Joseph wrote on 25th November 2021, 09:53 PM:

Like many others, I will be working on that day. Is it possible if the day could be changed? I think a lot of people are either going to be working or spending time out because of Black Friday.

Nope, not possible. We've already made the reservation and put an advance payment on the banquet room. At least thirty users have already RSVP'd and paid for their plane tickets; some are even making their way through airport security as we speak. In these unprecedented times, it would be irresponsible for us to force them to spend even more money on hotel rooms and other services if we were to move the event back.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

--Matt "DamenSpike" Damon

SecurityGuy wrote on 8th October 2021, 05:55 PM:

Congrats on 1k and your welcome.

you're*

-Grand Most Wise JacobG

Frodo907 wrote on 4th May 2021, 03:41 PM:

Hello all,
I'm writing this as an appreciation post for the user "randy" or "randydalegend" for his recent contributions to the DSGHQ community, which have gone unnoticed
I just watched his 36 minute video epic saga about the horrible behaviour done by the mods and admins, on a game made for offensive jokes and comments. If he didn't expose Orbay for the offensive jokes he made outside the community, I wouldve still thought he was a decent human!
The constant comments of calling them 'weirdos' did really show the community how horrible these users are. How dare they make these jokes!!
Thanks,
Alex

Hey Alex AKA "Bacon"

Thanks for watching my vids! I agree with what you said. There are a lot of weirdos here. I am glad that my video caused you to stop thinking he was a decent human; it is very important to me that you consider him to be just as much of a weirdo as I do.

Stay tuned, because I have more jokes coming soon!

Best Regards,
~Randy

There have been a lot of apology posts recently on the DSGHQ forums. This is a perfect time to reflect on some of the greatest apology posts of all time. Over the 7+ years these forums have been operating, there have been over 100 apologies made. So today I will be counting down my Top 5 Favorite DSGHQ Apology Posts of All Time. Don't get mad if you didn't make it in, this is just my opinion. If you don't like it, that's your opinion and I can have my opinion against your opinion as long as we still respect each other as people.


Number 5 - There's Nothing Too Small To Apologize For


I'm starting off this list with a fairly obvious choice. Many DSGHQ veterans remember Lizz, and this apology is one of the best that the community has to offer. I think that this apology represents something great, and we can learn a lot from Lizz. No mistake is too small to apologize for. I think this is something many DSGHQ users forget, as they oftentimes will make apologies that are sarcastic or apathetic. The truth is, we need to always be looking at our mistakes and trying to refine our character by learning from them.


Number 4 - The Bully Changes His Ways


Bullying is a serious problem. Too often people bully others and don't realize they are in the wrong. That is why it takes a man of great character to apologize for such a deed. It puts one in a vulnerable position, and takes a lot of bravery to do. That's why I am putting Brndav's famous renunciation of bullying at number 4. Many people know the former mod Brndav today as a great, helpful gentleman. However I think this is in part because he rejected his former ways of being a bully. This is a short and sweet apology, and it really makes me feel great. I think many more bullies have read this apology and realized the error in their ways, and I think this serves as an inspiration.



Number 3 - Bakon's Famous Apology


Continuing on with this list we have one of the most respected users in all of the DSGHQ delivering a beautiful apology. Bakon acquitted himself of his crimes in an eloquent fashion here. One must also take note of his great use of details to create a captivating narrative. I can practically picture Bakon's brother saying "umm uh uhhhh." There's a good reason that this makes it on the podium of the Top 3 DSGHQ Apology Posts of All Time.



Number 2 - Death Is No Excuse


Death. It is an inevitable event in life. One day we will all die. Death can be quite sad. However we cannot let the fact of death intrude on our experience in life. We cannot live life while having a preoccupation with death. Personally I don't think this warranted an apology, but the fact that one was delivered shows much about the character of Gaf. I hope that she is handling the loss well, and I hope she has a wonderful life spent with the people she loves.

And now the moment you have all been waiting for...



Number 1 - You Are Never Too Big To Say Sorry


Fame. It's something that can change people, oftentimes for the worse. People use money as a crutch to cope with themselves as opposed to being accountable for their actions. That's why it is so special when a rich and famous person makes a public apology. It's a moment of humility. And for New York Gangsta Rapper Jay-Z, born Shawn Carter, it occasionally requires one to break character and show their true colors to the world. The American emcee behind acclaimed albums such as "The Blueprint" (2001), "The Black Album" (2003), and "American Gangster" (2007) goes on to apologize for his emotional Save Fred post. I think reading this in Jay-Z's voice really makes it complete. The replies here are also great. I think Hov puts a great touch with the YouTube link as well, which directs to I'm Sorry by Blake Shelton. Perhaps Jay-Z has a secret affinity for country music? We might never know. But I think it's obvious why this tops the list.




