Arguing with one of those street preachers, like I at least used to see on college campuses pretty often, strikes me as maybe promising.… You’d need to real-time learn the actual structure of the preacher’s mental program and identify what conversational moves would actually jam his mental code — not just what’s illogical about the content of his words.
It’s not that hard. Twice now, I’ve simply shown up and asked them if I could read my favorite part of the Bible to them. They said “yes” both times. Then I read the entire Song of Solomon.
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine; your anointing oils are fragrant; your name is oil poured out; therefore virgins love you. Draw me after you; let us run. The king has brought me into his chambers.
Some of them didn’t know that it’s from the Bible, and called it “disgusting” before their buddies shut them up. Others just waited impatiently for it to get around to talking about swords and banners, as it does many stanzas into the poem.
It is not the mental monologue, but rather the physical presence of these people in the location where they’re standing that is the essential medium of their argument.
I’m not sure why you’re saying this. I wonder if you’re seeking accolades for your cleverness…?
The whole point of the preacher puzzle isn’t to have a solution, but to find one.
If this were actually a Beisutsu challenge and I were your sensei (with my current skill set, which is a paradox, but I’ll ignore that for now), I would focus you on two points:
“This is a distraction from the point. What in you is pulling you in a different direction? Look there and address it.”
“Now taboo this trick with the Song of Solomon and try again.”
I want to acknowledge and emphasize that I’m not a Beisutsu sensei, and even if I were you have not asked to be my student.
I’m offering this anyway because I imagine the hypothetical correction will be clarifying for some people — possibly including you!
I believe you have something real+important to communicate that hasn’t been communicated by this. But also, your comment has a certain aura: it’s dripping with condescension. By condescension, I don’t mean “you think you’re better than AAB, you think you know more than AAB, etc.”, because that’s too general/comprehensive and also could be reasonable beliefs; I don’t mean “you’re assuming you know better in this case”, because that’s a fine thing to believe; I don’t mean “you’re revealing that you think you know better in this case”, because it’s good to reveal your beliefs.
I mean maybe something around, you’re assuming common knowledge that you know better in this case. For example, you seem to assume that AAB will defer to your judgement, so that if you say AAB missed your criterion of success, they’ll agree that they ought to go investigate why they aren’t attending to your criterion (in this story, your assumption is expressed in suggesting AAB is “seeking accolades” or has something “pulling them in a different direction” that needs to be addressed). You emphatically disclaim sensei-hood… which is some evidence that you expect to be treated as a sensei and/or that in some ways you’re filling that role / taking that pose. (It would be bad if you get really or hypothetically punished for revealing that you expect to be treated as a sensei, or for making disclaimers to avoid things that seem bad to you, or for believing that you have stuff to teach, etc. etc.; I just want to offer you this information as a way in, if it’s relevant to your goals, to understand what might be happening in the above interaction.)
On a more concrete level, you seem to be rejecting the feedback from reality of the form “AAB did not get what I was pointing to”. Where by “rejecting” I mean you’re imputing a problem to AAB, and not taking actions that I’d expect if you took in the feedback (e.g., explaining more clearly what the preacher puzzle is, or what procedure one could run to bump into the puzzle you’re pointing at, or how to tell whether you’ve bumped into the puzzle, etc. etc.).
FYI TechneMakre, Val’s comment did help me understand what he wanted to offer with the preacher puzzle. Not an answer, but the practice of searching for an answer.
It’s not that hard. Twice now, I’ve simply shown up and asked them if I could read my favorite part of the Bible to them. They said “yes” both times. Then I read the entire Song of Solomon.
Some of them didn’t know that it’s from the Bible, and called it “disgusting” before their buddies shut them up. Others just waited impatiently for it to get around to talking about swords and banners, as it does many stanzas into the poem.
It is not the mental monologue, but rather the physical presence of these people in the location where they’re standing that is the essential medium of their argument.
I’m not sure why you’re saying this. I wonder if you’re seeking accolades for your cleverness…?
The whole point of the preacher puzzle isn’t to have a solution, but to find one.
If this were actually a Beisutsu challenge and I were your sensei (with my current skill set, which is a paradox, but I’ll ignore that for now), I would focus you on two points:
“This is a distraction from the point. What in you is pulling you in a different direction? Look there and address it.”
“Now taboo this trick with the Song of Solomon and try again.”
I want to acknowledge and emphasize that I’m not a Beisutsu sensei, and even if I were you have not asked to be my student.
I’m offering this anyway because I imagine the hypothetical correction will be clarifying for some people — possibly including you!
I believe you have something real+important to communicate that hasn’t been communicated by this. But also, your comment has a certain aura: it’s dripping with condescension. By condescension, I don’t mean “you think you’re better than AAB, you think you know more than AAB, etc.”, because that’s too general/comprehensive and also could be reasonable beliefs; I don’t mean “you’re assuming you know better in this case”, because that’s a fine thing to believe; I don’t mean “you’re revealing that you think you know better in this case”, because it’s good to reveal your beliefs.
I mean maybe something around, you’re assuming common knowledge that you know better in this case. For example, you seem to assume that AAB will defer to your judgement, so that if you say AAB missed your criterion of success, they’ll agree that they ought to go investigate why they aren’t attending to your criterion (in this story, your assumption is expressed in suggesting AAB is “seeking accolades” or has something “pulling them in a different direction” that needs to be addressed). You emphatically disclaim sensei-hood… which is some evidence that you expect to be treated as a sensei and/or that in some ways you’re filling that role / taking that pose. (It would be bad if you get really or hypothetically punished for revealing that you expect to be treated as a sensei, or for making disclaimers to avoid things that seem bad to you, or for believing that you have stuff to teach, etc. etc.; I just want to offer you this information as a way in, if it’s relevant to your goals, to understand what might be happening in the above interaction.)
On a more concrete level, you seem to be rejecting the feedback from reality of the form “AAB did not get what I was pointing to”. Where by “rejecting” I mean you’re imputing a problem to AAB, and not taking actions that I’d expect if you took in the feedback (e.g., explaining more clearly what the preacher puzzle is, or what procedure one could run to bump into the puzzle you’re pointing at, or how to tell whether you’ve bumped into the puzzle, etc. etc.).
FYI TechneMakre, Val’s comment did help me understand what he wanted to offer with the preacher puzzle. Not an answer, but the practice of searching for an answer.
Seconding.