One thing in Aeon Flux always annoyed me. On two occasions Aeon mentioned God. I recall her saying:"Oh,my God" to the alien in End Sinister and also:"God" in Reraizure while fooling Trevor. I always ask people who say "my God" if they are believers. If they are not I always ask:"Why then use such a phrase?" I don't believe in fate for instance and therefore I never say stuff like "fate intervened" or "fate brought us together". Once I asked a woman, who I liked a lot, if she believed in mans ability to choose freely. I already knew she believed in fate. She did of course believe in "freedom of choice" so I said:"Inconsistent with logic". Aeon is a smart girl and somehow I doubt she would use such phrases. I always thought those were somewhat out of place. (hey, is Aeon baptized? Just kidding!)

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 06, 2001

Answers

The reason smart woman are attracted to morons is as follows: 1. The smart woman, being a woman, has not much power. To boss around a moron is too much to hope for! 2. The moron will never see through her enough to reveal the plain truth, (she ain't that smart). 3. She can lord it over him eternally.......... 4. She will not feel the pain of rejection from a 'real' human being... 5. Everything is his fault, after all; he's a moron.

Well, I 've exposed enough for now. There are many more reasons but the Book of Woman's rules forbids me to go on. I'm in trouble as it is...

-- Barb e (Suesuesbeo9@cs.com), July 11, 2001.

Not really... I say things like "Jesus Christ" or "for Christ's sake" all the time, while I am far from a believer in Jesus as being divine and am not even a Christian.

-- Attrox (attrox@vampirehunter.com), July 07, 2001.

I hear ya Attrox. When I say "holy shit" I don't acually think that there is acually anything holy about a turd. It's just a expression that people say without thinking about it. I do understand your point Vercingetorix. There are many condradictions in human nature!

-- Jack (eashtonusa@netscape.net), July 07, 2001.

My primary observation in life is that the "real" universe and the human universe (or, the universe and how man percieves it) are irreconcilable to the point that hipocrisy is unavoidable when it comes to certain arguments.

As far as language, I'm not a Christian either, but I do use these phrases. There's a difference between language and belief; language is an entity unto itself. I don't think this is a big issue for Aeon.

And as for freedom of choice vs. fate (in line with my earlier comment), I think it's perfectly valid for one to say that they believe in both. For example, I think that free will is an illusion (or, to put it in other words, I believe in fate), yet the idea of free will, and the belief in it on one level, is a useful tool. If I didn't utilize such a tool, I'd have little motivation.

-- Mat Rebholz (matrebholz@yahoo.com), July 07, 2001.

Thanks, too bad the woman I loved thought this was an attempt by me to make her look inferior. About fate. I'm not saying there isn't such a thing but I fear there is. I also believe that fate is something people say they believe in because it gives them consolation when something goes horribly wrong. Ergo there never was any other way than that which happened and thus they avoid the "guilt" knowing they could have prevented this to happen. That's just a theory of mine. Ever read Sartre and his existentialism? I've only read some ideas of his but I've read Camus's "the Stranger" that also is existentialist. Sartre abandoned his ideas prior to his death, what does that tell you? Never mind, the ideas of existentialism was, in my opinion, best said by Devo in a song of theirs called "Freedom of choice" from the album with the same name. "Freedom of choice is what you got, freedom from choice is what you want". One theory that could explain both "freedom of choice" and fate is something I heard scientists call "parallel realities", possibly "parallel dimensions" or "parallel universes". There are billions of "realities" in which "history" looks different to the one we live in. So, in another dimension or whatever, Aeon Flux was produced for years (this is after all a forum where we are supposed to discuss AF). Wish I had talked to Spock himself and I'm not even a "Trekker". Whatever. I guess Aeon Flux is only human after all. (well not really, she is just a character in a series)

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 07, 2001.

That's the great thing about humanity: it's not biology (or in this case, flesh as opposed to ink and paint) that makes one human, but the system. That is, Aeon exists because she appears to exist. Of course, we know she's not real, but surely something of her is "real" if we're here talking about her and her motivations, discussing scenarios and her hypothetical reactions to them... If you've ever heard of the Turing test (in regards to judging computer intelligence), it's definitely something I believe in. It's not substance that matters, but performance, interaction.

