AGDInteractive - Sierra Adventure Game Remakes Forum

That's because he's schizotypal.

Perhaps... but at least in my opinion, you can't make a judgement like that from a handful of random senseless posts in an internet forum... After all, he could just be making all this up to get a rise out of people and see what everyone will say. But then again, if he's serious about everything, you might just be right

* Shakes his head too and walks over to Keenermart *
Hey... wanna go get a beer?

Keenermart wrote:Perhaps... but at least in my opinion, you can't make a judgement like that from a handful of random senseless posts in an internet forum... After all, he could just be making all this up to get a rise out of people and see what everyone will say. But then again, if he's serious about everything, you might just be right

I know. Or schizoid. And no I can't make such a judgment seriously, but I told him to go to a therapist already. And you should do the same, instead of going into his posts. I'm leaving this thread forever now.

Wolfgang Abenteuer wrote:So the success of a society would be measured how?

I consider a civilization successful if it has flourishing arts and continues to make progress in science and technology. Neither population growth nor expansion of territory is one of my requirements, but I am skeptical that the former is possible without the latter.

The typical pattern in the growth of a civilization is that, in the early stages, the arts are flourishing while the sciences are modest. Take, for example, the Roman Empire. Early Roman art was quite uplifting. Go visit an art museum that displays examples of Roman art, or visit Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas, which is an art museum in and of itself. You may walk away with the feeling that it is a nobel thing to be human. (Depending on your background or outlook, you may also walk away with the feeling that it's a nobel thing to be white or European, but that's another matter.)

As a civilization develops, science and technology begin to rise, and soon thereafter art begins to decline. Did you know that, in the late years of the Roman Empire, the ancient Romans actually had electricity? Really! They did not have it in their homes; it's use was limited to the laboratory. But ancient Roman scientists did have small electric generators and motors that were built purely as theoretical objects of study. On the other hand, late Roman art is clearly decadent. Do you know how murders were depicted on the stage in Roman theater? They would take a convicted murderer sentenced to death and carry out the execution on the stage in front of the audience (presumably after he had exhausted all his appeals).

If you look at Western civilization today, you can see that science and technology are flourishing while art is in decline. But the decline in art is inevitably followed by the decline in science and technology, since art is what inspires people to make the creative advances in science and technology.

So far, none of the above has anything to do with population growth. But one of the incentives for developing technology is the growing market for products. Another is the need to develop new technologies to facilitate the new construction necessary to support a growing population. Perhaps it is possible to sustain a high level of art, science, and technology without a growing population, but I know of no historical examples of its happening.

No no... I wasn't shaking my head at the problem of over-population or whatever, I was shaking my head at the hopelessness of arguing with Renodox about all this.

Arguing with ME? Most of the recent posts are about some rise and decline of populations in nations of the past and present. Besides, all I asked was for advice on getting rid of unwanted attention. I didn't ask to be convinced to give in to the ultimate evil.

I know. Or schizoid. And no I can't make such a judgment seriously, but I told him to go to a therapist already. And you should do the same, instead of going into his posts. I'm leaving this thread forever now.

I don't know if you'll read this or not, but I've already seen a therapist and it did me no good. Maybe it's just because I need something better than humans to talk to. And I mean something that I can see, hear and feel. Something that I don't need to rely on faith to believe in. Not that it's a bad thing to do mind you, but it helps me to actually be able to percieve these things.

Renodox wrote:I need something better than humans to talk to.

Hmmm. If a need is incapable of fulfillment, then I question whether it can reasonably be called a need.

You're right to avoid beliving in anything that requires faith. But if you're looking for something better than humans, you're going to have a hard time finding it.

You might try finding some historical figure who lived up to higher standards than the average human and who can serve as an inspiration for you. Personally, I have read every primary source that I can find about Alexander the Great, have read all of Mary Renaults books about him, and have visited his birthplace in Pella and the area of his tomb in Alexandria. I have a bust of Alexander the Great in my home that was made from a mold of an original that was discovered in Alexandria and now sits in the British Museum. Although I cannot communicate with him, his life has served as an inspiration for me in certain respects.

