First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Neutrality in perspective
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

Yei wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:


Yei wrote:

I don't think that's possible...

Everyone has to make alot of decisions in their life and I don't see how all of them could be made without bias or opinion. You should be more specific and outline their possible course of life.


What decisions are those? Outline and I'll try to go from there.


Okay, what education and career they have, if they get married or if they have kids, what they do with their money, their friends, etc.

Obviously this kind of person can't exist, they'd probably just be like a robot and have no emotion. Hmm, would this person have a conscience or morals? Would they would feel bad when they see others suffering or dying, that could just be human nature, not opinion.


Red: What forces said character to live within society? Marriage would be considered a type of bias for the person they married, if said person is immortal there is no need for children.
Blue: It is a fictional character. I would say that she wouldn't know what to feel when watching people die. I wouldn't put that under human nature in this instance.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 3/16/09 , edited 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Mere curiosity is motivation within itself.


Plausible Plot line:
First person:
1. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl is watching world devolve around her without changing a thing.
2. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl removes unneeded factors (people, places,etc.) as she sees fit by turning them to dust. Sees the world as a play.
Third person:
3. Numerous events in history where someone finds her watching. Eventually someone wants to know who she is. Person finally finds her at worlds end.
4. Third person narrator of first person plot lines.

Specifics of plot are still being worked out. I figure out the character first then the plot, it's a force of habit.


I didn't know it was a character, excuse me.

Curiosity implies bias towards something. If one was equally curious towards everything, then it wouldn't know which curiosity to satisfy first.

You make it sound like uber-Uatu the Watcher. This plot could become a serious snooze-fest without some investment in the issues at hand.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Red: What forces said character to live within society? Marriage would be considered a type of bias for the person they married, if said person is immortal there is no need for children.
Blue: It is a fictional character. I would say that she wouldn't know what to feel when watching people die. I wouldn't put that under human nature in this instance.


If they don't live within society, what does this person do exactly in their life? Where do they live, how do they get their food/water, and what interactions do they have with other people?

Now this person's sounding like an animal, just trying to survive. Do they understand issues that other people have opinions on? Like if they see dying people, would they understand what it means, and why other people would feel sad about it?
Posted 3/16/09 , edited 3/16/09
True neutrality, without any drive, just balancing survival, by any means neccessary (I pressume)
Nothing really moves nor progress.

This sounds kind of interesting but boring at the same time.
You might as well put in the boring "Heaven" idea while you're at it.
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

leviathan343 wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Mere curiosity is motivation within itself.


Plausible Plot line:
First person:
1. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl is watching world devolve around her without changing a thing.
2. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl removes unneeded factors (people, places,etc.) as she sees fit by turning them to dust. Sees the world as a play.
Third person:
3. Numerous events in history where someone finds her watching. Eventually someone wants to know who she is. Person finally finds her at worlds end.
4. Third person narrator of first person plot lines.

Specifics of plot are still being worked out. I figure out the character first then the plot, it's a force of habit.


I didn't know it was a character, excuse me.

Curiosity implies bias towards something. If one was equally curious towards everything, then it wouldn't know which curiosity to satisfy first.

You make it sound like uber-Uatu the Watcher. This plot could become a serious snooze-fest without some investment in the issues at hand.


It's similar to that character minus the alien part and duly noted.
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

Yei wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Red: What forces said character to live within society? Marriage would be considered a type of bias for the person they married, if said person is immortal there is no need for children.
Blue: It is a fictional character. I would say that she wouldn't know what to feel when watching people die. I wouldn't put that under human nature in this instance.


If they don't live within society, what does this person do exactly in their life? Where do they live, how do they get their food/water, and what interactions do they have with other people?

Now this person's sounding like an animal, just trying to survive. Do they understand issues that other people have opinions on? Like if they see dying people, would they understand what it means, and why other people would feel sad about it?


