hwithumalut

This is my first time making pseudo-science so please be nice.

Hey want something you already know rephrased into a clearer form.

Hey do you consider yourself open minded?

Do you consider yourself close minded?

Or maybe you think you're an introvert?

Or an ambivert, or an extravert?

Well I’ve got a better idea.

You are maybe introverted only towards some people. And open towards only some ideas.

Each idea or person can be thought of as existing in a network of connections.

An introverted person does not exist. A close minded person does not either.

You are not just a single trait. You are a thousand million traits spread out across a million ideas and people. Each person has their own spectrum attached to them for how introverted you are around them. Each idea, or person has its own spectrum.

When you define yourself as open minded, or extraverted, you're more so giving a generalization.

Part two openness to experience and extraversion are the same

Openness to experience is extraversion about non-social encounters. An introvert is closed to experience.

You can deconstruct both of them so that they merge into one another.

Extraversion is openness to people.

Fuck the definition of extraversion that talks about “gaining energy from other people” you gain energy from sleeping…

Part three: the four tensions Abstract metaphysics!!!+Big Five Personality traits! Let’s go!

There are four tensions present inside of objects, Space, Time, Essence and Eidos.

Time: the constant change of temporary traits, separating sensual object’s from their sensual qualities. Time is an asymmetry, the difference between the past and the future. The portal that vanishes once you step into another world, no world more important than the last.

Space: the attachment of temporary traits to the being of the object they are attached to. Imagine how I may sit in the United States despite being able to travel elsewhere. There is an unnecessary element attached to my being, and I am an unnecessary element attached to the US’s being.

Essence: is how the defining traits of an object connect to it. Essence is the opposite of time in some respects. Essence connects an apple’s ability to be eaten and experienced as a juicy crunchy sweet tart thing, with the apple itself. If you could not crunch into the sweet apple the apple, it would not be the same.

Eidos: is our theoretical access to an object's qualities. It is what separates the image of an apple from its natural ability to give us juicy goodness. This is the theoretical access of objects. If I stare at your face, I assume that you have the back of your head as well, even though I cannot see it.

There is a corresponding way of thinking about personality for each of these sections. The ones corresponding to Essence and Eidos are both generalizations. The ones corresponding to Time and Space are both heterogeneous all across.

Temporal personality:Your personality changes over time. This is your personality from one moment to the next. It’s that simple.

Spatial personality: This is discussed in part one. Your personality is made of a web of connected ideas. These ideas can be open or close. This is spatial, because it shows a network of connections that happen to be the case though they could be otherwise. You are open to one conspiracy theory for some reasons to another and closed to a different one.

Essential personality: people will often appeal to an inner self. This is the unchanging you. Regardless of whether you are aware, or not. I try to steer clear of this. For example introversion may be an essential part of you.

Eidetic personality: This is how you are identified from others personality wise. This is how we are not a blob of the same people.

A well made character in a story will have all of these (maybe). They should have a distinct, eidetic, essential, spatial, and temporal character.

There are some worldviews I am interested in thinking about today.

Expanding the concept of human rights, and animal rights, to inanimate objects.

The way I’ve heard this be done before is that certain geographical locations, like waterfalls, and beautiful views have a right to exist, and to be seen. This would justify why people need to see these beautiful landmarks.

I’m interested in more extreme versions of inanimate rights.

One framework would basically say that all objects animate or inanimate, deserve rights.

How could someone possibly justify such an absurd belief?

It’s pretty simple actually. Many people believe that conscious experience can be deconstructed, and that what we perceive as perception and sensory experience is a hallucination, generated by brain electricity. Take this cognitive science based philosophy and the concept of animal rights. Now consciousness doesn't exist, or is’t a valid idea, because it’s a hallucination. So if you extend rights to animals you have to extend them to all forms of matter.

I say matter, and not all objects, because this philosophy is a materialist one, hence the consciousness is a fake thing.

You could also justify inanimate rights in an even more radical third way.

