Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Solipsism

ViatorVerum
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 9:15:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There doesn't seem to be a philosophy section...

Anyhow, I came across something called solipsism which basically is the view point that nothing can be proven but one's own mind.

This seemed ridiculous at first, but as I thought about it, it seemed more and more correct. After all, the only type of reasoning that can deliver absolute truth is deductive reasoning in which the premises are absolutely true.

1. If X thinks, X is.
2. X thinks, therefore it is.

This seems to be valid enough to me, and feel free to disagree.

But, I look at other deductive syllogisms and they all seem to be inductive in nature, at least the ones that deal with existence. Can someone provide a syllogism that proves the existence of ANYTHING?
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 9:37:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So basically you agree with how everyone on this site thinks.
I don't think I've seen anyone on here try to think about disproving that.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:02:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Testing to see if physics is all in your mind is fairly simple. Though the consequences of being wrong can be quite messy. But hey, it's your conviction, right? :)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:09:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 9:37:27 PM, lovelife wrote:
So basically you agree with how everyone on this site thinks.
I don't think I've seen anyone on here try to think about disproving that.

What? I know of only maybe 1 or 2 solipsists here.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:10:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 9:41:46 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Interesting. Well I'm in the right place. Nihilism. Another shared belief?

You're a Nihilist? Well, now there's... three of us? Maybe four. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
ViatorVerum
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:11:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Testing to see if physics is all in your mind is fairly simple. Though the consequences of being wrong can be quite messy. But hey, it's your conviction, right? :)

I choose to base my decisions on what seems to be, but it doesn't mean it absolutely exists. If I flip a coin and it lands on heads I could believe that all coins, when flipped, will land on heads. Physics could simply be chance that has just so happened to occur constantly for all of observed time. Far out? Yes. Possible? Yes. And that possibility means that you can't objectively prove physics, or anything else to exist.

Puck, how do you know you aren't dreaming? Are your eyes deceiving you? Perhaps you are in a coma? Can you objectively know anything is real? No. Hence, solipsism.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:13:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 10:11:49 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Puck, how do you know you aren't dreaming? Are your eyes deceiving you? Perhaps you are in a coma? Can you objectively know anything is real? No. Hence, solipsism.

Wow, this should be good *gets popcorn*. I've never seen anyone challenge Puck's Objectivist beliefs before.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:19:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 9:41:46 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Interesting. Well I'm in the right place. Nihilism. Another shared belief?

Given that I'm Buddhist, I subscribe to Metaphysical Nihilism, but I don't deny that the objective world is real despite it being an illusion.

"So long as people do not understand the true nature of the objective world, they fall into the dualistic view of things. They imagine the multiplicity of external objects to be real and become attached to them."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

"The world, indeed, is like a dream and the treasures of the world are an alluring mirage! Like the apparent distances in a picture, things have no reality in themselves, but they are like heat haze."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ViatorVerum
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:22:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 10:19:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/15/2010 9:41:46 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Interesting. Well I'm in the right place. Nihilism. Another shared belief?

Given that I'm Buddhist, I subscribe to Metaphysical Nihilism, but I don't deny that the objective world is real despite it being an illusion.

"So long as people do not understand the true nature of the objective world, they fall into the dualistic view of things. They imagine the multiplicity of external objects to be real and become attached to them."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

"The world, indeed, is like a dream and the treasures of the world are an alluring mirage! Like the apparent distances in a picture, things have no reality in themselves, but they are like heat haze."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

The quotes themselves make it sound like solipsism. What is the 'objective world'?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:23:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 10:11:49 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Testing to see if physics is all in your mind is fairly simple. Though the consequences of being wrong can be quite messy. But hey, it's your conviction, right? :)

I choose to base my decisions on what seems to be, but it doesn't mean it absolutely exists. If I flip a coin and it lands on heads I could believe that all coins, when flipped, will land on heads. Physics could simply be chance that has just so happened to occur constantly for all of observed time. Far out? Yes. Possible? Yes.

