3 ms·

The whole opposites/balance motif is just something humans are really into about right now because we can't yet compare more than two things in our brain at a t

The whole opposites/balance motif is just something humans are really into about right now because we can't yet compare more than two things in our brain at a time. In reality all of these things are orthogonal, and while we do have words to distinguish them, they are only "opposing" in the sense that there is a word specifically meant to distinguish between them. Whatever that word is, it's just an over-simplified symbol in your brain. There is always a solution that includes both "opposites" but is too paradoxical feeling for us to yet see. Overall, these "opposing" concepts are really just different means of reaching the same juicy core of sentience, but nothing less than all at once will get us the entire way.

scotty79 6y ago
Yes. Things are complex and multidimensional. But projections to lower dimensional spaces help us grasp it. Even if they distort the complex thing somewhat. If you see enough projections you can get the idea and some intuition about multidimensional thing. Much more than you could achieve just trying to see it in its full complexity at once.
- seph-reed 6y ago
  Super into this perspective. Unfortunately, I find myself around many people who don't see the modality as a dimension lowering, but instead as the truth. Which is fine, we're still very, very, very primitive. But I've been done with the whole "balance" thing for ~6 years and philosophy gets pretty lonely passed that hurdle. For what it's worth, if anyone is interested, "paradox" has been the thing for me since.
  - GuiA 6y ago
    “When you light a candle, you also cast a shadow.”
  - uoaei 6y ago
    What does the transition from "duality" to "paradox" look like?
    - seph-reed 6y ago
      Just going to wall of text this one. For me, it was neurotic as fuck. I started to question how predictable I was, and whether or not I could prove that the world around we wasn't just a tiny fake spec generated in real time based off predictions of what I would do next. The notion that my entire world could actually be very, very tiny as long as I was predictable enough kind of got to me. I started trying to do things I wouldn't do, and that was sort of a paradox. Eventually I began to use randomization to try to throw off the feeling. Nothing really worked, there's no way to prove that this isn't the tiniest matrix using advanced predictions to generate just a little more than what I sense. Also can't prove it's not a giant amazing universe. What-if-ism means: if it doesn't hurt to believe something, and you're willing to cede it's probably not reality, go for it. I like to believe in the universe as it's normally described. Anyways, I find that the more I think about something, the closer I get to a paradox. What's the point of philosophy? To prove there is no point. What's the meaning of life? To understand there is no meaning. How do I achieve x goal? Stop caring about achieving it. In a few words, rather than things existing as opposites, they exist as a paradox. They really shouldn't exist together. As a WIP tangential thought (take it with a grain of salt, it's just for fun right now): as much as we take it for granted, I think there's something fucked up about a universe with both Cartesian and radial coordinates. Like, they shouldn't be together. And why just those two? Why not more? Why not just one? Seemingly things should be either universally relative, or personally relative, but not both simultaneously. It's like we're trying to survive in a universe with two disparate rule sets that by all accounts shouldn't be able to happen at the same time, and yet they are. It's a fucking paradox.
      - uoaei 6y ago
        Thanks. It sounds like you spent a lot of time in Western philosophy and paradigms of thought. These themes you describe are basically the complete substance of Buddhism's various formulations and indeed most "Eastern" religions. Though you are not using the forms of description employed in the East, you are approaching the same ideas. As a relevant example, consider the yin/yang symbol. It is composed of a duality which at first glance seems mutually exclusive, but what is most interesting about the two is actually where they interact. The paradox is that one cannot exist at the same (space-)time as the other, but each requires the other's existence to fully specify itself in terms of a cohesive concept. The light and dark sides are descriptors of two sides of the same coin. Finding the way to conceptualize that coin, rather than its sides, leads you to paradox that paradoxically makes sense! Just goes to show how "rationality" in the Greco-Roman sense is just one way to conceptualize our understanding, and