What do you think? What are your favorite apology posts? Let me know in the comments below. Be sure to like this post and comment down below for any future list requests.

-Jacobg627

Hello all.

I know I’m not a “wise one” or even one in the community anymore (except perhaps to try and campaign for a rank or get banned for inappropriate conduct), but the combination of late nights, quarantine, and all my discords being dead has prompted many late-night ruminations regarding many topics which are philosophical in nature. Tonight I’ve decided to document my thoughts in a more free-flowing manner and see where they lead me. Perhaps this may serve as an archive of my thinking, though that would probably be more so useful for myself to see how my ideas have developed over the years. Regardless, I’ll try and keep the verbiage somewhat elementary. I’ll mainly do that because, on the off chance that anyone else decides to read through my ramblings and ruminations, they will perhaps be able to learn something from them. Further, this may prompt discussion on things I am interested in. Though I’m not counting on it.

Note: This post’s topic became focused on existentialism about halfway through. I made a note where that begins if you wish to read an abridged version of this post. Keep in mind that the nature of existentialism has a tendency to make people feel apathetic or nihilistic. I’ve tried to keep this post in an encouraging, life-affirming tone so as to reflect my own beliefs. But this topic can be confusing. If anyone wants to talk about this or just philosophy in general, you know where to find me.

---

Why am I here? What is my purpose? These are two questions I seem to be asking myself with an increasing frequency as I get to the point where I’ll be entering college and deciding on what I want to do for a living. These questions stay in my mind, but circumstances such as the quarantine are bringing them closer to the forefront of my brain. Perhaps it’s the inadvertent social isolation I have been practicing which is allowing me to take a deeper introspective glance into my self than I have ever had the opportunity to do before.

Sometimes I will look at my dog or cat and wonder if they ever think the same things. I wonder what their emotional experiences are like. I wonder if they ever wonder what it would be like to be a human. I doubt it, but I can’t rule it out. The truth is that we humans can never fully and consciously empathize with animals. We may have moments where our animalistic instincts triumph. When we get angry, for example, our adrenaline rushes, blood flows from our brain to our limbs, our heart rate increases, and we are prepared for a fight. This is a subconscious impulse believed to be inherited from our ancestors who were in an environment where such a reaction was needed for survival. But anger and rage are only tangentially related, so I shouldn’t go too in-depth there.

Sometimes I’ll look outside and see those animals and ask similar questions. I think about zoo animals as well, trapped in their little cages, forced to have the exact same routines every day. Do the animals ever get bored? Do they feel confused? It is particularly fascinating to me to think of an animal who has been born into a zoo of some sort. They may live their whole lives in their small little cages designed to mimic their environments. They may never see what their natural environment truly looks like, or ever have to fight against a predator or anything. Many people may argue that these are beneficial, for they allow the species to survive in a safe environment. They are immune from threats to their extinction such as predators, humans, destruction of their natural environments, and more. And while I agree that as humans we have the duty to protect other animals we ought to do so, the idea that the animals will never live how they naturally will is interesting.

I bring that up for several reasons, though they may not seem clear if I state them explicitly now. Stay tuned.

On a survivalist level, the quarantine is not impacting me much. I am still eating, sleeping, exercising, and almost everything I would normally be doing to stay healthy. Yet, unlike my dog or cat, I feel unfulfilled. Devoid of something. Hollow, even. It seems to me that humans have a unique preoccupation with finding a purpose other than survival. In other words, for humans, survival (and all of its components) is not enough of a purpose to survive. In the wild, animals have two primary objectives: survive and reproduce (sorry mods if this is too inapp). This has been the case since before the Cambrian period about 550 million years ago, as scientists like to tell me. Even our hunter-gatherer human ancestors were primarily concerned with these two things. It is only through relatively new technologies allowing for wonderful things such as food surpluses and stable shelters that have served as the catalyst for us questioning what existence means. This has also served as the birth of philosophy, justice, and morals.

