[ It takes some time for Frill to respond to Garion's message. When she finally receives a response, it's oddly measured, with none of the usual pep or bitterness that characterizes Frill. ]
[ and for a good three minutes, it's the only thing written between them. but soon enough, another message comes through: ]
The waking world is one of state, soldiers and surveillance, Frill. It is only the untamed frontier of the world, the Dream Sphere, in which a single individual's might can truly be brought to bear upon the world. So, then, when the boundaries of civilization are drawn around it - when a claim is made upon the untamed wilderness - how can one person hope to contest it?
The answer is simple. If the state is what holds a monopoly on violence, then the state itself is what must be brought to bear. In my own distance from humanity, I am a human suited to this task we have been forced into; after all, I am capable of holding the arbiter's scales. Every Dreamer I have brought to my side is an envoy; they are capable of enforcing the will of the land. And you, Frill, are the eyes that behold both worlds in their naked ugliness.
You understand, don't you? After all, not every human can look unshaken upon the truth of the world, whether waking or dreaming.
when you get down to it, i don't really understand the point of philosophy, or at least these big questions that a lot of people are obsessed with. like, you could make the argument that in order for a human being to interpret the phrasebook in a way that makes it possible, the book would have to have some level of consciousness in order to filter and intuit that person's needs in order for it to not take an infinite amount of time to learn those rules. that book is, technically speaking, more conscious in that conversation than the human, and the human is really the book's utility, not the other way around
that's obviously not salient to what's really being asked, but the debates i've heard about basically about the same kind of minutiae. stuff to distract yourself with, prove you're thinking about morality or thought or whatever so you can pretend that you're not letting your monster run rampant
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
what makes you say that?
no subject
[ and for a good three minutes, it's the only thing written between them. but soon enough, another message comes through: ]
The waking world is one of state, soldiers and surveillance, Frill. It is only the untamed frontier of the world, the Dream Sphere, in which a single individual's might can truly be brought to bear upon the world. So, then, when the boundaries of civilization are drawn around it - when a claim is made upon the untamed wilderness - how can one person hope to contest it?
The answer is simple. If the state is what holds a monopoly on violence, then the state itself is what must be brought to bear. In my own distance from humanity, I am a human suited to this task we have been forced into; after all, I am capable of holding the arbiter's scales. Every Dreamer I have brought to my side is an envoy; they are capable of enforcing the will of the land. And you, Frill, are the eyes that behold both worlds in their naked ugliness.
You understand, don't you? After all, not every human can look unshaken upon the truth of the world, whether waking or dreaming.
no subject
but not enough. there's a pretty key assumption that you're making that's just that, an assumption
can you spot it?
no subject
I. the assumption that you would consider yourself human;
II. the assumption that a "human being" is in and of themselves a human.
Are you familiar with the concept of a p-zombie, Frill?
Or perhaps a Chinese room?
no subject
oh
EXTENSIVELY
you would not believe the stupid debates i've overheard about those ideas
no subject
Are they stupid because the ones arguing hold no stake?
Or are they stupid for assuming a fundamental truth to humanity to begin with?
no subject
when you get down to it, i don't really understand the point of philosophy, or at least these big questions that a lot of people are obsessed with. like, you could make the argument that in order for a human being to interpret the phrasebook in a way that makes it possible, the book would have to have some level of consciousness in order to filter and intuit that person's needs in order for it to not take an infinite amount of time to learn those rules. that book is, technically speaking, more conscious in that conversation than the human, and the human is really the book's utility, not the other way around
that's obviously not salient to what's really being asked, but the debates i've heard about basically about the same kind of minutiae. stuff to distract yourself with, prove you're thinking about morality or thought or whatever so you can pretend that you're not letting your monster run rampant