people have stereotype concepts for all sorts, even the common chair, sort of a template starting point.
try your mind and dig deep for your stereotype of dead
what do you come up with
transition said:
people have stereotype concepts for all sorts, even the common chair, sort of a template starting point.try your mind and dig deep for your stereotype of dead
what do you come up with
I associated with a human corpse.
57005
btm said:
57005
So true
dv said:
transition said:
people have stereotype concepts for all sorts, even the common chair, sort of a template starting point.try your mind and dig deep for your stereotype of dead
what do you come up with
I associated with a human corpse.
Too’d i’d think there’s a generalizing with past, so’s of mortality.
Where I was going was the rationalist view of death. On first glance it seems unlikely it might yield to a stereotype, but then maybe’t is the subject of one of the most powerful stereotypes in our culture.
i’d expect it’s in finality, and past, but it’s the treatment in making it so that interests me
not sure how a stereotype regards death might be identified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype
“The term stereotype derives from the Greek words στερεός (stereos), “firm, solid” and τύπος (typos), “impression”, hence “solid impression on one or more idea/theory”.
The term comes from the printing trade and was first adopted in 1798 by Firmin Didot to describe a printing plate that duplicated any typography. The duplicate printing plate, or the stereotype, is used for printing instead of the original.
Outside of printing, the first reference to “stereotype” was in 1850, as a noun that meant “image perpetuated without change”. However, it was not until 1922 that “stereotype” was first used in the modern psychological sense by American journalist Walter Lippmann in his work Public Opinion.”
transition said:
people have stereotype concepts for all sorts, even the common chair, sort of a template starting point.try your mind and dig deep for your stereotype of dead
what do you come up with
transition said:
people have stereotype concepts for all sorts, even the common chair, sort of a template starting point.try your mind and dig deep for your stereotype of dead
what do you come up with
Consider our stereotype of a chair, and the difference between a chair and a stool or a bench or a stump or a sculpture or instance. Any boundary that separates a chair from a stool, such as the height of the back, use etc. has to be arbitrary and can only be decided by the process of allocating examples into one category or another. That’s exactly the sort of definition that Socrates abhored, and IMHO exactly the type that is most useful.
Now what was the original question again?
if you can’t decide what death means then it can’t exist
>Now what was the original question again?
You were going to design me a chair for someone whose legs bend back the other way.
And while i’m recalling some of Pinker’s psychological musings(citing comedians), if a chair is a seat, then isn’t a bum a seat, and that a chair would not exist without the bum, that seat.
Ecclesiastes 9:5
Death Comes to Good and Bad
…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
Ogmog said:
Ecclesiastes 9:5
Death Comes to Good and Bad
…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
Harsh, bring on genetic engineering, people can live longer
Ogmog said:
Ecclesiastes 9:5
Death Comes to Good and Bad
…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
that’s an interesting read.
What i’m thinking is like in the territory of ideology the sorta informal ways (though too the formal expressions and procedures), the swiftness of something instinct that kills the dead, not of those known to us or near, but of those not. In most cases the latter outnumber the former, so the many with the greater numbers dominate (in a way, for my purposes here). If you knew enough people well enough you might attend a funeral every month, or every or a couple of times a week. How many people do you want to know that are on death’s door, or might die suddenly. There are (muted) practicalities about how many friends people might have.
In the ancestral environments of small groups you’d know everyone that died, short of starvation or disease or war doubtful you’d be seeing your relatives off too often, or be keen to see them off, small numbers being something nearer the real threat of extinction. There was of course neighbouring groups/tribes, and there’s still sort of the same thing today I suppose, but nothing like the threat of extinction.
So I dunno, probably an absurd load of doo. I can’t see that the abundant species is obviously swifter to the dead than small groups might have been.
But then i’m one of the many when it suits, and not when I want.
fuffux ache. Will someone please go one about the chair as well?
Open wide. Come inside.
It’s Plato’s school.