For some reason it seems that this development has marked a superiority complex in humans when compared to other animals. It is insulting to liken another human to their primate ancestors (despite sharing somewhere over 99% of DNA sequences with chimpanzees, for example), and unthinkable to liken them to something like an insect (despite, again, sharing about 50% of our DNA sequences with fruit flies). There is a part of our minds that likes to see ourselves, humans, as above nature. This could not be more wrong, as I see it. We are not above nature, but rather a part of it. We have evolved from more primitive beings, and more advanced forms of life will evolve from us (provided we don’t destroy the world before that). This fact was never so apparent to me. It was only relatively recently that I observed this when studying some Buddhist and Jewish texts. The question of why we genetically modify and breed animals for the selfish purpose of slaughtering them for our food despite the fact that agriculture is capable of providing more than enough for sustenance has been another idea taking up room in my mind. But even if I was a vegan activist, delving deep on this would be straying from what I set out to write about. I guess the purpose of this paragraph is to note that humans like to think of ourselves as being greater than the environment. This view is myopic and, if anything, causes humans to think less of their environment. It will cause people to ignore the beauty of the natural world for the sake of our human desires and impulses. And it does. But that’s not what I want to write about.

(Here the post becomes more focused, and it only gets more interesting from here on out).

I think I’ve rambled enough regarding unrelated things now. It’s time to tackle the question of “Why are we here?” In philosophy, the concept of meaning or purpose is frequently referred to as “essence.” The essence is the basic identity of a thing. This is much like defining the basic characteristics of a thing. If I were to describe the essence of a fish, for example, I would list off the things of what it means to be a fish. Such an essence can not be reduced further. Some presocratic philosophers such as Thales attempted to say that the essence of everything was water. This, of course, is seen as somewhat foolish. Some modern scientists attempt to say that everything is merely bundles of atoms. This, of course, is seen as profound and for many people is enough to disregard questions such as our purpose as unnecessary. But that too is foolish, for essences are holistic. Attempting to reduce human existence to one factor (such as Thales with water, Marx with economics and class struggles, or Freud with [redacted]) is known as “reductio ad absurdum,” or “reduction to absurdity.” Back to the matter at hand: essences, while consisting of material parts, have a holistic form greater than the sum of their parts. This can be seen in life in general. The brain, heart, liver, stomach, and all the other organs function together in the human body to enact different functions as part of a whole. They function together to allow for thought, sensory activity, emotion, and more. It might be better visualized by an image. As you know, images on a computer screen are made of pixels. Take my forums profile picture, for example. Together, these pixels create something holistic in the form of a semi-cringeworthy picture from when I was like 12. Something greater or more intelligible than the sum of each individual pixel. Separating them and organizing them by color would change the essence despite being made of the same things. Look up “gestalt” if you want to know more. So really essence is the definition not of what a thing is made of, but rather what it is to be a thing. That, in essence, is what essence is.

“Why did you ramble about that for so long?” I hear you ask. Before I continue I think it’s best for that to be internalized. Make sure you do that. Then, hopefully, it will all make sense with some patience and perseverance.

It is the view of many people that what you are is predetermined. Some people believe this is because God creates and plans everything. Some people believe this is because chemical impulses create similar responses in everyone and stuff. Some people believe this is because we are living in a preprogrammed simulation. Some people believe this is because reality itself is not real, and rather only exists in the imagination. For example, they may believe it was predetermined for me by some external force other than my own will to type this sentence which I am typing now.

In other words they believe essence precedes existence. In other other words they believe that your purpose is predetermined before you are born. This could be through genetic factors, through God’s will, through fate, or anything else. Maybe they’re right, I don’t know. But I think it would be somewhat foolish for God to put me on the Earth and will for me to write that humans have free will. Luckily, so long as you do not believe God to be a control freak who predetermines everything (something I find no clear mention of in the religion which I believe), the viewpoint I am about to espouse is perfectly compatible with religion. And while certain elements of genetics, age, et cetera (in philosophy, relatively constant factors of existence are known as “facticity,” but you don’t need to know that) involved in existence, this viewpoint I am about to espouse is perfectly compatible with science.

I should probably warn you that this idea can potentially be dangerous and make you think about things in a way you might not have before. But such can be said about most of this post. After all, there is a good reason the term “existential crisis” is so common.

The realization? Existence precedes essence. This is a core tenet of existentialist philosophy, popularized by Jean-Paul Sartre. This means that we are all born without any kind of collective purpose. At first glance this may seem like a pretty bleak assessment. But allow me to elaborate.

Sartre believed we are all born as independent individuals. We are born before we have a purpose (or essence). This means we are not labels or stereotypes which external forces impose on us. We do not have to do anything. What this also means is that our purpose is ours to create through our own consciousness.

Do not take what I am saying as an advocation for moral relativism. As it turns out this is quite difficult to put into words, since this is such an easy concept to misunderstand and misuse for evil. By saying “existence precedes essence,” one is still responsible for their own actions. One cannot say “I am good” when they treat others cruelly because existence precedes essence. Further, you cannot wish to be a dog and then become it with this philosophy (sorry, furries!). That would be acting in “bad faith.” More on that later.
So to condense: According to this view, people are not born with any inherent/special purpose other than to survive and reproduce. We are able to choose our own destiny and purpose regardless of any labels or stereotypes imposed on us by our family and society. We are defined insofar as we act, and are responsible for our actions.

