Well, well. Now I have a brain full of Puditude...of Pudiferousness. I have been Puddified.
Pud the Oracle, Pud the Splendacious, Pud the Philosophoozer, Pud the Not A Variety of Regional Cheese, Pud the Defeater of Lamp Posts...or should I say Defeeter?
No, I remember now; it was just one foot. Pud the Defooter...or something.
Who knew that Pud was such a quasi-poetic orator? Not I, for sure.
Did he really use a fountain pen? The man is far more civilized that I ever suspected. 😎
Agreed. And it’s why I find writing so fascinating. Despite the complicated words and jumbles of letters and the patterns, someone else can actually make out what you mean. And you can have a connection somehow. Magic
This is what Sir Roger Penrose means when he says "consciousness is not a computable phenomenon". One of it's characteristics is understanding, which is one of those things that mathematician/logician/epistemologist/bro'-to-Einstein Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems (1931) proved would happen.
To wit: There are true statements you can make about (or within) a system, that are completely consistent with the rules of the system, and you KNOW they're true because you understand the way the system works and you trust it to give you only truth. Yet, you can't prove that some truths are true using only the system's own rules.
How izzat even possible?
I'm glad I asked. It's possible because of understanding. Whatever understanding is, it transcends the rules. It doesn't break them. It just acts like they're not a constraint on what you can know.
You know...kinda like the way Pud treats reality. The rules aren't hard and fast and cast in bronze in Pud-land. They're more like suggestions—potentially useful when there's things like moonal pyramids that need constructing—but exactly HOW all that is going to come to pass...?
Pfffftt...mere details, homie. "The greatness of this vision shall inspire yo' ayuss to MAKE it happen. I have decreed it. In fountain pen ink. Which means it cannot be ignored, or may the fleas of a thousand camels nest in the crotch of your firstborn..."
Yeah, Ol' Pud. He's a visionary, quantum entangled with his own vision so deeply that it's bound to spill over onto those upon whose shirts and smocks he has left his handprint, as the sign of a solemn oath you never took...which is yet another mere detail. The oath you never took is nonetheless now an unbreakable vow...
...or something.
Obviously, I'm making all this up. In fact, it might be time resume my direct, personal research delving into the absolute truth content of beer.
Alas, I'm outa beer, or something...no, wait—that's not it. It CAN'T be that. I've got plenty o' beer...OK...it's ale, actually; but I'm sure its truth content is no less absolute. (Does it matter that the name of the brewski is "Mind Haze IPA"?)
...wait, I know what it is. I just figured it out. It's not that I'm outa brew; rather, it's just that my supposed-to-be-in-bed dead ayuss is too tired or too lazy to get up and walk all the way to the fridge to grab a Mind Haze.
So I'm substituting scotch and water...still in pursuit of The Truth, mind you. I want to make that perfectly clear.
I'm sure I'll succeed. I think it's prolly onna counta some corollary to the "In Vino Veritas" Principle.
Yes, that's right boyz 'n' goilz; it's Ethanolic Epistemology™—serving mankind since the dawn of fermentation. Try some today! You'll be glad you did.
Oh Pud is definitely the madman… who might just be right.
I guess even my reporting from the street can be a bit subjective every now and then. But I suppose it’s always going to be the case when you’re giving accurate accounts of the myths and legends taking place right in front of you.
You can’t help being subjective. No one can. The entire dichotomy between subjective and objective is false.
Subjectivity and objectivity pertain to knowing. They are alleged qualities of “what is known”. Knowledge is said to be either subjective or objective. But “objective knowledge” is impossible. All knowledge requires a knower — a subject.
The distinction people are trying to make when they say something is “objectively true” is the distinction between absolute and relative…and even then all absolutes are relative to some context.
I’m talking about the physical world here. Some intangibles are absolute regardless of context, such as the principle of morality, 2+2=4, and yesterday preceded today.
“Art” is too tame, too limited a word for the endlessly fascinating and always amusing creations that come from yer brain through the keyboard and onto my screen. I suspect quantum entanglement is involved. I don’t buy the multiverse hypothesis. It’s unnecessary
The one universe we’ve got is already weird enough. Throw a bit of quantum entanglement into the mix, and…ZAH! Space and time are mere inconveniences to be transcended by those who don’t perceive them as limitations.
I’m speaking, of course, about Pud, who I consider to be a super-human entity. Not in the sense that he has superpowers or anything like that. But rather in the sense that his reality supersedes that of a normal human…er, whatever that is.
What I mean is, Pud doesn’t appear to be terribly concerned with reality as others perceive it…that is, as any random 7 to 8 billion people might see it. Admittedly, everything we call “reality” is subjective. Objectivity is a myth. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of subjective reality that are absolute.
Pud doesn’t seem troubled by any of those aspects that might not be consistent with his frame of reference and expectations. If there is any discrepancy, his take on reality wins.
Notwithstanding the limp. I’m not sure he even perceived it. There was prolly some vague awareness that something wasn’t quite right, but it’s not clear to me that the causal chain—kick lamppost –> pain ensues—is apparent to the Pudster.
His manifesto is either one of the most insightful or one of the most deranged things I’ve read since the last installment of The Adventures of Pud. Possibly both.
Sorry? Nay…a thousand times nay, mon ami. Are you kiddin’? Your Posts are always a trip—a near-surreal experience without the disconvenience of the d-lysergic time commitment, if thou catchest mon drifte.
Well, well. Now I have a brain full of Puditude...of Pudiferousness. I have been Puddified.
