Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Words Everybody Should Understand Which You Won't Find In A Dictionary

because dictionary writers are too fucking retarded to grasp them.

  • polite = obedient to arbitrary social rules supposedly meant to promote niceness (in other words, someone too stupid to be nice on their own initiative)
  • nice = helping others satisfy their desires in the immediate and instantaneous terms (in other words, someone too stupid to think long term)
  • kind = helping others satisfy their desires in the long term (requires empathy)
  • Morality = the rules of internal interaction which further the group's collective well-being (in other words, something cattle believe to be intrinsically good and which they are stupid enough to confuse with goodness itself). Or more simply, anti-Societal Catastrophe.
  • Ethics = the rules of EXTERNAL interaction which further the group's collective well-being (ethics and morality both get more imperative as the targets of the rules get more inclusive. so as the group size grows for morality and as it SHRINKS for ethics)
  • Justice = Morality + Ethics + Necessity + Convention. Or more simply, anti-Catastrophe.
  • Fairness = social equality of opportunity.
  • Honour = obedience to the values you were raised by (in other words, absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics or goodness or even lawfulness)
  • Courage = obedient reckless endangerment of one's own life at the say so of others, a form of passive suicide due to low self-esteem
  • Ferocity = a specific emotion felt when consciously defending something at enormous cost to yourself, because it's worth it
  • Bravery = courage + ferocity, said of doomed people who accept their fates
  • Good = intrinsically valuable.
  • Evil = intrinsically negatively valuable.
  • Right = furthering a good.
  • Wrong = furthering an evil.
  • Lawful = obedient to higher authority. (higher authorities invariably consider lawful = good, and promote this view by praising all forms of obedience. even suicide, see courage. also honour, politeness.)
  • Innocent = not disobedient to higher authority. (not Chaotic in AD&D terms)
  • consideration = immediate, instantaneous empathy
  • projection = persistently assuming that others have one's mental traits
  • reversal = persistently assuming that one has others' mental traits (eg, this will hurt me more than it will hurt you)
  • empathy = comprehension of others' values and emotions (see attunement, sympathy)
  • consciousness (psychological) = comprehension of one's self, physical and mental
  • consciousness (philosophical / phenomenological) = the subjective experience of physical existence. Responsible for suppressing self-fatal actions, NOT for initiating any actions nor decisions nor thoughts.
  • attunement = sharing the emotions, values and thoughts of others
  • commiseration = feeling a negative emotion because another person is feeling a negative emotion
  • 'no such word in English' = feeling a positive emotion because another person is feeling a positive emotion (though compersion comes close)
  • schadenfreude = feeling a positive emotion because another person is feeling a negative emotion
  • sympathy = a specific kind of emotion, a less intense version of pity (in other words, has FUCK ALL to do with empathy, has everything to do with degrading others)
  • pity = the specific emotion you feel when you believe someone is hopelessly incompetent
  • charity = the self-righteous superiority that comes from helping others
  • misery = a specific kind of highly intense negative emotion
  • happiness = a specific kind of weak positive emotion (in other words, NOT a category of emotions anymore than NYC = USA)
  • love = a high value (which idiots believe is an emotion somehow)
  • passion = a still higher value
  • willpower = appreciation of the discrepancy between one's own desires and others' desires; emotional discipline and empowerment feed into willpower but are not willpower
  • extroverted = a person who values attunement
  • introvert = not an extrovert (in other words, the default state!)
  • analytic = possessing the capacity for instantaneous instinctive passive logic (less than half the population, related to Comprehension)
  • synthetic = possessing the capacity for subconscious instinctive passive creativity (the only kind of creativity that matters, less than one tenth of the population, related to Understanding)
  • judgement = analysis + synthesis (less than 5% of the population)
  • free-thinker = a person capable and willing to exercise their own Judgement
  • creative genius = the elite of free-thinkers
  • religious = a form of retardation
  • religion = a form of morality intermediate between universal human rights and tribal morality (the group is intermediate in size between everyone and the tribe)
  • tribalism = the most depraved and degraded form of morality (in other words, held only by the most retarded people)
  • clannish = deMause childrearing mode 4, so retarded as to not even qualify as a form of morality
  • individual morality = a contradiction in terms
  • suppressing = not feeling or acknowledging an emotion consciously (technical details omitted)
  • neurotic = possessing overlearned (knee-jerk) emotional reactions
  • psychotic = believing the hallucinations one experiences are real
  • narcissistic = incapable of empathy
  • psychopathic = incapable of empathy or planning
  • sane = empathetic + rational
  • Fascism = totalitarian authoritarianism (eg, USA Republican, French Front National)
  • Conservatism = social inertia
  • right-Liberalism aka Liberalism = factional democracy
  • Social democracy = groupthink
  • Communism = consensus democracy (with retards)
  • Anarchism = statistically random democracy
  • Environmentalism = human extinction advocates
  • right-libertarian = slavery advocates (usually autistic)
  • ideology = high strength of conviction = delusional thinking about the nature of reality by those too weak-willed to have principles
  • idealism = high principles = fervent beliefs about how things OUGHT to be ... but aren't.
  • vision = high willpower?
  • freethinker = capable of independent Judgement, intellectual analytic-synthetic
  • reasonable = incapable of independent thought or judgement, cattle, part of the hive-mind. Weak in willpower and mind.