They only watch others. It's hard to believe but there are still place uninhabited (sp?) on the Earth (rainforest is a possibility). Why would they have to interact with others. By watching comes understanding, it could just be that she sees death as part of the cycle and finds sadness to be useless in that situations. "People are nothing but dust, when it settles, it's swept away."


xxxNarutoFanxxx wrote:

True neutrality, without any drive, just balancing survival
Nothing really moves nor progress.

This sounds kind of interesting but boring at the same time.
You might as well put in the boring "Heaven" idea while you're at it.


Heaven is a religious idea, will be mentioned but not really explored. Heaven idea isn't being explored, it's used to often.
Posted 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:


xxxNarutoFanxxx wrote:

True neutrality, without any drive, just balancing survival
Nothing really moves nor progress.

This sounds kind of interesting but boring at the same time.
You might as well put in the boring "Heaven" idea while you're at it.


Heaven is a religious idea, will be mentioned but not really explored. Heaven idea isn't being explored, it's used to often.


Sure. Okay.
Scratch that thought then.

This kind of character is really hard to relate too.
Too stoic, too

So in everything seen through this goddess like creature is truly objective, not a necessity nor a want? Not that I am asking you your defination of objectivity, but you kind of have to mention something along those lines.
In a sense, this reminds me of a feral child, without the wild side of course.


The third person, number 3, view sounds very interesting. Though, that seems to imply that she is some kind of guardian. (Well, that's just me.)
838 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09
Well, I think having a FEW people like that in the world would be alright. They'd make great judges or Speakers. But...if EVERYONE was like that?? That would be SO SCARY. No emotion, an obsession with efficiency...*shudder* I dunno, that just seems so creepy to me.
Like, I have a disdain for organized religion but at the same time if the world lacked spirituality that would SUCK. So on the same token, while our emotions and beliefs clash with other peoples' sometimes, it'd just be...freaky to have EVERYONE be neutral and unbiased.

Great topic, btw.
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

Lionna wrote:

Well, I think having a FEW people like that in the world would be alright. They'd make great judges or Speakers. But...if EVERYONE was like that?? That would be SO SCARY. No emotion, an obsession with efficiency...*shudder* I dunno, that just seems so creepy to me.
Like, I have a disdain for organized religion but at the same time if the world lacked spirituality that would SUCK. So on the same token, while our emotions and beliefs clash with other peoples' sometimes, it'd just be...freaky to have EVERYONE be neutral and unbiased.

Great topic, btw. :)


Umm... Thanks but this is about a book idea. Did you read the whole first post and the rest of the posts?
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/16/09 , edited 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:



They only watch others. It's hard to believe but there are still place uninhabited (sp?) on the Earth (rainforest is a possibility). Why would they have to interact with others. By watching comes understanding, it could just be that she sees death as part of the cycle and finds sadness to be useless in that situations. "People are nothing but dust, when it settles, it's swept away."



If she doesn't interact with anyone then she can't be involved in any conflicts, and if she's not involved in any conflicts then she's just an omniscient 3rd-person narrator with a name. Being indifferent towards death is being biased towards the idea that life and death are meaningless.
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:



They only watch others. It's hard to believe but there are still place uninhabited (sp?) on the Earth (rainforest is a possibility). Why would they have to interact with others. By watching comes understanding, it could just be that she sees death as part of the cycle and finds sadness to be useless in that situations. "People are nothing but dust, when it settles, it's swept away."



If she doesn't interact with anyone then she can't be involved in any conflicts, and if she's not involved in any conflicts then she's just an omniscient 3rd-person narrator with a name. Being indifferent towards death is being biased towards the idea that life and death are meaningless.


Yes but to have no feelings toward people and not care if they die she needs some type of idea from watching the world. No concept of relegion means that she has no preference. To her it wouldn't be a bias, it would be an observation.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Yes but to have no feelings toward people and not care if they die she needs some type of idea from watching the world. No concept of relegion means that she has no preference. To her it wouldn't be a bias, it would be an observation.


