WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz

<= [1031][1032][1033][1034][1035][1036][1037][1038][1039][1040] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
60,70%
50,23%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,82
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3288
5,3251
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,570
5,888
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7227
1,0116
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 1031) Hubert Brune, 01.09.2017, 01:00; Arminius, 01.09.2017, 19:02, 19:12 19:17, 19:26, 19:28, 19:29, 20:13; Alf, 01.09.2017, 20:48, 22:52 (6161-6170)

6161

Quantengespenst (**), Ihre Gedanken sind nicht neu, aber trotzdem immer noch interessant. Gehen wir außerdem davon aus, daß alles Existierende im Quantenbereich unendlich ist und die Potenz für die „ewige Wiederkehr“ (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche) hat, so könnte auch jedes Lebewesen ewig wiederkehren. Aber ist das auch wirklich so?

Freundliche Grüße.

Hubert Brune

6162

Serendipper wrote:

„When taxes were high in the 40s to 60s, money creation was low. When taxes were cut in the 60s and so on, money creation soared.

....

Wealth Inequality in the USA.

Thought experiment: Is there anything that one human can do 400X better than another human? Can someone be 400X smarter? Even if the dumbest guy had an iq of 1, a 400 iq is off the chart. Can someone lift 400X more weight? 1000lb is the record bench press, so the weakest person would have to only bench 2.5lbs for a 400X differential. What could possibly justify someone making 400X more money than the AVERAGE person? Being 400X more sleazy I reckon.“ **

According to your video (**) the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth (**), the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth (**), the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth (**).

Maybe I will have to change my thoughts about the wealth inequality in the USA.

Arminius wrote:

„Do you know the term „Brazilianization of the World“ („Brasilianisierung der Welt“ - Ulrich Beck; cp. also Franz Josef Radermacher)?

This means that all nations of the world tend to have the same distribution of wealth that Brazil has.

Here are some real examples from 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).

The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.)“ ** **

6163

The so-called „monotheistic religions“ are religions of the desert, namely: of the desert of the Arabian peninsula. So this religions do not fit Europe, especially not fit the colder climate zones of Europe.

Climate zones:

**

 ** **

The „colder climate zones“ I was talking about (see above): 1, 2, 3 (or: I, II, III).

6164

James S. Saint wrote:

„Logic is merely the consistency of language. It has nothing to do with physical reality, other than how we use the language. My question is whether you can use a perfectly consistent language (aka »logic«) to show that uncaused events are necessarily and absolutely impossible.“ **

„Logic, the father of mathematics, is no more than a rule used to allow thought to take place, a rule of mental and/or spoken language. The rule is not physical in the conventional sense any more than an algebraic rule in mathematics.“ **

True.

Rules are spiritual. The spiritual side of language (not the physical side of language: sounds, phonemes etc.) contains the consistency of language, thus logic, the father of mathematics. Yes. Also, logic is the father of ethics. Logic comes before ethics. It is possible to understand logic without ethics, but it is not possible to understand ethics without logic.

6165

Copied post in another thread.

6166

Copied post in another thread.

6167

Copied post in another thread.

6168

Welcome back again, Zinnat (**).

Which purpose and which goal does each of the three layers have according to you?

6169

I found this ....

6170

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Modern Educayshun** **

I think that this modern educayshun becomes more and more a part of the reality or even the only reality.

What do you think?“ ** **

I can agree, but I nevertheless think that this trend will be finished or cut off by a catastrophe like a huge war or even a natural catastrophe. After that catastrophe this forgone trend will probably be the most damnable trend and those who will follow it will face the death penalty. But after that period the situation will probably change in the other way again. So the general trend will probably be similar to what is shown in that video.

By the way: I think that if ethics is seriously put first (cp. the thread „Which is First?“), the this always leads to developments and situations as you can see in that said video. So you may watch that said video again (**).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

»Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.« ** **

Arminius wrote:

»The historical development of the philosophical question of our current subject - ›logic comes before ethics‹ - can be called ›modern war of philosophy‹ and has a parallel in science: ›modern war of science‹. On the one ›war front‹ (›left‹) are fighting ethical philosophers and social scientists, and on the other ›war front‹ (›right‹) are fighting logical philosophers and natural scientists and spiritual (especially logical, mathematical) scientists. (Note: there are also ›spies‹, ›renegates‹, ›defectors‹, ›deserters‹ in that said ›war‹). - If the ethical-social side will ›win‹ that ›war‹, then the science as we have known it and will have known it till then will be finally ›dead‹.« ** **

Arminius wrote:

»According to ... stupid dreamers, everything must be taught through ethics, even mathematics.« ** **

Arminius wrote:

»Even mathematics!

Now, watch the video again, please (**).« ** **

I know what you mean and can agree on it.

So far, I've read about twenty threads, I guess.