  • manipulation = to undermine someone's agency by causing them to unwittingly violate their own values, whether in appearance or in fact. bonus points if they never figure it out.


Vidar Naust said...

Moral = Set of rules of interaction which further good..

Ethics = Collection of all morals

Sympathy = not an emotion, but a sense of identification and support for someones position. (common usage of sympathy is certainly not limited to pity)

Religion: one of these words which content slips any definition

Richard Kulisz said...

Clearly you're an idiot and not a native speaker of English or even that conceptually degraded language American.

Your usage of "sympathy" is commiseration. It's clearly marked.

Your utterly fucking useless "definition" of ethics is beyond absurdity. And factually, PROVABLY wrong.

There is no such thing as "professional morals". There IS such a thing as professional ethics. Conversely, there is no such thing as human ethics. And the retards who think there is such a thing as human ethics refer to human interactions towards animals.

Oh, and nothing is beyond definition you illiterate retard. Utterly meaningless words like "non-deterministic" are characterized by the fact they're content-less. Religion can be easily defined, I just have too much contempt for the phenomenon to spare the 5 seconds necessary to do so.

Finally, if you can't read or comprehend English, get off my blog.

Vidar Naust said...

It's was nice of you to comment even though I clearly am an idiot. My brief remark would be that from now on you should refrain from it. I'll be out of your soup, don't worry.

You're right, everything _can_ be defined. It's just that some concepts are difficult to define properly, seemingly impossible. For me that is an interesting property of language, that some words elude definitions while we still have no problem with the usage of them. It's intuitive and contextual.

Non-deterministic is content-less? Wouldn't that depend on how you define deterministic.

There are two ways to destroy a word.

1) Define it so it room all cases.
2) Define it so that no cases fit i.e content-less.

Feel free to relieve yourself from commenting if this is idiotic bs in your ears.

Richard Kulisz said...

Non-determinism admits to 4 possible definitions, 3 of which imply that many-worlds is the correct picture of the universe and that seen correctly, the universe is deterministic and "non-determinism" is just an expansive kind of determinism. It is quite clear that the advocates of non-determinism (Copenhagenites) do not support any of these. The 4th is 'no meaning at all': non-determinism has the same meaning as 'mu' and 'blub', that is 'none of the above'.

This isn't an accident since probability is never defined in math and physics ... anymore. Not since that evil anti-science asshole Niels Bohr decided to impose his crap religious theory "Copenhagen" because his entire generation was completely incapable of grasping quantum phenomena after observing them.

It took the entire physics community dying of old age twice over to purge the stupidity and discomfort over quantum phenomena, and the desperate attempts to redefine quanta as classical. And in that century, the physics community got up to a lot of crap like carefully avoiding defining 'probability' but pointing to math, while convincing their brethren in math that physics is the proper place to define 'probability' and that their own definition of probability (which supported many-worlds) is wrong and should not be taught. IOW, the religious nutters that supported Copenhagen did not die quietly but actually tried to impose their magical God-driven view of reality on others. As is predictable.

Richard Kulisz said...

Unlike yourself and nearly everyone else, I do not find it difficult to formally and correctly define concepts that have eluded you peons for millenia. Concepts such as life, intelligence and fun, which you will never find a meaningful definition of anywhere, I have successfully defined and published here. The reason why is simple, I'm a natural philosopher AND I'm not cognitively deficient like everyone who's attracted by philosophy.

Going further, the "interesting" property of words in language you've observed is trivial. It's just the separation of synthesis (responsible for the creation of concepts) and analysis (responsible for thinking about concepts). In order to create definitions of concepts, you need to be able to synthesize sub-concepts while simultaneously thinking about whether the whole new structure has the same meaning as the overall concept. In other words, you need to be creative AND logical. Concepts of course are just scatterplots in data-space. Definitions are arrangements of scatterplots that are supposed to produce a bigger scatterplot.

Purely creative people can come up with new concepts but not think about them (ensuring the concepts they come up with are usually wrong), and purely logical people are incapable of coming up with concepts at all and must rely on others spoon-feeding them already existing concepts for them to have anything to think about.

Your new comment here was actually intelligent and deserved a polite response. It was also thoughtful instead of a regurgitation of wrong ideas.

I did not make that crack about students of philosophy with you in mind. But thinking about your two comments together now, I believe it's probable you are a student of philosophy. Philosophy is populated by people who enjoy ideas (intellectuals) but who can't quite create them correctly (non-analytic = not automatically logical) and so they resort to pretense and condescension as tools for argument instead of facts.

It's all political "who's got the most obscure book or biggest reputation" bullshit. Philosophers never speak plainly but only ever in historico-linguistic garbage. That's because when stripped of the pretense of erudition and collegiality, their facts are WRONG. For instance, John Rawls in his 500 page book at a critical point defined a "bare person" as a computer database, and not any kind of intelligence at all, let alone any kind of agency. And his entire book is circuitous.

(Note that I resort to raw hatred to shut down arguments, an entirely different tool for an entirely different goal. When actually debating, I use facts.)