Incorrect, to be a function of chance requires a mechanism of chance i.e. you are positing nothing at all to do with physics at all and are instead equivocating an entire other system under that name. Consistent however is another term entirely which may be closer to what you intend, but empirics doesn't posit proofs in the logical sense anyway so in essence the entire argument is a straw man. We simply treat it as 'true' because there is no indication otherwise, nor any need to presume so - that =/= uncertainty however. :)

And that possibility means that you can't objectively prove physics, or anything else to exist.

Physics + existing is a nonsensical partnership. Physics isn't an object , it a system of *explanations* regarding the functions of physical objects.

Puck, how do you know you aren't dreaming?

By virtue of experiencing a dream state. This isn't one.

Are your eyes deceiving you?

Eyes are incapable of deception. Learn basic biology and neuroscience.

Perhaps you are in a coma?

Again, an implied dream state. There is nothing about a coma that creates a functional universe. Unless you have proof to the contrary. But of course you don't deal with proofs. :)

Can you objectively know anything is real? No. Hence, solipsism.

Existence from non existence? Do go on.

Quick question though. Where do the rules of my deception come from?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:26:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm definitely a moral nihilist and recently found metaphysical nihilism to align with my perspective quite well.

It's epistemological nihilism that I can't subscribe to - it's self-refuting. Well, that's my opinion but I'm open to anyone trying to justify it in a logical way - I doubt anyone on DDO would though. ;)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:30:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 10:22:38 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
At 11/15/2010 10:19:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Given that I'm Buddhist, I subscribe to Metaphysical Nihilism, but I don't deny that the objective world is real despite it being an illusion.

"So long as people do not understand the true nature of the objective world, they fall into the dualistic view of things. They imagine the multiplicity of external objects to be real and become attached to them."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

"The world, indeed, is like a dream and the treasures of the world are an alluring mirage! Like the apparent distances in a picture, things have no reality in themselves, but they are like heat haze."
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

The quotes themselves make it sound like solipsism.

In what way? He does not in any way imply that his mind is the only thing that can be proven. He is just saying that reality is illusory in nature, and as he specifically said, "like heat haze."

What is the 'objective world'?

The real world as it exists, independent of the mind. Just because the world is objective, as in independent of the mind's conception, does not mean that world can't be illusory in nature.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ViatorVerum
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:47:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 10:23:42 PM, Puck wrote:
At 11/15/2010 10:11:49 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Testing to see if physics is all in your mind is fairly simple. Though the consequences of being wrong can be quite messy. But hey, it's your conviction, right? :)

I choose to base my decisions on what seems to be, but it doesn't mean it absolutely exists. If I flip a coin and it lands on heads I could believe that all coins, when flipped, will land on heads. Physics could simply be chance that has just so happened to occur constantly for all of observed time. Far out? Yes. Possible? Yes.

Incorrect, to be a function of chance requires a mechanism of chance i.e. you are positing nothing at all to do with physics at all and are instead equivocating an entire other system under that name. Consistent however is another term entirely which may be closer to what you intend, but empirics doesn't posit proofs in the logical sense anyway so in essence the entire argument is a straw man. We simply treat it as 'true' because there is no indication otherwise, nor any need to presume so - that =/= uncertainty however. :)

Hardly a straw man. You simply missed the point. You differentiate flipping a coin and physics by saying flipping a coin is belongs to a system of chance while physics belongs to another system because it gives 'no indication otherwise' that it isn't 'true'. Upon one coin flip resulting in heads (a limited observation), the coin flip might seem to be a constant system. But, more flips (a broader, yet still limited observation) would probably reveal that the coin flip is a system of chance. In the same respect, physics is a system that seems constant under a limited observation. There is absolutely no way to prove that it isn't, in fact, a system of chance. Our observation of the system of physics can never be infinite, therefore the legitimacy of the physics system is a matter of inductive reasoning, a type of reasoning that doesn't deal in absolute truth.

And that possibility means that you can't objectively prove physics, or anything else to exist.

Physics + existing is a nonsensical partnership. Physics isn't an object , it a system of *explanations* regarding the functions of physical objects.

You brought up physics to scorn the ideology of solipsism, assuming it to be an object that you can use to falsify the belief. I treated it as a (metaphorical) object (system) in the same way you did, in the same respect you did. Don't be a hypocrite.

