You seem to have lost your respect
for your fellow human beings.
Have you lost your dog or something?
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender
who finally killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person
would rationalize his action.
oxtail wrote:
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally killed
an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize his >>action.
It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of the disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.
{:-]))) wrote:
oxtail wrote:
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally killed >>>an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize his >>>action.
It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of the
disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.
Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?
...
I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?
{:-]))) wrote:
oxtail wrote:
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally killed >>> an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize his >>> action.
It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of the
disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.
Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?
oxtail wrote:
{:-]))) wrote:
oxtail wrote:
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally >>>>killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize >>>>his action.
It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of
the disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.
Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?
What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?
brian mitchell wrote:
What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?
You win by finding the narrative
that is satisfactory to you.
If you cannot win in the game,
you can always write it out yourself.
If I play the game myself,
I would expect to find a decent exposition
of many ways mere banality causes suffering.
I expect most players will be satisfied
if they can find a scenario that resonates
with their life experience.
oxtail wrote:
brian mitchell wrote:
What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?
You win by finding the narrative that is satisfactory to you.
If you cannot win in the game,
you can always write it out yourself.
If I play the game myself,
I would expect to find a decent exposition of many ways mere banality >>causes suffering.
I expect most players will be satisfied if they can find a scenario that >>resonates with their life experience.
I'm reminded of a story wherein a woman's child died and she goes to see
the Buddha for comfort.
The Buddha told her to go visit others and see if she could find anyone
who had not suffered discomfort.
Knowing how suffering is pervasive might help to ease the cause of being
ill at ease for those who find comfort in the suffering of others.
Watching the news can bring the world inside of one's house and head at times.
Garbage in garbage out is another story.
For me, a win is to stop suffering.
To be at ease and at peace.
Seeing as how there is no stopping without there being starting points.
Along the way, at a rest stop, there one may find concession stands, mechanized,
and at times, at more compassionate ones,
people who serve coffee to help keep those on the road awake.
Life, seen as moving a long stretch of suffering may be viewed from
inside the vehicle.
Until the ride has come to a complete stop.
Arms and legs, it is suggested, are best kept inside the vehicle.
Keeping one's eyes on oneself might not be a good idea at all times.
Keeping one's eyes on the road, stopping and starting points.
brian mitchell wrote:
oxtail wrote:
{:-]))) wrote:
oxtail wrote:
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally
killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize >>>>> his action.
It's called the disease of alcohol addiction.
One such way to rationalize it is the allergy model.
Or the genetic predisposition paradigm.
Being out of control, unable to have just one drink, the sufferer of
the disease of alcoholism denies being an alcoholic.
Having had that first drink, one wants another.
Having run out of alcohol, one goes for more.
No matter how drunk, one drives.
Getting into the red truck, drunk,
not even thinking about being able to drive,
proceeds to drive to the store.
Not seeing the little boy, nor the little boy the truck,
the eyes of the drunk follow the bouncing ball.
The drunk rationalizes that the boy was unseen,
that he just ran out from between the cars.
That it was not his fault.
And, in various ways, there was no fault.
The drunk should have known better.
Yet that was impossible because the brain of the one who suffers from
alcoholism is not able to know any better after the first drink.
Nice fable.
But I prefer a parable or a bunch of hasty generalizations.
Any idea how we can turn it into a game?
Or at least into an interactive fiction?
What do you want to be the goal of the game? What would constitute a
"win" and what a "lose"?
You win by finding the narrative
that is satisfactory to you.
If you cannot win in the game,
you can always write it out yourself.
If I play the game myself,
I would expect to find a decent exposition
of many ways mere banality causes suffering.
I expect most players will be satisfied
if they can find a scenario that resonates
with their life experience.
{:-]))) rambled:
Keeping one's eyes on the road, stopping and starting points.
Isn't it too early to be rambling? ;)
oxtail wrote:
{:-]))) rambled:
Keeping one's eyes on the road, stopping and starting points.
Isn't it too early to be rambling? ;)
As a kid, there was a Nash sitting
off the driveway near the orange grove.
Perhaps it shaped my thinking.
We called it the upside-down bathtub.
The name, Rambler, rings a bell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enqNl7tdLR4
2016-02-08
A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell the >story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a private >person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in the
generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics. Hence, I
have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and
how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who >ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the >moment.
Basically these are the perspectives of the following:
1a. philosopher/ethicist
1b. investigator
1c. victim
1d. perpetrator
1e. religious seeker
Any other options?
2016-02-08
A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell the >story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a private >person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in the
generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics. Hence, I
have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and
how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who >ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the >moment.
