User:Livedevilslivedevil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Livedevilslivedevil
2 The semi-altruistic, egoistic consciousness employing an allegedly humanoid body to write this (abbr.)
3 A few points to be made
4 On a current issue
5 Originals
6 Notable contributions

[edit] Livedevilslivedevil

Live devils lived evil is a double palindrome, should anyone have failed to notice this. Given the suffocatingly incomprehensible vastness of humanity, it does not appear at all unlikely to me that it has been produced previously, so I am particularly glad that no-one has chosen it as a user name. The reason I am adopting it as my own is that it was the first home's pun that came to my mind when I decided it was time to rampage ruinously through this encyclopedia.

I would also like to point out that, despite being only half English*, I do not imply the adjective evilly when writing the noun evil. To me, Yllive is not sufficiently similar to any other word to escape the semantic category of rubbish.

(*Should anyone intelligent have got the wrong impression, I actually quite like England.)

[edit] The semi-altruistic, egoistic consciousness employing an allegedly humanoid body to write this (abbr.)

My initials are T. A. T**. I live in a place called Limberland***, which I would advise you not to look for unless you're desperate to miss your next ten appointments or feel like plagiarizing the work of an officially innocent eighteen-year-old boy. I speak both German and English more or less fluently, my French is viable. My Latin is not but this has sociological reasons. I understand more or less well the written forms of Saxon, Bavarian, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Spanish, Italian and Portugese.

My school has found me somewhat useful at maintaining its reputation. Once I have finished helping (myself) there, I intend to engage in saving the world and suchlike, if I ever get a brainwave on how to do it. At the moment, I believe in the existence of qualia, though I would be interested in what Daniel Dennett has to say against it. I am not what is usually meant by religious. The idea of a benevolent god would appeal to me, but I prefer writing stories about it to actually believing in it. Officially I am a catholic and advocate certain forms of religion. I attribute no value to the absolute concept of knowing the truth, my philosophy is describable as a variant of hedonistic consequentialism. I will not go into further detail for fear that someone (most likely myself) will abuse my ideas.

My interests/hobbys include: Listening to, playing, analysing, improvising and composing music (especially modern piano music); philosophizing (i. e. thinking at base level about all the problems people like me have); trying to encourage other people think about them without getting pompous myself (though I can't say I'm too good at it); speaking and writing (language in general); eating, etc.; daydreaming; ornithology; reading; pretending to know things (this does not mean tricking people!) and recieving good marks at school for it; making the best of anything that appears to be a dilemma.

The epics shortly to crop up in the German "Wikipedia, die freie Enzyklopädie" by the notorious Nonanonolcyclononanon, will in fact also issue from the metaphorical quill of Livedevilslivedevil. The contributions to the English version contain a few insertions on music and a possibly legal user page.

I am the son of User:PJTraill, which I thank him for pointing out, and of MHDTraill, who does not appear to have a substantial amount of interest in the survival of Wikipedia.

The same, I believe, goes for my sister JMTraill.

(**This would permit me particular enjoyment of the anecdotal woman who, it is said, told Churchill she could "give tit for tat")

(***by me alone)

[edit] A few points to be made

Some people, including me, have a weakness for widespread, exciting-sounding statements, preferably involving the words "nothing", "everything", "life", and "world".
Accordingly: The world is an amusing catastrophe. A lot of it is just too true to be good.
And no, I am not a pessimist.
Ice, light and reason are, to me, among the least disgusting things in the universe.
Whenever you come across a brilliantly counter-intuitive idea (e. g. the ontological argument for the existence of god), have a look at how the terms are defined. Quite often it's just someone trying to be smart with logic, which is in my experience impossible.
Here's one!
1. To know something means to know one knows it.
2. This can be turned into an infinite regress where knowing one thing implies knowing an infinity of things.
3. I do not believe, that an infinity of things is knowable in a quantised universe, therefore I do not believe that I know anything.
4. I find the resulting paradox most irksome. That which I have apparently concluded logically seems to question causality and logic itself. I do however rather like Socrates's wording of it ("I know that I know nothing").
Truth and lies are not obvious opposites.
1. The intuitive opposite of lies, by which I mean the one which inverts their most emphasized quality, it truthtelling.
2. The intuitive opposite of truth does not concretely exist. That is how I define it.
Prokofiev is like a firework full of rock, glass and lemon juice.
Magic is the art of creating variables.
"Intuition" means slapdash, subconscious reasoning.
There is never the reason for anything.
Two blacks don't make a white, they say. No, they don't, not if you add them. They only do if you multiply them. -1 + -1 = -2. But: -1 * -1 = +1. This is why prevention is much more of a solution than punishment.
I don't believe I can do anything intentionally without wanting to. The sentence I don't want to do this but I will should be avoided in favour of Part of me doesn't want to do this, but it seems to be the smaller part.
If one has a yet unfounded theory, it helps not to shout about it. A fair portion of people is going to react sceptically, one will feel forced to defend one's ideas and find it all the harder to be objective about their validity.
Emotions are my goal but not my guide.

[edit] On a current issue

There seems to be no power to prevent society's adaptation to progress. The vision of a completely different life somewhere in the far-off future, a motivating force common to a multitude of self-proclaimed pioneers, deludes us just like the dream it is.

I have one good reason to withdraw some of my erstwhile faith in salvation through science. It may indeed be impossible in practice to compare happiness in different individuals, yet all the same I am inclined to doubt that the assumed increase in well-being through scientific advance matches the material cost at which it comes. To us for instance, the lightbulb, despite all its genius, is not what it probably was to the people of Edison's time. We are quite used to it, it seems no more special than a sharp stone must have felt to prehistoric man.

We laugh at those who marvel at modern technology, ever eager to emphasize our own intimacy with it. If a more modest approach were normal, if enthusiasm and admiration were nothing to be ashamed of in company, we would feel far less need for further improvement. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with true, childlike amazement, strip it of all religious associations if you wish. It is neither a sure sign of minor intelligence, nor of any other significant kind of inferiority.

As it is, many --particularly the young and rebellious-- never betray wonder for longer than conventionality allows, for fear of being branded uncool. Immoderate spending is in fashion. An unrealistic and unhealthy attitude, as it invites us to forget that we must be efficient to survive. In the face of an imminent ecological problem such as climate change we cannot afford a wasteful lifestyle. We must train ourselves to a lower consumptive demand. It would, I admit, be way into the idealistic to assume that our numbers could switch to making ends meet as hunter-gatherers or crop farmers without suffering a severe loss (in quality) of life. Nor do I advocate this as a solution. It sounds too easy. It is too easy. There is no point throwing away all that we have learned, only to make all the same mistakes all over again. I am opposed to anti-scientific romanticism. As I say above, while I believe that positive emotions are what it counts to achieve, I do not trust them as guides.

Nevertheless we must, in bringing up the next generation, enable them to enjoy life whether or not it is "enriched" by luxury goods such as television sets***. They must be taught what some of us seem to have dejected: the principle of saving. Everything concrete is bounded. If we have a great time today, posterity will only suffer all the more. If you love your children and would prefer them to understand this, have care to retain your far-sightedness. The more they get, the more they will want. Luxury is an addictive poison, a drug. You will do best to deny them an overdose. Just apologize and explain.

There seems to be no power to prevent society's adaptation to --, that is the annihilation of-- progress. I very much hope there is, but that it just has not shown itself yet.

(***No, you do not need a TV to get the news if you can read this.)