What is the Question?

[Dani Evar]

So guys, for the sake of popularizing this faint topic,

"If the Universe is the answer, what is the question?"

Decipher that in fire, perchance you'll see the cosmos unfastened! :rolleyes2: Coz, the real, classical Hans Asperger's Aspie is supposed to be capable of original thought/unique concentration of thought processes as well (though this is not necessarily verbal, in which case this question won't need to palpitate that much), which distinguishes him/her from being merely manic, anxious, narcissistic, oblivious, hypochondriac, or just schizoid---though such a person might deserve all the sincere, helping attention here.

Whatever has happened to the 'Little Professor Syndrome'?

With all the love in the Universe, I hope no one has been misdiagnosed as 'Aspie' or simply 'Autistic' by a stupid NT doctor here :-(. That's inherently quite fatal in any case. Sometimes you need to see more than just one doctor, or many doctors and clinical and cognitive psychologists, each possibly specializing in different areas at once.

Ref: http://www.aspergic.com/index.php?/topic/259-do-you-believe-in-god/page__pid__5292__st__20&#entry5292

 

[Emor]

I've often doubted my AS diagnosis.
I think I probably meet the criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder better than AS.
And I don't get the question.
It could be multiple questions which the Universe is.
I hate to come across as arrogant but I don't understand the deeper meaning.
'What contains galaxies?' 'The universe[and probably in addition to some other jargon I don't know].'
'What's a word that beings with the letter, "U"?' 'Universe.'
etc.
I don't know.
I don't really feel like I have to justify a diagnosis though. Philosophy, while I am interested in it, is hardly a strong point of mine. In general inferring thing isn't a strong point of things.
I just read and read about what I'm interested in.
If that doesn't make me Aspie then I'm beyond caring tbh.
EMZ=]

 

[Dani Evar]

That's pretty much awesome for a start ^_^.

I hate the excessive use of eclectic jargon myself, which is why I espouse the idea of an Aspie having a unique capacity for truly original thinking. He/she doesn't have to be verbal.

For this reason, it can be splendid to just stop READING (other people's work; no matter how stimulating, it surely can't be 'just stimulating' for us at the end) and start independent thinking, like really cognizing things for yourself (especially if you're an Aspie, that's just helplessly profound). I did this ages ago.

Even (or especially) an Aspie has to be critical towards his/her doctor/therapist, yes. We're talking about methodologies in depth psychology. And eventually the whole systematic knowledge underlying all science itself, seeing sense and nonsense; images and voids. So, it's a window to a larger landscape of things.

U -- U

Universe -- (Yo)U

I've often doubted my AS diagnosis.
I think I probably meet the criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder better than AS.
And I don't get the question.
It could be multiple questions which the Universe is.
I hate to come across as arrogant but I don't understand the deeper meaning.
'What contains galaxies?' 'The universe[and probably in addition to some other jargon I don't know].'
'What's a word that beings with the letter, "U"?' 'Universe.'
etc.
I don't know.
I don't really feel like I have to justify a diagnosis though. Philosophy, while I am interested in it, is hardly a strong point of mine. In general inferring thing isn't a strong point of things.
I just read and read about what I'm interested in.
If that doesn't make me Aspie then I'm beyond caring tbh.
EMZ=]

 

[Emor]

in general inferring things isn't a strong point of mine*
<corrections to all the other mistakes I made in that post(lazy)>*
TBH, I'm not sure if there'd be a point.
When it comes to philosophy, when you seriously start to think, I think we all just end up being nihilists. Ultimately.
In terms of ethics I don't believe in moral objectivity or moral relativity(which I suppose you can assume from the former). I like to think my opinions are more ethical than others, but I know that ultimately no such thing exists. I try to take a utilist approach, but can't because I rarely agree with the majority view.
When it comes to academia, there's little I can contribute to due to my age and intelligence(relative to my age, in addition to relative to contributors of certain subjects). Currently my obsessions are very narrow, which would give me a possibility to contribute, simply because so little research has been conducted to them. But even THEN I have insufficient credentials(and by that, I mean none) to be taken seriously. And even if I did, the research would be so insignificant it wouldn't matter anyway.
So I just read tbh. And inform others of what I've read. Seems a lot more productive than attempting, and failing, in conducting my own research into a subject so pathetically esoteric it'd contribute to nothing.
EMZ=]

 

[Dani Evar]

Nah, here comes the blinding of the eye and the burning of what is you.