Sorry, I could talk about this forever.

-- Mat Rebholz (matrebholz@yahoo.com), July 07, 2001.

That's the so called "Many Worlds" theory, which of course, is a misnomer; its true name should be "Infinite Universes" theory. It's a fairy tale, and a plot device for Sci-Fi writers. There are a surprising number of supporters for the many worlds thoery, despite the fact that the very concept destroys the Scientific Method, and thus science itself. There's a couple other points too, but I won't get into them.

I myself somehow doubt there is a universe almost exactly like ours, but in that universe, every single coin that has ever been flipped has landed on it's edge, and never on either of its' sides. Doesn't sound very real to me, but according to that theory, there MUST be such a universe. In fact, there must be a near infinite number of them.

-- Starscream (sstarscream@chaosknight.com), July 07, 2001.

Or you could believe that you are free to make choices and where you end up is your "fate." However, I'm a big believer in existentialism also, nothing is pre-defined. You have to make you own rules and create your own culture. Starscream: I think what your hitting upon is called the "superstring" theory.

-- Jack (eashtonusa@netscape.net), July 07, 2001.

No need to be sorry Mat. Most people I meet won't discuss these things at all. It scares them and makes them feel small and helpless. "Let's talk about banalities or everyday stuff", they say to me. Infinite realities? I never said I believed in these things but there are other things which seem pretty odd. I have a book about cosmology where scientists discuss our Universe. Before Big Bang there was a spot with infinite energy and mass, like an atom with infinite density. It materialized from nowhere and from nothing. How can something materialize from nothing? I heard scientists newest discovery about our Universe is that is in fact a NOTHING. That makes sense. Nothing came from nothing. ("You came from nothing and ended up like nothing, what do you have in between?, nothing! always look at the bright side of life" from Life of Brian) There's also still place for a God of some sort. Einstein said:"the more I study the ingenuity of our Universe the more convinced I become there's actually a creator". The Big Bang theory was actually "invented" by a Belgian priest(yes, a priest!) called Lemaitre. He was awarded by the Vatican ironically. Lemaitre thought that his belief in God and his belief in science were two ways of finding the truth. There's Thomas of Aquino, but his theories are almost useless today. I always found Dostojevskijs idea of religion interesting. No God, no rules. What a terrible world! Nietzsche said:"God is dead ergo we make up our own rules". But Nietzsche spent a lot of time in funny-farms (mental hospitals Ok?) why believe a crazy man? Or was he? Bertrand Russel said:"The greatest fault of our world is that dumb people are certain they are correct and the smart ones are full of doubt". I loved that.

Starscream? Wasn't that a character in Transformers? I was a kid back then and have vague memories.

Yes it's funny. We talk about Aeon as if she was real. I guess I've always thought our world needed a Aeon. Thanks to Denise who made her so real.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 07, 2001.

Yes, Starscream was a transformer. But, if "many worlds" were true, Starscream would be a real, evil, decepticon robot, bent on world domination. Crazy/Stupid you say? Not at all. Because it is not impossible (impossible meaning: logically self-inconsistent, ie: round triangles.), it had to happen. Now, is it impossible for an artificially intelligent robot, that can transform into a jet fighter, to have a personality similar to that of Starscream, and bear his name? Certainly it is very unlikely, but since it is possible to do all that (well, transforming and artificial intelligence, I really don't know, I guess with the right advances in technology, it is possible) according to Many Worlds, it HAS happened. In various forms. Same with Ms. Flux. Is it somehow logicaly inconsistent for their to be a woman who looks like Aeon Flux (as much as humanly possible), who is a mercenary in futuristic world, who has an archenemy named Trevor, and has a whole bunch more elements from the show in there? No, not impossible, just very, very, very unlikely. Yet according to Many Worlds logic, this has happened. Somehow, I just don't buy it.

"Unicron, if you want the connection made, you better give me a new body now!"

"YOU SHALL HAVE IT!"

- Starscream's resurrection, "Ghost in the machine"

-- Starscream (sstarscream@chaosknight.com), July 07, 2001.