Since I'm interested in the first field of philosophy, I know the thread you're talking about here. It contains what you call the »modern war of philosophy« (**|**).

You and some others are fighting at the logical »front« with reasonable »weapons«.

Another one and the very unmanly one with the many sock puppets are fighting at the ehtical »front« with very unmanly »weapons« like »VO« (Vanity Occultism), thus with narcissism.

Vanity Occultism

** **

These narcissistic people are followers of their narcissistic egos. And when it comes to talking about ethics, they are just nihilistic followers of a nihilistic follower of a nihilistic follower.

They are overestimating ethics and underestimating logic; they are overestimating unconsciousness and underestimating consciousness; they are overestimating irrationality and underestimating rationality; they are overestimating themselves and underestimating all others; they are overestimating valuing and underestimating causation; they are overestimating their own values, especially their own vanity, envy, hate, resentment, and underestimating all other values.

And if you don’t agree, they start insulting you immediately.

They preach water and drink wine.

Whatever they tell you, they mean their narcissistic egos.

 

NACH OBEN 1032) Arminius, 02.09.2017, 04:28, 04:43, 16:21, 16:51; Kathrina, 02.09.2017, 21:28, 21:35, 21:46, 21:55, 22:28, 23:05 (6171-6180)

6171

Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).

6172

But do the percentages that are given in your map (**) represent the reality?

6173

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).« ** **

That's a good point. I never thought of that. Well, define »human«. I assumed the moment we left the trees to begin hunting was when we took the first degree of control from nature. Cooking came next, where we learned language because we had leisure time from the abundance of calories in the meat. As we became more agrarian, we had more and more time to contemplate science and art. As time moved on, we took increasingly more control from nature. This is where it gets philosophical: is that a good thing or bad thing? Are »we« part of nature or are we artifical?

If aliens observed us, they would conclude what we do is natural. When a beaver builds a damn, is it natural or artificial? We, being higher lifeforms, proclaim the beaver's actions as natural. It appears that it's based on perspective. But why should that be so? Well, if a lower lifeform exists, it must know something useful... and it wouldn't be cognitive. In other words, there must be some intrinsic aspect to the universe that enables their success and I think we call that natural selection. It's probably safe to assume that every species is the optimal design of that species for what that species does, right? So, for example, a shark has not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years; therefore, we can conclude that the shark is optimally intelligent and we know that because it exists. However, if we were to design a shark, I think we would err on the side of intelligence (because I know how humans think) and surely that would be a detriment to the species or else sharks would already be that way, right? Our meddling could actually cause their extinction! That appears to be a good argument for natural selection, yet we persist in taming nature. I don't know... what do you think?

It seems if we say meddling is bad, then we are artificial... and how could we justify that? **

Humans are both natural and cultural („artificial“). Humans are partly their own selectors, also the selectors of pets and many other living beings, and they can survive in very extreme and artificial environments, thus in environments that are not natural.

Arminius wrote:

„I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.

Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:

N.-P. N.-P. N.-S.-K.-P.
N: Natural selection.
P: Political selection.
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.

As long as all these »islands« (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their »ocean« (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.

The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun „goes down“ and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding »position« -. although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.

Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„The ISS is such an „absolute island“. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.

N., P.

Absolute Insel (Beispiel: ISS)

There are more than this human-made „islands“, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric „islands“:

Atmosphärische Inseln Atmosphärische Inseln

** **

Arminius wrote:

All of these »islands« are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.

Hallig Südfall

As long as all these »islands« will exist and will contradict their »ocean« nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment which is made by themselves. They can live on their own „absolute islands“ - thus: without any natural environment.

....

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with any natural environment, at least as long as they live in their own artficial environment.

....

Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans.“ ** **

6174

As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market, humans have always had rules („laws“) in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a „capitalistic“ system, you need rules; if you want to have an „anti-capitalistic“ system, you need rules.

6175

Life isn't chaotic.

6176

Autsider wrote:

„Percentage of Europeans willing to fight a war for their country (**).“ **

The survey isn’t useless, but the results are almost useless.

6177

Both (**) are puppets. Aren't they?

It's always good to be both intelligent and diplomatic. Isn't it?

6178

Arminius wrote:

„The question remains: »Do some (and if yes: how many) of the U.S. citizens hate their country, for example because of the unjustice in the world?« ** **

My assumption is: yes; but I don’t know the percentage. All European countries and the countries with people of European origin have such haters.“ ** **

It's difficult to find the exact percentages.

Kathrina wrote:

„Autsider wrote:

»Percentage of Europeans willing to fight a war for their country (**).« **

The survey isn’t useless.“ ** **

 

6179

Which one of the two vassals (**) is it that you would or wouldn't fight for?

6180

Ode an die Freude, the European Anthem.

