<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Ideaphoria as part of an annealing schedule perhaps? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>A possibly self-referential example of what we are speaking of
follows, as triggered by the topic and substance itself:<br>
</p>
<p>On he angel-demon duality... <br>
</p>
<p><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://www.d.umn.edu/~ddunham/isis4/figure11.gif" alt=""
width="360" height="360"></p>
<p>Escher's famous hyperbolic tesselation on the same subject
reminds me a bit of rayleigh-bernard convection cells? I haven't
seen (but may have imagined?) the kind of convection/involution
patterns we see in the classic demonstrations in the context of
the churn of good vs evil, and the the foreground/background
exchange?<br>
</p>
<p>As Dennis Miller used to smirk at the beginning of his "don't let
me get off on a rant here"...</p>
<p>I'm honestly trying to explore this "riff" as an example of what
I think you are speaking of? We were talking about the
generality of "profundity as a breeding ground/enabler/masker" for
"bullshit" (not precisely defined, but we probably all share an
intuition of the 'know it when i see it' style?).</p>
<p>Your mentioning of the Angel-Demon duality triggered in my (too
near the edge of chaos?) fecund (fertile/feral?) mind and Escher's
image overlayed with R-B convection cells roiling (my first
experience was in metallic model airplane paints when disturbed
and left open to evaporate? would roil until the metal particles
settled to the bottom?). Without trying (but perhaps being
compelled by an inner nature or drive, possibly what you refer to
as the "orgasmic feeling" of "paradox or sophism") I found myself
tangenting (as explored above) on the Angel-Demon implications of
good/evil and the way one might be the fuel for the other and
vice-versa.</p>
<p>Having veered from the original question of Telic and perhaps
Teleonomic (applied recursively to the RB-convection phenomenon) I
would sit and stare (inadvertantly huffing the volatiles?) at the
roiling cells in the model-airplane paint with a fascination as to
whether there was intention or goal or purpose in that activity?
I did not know much of any of the technical details of these
things and while I had been instructed by elders in no uncertain
terms not to impute either perpetual motion nor animism into such
things, it was hard not to be deeply fascinated by said
roiling. I don't know that I as the R-B cells in Escher's image
the first time I saw it, but probably not long afterwards. </p>
<p>This is the type of tangent I often delete, understanding it
might well be taken to be deliberate bullshit generation
(disguised as profundity)? My threshold for <delete before
sending> varies. I haven't been on any pain meds beyond
acetominophen since my (first) hip replacement a week ago, but the
strange euphoria residue from the dissociative sedative
(ketamine?) used during the extremely precise/surgical yet
nevertheless invasive surgery, and the whole new suite of pains
emanating from the hips and the introspective consequences are
quite mind-bending. As we know, I don't need this kind of (mild?)
altered state to wax "profound", but it does change it
qualitatively (from the inside) a bit... <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/13/24 9:05 AM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:39a28757-e56e-4790-9e20-1d350ef91f90@gmail.com">It's
reasonable to ask what proportion of profundity is a cover for
something versus a marker for something. I still tend to give
people the benefit of the doubt. So when I see either something
that seems profound (to me) or others saying or acting as if
something's profound, it's a marker for my or their confusion,
respectively. While it may be true that there are grifters out
there who sow profundity, purposefully, in order to mask their
rational plans, that sounds conspiritorial to me. A good edge case
might be Elizabeth Holmes. To what extent did she know her claims
were bullshit? Or to what extent did she convince herself that her
bullshit was true/useful?
<br>
<br>
Regardless of the proportions, the grifters don't breed bullshit
so much. They prop it up artificially. Bullshit begetting more
bullshit (i.e. breeding) has another home. I grant that it may not
be profundity, directly. Maybe it's the confusion underlying the
profundity. But the reason I think it's more the profundity is
because the people I see who are most guilty of it are attracted
by the "awe" or the "beauty" of some thing. They *want* to get
stoned on some aesthetic, whatever it is ... carried away,
ecstatic, blissful, etc. Like a paradox or sophism, there's a kind
of orgasmic feeling to profound things ... "like. whoa, man."
<br>
<br>
And *that's* the breeding ground, where Angels become Demons.
<br>
<br>
On 8/8/24 11:03, steve smith wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Maybe. I'm not convinced. Profundity is
THE breeding ground for bullshit. </blockquote>
I'm more inclined (in the context of my own profundity or
perhaps more aptly prolificness or prolixity) to suggest that it
is more of a mask (and therefore enabler?) of bullshit than a
breeding ground. Could be a fine hair I suppose.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>