Basically these are the perspectives of the following:
1a. philosopher/ethicist
1b. investigator
1c. victim
1d. perpetrator
1e. religious seeker
Any other options?
oxtail wrote:
2016-02-08 A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell
the story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a
private person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in
the generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics.
Hence, I have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and >>how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who >>ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the >>moment.
Basically these are the perspectives of the following:
1a. philosopher/ethicist 1b. investigator 1c. victim 1d. perpetrator 1e. >>religious seeker
Any other options?
I like happy endings ever after.
1a. Concerning the evil of moo.
1b. My people are bred for food.
1c. The butcher, the consumer, etc.
1d. They saw my family as being good.
1e. We are all that remains of star dust gone.
As my family did on the range did roam,
where the deer and the antelope were at home,
we trampled the grass as we grazed and all the bugs there beyond our
gaze.
When it was brought to our attention,
how bugs have their own families, we didn't care. Nor did we when the two-legged men-folk trapped us and herded us into their wide open lairs.
Eventually they came with their mallets swinging over their heads, then mechanized brutality,
we were slaughtered in their houses. They killed without conscience, as
we trampled bugs.
They chopped us, ground round us,
and made into their burgers.
Would I turn the tables on them?
And make them blades of grass?
And chew them and ruminate?
And fart them out my ass?
Are we not all of carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen?
Of water and methane passing as gas?
Everyone likes a good one.
Happily ever after.
oxtail wrote:
2016-02-08 A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering
about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell
the story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a
private person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in
the generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics.
Hence, I have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life.
1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and >>how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who >>ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the >>moment.
Basically these are the perspectives of the following:
1a. philosopher/ethicist 1b. investigator 1c. victim 1d. perpetrator 1e. >>religious seeker
Any other options?
I'm not getting your 'perpetrator' perspective. It seems too close to
the victim perspective. Perhaps you could say more about this creature?
brian mitchell wrote:
oxtail wrote:
2016-02-08 A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering >>>about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell
the story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a >>>private person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in
the generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics. >>>Hence, I have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life. >>>1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life and >>>how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people who >>>ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at the >>>moment.
Basically these are the perspectives of the following:
1a. philosopher/ethicist 1b. investigator 1c. victim 1d. perpetrator 1e. >>>religious seeker
Any other options?
I'm not getting your 'perpetrator' perspective. It seems too close to
the victim perspective. Perhaps you could say more about this creature?
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender
who finally killed an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person
would rationalize his action...
Not sure whether anyone would actually select this option.
But there might be some masochists prone to false confessions.
Still I'm definitely interested in the mechanism of rationalization.
I will research some sutras for inspiration.
Any help would be appreciated.
Where are you, Tang?
oxtail wrote:
brian mitchell wrote:
oxtail wrote:
2016-02-08 A Ren'Py Game: The Bane of A Life
1. As I sit in front of my desk in the middle of the night, pondering >>>>about what went wrong with my life, I realize that I just cannot tell >>>>the story of my life as it happened in detail, mainly because I'm a >>>>private person and as a student of philosophy, I'm more interested in >>>>the generalized explanation of the bane of life than any specifics. >>>>Hence, I have to ask myself how to progress in my inquiry.
1a. I like to develop a theory concerning the evil of banality.
1b. I would rather limit my inquiry to the particular bane of my life. >>>>1c. I will just go ahead and name names of people who ruined my life >>>>and how they did it.
1d. I will try to see the whole thing from the perspective of people >>>>who ruined my life.
1e. I don't see the point of this vindictiveness. Better just be at
the moment.
Basically these are the perspectives of the following:
1a. philosopher/ethicist 1b. investigator 1c. victim 1d. perpetrator >>>>1e.
religious seeker
Any other options?
I'm not getting your 'perpetrator' perspective. It seems too close to
the victim perspective. Perhaps you could say more about this
creature?
My prototype at the moment is a habitual DUI offender who finally killed
an innocent person.
I like to figure out the usually way such a person would rationalize his >>action...
The universal way of making oneself right is to make the other wrong.
This is what blame is: making wrong. Actually there are four main ways
of denying responsibility: blame, justification, minimisation and obliviousness. Rationalisations could take any of the first three forms
but not the last.
That said, you've picked a particularly passive form of bad behaviour.
There is a satisfying pleasure in perpetrating intentional hurt. The
delight of being cruel and seeing the effect of one's cruelty on the sufferer. Have you never felt it?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 128:20:06 |
| Calls: | 6,734 |
| Files: | 12,256 |
| Messages: | 5,362,538 |