Ode an die Freude - Ludwig v. Beethoven; words by J. C. Friedrich Schiller. **

Ode an die Freude - Ludwig v. Beethoven; words by J. C. Friedrich Schiller. **

 

NACH OBEN 1033) Arminius, 03.09.2017, 02:14, 02:25, 02:59, 05:11, 15:02, 15:28, 21:32, 23:35, 23:57 (6181-6189)

6181

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Humans are both natural and cultural (›artificial‹).« ** **

Why is culture artificial?“ **

From the natural „point of view“, everything that is not natural, but cultural, is somehow artificial. You can use both words when it comes to the opponent of nature.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Humans are partly their own selectors ....« ** **

Birds select mates based on colors and nest-building ability, so are they not their own selectors?“ **

To some degree, yes, but they are not capable of being independent of natural selection. Is the number of the bird’s offspring determined by themselves or by nature? Please read my texts I quoted (again [**|**]).

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Humans are ... also the selectors of pets and many other living beings ....« ** **

Are not lions selecting the evolution of deer by eliminating the weak? Likewise with the jackals who threaten them?

Animals can't interfere with natural selection because they ARE natural selection ....“ **

They are NOT natural selection; they are objects of the natural selection.

Serendipper wrote:

„But somehow when humans interfere, it is not called natural selection anymore. Why are we distinct?“ **

Because we are the only species that is capable of being independent of natural selection. We can live without any natural environment and can determine that e.g. the unfit survive and the fit do not survive. Please read my texts I quoted (again [**|**]).

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„Humans are ... can survive in very extreme and artificial environments ....« ** **

Some bacteria thrive in nuclear reactor cores. Are they artificial?“ **

No.

Is it possible that you have not understood what I have said?

Serendipper wrote:

„Humans are actually quite vulnerable to extremes and our existence is owed to the very mild and stable environment whereas the cockroach, for instance, is more adaptable.“ **

Yes, but note that this is the case only according to the natural selection principle. In other words: I am not saying that the humans are naturally more adaptable than, for instance, the cockroaches.

Serendipper wrote:

„Natural events such a meteor impacts, volcanoes, or a swing in climate could end humanity but the cockroach will survive even a nuclear war.“ **

Yes, I did not deny that. Again: I am not saying that the humans are naturally more adaptable than, for instance, the cockroaches. That is not the point I am talking about here. The point is that humans are capable of circumventing nature by their culture (based on their intelligence), regardless whether they are naturally vulnerable or not. Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully.

Humans have invented machines that will perhaps take over sooner or later. Machines are artificial, an invention of humans, so they are not natural, not even as natural as humans or their culture.

6182

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market, humans have always had rules (›laws‹) in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a ›capitalistic‹ system, you need rules; if you want to have an ›anti-capitalistic‹ system, you need rules.« ** **

I am not sure. Thinking back to the pioneering days where economies were based on trade, there were no laws that could be enforced. I think the mountain men and native americans would have laughed at the idea that anyone could tell them how to operate. They simply traded the goods and services they had for the goods and services being offered and the value was determined at the time of the trade with no rules or laws or preconceived notions. If you wanted to shoot your trading partner, there was nothing stopping you... except that then you'd have to find a new partner. The economy worked naturally and with no regulation because there was no mechanism (ie army) to enforce any regulation.

All that changed when there were too many people to be fur-trappers, smiths, coopers, farmers, etc and therefore many people needed to be employed under someone else and that's where economic structure entered the picture. Employment is what necessitated regulation. As societies grew, more regulations were necessary to protect the safety of food, for instance. Then we needed regulations to protect children, elderly, and the sick. Now we've gone as far as protecting people who are sexually confused.“ **

Did the Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans have no rules at that time? I do not think so.

Also, I was talking about the human history:

Arminius wrote:

„Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).“ ** **

The Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans traded partly but not completely according to natural rules. The rules of historical humans are written rules. But the rules of the Indians as the Native North were just orally transmitted and comparable with the rules of the Stone Age humans. So the Wild West Europeans in North America had no other choice than to trade according to the older rules, which does not mean that they traded completely according to natural rules. The rules of the Indians as the Native North Americans were mostly but not merely like natural rules.

Gangs have rules.
Mafia organizations have rules.
Mafia states have rules.
Global organizations have rules.

6183

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Welcome back again, Zinnat (**).

Which purpose and which goal does each of the three layers have according to you?« ** **

Thanks for welcome.

As i said before, the details of answers may be quite long, very very long. Having said that, the broad methodology of knowing the details can be described briefly.

Although there may be some rare exceptions, but as thumb rule the purpose of the outermost and intermediate layers used to be almost the same. And, that is to take a serious note of one's circumstances and and try to honestly react to those to the best of his/her abilities. That is all. Nothing much else is required and we are almost done with the purpose and goal of above mentioned two layers. But, that applies to human life forms only. All other life forms need not to make any such conscious effort. They just have to live their lives and their purpose would be fulfilled automatically.

