Archive for October, 2012

« Older Entries

Silence of the Night

Posted October 31, 2012 By John C Wright

A short story as an All Hollow’s Eve offering.

Feel free to click me a tip as a donation, dear reader, if think it in the spirit of the season.

Silence of the Night

I was overcome with awe, and fell to my face when I saw the Chronomancer walking slowly toward me along the balcony.

To my right, the thought-amplifying spyglasses looked out from the great embrasure upon the darkness and strange fires of the Night Lands, and I could see the shining eyes of the Great Watching Thing of the Southeast looking at me. The Thing was as mighty as a mountain, and about its forepaws, which had not moved in a million years or more, was encamped an army of Blind Ones, of Ogres, and of shaggy subhumans, of which more than half had stirred from the six thousand year paralysis, and had been stirring since the days of my grandfather’s youth, and the reddish haze of severe space-distortion was all about them.

To my right, above me and below me were the other balconies, the windows and lamps of the Home of Man, and the Tower of the Monstruwacans, the monster-watchers, rose another mile above the topmost embrasures of the highest balconies. No other humans were near me, not for miles: the cities of this level, and the ones below and above, had been deserted for half a million years. The cities were silent except for the whisper of the perfect machinery built by an ancestral people, and were empty of thought-action, except for those paeans known to hinder powers of the outside, soul-vibrations taken from the thought-records of departed sages of greatest spiritual power and wisdom. He and I were alone.

***********************************************

Once, when I was but a youth, I dreamed of the days of light. A hollow vessel of wood, like a long and narrow dish, but great enough to hold many men, was shattered on the sea: the crew was treading water, and with loud voices they called to each other, each man telling the other as he sobbed to remain strong and hopeful, and await the dawn.

In the dream this seemed no wonder, though I later would regret I had not slept long enough to see this marvel of the ancient world.

My father was in my hands, and he was weary and cold, and I gripped him, calling out his name, although the bitter sea wave entered my mouth whenever I spoke.

There were sharks in the waters, drawn by blood, and, one by one by one, the men to my left and right were yanked below the surface. The inconstant moon appeared and disappeared between silver-edged black clouds: and sometimes I would see the silhouette of some mate or well-liked crewman bobbing on the heaving waves. But then the water would rise and fall between us, and I could not see, or the moon would hide. Then, a moment later, there was fitful light again, and whoever I sought was gone. They made no screams as the jaws pulled them under, for they were too weary.

I remember the salt-sea and the deadly cold. I remember trying to pull the wizened body of my father up onto my back, as if I could somehow lift him away from the sea. All I did was to push my own face below the dark waters.

***********************************************

When I woke, the dreaming glass registered a time-tension of over twenty-five million years, farther by three aeons than any accurate records reached, farther than previous paleochronopathy had recovered though thought-echoes. Even the master academicians, dwelling in the egg-shaped crystal thought-chambers of their guild, their minds augmented by surgery and magnified coherent streamers of by Earth-Current, could not penetrate the spirals and angles of time so deeply as I, when merely an untrained boy, unaided, had done.

I knew then that my life was marked: if foretellers had not foreseen someone of my power, after-tellers, those who walk through the memories of their ancestors, would return from the future to seek me.

I was not entirely surprised. In a sense, I had been long awaiting this visitation.

Read the remainder of this entry »

10 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Free Fic

Philosophy Quiz!

Posted October 31, 2012 By John C Wright

Ah, a kind reader named Darrell, one of the few entities on the Internet with a human name, has asked me about my favorite topic!

Within your system of philosophy, how is truth defined?

Is truth objective or subjective? Please show the work at how you arrived at this answer.

Can either the subjectivity or objectivity of truth (as defined by your philosophy) be proven by logic or experiment?

A statement is true if the thing said in the statement is as things really are. A man is true if he keeps his word, so that the statements he makes about himself are trustworthy.

Truth is objective. The work to show this is simple: suppose truth were not objective. Objective means that what is true for you is true for me. This is the same as supposing that a truth were false, or were mere opinion, or in some other way were not true. A statement that there is no truth, if true, is false.

The statement that truth is subjective is a self-refuting statement. If it were true, it would be true for you and not for me.

The objectivity of truth can be deduced by logic as given above, and it is metaphysical deduction, that is, it is true under all times, places and conditions in this or any other universe where words have meaning.

