Denissimo

The corpse imagery is beautifully fitting. The flight above the water provides a fascinating metaphor.

43 minutes ago, Honors Spectral Image said:

对

当然.

4 hours ago, Usseewa said:

the fear of correcting someone and then it turns out you are wrong and they were right From the Start...

I would ask. Framing it as a question, rather than a correction, if one is not sure.

Also, in this case, you are right. 
(I just can't be bothered to correct if, if my intended meaning is still understood.)

1 minute ago, Verdance said:

Did you know that the first century romans regarded Christianity as a cult

“this is an offering in your favor, a sacrifice in your name, but i know you’ve got a taste, so just take a bite of me…”

I like that. That is great. 

1 minute ago, Verdance said:

More philisophically. My identity, my beliefs, are being cut away from me by people who think they know better.

(Hopping to discord.) (I'm already there)

6 minutes ago, Verdance said:

Funny enough, every line of the emptiness machine is true for me in some way or another rn

also two faced and casualty

Light SH:

6 minutes ago, Usseewa said:

I love trying to be or thinking myself philosophical

For originality... I don't like when me, or someone, has a thought or idea that has been thought by others- and maybe even so common a thought/idea that it's one of those thoughts that are fortunately/unfortunately relatable by every other stranger or friend.

But, I think, to have more original or impactful thoughts you need to venture *deeper,* as most everyone goes surface-level- that's just shower thought-type stuff. Less people think deeper, etc. Yeah. Idk if that's true or not but it sounds right. There are a *lot* of people, and lots of things are the same- like the products we use or the movies or books we read. You ever think of how so many people know some song, band, or movie? Not even counting "classics" all the time. But by making an effort and doing something less people have done, you can be meaningful. The trouble sometimes can be knowing what has or hasn't been done; thinking yourself so creative only to realize it's already an established concept or whatever, and millions of people know about/do whatever it is.

Be careful. Most every one does go surface-level, but most everyone has also had some sort of deeper contemplation.

It does "sound" right, only because the nature of base human interaction. Basically, say you speak with your friends. As far as I have observed, people rarely speak about really thought provoking or ruminative topics with their irl friends. That is not to say that they do not have these thoughts. its just that you don't speak about them.

Think of each and every individual you meet as another iteration of yourself. Not to say that everyone is in any way the same, rather everyone is equal: largely at least, in capability. Perhaps in different fields but capability nontheless.

The title "philosopher" is given to people usually, after they have died and written a butt-ton of heavily worded essays. By the base defintion though, everyone is legitmately a philosopher. It's not a career. It simply refers to the act of philosophizing, ruminating. Being human.

Be careful. In the words of our good friend Hoid:
"What is it we value? Innovation. Originality. Novelty. But most importantly...timeliness."
Nothing is original. Legimately. Everything thats ever been thought of has been thought of. Just perhaps not marketed. 
Try not to give being "different" too much meaning. Don't think of oneself's meaning as doing stuff that less people has done.
Partially because "less people" is still likely trillions, across the history of mankind. 
Partially because that means your value and meaning depends on the actions of others as well as your own. Different people can have a different opinion as to your value, but that shouldn't affect your own perception.

I feel like this is incomplete. Bah, nothing else is coming to mind presently. I'll add when I have more to add.

1 minute ago, Usseewa said:

https://www.17thshard.com/forums/topic/201793-trans-hangout-thread/page/4/#findComment-2028016

 

I get it

I hope/think

Thanks for that

That last sentence is what I say to myself, a bit.

Good point about talking to others, honestly. Just make sure they can actually contribute and aren't just friends who will nod and listen. Though, they can probably have insight, especially if they are in related fields? Idk, everything is confusing, so many exceptions or doubts, and clarifications/caveats. Heh.

But uhm.

I like the idea that I actually have something to contribute- that it's not all "solved" already. Like how in math there are unsolved/unproved/un-disproves problems and stuff? Probably the same with philosophy but I don't know enough to form a sentence I'm confident in- which would maybe just be a clichéd one? One everyone repeats, so I learned it and it's true?

Also, with the "fancy" words and stuff, I've found I can use "fancy" words subconsciously- naturally. Idk.

You can always contribute something. You are contributing right now. Alternative viewpoints, whether or not completely orignal, are always useful.

With philosophy, you get to a point when you realise that it give more problems than answers. 
That can get you really down in the dumps. Like. Really, really badly.