But, the goal of the innermost layer is entirely different, which is go forever beyond to the matrix of two outer layers. More often than not, or if anyone seriously tries to achieving the goal of the innermost layer, that goal comes in the way of fulfilling the purpose of two other layers. This contradiction is the very puzzle of human life. One more very important point is worth mentioning here. Humans have to fulfill the purpose of two outer layers at any cost. They cannot bypass that and carry on addressing the purpose of the innermost layer only. That is precisely why such a balanced approach is required in human life, where one can address both of the purposes according to one's circumstances and wisdom/abilities.

One can also carry on addressing the purpose of two outer layers only. There is no apparent/immediate problem in that either. A human life can be lived or passed successfully only with that. But, the reality is that in the end each and everyone has to achieve the goal of their innermost layer also. That is the one and only ultimate goal, while all other goals are intermediate only.

Having said that, one also cannot jump the gun while addressing this ultimate goal. That is not the way to do it. It is a very slow and grinding process, which takes its own course and time. And, while calculating this time, the span of a human life is very minuscule. The ideal way is to first recognize, accept and remember this reality always and put some effort into it whatever more or less time one can spare from addressing the other goals. But, one must remember that there would be no immediate returns or achievements in this process. It would take years or rather decades to take one step in that journey.

As far i am able to understand about all this from my long personal experience and also looking at various other people, perhaps journey towards this third goal is not meant for everyone, or rather everyone is not ready for it. Although all are eligible but not ready enough to step in. I am not sure but perhaps that readiness comes only after achieving some goals of prescribed for two outer layers. However, there is no harm in initiating the process for anyone at any time. It also looks to me that when becomes ready enough to step in, he/she is shown the way in one way or other.“ **

Are you saying that there is merely one goal actually, so that this one is the goal of all three layers?

6184

Autsider wrote:

„The evolutionary cycle of human societies:

Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times

The only thing that truly matters in the end is adapting to nature, not adapting to the artificial system (society). For example, in society you can adapt in a parasitic way, at least if you're a fertile woman - you can exploit the altruism of the society and become a welfare queen. However, like I said, this adaptation is parasitic and unfit in relation to nature, because in order to exploit the altruism of the society and extract resources through welfare to feed your children, some other members of the society must be productive. This means that the welfare queen is spreading her parasitic genes at the expense of productive men and women, this results in more and more parasites in the system and less and less productive people (hosts), which weakens the system. Basically, welfare queen type of parasite destroys the very people whose existence it depends on to survive.

What really matters, is if this welfare queen strategy is an effective adaptation in nature, and of course it isn't. Nature doesn't give a shit.“ **

Hard times create strong men (winter leads to spring), strong men create good times (spring leads to summer), good times create weak men (summer leads to autumn), weak men create hard times (autumn leads to winter).

Jahreszeiten

Okay. Seasons belong to nature.

6185

Serendipper wrote:

„I don't see a distinction because the number of human offspring are equally determined by nature.“ **

No. That is just the point. The number of human offspring is partly determined by humans (by their technology, their artificial practice and their social policy), whereas the number of all other living beings is determined by nature. If the number of human offspring was regulated only by nature, then the current number of the humans would be merely one billion or one million or even less.

Serendipper wrote:

„You could argue that we have the capability to abort or artificially grow humans, but that's merely a capability and it's possible that animals would utilize that capability if they could.“ **

Non-human living beings are not capable of doing what human living beings are capable of (in that said case).

Serendipper wrote:

„Therefore it doesn't necessarily mean that human actions in determining numbers of offspring are artificial because there is no reason to believe animals would not behave in the same way if they had the capability.“ **

Non-human living beings are not capable of doing what human living beings are capable of (in that said case).

Serendipper wrote:

„Suppose we setup a self-sustaining colony on Mars.“ **

We already have the ISS (the better example):

Absolute Insel (Beispiel: ISS)

Serendipper wrote:

„Now, will that artificial environment naturally select for the fittest in that environment?“ **

The planet Mars has no artificial environment. So again: We already have the ISS (the better example):

Absolute Insel (Beispiel: ISS)

Serendipper wrote:

„Like Warren Buffett says: had he been born long ago, he would have been some animal's meal rather than the richest man on earth.“ **

He is not the richest man on earth.

Serendipper wrote:

„So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.“ **

But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.

Serendipper wrote:

„Believe me, I get your point, but I'm arguing that whatever humans do can be considered natural and that the distinction between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.“ **

Believe me, it is not an artificial distinction.

Serendipper wrote:

„Are herds and swarms considered cultures that circumvent nature successfully?

The definition of culture is »an integrated pattern of knowledge« which implies mindlessness since the knowledge is integrated, therefore it seems a herd qualifies since it is also an integrated pattern of »apparent« knowledge. In other words, it's a successful strategy.“ **

But that has nothing to do with the humans’ artificial environment. A »successful strategy« is not necessarily an artificial environment.

