Though SLX doesn't seem to be suggesting that things begin with difference, but indifference, which is a disposition... a neutral disposition. I'll have to think about that more.

How does it develop from radical alterity? In what form precisely?

I repeatly suggested the need for a standard ("with respect to" doesn't sound too different from that), and of course everything can't be reduced to a single unity. One can't judge dogs with a cat standard. There still must be a common strain running through them, developmental or otherwise, which isn't given in experience, beyond the intuit that they're similar.

We can of course consciously, deliberately construct categories, but we'll just be trying to formalize our intuition, rather than actually describing a literal ubiquitous feature.

Normativity, though you may think solves the problem because it is "performed" or something doesn't. Because in order to judge something normative, there must be a standard to which they both can be measured. So, doing anything, or not doing anything is equally normative -- and it isn't like rocks are all toeing lines.

See, you don't like that idea either, so you try to smuggle universality back in.

We're all completely alone babbling at each other then... I do often fear that is the case, but I hope not!

That's clearly not true. Identity is constituted by the difference between categories, and proper names, the difference between universal, and not individual things.

No, incommensurable means that there's no standard, or measurement that applies to both things in question.

If it is wholly a "product of language", and doesn't actually relate to any objective features of the world (besides language itself) then it remains incommensurable, and the implication is that it's arbitrary, without non-circular, non-self-referential standard, or comparison.

Then there's infinitely many incommensurable ones -- or maybe a finite amount, but that means a different unique, completely unrelated identity for every single difference that exists.

I dunno, I think that I lean towards some neutral zone. Literally, as if we pry the two apart, and sit in the gap in the middle.

Not an explanation of course, just an image.

If that article is to be believed, then everyone is missing the point by offering physical and mathematical solutions. I brought it up earlier so that I could make explicit that I was aware that I was not actually addressing the paradox by indulging in physics talk.

The article suggested that it was a matter of metaphysics, and identity. One is one, two is two, just tautologically. They're crisp and well defined. One cannot derive two from one, and if you could it would always lead to an indeterminate, like zero or infinity.

I prefer to follow social and cultural exceptions. :D

Probably cobbler elves. You know... on vacation from cobbling...

Better scenery.

Maybe that's that concrete vagueness Apo's always on about!

I do actually think that is precisely what it means. When something can't be done in principle, that means that it can't be done at all, not because of any failure to meet any conditions.

Why else would it be the smallest in principle, and why else would it be that it would be inconceivable for a better future technology to measure a smaller scale?

I won't labour it, I'm not that good at physics anyhow, but that's does seem to be the suggestion to me.

But measurable in principle, not just in practice, as it says that this isn't a problem of technology, or measuring ability.

The article (i'm sure you know already, having linked it, but just so you know that I know) suggested that the whole thing wasn't about denying movement in any case, but criticizing a suggested movement from the one to the many. More of a critic of metaphysical reductionism of the universe to concrete multiplicity rather than a single substance, as he believed on account of Parmenides. That aside...

This is what wikipedia says about it: "the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could change that."

And "In some forms of quantum gravity, the Planck length is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it is impossible to determine the difference between two locations less than one Planck length apart." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

So, taken together, and if right (maybe not), then there is a smallest unit, and no movement within that unit can be determined, as the whole deal counts as a single location.

I didn't say this earlier, but I did kind of think that there is a smallest point, and things do actually just teleport kinda, from one point to the next. That's a thing, right?

That article that Michael posted is actually quite helpful.

I enjoyed spending time with her a whole lot. She used to sleep all day and be up all night, so I usually didn't get to see her until like 11 pm. I'd take her out to one of the few shit restaurants that are open that late, and then go back to her place. I very very much enjoyed her company, more than I have anyone's, probably ever. I definitely enjoy talking to women more than men just in general.

I often went days with literally no sleep at all, and continued a physically demanding job, just so that I could spend time with her. She thought that I always stayed up with her because I always wanted sex, which I definitely wasn't going to turn down, but that isn't why. I enjoyed her company more than anyone's, and enjoyed being seen in public with her a lot too.

She wasn't a bad person, I'm just an emotional slut, and expect people to open their inner most selves to me like right away, and act like they're immoral if they don't. It was only a couple of months in... shouldn't have probably expected so much openness so quickly, and could be been more sublt and patient...

I didn't think she was dumb, and I enjoyed her stories. I just felt like I was learning a lot more about her than she was about me. I only would have suspected that she was lying about small excuses and stuff if not for all of the recap of her past. Just in her own stories she lies a whole lot, and even made a point to deride someone that suggested it was wrong to do so, or said things she didn't like because they were being "honest"... She told me precisely how she behaved in lots of different situations, and when she thought that she was right or wrong to do so.