Puck, how do you know you aren't dreaming?

By virtue of experiencing a dream state. This isn't one.

If you've been in a dream your whole life, then the 'dreams' you have had the 'virtue' of experiencing (inside this dream) aren't an accurate representation of the type of dream you 'might' have been in your whole life.

Are your eyes deceiving you?

Eyes are incapable of deception. Learn basic biology and neuroscience.

Really? I look at the poster on my wall and I see a blur. Of course, there is no blur, but instead my eyes are deceiving me due to my bad vision. All sensory organs can deceive you. Perhaps you are the one that needs to learn basic biology?

Perhaps you are in a coma?

Again, an implied dream state. There is nothing about a coma that creates a functional universe. Unless you have proof to the contrary. But of course you don't deal with proofs. :)

Just as in a dream, you can imagine things that aren't there.

Can you objectively know anything is real? No. Hence, solipsism.

Existence from non existence? Do go on.

Puck, seeing as I had it in my original post, I would thought that you could put two and two together and understand that I meant you can't objectively know anything is real with the exception of the mind. Your existence from non existence comment had literally no bearing on anything.

Quick question though. Where do the rules of my deception come from?

The rules of your deception?

Puck, you seem to be sure of your beliefs. Provide me a syllogism that objectively proves literally anything real except the mind. And I don't mean syllogisms dealing with the main Laws of Logic, as those prove nothing by themselves.
ViatorVerum
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2010 10:49:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The quotes themselves make it sound like solipsism.

In what way? He does not in any way imply that his mind is the only thing that can be proven. He is just saying that reality is illusory in nature, and as he specifically said, "like heat haze."

It sounds as if he is saying nature is an illusion. Perhaps not solipsism, but a more active form of it.

What is the 'objective world'?

The real world as it exists, independent of the mind. Just because the world is objective, as in independent of the mind's conception, does not mean that world can't be illusory in nature.

I don't understand. Illusory in nature? Understand that I'm not trying to argue with you, I just want to understand what you're saying.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 12:02:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/15/2010 10:47:07 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Puck, you seem to be sure of your beliefs. Provide me a syllogism that objectively proves literally anything real except the mind. And I don't mean syllogisms dealing with the main Laws of Logic, as those prove nothing by themselves.

It's easy, mate.

Where S is a subject, sp is a skeptical possibility, such as the brain in a vat hypothesis, and q is a knowledge claim about the world, the skeptic asserts:

(1) If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
(2) S doesn't know that not-sp
.:. Therefore, S doesn't know that q

Change it from modus ponens to modus tollens and you get:

(1) If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
(2) S knows that q
.:. Therefore, S knows that not-sp

Here is a hand. Here is another. At least two physical objects exist in an external world. I can more plausibly believe this than any skeptical hypothesis. My belief is parsimonious, internally consistent, and makes sense of observed phenomena. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, my belief in an external world has warrant.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 12:15:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Puck, how do you know you aren't dreaming?

By virtue of experiencing a dream state. This isn't one.

How do you objectively know that?


Are your eyes deceiving you?

Eyes are incapable of deception. Learn basic biology and neuroscience.


What? Unless thats some sort of semantic jiggery pokery you are being a retard.

Perhaps you are in a coma?

Again, an implied dream state. There is nothing about a coma that creates a functional universe. Unless you have proof to the contrary. But of course you don't deal with proofs. :)

You have totally missed the point, a coma need not create a functional universe. It need only create the perception of a functioning universe to illustrate the point.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 12:19:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 12:02:53 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/15/2010 10:47:07 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Puck, you seem to be sure of your beliefs. Provide me a syllogism that objectively proves literally anything real except the mind. And I don't mean syllogisms dealing with the main Laws of Logic, as those prove nothing by themselves.

It's easy, mate.

Where S is a subject, sp is a skeptical possibility, such as the brain in a vat hypothesis, and q is a knowledge claim about the world, the skeptic asserts:

(1) If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
(2) S doesn't know that not-sp
.:. Therefore, S doesn't know that q

Change it from modus ponens to modus tollens and you get:

(1) If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
(2) S knows that q
.:. Therefore, S knows that not-sp


Am I the only one that thinks the above is complete fail?