Of course, you’re not entirely free. Your date of birth, race, genes, status as a human, and many other things are constant. As I briefly mentioned earlier, this is called “facticity.” They’re the facts of life. But these facts are very few and far between. You have the choice to do anything. Every second you have the choice to keep doing what you are doing or change what you are doing. Any day you could quit your job, or run away from home. There is nothing stopping you from stealing, lying, killing, committing suicide, or anything else but your own mind. It’s an hour past midnight as I write this. There is nothing in particular that stops me from walking out of my front door and never returning home. There is nothing stopping me from screaming. Except, of course, my self, my consciousness, and my mind. Now this is more about absurdism than existentialism. I might make a post about this (much shorter than this one). But if you want to read it from great authors, check out “The Stranger” by Albert Camus or “Crime and Punishment” by Fyodor Dostoevsky. They’re not super easy books, but they are some of my favorites.

This is overwhelming to many. Even Sartre himself has said we are “condemned to freedom.” We are born into the world and defined afterward. A knife has an essence; it must have a blade and be able to cut things, else it wouldn’t be a knife. Humans are born with no such blueprint, and every single choice we make reflects what we think a human should be. Even though I believe in God as he is described in the Tanakh, there is nothing forcing me to act in a way he sees moral. Supposing I accept the fact my actions will have consequences, of course. Many will tell you God made mankind as a whole. But it is the individual who makes themselves. Every action a human does represents what they believe is morally right for humans to do. We must always act as though we are the model for what humans should be because we are what we do. We must act as though we always have a thousand eyes on us. And there is never an escape from this.

So I guess it’s up to you. Do you want humans to be conformists? Or to act upon impulses and in fits of hysteria? I wouldn’t, but it’s up to you. When people say you must be the change which you want to see in the world, this is it.

One more thing: not choosing to do anything is a choice as well. Oftentimes it is perfectly valid. Conforming with society has its benefits. But do not think that it is impossible to change. Do not forget the fact that you can, at any moment, cast aside the shackles that society has put on you.

Living without realizing and actualizing your freedom is known as “bad faith.” I mentioned that earlier, but let’s explore this concept further with an example. The first job I had was being a waiter in a restaurant. I took it quite seriously, in the strange fashion which I did most things back then. I was concerned with efficiency, efficacy, being the best waiter I could be, and more. I ended up being pretty good at the job, but somewhere down the line I became a waiter first and a free human being second. I was a bit overly attached to the role. Interestingly enough this is the most famous example Sartre himself writes about bad faith in his book Being and Nothingness. The story I wrote is true in my life, and I was a bit horrified to see that I myself was living in bad faith. I forgot my status as a free person while I was working on the clock. Safe to say I became a bit more aware after that. A few months later I quit due to realizing it was corrosive. It was a somewhat sudden decision, but I realized it was best to prevent acting in bad faith. Soon after that quarantine started, but I have ventured into things I could only dream of before simply because I realized my essence is defined by me.

I mention this somewhat personal story to bring awareness to the fact that things never need to be the way they are. What’s more? You can change them. Sometimes this is not easily done, but there are very few things which are unable to be changed.

---

I think that marks the end of what is certainly my longest post. It’s approaching three thousand words now, which makes it almost double the length of my last wise post (Truth). And I considered that to be obnoxiously long. Well anyway, I might make another post if I get inspiration to share my writings. If you liked this stuff and wish to discuss it more, feel free to hit me up anywhere. The same goes for any questions.

Thank you very much for reading and/or scrolling this far.

-Jacobg

I'm going to keep this short because it's 2 am & I don't have any jokes.



I'm sorry for cussing tricking the rules.

For those of you who don't know what happened, I'll just show everything. Sorry if this is banworthy again (please send a warning where it is).

I hosted a rally for my queen campaign last night. Now many of you know the tone of this whole thing was mostly to have a good time. I attached the raw footage because I was initially going to turn it into a post (though not one this serious). I made a typing mistake concerning the word "rapper." In the video you can hear me say the word "rapper" as opposed to the word I typed, which rules that out as an accident (don't worry I got things I'll be admitting to later, but I think it's necessary to tell what was a genuine mistake). You'll also see me use 4 asterisks in the video. This was meant to be the word "crap" but many people took it the wrong way. That was probably the dumbest way I could've abbreviated it, especially when I realized after I hit enter that "crap" was an acceptable word. Whatever, mistakes were made and we were all giddy. I also said "d***s" in reference to the 50 Cent song In Da Club. This was a censorship of the word "drugs" as is evident by the lyrics sheet, but a lot of people unfamiliar with it took that the wrong way. This is what got me banned in the first place and started all of this. I'm pretty sure talking about drugs isn't allowed so I just censored it again. I didn't think of the more perverted interpretations of what I said. I don't know if not accounting for potential misinterpretations in speech is nefarious but I won't be arguing that here. If you don't want to take my word then don't. If you don't want to accept this apology then dislike it and ignore it or whatever. I never really wanted this to become so dramatic but feel free to dislike this if I've offended you. Below is the video of the rally.



