Discourse on Intercourse: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|myth| | {{a|myth| | ||
[[File:God and Adam.png|450px|frameless|center]] | [[File:God and Adam.png|450px|frameless|center]] | ||
}}[[Discourse on Intercourse]] is a well- | }}[[Discourse on Intercourse]] is a well-meant though basically wrong-headed philosophical tract formulated by delusional librettist [[Otto Büchstein]] in the depths of dengue fever delirium in 1769. It immediately preceded his last, great unfinished play {{dsh}}. | ||
Outraged by [[René Descartes]] [[Discourse on the Method|suggestion in 1637]] that the only indubitable thing in the universe was one’s own existence | Outraged by [[René Descartes]] [[Discourse on the Method|suggestion in 1637]] that the only indubitable thing in the universe was one’s own existence, [[Büchstein]] set out to deduce an entire multi-personal [[epistemology]] from the commercial inevitability of [[conference call]]s. | ||
{{Buchstein}’s logic was this: [[All-hands conference call|all-hands conference calls]] ''must'' exist, since no-one in her right mind would make up such a horrendous idea if she didn’t have to. So, since someone ''has'' had such an idea, [[conference call]]s must therefore exist as a necessary, indubitable, fact of corporate life. | |||
On that predicate, it follows | On that predicate, it follows as an ''[[a priori]]'' fact that since a [[conference call]] must comprise more than one person (“a man cannot meet alone”, {{buchstein}} was fond of quipping), for conference calls to be possible one’s most basic [[irreducible]] [[ontology]] implies that universe must contain not just one but ''multiple'' individuals. | ||
At least three, thought [[Büchstein]]: the “meetor” (which he regarded as an analog of [[Descartes]]’ “thinking thing”, or | At least three, thought [[Büchstein]]: the “meetor” (which he regarded as an analog of [[Descartes]]’ “thinking thing”, or ''[[res cogitans]]''), one “meetee” (which [[Büchstein]] characterised primarily as a “talking thing” (''[[res verbositans]]'') and since, transparently neither of these homunculi would willingly meet without there being some kind of compulsion to do so, a third person (a [[management consultant]] or [[project manager]] of some kind) to ensure the meeting happens, that minutes are taken, actions assigned and timelines “agreed” for “action closure” (this third person {{Buchstein}} called an “action-assigning thing” or ''[[res bossitans]]''). | ||
In any case, since they were all engaged on a [[conference call]], none of them needed to be God. | In any case, since they were all engaged on a [[conference call]], none of them ''needed'' to be, or indeed ''could'' be, God. Buchstein arrived at this conclusion with the following reasoning: | ||
“God is omniscient,” {{buchstein}} said. | “God is omniscient,” {{buchstein}} said. “Therefore, God doesn’t ''do'' [[conference call]]s. What would be the point? God already knows everything. And, come to think of it, God is also ''omnipotent''. It is, as I have said, axiomatic that ''no one goes on a conference call that she is not obliged to''. Since there is no way of forcing an omnipotent being onto a conference call it follows that ''omnipotent beings will never do conference calls, even if there was a reason for them to do so, which there isn’t''. | ||
Rather than simply rebutting [[Descartes]]’ | This led {{buchstein}} to a dark place. Rather than simply rebutting [[Descartes]]’ assertion that there ''must'' be a God, by illustrating one was not necessary, [[Büchstein]] went further: “a universe in which [[conference call]]s necessarily exist,” he contended, “is logically inconsistent with the continued presence of an omniscient, benign, omnipotent deity”. He took this as an ''[[a priori]]'' proof of the ''non''-existence of God. | ||
{{Cheeky Thursday|05/09/19}} | {{Cheeky Thursday|05/09/19}} | ||
{{c|Conference call}} | {{c|Conference call}} | ||
Revision as of 12:53, 8 April 2022
|
Discourse on Intercourse is a well-meant though basically wrong-headed philosophical tract formulated by delusional librettist Otto Büchstein in the depths of dengue fever delirium in 1769. It immediately preceded his last, great unfinished play Die Schweizer Heulsuse.
Outraged by René Descartes suggestion in 1637 that the only indubitable thing in the universe was one’s own existence, Büchstein set out to deduce an entire multi-personal epistemology from the commercial inevitability of conference calls.
{{Buchstein}’s logic was this: all-hands conference calls must exist, since no-one in her right mind would make up such a horrendous idea if she didn’t have to. So, since someone has had such an idea, conference calls must therefore exist as a necessary, indubitable, fact of corporate life.
On that predicate, it follows as an a priori fact that since a conference call must comprise more than one person (“a man cannot meet alone”, Büchstein was fond of quipping), for conference calls to be possible one’s most basic irreducible ontology implies that universe must contain not just one but multiple individuals.
At least three, thought Büchstein: the “meetor” (which he regarded as an analog of Descartes’ “thinking thing”, or res cogitans), one “meetee” (which Büchstein characterised primarily as a “talking thing” (res verbositans) and since, transparently neither of these homunculi would willingly meet without there being some kind of compulsion to do so, a third person (a management consultant or project manager of some kind) to ensure the meeting happens, that minutes are taken, actions assigned and timelines “agreed” for “action closure” (this third person Büchstein called an “action-assigning thing” or res bossitans).
In any case, since they were all engaged on a conference call, none of them needed to be, or indeed could be, God. Buchstein arrived at this conclusion with the following reasoning:
“God is omniscient,” Büchstein said. “Therefore, God doesn’t do conference calls. What would be the point? God already knows everything. And, come to think of it, God is also omnipotent. It is, as I have said, axiomatic that no one goes on a conference call that she is not obliged to. Since there is no way of forcing an omnipotent being onto a conference call it follows that omnipotent beings will never do conference calls, even if there was a reason for them to do so, which there isn’t.
This led Büchstein to a dark place. Rather than simply rebutting Descartes’ assertion that there must be a God, by illustrating one was not necessary, Büchstein went further: “a universe in which conference calls necessarily exist,” he contended, “is logically inconsistent with the continued presence of an omniscient, benign, omnipotent deity”. He took this as an a priori proof of the non-existence of God.