Serendipper wrote:

„Intelligence was not an advantage for the sauropods.“ **

That does not change anything of my statement: Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully. I did not say that sauropods were intelligent. Intelligence is one advantage of many advantages. So there are other advantages too.

Serendipper wrote:

„As I said before, sharks have not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years of evolution, so it seems sharks are optimally intelligent.“ **

Note that I am not saying that humans are more successful than sharks or sauropods. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called „natural selection“.

Serendipper wrote:

„Noam Chomsky argues that intelligence is a lethal mutation ....“ **

Noam Chomsky is an interesting linguist.

Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called „natural selection“.

Serendipper wrote:

„Satoshi Kanazawa argues that the average IQ will decline throughout the 21st century due to intelligent people not reproducing.“ **

So Satoshi Kanazawa knows what I mean: survival of the unfittest, survival of the disadvantaged groups. It is a fact that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage.

Also, intelligence and altruistic sociability are correlated with each other (**). So we can conclude that the number of humans will shrink, if the average IQ is shrinking.

Serendipper wrote:

„It would indeed seem that intelligence is a lethal mutation.“ **

Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called „natural selection“.

Serendipper wrote:

„We needn't look farther than an online message boards for proof that anyone truly intelligent has been selected against rather than staying to endure the constant barrages of insults. Evolution favors the thickest-skinned and the hardest heads. I've been watching the comments section of zerohedge for years and have observed most of the insightful commenters are gone, leaving a bunch of angry old men ruling the roost. That's natural selection.“ **

You are missing the point.

Serendipper wrote:

„I never thought about machines being natural... I never had reason to, but in this light, I'm wondering if a case can be made that argues successfully that AI is natural. I'll have to ponder that some more.“ **

You are missing the point again. Remember that the topic of this thread is „Free Government“ and that I was referring to the topic by saying that humans are capable of circumventing nature, which means a form of relatively free government as compared to the „government nature“.

Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called „natural selection“.

6186

Serendipper wrote:

„Then who enforced the rules?“ **

Enforced? Why?

Serendipper wrote:

„If there were rules, you'll have to change the name from „wild west“ to „civilized west“.“ **

No.

Serendipper wrote:

„Gangs have rules only if you wish to be part of the gang.“ **

Fortunately, I am not a part of a gang.

Seriously, you are wrong. The rules of a gang exist, regardless whether „you wish to to be part of the gang“.

Serendipper wrote:

„Pioneers and fur-trappers were not unionized.“ **

So you are saying that being unionized is the only rule that a human group can have.

6187

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market, humans have always had rules („laws“) in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a „capitalistic“ system, you need rules; if you want to have an „anti-capitalistic“ system, you need rules.« ** **

If one »wants« for anything, one must have rules to obtain it.

Without rules, one gets whatever comes without any consideration from others - every man for himself and by himself. And no such thing as »money« or time to try to make it.“ **

We have two words that fit the absence of regulation the most: „chaos“ and „anarchy“.

Serendipper wrote:

„We have to keep in mind that capitalism is absence of regulation. As soon as even one regulation is imposed for the good of society, it is socialism.

Once you concede one regulation, then it's a matter of how many are appropriate.

So to really get a picture of what capitalism is, we have to go back before regulations were in place.“ **

Capitalism is not the „absence of regulation“. If it was, then it would be anarchy, chaos.

6188

James S. saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Hard times create strong men (winter leads to spring), strong men create good times (spring leads to summer), good times create weak men (summer leads to autumn), weak men create hard times (autumn leads to winter).

Jahreszeiten

Okay. Seasons belong to nature.« ** **

Good analogy. **

Thank you.

By the way: (1) „night/winter“, (2) „morning/spring“, (3) „afternoon/summer“, (4) „evening/autumn“ are also comparable with (1) being in the uterus (or egg/ovum, soil/ground/earth), (2) being in the family and kindergarten, (3) being in the school, (4) being in the adult's world as one of the adults, so that at last the death can be seen as a new (1) „night/winter“ that leads you to a new (2) „morning/spring“ that leads you to a new (3) „afternoon/summer“, that leads you to a new (4) „evening/autumn“ ... and so on.

6189

Meno wrote:

„Capitalism uses chaos more as a tool to generate the need for regulation, that is why it appears freer.But this kind of freedom masks its intrinsically subtle and hidden motives, hiding acquisition under the fear of avoiding chaos.“ **

Or (in my words):

Arminius wrote:

„If you want to have a „capitalistic“ system, you need rules; if you want to have an „anti-capitalistic“ system, you need rules.“ ** **

 

NACH OBEN 1034) Arminius, 04.09.2017, 01:01, 02:10, 02:25, 02:53, 03:46, 22:27, 22:37, 22:44, 23:00, 23:07, 23:15, 23:54 23:57 23:59 (6190-6203)

6190

GOOD LUCK !

