3 ms·

Contrarianism?

onesphere 3y ago
When I think, it leads to thought that is not the first, which immediately leads back to the first thought. What prevents the initial thought? What prevents it from becoming what it was not, before? Why did the thought become what it was not? How much thinking do I do for the next thought to lead back to the first? Which of those thoughts are the first thought and which of them are not?
- onesphere 3y ago
  Its what makes an initial thought lead into the same thought. gasp
  - onesphere 3y ago
    Of the one, or that fiery death that never ends To the heart of its description Go through great changing of conciseness It becomes what becomes the lesser, not to much more and not of us. And without whining (or any sad crap) One crappy song, you know is very much like this place Goes the same way and that is: “Thanks to you, and me, it’s super awesome! I’m leaving all the bad times behind.“
    - onesphere 3y ago
      2π inf^(1/2)
      - onesphere 3y ago
        Where the center is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere. Or positronium.
saltcured 3y ago
There is a subtle ambiguity here. What does it mean to "not be dogmatic"? Full contrarianism would be to reject the dogmatic beliefs. "If authority X claims it is true, it must be wrong." You would seek out beliefs that are in opposition to the dogma. But not being dogmatic might just be aiming for immunity to dogma? "Whatever authority X claims is irrelevant." You might try to evaluate ideas on your own and form beliefs that are uncorrelated with the dogma.
- joshuamcginnis 3y ago
  In addition, I'd add that "not being dogmatic" includes the potential of adopting the dogmatic belief. That's because the idea itself was evaluated for more than just the fact that it was dogmatic; though, the associated dogma can still be considered a variable in the evaluation.
  - saltcured 3y ago
    Agreed, I meant that as part of uncorrelation. You don't align with or against the dogma, so your beliefs might overlap in some placed and not others. I forgot to mention a third form of "not being dogmatic" which is closer to my own idiomatic understanding of the phrase. Rather than focusing on your consumption or reaction to prevailing dogma, it is also a useful not to try to be a source of dogma. Don't consider your own beliefs to be "facts" and don't try to become an authority who promotes or evangelizes a new prevailing dogma...

Contrarianism?

When I think, it leads to thought that is not the first, which immediately leads back to the first thought. What prevents the initial thought? What prevents it from becoming what it was not, before? Why did the thought become what it was not? How much thinking do I do for the next thought to lead back to the first? Which of those thoughts are the first thought and which of them are not?

onesphere 3y ago
Its what makes an initial thought lead into the same thought. gasp
- onesphere 3y ago
  Of the one, or that fiery death that never ends To the heart of its description Go through great changing of conciseness It becomes what becomes the lesser, not to much more and not of us. And without whining (or any sad crap) One crappy song, you know is very much like this place Goes the same way and that is: “Thanks to you, and me, it’s super awesome! I’m leaving all the bad times behind.“
  - onesphere 3y ago
    2π inf^(1/2)
    - onesphere 3y ago
      Where the center is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere. Or positronium.

saltcured 3y ago

There is a subtle ambiguity here. What does it mean to "not be dogmatic"? Full contrarianism would be to reject the dogmatic beliefs. "If authority X claims it is true, it must be wrong." You would seek out beliefs that are in opposition to the dogma. But not being dogmatic might just be aiming for immunity to dogma? "Whatever authority X claims is irrelevant." You might try to evaluate ideas on your own and form beliefs that are uncorrelated with the dogma.

joshuamcginnis 3y ago
In addition, I'd add that "not being dogmatic" includes the potential of adopting the dogmatic belief. That's because the idea itself was evaluated for more than just the fact that it was dogmatic; though, the associated dogma can still be considered a variable in the evaluation.
- saltcured 3y ago
  Agreed, I meant that as part of uncorrelation. You don't align with or against the dogma, so your beliefs might overlap in some placed and not others. I forgot to mention a third form of "not being dogmatic" which is closer to my own idiomatic understanding of the phrase. Rather than focusing on your consumption or reaction to prevailing dogma, it is also a useful not to try to be a source of dogma. Don't consider your own beliefs to be "facts" and don't try to become an authority who promotes or evangelizes a new prevailing dogma...