If you believe that everything exists, material or otherwise. Like the UN, or ghosts, or the Planet mars, than you can make an immaterialist inanimate rights campaign work. Or an object rights campaign.

Inanimate right’s activists argue that consciousness does not determine wheter or not something gets rights or not. The only criteria determining rights is existence. Everything that exists get’s rights.

“As an Inanimate rights activist I propose that all objects have a right to exist, no matter how debatable it's objecthood is, including this speech which is why it will go on forever…” —final words of inanimate rights activist

What is the opposite of inanimate rights? One would first think that it’s giving rights only to one human being, or one entity. That would be a singular right belief system. One would secondly think that it is right’s nihilism, where you don’t believe in rights. You don’t think anyone is owed anything. But comparatively those philosophies are close-ish to universal inanimate right’s activism.

If you make a spectrum where full inanimates rights is at 100% rights having on one end, and right’s nihilism has 0% right’s having on the other, there is another position that would be at negative 100% right’s having

That’s right unrights exist! Unrights are when something is undeserved by a person. For example in a moderate unrights based society.

An unright is just a silly word for banning something. This is why most societies are both rights and unrights societies. And why most societies are anti-centrist by default

I should do a Harold Bloom arch but for youtube videos

who is Harold bloom?

he is a literary critic who tells people that they need to read western canon books because of their apparent intrinsic worth. He is pig headed and arrogant, but I think that ultimately he has probably introduced some people to good books through skilled passionate arguments.

why should you do that I don't fullly understand. that seems stupid to force people to read books that agree with you

I don't think that people only need to read those books. but saying that people ought to read those books to the exclusion of everything else gets people to read those books. I think that I want people to watch youtube videos that have not be judged on aesthetic merits because they are youtube videos. Including videos that needed to be youtube videos, because they are intrinsically tied to the format.

like what?

Try watching History of the Entire World I guess by bill wurtz. I'll make more posts later to talk about other videos.

I am feasting in a local soccer pitch, before summer falls, close to my home by a short walk without a flashlight to wield. It is an expanse of cool black grass and the background’s cricket calls, a scene of nature’s awe, in a human cleared field.

I feast on the colors of the world. Above the shadow treeline is a faint yellow-pink, In the middle meeting a rich blue and together they whirled. all stains on Nyx’s cloak of night and gray ink

I feast on lights of passing and stationary machines, like stars up close. The road reflects a car’s eyes as white as magazine molars. A beautiful sun halo, or lens flare on my eye emits from a looming lamppost, The halo's inside is a patterned prism. White light phoenixing, to many colors.

But up close the grass is green, their darkness only a surfacing scrimmage. The car lights are really yellow more like my own fangs than something in the stars and the pretty pink taint in the sky is from my device, a bright phony afterimage. Though still some cones of shine come in great waves through the field's fence from the cars.

It was not wider than ten feet. Her room was strewn with clothing, coins, open makeup containers including eyeliner pens, orange sticky notes used and unused, coffee grinds, old 3DS cartridges, abandoned books, and sneezed in crumbled tissue/napkins dumped from her purse or backpack onto the floor.

One faulty light bulb was on, giving a dim orange hue to the windowless brick walls that she had tried paint many times, each attempt left as a fuming failure.

Her phone was present after a long days work, giving the professionally dressed women a color changing halo.

She was doing what she would call “nothing” but she was still sitting on the edge of her bed with tense muscles. She was out of breath from living her whole day, but had drunk too much coffee to sleep, so she was alone and stuck in a restless nightmare between two dreams, one of which was her hard-won internship and was becoming harder to do.

Her makeup had slid, making the once bold armor become a beard. She was arched over, so she looked wound up like a spring coil in a children's cheap metal toy.

Her phone’s faces looked up at her as she into it. Her eyes' focus did not falter.