6191

When it comes to nuclear attacks, mega cities are probably the worst and rural areas probably the best places in order to survive. So in the nuclear age, a relatively small tribe, if it is located in rural areas, is probably the best kind of togetherness.

The case of nuclear attack:
1) In the first place, you have to survive the nuclear attack, which is almost impossible in mega cities, if they are (and they probably are) the target of the nuclear attack.
2) In the second place, you need the help of other people, but in mega cities, if they are (and they probably are) the target of the nuclear attack, the other people are too many people and acting too chaotically (because of the huge panic).
3) In the third place, you need your water and food and to defend this, if there are other people who want to steal it from you, which is probably the case in mega cities and probably not the case in rural areas.
4) In the fourth place, you need a small group where you can address yourself to, and this is probably possible in rural areas and probably not possible in mega cities.

I guess that e.g. the relatively small tribes of the Amazon River region have probably good prospects to survive a nuclear attack.

6192

James S. Saint wrote:

„OttoWest wrote:

»These globalists are all about getting rid of racial, cultural, ideological, social, and political diversity. That is their end game. Their end game is global uniformity and conformity by obliterating all opposition or dissenters, this is their long game going into the future.

They want to rule the world in a singular entity style fashion and never use the word diversity sincerely.« **

Two classes; Chosen humans (with their androids) and animal (the Unchosen).“ **

Maybe in the future even two species

6193

James S. Saint wrote:

„Serendipper wrote:

»Any interference at all is not free.

The purpose of freedom is to allow competition and if gov takes any action to protect free trade (or anything else), then it's not the fittest who are surviving but the chosen of government or those working under the constraints of an artificial system of regulation.

The purpose of competition is to not presume we know what is best. That begs the question of whether we actually DO know what is best. I think, concerning some things, we do; other things, we don't.« **

So you believe that football, for example, should have no rules at all.
Interesting.“ **

Yes.

Or, maybe, the philosophers try to play football (soccer) and to find out a rule (**).

6194

Alf wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

Modern Educayshun.‹ ** **

I think that this modern educayshun becomes more and more a part of the reality or even the only reality.

What do you think?« ** **

I can agree, but I nevertheless think that this trend will be finished or cut off by a catastrophe like a huge war or even a natural catastrophe. After that catastrophe this forgone trend will probably be the most damnable trend and those who will follow it will face the death penalty. But after that period the situation will probably change in the other way again. So the general trend will probably be similar to what is shown in that video.

By the way: I think that if ethics is seriously put first (cp. the thread »Which is First?«), the this always leads to developments and situations as you can see in that said video. So you may watch that said video again (**).« ** **

Arminius wrote:

›Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.‹ ** **

Arminius wrote:

›The historical development of the philosophical question of our current subject - 'logic comes before ethics' - can be called 'modern war of philosophy' and has a parallel in science: 'modern war of science'. On the one 'war front' ('left') are fighting ethical philosophers and social scientists, and on the other 'war front' ('right') are fighting logical philosophers and natural scientists and spiritual (especially logical, mathematical) scientists. (Note: there are also 'spies', 'renegates', 'defectors', 'deserters' in that said 'war'). - If the ethical-social side will 'win' that 'war', then the science as we have known it and will have known it till then will be finally 'dead'.‹ ** **

Arminius wrote:

›According to ... stupid dreamers, everything must be taught through ethics, even mathematics.‹ ** **

Arminius wrote:

›Even mathematics!

Now, watch the video again, please (**).‹ ** **

I know what you mean and can agree on it.

So far, I've read about twenty threads, I guess.

Since I'm interested in the first field of philosophy, I know the thread you're talking about here. It contains what you call the ›modern war of philosophy‹ (**|**).

You and some others are fighting at the logical ›front‹ with reasonable ›weapons‹.

Another one and the very unmanly one with the many sock puppets are fighting at the ehtical ›front‹ with very unmanly ›weapons‹ like ›VO‹ (Vanity Occultism), thus with narcissism.« ** **

These narcissistic people are followers of their narcissistic egos. And when it comes to talking about ethics, they are just nihilistic followers of a nihilistic follower of a nihilistic follower.

They are overestimating ethics and underestimating logic; they are overestimating unconsciousness and underestimating consciousness; they are overestimating irrationality and underestimating rationality; they are overestimating themselves and underestimating all others; they are overestimating valuing and underestimating causation; they are overestimating their own values, especially their own vanity, envy, hate, resentment, and underestimating all other values.

And if you don’t agree, they start insulting you immediately.

They preach water and drink wine.

Whatever they tell you, they mean their narcissistic egos.

You are right. They are absolutely egomaniacal, narcissistic. Also, they need a scapegoat, because they are full of envy, hate, resentment.

