Living In London - Gemmers19

tryon · Post by **tryon** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:19 pm

A couple things that occur to me:

Remember how Bree's mom got all huffy during the intermission of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, placing herself as a defender of free will (vs. determinism)? Quite possibly one of her main objections to Hume's thought (apart from the whole atheism thing) is that he had a somewhat ambivalent stance toward free will. From Wikipedia (page that someone else linked to earlier):

[quote] Free will versus determinism

Just about everyone has noticed the apparent conflict between free will and determinism – if your actions were determined to happen billions of years ago, then how can they be up to you? But Hume noted another conflict, one that turned the problem of free will into a full-fledged dilemma: free will is incompatible with indeterminism. Imagine that your actions are not determined by what events came before. Then your actions are, it seems, completely random. Moreover, and most importantly for Hume, they are not determined by your character – your desires, your preferences, your values, etc. How can we hold someone responsible for an action that did not result from his character? How can we hold someone responsible for an action that randomly occurred? Free will seems to require determinism, because otherwise, the agent and the action wouldn't be connected in the way required of freely chosen actions. So now, nearly everyone believes in free will, free will seems inconsistent with determinism, and free will seems to require determinism. Hume's view is that human behavior, like everything else, is caused, and therefore holding people responsible for their actions should focus on rewarding them or punishing them in such a way that they will try to do what is morally desirable and will try to avoid doing what is morally reprehensible." [/end quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume ... eterminism

Remember too that the main tenet of Thelema (which itself means something like "will" in greek, apparently), is ""There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt" or also "love is the law, love under will".

Also, I really hope that Gemmers is canon, but I am wondering why she continues to post videos to Bree, if Bree doesn't seem to be responding to her (at least in vlog form).

BigDaddy · Post by **BigDaddy** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:39 pm

Message of first Gemma video: DANIEL IS IN TROUBLE! (nut kills man)

Message of second video: GO TELL YOUR MOM! (she is respected and can be trusted)

SharpI · Post by **SharpI** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:06 pm

BigDaddy wrote:Message of first Gemma video: DANIEL IS IN TROUBLE! (nut kills man)

Message of second video: GO TELL YOUR MOM! (she is respected and can be trusted)

LOL I get exactly the opposite message from the second video: "Your mom is a pillar of the religion, so don't go to her with your doubts"

thinkitthrough · Post by **thinkitthrough** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:26 pm

So I was really frustrated about not really getting anywhere with all these theories, and ultimately I don't know what is going to happen next so I wait... we all do... I went back and looked a most of the videos from the start... I have to much time. This is something that really interested me and why I think Gemma may not be canon. In Daniel Returns and more interesting factiods (yay!) Bree starts talking about the book Surely you are joking Mr. Fineman, well Mr. Fineman (genius) likes to conduct his own experiments instead of just looking things up. So one day he is curious about how ants find food. He puts a sugar cube on the Ground (The Plot in this Saga of Lonelygirl15) and then does something interesting. He begins to mess with the ants by letting them crawl onto a piece of paper and picks them up to confuse them. One ant (me) by him self is stupid really, but when ants work together (this forum) they do amazing things. I just think maybe this Gemma character has been thrown in to mislead some of us (including my self) inoder to test something. Anyone else???

robtomorrow · Post by **robtomorrow** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:27 pm

thinkitthrough wrote:So I was really frustrated about not really getting anywhere with all these theories, and ultimately I don't know what is going to happen next so I wait... we all do... I went back and looked a most of the videos from the start... I have to much time. This is something that really interested me and why I think Gemma may not be canon. In Daniel Returns and more interesting factiods (yay!) Bree starts talking about the book Surely you are joking Mr. Fineman, well Mr. Fineman (genius) likes to conduct his own experiments instead of just looking things up. So one day he is curious about how ants find food. Heputs a sugar cube on the Ground (The Plot in this Saga of Lonelygirl15) and then does something interesting. He begins to mess with the ants by letting them crawl onto a piece of paper and picks them up to confuse them. One ant (me) by him self is stupid really, but when ants work together (this forum) they do amazing things. I just think maybe this Gemma character has been thrown in to mislead some of us (including my self) inoder to test something. Anyone else???