At this point I got a little mad at the person who banned me. He got mad at me. To this point the only rule I intentionally broke was "Obey the judgement of staff members," but I was already banned. From there all was good and I was set to be unbanned. But to my detriment it seems people were looking more thoroughly for things I did in the past. I'd like to thank these little private investigators because I can admit there was some legitimate wrong done here. A few days ago I was playing on OldCP with some friends. Someone entered our conversation and I thought it would be funny to pretend to do a garden roleplay of sorts.



Sorry if posting that breaks rules. Also sorry for not blocking out names on oldcp, I just need to get all the words down. I thought this was funny, and while the statements themselves are innocuous on their own, the general context definitely falls under the category of "tricking the rules." The next image, while not incredibly obscene, is definitely not fit for club penguin game.



Now I could sit here and argue that I was never warned for either of these despite high ranking users being in the room but that's not a battle I'm in the mood to fight. I clearly did wrong. You can forgive me if you want, but I understand if you don't.

So what does all of this mean? A four day ban.

But it's more than that. This is a pretty big blow to my reputation as a user. I know many of you don't want to associate with me or anything after this. I appreciate being viewed with such scrutiny. Even though many of you know me best for being the former Grand Most Wise, I'm still pretty foolish. I probably always will be, but I'm not one to commit the same crime twice.

Oh, and the Jacobg 4 Queen thing is probably called off because, to quote the GOK announcement post "You cannot be nominated if you have been banned in the last six months on any DSGHQ platform." I'm (usually) not one to try and become an exception to the rule, so that marks the end of that. Either way I had a lot of fun making those posts and doing this rally.

Alright it's like 2:30 now and I'm pretty tired. Forgive the inevitable grammar mistakes. If you have a response that'd probably cause drama, I'm happy to handle it 1 on 1. Feel free to mail me here or contact me on Discord jacobg#1804 . I'm not trying to start anything with this post one way or the other.

I think that's everything. Thanks for reading through this.

TL;DR - Sorry.

Hello everyone. This is a post publicly announcing my audition for Queen. Some of you may be wondering why I am considering such a move. Well, I have been wanting this ever since I first heard their song, "We Will Rock You." I love their great songs, and I think all the members are very talented. I would love to be a part of this group.

Now some of you may be wondering, "Jacobg... what will you do in Queen?" Well, ever since I was a young lad I was just as fond of the saxophone as I was of Queen. The natural conclusion here is that I should play the saxophone for Queen. This is me at a younger age playing the saxophone, covering one of my favorite Queen songs. Pardon my caucacity, I was a little nordic in my early life.

Alternatively, I understand if Queen doesn't want to go in such a jazzy, funky, soulful direction. As a result I could also provide background vocals for Freddie Mercury. I think I am a versatile performer and can handle the needs of any ensemble. I've attached a video I recorded just earlier today of me covering my favorite song, "We Will Rock You." Please don't make fun of my appearance (if you do this will be the last time I do a face reveal on the DSGHQ).


In conclusion, I hope to be a member of Queen. If you support my campaign please like this post. I will do a cover of "We Are the Champions" if I win.

BTW, Supermikey97 is my running mate/manager. He will handle all business affairs.

Thank you all for your time,
Rhyan "JacobG" William

You have done some fine analysis here. I agree with your response to Loki's reasoning. However I think that it lies on a false premise.

Let's ignore the fact that it is fundamentally "unreasonable" to blame a victim for being assassinated for now. Let's say the reason we want Damen as the Emperor is because he is the one who makes the best decisions and runs the game in the best way (compared to some other fallacious syllogisms ignoring the coup d'état epidemic).

We should ask ourselves WHY Damen is a successful leader. In my opinion, much of it is his years of experience and freedom to experiment and try new things. As the developer of a game, you can make whatever changes you think will be best. If they don't work, you can revert them. Being able to refine this on a game with the simple facade of a "Club Penguin Game" has allowed him to, in my estimation, master his leadership role.

Do I think Damen is, in the ideal world, the best leader this game could have? Yes.

