So there's this game I like... called Space Engineers. I'm not great at making cool looking space ships, but what I really like is making machines and using event controllers and timers to automate stuff. These things, as if a visual makes any difference :
Shut up, I'm a nerd, you're not my mom... Lol. But the tricky thing about programming these blocks is, there's no way to count things. You can say, "if this happens, then execute these instructions," but you can't say, "if it happens x times, then output y." That makes sense, because if you can save states then you could get overflows and exceptions if you make something recursive.
So I have to trick the game. And it makes me giggle a little bit when I do. Its easy, but it also highlights a problem. What I do is make a thingy turn on a light, then another thingy check to see if all the lights are turned on, and that becomes the counter and it executes a thingy if the counter key matches the keyhole, so to speak. Then I can have branching "code" to handle exceptions, only there's no code, its just blinky blocks. Like, a hundred blocks, and I get lost trying to remember what does what. The problem that I mentioned before is that, even though you can trick it into having a memory, the size of the memory is the only thing that counts. You just create a binary - is it full, or isn't it - and nothing can exceed the "physical" limitation of the capacity you build in.
This is completely pointless, but I enjoy it. It makes me wonder about stuff in computer science - stuff which I'm sure a lot of y'all could explain, though I doubt I could write the right prompt. And another cool thing in Space Engineers is, you can save your design and then paste it in again later. So most of my designs are not complete working thingies, but pieces that I can use over and over. Anyways. Just thought I'd share that.
Away with your pitchforks! It makes sense. Of course you're free to do something you would never do. Why make pointless rules?
What's funny is how dogma kept the evil assumption but neglected the part that emphasizes love. Dogmatic churchmen would argue its your right to beat your wife - those same people would never notice that that's only the case because you wouldn't do it.
What's interesting about this is it shows the real meaning of liberty, as well as the necessity of a charitable disposition toward that which you could objectively call 'evil.' Liberty is not the right to do horrible things - its the charity towards others that gives the benefit of the doubt. Charity is disinterested. Its non coercive. Thus, liberty is disinterested. Some people say, "why would God make a world full of such evil?" The answer is, because love does not presume an outcome. A bad outcome doesn't invalidate the charity that was misunderstood. You're free to do evil - but if you know its evil, you won't choose it.
Now the first part of the quote is just as interesting, and possibly even moreso. Who's that Guide? What did Jesus say about teachers? Call no one your teacher, for you have but one teacher... Something like that. You remember. The outward world is the opposite of the Guide, as beating your wife is the opposite of love. Finding the Guide causes you to leave the preoccupations of meaningless worldly things. Thats when you see the "unseen world" - no object presents its full nature to the eyes, neither the material nor mental in nature. You still live in the world, and are free to chase those passions, those childhood things (believing the shadows on the cave wall are reality), but why on earth would you? This is one way of seeing the object of, "the truth will set you free."
#Philosophy #gnostr