I didn't ignore her at all, I could have trivia'd that shit. I just didn't like the lies.

I tried to convince myself that I was in love... but I knew that I really only liked how hot she was, and was totally ready to settle... no one's perfect...

She was hardly a prize chicken though, she used to be a crack head as a teenager, and then alcoholic after her father died, which had her lose her daughter to her ex-, with her mother's help. She was completely clean besides cigarettes though when I was seeing her. She also didn't know anything... wasn't dumb, but just didn't live a life that was conducive to learning fuck all. Like, thought that "Christian", "catholic", "protestant" and such were all entirely different religions... and told me that her like 5'5 dad used to bench 500 lbs... maybe if he was a three hundred pound dwarf from Middle Earth.

She lied all the time though, and I hate lies, and got sick of it, and told her to stop doing that, and threatened to leave over it. She convinced me not to, and then broke up with me like three days later, lol.

I didn't love her, I definitely was attracted to her, and I really wanted to... but really I just was afraid that I couldn't do better... or maybe not even get another chance at all.

She talked constantly, just telling old stories about the glory days of the past. She originally contacted me, and asked me out. I just showed up, she talked at me for a few hours, and then went home, she said it was all the fun, and wanted to do it again right away. I wasn't really allowed to say much, she'd respond sarcasticly, or accuse me of being antagonistic for offering a different perspective about what she was talking about, and would say something like "I don't see what that has to do with what I'm saying", if I mentioned something else, or attempt to introduce a topic.

I tried to get her back too, and then insulted her a bunch with a nasty character evaluation, and then sarcastically asked if I was winning her back, to which she replied something like "I'm not a prize to be won!" or something moronic, so I decided it was better this way.

As long as it's not her ass right? That would be bad...

I see a big difference between things with brains though. I prefer "intention" or "emotion" as what I'd call fundamental to living things, and not really consciousness. Consciousness is too wrapped up in brain stuff. Plants don't have an internal nexus/singularity to which all things in its being move towards, and orbit. They don't have mirror neurons with which to reflect, and represent things to themselves.

They definitely aren't self-conscious, they lack the... ahem... equipment.

Plants are slow moving, they look a lot more alive sped up.

First using gravity, and then light to balance themselves. A hell of a lot more impressive than that though, is that plants release odors that attract predators of things that prey on them, and release different ones depending on what's attacking them. Implying not simply a stimulus, and reaction, but stimulus, some kind of identification/differentiation/discernment must also be at play, then reaction.

Saw it on The Nature of Things. Thanks David Suzuki!

Nah, nah

Whatshisface explains the cogent underlining wedgejelly underwhich maths number. Number again and again, stop for a moment to flipaboutface and number again.

Ergoinmynose Glob exits.

It's wishy-washy because it no longer is controversial, nor significant. Sometimes we don't realize what worse luck our bad luck saved us from, as they say. Bad things still happen to good people as well. So it becomes insignificant and impotent in this form.

My reply is that evil that cannot be prevented/avoided has divine purpose. Not all evil. Those which we can prevent/avoided should be prevented/avoided. God (if he exists) has empowered us enough to prevent some forms of evil but not all. — TheMadFool

Doesn't change anything. All evil that actually happens is good, and any preventable evil couldn't possibly happen, or it wouldn't be true that evil leads to a greater good, unless it was revised to a wishy-washy sometimes it leads to a greater good. This though, would defeat the best possible world notion, as all evil that actually comes to fruition isn't evil at all. All evil that is preventable, must be prevented.

That's a really bad argument... just for aesthetics. See, if all evil is necessary to achieve a greater good, then all evil itself is actually good. Preventing evil, would itself be a true evil, as you're disrupting the necessary process to lead to something better, and totes worth it.

It's a pretty morbid view, in my view...

Golf and women's volleyball are the only good spectator sports.

Just good ol'Arny

See, cheat and be a selfish sociopath, and you'll succeed in all areas of your life, and experience exactly zero drawbacks. The American dream!

Rick and Morty is the only good thing on TV, and it might still be good this coming season... might...

Not looking forward to any movies either, even though Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel is coming out... that skinny actress they got though... that doesn't even know how to bend her fucking knees... you don't look very intimidating when you're off balance. Wonder Woman is the greatest martial artist in the DC universe (and... and... and... they didn't even give her the kryptonite spear to kill doomsday with... even though she is the only one of them actually trained to use one, and that almost certainly wouldn't be hurt.)

I usually just minimize them when nothing is happening, and then just look at it when it sounds interesting. Hearing is my best sense anyway.

Games are more engaging than movies or tv, I have a hard time paying attention to them, and particularly sitting through a whole movie. Particularly these days... fucking 2-3 hours...