But I have been a member of this community long enough to recall that even Damen has made some mistakes. That is not to take away from what he has done for all of us (in fact, I would argue the humanity of them serves to augment my respect for him). This ability to freely make mistakes and correct them has allowed him to refine his role.

Another thing we must consider is that OldCP is a different game now than it was in 2013. The community has changed a lot, and so has its owner. I think we should be very grateful for Damen's efforts to keep this community alive. But I think that if Damen wants to take a step back, then it is our duty to respect him. It's been like 7 years, perhaps more.

So let me get back to my argument: I think it's about time we let the Drake Heirs learn about the role, and spend some time in charge. Let's put them in a spot where THEY can be the ones to try new things, and give them time to become experienced. Not many people are good in administrative roles (especially younger people) when they are first starting. Our patience will be rewarded in the long run; if Damen wishes to step away from his creation, we will all be confident that the torch will be carried forward in a faithful and honorable manner.

I don't know if I'm completely missing the point here. I feel as though the conflict was framed in an insincere manner. Good post though, you opened the door for more discussion.

timeline:
January 1st: Redemption, you made a forums post stating the reasons why you wanted to be moderator:

January 2nd: You make a post regarding the redemption, and all the reasons it wasn't ideal.
A quote from that post: "I believe I deserve Moderator 100%, not to brag but I think I fit for this rank. I'm active, now polite to users, GMT timezone and fit in for all requirements."
6 hours later you made a post denouncing your previous, evil ways and saying you will do anything for moderator.
You state the following as the true reason you deserve moderator: " Every single Candidate for Moderator has not played for 3+ months, or they have either been extremely inactive. All I have done was been a little toxic which I have stopped, and kill users."
January 6th: You apologize for being toxic and rude to users less than a week after saying you stopped doing that.

January 13th: One week after apologizing the last time, you apologize again... this time for attacking innocent users for no reason.

I don't know if you're joking or what, but these actions are not going to get you anywhere, either on a Club Penguin game or in the real world. As much as I would like to give you more chances and believe you will change, there comes a point where it just gets ridiculous. I want to believe you will control your actions and emotions; I know you can, but the evidence for your ability to do so is being outweighed by stuff like this at the moment.

Khal... Why are you so angry? Anger is not wise. But anger makes for some good songs. #Khal4Singer
Do not forget the people I have given the Wise Test: Fable, Chase (Khal), Milan, Bakon, etc.
I will handle the affairs with logic and reason as opposed to anger and selfishness.
I will not refute the factual inaccuracies in this post, including the one saying I am "inactive." Please see my post for the truthful account of things.
#Jacobg4GMW

Hello everyone. Some of you may know there was redemption on OldCP today. I personally did not know this, but the events which happened changed my life. It seemed as though the OldCP citizens were in need of a new GMW, and I was chosen.

I was filled with joy when I saw all of this support. But I was heartbroken when I heard that people thought I was "not active," or even "not worthy." So here is my application for Grand Most Wise.

Name: Jacobg
Age: 16
Timezone: EST
Age (OldCP Years): 334738963709674096
Last 4 numbers of my credit card: 5532
Experience: Credit Holder, Most Wise, Grand Most Wise, Lord, High Tobler Moth Priest, Xat Moderator, Drejk Moderator, OldCP Moderator, Forums Moderator, Third President of OldCP, Snailschat User, Snaildom Beta Tester, Snaildom Book Writer.

Why Should I Be Grand Most Wise?
I would not have applied for this rank if I did not win it already. Enough people believe I am the best for the community, and I will try to restore order to the OldCP Wise Counsel. If you are doubting my Wisdom, I recommend you read my latest Wise Post called Truth, which you can find here. I think I am able to restore the Wise Counsel to how it was when I was in charge all those years ago. After all, I am the creator of all 5 Wise Tests (at least 2 of which have been lost ever since I left). I am a very old user, and have been playing for the better part of a decade.
Some people do not think I am active, but they do not realize I have been on OldCP very often. I am very active. here is a picture of me in one of my most-active locations, /jr bed.


In Conclusion:
Just read the whole post.
1 like = 1 supporter
#Jacobg4GMW
#Khal4Singer

Lark wrote on 8th September 2019, 07:16 PM:

Jesus christ man how long have you been writing this for

Maybe like three hours maximum

1kutya wrote on 9th September 2019, 11:07 AM:

So, space and time are forms of our consciousness? I believe dimensional ascension would be a great experience if our inner-being would go further beyond which I have no doubt in, yet we haven't taken the opportunity to have that on ourselves.