Their „valuing“ means: believing in their selfishness, narcissism, egomania with all their envy, hate, resentment, including the need of a scapegoat.

They do not even know what an object is and what objectivity means. And the lack of any objectivity forces them to lie, to fake, to cheat. The only theory they have, if at all, is a monotheistic one that refers to the belief in their selfishness, narcissism, egomania with all their envy, hate, resentment, including the need of a scapegoat.

6195

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›I don't see a distinction because the number of human offspring are equally determined by nature.‹ **

No. That is just the point. The number of human offspring is partly determined by humans (by their technology, their artificial practice and their social policy), whereas the number of all other living beings is determined by nature. If the number of human offspring was regulated only by nature, then the current number of the humans would be merely one billion or one million or or even less.« ** **

I agree. I'm just suggesting that human technology is natural.“ **

But it is cultural - artificial.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›Like Warren Buffett says: had he been born long ago, he would have been some animal's meal rather than the richest man on earth.‹ **

He is not the richest man on earth.« ** **

You're going to point that out like it matters to the discussion?“ **

Did I or did you (**) mention his name in a discussion where he has nothing to do with?

Serendipper wrote:

„He has often been the richest man and could be again soon.

In 2008, he was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world.“ **

That does not mean that he was or has often been or is the richest man on earth.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.‹ **

But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.« ** **

Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?“ **

Have you not read my posts?

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›Believe me, I get your point, but I'm arguing that whatever humans do can be considered natural and that the distinction between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.‹ **

Believe me, it is not an artificial distinction.« ** **

When I asked you to believe me, it was my saying that I understand what you are trying to convey, which is asking you to believe a fact about myself on my authority. When you asked me to believe you, you're asking me to believe a fact about reality on your authority. Quite different.“ **

You did not ask me, and I did not ask you.

There was no question mark at all.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›Are herds and swarms considered cultures that circumvent nature successfully?

The definition of culture is 'an integrated pattern of knowledge' which implies mindlessness since the knowledge is integrated, therefore it seems a herd qualifies since it is also an integrated pattern of 'apparent' knowledge. In other words, it's a successful strategy.‹ **

But that has nothing to do with the humans' artificial environment. A ›successful strategy‹is not necessarily an artificial environment.« ** **

Of course, a successful strategy is a natural environment created by natural beings doing things that come natural to them.“ **

A strategy is abstract, a natural environment is concrete. Try to touch a strategy!

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

We should at least consider two realms:
1) A natural/physical/chemical realm. This is what I have called „the ocean »nature«“.
2) A cultural/artificial/spiritual realm. This is what I have called „the »island« in the ocean »nature«“.

Examples:
1) Planets belong to the natural/physical/chemical realm.
2) Thoughts as such belong to the cultural/artificial/spiritual realm.

Our differences (and also the differences you have with other ILP members) have to do with that said issue. Otherwise we can easily come to agreement, I think.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›Intelligence was not an advantage for the sauropods.‹ **

That does not change anything of my statement: Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully. I did not say that sauropods were intelligent. Intelligence is one advantage of many advantages. So there are other advantages too.« ** **

You said »Intelligence is an advantage and ...«. I gave you an example where intelligence was a disadvantage. Actually, there is empirical evidence that as sauropods evolved, the brains shrank and necks grew longer. Not only is a large brain-size a disadvantage due to blood flow, but intelligence itself leads one to become bored standing there eating leaves and growing to monstrous sizes. All intelligence would accomplish is leading the sauropod into being curious, bored, and it would not grow as fast or as large because it would desire more time away from eating. That is principally why I feel it's immoral for most folks to own dogs (particularly the smarter breeds) because the animal is not dumb enough to endure being tied to a tree in the yard. The smarter an animal is, the more it's going to need things to do and if growing to enormous sizes through constant eating is the success of the species, then being intelligent is disadvantageous to the goal.“ **

I said that „intelligence is an advantage“, yes, and it is true that intelligence is an advantage. I have also clarified that „intelligence is one advantage of many advantages“ (**|**). (You obviously like to circumvent some of my text passages.) It depends on what advantage is the one that is chosen/selected. In the case of humans it is the intelligence. Bodily said: it is our brain that made us so successful. We do not have other physical features that have made us as successful as the brain has done. If we lose this advantage, we will immediately lose other features too and will perhaps get extinct.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›As I said before, sharks have not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years of evolution, so it seems sharks are optimally intelligent.‹ **

Note that I am not saying that humans are more successful than sharks or sauropods. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called ›natural selection‹.« ** **

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure you know what I'm saying.“ **

