| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
160.  Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| John Locke wrote: | | No, it's just a worse cut. |
You wouldn't be upset to be defeated by a lesser technique?
| Quote: | | Maybe you don't understand how I'm using minimalism. Souji's cut is so minimalistic nobody can replicate it. The reason he is capable of three cuts (and we are not) is because he had much less extraneous movement then we do. It's the most minimalistic move in modern swordsmanship. Minimalist technique on ITG is likewise much better, and harder, to perform. |
Wouldn't the most minimalistic move be a one cut move? Or could it be a 100 cut move as long as it was energy effective?
| Quote: | | I never said this. I said such movies are inherently better, not that people ought to make them. I don't tell other people what to do with their money. |
I remember quite clearly you saying something along the lines of "if money was the only motivator for movies, then some of my favorite movies wouldn't have been made". Then you gave examples. You also stated that despite the fact the commercial or art success odds of a movie that is designed to be artistic is very low, it is a good (although not neccessary as you have corrected) thing to strive for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 161. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | You wouldn't be upset to be defeated by a lesser technique? |
No, it's still a cut. The person using it would just be probably pretty silly.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | Or could it be a 100 cut move as long as it was energy effective? |
Such moves don't exist in Kenjutsu, but if the move used no extraneous movement it too would be perfectly minimalistic (as much as, for instance, battou, the most minimalistic single cut).
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | I remember quite clearly you saying something along the lines of "if money was the only motivator for movies, then some of my favorite movies wouldn't have been made". |
That's true, what's the problem?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 162. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Locke wrote: | | No, it's still a cut. The person using it would just be probably pretty silly. |
You're never offended by peoples demeanor?
| Quote: | | Such moves don't exist in Kenjutsu, but if the move used no extraneous movement it too would be perfectly minimalistic (as much as, for instance, battou, the most minimalistic single cut). |
I used the irregularly high number for exaggeratory purposes. Just out of curiosity, would you consider pickles barless playing to be as minimalistic as no bar playing has yet been proven possible to be?
| Quote: | | That's true, what's the problem? |
You seem to be saying that despite the fact these movies would not exist had not risks been ignored and irrational desires not been motivating factors, that this behavior is unnacceptable in ITG. Of course the expressive nature of movie achievements is different than the ideal achievements most seek to attain in ITG, but the spirit is the same. Something is sought to be gained in both cases, it is just frequently not immediately visible in the case of movies and probably not visible at all in the case of ITG. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 163. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | You're never offended by peoples demeanor? |
Personally, no. But people who offended by others demeanors still wouldn't be offended by losing to a kata-ryodan, they just wouldn't understand why the person had used such an ineffective cut.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | Just out of curiosity, would you consider pickles barless playing to be as minimalistic as no bar playing has yet been proven possible to be? |
No, I wouldn't. Johnny played more minimalistically without the bar.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | You seem to be saying that despite the fact these movies would not exist had not risks been ignored and irrational desires not been motivating factors |
How is desiring to produce great art irrational?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 164. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Locke wrote: | | Personally, no. But people who offended by others demeanors still wouldn't be offended by losing to a kata-ryodan, they just wouldn't understand why the person had used such an ineffective cut. |
You can say this with certainty for every individual?
| Quote: | | No, I wouldn't. Johnny played more minimalistically without the bar. |
That sounds impressive. He could probably challenge a good number of serious bar using players with that level of technique, could he not?
| Quote: | | How is desiring to produce great art irrational? |
I dunno. I consider desire in general to be irrational, and most of the methods for evaluating the greatness of art seem to me so subjective as to render them unintelligable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 165. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | You can say this with certainty for every individual? |
No, nor do I have to. I can say it's no more particularily likely then any other action, which is all I need to say. By the way, attempting to justify forcing no-bar by suggesting that some people might be more offended if they lose to you is about the worst argument I've ever heard.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | That sounds impressive. He could probably challenge a good number of serious bar using players with that level of technique, could he not? |
No, he couldn't. Because as advanced as his technique is, it isn't as advanced as even basic bar-required technique.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | I consider desire in general to be irrational |
That means you're using a non-descriptive theory of rationality. I believe if you search every university in the world you might find three people who felt this theory wasn't chauvenistic. Maybe.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 166. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Locke wrote: | | No, nor do I have to. I can say it's no more particularily likely then any other action, which is all I need to say. By the way, attempting to justify forcing no-bar by suggesting that some people might be more offended if they lose to you is about the worst argument I've ever heard. |
Didn't mean to make that argument, sorry. Just felt like pointing out one meager possible benefit a person of a certain attitude might percieve from barless playing. I figured if I concentrated on one thing that would be enough.
