4 ms·

You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value. Your

You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value. Your question can't be taken in good faith when that's the ground you plant your feet on. My opinion is that much of what Adams was getting across is that meaning is where and when you find it. Something that means nothing to others can mean the world to you, and vice versa. Other's in this conversation have said much the same thing.

FourthProtocol 5y ago
Maybe you're right. Maybe our understanding of "depth and meaning" is not quite the same. Some of us like apples, others oranges. Diversitry makes humanity awesome.
- reginold 5y ago
  Human life could be defined as a search for depth and meaning which truncates at some point.
- cwmoore 5y ago
  If this doesn't clear it up, at least someone tried: Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 42 The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces. Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless," But this is how kings and lords describe themselves. For one gains by losing And loses by gaining. What others teach, I also teach; that is: "A violent man will die a violent death!" This will be the essence of my teaching. (translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English) from: https://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu42.html https://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu42.html
JadeNB 5y ago
> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value. I think, to the extent that it is an argument for that, it is offset by the question "(probably more likely) have I missed something?". That seems to be a clear indication that, since other people here do value it, FourthProtocol thinks it likely that the depth and meaning are there, just that they haven't found them. (I also think that many of us here, me included, have such an emotional attachment to HHGttG that it's easy to be offended by such statements, whereas clearly subjective statements like "Lisp is ugly and hard to read" and "Haskell is obscure and too obsessed with theory for a practical programmer to use" would, while surely provoking argument, probably not garner such an emotional response even from Lisp and Haskell fans.)
kazinator 5y ago
> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value. Rather, it seems that the statement is saying that HHTTG lacks depth and meaning for him. (In the context that people like it anyway, but that doesn't imply they don't value depth and meaning; maybe they just like the humor, too, which he doesn't get that much.)

FourthProtocol 5y ago

Maybe you're right. Maybe our understanding of "depth and meaning" is not quite the same. Some of us like apples, others oranges. Diversitry makes humanity awesome.

reginold 5y ago
Human life could be defined as a search for depth and meaning which truncates at some point.
cwmoore 5y ago
If this doesn't clear it up, at least someone tried: Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 42 The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces. Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless," But this is how kings and lords describe themselves. For one gains by losing And loses by gaining. What others teach, I also teach; that is: "A violent man will die a violent death!" This will be the essence of my teaching. (translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English) from: https://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu42.html https://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu42.html

JadeNB 5y ago

> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value. I think, to the extent that it is an argument for that, it is offset by the question "(probably more likely) have I missed something?". That seems to be a clear indication that, since other people here do value it, FourthProtocol thinks it likely that the depth and meaning are there, just that they haven't found them. (I also think that many of us here, me included, have such an emotional attachment to HHGttG that it's easy to be offended by such statements, whereas clearly subjective statements like "Lisp is ugly and hard to read" and "Haskell is obscure and too obsessed with theory for a practical programmer to use" would, while surely provoking argument, probably not garner such an emotional response even from Lisp and Haskell fans.)

kazinator 5y ago

> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value. Rather, it seems that the statement is saying that HHTTG lacks depth and meaning for him. (In the context that people like it anyway, but that doesn't imply they don't value depth and meaning; maybe they just like the humor, too, which he doesn't get that much.)