"When it comes to philosophy, when you seriously start to think, I think we all just end up being nihilists."

Without the words 'I think', that would have been just a conjecture or corollary at best. I don't think we'll end up being nihilists, no matter if most have ended (and will indeed end up) that way. Was Kant a nihilist despite espousing the general noetic inability to know the thing-in-itself? (Kant can still be refuted/sublimated here.) And there have been other philosophers, including the extremely unique atheistic Nietzche and Sartre who were still capable of beautiful, authentic things a mere nihilist (in any time/age) wouldn't be able to produce. ^_^

So epistemic nihilism does have inherent self-value and social-phenomenological value, and is able to transcend its own definition to simply mean 'eccentricity'.

We can be social eccentrics, but nihilism itself is co-variant with respect to the final (or simply Absolute) Truth (Cognizance) inherent in epistemology, which cannot be just 'random'. Randomness is a characteristic and, though it can be a cause of things at the mesoscopic level of the phenomenal Universe, it can never replace the meaning of Existence in Itself. Because, epistemology (this isn't jargon ^_^) is the super-set of all inquisitive systems, and never empty (running dry) of Existence and the Intellect, although the self can be obliterated any moment (here's the specific area of psychology).

For this reason of epistemological hierarchy, questions like "What contains galaxies?" are always inferiorly different from the question (if and only if it's a question) "What is Existence?" or simply "WHAT IS (THAT-WHICH-IS)?"

There is Meaning-In-Itself, but what we can mostly talk about on common grounds are felt meanings.

Let that be fun, or depressingly fun. That's okay.

"there's little I can contribute to due to my age and intelligence(relative to my age, in addition to relative to contributors of certain subjects)"

Darn credentials, I'm sure you will become what you're truly capable of becoming, wheeling with the stars and galaxies towards Pleiades. I do think that one ORIGINAL goal in life is enough for us to magnify and reach. Name just ONE, and truly go for it. Do not mind relative social attributes, as you, who are yourself, (Ema an sich!), belong only to you, and only projectively to the world of outer, normed ideals. There's still plenty of time and space for you, although all can be taken away (yet by who?) from us any time.

Silencing all dogmas and perceptions, at most the goals of existence are just authenticity-based creativity and love-based friendship.

in general inferring things isn't a strong point of mine*
<corrections to all the other mistakes I made in that post(lazy)>*
TBH, I'm not sure if there'd be a point.
When it comes to philosophy, when you seriously start to think, I think we all just end up being nihilists. Ultimately.
In terms of ethics I don't believe in moral objectivity or moral relativity(which I suppose you can assume from the former). I like to think my opinions are more ethical than others, but I know that ultimately no such thing exists. I try to take a utilist approach, but can't because I rarely agree with the majority view.
When it comes to academia, there's little I can contribute to due to my age and intelligence(relative to my age, in addition to relative to contributors of certain subjects). Currently my obsessions are very narrow, which would give me a possibility to contribute, simply because so little research has been conducted to them. But even THEN I have insufficient credentials(and by that, I mean none) to be taken seriously. And even if I did, the research would be so insignificant it wouldn't matter anyway.
So I just read tbh. And inform others of what I've read. Seems a lot more productive than attempting, and failing, in conducting my own research into a subject so pathetically esoteric it'd contribute to nothing.
EMZ=]

 

[Kit]

Are you questioning our diagnoses?

I was never a little professor. In fact I lean more towards HFA but because I had hearing loss, I was diagnosed with AS instead. I did have a speech delay and developmental delay but it was not severe but my speech delay was. I have always been high functioning because I was able to understand language at a young age and learn from my punishments. I also scored low on IQ tests and low on verbal too but my score shot up every year. My mom worked hard with me to bring me to where I am at. Now I meet the aspie criteria now according to my mother and my old therapist. She said my mom worked with me I am no longer delayed I meet the criteria now. In fact I might have stopped talking anyway while I was deaf but no one will never know. I could be HFA and I don't even know it.

I was more autistic in my early years and by age eight, my autistics characteristics weren't as prominent. Teachers would write in my IEP when I was five I am not classically autistic but I have the behavior. I am not sure if they were saying I was autistic but I did not have classic autism or I am not autistic but I just act like it due to my hearing loss.

