191–200 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://makemediumreadable.com - Browser extension that actually works
I just tried this and it didn't get rid of the signup wall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super into this perspective. Unfortunately, I find myself around many people who don't see the modality as a dimension lowering, but instead as the truth. Which is fine, we're still very, very, very primitive. But I've been done with the whole "balance" thing for ~6 years and philosophy gets pretty lonely passed that hurdle. For what it's worth, if anyone is interested, "paradox" has been the thing for me since.
What does the transition from "duality" to "paradox" look like?
For me, it was neurotic as fuck. I started to question how predictable I was, and whether or not I could prove that the world around we wasn't just a tiny fake spec generated in real time based off predictions of what I would do next. The notion that my entire world could actually be very, very tiny as long as I was predictable enough kind of got to me. I started trying to do things I wouldn't do, and that was sort of a paradox. Eventually I began to use randomization to try to throw off the feeling. Nothing really worked, there's no way to prove that this isn't the tiniest matrix using advanced predictions to generate just a little more than what I sense. Also can't prove it's not a giant amazing universe. What-if-ism means: if it doesn't hurt to believe something, and you're willing to cede it's probably not reality, go for it. I like to believe in the universe as it's normally described.
Anyways, I find that the more I think about something, the closer I get to a paradox. What's the point of philosophy? To prove there is no point. What's the meaning of life? To understand there is no meaning. How do I achieve x goal? Stop caring about achieving it.
In a few words, rather than things existing as opposites, they exist as a paradox. They really shouldn't exist together.
As a WIP tangential thought (take it with a grain of salt, it's just for fun right now): as much as we take it for granted, I think there's something fucked up about a universe with both Cartesian and radial coordinates. Like, they shouldn't be together. And why just those two? Why not more? Why not just one? Seemingly things should be either universally relative, or personally relative, but not both simultaneously. It's like we're trying to survive in a universe with two disparate rule sets that by all accounts shouldn't be able to happen at the same time, and yet they are. It's a fucking paradox.
It is fun to see how much of this overlaps with the official guidelines for colors [0]. I think that the five colors are better explained in terms of deck strategies and win conditions. Crucially, by design, no color is best, nor is any combination of colors best. White represents not dying, both by preventing damage and by healing damage. White wins by having more health than their opponents, and outlasting them in…
There's more to these colors than your short summary says. In particular it doesn't say what colors can't do. White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various…
White is opposite red and black, giving it the gap of high-risk play. White cannot make opportunities, but must straightforwardly initiate combat and exploit superior layouts on the battlefield. Both red and black have many useful instant spells which give them options that white doesn't have. The Ravnica guild is Rakdos, which is oriented around riskily playing an entire hand quickly, and also around destroying everything except enchantments.
Blue is opposite green and red, and indeed blue is missing the useful buffs in green and (to a lesser extent) in red. Blue is also missing the overlap between green and red, which is direct destruction of lands and artifacts. Blue represents not just knowledge, but abandoning nature in favor of libraries and cities; green and red remind blue of the power of wild nature. The Ravnica guild is Gruul, which is oriented around putting +1/+1 buffs onto friendly creatures.
Black does have more of a win-at-all-costs feeling than other colors, sacrificing library, battlefield, hand, and even graveyard for victory. Opposite white and green, black lacks health buffs and turn-over-turn permanent growth, and isn't rewarded for having a healthy zoo. The white+green Ravnica guild, Selesnya, is oriented around giving discounts for new creatures by tapping existing creatures, and making copies of creatures.
Red is across from white and blue. Like you say, enchantments are a bit of a puzzle for red. White uses enchantments to defend and protect, while blue uses them to surprise and misdirect; red has no way to deal with or emulate this. The Ravnica guild is Azorius, oriented around spells which change their behavior depending on when and how they are played.
Finally, green is across from blue and black. Blue and black have in common a willingness to sacrifice capability and knowledge in exchange for power. Green is gradual and lacks ways to trade away the library or sacrifice creatures. And the final guild, Dimir, is oriented around sacrificing cards to search the library; later, it expanded to also include sacrificing (both!) libraries directly.
I'm honestly kind of amazed at how well-designed all of this is. I suppose that surviving the test of time does imply some sort of quality design, but this is remarkable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does the transition from "duality" to "paradox" look like?