I had no idea that Nietzsche had been institutionalized. What is the source of this information? He could have simply been a political prisoner like Macavelli was. It should be noted however that Nietzsche was not the founder of existentialism, it was a danish philosopher whose name escapes me at the moment.

-- Jack (eashtonusa@netscape.net), July 09, 2001.

I remember seing a picture in a mag where Nietzsche was sitting by a bed and looking terribly ill. Beside him was an old-looking nurse. He died of his mental illness apparently. Ever heard of Rational Youth? Probably not, because they are pretty unknown even in Canada, where they come from. They are a band with political and philosophical ideas as basis for their songs. In one of them they sing about Nietzsche and it goes:" Mr. Nietzsche had a mind, he used it every day. But at night he had an ache that wouldn't go away(rime!). It itched so, he scratched it, he scratched it 'til it bled. First it drove him raving mad and then it killed him dead!(rime!) He (Nietzsche) was also a very lonely man after "breaking up" with his former friend Wagner, the composer(Hitler's favourite). Nietzsche believed Wagner was drifting towards romantic ideas. Hey, I know Nietzsche didn't invent existentialism, he believed in the "super- human". It wasn't a Dane who invented existentialism, it was a Norwegan by the name Soren Kirkegaard(1813-1855). Kirkegaard was inspired by the Bible in a way, believe it or not. Kirkegaard was the first existentialist and inspired Sartre and Camus. Though the latter two didn't believe in a God whereas Kirkegaard did. Back to the band. Rational Youth predated Sonic Youth and therefore they didn't "steal" the name. In the same song as they sing about Nietzsche they also mention Leon Trotsky(an enemy and rival to Josef Stalin). It's pretty funny:"Leon Trotsky could have been the ruler of the roost, the hero of the working class, the wellspring of truth. A holiday in Mexico, a window wasn't closed. A killer walked right in and stuck an icepick up his nose!(yes, a rime!). This is a historical FACT! Trotsky was killed in Mexico with an icepick! Hell, that wouldn't look too bad in Aeon Flux(and looked "fine" in Basic Instinct). Sorry, I'm drifting myself but I couldn't resist.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

if there are an infiniate variety of possible universes then in one of those universes that notion is false.

philosophy is fun to play with, but, fundamentally all philosophy boils down to the nature of truth, which is why it fails at almost every turn.

-- selfishgiant (selfishgiant@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

Interesting. I suppose I'll have to find a biography on him or something since my knowledge is limited to the basics. I could have sworn the founder of existentialism was danish...I'll have to re-aquaint myself with this subject I suppose. Thanks for the information.

"Tell me what the truth is...I will not believe you." Trever said it best. The truth is so subjective. Different people have different truths.

-- Jack (eashtonusa@netscape.net), July 09, 2001.

Yes, Jack. I was wrong. Kirkegaard was danish and not norwegan. Only to me Kirkegaard sounds norwegan. Danes have usually surnames which end with -sen. About the truth. What about being driven by logic? I always found Spock the only interesting character in Star Trek because of his belief in logic as the only truth. I'm not a Trekker and never really liked Star Trek but I always wondered if we could be more like Vulcans? Would that be possible? Scientists recently declared that love actually makes us more dumb and irrational. When we are in love or have a crush on someone we are blind to the flaws our loved ones might have. This would most certainly explain why so many "smart" girls are attracted to ASSHOLES, for some reason. They hook up with their losers only to come to their senses after 10 years or more. Actually men are no better. Whatever. I also know emotional people make lousy racecar-drivers or fighter pilots. Keeping ones cool is highly important almost everywhere. So should we shed our animal behaviour and show that we are humans not apes? Or are we "cursed" by nature? Natural selection chose Aeon Flux for extinction? Evolution? Tell you what Darwin, sometimes I wonder if your ideas are correct. It's better to believe in de-evolution or devolution (DEVO).

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 10, 2001.

I thought so...

Well you could honestly believe in something based on emotion. I think alot of peoples politics are WAY to based on emotion and not enough on logic. For instance I see many things to be wrong like drug use but know logically we are all better off ending the war on drugs (aside from the point that it is immoral in of itself to impose my morals on people) Spock was the only interesting character.

Why smart women often are attracted to morons is something that will baffle people like you and me forever I suspect. I've always thought that maybe that way they have much lower standards to live up too. Personally I'd rather be challenged which this board is great for.