I have questioned my own AS diagnoses thinking my mind was just messed up because I was deaf as a baby and it made my mind take different pathways and could I just be a messed up NT with aspie traits. I also thought I could be PDD-NOS and not a real aspie. But it doesn't matter what autism diagnoses I have. They're all on the spectrum. Plus females are effected differently by AS and well that fits me to a T. I really do have AS.

I am not going to fret on what other labels I could possible have instead of AS and worry about if I am one of those misdiagnosed. Mine was done by an autism specialist. Just as long as he said I had an autism spectrum disorder, I don't think it maters what autism label he slapped on me or where he put me at on the spectrum. Hell, even severe aspies have doubt their condition. I even know someone who has classic autism and she has doubt her autism too so she keep going back to see and they always said she had it. Even my therapists had insisted I have AS and could tell.

 

[Emor]

I don't mean AS people are more likely to be nihilists.
But I just think once you(not you specifically, most) start thinking too much about philosophy that it just leads one to become a nihilist.
As in life being pointless, not that anything exists(though I used to be interested in solipsism, I just don't see the point in pursuing that sort of ideology).
I just think one has to either go all out and think life has a point, or the complete opposite. As a materialist Atheist it's a lot harder to believe life has a point, but even if I was theistic, I still don't see where the logic is in due to a superior being's existence my existence all of a sudden means something. If anything it'd mean I was less significant.
Thanks for the encouragement.
I don't really know what I want in life right now though.
BTW, don't feel obligated to reply to these, I'm pretty stubborn and my views on life etc. don't really make me that depressed .
EMZ=]

 

[Dani Evar]

Haha... solipsism and tautology. Suddenly I miss Homer Simpson.

COOL. You just broke my heart, haha ^_^.

Keep being stubborn, and I'll meet you at the far end of these long branches of the night, alone. Hopefully. And we'll voluntarily hug each other like certain plantations.

And @League Girl, no, I am not questioning anyone's diagnosis more than I am questioning my own. Ask Emor ^_^. Your background description is interesting and, at some turns, reflects many of the shattered pieces of mine. (I was so retarded in language acquisition myself.) I have genuine compassion for most manifestations of AS and non-AS.

 

[Emor]

I don't mean _don't_ reply. I'm just feel like I'm complaining to you about life and that you're trying your best to change my views when I'm not actually that bothered.
That was less offensive. Right?
LOL.
And okay. Not sure if I understand that, or if that actually make any sense but yeah .
And yep.
I don't see why you should feel threatened even if he was challenging your diagnosis tbh. It'd suck if you feel a diagnosis defines you.
EMZ=]

 

[Dani Evar]

LOL, me trying my best to change your views? Agh! Hold it there! ~ ^_^ Look, Ema, if you keep being stubborn on this and that, you shall taste like a splendid tallow or a yellow metal wedge. If I were your dad, I'd be tempted to say, "Be stubborn unto others, yes, but also have a window (not a hole! but a transparent window whose glass is made of your own self-constitution) unto the expanding Universe."

I too love my own stubbornness until the last breath and wind in my sails. I'd rather have my raft sunk and be an authentic swimmer among apparently merciless tides, no matter how painful, than embark on a Titanic belonging to others (people, people, those people!).

I do know, profoundly, that there's subterranean water down there where I've been into, but I'm not even trying to lower the bucket down the well for you. I like the bitter taste on your lips. I'm not even letting you hear the sound of the rope! LOL Yeah, just be you ^_^.

We can drift for months and years and still be awake, and even in sleep, we can still see dreams (extensions of 'outer' reality, or just of Reality Itself), so I'm not so worried; I'm just worried about worrying because of its own definition.

In any case, you're the Universe's hot rim ^_^. Go, Ema, go!

Splendid, even when (you're) drowsy .

And yeah, it sucks heaven and hell if you merely feel (or accept) a diagnosis defines you.

I don't mean _don't_ reply. I'm just feel like I'm complaining to you about life and that you're trying your best to change my views when I'm not actually that bothered.
That was less offensive. Right?
LOL.
And okay. Not sure if I understand that, or if that actually make any sense but yeah .
And yep.
I don't see why you should feel threatened even if he was challenging your diagnosis tbh. It'd suck if you feel a diagnosis defines you.
EMZ=]

 

[Willow]

Question..