This place is already on the high end of the nutter’s scale. Do we really want to encourage it with furniture items? Hmm? Hmm?
kii said:
This place is already on the high end of the nutter’s scale. Do we really want to encourage it with furniture items? Hmm? Hmm?
You have a point.
Fun fact: the term stereotype (and cliche, for that matter) derive from the printing trade.
dv said:
Open wide. Come inside.
It’s Plato’s school.
Plato’s easier reading than Onty.
>…..easier reading …”
yeah true, someone yells easy read i’m not the first to turn and look
>the endless abyss of the oblivion
I’d think not living, of that that was living no longer alive, that past, that passed away, of the past, that no more.
the past though has more certainty than the future, yet whatever example is dead into the future, and whatever example of living is courtesy of the many dead before.
So the living have the joy of uncertainty, which the dead bring mixed blessings to (in a way, so to speak), they’re as convenient as death itself.
Anyways, back to swift to the dead, the making of past, the association with past. The forward-looking enthusiasm for the future.
Take a media report of whatever, what’s the difference if a headline says killed rather than lost lives, other than the latter having more letters and being two words. What does a headline do when it uses the word killed. More to the point what might it appeal to in the mind’s of the audience.
transition said:
try your mind and dig deep for your stereotype of deadwhat do you come up with?
I come up with three separate stereotypes:
Dead as in lifeless, eg. the surface of Mars.
Dead as in dead human, as in brain dead vs heart and respiration, the feel of my dead daughter’s hand, the funeral industry.
Dead as in dead non-human organism, as in apoptosis, dead pot plant, the remnant of a dead worm on the footpath.
“Death” has different stereotypes.
transition said:
What i’m thinking is like in the territory of ideology the sorta informal ways (though too the formal expressions and procedures), the swiftness of something instinct that kills the dead, not of those known to us or near, but of those not.
…
But then i’m one of the many when it suits, and not when I want.
transition said:
Take a media report of whatever, what’s the difference if a headline says killed rather than lost lives, other than the latter having more letters and being two words. What does a headline do when it uses the word killed. More to the point what might it appeal to in the mind’s of the audience.
“Killed” is chosen to evoke the desire for revenge. “Lost lives” is chosen to evoke the emotion of sorrow. So for instance it is correct to say “killed by a bushfire” because deaths from bushfires are preventable and so we should avenge the deaths by combating the cause. It is wrong to say “lost lives in a bushfire” because sorrow never solves anything.
>“Killed” is chosen to evoke the desire for revenge. “Lost lives” is chosen to evoke the emotion of sorrow. So for instance it is correct to say “killed by a bushfire” because deaths from bushfires are preventable and so we should avenge the deaths by combating the cause. It is wrong to say “lost lives in a bushfire” because sorrow never solves anything.
Depends what you make of lives. Killed is maybe, or likely, has more impact, a more effective attention grab. It lends to social constructions, entertains the larger social field, licences arseholes in my opinion.
Lost lives suggests the creature/s had a life, personal ways, hopes, whatever.
>So for instance it is correct to say “killed by a bushfire” because deaths from bushfires are preventable and so we should avenge the deaths by combating the cause.
That from here seems wrong
>It is wrong to say “lost lives in a bushfire” because sorrow never solves anything.
That’s if your sorrow theory is right, which doubt it is.The intended provocation of I mean.
provoking of maybe should have said, rather than provocation
>Not sure I understand you correctly. Are you talking about the selfishness of letting feelings of death nearby (eg. the dog next door) dominate over feelings of death further away (eg. One to two million people murdered in the Rwandan genocide)? I abhor that kind of self-centredness.
Start from a hunter gatherer setting, in which case you’d have known all that die of your group. Indifference has different consequences than of today with very large populations. Take the primitive mind (that shaped in the ancestral environments) and that indifference reserved for perhaps the group over yonder and amplify it. The numbers (of the modern setting) that can be indifferent (no concern to them) always exceed those that it does concern. Not by a small amount.
Now, that’s a bit the sky is blue I know, the thing is though it lends to sort of the power of ideology.