that there are more ways than that. We understand reality through language primarily built on identifying by what things are and what things are not. But maybe this form of understanding is limiting because it pre-supposes those dualities that make the language work. To your point about coordinate systems -- there's something to be said about the ability to rationalize our sensory experiences into a formal logical system of description. However the paradox is actually that neither of those coordinate systems are "canonical" in the universal (literally and metaphorically) sense. They are first-order approximations to make our methods of reasoning (i.e., math) easier. But they do not reflect reality because, if you take the dominant theories of physics as true, the idea of space with curvature 0 or curvature +1 is a platonic ideal that cannot exist because matter and energy are distributed inhomogenously throughout space and time.
smallnamespace 6y ago
You might find Hegelian dialectics to mirror your train of thought here, if you weren’t already aware of it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ I think where Hegel differs from you though is that the resolution of a contradiction can be something new and different, rather than just being an aspect of the original definitions. Take ‘order’ vs ‘chaos’ - a resolution does not require choice between one and the other, but can consist of asking a novel question like what structure (order) of society best maximizes individual freedom (chaos)?
naravara 6y ago
Magic has terms for that too. Most decks aren’t mono-colored, people blend colors and those decks take a character and personality of their own. A Green/Blue hybrid deck is called “Simic” and does encompass both sides. It refers to a kind of cerebral approach to cultivating nature, like a biologist or a gardener. The faction is comprised of weird genetic engineered organisms. Black/White is called “Orzhov” and blends the desire for order with a willingness to cut throats to achieve your goals. The faction runs a sort of high value loan sharking operation.
- smallnamespace 6y ago
  Interestingly, you can view both Nazism and Soviet Communism through a black/white lens, but they hated one another because the way black and white split were inverted. This means there’s more than one flavor of black-white - you get a pair of flavors for every dimension along which one can resolve the self vs other contradiction. Communism - white ideology (equality for all) led by a deeply black, self-serving Party and leaders that did things like repeatedly imprison, execute, and starve and both their own party members and the general Soviet population. This sounds like your definition of Orzhov. Nazism - black ideology (serve the German nation and the German people above all others) led by a white (at least according to their own beliefs) leadership. The Nazis killed people they considered non-Germans, but they (largely) didn't kill and betray those they considered their own. The color inversion drove conflict between these neighbors, but both movements were black-white at the core. One illustrative example: Hitler delayed transitioning Germany to a full wartime economy, aiming to spare the population the rigors of a full mobilization. By contrast, early in the war Stalin ordered waves of green conscripts, some without rifles, in mass attacks at the front, with NKVD units right behind tasked with shooting deserters.
  - naravara 6y ago
    I think it's hard to encompass massive ideologies into something like this without seeming reductive. Communism might have rules and be ruthless, but it's also a utopian ideology that motivated heavily by a desire for "freedom" in its anarchist framing. It's just that this state of freedom is deferred (basically indefinitely). There is also a huge element of technocratic management in socialist economics. I would actually categorize it as a Blue/Red ideology with splashes of Black once the tankies show up. These are Grixis colors, but Grixis in magic is predominantly Black with a bit of Blue and Red, while Communists would be predominantly Blue/Red with a splash of Black. Nazism is must more White rather than Blue. It's a preference for order, hierarchy, and purity, which are all classically White. It's also violent and ruthless, which is classically Black. There is also some Green in there because of the emphasis on a belief in primordial racial groups having a "natural" hierarchy. Their idea of nature is completely at odds with how nature actually works, but they think that's how it works. They're pretty close to Abzan (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Abzan_Houses https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Abzan_Houses) with the general militarism, the xenophobia, and the obsessive focus on lineage.