I suppose one could say they are forms of our consciousness, but it may be better to equate them with consciousness. Space and time as we know them can be better thought of as "prerequisites" for consciousness to exist at all. With this in mind, they are not "real," but rather "ideal."
That doesn't mean that space and time are subjective. Rather, it only means that they are not noumenal. They are merely the glasses with which we view the world.
For all we know, we perceive the noumenal world exactly as it is. But there is no way to know. This leads to being able to comprehend higher dimensions; it may sound appealing, but we would need to reconfigure our structure of reality. I'm trying to think of a way to put the consequences of what would happen into words, but I think it's just too abstract. Thanks for reading the post though.

Hey guys, I just had an interesting thought and I wanted to share it with you all. Read it if you want, it’s just something I’ve been pondering. I’m skipping over a lot of basics, but if there are any requests for that I can make one of those.

Let’s talk about truth. In philosophy, there are several overarching questions that philosophers try to answer. One of these is “What is true?” Another is “What is real?” Yet another is “What is right?” These questions have no objective answer, but there are many ideas and insights that philosophers have into these fields. You see, these questions are very childlike in nature. The child always looks at objects and asks “Why?” Philosophers tend to ask these basic-yet-unanswerable questions and dive deep into them with thorough, mature analysis. Therefore, the philosopher (meaning literally “lover of wisdom”) is the one who can retain his childish inquisitiveness and combine it with mature analysis. This is why wisdom often comes from the mouth of children; they ask the best questions.

I think the question of “What is true?” can hold a unique purpose in finding insights into the other two. For, as you will come to discover, analysis of truth is merely analysis of our perceptions. Once this is figured out, questions of reality and ethics can be seen in their true light. In philosophy, the study of this question of truth is known as epistemology. There are two main theories of truth, known as rationalism and empiricism, respectively.

Rationalism is the notion that reason alone is the main key to knowledge. It maintains that the criterion of truth is logical, and can be deducted without any physical external sources.

Empiricism is the notion that experience alone is the main key to knowledge. It maintains that the criterion of truth is sensory. In other words, we cannot know anything unless we sense it ourselves.

Another distinction comes in types of knowledge. Rationalists believe in a priori (Latin, “from the earlier”) knowledge. A good way to remember this is by thinking that rationalists believe you can know things PRIOR to doing them. Empiricists believe in a posteriori (Latin, “from the later”) knowledge. A good way to remember this is by thinking that empiricists believe you can only know thinks POST doing them.

The final distinction I need to make is between analytic and synthetic knowledge. This is primarily a semantic dichotomy used to distinguish types of propositions. An analytic proposition is one whose predicate is contained in the subject. For example, “all bachelors are unmarried,” is an analytic proposition. This is because the concept of a bachelor is “an unmarried man.” These are universal distinctions, and take place independent of experience. While these may sound trivial, they are also necessary for communicating language. They are merely relations of ideas. A synthetic proposition is one that's predicate is not contained in the subject. They rely on our perceptions and tell us new information about the world. For example “jacobg is writing this post,” is a synthetic proposition. The idea of writing a post is not contained in the idea of jacobg. This proposition was made using a posteriori knowledge. It is not trivial and tells us something about the world. It is not universal, either. For example the synthetic a posteriori proposition “the sun has set yesterday” will not be contradicted if the sun does not set today.

So with that in mind, we can call empiricists “ones who believe the only way to find non-trivial knowledge is through experience,” and rationalists “ones who believe that reason alone can lead to non-trivial knowledge.”

Alright, that’s great. But now that I have you where I need you, it’s time for a quick existential crisis: How do you know what you know? How can you be sure that what you see is the same as what I see? Let’s do a thought experiment: Imagine a color; let’s pick blue, for example. Picture it in your head. What if blue to you looks like red to me? What if your image of blue was different than mine? What if your experience of blue is different than mine? Now, here’s the kicker: it probably is. Or at least, it is impossible to prove that it is. If you were to describe blue to me, you might list some things that are blue, such as the sky or the shirt you’re wearing. But none of these prove that we see blue the same way. You might go further and connect it to an emotion, or a feeling. You might even go so far as to define the electromagnetic wavelengths necessary to be perceived as blue by your ocular apparatus. But none of these can satisfactorily prove that we see blue the same way.

One might be inclined to dismiss this as mere ridiculous pseudoscience, blasphemous falsehoods, or whatever else. But this poses a serious issue when trying to use empiricism. Anyone who wants to make a claim for something must first tackle what is called the burden of proof. In other words, in order to prove something is true, you need to provide relevant evidence for that claim. If something has not been proven true, it can be dismissed without any evidence required. Therefore, if someone wants to use empirical evidence to prove a claim, they must first prove that empirical evidence is valid. Since this is impossible to prove, it is therefore impossible to use empirical evidence.