Experiments deduce only contingent truth, local to the universe in which one finds oneself, and only under the conditions for which the experiment correctly controls.

The idea of experiment depends upon the idea of objective truth, as does the idea of rational deduction from first principles; therefore no experiment and no reasoning can arrive at the conclusion that there is no truth, because this impeaches the method used to arrive at it.

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Other

Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Christopher Stevens

Posted October 31, 2012 By John C Wright

I spent several years as a newspaperman and as an editor. I knew that papers slanted stories, leaving things in or out, and bringing emphasis on the points that favored their party.

But I have never seen anything like this. This is flagrant. This is criminal.

Watergate was such a big scandal that it has become the by-word for scandal — you just put “-gate” after a word, and the word becomes a scandal-word. (Imagine if Latin had a special case just for scandals, indicated by changing the word ending: nominative, accusative, dative, locative, scandalous.)

No one died in Watergate.

Then there is Benghazi. Four men died, and the administration watched the events in real time, and did nothing. There were operatives and military units within range, and they were ordered to stand down, commanded not to act to defend the Ambassador and the other dead men. Administration officials made the rounds of Sunday talk shows and blamed a video on YouTube. Then the Administration apologized to the attackers.

I have always known the press was slanted. But this is beyond that. This verges on aiding and abetting. This is an unambiguous deception visited on the public in the furtherance of an impeachable dereliction of public duty, perhaps even treason.

This is the biggest story of the year, of the last nine years. And yet where is there anyone covering it?

The Jerusalem Press is covering it. Here is the best story I have read so far:

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/benghazi-october-surprise

GA: That was my next question; do you believe that this administration is smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda?

CL: Well, not… I mean… The short answer is yes. They were working with the very same Al-Qaeda linked relationships in Libya to gather up and buy back and collect weapons from Gaddafi’s stock pile that were missing from the revolution in Libya last year and what it looks like is that they were shipping them onwards to Syria.

GA: Some of those weapons have already shown up in the Sinai on the southern border of Israel.

CL: Yes, they’ve gone to the Sinai and they’ve also gone to Mali and to other places in western Africa and they’ve also gone to Syria. That was the operation, that’s what they were doing.

5 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Only Posting a Link

Suicide in Metachronopolis

Posted October 27, 2012 By John C Wright

I should not have done it.

I have a manuscript due on the editor’s desk in January. I took a week off to write a short story set in my background of Metachronopolis, the golden city beyond the end of time. My previous two Metachronopolis stories, CHOOSERS OF THE SLAIN and MURDER IN METACHRONOPOLIS both appeared in Mike Allen’s CLOCKWORK PHOENIX anthology. The last time I wrote him, he said he would look at another Metachronopolis story, and I was so eager to continue the tradition, that I sent him story written just for him for CLOCKWORK PHOENIX 4.

Why am I telling you this? Because I would like all of you who are superstitious to cross your fingers, and all who believe in divine intervention to cross yourselves for me, and if you are an atheist, you are useless to me, because I would really like to sell this story, and it will take some sort of miracle.

It is one of the few tales I wrote with a specific editor in mind (well, the book I wrote for John W Campbell Jr, THE CONCUBINE VECTOR does not really count) and I am as shy as a girl at a Sadie Hawkins dance asking a guy out. (And if you are too young to catch the reference, you should talk to your parents more often. Or their parents.)

For those of you unfamiliar with his work, Mike Allen set out to collect stories (if I may quote his guidelines) “that sidestep expectations in beautiful and unsettling ways, that surprise with their settings and startle with the ways they cross genre boundaries, that aren’t afraid to experiment with storytelling techniques.”

Read the remainder of this entry »

13 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Blogbegging, Fancies, Free Fic

My First Bit of Hate Mail

Posted October 27, 2012 By John C Wright

I just got my first honest-to-goodness piece of nutbag hatemail today. The hate was not directed against me in this case, but it was still unseemly:

Dear Mr Wright,

I have seen from your blog that you plan to vote for Mitt Romney this November. Do not be deceived, whether Romney wins or not, should you, Mr Wright, declare that you want a Mormon to rule over you, you will not escape the judgement of God.

