this is a time professional isolates could really shine, accustomed as they are to limited involvement and investment in the broader social contagion humans, and human ways

i’m here to warn you of the possible dangers from the inexperienced recluse, and further the liabilities posed by the reclusion averse

you may have missed the lessons at school about reclusivity, or you may have wandered off shortly into the first lesson for some solitude, even wandered out of the school never to return

perhaps your social and cultural receptivity, related enthusiasms were permanently dampened, in the case you ever heard reclusivity used in a positive way

anyway, dig deep, solitude could be adaptive. Not complete solitude, no need to take the idea to something absurd, and treat it as absurd

you know it’s fairly much what committed recluses do, they self isolate

they may be way ahead of sociables, their ancestors experienced of social contagions, those that survived enjoy a trait passed down, have native intelligence regard how to avoid the compelling instincts that incline regular interactions in which case humans need reassurance of their ways

so it’s time reclusivity became popular, a proposition, granted, that sort of has contradictions

I mean it couldn’t be popular in the normal or more typical sense of popular, the catchiness is going to be self-limiting

transition said:

this is a time professional isolates could really shine, accustomed as they are to limited involvement and investment in the broader social contagion humans, and human ways

i’m here to warn you of the possible dangers from the inexperienced recluse, and further the liabilities posed by the reclusion averse

you may have missed the lessons at school about reclusivity, or you may have wandered off shortly into the first lesson for some solitude, even wandered out of the school never to return

perhaps your social and cultural receptivity, related enthusiasms were permanently dampened, in the case you ever heard reclusivity used in a positive way

anyway, dig deep, solitude could be adaptive. Not complete solitude, no need to take the idea to something absurd, and treat it as absurd

you know it’s fairly much what committed recluses do, they self isolate

they may be way ahead of sociables, their ancestors experienced of social contagions, those that survived enjoy a trait passed down, have native intelligence regard how to avoid the compelling instincts that incline regular interactions in which case humans need reassurance of their ways

so it’s time reclusivity became popular, a proposition, granted, that sort of has contradictions

I mean it couldn’t be popular in the normal or more typical sense of popular, the catchiness is going to be self-limiting

Started well, but a rotten conclusion.

read it with humor, as thought and writ

transition said:

read it with humor, as thought and writ

It is all in your head, your trouble is getting into the heads of others.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

read it with humor, as thought and writ

It is all in your head, your trouble is getting into the heads of others.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

read it with humor, as thought and writ

It is all in your head, your trouble is getting into the heads of others.

>It is all in your head, your trouble is getting into the heads of others.

I don’t have your effervescence

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

read it with humor, as thought and writ

It is all in your head, your trouble is getting into the heads of others.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

read it with humor, as thought and writ

It is all in your head, your trouble is getting into the heads of others.

>It is all in your head, your trouble is getting into the heads of others.

I don’t have your effervescence

You use too many poorly arranged and useless words to convey your message effectively. Nothing about being bubbly.

>You use too many poorly arranged and useless words to convey your message effectively. Nothing about being bubbly

you assume I want to be effective, whatever your ideas or feelings regard that, projecting something of that

but you’re right, possibly, doubtful you much entertain soft reality, anything playful of, or about

back to the subject, watching an interview earlier, link posted in the chat thread maybe or elsewhere, someone mentioned something about modeling the fatigue (vigilance causes fatigue, and too variously isolation) caused by social distancing in response to the present contagion. Or something like that, not entirely unrelated to what the OP is about

but I guess you already got the gist

transition said:

>You use too many poorly arranged and useless words to convey your message effectively. Nothing about being bubbly

you assume I want to be effective, whatever your ideas or feelings regard that, projecting something of that

but you’re right, possibly, doubtful you much entertain soft reality, anything playful of, or about

back to the subject, watching an interview earlier, link posted in the chat thread maybe or elsewhere, someone mentioned something about modeling the fatigue (vigilance causes fatigue, and too variously isolation) caused by social distancing in response to the present contagion. Or something like that, not entirely unrelated to what the OP is about

but I guess you already got the gist

I hate to agree with PF but your sentence structure is like a brain damaged Yoda crossed with a pseudointellectual Forrest Gump