If you can find a historical figure to suite your needs, you will not be able to communicate with him, but you may benefit from the example of his life. You may also try to get involved with the SETI project. Again, you will not be able to communicate with any extra-terrestials that you may discover, but perhaps you will find them to be superior to humans. Best of luck in any case.

Seems scary. I'm afraid.

Neither population growth nor expansion of territory is one of my requirements, but I am skeptical that the former is possible without the latter.

Skeptical, but not certain.

Perhaps it is possible to sustain a high level of art, science, and technology without a growing population, but I know of no historical examples of its happening.

Which could also mean that because none of those so-called successful civilizations are still around today, as they all have reached their "zenith" and then eventually declined, that perhaps they weren't successful after all. Since the formula for a truly successful, sustained civilization has evidently not yet been discovered, perhaps constant growth isn't the solution at all. Perhaps no growth at all is the solution. Who knows, really?

Then again since success is a term with different meaning to each person, it'd be hard to pinpoint exactly what being successful would entail. Problem is, since it has never happened in any civilization thus far, nobody can know what the true formula is. You may be right, you may be wrong. All we can do is speculate.

~Wolfgang

Erpy wrote:My initial reaction would probably be "Lucasfan, eat your heart out."

Klitos explained me the phrase "eat your heart out" but I still don't get what you wanted to tell me.

JayWar wrote:* Shakes his head too and walks over to Keenermart *
Hey... wanna go get a beer?

hahaha... sure, why not? I could use a good drink right about now anyway.

I must admit that I quit reading this thread quite a while ago. I've resorted to only skimming it. I'll agree that it has gotten stranger and stranger.

*Joins the other guys for a beer.*

What was the point of this conversation? You've got me so scrambled, I can't even remember the name of this place.

The point is, should Renodox get involved with women so that he can procreate and save our civilization from ruin? He says no, because the world is already overpopulated (and, besides, he would have to kiss them first, and he doesn't like kissing). I say that all civilizations must continue to grow or face inevitable decline and ruin. Wolfgang Abenteuer says that, no, continued growth may be the cause of decline and ruin. So that's where it stands. In the meantime, our civilization continues to decline. . . .

Yes, well, I think we've had enough of the conversation. What will be must be without my aid.

Anyway, I wanted to know rule 7 from Buster's Guide to Dating. Since I never got a reply to that in the pure topic I'll try it here.

Finally, one more reason for not getting involved with women is because I idolize Ebeneser Scrooge. ...Before he was refomred that is.

I think Dickens wouldn't have written Scrooge the way he was if he wasn't going to be reformed in the story.

For unwanted attention, it sure draws a 6 page thread!!!!


Grabs a beer, starts drinking

Bt

It appears that this topic has finally cooled off. Still, I want to give a bit more evidence in my favor.

Whenever people come after me I think of these things:
The vampire legend.
The movie "Bait."
The song "Cigarettes, Wiskey and Wild Wild Women"
The Greek belief of Cupid (I wear impenetrable armor to his arrows )

Renodox wrote:The Greek belief of Cupid (I wear impenetrable armor to his arrows )

As a mythology buff, I MUST respond to this: Cupid is Roman, Eros is Greek.



Good luck with that love armor protection thing.

Indeed. And Amor? He's Eros. Right?

Amor is actually Roman as well. The names Cupid ("desire") and Amor ("love") are interchangable.

Gimme Psyche.

What do you want to know about Psyche? Her origins, the meaning of her name, her great stories? There's a lot of myth to cover, after all...

Is she depicted as a girl with butterfly wings? I heard that somewhere.

Psyche may have been depicted with butterfly wings at some point; I honestly don't know. However, I think it unlikely since Psyche ("soul") was actually born a mortal woman, NOT a goddess.