“And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the LORD thy God, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.” (1 Samuel 12:19)

Voting for Romney will not save you from the coming judgment. Stop putting your hopes in mere men who cannot save. REPENT and submit to the King God has already chosen for you.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (Psalm 2: 6-12)

I have heard all my life about anti-religious bigotry, but never actually came across any that come from any other source than Leftist laiacists. Is this the kind of crap Mormons have to put up with? Don’t get me wrong, they are heretics with a particularly outre version of Christianity, and their baptism is not valid. But they are less loony than Moonies, Christian Scientists, Young-Earth Creationists, Witches and Unitarians, all of which I have among my friends and loved one.

Me personally, I have more of a problem being too Ecumenical and irenic rather than being too supremacist. I have to remind myself that there is no salvation outside the Church, but I am hoping the Ark includes everyone baptized in the name of the Trinity, and other virtuous pagans saved like Trajan.

I am not offended at the bigotry, nor at the lack of civility but I am offended at the lack of Civics. Namely, the president is simply not a king. There is no offense even in the strictest possible religious interpretation of Catholic doctrine against voting for a Mormon to be your servant.

In America, we citizens are king, I and every other enfranchised voter. We the people are the sovereign. The president is our butler, our seneschal, an administrator we appoint to enforce the laws made by our representatives, and a bouncer we employ to keep out of that nationwide party we call America anyone trying to sneak in without an invitation.

By the logic of the nutbag, all voting is illegal, since it sets up a king in opposition to God, and all forms of government were illegitimate after the administration of Samuel the Judge, including the reign of St Constantine and St Louis. The only legitimate form of government is Bronze Age Theocratic tribalism under the administration of Judges in the Holy Land in the years between the exodus and the reign of Saul.

In reality, of this period, the Good Book says, Judges 21:25, “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

The manly yet poetic language of the Old Testament is open to misinterpretation, but this language is a description and condemnation of the anarchy of those times.

Only twice have I come across any Anti-Catholic bigotry, and I am grateful for its rarity. The Church of Later Day Saints, while I condemn them for preaching a false and abominable doctrine, I salute and admire them for maintaining a voice of sanity and decency in an increasingly lunatic world, and each Mormon I have ever met personally has been a shining example of virtue and charity and neighborliness.

In this case, I embrace the Mormons and scorn any fellow Catholics whose mouths are full of hate.

Filed in Other

Mitt Romney’s Al Smith Speech

Posted October 27, 2012 By John C Wright

If you have never done humorous public speaking, it is harder than it looks. Romney has a good gag writer, and displays a gracious self-deprecating humor.
Read the remainder of this entry »

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

An Irenic Question

Posted October 26, 2012 By John C Wright

A reader with the peaceful name of Irensist writes:

Mr. Wright, your classical liberalism is both honorable and well-known. As one of your co-religionists who is inclined toward “partial socialism” (if I may adopt your term) while at the same time concerned about how welfare does indeed promote illegitimacy and undermine subsidiarity, I haven’t the slightest illusion that with my paltry learning I could dissuade you from your economic views, nor do I wish to hazard the attempt. Instead, in hopes of drawing from you the courage to abandon my partial socialist position, I’d like to put to you a question, which I hope you’ll take as being asked in good faith.

When I picture a classical liberal or laissez faire regime, my mind leaps unbidden to Dickensian squalor–a reaction more of the sentiments than the reason, I admit. I find myself thinking that although I am grateful for the unparallelled growth in the prosperity of the poorest in these last few capitalist centuries (the extent of which was first brought home to my imagination by undergraduate reading of von Mises’ Liberalism, as it happens), I should like to see our citizenry vote to allocate some resources derived from taxation (about the legitimacy of which I won’t argue, for it is beside my point here) to provide a financial floor–perhaps some sort of basic income guarantee as advocated by Milton Friedman, rather than welfare as presently constituted–for the poorest, in order to fend off the deepest depths of squalor. Since I take you to be opposed to such in principle (being in the honorable tradition of opposition to the servile state, as Belloc called it) to such redistributive taxation, I imagine that, other than economic growth itself, you might proffer more vigorous private eleemosynary institutions (the insurance programs of the Knights of Columbus and Catholic hospitals and schools, e.g.) as a method for funding such a financial floor for the poorest in better accord with subsidiarity and fitter for a republic of free men. So, after all that, here is my question: were the present welfare state to be dismantled, what would be the most prudent way for statesmen to manage the transition from the servile state to the subsidiary civil society without having us fall back into Dickensian squalor before the private charities have waxed strong enough to pick up the slack? If you can convince me that private charity can indeed provide such a floor without the coercive apparatus of the state to force fallen men to pay their alms to the poor, I shall be much farther along on the road to abandoning my present partial socialism, and I shall count myself very much more in your debt than I already do as the author of such splendid novels.