>I hate to agree with PF but your sentence structure is like a brain damaged Yoda crossed with a pseudointellectual Forrest Gump

go easy, it could be the first time you’ve ever read anything regard reclusivity, you know I haven’t seen your efforts on the subject

that the best you can do, cite a movie, a movie character

transition said:

>You use too many poorly arranged and useless words to convey your message effectively. Nothing about being bubbly

you assume I want to be effective, whatever your ideas or feelings regard that, projecting something of that

but you’re right, possibly, doubtful you much entertain soft reality, anything playful of, or about

back to the subject, watching an interview earlier, link posted in the chat thread maybe or elsewhere, someone mentioned something about modeling the fatigue (vigilance causes fatigue, and too variously isolation) caused by social distancing in response to the present contagion. Or something like that, not entirely unrelated to what the OP is about

but I guess you already got the gist

I regard myself as a recluse so had an interest in reading your post, but as usual I could not get anything from it, let alone understand it. Short sentences each making a specific point might be the way to go.

I’m trying to break out of my reclusiveness right now. Now is a good time because those who …

Because it’s good for the economy, and because those who stay out are less dominated by fear. Happier. And being out is less crowded.

The time to be reclusive will be winter. Six months away.

>I regard myself as a recluse so had an interest in reading your post, but as usual I could not get anything from it, let alone understand it. Short sentences each making a specific point might be the way to go

you’re not getting anything from mostly everything in the universe, and while there, of generalizations regard the bigger picture, understanding, most of the universe is not in the business of understanding, and you’d be aware understanding has risks, for anything being understood (by humans for example) I mean. Most people spend most of their time removed from being understood by most other people. That’s not an accident, a failure at popularity, it’s functional, essential. Being understood is potentially one of the worst things that can happen to, well, any animal really. It’s philosophy perhaps, but it may apply to the entire earth (and beyond). Humans have been understanding things for a long time now, a hundred billion of them (that ever lived) resulted in the present crop, over seven billion, there’s no evidence being understood by more humans, or being understood at all by humans really has broad benefits. It’s an illusion, perhaps shared delusion

on to, back to, the subject reclusion, most people do it to some extent, as part more typical privacy, and to limit the imposition of social forces, or, if you like, limit the imposition of own type, the species, limit the power of individuals over each other, and groups over individuals etc. It sort of contributes to agreement, things happening by agreement, if at all

transition said:

>I regard myself as a recluse so had an interest in reading your post, but as usual I could not get anything from it, let alone understand it. Short sentences each making a specific point might be the way to go

you’re not getting anything from mostly everything in the universe, and while there, of generalizations regard the bigger picture, understanding, most of the universe is not in the business of understanding, and you’d be aware understanding has risks, for anything being understood (by humans for example) I mean. Most people spend most of their time removed from being understood by most other people. That’s not an accident, a failure at popularity, it’s functional, essential. Being understood is potentially one of the worst things that can happen to, well, any animal really. It’s philosophy perhaps, but it may apply to the entire earth (and beyond). Humans have been understanding things for a long time now, a hundred billion of them (that ever lived) resulted in the present crop, over seven billion, there’s no evidence being understood by more humans, or being understood at all by humans really has broad benefits. It’s an illusion, perhaps shared delusion

on to, back to, the subject reclusion, most people do it to some extent, as part more typical privacy, and to limit the imposition of social forces, or, if you like, limit the imposition of own type, the species, limit the power of individuals over each other, and groups over individuals etc. It sort of contributes to agreement, things happening by agreement, if at all

Philosophers generally are poorly understood, which gives everyone the opportunity to debate what they actually meant.