-- Jack (eashtonusa@netscape.net), July 10, 2001.

many scholars believe reasoning and deduction depend on universal principles and our brains excercise these principles infallibly. so that an invalid deduction is really only a valid deduction based on an invalid premise. it seems to be a reasonable idea, but i think far too much of the underlying structure of neurological computation has yet to be uncovered before we can say that brains obey universal principles.

-- selfishgiant (selfishgiant@hotmail.com), July 10, 2001.

I apologise in advance because Ive only read about half of this whole thread because I was started to get too depressed by it. for starters, I dont doubt that the love of vinge's life was a bit hacked off at feeling like her intelligence was being assaulted. theres a difference between asking questions to hear ansers and asking questions simply to validate our own beliefs. acceptance of truths and intellectual posturing are also, or at least should be, mutually exclusive things. start simple. truth is simple. work your way up to the biggies once youve got a grip of the fundamentals. Fate, choices, Oh My God. there exist an entire wealth of humanistic turn of phrases that are imprinted on our vocabular psyche by years of social numbing. numbing to original meaning and intent, so words and phrases change currency and their calue is altered. how many of you know specifically where 'fuck' comes from? apparently it was a legal acronym for illegal carnal knowledge. bearing that in mind, it doesnt really make sense to postulate the religious beliefs of an anarchic humanist rebel when she exclaims 'oh my god' in a repulsive situation. shock does it. you laugh or you cry. doesnt mean you either find it funny or sad, but your mind and body need to react. Im also really irked by the whole Fate V. Choice debate going on. is there any room for all possibles in our fathomless universe do you think? That maybe, with infinite possibilities there are infinite answers. right and wrong belong to subjectivity.

and Im spent.

-- SteveSpicer (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

and how many times can a person discount themselves as a 'trekker' (which is the exclusive fan name known almost exlusively AMONGST trekkers as opposed to the popularly held 'trekkie') whilst wishing we could all be more like Vulcans???

"inconsistent with logic"

If I ever said that in reply to any question I put to my girlfriend Id get a slap in the face. And deserve it.

-- SteveSpicer (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

so love makes you blind? blind to what, simply to flaws? does the same reasoning then apply so that we are blind also to to virtues? does love, in your view of the world, therefore consist of nothing greater than an irrational response to another person which causes you to project everything that you hold to be worthy and ideal onto that persons persona? comes off a little unhappy doesnt it. so you want us to hold ourselves up as humans against apes? is it not a greater thing to love and accept a person with their faults AND their virtues in the knowledge that in accepting that person in love they will also accept you along with eveything which makes you good and bad. apparently the reason a lot of intelligent and sensitive women go for arseholes is in the hope that they can improve them and redeem their personality's and make them a whole man again. conversely, the reson a lot of intelligent and sensitive men like sluts is because theyre ruled by their dicks. race car drivers and fighter pilots hey? men who serve no greater purpose to mankind than driving around and around very fast and getting nowhere. if emotion is overrated then logic is a bad excuse.

-- SteveSpicer (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

I don't think we were trying to say that love is invalid. We were just discussing things from a existential point of view (things we can't see don't exist, there is no conscience or god, ect...)

I believe Fuck stands for "For Under Consent of the King." Back in the old days you had to get premission from the king before getting married and having sex or something along those lines.

Thanks for the tips Barb. Its a rarity that us guys get any insight into the female playbook!

-- Jack (eashtonusa@netscape.net), July 11, 2001.

nope, the uck in fuck is for unlawful carnal knowledge. I know medieval english was a bit screwy but 'for under consent of the king' just doesnt even SOUND right if you think about it for a second. existentially I can accept that principles of love and mutuality become superfluous to existence. however, arguing the nature of love as a weakness causing the afflicted to become blind to reason is more of a machiavellian sentiment. besides which, the way in which these points were being made sounded more like the wounded philosophical musings of once bitten twice shy young men.