My comment: This is a very telling question, and there is no flip or easy answer to it.

You see, before the state did all the work of providing welfare to the poor, it was done either by charitable community organizations, such as a Community Chest (which is remembered these days only as a card deck in the MONOPOLY game), or, in earlier days, through guilds or through the established Church.

Those charities have been crowded out of the public square since the New Deal, and the HHS Mandate, as well as pro-gay laws, are pushing Catholic charities one after another out of business.

So, having killed off its competition, is Caesar now indispensable as the distributor of public charity?

If it is, the faithful Catholic cannot deny his pinch of incense at the altar of Caesar, on the grounds that we are compelled by Christ’s direct command to care for the poor and needy, visit the prisoner, feed the hungry.

Read the remainder of this entry »

12 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

On the Incivility of Socialists

Posted October 26, 2012 By John C Wright

Forgive me if I fail to list by definition and axiom and minor premise and major all my reasons for the thoughts I express below. Those reasons have been given many times before, by me and by other men more learned and articulate than I.

It is instructive to notice that it greater part of the rudeness, the incivility, the madness in public discourse comes from the Left.

It does not matter whether they are Christian or agnostic or atheist, the socialists cannot hold a civilized conversation or debate.

This is because, ultimately, after one says “eat the rich!” one has nothing to say.

One may just call people names after that, bark at them like a foaming mad dog, sneer at one’s betters, scoff and snarl and heap disdain on people too decent to reply in kind.

Read the remainder of this entry »

29 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

Just a Small Thing

Posted October 25, 2012 By John C Wright

In the third presidential debate, Mitt Romney pointed out that the current Navy was smaller than it had been since 1917. President Obama replied by saying that since the mission parameters had changed, and the military needs of the current world did not require a Navy of the type and structure as needed in the days of the Great War.

All well and good. Both sides, so far, have made telling rhetorical points and presented a reasonable case, each man for his side.

But then Barry the Community Organizer decided to adopt a condescending and lecturing tone, telling Governor Romney that the modern Navy has aircraft carriers from which planes can take off, and atomic submarines which are ships that go under the water.

I am the son of a lifelong Naval officer, so I spent my youth on post, and heard how the men and officers talk, so some of this is second nature to me. But I cannot be the only one who noticed this gaffe.

The only ship that goes under the sea is one that gets sunk. A submarine is a boat, not a ship. That is why the Germans called then U-Boats, not U-Ships.

Read the remainder of this entry »

75 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

The Last Post on this Topic for a While

Posted October 23, 2012 By John C Wright

Darrell says:

Mr. Wright, if I recall rightly, refers to himself as a compatiblist (a determinist who believes in free will – a position that I thought Dr. A held as well, but I am now uncertain) and believes in an “underlying reality” for which BOTH physical and mental descriptions apply while neither is able to do so fully and sufficiently without the other. To provide an analogy, if one person only sees a car crash and another only hears a car crash then neither witness can fully describe the crash. Nor did hearing the crash did cause what the one witness saw anymore than seeing the crash cause what the other witness heard.

I suspect that Mr. Wright is quite possibly a monist, or at least someone that would argue that we are unable to observe what the underlying reality “really” is. If this is so, and I stand ready to be corrected, then the underlying disagreement is what is reality composed of? Do we have access to observing this underlying reality?

Well, well. It will sound snarky, but I have been waiting for two years to see if anyone would actually ask me what I thought on this topic. You are all too shy (or have too much good sense).

The question is exactly what is reality composed of. That is the basic question of ontology. It is a question I have now asked Dr Andreassen an even dozen times to address, and he has now given an answer, which as a curt refusal accompanied by an unconvincing face-saving justification. Enough of him.

The question of whether monism implies an unobservable buried reality, however, is fascinating. My answer would either be a qualified yes or a definite maybe.