I like your analogy, except with ants there isn't a equivalent of the Creators. The queen ant does nothing but lay eggs.

On the other hand maybe that's what the Creators do, lay eggs?

By the way, the scientist she was referring to was Richard Feynman, a quantum physicist, and the quote about ants was from his autobiography. Which brings up another question how can a girl who reads books about Richard Feynman also believe in Aleister Crowleys Magik?

quikstrike98 · Post by **quikstrike98** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:55 am

Bleh. Perhaps to the point of the thread, perhaps not. Free will is possible *within* the context of deterministic factors; for example, one's cultural milieu has strong deterministic influence, as well as does one's genetic make-up (the Nature vs. Nurture debate aside, both Nature and Nurture are deterministic variables). Example: I, raised in the context of depraved Western society, see a woman in a bikini, and my reaction is to, well...enjoy the view. Conversely, were I raised in a madrassa and thoroughly inculcated into the beliefs system of the Taliban, were I to see a scantily clad woman my reaction would likely be to beat the living crud out of her. While those reactions are to some extent driven by deterministic influences, free will can alter one's actions--as an example, I could decide to join a very conservative religion (not bloody likely), and upon seeing a scantily clad girl, avert my eyes--perhaps even feel disgust. I dunno, am I making any sense here?

tryon · Post by **tryon** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:18 am

quikstrike98 wrote:Bleh. Perhaps to the point of the thread, perhaps not. Free will is possible *within* the context of deterministic factors; for example, one's cultural milieu has strong deterministic influence, as well as does one's genetic make-up (the Nature vs. Nurture debate aside, both Nature and Nurture are deterministic variables). Example: I, raised in the context of depraved Western society, see a woman in a bikini, and my reaction is to, well...enjoy the view. Conversely, were I raised in a madrassa and thoroughly inculcated into the beliefs system of the Taliban, were I to see a scantily clad woman my reaction would likely be to beat the living crud out of her. While those reactions are to some extent driven by deterministic influences, free will can alter one's actions--as an example, I could decide to join a very conservative religion (not bloody likely), and upon seeing a scantily clad girl, avert my eyes--perhaps even feel disgust. I dunno, am I making any sense here?

Right--I think you're effectively reproducing Hume's (I think reasonable) argument, which I suspect Bree's mom took issue with. Hopefully we'll hear more about her in following videos. And have Bree actually respond to Gemmers.

quikstrike98 · Post by **quikstrike98** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:31 am

I get a strong feeling that the Gemmers19 vids are canon. Might be worth the moderators here putting up a new section devoted to her vids, vice having her included in the "Fan Videos" section.

storyteller · Post by **storyteller** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:37 am

amn34 wrote:I've read Hume, and I don't really see how he was a "bloke whose business it was to thwart the right of an individual." I mean, though conservative, he certainly was no Hobbes and supported rights, democracy, etc., within limits. Unless Bree's mother was going around saying that everyone who doesn't believe in complete Thelemic will and self-determination should be killed, I don't understand what prompted her extreme reaction - Hume was a pretty moderate guy. Questioning causality and free will is something a lot of philosophers do - if she hated Hume so much, she would also have loathed Descartes, Leibniz, etc. Ultimately this doesn't say very much because I think recommending that anyone be "put to sleep like a dog" already demonstrates that she's quite extreme.

(Also, even the categorization of Hume as an atheist is up for academic debate.)