But, you find your own "solutions" eventually. Reframing, acceptance, distraction... list goes on.

In regards to linkin park: It was part of my transition from rock to metal. of course, more on rock-side of the spectrum, but still was a major part of my audiophilia.

Just now, Usseewa said:

Yes

I have some diary pages or at least entries devoted to trying to untangle this- or, not really trying, just analysis-paralysis, I guess.

I worry that the reason I write/create art is simply for recognition- a reason I see as "bad", selfish, etc. whatever the word is.

I just don't want to think my writing is very good and then have reality hit painfully when someone with authority in the area, or just some rando, makes me realize or says it's actually not that good, or points out flaws etc.

Wouldn't that be i.e., not e.g.?

#pedantry #maybewrong

I mean.

I don't think it is bad. Most of the things we do are for recognition of some form. That is the nice thing about society. 
Also, even if that is true, what will you do? Stop writing? Stop creating? Don't. That is a basic right of human nature. 
Recognition is not a bad thing. You shouldn't act solely towards it, but it still isn't a bad thing. It's simply your mind craving understanding and acceptance. Frame it that way. 
Is it selfish to want to be cared for? I don't think so.

Well, when that happens, you have a choice. If someone simply says "It's not good" or something of that nature, you can disregard it. That is a completely unanalytical opinion. Obessing over it won't lead to improvement, as they haven't given any detail. 

If its a bit more detailed, then choose: Do you agree? If so, improve. If you don't then disregard.

You're probably right. I get it wrong constantly. But, seeing as you've identified what it's meant to be, I still feel no need to change anything, as it is apparent that my meaning gets across whether or not my i.e.s and e.g.s are correct.

You see? I've just disregarded a piece of very useful advice because it doesn't technically hinder meaning! That sort of thing, I guess.
You aren't wrong, it just doesn't bother me. 

Addressing the point of saying stuff that sounds real smart:
Wisdom:
"Simply poetically worded products of human mind, easily found through the most basic of introspections, yet those who first write it nonetheless obtain honours.
So, is Wisdom not falsehood?"
E.g. you can word anything with nice fancy big words and it sounds really smart. Most of the stuff I say, if one is to be honest, is at least partially of this nature. I will say the words and wording I use are because I just spew whatever is in my head, and I frequently feel like some of the longer words better represent an abstraction. So, I will make the claim that I do so not for ego, but for... clarity? of some form.

Human condition just refers to, very literally, the condition of being human. Encompassing the key elements of human life, whether it be key events or emotions and contradiction. Fun.

"Though, I would/will/do just fall in the... perfectionism trap of not believing myself able to talk about something until I've read it all, understood it, and understand essentially everything in that field. Because, what if I say something that is incorrect or debunked or whatever, in that very field? How can I trust that my interpretation of some text is accurate? And, if no one (of few) agree(s) with you on something, it shouldn't necessarily disprove you? Maybe they just never thought of that. Or, you are simply wrong, they are right, you know no better and thus should not even be here- what are you doing here, with no expertise, stick to what you know, the basics, don't venture beyond." 

Your first sentence: Discussing will help understanding a lot. You won't fit the full scope of human perspective in your own thoughts. Speak to another individual about it. You'll never understand it fully. No one will. But, it's more fun to help one another along the path of futility.

Your second (and third, I think): Argue it nonetheless. It you agree with the points made against you, just change your mind. There is no correct interpretation. If there was a correct interpretation, then no one would be discussing it: because everyone agrees that this way of seeing it is the "right" way. Bo-ring. Half of the fun comes from debating different interpretations. 

Your fourth and fifth: Correct. And correct. Thus why, you argue it nonetheless, and make up your mind yourself depending on the points they make, and the points you make.

Your last sentence: If anyone says that, they've no right to be discussing any form of media. 'Tis a load of horse excrement. 

It's always a bit worrying, dipping your toes into another field. But the ones who aren't insecure gatekeepers will welcome you without judgement. 

Know that if anyone says anything similar to your last sentence to you, they have stuff they need to work out. Don't bother with them.

Well, I would say there is a difference between taking pride in your work, and liking the recognition.

If you are proud of your work, that is never a bad thing: It means you take pride in the process, in the work unto itself: You legimately enjoy it and what it means to you.
Liking the recognition means that you care more about how others percieve it, rather than the work in itself.

