speech, one of my favourite bits of memory work:

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

This is actually a misconception based on illusion. As is death. You believe it though because you can't reason any other way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is actually a misconception based on illusion. As is death. You believe it though because you can't reason any other way.

Given what you are responding to, my most polite response is "rubbish."

I much prefer "reasoning" my way than yours, which appears to be "imagine something, decide it must be true because it strikes my fancy, then insist everybody else get on board."

The world has had way too much of that already.

 

[Ostronomos]

Given what you are responding to, my most polite response is "rubbish."

I much prefer "reasoning" my way than yours, which appears to be "imagine something, decide it must be true because it strikes my fancy, then insist everybody else get on board."

The world has had way too much of that already.

Tis in fact you who reasons so whimsically. My reasoning is based on science and observation.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Tis in fact you who reasons so whimsically. My reasoning is based on science and observation.

Oh, yes? You've scientifically observed and demonstrated that death is an illusion? Can you show us? Bring it on in to RF Labs -- we have all the most up-to-date equipment, including a couple of philosopher's stones and some really good bubbling vats of stuff -- and let's test it out together.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh, yes? You've scientifically observed and demonstrated that death is an illusion? Can you show us? Bring it on in to RF Labs -- we have all the most up-to-date equipment, including a couple of philosopher's stones and some really good bubbling vats of stuff -- and let's test it out together.

Here’s a thing though; from the perspective of those you ridicule, you really don’t look so clever yourself. What I see is a man who has cut himself off from the sunlight of the spirit, congratulating himself on the clarity of his vision. Not a great look from where I’m standing - and life is all about perceptions after all.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Oh, yes? You've scientifically observed and demonstrated that death is an illusion? Can you show us? Bring it on in to RF Labs -- we have all the most up-to-date equipment, including a couple of philosopher's stones and some really good bubbling vats of stuff -- and let's test it out together.

Those bubbling vats are the home brew. No touching!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here’s a thing though; from the perspective of those you ridicule, you really don’t look so clever yourself. What I see is a man who has cut himself off from the sunlight of the spirit, congratulating himself on the clarity of his vision. Not a great look from where I’m standing - and life is all about perceptions after all.

You continue to try to cut me down to size by citing things that you could not, with any amount of effort you can imagine, demonstrate. I take your notion of "the sunlight of the spirit" as seriously as I do snake oil for hair loss.

And I do not believe it counts as "ridicule" to suggest that when somebody makes a claim that they expect me to take seriously, much less believe, then I think that they ought to be able to show some reason why I should.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You continue to try to cut me down to size by citing things that you could not, with any amount of effort you can imagine, demonstrate. I take your notion of "the sunlight of the spirit" as seriously as I do snake oil for hair loss.

And I do not believe it counts as "ridicule" to suggest that when somebody makes a claim that they expect me to take seriously, much less believe, then I think that they ought to be able to show some reason why I should.

Have you tried snake oil, for hair loss? Who knows, it might work. I’m not selling any though; merely pointing out that there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamed of in thy philosophy.

I think you will recognise the quote?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Have you tried snake oil, for hair loss? Who knows, it might work. I’m not selling any though; merely pointing out that there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamed of in thy philosophy.

I think you will recognise the quote?

Of course I recognize the quote -- although it's "dreamt of in your philosophy."

But the fact is, whether snake oil actually cures hair loss can be easily tested -- and it hasn't passed those tests, and therefore there are no desperate men avidly seeking supplies of snake oil. If it worked, trust me, they (and I) would be all over it!

But you know, you should go back to Hamlet and read that quote in context -- because what Shakespeare is actually suggesting to Horatio is
that one must believe what one sees. Even if they previously did not think so, the real evidence should change their mind. And that is the opposite of what you are trying to suggest.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Of course I recognize the quote -- although it's "dreamt of in your philosophy."

But the fact is, whether snake oil actually cures hair loss can be easily tested -- and it hasn't passed those tests, and therefore there are no desperate men avidly seeking supplies of snake oil. If it worked, trust me, they (and I) would be all over it!

But you know, you should go back to Hamlet and read that quote in context -- because what Shakespeare is actually suggesting to Horatio is
that one must believe what one sees. Even if they previously did not think so, the real evidence should change their mind. And that is the opposite of what you are trying to suggest.

So Hamlet is inclined to believe what he has seen “In my mind’s eye, Horatio”, while the educated Horatio, who “will not let belief take hold of him”, fails the test of reason? Okay then.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So Hamlet is inclined to believe what he has seen “In my mind’s eye, Horatio”, while the educated Horatio, who “will not let belief take hold of him”, fails the test of reason? Okay then.

No, that is not the context. Horatio had said in the first scene that he would not believe in the existence of Hamlet's father's ghost, but having seen -- and being made to "swear" not to speak of it by the ghost -- claims, "O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!" to which Hamlet responds, "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
"Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Meaning, well, now that you have indeed seen, you'll have to believe. And I think that had I really had such an encounter (I never had), for which I could find no other explanation, I might well believe it myself.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, that is not the context. Horatio had said in the first scene that he would not believe in the existence of Hamlet's father's ghost, but having seen -- and being made to "swear" not to speak of it by the ghost -- claims, "O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!" to which Hamlet responds, "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
"Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Meaning, well, now that you have indeed seen, you'll have to believe. And I think that had I really had such an encounter (I never had), for which I could find no other explanation, I might well believe it myself.

The context is the play itself, all of it. Not forgetting the play within the play. It is the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King, as I’m sure you’ll recall.

So in the wider context, a question; in apprehension, what is man most like?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The context is the play itself, all of it. Not forgetting the play within the play. It is the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King, as I’m sure you’ll recall.

So in the wider context, a question; in apprehension, what is man most like?

Don't lose yourself in Shakespeare's language -- he is not trying, like scripture, to be mysterious.

Yes, man is "in apprehension how like a God." But what man is (not like) is an animal and quintessence of dust.

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely, its a dig at atheist and agnostic based on wishful thinking and pie fairies in the sky. It is of course expected.

Fixed.

Speaking of pie....

 

[syo]

While illusion may deceive many an atheist and agnostic, there are even fewer who know that metaphysical naturalism does not carry weight, except to the gullible. For anyone who thinks it does, fails to see past their own nose. When I say "nose" I am referring to space, time and object and mankind's temporary place within it.

It carries weight. The sort of weight that connects the two natures. There must be a connection. Pagans have it right. You could study paganism, if you like.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Don't lose yourself in Shakespeare's language -- he is not trying, like scripture, to be mysterious.

Yes, man is "in apprehension how like a God." But what man is (not like) is an animal and quintessence of dust.

Man is perceived as a quintessence of dust, because Hamlet has lost faith in humanity, and in life. Yet, he is no mere beast - he is still the paragon of animals.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Man is perceived as a quintessence of dust, because Hamlet has lost faith in humanity, and in life. Yet, he is no mere beast - he is still the paragon of animals.

But as I said, still animal.

As to being "paragon," we still lose a lot of one-on-one bouts with lesser critters with stronger muscles and better teeth, or even tiny ones that can take us out without even being seen.