-- stevespicer (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

Man, I really must have pissed you off. Sorry. Wow, so my ideas,which I said were just theories, were that twisted? Well, I guess I'm evil. By the way, my former love, was a girl with little belief in her own abilities and I found out she had spent some quality time with psychiatrists. I'f I ruined your day by having such weird ideas then how would you react to criminals and people who do true evil? By the way. I apologized every single time for everything that might seem extreme. I never said I believed in those things. You have obviously figured everything out. I envy you. Still, thanks for reading. I repeat. There are millions of ideas and even geniuses argue openly. The only thing I tried to do with "my love" was open her mind to alternative ways and try to help her. But she got it all wrong. By the way she said I was the best listener she had ever encountered. So do you actually care for mankind? I doubt it. Still it's possible. By the way, why waste time on someone as wicked and evil and irrational as myself? You're trying to save my soul? Thanks. Then you should attack every single person on this forum who thinks wrong or is showing irrational behaviour.

Question? Do we say Holy Zeus or Jupiter?A: No, because they are not Gods of our time. Would you then expect someone in the future where religion has been extinct for hundreds of years to say "MY GOD?". Actually I was lying. That never pissed me off that much. Maybe I explained badly and therefore I got myself to blame. OK.

Not everyone has what it takes to be a racecar-driver. I was just saying that they(and that was simply an example) were better off without feelings or whatever you might call it. Besides does any sport make the world a better place? You're wrong by the way. RACING IMPROVES THE BREED. Thanks to endurance-racing we have cleaner and more fuel-efficient engines. Several safety devices were developed from the racing scene. And! Thanks to racing our cars improved and in the end the consumers benefited. Besides Formula 1 drivers have the highest IQ of all sportsmen and that's a FACT. Attack the weapon- crazy crew instead.

Still, thanks and I mean it. You have your ideas and I respect them. I'm only human and so are you. Right?

Chill out. There are worse things in our sad world than me. Yes, a lot worse.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

thats just what I was saying, social displacement of vocabular meaning. we dont say zeus because we are the by-product of christian civilisation. who's calling you evil anyhow? and if racing car drivers arent emotional why do they do it? how unemotional does a winning race car driver look?

-- (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

I wasnt attacking race car drivers AS OPPOSED to 'the gun crazy crew' I was uncertain as to how good an example of perfect humanity, in your approximation of the word, they could in fact be.

-- (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

Yes, that's why they let all their feelings out after being forced to supress them throughout the entire race. Some say it's kind of strange to spray champagne but I guess it's their way of letting out the steam. Drivers who think of other things during the race loose concentration and do mistakes.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

so as the pin-ups for logic leading the way racing car drivers arent exactly the best choice, given that they necesarily have to supress theor NATURAL urges through enforced CONDITIONIING. and what do you think Dr Freud would think of the liberal spray of white foamy liquid at the confirmation as the biggest dick on the track?

-- SteveSpicer (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

You're right. That has been discussed among racing-people. It was said pretty much the way you put it. Still, racecar-drivers don't get the admiration they deserve. People in general think it's a piece of cake compared to any other sport, while it looks so easy.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

but who does get what they truly deserve?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

Well, everybody. Aeon Flux didn't deserve to be produced anymore so it was cancelled from MTV. Everybody get what they deserve. Don't tell me you think you don't get what you deserve. If not, then what do you deserve?

Or. It's exactly as you said: Who gets what they deserve?

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

seems like your rambling self-reverential diatribes have dwindled to a trickling of hesitant half-remarks. dont you perform well under pressure?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

Huh? (I give up)

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

you mean after your powerfully thought out postulations on the nature of the human condition, existential ideology, mental weakness and divine displacment, you cant sustain a discussion to validate or disprove any of the issues youve so delicately raised?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

Believe in whatever you want to believe in, why should I go on? Why do you like AF? Never mind my thoughts or ideas. Forget it. Why do you find AF interesting? That's what interests me.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

now, you must be able to appreciate the incongruity of your dismissive statement about not caring what you think when youve put so much effort already into extolling the depths of how much you think of yourself. given all your literate prowess, your topmost question, to me, is 'why do you like af?' its a bit weak really.

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

Why do you like AF? What's your opinion on those who said it was junk? That's what I want to read.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

I know thats what you want to read because your whole standpoint on everything youve discussed is based squarely on the shoulders of people with teir OWN strong personal standpoint. I seem to be the only person to seriously question your intent and thinking and now youre desperate to know what I think so as to incorporate it into your library of 'interesting things to say'. start another thread if youre so curious, but by your hand this thread is for the discussion of Aeons potential religious leanings.