So, take pride in your writing. Hold it in as high of a regard you want, but never so high that you believe it cannot improve further.

7 minutes ago, Usseewa said:

Thanks btw. I live off praise hehe...

We all do, to an extent. The very fact that you are talking to me right now, is treated as praise in my horomone riddled greymatter. Hurrah for dopamine.

The complement is appreciated. And reciprocated. (e.g, back atcha.)

27 minutes ago, Usseewa said:

Second time I've heard/seen that word today.

The latter of three.

Cool, I'll keep that in mind or promptly forget and come back to at a later date.

 

Also yes I do a lot of stream-of-conscious, I think. (Going back to your original reply).

I have a ten-page on in one of these entries..

 

edit: also, it's not really easy reading them lol, but I must

Stream of conciousness is like french: The author is under no obligation to make the reader understand their intended meaning. That is the reader's problem.

It presents the transient nature of thought, as best one can: And I think you do so quite naturally. And in a way that is far more understandable than other variations, mainly due to formatting.

An example of stream-of-conciousness wriiting is Ulysses, by James Joyce. A novel written entirely in that style.
Massive headache of a read, but I think you might want to check that out.

1 hour ago, Usseewa said:

Thanks for the nice reply

Unfortunately my mind does not let me properly extract all the meaning from stuff

So uhm

But don't worry I got some, probably more than I think.

 

edit: so are you interested in philosophy and stuff? I am, and just bought some classics lol. Nietzsche and Camus, and some others. I don't know much so I wanted to learn more.

Hurrah! Frabjous joy! Smorgasbord!
Real happy you're putting such an effort into reading this stuff. If at any point, to want to read something a little easier on the eyes and a bit more practical than some of the theories proposed in the classics, try the Courage to be Disliked by some-japanese-guy. 

Going off my beliefs, that is what would happen, I think. 

Never fear the reaper, but don't look for him either.

Ever heard of stream-of-conciousness style writing?
I think you'd be very good at that.

I'm happy you're doing better.

One thing I'd like to address:

"How can I think,

How can I speak,

When I question everything?

I constantly double-check,

I continuously re-assess."

To this, I'd like to share a small bit of writing. I don't do this often, but here it is:

"To act?
What does it mean “to act well?” To make good decisions?
To act on instinct is folly.
To act on volition is folly.
For instinct is by nature flawed,
And volition is by bias flawed.
“To act well”, is to act minimally, is it not?
“To despise”; Each act of despicableness is perceived by a thousand eyes.
“To act”, is to be a fool.
“To act well”, is to avoid doing so.
But I ask you, who does this benefit?"

Something I wrote when I was a bit younger. I was typing my immediate thought processes, so it isn't very coherent.

To elaborate:
Double-checking, reassessing, etc. all of your actions, thoughts and such: This is analysis paralysis. 

It's always good to keep a close eye on your views. Ensure that you let them change.

But you need a balance, I think. As the above points out:
It's impossible to make an objectively "good" decision. The alternative is to do nothing at all. 

Are you willing to do that? Strip away your ability to act and change things, take away your own humanity, for the purpose of consistency? 

Make your mistakes. Look back at them, and never regret. Live with the knowledge that whatever decision you made, was one made by you and because of you. 
Funnily enough, in my opinion there is little worse than not being able to take responsibility for a decision. Because that means YOU weren't really the one acting. Another, in one way or another, forced your hand. 

Who's life are you to live, if not your own? 

You might like a song:

Static, by Sleep Theory (as indicated by the massive title).

"Is it real, can I keep up the fight..."

And the one below is a song that's a bit more positive. It is in chinese, and was made for a film(Jiang Ziya, Legend of Deification: Includes a fox-eared girl who feels quite similar to a particular Sharduser who's username is a subtle social commentary in the form of a title of a song by Ado...) but has english subs, so should be fine.
Should be.

On 4/21/2026 at 4:44 AM, KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren said:

I'd love to, but how exactly does playing online work? I also can't promise I'll be active at regular intervals.

In regards to this. Online playing generally involves a voicechat of some form, because typing is too slow. You can still keep your DnD resources (Basically just a character sheet and dice, in the case of the player) physically in front of you, or online if you prefer.
The DM describes the scenario and consequences. You do whatever you feel like you can do, and the DM tells you what happens as a result. Sometimes sharescreening is useful in regards to maps and monster visualisation.
If one is to be honest, scheduling is probably the most difficult problem regarding DnD, online or otherwise. But it's alright, and generally players can reach a consensus.