What occurred as a result of some amazing scientific explosion years and years ago, that we now call our home, despite knowing very little about it.

Answer..

The Universe

 

[Calvert]

So Willow, do you believe the Big Bang Theory then?

@Emor I can't make head nor tail of what your saying. It's just gobbledy-goop to me. Seriously, you need to translate for me.   

 

[Willow]

Big Bang seems most logical and all so yep.

 

[gamers1700]

I can understand Emor more than Evar to be frank...my brain hurts lol

 

[Dani Evar]

I'm a prick? ^_^ or a largely invisible stairway, through the labyrinth? But at least, I'm almost without cargoes, burdenless, so I'm not that depressed myself to intentionally depress others.

I can understand Emor more than Evar to be frank...my brain hurts lol

 

[Dani Evar]

LOL but vapor does progress that way, in its own way, Calvert, hehe. But she too is capable of slipping into silence just as we are, I think, in her own way. ^_^

So Willow, do you believe the Big Bang Theory then?

@Emor I can't make head nor tail of what your saying. It's just gobbledy-goop to me. Seriously, you need to translate for me.   

 

[Dani Evar]

The 'despite knowing very little' part is what unites and separates conscious, reflective beings like ourselves interred in long winter evenings of the human intellect and sensitivity.

Even that which is dubbed the 'amazing scientific explosion' can still be refuted; we don't know how it happened for sure. It has only gained prominence in the last 30 yeas or so through a typical Kuhnian socialization of science (the phenomenon of social-scientific consensus, like the Church case, which can be pretty much deciphered by epistemological philosophers and sociologists (not the 'scientists' themselves, since they don't understand philosophy nowadays) to a great certain extent of laughter), hence leaving a lot of highly intellectual dissidents still. Example: Fred Hoyle confronted the majority of 'big-bangers' by defending and modifying his displaced theory of Continuous Creation Cosmology, which holds that the cosmos is eternal, infinite in both the past and the future, and which is also derived from the same theory of space-time and gravitation used to derive the Big Bang: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (Einstein, using the intellectual strengths of Riemann and Lobachevsky, was the man who bent/curved four-dimensional space-time beyond Euclidean geometry and called it 'gravity', explaining its ontology the way Newton could not have done/imagined in any way: space-time is subtly curved due to the presence of matter, and macroscopic 'particles' move along geodesics; with Gauss having done it much earlier in the case of two dimensions (surfaces).)

In the Big Bang Hypothesis (it's not even a 'theory' yet for many), there's a serious philosophical problem when it comes to accepting whether or not the Universe could have an infinite past (an infinite amount of contingency, not just physical matter).

Also, whatever the case, the Big Bang isn't final, it just indicates a certain edge unto Einstein's macroscopic theory of General Relativity (which already fails to hold in the interior of an atom, and note that Einstein himself never accepted the existence of Black Holes as derived from his theory; rather he saw what the appropriate boundary conditions might be for it). So it isn't Nature's final word, most especially when Quantum Gravity enters the description.

The Universe has touched us in countless profound ways, especially with this kind of tremoring.

Question..

What occurred as a result of some amazing scientific explosion years and years ago, that we now call our home, despite knowing very little about it.

Answer..

The Universe

Big Bang seems most logical and all so yep.


[/quote]

 

[BIMOG]

Q) Vue in threes?

A) The Universe

 

[tree]

OP asked 2 questions outright:

1. "If the Universe is the answer, what is the question?"
Logically speaking, the answer to that, seems to be "What is the Universe?"

2. Whatever has happened to the 'Little Professor Syndrome'?
I don't know, don't care, and don't think it relevant in this thread.

He also put forth this agenda:

"I hope no one has been misdiagnosed as 'Aspie' or simply 'Autistic' by a stupid NT doctor here :-(. That's inherently quite fatal in any case."

This looks inflammatory to me.
Not all doctors are NT. Or stupid.
Some may be both. Many are neither.

And a diagnosis or misdiagnosis of Aspie or Autistic is not 'inherently quite fatal.'
This was an non-rational statement.

 

[Aspergirl4hire]

42.

This question was answered years ago, and requires no revisit by me; although the movie was excellent, and I enjoyed it 4 times, and met the author of the book. The OP is, I think, not an active member at this time, nor has been in years.