Discourse on Intercourse: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


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.
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.
===There is no new paradox under the sun===
As he fell deeper into his Dengue-inflected hallucinations, [[Büchstein]] went the other way, skirting dangerously close to a sort of [[High modernism|high-modernist]] nihilism. 
“If [[determinism]] is true,” he reasoned, “then everything is already [[known]] — or may be extrapolated from what is already known — and is therefore, is ''[[Constructive|constructively]]'' known. Now since all as-yet undeliberated outcomes can be deduced without having to go through the bother of actually deliberating them, and as a conference call is in its very essence a “deliberating thing” — a ''res deliberans''<ref>{{Buchstein}} seems, ''ad hoc'', to have assigned conference calls their own ''[[a priori]]'' [[ontology]] or even personhood here. There is no plausible justification for this, other than that he was very, very ill.</ref> — and ''only'' a “deliberating thing”, it has no ontologically essential purpose and can be safely dispensed with.”
This, for a moment, brought the delusional librettist great joy, notwithstanding the self-contradiction within the confines of a single, laboured, sentence.
Therein, a [[paradox]], because by {{Buchstein}}’s own calculations, the deliberated outcomes that he inferred would produced by conference calls ''if they were held'' — were different from the outcomes that would be produced ''if the call was not actually held''. The holding, or not, of the conference call ''itself'' determines the outcome. 
That is, the information content of a deliberated outcome is path-dependent. If the conference call happens, it has one value. If it does not, but is merely modelled, it has another value. This is a sort of Schrödinger’s cat paradox of business meetings. [[Büchstein]] dubbed this the “[[substrate]]-ambivalence” of the conference call. It remained a genuine mystery until the impish German jurist [[Dilbert’s programme|Havid Dilbert]] proved experimentally that, whether you hold them or not, the informational value of any conference call — whether judged from the frame of reference of participants, observers, or that remainder of the outside world who remains blessedly oblivious to them — is the same: ''zero''.
Thus, along with his sanity in that mosquito-infested Mandalayan asylum, {{Buchstein}}’s paradox melted away, only to be replaced by a deeper conundrum, with which Dilbert wrestled fecklessly for the rest of his life:
''Why are there conference calls at all?''
===In popular culture===
===In popular culture===
Buchstein’s theosophical musings, wanting as they were, found expression in the developed drafts of his final, unfinished play, {{dsh}}.
Buchstein’s theosophical musings, wanting as they were, found expression in the developed drafts of his final, unfinished play, {{dsh}}.
Line 28: Line 43:


{{c|Conference call}}
{{c|Conference call}}
{{c|Paradox}}
{{Ref}}
{{Ref}}