>Philosophers generally are poorly understood, which gives everyone the opportunity to debate what they actually meant.

everyone does some philosophy, it’s inevitable, of anything that thinks, the soft reality, how you tidy it up, make it useful maybe, or even relegate something to uselessness, even ineffective

everyone has that thing they do, representations, what minds do, the computational apparatus, the wetware

transition said:

>Philosophers generally are poorly understood, which gives everyone the opportunity to debate what they actually meant.

everyone does some philosophy, it’s inevitable, of anything that thinks, the soft reality, how you tidy it up, make it useful maybe, or even relegate something to uselessness, even ineffective

everyone has that thing they do, representations, what minds do, the computational apparatus, the wetware

Perhaps they are just weird and occasional say something people can understand without having to dig away the overburden to reach the meaning.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Philosophers generally are poorly understood, which gives everyone the opportunity to debate what they actually meant.

everyone does some philosophy, it’s inevitable, of anything that thinks, the soft reality, how you tidy it up, make it useful maybe, or even relegate something to uselessness, even ineffective

everyone has that thing they do, representations, what minds do, the computational apparatus, the wetware

Perhaps they are just weird and occasional say something people can understand without having to dig away the overburden to reach the meaning.

you have some philosophy, I bet, we could have a look at that later, if you wanted, for educational purposes

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Philosophers generally are poorly understood, which gives everyone the opportunity to debate what they actually meant.

everyone does some philosophy, it’s inevitable, of anything that thinks, the soft reality, how you tidy it up, make it useful maybe, or even relegate something to uselessness, even ineffective

everyone has that thing they do, representations, what minds do, the computational apparatus, the wetware

Perhaps they are just weird and occasional say something people can understand without having to dig away the overburden to reach the meaning.

you have some philosophy, I bet, we could have a look at that later, if you wanted, for educational purposes

My niece is a philosopher in the UK. I don’t have a lot of time for it, most IMO is very fluffy where they consider in depth things they have little knowledge and/or experience, often based on an initial misapprehension.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps they are just weird and occasional say something people can understand without having to dig away the overburden to reach the meaning.

you have some philosophy, I bet, we could have a look at that later, if you wanted, for educational purposes

My niece is a philosopher in the UK. I don’t have a lot of time for it, most IMO is very fluffy where they consider in depth things they have little knowledge and/or experience, often based on an initial misapprehension.

not much into the formalism, i’m not

where does it all start I wonder, proto-philosophy if you like, maybe infants do some, dunno

maybe the beginnings are there when a parent hides their face with their hands and opens their hands and goes peekaboo

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

you have some philosophy, I bet, we could have a look at that later, if you wanted, for educational purposes

My niece is a philosopher in the UK. I don’t have a lot of time for it, most IMO is very fluffy where they consider in depth things they have little knowledge and/or experience, often based on an initial misapprehension.

not much into the formalism, i’m not

where does it all start I wonder, proto-philosophy if you like, maybe infants do some, dunno

maybe the beginnings are there when a parent hides their face with their hands and opens their hands and goes peekaboo

In comparison with Greek philosophy where contrived facts and conclusions have rarely stood the test of time. I prefer the logic and facts of science, tested by peer review and detailed observation. If you feel that amounts to formalism, then we live on very different planets.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-14/tame-impala-win-triple-j-hottest-100-of-the-decade/12056688

OK. Here’s the song/.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvM79DJ2PmM

YOU DESERVE TO DIE !!!!!

>In comparison with Greek philosophy where contrived facts and conclusions have rarely stood the test of time. I prefer the logic and facts of science, tested by peer review and detailed observation. If you feel that amounts to formalism, then we live on very different planets.

some of what you and I could do and believe are similar, even if we lived on different planets literally. Nothing wrong with formalization, and formalisms, I didn’t intend it in any pejorative way

but I do think the subject of proto-philosophy, and proto-science, could be interesting, so i’m wandering now about peekaboo, whether infants have the seeds of philosophy, maybe they do philosophy, it’s not monopolized by grownups

wandering

wondering

transition said:

wandering

wondering

That’s one word for it.