Comments on: Chaos Patch (#3)

By: fotrkd

fotrkd — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 01:25:08 +0000

By: admin

admin — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:28:20 +0000

‘Thatcher the milk snatcher’ (just saying)

By: Gom Jabbar

Gom Jabbar — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:25:26 +0000

For those who really want to understand it, in all it’s terrible majesty, probably not, but not everyone will make it to the end of an 8000 word essay (and the word Cathedral doesn’t even appear till around 5700 words in). As my people say, “Milk before meat.” The Moldbug essay is certainly the meat, but there might be a need for some milk.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 07:16:47 +0000

Could there be anything better than Moldbug’s Gentle Introduction Part 1? The structure of argument in that essay is so masterful it totally floors me.

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:47:37 +0000

I’m looking for an essay I can link to that explains what neoreactionaries mean by “The Cathedral”. Is there something better out there than Moldbug’s “Gentle Introduction” part 1?

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:07:11 +0000

have you seen the video of moldbug explaining his ideas at the comedy club or debating

By: fotrkd

fotrkd — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:37:30 +0000

Thanks, but if cigarettes weren’t an option… Anyway, I’ll bear it in mind for the future. For the record John Smiths is shit for discombobulation purposes. Just sent me to sleep (and I don’t remember any dreams). Still, you work with what you’ve got. Now, coffee…

By: John Hannon

John Hannon — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:22:17 +0000

@fotrkd

How’s the hangover this morning?

Incidentally, rather than merely disinhibiting your thought-flows with gin and John Smiths, you could have obtained some extraordinarily intense and profound perceptions concerning the nature of time by availing yourself of some 60X Salvia Divinorum.
Ontological discombobulation of the highest order –
and no hangover.

(And still completely legal in the UK)

By: admin

admin — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:25:32 +0000

@ Nick B. Steves
There are a lot of questionable assumptions built into that. (Of course, the detailed rejoinder has already been made)
Seriously, though, as soon as I can carve out a chunk of time a thorough time-travel discussion is overdue — it isn’t straightforward [sic].

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:10:18 +0000

No cigarettes?!! Darn…

Time travel forward in time is a trivial and well-solved problem. We’re already doing it. If you want to go forward in time relative to your mates, hop on a jet airplane. If you want to get VERY far forward in time, just go a whole lot faster for a longer time (like Charlton Heston did…)

But if you want to go backwards in time…

Well, if the future has sentient beings for a long time, and time travel is ever (in the future) possible… then someone would have traveled back to our own past already… In fact, they would have done so many times. If enough times, surely one of them might have gotten caught and had their cover blown. Since this has never happened, time travel to the past (the only thing people mean by non-trivial time-travel) must always be impossible (even in the future). QED. Either that or sentient beings don’t survive that much farther into the future…. Plus, anyway, you could kill your father and then never be born…