It has somewhat recently come to my attention that some of my posts and comments have generated some concerns among my peers. While I could be mistaken on this account, that possibility seems rather improbable since this was the effect I was trying to effect, at least in part, those parts that I was awake enough to be considered conscious of. And, since these very posts and comments, if damaging to the class community, will need to be removed in order to protect the fragile growing minds of said community, or maybe simply the fragile community itself, I wouldn't know, I was handed the goal, not the purpose, and, since these posts and comments count towards my grades for one standard or another, I hereby have written an heartfelt apology to those whose something or another I have damaged which caused them sufficient harm to decide that informing the teacher is necessary, or, if none of that occurred, then the apology is simply directed towards to those whom the teacher decided would be harmed by said posts and comments. It is probable, after all, that probable cause is sufficient.
I would also offer as an explanation of why I would be so callous in my treatment of the emotional state, for the possession of a better word, or whatever it is that I may or may not have damaged, but which I would assume to have been likely to have been damaged based on my priors, of my peers. The reason is something which can be accurately described as "simplicity itself," namely, that I do not posses said emotional states, or whatever I may or may not have possibly damaged. Or to be succinct, because I have no heart. In the metaphorical sense, of course, I'd be quite literally dead were that literal. Thus, I made no provision for that which may or may not have been fragile and which I may or may not have damaged, it's difficult to emphasize with someone feeling something when one does not feel it himself.
But that is no excuse for me to have acted as I have, and, since the reasons I have acted as I have must be kept to myself, since obviously I did not do it for the purpose of that which was written to be sufficiently inflammatory to cause it to be censored, as that would defeat the main purpose of writing it, I must apologize. However, because apologies are literally worthless, since there are only two outcomes possible after an apology: 1, I continue doing exactly as I have done, with nothing changed, in which case the apology is empty, thus meaningless, or 2, I change sufficiently that the apology no longer has any meaning, and is thus meaningless, just like tautologies are tautologies, and thus provide no new information.
That is, I will either act completely consistently with myself who has committed the acts which I determined necessary to apologize for, or I do not, and in either case the apology would be somewhat empty. But that is only to me, and I am after all capable of effecting empathy.
In case it was not obvious, I would like to mention at this point that this is of the former type of apologies, that is, the way I shall act shall be completely consistent with the way I would have acted given the new information on which I will henceforth act.
ReplyDeleteHowever, consistency of character and constancy of action are very different, while I will be just as callous, unfeeling, and EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, as before, my actions would seem to construct a different character, especially if one applies the representativeness heuristic rather than the Bayesian definition of evidence.
But then again, if I declare here, that I am lying there, in order to conclude that I was lying there one must assume that I am stating the truth here. Which is an assumption made less likely by the very thing assumed to be true, since if one accepts that this is true, one must then also accept that the proceeding was false, and thus that I am, in fact, capable of dissimulation, and thus that I am, perhaps, lying about lying. And so on, and so forth.
The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.
K. Lin
What you apologize for is not apparent then again why should it be? This apology is clearly only for those meant to read it and understand that you have not acted in the way of how the implied audience wanted. If at all makes a difference, you are indeed forgiven.
ReplyDeleteAnd if indeed for nothing else the previous line is false due to the fact that I am not intended audience. And the next sentence is true.
Merely commenting to satisfy a quota.
You forgot to leave a signature, meaning the reply failed in satisfying said quota, just thought you'd like to know.
ReplyDeleteK. Lin
Not to be nosy or anything, but I'd like to know the exact reasons or specific quotes (if any) that offended people.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how someone's posts about books could be so offensive that the reader must complain rather than just click the exit button.
-Stephanie Kim
As was implied by the post, I don't actually know the reasons or specifics quotes that offended or could offend, I was only given information to the effect that certain of my posts/comments might need to be taken down due to reactions to them. And, given that tone I had used up to that time was rather vitriolic, I assumed that it was due to some offense the posts/comments had or might cause. Since I was informed of the subject by the teacher, and, being informed of the impact these posts/comments will have on my grades, appeared to have become enlightened, appearing to cause the shift to my current tone and character.
ReplyDeleteToo long; Didn't Read
I know nothing.
K. Lin