Oddly enough, Amelia Windrose in my ORPHANS OF CHAOS trilogy is asked exactly this question, and replies that she believes in monads, but that she cannot explain how the physical dimension of the monad relates to the mental dimension of the monad. It cannot be a physical relationship, like a gravity field, because then a brick would have to have the concept ‘brick’ attracted by gravity and connected to it; it cannot be a symbolic or mental relationship because then the physical brick would have to have the concept ‘brick’ producing or manifesting it the way a mind produces an imagination or a god produces an avatar. So she said the concept was unanswerable.

At the time I made it up, I meant it for a clever bit of science fictional reasoning, but seeing how this conversation is trending, now I am not so sure.
Read the remainder of this entry »

70 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Reasonings

Seeking Closure on the Closure Discussion

Posted October 23, 2012 By John C Wright

Bel Roise once again asks a question to attack the Foundation of my philosophy. Okay, not really, but I could not resist the pun.

Time permits me at the moment only to reply to one remark in his long and thoughtful response:

I was merely asking how can it be that qualia, which I know to be real and which we both agree are not reducible to physical facts, can move objects or -perhaps I should put it this way-, how can objects in the physical move in such accordance to qualia?

When you see a woman with whom you are in love, the loveliness of the beloved draws you, sets your soul in motion, and is the final cause, the purpose or goal, of the various acts of courtship and valor by which the brave deserve the fair. Agreed? This is motion, but it is not physical motion. It is a cause, but it is not a mechanical cause. The photons bouncing off the bouncy young girl are not pushing the suitor to go pick flowers and scribble bad poetry with means of and only by means of the mass-energy of the photon. Photons of a similar mass and energy coming from a flashlight have never produced a single ode.

Your question is ambiguous, in that you are actually asking about ’cause’ in the sense of ‘purpose’ or ‘goal’ or ‘inspiration’ or ‘aspiration’ but you are using the word ’cause’ in the sense of a mechanical lever applying external pressure to an inert and animate body.

Because these words are the same in English, and because all our metaphors and words for mental events are the same words we use for physical events, it is nearly impossible in our thoughts to make and maintain this distinction, even though the distinction clearly exists in reality.

Read the remainder of this entry »

16 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Reasonings

Europe 4 All in the 4th Stage

Posted October 23, 2012 By John C Wright

Take a look:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100185609/you-thought-the-whole-eussr-thing-was-over-the-top-have-a-look-at-this-poster/

Daniel Hannan writes:

Take a close look at this promotional poster. Notice anything? Alongside the symbols of Christianity, Judaism, Jainism and so on is one of the wickedest emblems humanity has conceived: the hammer and sickle.

For three generations, the badge of the Soviet revolution meant poverty, slavery, torture and death. It adorned the caps of the chekas who came in the night. It opened and closed the propaganda films which hid the famines. It advertised the people’s courts where victims of purges and show-trials were condemned. It fluttered over the re-education camps and the gulags. For hundreds of millions of Europeans, it was a symbol of foreign occupation. Hungary, Lithuania and Moldova have banned its use, and various former communist countries want it to be treated in the same way as Nazi insignia.

Yet here it sits on a poster in the European Commission

Read the remainder of this entry »

37 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

To the Purist Voter

Posted October 22, 2012 By John C Wright

While I honor and respect any man who withholds his vote from Governor Romney on that grounds that Mr Romney is so evil from stem to stern that a vote for him will tarnish one’s immortal soul and damn one to hell, I cannot respect those who withhold their vote on the grounds that the mild annoyance of an ideologically impure or insufficiently libertarian Romney Administration is indistinguishable from an Obama Second Term.

No political contest in my lifetime, no election since before the Civil War, has been fraught with such grave and lasting likely consequences.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, I believe this election will either destroy the nation, economically and spiritually if not physically; or else destroy the Democratic Party for a generation.

While I would not be willing to imperil my immortal soul for the sake of my nation — for what profits it a man to gain the world but lose his soul? — I would be willing to imperil my ideological purity by voting for a candidate who says he supports my causes but might not, or who claims not to support intrinsically morally evil practices, but might yet. Is my ideological purity worth risking the collapse of the last nation on Earth which even plays lip service to my ideals?