Despite her close attention, she couldn't care less about anything she was looking at. Fliping down and down and away, her finger in the perfect position to move. She had enjoyed a few of them, even laughing. One video involved two men toss large pieces of metal on screen and she fliped away and a sketch involving the same person acting out each role with text over there forehead and she flipped before the punchline and “the latest marvel movie is good because...“and she flipped away and a highlights of a ridiculous reddit story that could not have happened and she fliped away and a video of wild animals jumping onto the deck of a boat and she watched its full three seconds and she realized she had to go to bed because she had an audition the next morning and she flipped away to another video maybe try to check out Instagram next? Maybe she'd watch the latest documentary on YouTube but important educational politics stuff popped up. She'd watch the documentary after this last one. Maybe this next one is the last one?

The philosopher Graham Harman has many lectures online that I consider to be of literary, and rhetorical value. Many philosophers when speaking assume a sort of familiarity with their work. Graham Harman assumes that his audience knows nothing about his ideas and he starts from scratch each time. He has an explanation that seems precisely practiced, but it is not mechanical. His explanation of his philosophy is beautiful in its clarity, as well as its vividness. He tells his philosophy like a story, and he tells stories like a master.

Graham Harman as a character in philosophy is a novel. He a continental philosopher who hails from Iowa, a contradiction in terms almost. He defends the existence of external objects, rather than pretending that there is no external object. He speaks clearly, but defends philosophers who speak without clarity. He seems to have a theory about everything, but is often open to admit that he has no idea about something.

Here is an example of some of his lectures. I want people to tell me if they agree with my appraisal of his style, or if I’m misguided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK-5XOwraQo&list=PLy5eUWc8OuHQ9kSjxDAKOnSh-4MIlUZ-2&ab_channel=EuropeanGraduateSchoolVideoLectures

Jerrall: “So what's the deal with the word yeoman?”

Garrel: (confused): “What do you even mean? A yeoman is a worker right? I don’t know what sort of deal it could have? Is this going to be one of your rants? It must be one of your rants, that spring from nowhere like squirrels through the road. I know because you always start them by asking me a question I know nothing about.”

Jerrall: (lecturing): “For those of us, including us, who live in the States of United America, and evil ol’ Canada it means a lay worker, a farmer perhaps. Also it means the handler of the hold cargo on a seaship. Yeoman means a beefeater in the UK, the royal guards of the tower of London. They dress in silly fancy red outfits and all that. A yeoman is a minor noble.”

Garrel: “...”

Jerrall: “basically their opposite meanings. Fancy guard-man dining on cow-flesh versus loyal farmer feeding cows. Both of them Yeoman.”

Garrel: “Yes…”

Jerral: “Basically this is fascinating because there is no affix yeo-. Yeo- stems from a pre-Old English Germanic word gauwji” ( Jerral says something like: Yao wyee lisping the second y)

Garrel: (confused): “Yaoi?”

Jerral: “No. Gauwji. It refers to a shire, or some other rural area. I imagine it would need to be rural anyways to count. Obviously plus mann. Gauwjimann. ”

Garrel: (excitement): “Yaoiman! That’s what the men in Yaoi are called!”

Jerral: (squeaky and pissed!): “What shit! No! you're missing the fucking point! The point is that Gauwji is not a current affix, but in another timeline it could be. Yeo could be. That is to say that I could be called a Yeoetymologist! Which is so exciting”

Garrel: “Ok so, I think that if Yeo-etymologist is a word then Yaoiman is definitely a word.

Jerral: (squeakiest and pissedest person in the world): Yeoetymologist is a great and joyous word, while Yaoiman is a silly joke that you will never use again!”

Garrel: “ I mean Yaoiman with complete seriousness, it’s a better word than man-in-yaoi. And are you using the yeo as an alternative of folk, as in folk etymologist, as in someone who makes up fake etymologies? ”

Jerral: (quite pissy) anger noises

This is a real advertisement. It breaks the rules of Farkas city. Wow this is so subversive. Subversive advertising? Wow H with umlaut is really pushing the boundaries here. Literally. She’s only pushing the boundaries right here on Farkas city. In actuality this post conforms to the desire to be non-conformist seeming, without actually being non-conformist. WOW!!!!