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

Who measures deservability ? If we all measured it for ourselves then we'd all award ourselves with what we truly desire ( deserving equates to desiring ) ; unconditional love ( like a child for a mother ) , respect from our fellows, the ability to be heard without condemnation are just a couple of examples that come to mind. And the reason we don't get what we ' think ' we deserve ? We are all FALLIBLE in our psyche, although there are those who believe they are infallible, when in fact they are the most fallible due to conditioning - like a racing car driver conditioned to drive at high speed, always through repetition, improving reflex actions ( even low IQ people are capable of this ), but, take a racing car driver and put them in a rally car ? The answer ? FALLABILITY. What an extrrememy boring and quite unproductive world we would be part of if we were all infallible ! Not getting what you think, or feel, you deserve drives you forward, gives an aim, creates desire, challenges your very being, and makes you feel good if you achieve it off your own back.... and in answer to an earlier comment about psychiatrists - it is good to listen, however, only listening helps the talker degenerate as repetition encourages the beliefs they hold, whereas psychiatrists are trained to prompt and subtely guide and therefore regenerate negativity into constructive mental attitudes.

-- Lorna Gevaux (lorna.g2@ukonline.co.uk), July 11, 2001.

Tell you what. Others have drifted into discussions that had nothing to do with AF but I won't mention those. By the way, you're wrong. If you said what your opinions were about the show I wouldn't say those on this forum or anywhere else. And. I do believe others( as in people in general) frequently quote politicians, scientists and other "great men and women of our history". Surely they also have their own ideas, but how did they acquire those? They just materialized out of nowhere, that's it.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

"by the way, youre wrong" LMAO about what??

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

and there you go again. you do believe others, that is of COURSE to say people in general, quote politicians. we're not talking 'others' we're talking you and what you believe given what that big brain of yours has come to after digesting all of those quasi-philosophical rock albums, race car magazines, mental girlfriends and skim-reads through the library. whats your native language anyhow? you write english with a foreign bent to it.

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 11, 2001.

Steve, I resent your implication that I'm some angst filled kid lashing out over a personal lose. In fact I'm just a intellectually curious person who enjoys discussing issues like this that probably don't have a answer. Vercingetorix is entitled to his opinion just as you are to challange it but the way you get so personal about this leads me to believe that if anything your the one who has a personal issue here.

This forum is NOT about the unification of ideas and thankfully never will be. Like Vercingetorix said, great minds of the world debate these issues and it's nothing to get upset about.

-- Jack (eashtonusa@netscape.net), July 11, 2001.

No, you're right. For your information I'll promise I'll only ask for info in the future and nothing else. Then we'll all be happy.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

Oh ! I do beg your apologies........ however i was just generalising on the most recent topics that had been posted. May I point out that indeed it seems that you were the one who digressed from the initial topic with some quite inane ramblings of no true path. And, I, have only tried to guide you towards some answers which you seem incapable of providing for yourself.

-- Lorna Gevaux (lorna.g2@ukonline.co.uk), July 11, 2001.

Im not saying theres anything wrong in your intent to fuel thought but when you seem incapable of sustaining it through conversation it naturally deflates the authority of the concepts youve raised. you sound petty and confused. I though you wanted to discuss the nature of existentialism in a post modern, post war, post girlfriend state of awareness. if your only recourse is sulking then perhaps you aught to get more sleep and try finishing all those books youve started

-- steve (steppenwolf@brathe.com), July 11, 2001.

In it for the info, OK???? No more speculations. You'll love it! You have my word.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

I promise I won't speculate any more I'm in it for the info, OK?

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

I love this forum because of the people who come here. They are really something. Some are interesting, some are interesting in quite a different way. I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN SOONER OR LATER. IT WAS EXPECTED. I'm NOT surprised at all.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

We are all altruists here, yes indeed we are. I love that.

-- Vercingetorix (danijel_peek_a_boo242@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

I'm not.

-- ChaosKnight (chaosknight@charter.net), July 12, 2001.

Me neither.

-- Steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

I was very clearly attempting to debate the great ideas, but it looked like no one had a mind to try.

-- Steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

I'd be willing to debate "the big issues" with you Steve. A particular point ringing in my head right now is one of Jack's comments/explanations about 20 or so posts back on this thread that was included the thought that most people subscribe to the "what we can't see doesn't exist" philosophy. I'm interested in knowing just how many of us believe that. I don't.

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

Oh, and also the whole truth=logic/truth vs. logic debate. Either would be interesting to get into (at least they "could" be if everyone would not see differing opinions or arguments of contrary points as personal attacks) After all, how many times do you really get an opportunity to really pontificate on such manners with such a large/global community of high-minded individuals?

(getting down from the soap-box now, thank you) :)

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

I think the way to begin addressing the 'what we cant see doesnt exist' issue is to first know where you stand on the whole zen issue of 'if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to listen, does it make a sound'. theres a quote, in fact, from Aeon Flux which is very similar; 'light, in the absence of eyes, illuminates nothing'. the line being spoken of course by Trevor who is the figurehead of totalitarianism and self-reverential preachiness. its a clear distinction between the nature of trevor and aeon that trvor is the most quotable because he talks so much. Aeon 'reacts' and 'does' whereas trevor spends the greater time musing. one of the central conceits of the belief that the things we cannot see do not exist is the totality of self importance. does a friend, when they leave a room, cease to exist because we no longer see them?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

would it be fair to say that logic can be defined as that which is true by course of all reasoining?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

and then is Truth, in the universal sense, mean that which is inescapably correct?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

Let's see, as far as "light in the absence of eyes..." I'd have to say I disagree with Trevor. I'd argue that statement doesn't address the issue of eyes that are blind, or closed, or just plain don't want to see. I'd say that light illuminates what we choose to let it. It seems like not a lot of people realize just how much control we have over the amount of light we allow into our lives (now of course I could go on and on here about the strong corrolation between light and knowledge/understanding, but I won't just yet). We build buildings that besides blocking out harmful or inconvenient weather and environmental factors, they also block out light. We even block our windows with curtains and blinds. I think on a subconsious level, we realize that light illuminates wholly (which means that I believe if a tree falls in a forest and no one's around to hear it, it DOES make a sound), and we guard ourselves against just how much we are "seen" by others.

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

so is the argument for existentialsim, the exclusion of all the matters except that we exist and that is all, an effort to shield ones mind from overwhelming truth and or knowledge? contentment at the expense of experience?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

No, my argument is that we exist because of the things around us whether we choose to acknowledge their significance or not. The whole "a butterfly flaps its wings in Africa and starts a chain reaction that causes a rainstorm in Wyoming" thing. Whether or not I saw that butterfly doesn't matter, what does is that the pollen was kicked up of a leaf and it made a tiger sneeze, which caused a monkey to get scared and jump out of it's tree, which broke the tree limb, which fell into a fire, which billowed chunks of smoke into the air, stirring the molecules in the stratosphere, which shifted the rainstorm to Wyoming instead of Utah. The things in Africa would have happened with or without me there. But I'm still affected by it if I live in Wyoming? So I can't deny that I am intrinsicly linked to the world both in ways I can tangibly appreciate and those that I can't.

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

so instead of reading the quote as a criticism of the purposeless of illumination that cannot be seen, can it alternately be read as a criticism of the choice not to look? the dangers of a closed mind?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

so what you are saying is that we are intrinsically defined by countless extraneous forces that it would be impossible, if not exhausting, to account for? do you percieve life and existence as an ordered chaos then?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

Yes I do think that the illumination statement warns against the dangers of a closed mind... However, I think it shows a lot of depth of AF by having Trevor be the one that says that. (Although in all actuality, I have trouble seeing Aeon as the ultimate owner of that phrase)

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

do you not think that it is entirely in keeping with Trevors character to come to that conclusion, believing himself to be the light and Aeon to be the eye thats not looking where he believes he burns brightest? how many times does he teel Aeon that she does not see, that she WILL not see...

