View Poll Results: What's the relationship?

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • Analysts are good, synthesizers are bad.

    0 0%
  • Synthesizers are good, analysts are bad.

    0 0%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. You mean, you think analysts are dictated to exist by the laws of logic or something?
    By saying analysts are necessary, I was just saying analysts formulate the foundations by which rational relationships can exist.

    This doesn't mean analysts must exist, but just that society depends on them. Analysts aren't obligated to serve society. If anything, that's what I'm opposing here.

    Not really. We can identify insane people by characteristics other than the specified attitude towards murder.
    Characteristics ring of the qualitative unit.

    1) if analysts can build bridges, and synthesizers are bridges, analysts can build synthesizers? Are they growing them in a lab or something? Are synthesizers evil because they're don't have souls, having not been born in the usual way? If so, why aren't the analysts who grew them also evil?

    2) Or do you mean that analysts can also be bridges? If so, why is it OK for analysts to be bridges, but synthesizers not to be? Is it that the sole source of goodness among human beings is whether they perform whatever special activity it is that analysts do and synthesizers do not? If so, then surely that would be the thing to nail down, here, no?
    A bridge is an object, not a subject. Synthesizers are self-objectifying, yet they are still asking for respect.

    It's pretty easy to distinguish between an analyst and a synthesizer. An analyst is someone who can imagine in advance of experience (correspondence). A synthesizer is someone who can only connect ideas after experience (cohesion).

    The most questionable circumstance I can think of is the case of children because some would argue children are inherently synthetic. They depend on their parents, and they learn from experimentation...

    ...but I'm not sure about this assessment. The real question is whether or not a child is curious. Does a child seek out necessity-contingency relationships to complete systems, or does a child just stubbornly gravitate towards what's emotionally appealing?

    If a child seeks out relationships, that means a child is thinking for one's self in the experimentation process. If a child gravitates, that means a child is taking particular possibilities for granted.

    You have to be very observant in social circumstances, though, when testing for this. A lot of children will just piggyback and extrapolate on top of others, not thinking for themselves, but appearing to do so. You'll notice I used the word "relationship" before. Synthesizers will exploit this and claim by socializing, they're seeking out relationships, but in reality, they're not. What synthesizers are doing is playing games, not actually creating value by which relationships can be established, but rather only taking other people's discoveries and putting them together.

    Synthesizers will also aim to enslave analysts in encouraging (or teasing) analysts to be productive, but not actually being productive themselves. Synthesizers will also give analysts superficial complements and harsh ridicule in accordance with performance, but they won't actually associate with analysts on a personal level. They won't include analysts in their activities despite how analysts contribute so much.

    I think synthesizers look at analysts as computers in this sense. On one hand, synthesizers take advantage of how analysts can be made anxious easily into doing work, but on the other, synthesizers have no interest in being casual with the anxious.

    Synthesizers just don't care. They're very cruel people.

  2. #22
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    Synthesizers just need to die. They're really evil people... but they LOVE when you say this because it's admitting they're getting on your nerves, and it's an excuse for them to take as a threat and run off to the authorities.

    I wish I knew how synthesizers exist. That way, they could be eliminated...

    ...or maybe the key is to just not know they exist? Sometimes, synthesizers don't seem to be real people. Maybe if they're forgotten enough, they just fade away.
    Do you really mean what I bolded in your post above? Seriously?
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  3. #23
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,574

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Do you really mean what I bolded in your post above? Seriously?
    Apparently since fascism doesn't exist as a political leaning on DB, he picked private.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  4. #24
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,867

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Daktoria,

    I'm afraid you've utterly lost me. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, what kinds of people you're talking about, what is supposed to separate one group from another, or etc. If it was just me that was mystified, here, I'd assume that perhaps I am simply dense. However, it appears that the other respondents to this thread are also having considerable trouble trying to figure out what you're saying (anyone, feel free to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong, though if so, I'd appreciate an explanation of the OP in different words). The best I can make of what you're saying is that you've misapplied a couple of words for good people and bad people. Unless you can be completely clear about what a synthesizer is and what an analyzer is, and just what separates them, there's no point in further discussion.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •