I don't see what the big issue is with those definitions. What's the point of having a concept if it's impossible to explain?

And I'm curious as to how long it took all of you to become experts in TES lore.

I already said the definitions were fine, and I never said the concept was impossible to explain.

You want to know what CHIM is? Here: Maintaining your individuality despite knowing there's no fundamental basis by which to individuate yourself from anything else.

So what's missing?

I already knew that much. I don't understand why we're still arguing about it.

I was never arguing about the definition. I'm saying any definition considered by itself will leave something out.

That's the interesting part.

I'd rather not stray too far from the definition lest I get lost deep in the woods.

!

Midway upon the journey of our life
I found myself within a forest dark.
For the straightforward pathway had been lost.

That's not a definiton of it, but simply a statement of something it does, therefore the argument doesn't hold. Like 'defining' a gun a something that shoots furry animals. It's a true statment, but it's not a definition.
CHIM is a constant battle, nothing says the state which CHIM attempts to achieve (Z) is a battle.
Which tells them absolutely nothing on it's own.

!!!

That's very good. I've been using that metaphor forever, and no one's called me out on my unoriginality before.

*salute*

So Z is Amaranth? How long do you have to exist in a state of CHIM before you can stop struggling? And what are you struggling against? Splitting in half?

I take this:


To state a definition.

Even if it isn't a definition, it doesn't matter. My real argument is:

For some concepts, no statement about that concept (i.e., giving a definition, refering to a peculiar property) can be given the understanding of which amounts of an adequate understanding of the concept itself.
CHIM is such a concept
Therefore...


(Emphasis mine). I know. That's the point.

I can tell you that attacking the moons with an axe is the wrong way to do it.

Yes. But the solution to that is linking to texts and attempting to explain them, not just stating that the concept is incomprehensible and that one is not doing it right. Understanding cannot be achieved without statements on the subject. We are here to teach and to learn, not to philosophize.

I may have to stop reading this and take a vacation from TES lore. No one can reach a consensus on this, and for every explanation I see that makes sense, two people are ready to argue against it. So I don't know who to believe on this. You guys are infinitely better at understanding the texts than I am. I've read through The Tower and Sermon 21 over and over, and suddenly people are telling me things about those two sources I've never even considered. I don't like that I haven't been able to figure this out on my own. There's just too much there for me to take in. How in hell does anyone do that?

I never said the concept was imcomprehensible. I've said exactly the opposite. I even gave a definition of CHIM a few posts back.

Anything is such a concept, that doesn't mean we do away with definitions.

What Lady N and Proweler are arguing for isn't that we just give people definitions, which as you note they can do nothing with on their own. Rather, the argument is that we give them what they need to know, lay out the ideas by quoting the relevant texts and explaining what these mean and how they connect to one another to form the picture - a picture which can be then stated and understood in simple statements. The definition does not give them understanding, it gives them a foundation and a framework through which to anolyze the texts.

This methid is opposed to the "Nope, that's wrong, and I'm not going to tell you what's right, but trust me, I know what I'm talking about (even though I've given you no reason to believe such apart from some meaningless cryptobabble)."

I understand the idea that discovering it for yourself can greatly aide the experience, but we can give more direction than obscure vagaries and cryptospeak, as if a vido game concept (or even it's real world counterparts) were some sacred syllables that break upon utterance. Telling somebody they're wrong while offering including no propositional statements in your reply does the reader no good. You can teach, or you can babble incoherently like some Philosophy 101 student trying to sound smart*. We opt for the former.

*Even if this isn't actually the case, it is the way that the alternative tactic appears.

Okay, I started posting on this thread as an attempt to explain what Allerleirauh was doing. I've been giving an apology in the classic sense of the term.

Anyways, this isn't a case of me saying "Nope, that's wrong," although I might do that in some cases (if you defined CHIM as a type of cheese, I'd say you were wrong). I gave a definition of CHIM a few posts ago, and it's fairly standard. I'm not disagreeing with the majority about the definition of CHIM. I'm not saying the accepted view is wrong.

Let me try this another way.

We know damn well what CHIM is. Are we sure we understand it?

I cannot speak for others, but, for myself, the answer is "yes, to the best of my ability."

Keep in mind that all of these concepts were created by people. We're not delving into the immortal questions of the universe and existence here.

And I had thought I understood CHIM too until you all told me so vehemently that I didn't.

Even the concepts we use to delve into the immortal questions of the universe and existence were created by people. Actually, CHIM is a concept developed in response to those very questions.

Yes, and I was arguing against your apologetic.

We have the same stance on definitons, where we [or at least myself and the apologetical you] differ is in how to repond to somebody who asks 'what is CHIM?'

Your first statement depends entirely on your belief system. CHIM is a handful of real-world philosophies and world-views overlaid into a video game universe. That's what it is. Unless you believe there to be credibility to its real world counterparts (and yay for that if you do, I don't mind) then it simply stands as a fictional concept existing for the fun of being explored. Fun is what there is to understand, when it stops being about fun you've missed the point.

That would be this episode of http://www.cracked.com/video_18311_4-terrifying-psychology-lessons-behind-famous-movie-monsters.html. I'm sure the discussion has long passed the point where having this would be relevant, but...

You think this is fun? Fun for me is exploring places and seeing that my actions have impacted the world. I'd say something isn't fun when I spend hours trying to figure things out written in confusing ways with confusing words then asking question after question until I've made myself look like a thorough imbecile barely smart enough to figure out a light switch and be mocked by the further confusing words that people say in homage to the original confusing words, and at the end of the day when I'm lying in bed going over what I think the meanings are, I get to sleep with a sick feeling hanging over me with a little voice inside telling me that I don't really understand anything. That's not fun.

Fun for people who like anolyzing such things.

If you don't find it fun then just take the definition and do what you will with it, then focus on what you do find enjoyable. In a video game setting you should employ yourself at the things you enjoy, if that's not CHIM, then say to hell with CHIM. As I've told you before the game (including these discussions) are about you; if you like it, roll with it. If you don't, discard. There's no shame, not everybody likes the same things.

So, one issue here is how familiar everyone is with the relevant texts. If not everyone in the discussion is familiar with them, they need to be brought forth and talked about. I'm too lazy to do that right now.

In any given discussion, including this one, it's reasonable to believe that not everyone is familiar with the relevant texts, and that not everyone has an adequate understanding of their literal meaning. I'm ignoring that, because, again, I'm too lazy to do the work right now.

But, on the (false) assumption that everyone is familiar with the texts and understand what they say literally, I'm asking/claiming various things as a way to say: Hey, did you notice such and such? In other words, take my questions/claims as ways of commenting on the various texts. I think the interesting part of CHIM is what is not said explicitly, and which, as I've already indicated, I don't think can be. But, I think the texts present CHIM in such a way as if to indicate this other thing. Of course you can disagree with my conclusions.

So how would I respond when someone asks me "What is CHIM?" Typically I assume some familiarity with the texts to start with. But putting that aside, I suppose it's best to start with a definition. I've already given one: Maintaining your individuality despite knowing there's no fundamental basis by which to individuate yourself from anything else. I don't think there's anything special about this definition; others would work. I've also said I think this definition misses something, because CHIM is the type of concept that you can't fully comprehend through a definition. I think this because of the way I read the relevant texts, which, again, I'm too lazy to produce and comment on explicitly.

As for the other bit, in response to "What is CHIM?" I'll say: Go have a few drinks and butcher other peoples' songs doing karaoke. Which is what I'm about to do.

(I'm not being facetious with that response, by the way).

Yeah... but I don't wanna feel like I'm cheating myself by not "getting" what the world's about. Plus if I can't understand this, then it means I'm stupid. I really really don't wanna be stupid.

No-one thinks my explanation of love is viable?
I really thought it was something there but it just seemed to got lost.

The love that is not the mortal love but the divine love, the one that religions talk about. I think it is a poetic image that Vivec 'saw the Tower', realised his own insignificance, but love kept him whole.
Love for himself, love for creation, love for.. everything and his own place in it. Acceptance, sheer yesness.
He stands inside the tower.