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

I think it's the other way around. That Aeon's eyes are completely open whereas Trevors view is focused and narrow. Aeon doesn't do things in the name of making the world a better place like Trevor does, she does it to improve her own situation one way or another. Aeon seems to realize her place in the grand scheme of things better than Trevor does. I think when he says "she doesn't see" what it is in actuality is that Aeon sees that and more, she sees beyond the singular

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

Amthough, yes I do see how it does make sense that Trevor sees himself that way. However, I believe the reality is what I described above.

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

oh yeah absoultely! I wasnt saying that trevor is right, but its how he sees himself. I totally agree with you, Aeon is adamant about the right to choose whereas trevors vanity compels him to choose for other people.

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

Wow - I'm so glad we're in agreement. Now, as for the truth vs. logic thing - I'm not sure what to say. Plato argued the "forms" or the idea that there is something that is the embodiment of all a certain thing can be and all other things are just examples of that trait, without ever being that trait. For instance, by Plato's reasoning, there is this highest form of beautiful - "the" beautiful. And while a rose, or a rainbow, or a woman may all exhibit varying degrees of beauty they are not "the" beautiful. Plato argues the same about everything justice, happiness, and yes, truth. And for me, I think that to look at truth in that manner, that "the" truth is something beyond our logic, because our logic is limited as is our understanding, so how could we know "the" truth. Now, is it possible that "the" logic and "the" truth may coincide on some points, I think maybe they do. But then again I'm not even sure that there is such a thing as "the" logic since it's so specualtive.

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

--- The whole "a butterfly flaps its wings in Africa and starts a chain reaction that causes a rainstorm in Wyoming" thing. ---

That's Chaos Theory.

-- Starscream (sstarscream@chaosknight.com), July 12, 2001.

if absolute "truth" is something which exists beyond the reaches of human understanding then I think it negates itself from discussion. how do we discuss that which we do not have the faculties to comprehend? alternatively then, how does truth exist within the realm of human understanding? in the same way that an ant must relate to the size of a tree stump in a very different way than a human will, how do we come to terms with that which we have named and given meaning so that it does not escape comprehension?

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

cheers starscream. y'know, youve mellowed out a lot since you chucked megatron out the airlock in transformers the movie...

-- steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 12, 2001.

Well, any time in the series when you saw me screw up when I was the leader, that's because my nerves were still on edge from having to deal with Megatron's stupidity. I mean, I take the rap for reviving the autobots and ruining the plan to steal Earth's energy in the 3- part mini-series. But of course, who's brilliant idea was it to leave the autobots intact in front of an activated repair system, where another volcanic eruption could have knocked them into the beam and restored them? Hey, you notice he's "Mighty Megatron" not "Clever Megatron" or any nickname that implies intelligence.

Okay, I'll knock that off. I shouldn't pretend to be a cartoon character. Anyway, if anyone here has the right to pretend he's Starscream, it's not me anyway, it's ChaosKnight. His Starscream imitation is a spot-on match (except for the sound processing effect they added in post production) and he can do Cobra Commander's voice so well, it will turn your spine to glass.

-- Starscream (sstarscream@chaosknight.com), July 12, 2001.

Good insight on truth steve, I think you're probably right that absolute truth negates itself from discussion. Truth as we know it, or try to understand it is sooooo limited. I mean look at things we all held certain as truth until something better came along - i.e the world was flat. Who's to say that things we hold as true now won't be uncovered as fallacies later on?

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

so then is human truth a pragmatic concept? it changes and develops as we develop our individual understandings?

-- Steve (steppenwolf@breathe.com), July 14, 2001.

I believe so. But even at the same time that I say i "believe" something, I make a mental note that my belief doesn't translate to any sort of absolute. Did you know that they used to not let women run marathons because "the truth" was it would make them sterile or insane? Funny how time changes truth.

-- pixi (pixiness@yahoo.com), July 16, 2001.

I think when people say Oh My God!, they something is so nasty the it even offends god. I don't think it has to do with how smart u are. I am a christian and I say Oh My God and Jesus Mary and Joseph. I just think by saying their name in vein may be a sin, but I am not hurting anyone.

-- Aeon Flux (aeonflux2001@hotmail.com), August 23, 2001.

here is something about apes

انسانية حيثية

-- Your Full Name (YourEmailAddress@greenspun.com), April 15, 2003.