5 hours ago, Usseewa said:

 

ok ive decided ill try to take as long a break as i can from the shard

so if all goes well you wont see me for a while

and i try to try stop drowning in depressing content on the damn internet (or otherwise)

it's ruining the life

im like sisyphus. i think ive said that before

 

i woried this would happen but its for th ebest i guess.

i knw ive said ill take a break before, sometimes i have actuallyt aken it. so maybe ill give in tomrowo or somethng but yeha.

and i know u said that comment abt 1 month absence = suicide.

don't hold that belief still.

im not gonna kill myself

thx..

 

All depends how one frames things, in my opinion.
But we are all like Sisyphus, somewhat. Rolling that damned rock up a hill. Over and over again, with the full knowledge that all it will do is roll back down.
Humans are relentless. And it is sort of absurd we keep going.
The fact is, like Sisyphus, we live this life in futility. I find it beautiful that we do so nonetheless, in partially-ignorant and irrational defiance.
Laugh at the absurdity of life. Dance through it while you can. 

 

1 hour ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren said:

Oh looking up the Wikipedia page...

1500 hours...

I have a game called Eastern Empires that, the rules says takes 12 hours with 9 people, but in reality, a 3p game I played took 3 weeks, and about 40 hours of total play time

https://mega-empires.com/

I would, but I don't really have anyone to play with

I mean I could try with the people I normally play board games with, but even when we play deep-fried over simplified DnD, half the time is deciding who's DMing and rebelling against whatever the DM says, before replacing the DM, restarting, and repeating.

You'd be welcome to join me, as long as you don't mind online campaigning. 

Also, I love that sort of board game. I started with the Campaign for North America once.
I only stopped because the board I made out of cereal boxes got irrevocably damaged.

I really think you'd enjoy a DnD campaign (or at least certain campaigns, which I play).
Would you be interested in trying?

Just now, KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren said:

I don't play real Dnd, though I've played some deep fried simplified versions

The board game is Bios: Genesis. I don't know if you play board games or not, but this is one of those games that takes 3ish hours to play and where the rulebook is so dense it's hard to understand the mechanics for the first few plays. Also don't use any tutorials on YouTube, they always get the rules wrong.

This game is part of the Bios: Earth Trilogy. Genesis specifically focuses on the origins of life (abiogenesis) and goes all the way up to the Cambrian Explosion. The next game, Bios: Megafauna, goes from the emergence onto land all the way to the origins of sapience. Bios: Origins, the final game, focuses on the evolution of consciousness. Together they cover the entire history of Earth, or an alternate Earth. I've created panspermia-derived sentient plant-monsters with a space program that don't even have the ability to cast iron.

These are games with actual, really dense rules, unlike DnD where you make up everything. 

Here's the PDF of the rulebook for Genesis:

https://cdn.webshopapp.com/shops/251354/files/251177663/rulebook-bios-genesis-170515.pdf

All 3 games have solo variants, which I usually play. These are my favourite board games ever.

I think you'd be great in DnD.
I simplify combat in my campaigns: Turn based stuff makes combat encounters a slog, thus I have my own crude but enjoyably fast-paced system based off DM intuition.

I also usually play the solo variant of DnD. 
There isn't an official one, so I made up my own. Works pretty well. 
I will try my best to get it, it seems fantastic.

Acetyl CoA REDUCTION? Oh dear.
I like this. Do you play DnD?
Also, I request the rules/name of the game, please.

Just now, Verdance said:

*immediately placed on my library hold list*

Written by a japanese guy called Murakami. He writes in a wonderous manner.
Or at least, his translator does.

I admit, I loved roadkill before existentialism took hold.

Just now, Verdance said:

I am less pleased with this one than my fiction, but it’s trying to make people think, and i think it’s achieved that goal

You'd quite enjoy a book, known as "A hard boiled wonderland and the end of the world". It will screw with your head, but most pleasantly so.

3 minutes ago, Verdance said:

That is cooler than the story i wrote myself!

thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Doubtful. You write in a way that is pleasing to the mind.
I write so that I can read it 3 years later and think "Who the heck was I, 3 years ago?"
The glory of screwing with oneself temporally. Epitome of one who has responsibilities but can't be bothered to address them.