Alternatively if you are mayor DJ this post is Ironic, and fake.

If you find me in real life and give me 5 USD I will give you an ironic stock in Irony corp. This means nothing, except maybe I’ll give you a piece of paper with the word irony written on it. That way this is a real advertisement and could get me banned from Farkas city.

This post is in no way affiliated with IronyCorp, a canadian business. Irony corp is a (il)legally distinct ironic business.

If you give me 6 USD, you will get to join the ironic board of directors as it's chair (one of it's chairs). I will try to find like a lego chair, or something. Maybe i'll literally draw one in crayon.

#IronyCorpLegallyDisticnt #UnsubversiveSubversion #PleaseBanThisAcccountFromFarkasCity #PleaseDoNotBanThisAccount #VeryIronicNotReal #RealAdvertisement

Hello Farkascitizens (someone who uses farkas city)! It's me, h with umlaut, your favorite farkasser (someone who posts on farkas city publicly), back at you again with another Farkascity post!

Here are my top five ideas I've had for this post. Ranked in numerical order from worst to best!!! Starting with number 5.

Number 5: top ten farkas posts My idea for this post was to rank ten different Farkas city posts based on how good they were. I'm glad I did not make this post because then people I know would have been complemented about their hard work. We don't want that happening. Phew, a disaster averted.

Number 4: left ten farkas city posts I wanted to make a list of farkas city posts based on how left wing they were. The most left wing would be the number one slot. This was a cool idea because it may have divided up farkas city, by talking about politics in a manner that interacts with farkas city. This would hopefully cause chaos and derision! Fun! Although I did not make this post because I thought that since all Farkassers I know personally are left wing. Not all ideas are good and I will ruthlessly cut out the bad ones instead of pursuing them anyways.

Number 3: top five cults I switched to top five because then I had to read less. This was definitely the first good idea I had. It was less unique to this site, and it touched a subject with lots of violence and shock value. I would put really good cults like Jim Jones's People's Temple on top. Quality being determined by whether the cult is harmful enough, or not.

Number 2: top five religions This idea was the same as the last one, but it wasn't nearly as obvious. It would a much subtler post, as people would have no idea whether I was being ironic, or not, because I go to church. Very good idea.

Number 1: top three mental illnesses As you probably already guessed I would rank it by how disabling the mental illness is. Awesome things like Schizophrenia would get to go on top! this idea was totally my best yet, because it was also completely unoriginal, and I would be stealing an idea. Someone has literally done that joke before!

responding to: https://farkascity.org/blog/re-can-we-have-comments

As a neutral apolitical party I have no opinion on this debate.

I have extreme opinions on this debate. Farkas city blog is full of blatant contradictions. I am offended that Farkas's mayor would have one.

Our honorable mayor says “My primary goal with FarkasCity is helping nontechnical people become digitally independent “. This runs opposed to the central notion of our mayor's post. The post is telling Farkas citizens why they can't have comments.

The basic point of the post is a clarification of why Farkas city lacks comments. The basic point of the post is an explanation of why our mayor will not add comments. The basic point of the comment is obscuration of our mayor's totalitarian habits. As my 80 something year old driving instructor Harold would say “basically 1984”. I think the masses would have preferred a simple yes, or no. The masses love education.

If the mayor wants us to be independent, would they then not allow us to have comments, even if this destroys our own independence.

Authoritarian Democracy is when the masses democratically elect a dictator who removes their rights. Farkas city is not independent, or authoritarian.

If I freely chose a lack of freedom. Am I making a free choice?

If someone forces me to be independent am I still independent?

Anyways. Remember Farkas city is a utopia with zero flaws. I love Farkas city and our mayor's recent comments!!! Independence is dependence, please report the ministry of commenting!!!