I think you might need to think about this in a different way... Why would Bree's mother think he was against individual rights? Alot of this is about perspective.

storyteller · Post by **storyteller** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:40 am

quikstrike98 wrote:Bleh. Perhaps to the point of the thread, perhaps not. Free will is possible *within* the context of deterministic factors; for example, one's cultural milieu has strong deterministic influence, as well as does one's genetic make-up (the Nature vs. Nurture debate aside, both Nature and Nurture are deterministic variables). Example: I, raised in the context of depraved Western society, see a woman in a bikini, and my reaction is to, well...enjoy the view. Conversely, were I raised in a madrassa and thoroughly inculcated into the beliefs system of the Taliban, were I to see a scantily clad woman my reaction would likely be to beat the living crud out of her. While those reactions are to some extent driven by deterministic influences, free will can alter one's actions--as an example, I could decide to join a very conservative religion (not bloody likely), and upon seeing a scantily clad girl, avert my eyes--perhaps even feel disgust. I dunno, am I making any sense here?

You're making alot of sense to me. However, I'm confused.... How can there be free will if a person is not informed? If Bree does not know what the ceremony is about, then, how can anyone say that she has chosen to participate of her own free will? Doesn't this directly conflict with her mother's beliefs??

storyteller · Post by **storyteller** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:42 am

GraySavant wrote:Hey. Just silly idea: what if Bree serves her parents as passport back to full Order membership?

This doesn't seem silly to me... at all.

amn34 · Post by **amn34** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:23 pm

storyteller wrote:
I think you might need to think about this in a different way... Why would Bree's mother think he was against individual rights? Alot of this is about perspective.

gemma's video and characterization of bree's mom made it clear that she took offense at hume's ideas and that her criticism of them was that they were "thwarting the right of an individual." that's not my "way" of thinking about it; it's directly from the video. i'm saying that that seems to show that her "perspective" is rather extreme.

kimmiewku · Post by **kimmiewku** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:58 pm

This thread's been moved back to the main Videos section!!!

Does that mean the mods know something we don't?? *shifty eyes*

EDIT: I'm a loser...I misread the thread. Freudian slip, anyone?

I just really want her to be real.

nakita · Post by **nakita** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:57 pm

storyteller wrote:
GraySavant wrote:Hey. Just silly idea: what if Bree serves her parents as passport back to full Order membership?
This doesn't seem silly to me... at all.

It doesn't seem silly, just unlikely. This is obviously a very strict religion. It doesn't seem like something you can just flit in and out of anytime you choose. ( hehe, i got to use the word 'flit' in a sentence

)

Oh, and quikstrike98, I love, love, LOVE your signature. So much I love it. So gosh darn much! I'm tired now, and all I can do is read it over and over and think about how AWESOME it is.

thinkitthrough · Post by **thinkitthrough** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:53 pm

robtomorrow wrote:
thinkitthrough wrote:So I was really frustrated about not really getting anywhere with all these theories, and ultimately I don't know what is going to happen next so I wait... we all do... I went back and looked a most of the videos from the start... I have to much time. This is something that really interested me and why I think Gemma may not be canon. In Daniel Returns and more interesting factiods (yay!) Bree starts talking about the book Surely you are joking Mr. Fineman, well Mr. Fineman (genius) likes to conduct his own experiments instead of just looking things up. So one day he is curious about how ants find food. Heputs a sugar cube on the Ground (The Plot in this Saga of Lonelygirl15) and then does something interesting. He begins to mess with the ants by letting them crawl onto a piece of paper and picks them up to confuse them. One ant (me) by him self is stupid really, but when ants work together (this forum) they do amazing things. I just think maybe this Gemma character has been thrown in to mislead some of us (including my self) inoder to test something. Anyone else???

I like your analogy, except with ants there isn't a equivalent of the Creators. The queen ant does nothing but lay eggs.

On the other hand maybe that's what the Creators do, lay eggs?

By the way, the scientist she was referring to was Richard Feynman, a quantum physicist, and the quote about ants was from his autobiography. Which brings up another question how can a girl who reads books about Richard Feynman also believe in Aleister Crowleys Magik?

You know there is one common denominator in Magik and Science that I can think of. Astronomy. Bree is always talking about stars and planets well not lately but she used to. Even when she mentions the correlious effect the scientist who dicovered or rather, suggested the theory was Le Place who also was into Astronomy. I just can't figure out if there is a real connection or if I am trying to make something out of nothing...