But she would also observe that most people don't like death, right? Assuming she understands why they don't like death, she'll either sympathize with them and begin to dislike death herself, or stay with her original idea that death and fear of death are pointless. Either way she is choosing a side, and making a decision implies bias towards one of the choices.
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Yes but to have no feelings toward people and not care if they die she needs some type of idea from watching the world. No concept of relegion means that she has no preference. To her it wouldn't be a bias, it would be an observation.


But she would also observe that most people don't like death, right? Assuming she understands why they don't like death, she'll either sympathize with them and begin to dislike death herself, or stay with her original idea that death and fear of death are pointless. Either way she is choosing a side, and making a decision implies bias towards one of the choices.


At the same time she sees people get over and forgot the dead. The primary feelings don't seem important in the end to her. Observations and bias are a bit different. Seen as bias by other but not one, her neutrality can also be seen as bias. Every statement is a bias in eyes of others. In a first person story line, a single statement like that would work.
6362 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
In Ambiguity
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Thought experiment:
Although this may seem impractical, what if a person developed the stance of utter neutrality within his or her life. Lacking any sense of right and wrong or opinion while still having cognitive and problem solving skills required for survival. His or her primary objection in life is to watch instead of act upon the action of others.
Would said person be seen as an abomination or am advancement in our species? Said person lacks all sense of religion and bias and therefore is not likely to create conflict beyond that that is needed for basic survival. Higher intelligence than usual.
Add eternal youth and life to the mix. A life that never ends and a mind that cannot judge.
Would said person be an disgrace/monster or better being than ourselves?
(writing a book, long story...pretty much need opinion on main character)

Addition:
Plausible Plot line:
First person:
1. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl is watching world devolve around her without changing a thing.
2. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl removes unneeded factors (people, places,etc.) as she sees fit by turning them to dust. Sees the world as a play.
Third person:
3. Numerous events in history where someone finds her watching. Eventually someone wants to know who she is. Person finally finds her at worlds end.
4. Third person narrator of first person plot lines.

Specifics of plot are still being worked out. I figure out the character first then the plot, it's a force of habit.


Wow, you've really thought out this protagonist (if it is). I think it's possible that a character/person be neutral and would abstain from bias, unknowingly some characters in books and anime are epitomized in this manner and somehow we oversee it. You said that his/her primary object in life is to watch rather than act upon the action of others. When you say neutral are you also saying that this character is void of emotion? Since being neutral may not necessarily mean they're entirely impassive, they could nurture emotions but refrain from expressing this. First person/character I thought about after reading your description was someone like Rei Ayanami, she has no bias but being a clone she is controlled by those around her. As an individual character, sans the scientists and manipulators that surround her she's quite unbiased too.

Would said person be seen as an abomination or advancement in our species?

I've always presupposed that those given incontrovertible intellect and reason would not contribute to the species/society unless they have bias (does that make any sense?) since you did say the character observes and does not act upon the action of others, so unless he/she chooses to act, that would then be the determinant whether he/she is an abomination or or an advancement to the story.

Would said person be a disgrace/monster or better than ourselves?

That would depend on the course of action this character decides to foray into the story. Draining him/her of bias is good and lacking a sense of religion is also good and would explain the magnanimity of intelligence. A mind that cannot judge? I hope this question doesn't come off wrong but if the character possesses high intelligence wouldn't that indicate discernment? Discernment would then be the capability to perceive differences, this would lead to judgement and insight, right? So in some sense the character would have a narrow extent of bias afterall? To answer the question, a person who is gifted intellectually and bias would be perceived in two ways, this would also depend on the other characters you'll add in your story. A partition ostracizes him/her as a disgrace whilst those appreciative of his/her abilities would find the character of utmost supremacy.

And to plausible plotlines. I think the third and fourth possible scenarios are good, especially the third one.
3545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 3/16/09
a person can't live in neutrality throughout their lifetime. it's impossible. they hold opinions and have their views on certain issues. a person can be neutral and see both sides of things but not neutral to everything around him/her.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.