Just going to wall of text this one. For me, it was neurotic as fuck. I started to question how predictable I was, and whether or not I could prove that the world around we wasn't just a tiny fake spec generated in real time based off predictions of what I would do next. The notion that my entire world could actually be very, very tiny as long as I was predictable enough kind of got to me. I started trying to do thin…
As a relevant example, consider the yin/yang symbol. It is composed of a duality which at first glance seems mutually exclusive, but what is most interesting about the two is actually where they interact. The paradox is that one cannot exist at the same (space-)time as the other, but each requires the other's existence to fully specify itself in terms of a cohesive concept. The light and dark sides are descriptors of two sides of the same coin. Finding the way to conceptualize that coin, rather than its sides, leads you to paradox that paradoxically makes sense! Just goes to show how "rationality" in the Greco-Roman sense is just one way to conceptualize our understanding, and that there are more ways than that.
We understand reality through language primarily built on identifying by what things are and what things are not. But maybe this form of understanding is limiting because it pre-supposes those dualities that make the language work.
To your point about coordinate systems -- there's something to be said about the ability to rationalize our sensory experiences into a formal logical system of description. However the paradox is actually that neither of those coordinate systems are "canonical" in the universal (literally and metaphorically) sense. They are first-order approximations to make our methods of reasoning (i.e., math) easier. But they do not reflect reality because, if you take the dominant theories of physics as true, the idea of space with curvature 0 or curvature +1 is a platonic ideal that cannot exist because matter and energy are distributed inhomogenously throughout space and time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're using "wrong" to refer to the fact that the color pie was developed arbitrarily, and so can't be descriptive of humanity or people. The other poster, and the article, aren't claiming that the color pie was developed with humanity or culture as a basis. They don't think that people can be solely described by a color and a description thought up by Garfield as a background for a card game. They don't disagree wi…
But it's not a useful lens. It's overly simplistic and holds no predictive power. It can only be applied in hindsight. Even as a narrative scaffold, it fails because it creates one-dimensional characters unless you're pulling from so many colors that you're not really using it anyway. And the metaphor isn't the point. So trying to defend the flat Earth model is missing the point of the metaphor entirely. It's an "ahk…
I think there are probably better lenses that are equally simple (maybe Big 5/MBTI, though I know little about them), but the advantage of the colour pie is that MTG players already spend time engaging with it and have a broad understanding of the tropes/stereotypes/etc. There's an example of applying it in the article, but I'm guessing you think that that's an outlier situation, and that it wouldn't broadly be useful. I can respect that, and I'm not sure I disagree yet. Call me back in a year or two.
Hadn't thought of using it as a narrative scaffold, and can definitely see why you wouldn't want it as your sole source for such. Having 5 possible character themes and 10-15 possible relationships does not an interesting story make.
I thought that demonstrating the use of the flat Earth model as a lens would be interesting, so apologies if it came across as a retort.
Under current events, I'd argue it does explain Humanity: look at a card upright, white is at the top while black is at the bottom :(
I 100% agree. This is where systemic racism comes from (black as destruction? White as godliness?) This is messed up and shame on those who don’t realize this and downvote you.
There are many racial issues at WotC that need fixing, many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's definitely a thing. I usually try to avoid games where trying to win is frowned upon in favor of games that are enjoyable when everyone tries to win.
Generally speaking, in Magic, people try to win, but you're not going to be sinking hundreds of dollars into cards when you're just getting into the game and playing against other newbies, making it a self-regulating thing - you spend more money as you need to spend more money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's more to these colors than your short summary says. In particular it doesn't say what colors can't do. White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various…
> White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various kinds are a common theme. White also has a thing for destroying creatures engaged in combat, which is both a…
[1] https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/185815973623/does-r-d-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be useful in Chinese? I thought each character is basically a word. Or is that only sometimes true?
As once it was explained to me, most ideograms can be used as an independent word, but most words are 2 or 3 ideograms long. If I remember correctly an example was faucet=water+dragon
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just be thankful in English there are spaces. Chinese doesn't have even that!
Would it be useful in Chinese? I thought each character is basically a word. Or is that only sometimes true?
Often the meaning of the characters in a word kinda implies the meaning of the word, but that's not reliable at all. Sometimes the characters in a word are used just for their sound.