Pud the Oracle, Pud the Splendacious, Pud the Philosophoozer, Pud the Not A Variety of Regional Cheese, Pud the Defeater of Lamp Posts...or should I say Defeeter?
No, I remember now; it was just one foot. Pud the Defooter...or something.
Who knew that Pud was such a quasi-poetic orator? Not I, for sure.
Did he really use a fountain pen? The man is far more civilized that I ever suspected. 😎
Agreed. And it’s why I find writing so fascinating. Despite the complicated words and jumbles of letters and the patterns, someone else can actually make out what you mean. And you can have a connection somehow. Magic
Another one of those absolute truths, bro'.
This is what Sir Roger Penrose means when he says "consciousness is not a computable phenomenon". One of it's characteristics is understanding, which is one of those things that mathematician/logician/epistemologist/bro'-to-Einstein Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems (1931) proved would happen.
To wit: There are true statements you can make about (or within) a system, that are completely consistent with the rules of the system, and you KNOW they're true because you understand the way the system works and you trust it to give you only truth. Yet, you can't prove that some truths are true using only the system's own rules.
How izzat even possible?
I'm glad I asked. It's possible because of understanding. Whatever understanding is, it transcends the rules. It doesn't break them. It just acts like they're not a constraint on what you can know.
You know...kinda like the way Pud treats reality. The rules aren't hard and fast and cast in bronze in Pud-land. They're more like suggestions—potentially useful when there's things like moonal pyramids that need constructing—but exactly HOW all that is going to come to pass...?
Pfffftt...mere details, homie. "The greatness of this vision shall inspire yo' ayuss to MAKE it happen. I have decreed it. In fountain pen ink. Which means it cannot be ignored, or may the fleas of a thousand camels nest in the crotch of your firstborn..."
Yeah, Ol' Pud. He's a visionary, quantum entangled with his own vision so deeply that it's bound to spill over onto those upon whose shirts and smocks he has left his handprint, as the sign of a solemn oath you never took...which is yet another mere detail. The oath you never took is nonetheless now an unbreakable vow...
...or something.
Obviously, I'm making all this up. In fact, it might be time resume my direct, personal research delving into the absolute truth content of beer.
Alas, I'm outa beer, or something...no, wait—that's not it. It CAN'T be that. I've got plenty o' beer...OK...it's ale, actually; but I'm sure its truth content is no less absolute. (Does it matter that the name of the brewski is "Mind Haze IPA"?)
...wait, I know what it is. I just figured it out. It's not that I'm outa brew; rather, it's just that my supposed-to-be-in-bed dead ayuss is too tired or too lazy to get up and walk all the way to the fridge to grab a Mind Haze.
So I'm substituting scotch and water...still in pursuit of The Truth, mind you. I want to make that perfectly clear.
I'm sure I'll succeed. I think it's prolly onna counta some corollary to the "In Vino Veritas" Principle.
Yes, that's right boyz 'n' goilz; it's Ethanolic Epistemology™—serving mankind since the dawn of fermentation. Try some today! You'll be glad you did.
https://stevey.substack.com/p/pud-comes-good
Oh Pud is definitely the madman… who might just be right.
I guess even my reporting from the street can be a bit subjective every now and then. But I suppose it’s always going to be the case when you’re giving accurate accounts of the myths and legends taking place right in front of you.
You can’t help being subjective. No one can. The entire dichotomy between subjective and objective is false.
Subjectivity and objectivity pertain to knowing. They are alleged qualities of “what is known”. Knowledge is said to be either subjective or objective. But “objective knowledge” is impossible. All knowledge requires a knower — a subject.
The distinction people are trying to make when they say something is “objectively true” is the distinction between absolute and relative…and even then all absolutes are relative to some context.
I’m talking about the physical world here. Some intangibles are absolute regardless of context, such as the principle of morality, 2+2=4, and yesterday preceded today.
Also, there is evidence that beer is absolute. 😎
No worries brother. I’m happy to write for readers who appreciate fine art… and whatever it is I generate.
“Art” is too tame, too limited a word for the endlessly fascinating and always amusing creations that come from yer brain through the keyboard and onto my screen. I suspect quantum entanglement is involved. I don’t buy the multiverse hypothesis. It’s unnecessary
The one universe we’ve got is already weird enough. Throw a bit of quantum entanglement into the mix, and…ZAH! Space and time are mere inconveniences to be transcended by those who don’t perceive them as limitations.
I’m speaking, of course, about Pud, who I consider to be a super-human entity. Not in the sense that he has superpowers or anything like that. But rather in the sense that his reality supersedes that of a normal human…er, whatever that is.
What I mean is, Pud doesn’t appear to be terribly concerned with reality as others perceive it…that is, as any random 7 to 8 billion people might see it. Admittedly, everything we call “reality” is subjective. Objectivity is a myth. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of subjective reality that are absolute.
Pud doesn’t seem troubled by any of those aspects that might not be consistent with his frame of reference and expectations. If there is any discrepancy, his take on reality wins.
Notwithstanding the limp. I’m not sure he even perceived it. There was prolly some vague awareness that something wasn’t quite right, but it’s not clear to me that the causal chain—kick lamppost –> pain ensues—is apparent to the Pudster.
His manifesto is either one of the most insightful or one of the most deranged things I’ve read since the last installment of The Adventures of Pud. Possibly both.
Sorry about giving you a brain full. Old Pud he’s full of surprises.
Sorry? Nay…a thousand times nay, mon ami. Are you kiddin’? Your Posts are always a trip—a near-surreal experience without the disconvenience of the d-lysergic time commitment, if thou catchest mon drifte.