Here is a hand. Here is another. At least two physical objects exist in an external world. I can more plausibly believe this than any skeptical hypothesis. My belief is parsimonious, internally consistent, and makes sense of observed phenomena. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, my belief in an external world has warrant.

That simply means it is rational to believe in the external world, you are have not made a definitive case that the external world exists as a certainty.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:18:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 12:19:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:02:53 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/15/2010 10:47:07 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Puck, you seem to be sure of your beliefs. Provide me a syllogism that objectively proves literally anything real except the mind. And I don't mean syllogisms dealing with the main Laws of Logic, as those prove nothing by themselves.

It's easy, mate.

Where S is a subject, sp is a skeptical possibility, such as the brain in a vat hypothesis, and q is a knowledge claim about the world, the skeptic asserts:

(1) If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
(2) S doesn't know that not-sp
.:. Therefore, S doesn't know that q

Change it from modus ponens to modus tollens and you get:

(1) If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
(2) S knows that q
.:. Therefore, S knows that not-sp


Am I the only one that thinks the above is complete fail?

You do realize it's the same argument I set out below, only stated formally, right?

Here is a hand. Here is another. At least two physical objects exist in an external world. I can more plausibly believe this than any skeptical hypothesis. My belief is parsimonious, internally consistent, and makes sense of observed phenomena. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, my belief in an external world has warrant.

That simply means it is rational to believe in the external world, you are have not made a definitive case that the external world exists as a certainty.

Nope, nor was that my intent.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 1:23:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 1:18:44 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:19:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 12:02:53 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/15/2010 10:47:07 PM, ViatorVerum wrote:
Puck, you seem to be sure of your beliefs. Provide me a syllogism that objectively proves literally anything real except the mind. And I don't mean syllogisms dealing with the main Laws of Logic, as those prove nothing by themselves.

It's easy, mate.

Where S is a subject, sp is a skeptical possibility, such as the brain in a vat hypothesis, and q is a knowledge claim about the world, the skeptic asserts:

(1) If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
(2) S doesn't know that not-sp
.:. Therefore, S doesn't know that q

Change it from modus ponens to modus tollens and you get:

(1) If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
(2) S knows that q
.:. Therefore, S knows that not-sp


Am I the only one that thinks the above is complete fail?

You do realize it's the same argument I set out below, only stated formally, right?

So what?


Here is a hand. Here is another. At least two physical objects exist in an external world. I can more plausibly believe this than any skeptical hypothesis. My belief is parsimonious, internally consistent, and makes sense of observed phenomena. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, my belief in an external world has warrant.

That simply means it is rational to believe in the external world, you are have not made a definitive case that the external world exists as a certainty.

Nope, nor was that my intent.

Aaah... you misrepresented yourself then. Not to worry.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 3:07:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 3:04:05 AM, Mirza wrote:
How do you know that you exist?

I think therefore I am.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 4:27:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 3:20:51 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/16/2010 3:07:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think therefore I am.
Not proof at all. At least not logical.

we cannot see yellow . . . does yellow exist?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
ChristianM
Posts: 1,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 4:29:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 4:27:23 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/16/2010 3:20:51 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/16/2010 3:07:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think therefore I am.
Not proof at all. At least not logical.

we cannot see yellow . . . does yellow exist?

We can see yellow you idiot.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 5:51:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lol at puck being challenged.....and then called a retard.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 5:55:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 4:27:23 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
we cannot see yellow . . . does yellow exist?
By "we" you do not mean me. Thank you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 7:37:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 3:20:51 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/16/2010 3:07:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I think therefore I am.
Not proof at all. At least not logical.

How is that not proof?

If you do not exist, how is it that you are witness to your existence? The simple statement of "I think therefore I am" is self evident logical proof of your own existence to any being capable of thinking it.

You may be a brain in a vat hooked up to virtual reality simulation. You may be the God-King of the faeries in the middle of a particularly long dream, you may be an artificial intelligence in a virtual reality world... who knows. But if you think, and can 'witness' your thoughts you know that you exist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.