scotty79 6y ago

Yes. Things are complex and multidimensional. But projections to lower dimensional spaces help us grasp it. Even if they distort the complex thing somewhat. If you see enough projections you can get the idea and some intuition about multidimensional thing. Much more than you could achieve just trying to see it in its full complexity at once.

seph-reed 6y ago
Super into this perspective. Unfortunately, I find myself around many people who don't see the modality as a dimension lowering, but instead as the truth. Which is fine, we're still very, very, very primitive. But I've been done with the whole "balance" thing for ~6 years and philosophy gets pretty lonely passed that hurdle. For what it's worth, if anyone is interested, "paradox" has been the thing for me since.
- GuiA 6y ago
  “When you light a candle, you also cast a shadow.”
- uoaei 6y ago
  What does the transition from "duality" to "paradox" look like?
  - seph-reed 6y ago
    Just going to wall of text this one. For me, it was neurotic as fuck. I started to question how predictable I was, and whether or not I could prove that the world around we wasn't just a tiny fake spec generated in real time based off predictions of what I would do next. The notion that my entire world could actually be very, very tiny as long as I was predictable enough kind of got to me. I started trying to do things I wouldn't do, and that was sort of a paradox. Eventually I began to use randomization to try to throw off the feeling. Nothing really worked, there's no way to prove that this isn't the tiniest matrix using advanced predictions to generate just a little more than what I sense. Also can't prove it's not a giant amazing universe. What-if-ism means: if it doesn't hurt to believe something, and you're willing to cede it's probably not reality, go for it. I like to believe in the universe as it's normally described. Anyways, I find that the more I think about something, the closer I get to a paradox. What's the point of philosophy? To prove there is no point. What's the meaning of life? To understand there is no meaning. How do I achieve x goal? Stop caring about achieving it. In a few words, rather than things existing as opposites, they exist as a paradox. They really shouldn't exist together. As a WIP tangential thought (take it with a grain of salt, it's just for fun right now): as much as we take it for granted, I think there's something fucked up about a universe with both Cartesian and radial coordinates. Like, they shouldn't be together. And why just those two? Why not more? Why not just one? Seemingly things should be either universally relative, or personally relative, but not both simultaneously. It's like we're trying to survive in a universe with two disparate rule sets that by all accounts shouldn't be able to happen at the same time, and yet they are. It's a fucking paradox.
    - uoaei 6y ago
      Thanks. It sounds like you spent a lot of time in Western philosophy and paradigms of thought. These themes you describe are basically the complete substance of Buddhism's various formulations and indeed most "Eastern" religions. Though you are not using the forms of description employed in the East, you are approaching the same ideas. As a relevant example, consider the yin/yang symbol. It is composed of a duality which at first glance seems mutually exclusive, but what is most interesting about the two is actually where they interact. The paradox is that one cannot exist at the same (space-)time as the other, but each requires the other's existence to fully specify itself in terms of a cohesive concept. The light and dark sides are descriptors of two sides of the same coin. Finding the way to conceptualize that coin, rather than its sides, leads you to paradox that paradoxically makes sense! Just goes to show how "rationality" in the Greco-Roman sense is just one way to conceptualize our understanding, and that there are more ways than that. We understand reality through language primarily built on identifying by what things are and what things are not. But maybe this form of understanding is limiting because it pre-supposes those dualities that make the language work. To your point about coordinate systems -- there's something to be said about the ability to rationalize our sensory experiences into a formal logical system of description. However the paradox is actually that neither of those coordinate systems are "canonical" in the universal (literally and metaphorically) sense. They are first-order approximations to make our methods of reasoning (i.e., math) easier. But they do not reflect reality because, if you take the dominant theories of physics as true, the idea of space with curvature 0 or curvature +1 is a platonic ideal that cannot exist because matter and energy are distributed inhomogenously throughout space and time.

smallnamespace 6y ago

You might find Hegelian dialectics to mirror your train of thought here, if you weren’t already aware of it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ I think where Hegel differs from you though is that the resolution of a contradiction can be something new and different, rather than just being an aspect of the original definitions. Take ‘order’ vs ‘chaos’ - a resolution does not require choice between one and the other, but can consist of asking a novel question like what structure (order) of society best maximizes individual freedom (chaos)?

naravara 6y ago

Magic has terms for that too. Most decks aren’t mono-colored, people blend colors and those decks take a character and personality of their own. A Green/Blue hybrid deck is called “Simic” and does encompass both sides. It refers to a kind of cerebral approach to cultivating nature, like a biologist or a gardener. The faction is comprised of weird genetic engineered organisms. Black/White is called “Orzhov” and blends the desire for order with a willingness to cut throats to achieve your goals. The faction runs a sort of high value loan sharking operation.

smallnamespace 6y ago
Interestingly, you can view both Nazism and Soviet Communism through a black/white lens, but they hated one another because the way black and white split were inverted. This means there’s more than one flavor of black-white - you get a pair of flavors for every dimension along which one can resolve the self vs other contradiction. Communism - white ideology (equality for all) led by a deeply black, self-serving Party and leaders that did things like repeatedly imprison, execute, and starve and both their own party members and the general Soviet population. This sounds like your definition of Orzhov. Nazism - black ideology (serve the German nation and the German people above all others) led by a white (at least according to their own beliefs) leadership. The Nazis killed people they considered non-Germans, but they (largely) didn't kill and betray those they considered their own. The color inversion drove conflict between these neighbors, but both movements were black-white at the core. One illustrative example: Hitler delayed transitioning Germany to a full wartime economy, aiming to spare the population the rigors of a full mobilization. By contrast, early in the war Stalin ordered waves of green conscripts, some without rifles, in mass attacks at the front, with NKVD units right behind tasked with shooting deserters.
- naravara 6y ago
  I think it's hard to encompass massive ideologies into something like this without seeming reductive. Communism might have rules and be ruthless, but it's also a utopian ideology that motivated heavily by a desire for "freedom" in its anarchist framing. It's just that this state of freedom is deferred (basically indefinitely). There is also a huge element of technocratic management in socialist economics. I would actually categorize it as a Blue/Red ideology with splashes of Black once the tankies show up. These are Grixis colors, but Grixis in magic is predominantly Black with a bit of Blue and Red, while Communists would be predominantly Blue/Red with a splash of Black. Nazism is must more White rather than Blue. It's a preference for order, hierarchy, and purity, which are all classically White. It's also violent and ruthless, which is classically Black. There is also some Green in there because of the emphasis on a belief in primordial racial groups having a "natural" hierarchy. Their idea of nature is completely at odds with how nature actually works, but they think that's how it works. They're pretty close to Abzan (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Abzan_Houses https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Abzan_Houses) with the general militarism, the xenophobia, and the obsessive focus on lineage.