Read the remainder of this entry »

26 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link, Reasonings

On the Necessity of Ontology

Posted October 22, 2012 By John C Wright

A reader apparently named after a famous admiral from Trantor bent on destroying The Foundation, Bel Riose, asks an interesting question, but also cautions us not to the ongoing and endless conversation about materialism to reach its ontological and axiomatic foundations.

“I honestly cannot understand why you guys keep insisting in skipping ahead and talking about ontology when there are relevant questions about physics and questions about the physical reality that Dr. Andreassen is asking but which no dualist in this space, as far as I have traced back this discussion, has been willing or able to answer concisely and clearly.

To follow Mr. Wright’s suggestion I will use the exact philosophical terms: is there physical closure? is there nomological closure in the physical reality? what is the -physical- nature of the interaction between the mind and the physical reality? does this interaction necessarily implies that the laws of physics are nondeterministic or violates said closures?

With all due respect, another set of elaborate metaphors explaining how mental objects and physical objects belong to different categories and therefore cannot interact is not a satisfactory answer and I doubt it is going to be very helpful for any skeptic such as myself. Dualism must solve the problem of interaction.”

I am frankly baffled that anyone calls the solution unsatisfactory. It solves the problem and there is nothing left over to explain and no questions left unasked. if my solution is unsatisfactory, please tell me what you imagine a satisfactory solution would look like?

With all due respect, no, it is simply not true that Dualism must solve the problem of interaction before turning to a discussion of ontology, or indeed, at all. There is no problem of interaction.

All this is  assuming you would classify me as a Dualist. Perhaps I am, perhaps not. I believe mind and body differ in substance, by which I mean they are not talked about in the same terms or categories, but I am not a Cartesian.

I  would call myself an Accommodationist: my contention is that the use of statements about the mechanical causes of motion or material causes of matter to explain the physical aspects of reality neither confirm nor contradict the use of formal and final causes and categories to explain the nonphysical aspects. They accommodate each other. I hold that the appearance of a conflict is an illusion created by the misuse of words and metaphors.

From my point of view, Dualism has no business solving the problem of interaction before discussing ontology because Monism must first prove that there is a problem of interaction to be solved.

This is exactly where the conversation breaks down: the Monist Materialist seems to be saying that the Dualist is saying immaterial thoughts are a type of mechanical cause which creates physical force that pushes a bit of matter. The Dualist says he is not saying that.

What Dualism and Monism are really discussing is ontology, the question of whether mind and body exist, or exist in the same sense of the word ‘existence’ and how the two relate to each other, if at all.

If my thesis for the last two years has been “there is no problem of interaction to solve because there is no such thing as this so-called interaction” it is worse than useless to announce that the “problem of interaction” must first be solved before the conversation can move on.

To ask us to discuss the mind-body relation without discussing ontology is like asking use to discuss the Theorem of Pythagoras without reference to geometry.

Now, the reason why I say there is no problem of interaction to be solved is because this is a conclusion of my theory of ontology. If you agree with my theory of ontology, then you must agree with my conclusion about the illusory nature of the so called problem of interaction. But I cannot argue that the so called problem of interaction is illusory until and unless I argue the theory of ontology.

Read the remainder of this entry »

38 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Reasonings

Save CITY OF HEROES!

Posted October 21, 2012 By John C Wright

This weekend is my birthday, and it will mark the last 30 days of operation of the online massive multiplayer superhero game CITY OF HEROES. It is being shut down by NC Soft, and, as best we startled and woebegone players can tell, not due to lack of money.

That this is the best superhero computer game available. No other game has anything near the range of options for power sets and costume design. You can write up a short backstory or bio if you wish, and give your cape a “It’s Clobbering Time” style battlecry, and you can even design your own batcave or secret base. More ambitious players can design and run their own adventures in something like a holodeck, and invite other players to join.

I have roughly one hundred and fifty characters on the fifteen servers in this game. As you can tell from that number, the making up of new characters is my favorite part of the game.

All my characters are going to die in thirty days, evaporate, retire to oblivion, when Paragon City and all its environs and nearby parallel dimension go into oblivion.

Here are a few of my favorites. I include a screen shot and a copy of the bio. See if you recognize anyone.

If you want to sign the petition to keep any of my favorite characters alive, go here: http://www.change.org/petitions/ncsoft-keep-ncsoft-from-shutting-down-city-of-heroes

Read the remainder of this entry »

32 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Blogbegging, Drollery, Fancies
« Older Entries