| Quote: | | No, he couldn't. Because as advanced as his technique is, it isn't as advanced as even basic bar-required technique. |
I was assuming a large enough group to make my statement true, but I guess you wouldn't consider such players serious players.
| Quote: | | That means you're using a non-descriptive theory of rationality. I believe if you search every university in the world you might find three people who felt this theory wasn't chauvenistic. Maybe. |
I'm sorry, what group does it possibly favor to state all impulses are irrational when I assume impulses as a requisite for all behavior? Dead people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 167. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | I'm sorry, what group does it possibly favor to state all impulses are irrational when I assume impulses as a requisite for all behavior? Dead people? |
To say a theory of rationality is chauvenistic is to say it counts as irrational actions which are actually rational.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tyrgannus
Trick Member
Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Location: Not about to tell |
| 168. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You seem to love debates Kiba, maybe we should get in a long debate about the legitamacy of a god or something big around those lines
_________________
| AA Bob wrote: | | Summer is as much of a 12 as PSMO is a 9. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mydixiewrecked
Trick Member
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| 169. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyrgannus wrote: | | You seem to love debates Kiba, maybe we should get in a long debate about the legitamacy of a god or something big around those lines |
You don't go into the Random Chat forum, do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 170. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Locke wrote: | | To say a theory of rationality is chauvenistic is to say it counts as irrational actions which are actually rational. |
Why? I'd assume that by treating all actions as equally (in)valid it prevents feelings of group superiority. Are you just using the word chavanistic completely detached from any sense of its standard meaning? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 171. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | Are you just using the word chavanistic completely detached from any sense of its standard meaning? |
Maybe. That's how the word is used in philosophy.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 172. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Would you care to define the word then so I might have SOME idea of what your objection is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 173. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | Would you care to define the word then so I might have SOME idea of what your objection is? |
A chauvenistic theory is an identity theory which says: X = Y and for which there are some other objects Z which are also Y but which the theory discounts.
Your theory of rationality is chauvenistic because it says that desire is irrational, which discounts some objects (desire) which should be considered rational (by any sane theory of rationality).
All normative accounts of rationality are chauvenistic.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 174. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess I'm a chauvenist then, or else I have a "not-sane" view of rationality. I prefer the normative perspective on this issue even if it does put a schizophrenics actions on the same level as a nobel prize recipients. So sue me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 175. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | I guess I'm a chauvenist then, or else I have a "not-sane" view of rationality. I prefer the normative perspective on this issue even if it does put a schizophrenics actions on the same level as a nobel prize recipients. So sue me. |
Have you ever studied rational decision theory?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emptyeye
Trick Member
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Location: Waterbury, CT |
| 176. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Question, although it'll probably get ignored (Or at the very least, not answered directly) like just about every other post I've made in this topic so far...
Back when the World Cup was first announced, the plan was for the main event to be no-bar. Somewhere in that discussion, someone stated basically that "Mike plays flatfoot and can thus transition easily to no-bar, but what about someone like Ryan?" (Ryan then interjected that he was still an elite player no-bar)
As Cory's (Kiba, that is your real name, correct?) research indicates that Mike is the better player than Ryan, my question is: "What does Mike do differently than Ryan that would enable him to transition more easily to no-bar (While still putting up superior scores with bar)? DOES he do anything differently at all, or was the person in the topic simply talking out of their *** (Which wouldn't surprise me very much, honestly)?"
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 177. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They were talking out of their butt. Ryan plays more flat-footed then Mike does.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vesper
Trick Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
|
| 178. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dancing games are fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 179. Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Locke wrote: | | Have you ever studied rational decision theory? |
No. If there is a very obvious argument against my position presented by rational decision theory you're going to have to introduce it to me. Probably the core terminology too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