Wait, no. Stop. Don’t leave. I can work this out, I promise. Let’s just establish the fact that empiricism is flawed. And rationalism is not the best for finding out new, non-trivial knowledge. Knowing what you know now, the question of “What is true?” probably sounds like a desperate cry for help. But if we take a step back, we can find a glimmer of home. If we trace that, we can find a deluge of opportunity.
Remember when I first mentioned rationalism and empiricism? Well, I did mention that those were the two main theories of truth, but they are not the only ones. Historically, they were the only ones up until about 1780. At that time, one of the most important philosophers crafted a synthesis between the two. His name? Immanuel Kant. His theory? Well, let’s go in depth here.
Imagine having a pair of spectacles attached to your eyes. They have a yellow tint so that everything you see is yellow. You don’t know this, of course, and see everything as a tint of yellow. You do not know you are not seeing the real objects, but rather only seeing them through your own biased lenses.

Alright, stop imagining, because you don’t have to. What if I told you that space and time are forms of our perceptions? What if I told you that space and time as we know it are forms of our perception, as opposed to what is real? This opens two worlds to us: the phenomenal world and the noumenal world.

The noumenal world is where objects are, independent of observation. It is what they really are without any form of tinted lenses. They are impossible for humans to see.
The phenomenal world is our observable manifestation of these objects. We see everything in three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time. Our minds can not comprehend anything higher. Even if something has a higher dimension, we can only perceive it in the one way our brains know how to: spatiotemporally (meaning, literally, “relating to space and time”). If you’re having trouble comprehending this, you should watch the movie Flatland, which deals with the topic that I like to call “dimensional ascension.”

The acceptance that we can only perceive the phenomenal world is known as transcendental idealism. We can not comprehend the absence of space, for example. We can picture an absence of objects, but there is no possible way to picture an absence of space.

Acceptance of transcendental idealism is the best way to solve our conflict of epistemology. Let me go back to the concepts of analytic and synthetic knowledge. I introduced them to be synonymous with a priori and a posteriori knowledge, but in truth this was misleading. They are two separate categories of knowledge.


There are, in fact, four types of knowledge. Of course, there is analytic a priori, which includes logical statements such as “all bachelors are unmarried;” and synthetic a posteriori, which includes empirical statements such as “the book is on the table.” The third type is analytic a posteriori, but this is not true knowledge. It is used for hypothetical statements and therefore is not a form of knowledge at all. If there is to be a priori knowledge, it must be inherently analytical.

Synthetic a priori knowledge is what we are chasing here. By definition, this is a truth which can be deduced through pure reason but contains something in the predicate not found in the subject. In other words, it is non-trivial knowledge found by reason alone. I’ll summarize many hundred pages of dense philosophy for you here (as I have been doing this whole time, but I digress) when I say the answer is found in mathematics.

Take the simple arithmetic expression “7 + 5.” Through pure reason alone, you can know that the sum of 7 and 5 is equal to 12, but the concept of 12 is not contained in either 7 or 5. Nor is the concept of 7 or 5 contained in the concept of 12. This is an example of the coveted synthetic a priori knowledge.

With synthetic a priori knowledge and transcendental idealism in our toolbox, we can solve the epistemology dilemma we were presented with earlier. But we must first accept these as presuppositions.
While I did not want to make this into a series, I also can’t continue this philosophical thread without providing you all with an adequate background into other areas of philosophy. My discovery will mean nothing to you without sufficient knowledge of metaphysics, faith, and ethics. If there are any questions, ask them below. That’s about all for now.

On the night of Monday, June 17th, 2019 at 9:46 PM, Habsolo emerged from the shrouds of his inactive, catatonic stupor. To Milan and Jacobg, he said "Yo boys wanan vc." A few minutes later, one of the greatest voice chats of all time began. At around 10:15, the boys were feeling a strange sort of way. They joined Blade's podcast server and decided to bivouac there in the "Lounge" channel. Soon after, they began recording (what they thought would be) the last Habsolo Podcast of all time. Anyone who wanted to join could join, and anything that needed to be said would be said.

In a few short minutes, many familiar faces joined. Many laughs were had. Many swears were censored. Many gigabytes were taken from Jacobg's hard drive... but it was all worth it.

Without further ado, I present to you
The Habsolo Podcast (RELOADED) #1: Open Mic Special


While everyone went in thinking this would be the last Habsolo Podcast, it very well might be the first. There's already hype for the next one, and we're not sure if that will be done in this open mic format.

Matthew has done wrong many times before. I'm curious to see his motive this time. For that, I'll try to attend if you need help with a verdict.