You are saying that intelligence can be a disadvantage. But you have not understood that I have never denied that. My sentence „intelligence is an advantage“ refers to human beings, and does not mean that intelligence is always an advantage. I have never used the word „always“in this thread, but you are trying to put it into my mouth. Intelligence is the advantage of human beings. Whether this may become a disadvantage is another question. And you are certainly not the one who knows this. Nobody knows this for sure in the present, and whether it will be known in the future is not known in the present either.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›Satoshi Kanazawa argues that the average IQ will decline throughout the 21st century due to intelligent people not reproducing.‹ **

So Satoshi Kanazawa knows what I mean: survival of the unfittest, survival of the disadvantaged groups. It is a fact that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage.« ** **

Well, no, it's the survival of the advantaged groups. You're assuming intelligence is always an advantage and obviously it is not... at least, not in excess of proper proportions.“ **

Q.E.D.. Here it is again: You are putting words in my mouth that I have never used here in this thread.

So again (see above): I have never used the word „always“ in this thread, but you are trying to put it into my mouth. Intelligence is the advantage of human beings. Whether this may become a disadvantage is another question. And you are certainly not the one who knows this. Nobody knows this for sure in the present, and whether it will be known in the future is not known in the present either.

Serendipper wrote:

„And the title to his book is »The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn't Always the Smart One«.“ **

Interesting.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»Also, intelligence and altruistic sociability are correlated with each other (**). So we can conclude that the number of humans will shrink, if the average IQ is shrinking.« ** **

So if people are smarter, the population shrinks from lack of births and if people are dumber, the population shrinks from lack of altruism. Wait, what?“ **

You do not understand that?

By the way: It is not so important for our discussion here that you understand that, because the fact that intelligence is an advantage - or can be an advantage (if you agree at least with that) - and has especially been being an advantage for human beings for a very long time (I would say since the first homo appeared) and will probably remain an advantage for them (or not - who knows?) is not deniable.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›I never thought about machines being natural... I never had reason to, but in this light, I'm wondering if a case can be made that argues successfully that AI is natural. I'll have to ponder that some more.‹ **

You are missing the point again. Remember that the topic of this thread is ›Free Government‹ and that I was referring to the topic by saying that humans are capable of circumventing nature, which means a form of relatively free government as compared to the ›government nature‹.« ** **

I'm not missing points ..., I'm arguing that the circumvention of nature is natural.“ **

You are missing points. See above. Have you noticed that I am arguing that the circumvention is cultural/artificial in the sense that culture is like an „»island« in the »ocean« nature“. This means that nature is indeed the more powerful one, but as long as the „island“ will exist for itself and the „ocean“ will not become chaotic (cause accidents and so on), this „island“ will have and defend its own rules („laws“).

6196

@ Serendipper.

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

I was talking about the metaphor „»islands« in an ocean »nature«“. The ISS, for example, is such an „»islands« in an ocean »nature«“. This island is a man-made island and its selection principle is not natural but human (cultural artificial).

Arminius wrote:

„I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.

Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:

N.-P. N.-P. N.-S.-K.-P.
N: Natural selection.
P: Political selection.
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.

As long as all these »islands« (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their »ocean« (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.

The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun „goes down“ and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding »position« -. although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.

Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„The ISS is such an „absolute island“. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.

N., P.

Absolute Insel (Beispiel: ISS)

There are more than this human-made „islands“, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric „islands“:

Atmosphärische Inseln Atmosphärische Inseln

** **

Arminius wrote:

All of these »islands« are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.

Hallig Südfall

As long as all these »islands« will exist and will contradict their »ocean« nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment which is made by themselves. They can live on their own „absolute islands“ - thus: without any natural environment.

....

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with any natural environment, at least as long as they live in their own artficial environment.

....

Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans.“ ** **

We should at least consider two realms:
1) A natural/physical/chemical realm. This is what I have called „the »ocean« nature“.
2) A cultural/artificial/spiritual realm. This is what I have called „the »island« in the »ocean« nature“.

Examples:
Planets are part of the natural/physical/chemical realm.
Thoughts as such are part of the cultural/artificial/spiritual realm.

6197

What (**) ?

You are a nice guy.
But you are wrong.

6198

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Capitalism is not the ›absence of regulation‹. If it was, then it would be anarchy, chaos** **

How do you know it's not? Show me where capitalism has ever existed (besides the wild west) and let's see if it was anarchy.

Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits (FALSE, the Soviet Union is not an example for all other examples)
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong).

Pretty simple. No definitions overlap, every one is distinct, and nothing is left out... well, that is unless you want to define a system that controls <100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits, but it makes no sense because if you don't have 100% control, how can you keep 100% of the profit?

If you're going to argue about the definition of capitalism, then tell me what % of control of business and what % of the profits should be paid in tax that defines capitalism and then explain how those %'s are not completely arbitrary? **

Arminius wrote:

„As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market, humans have always had rules (»laws«) in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a »capitalistic« system, you need rules; if you want to have an »anti-capitalistic« system, you need rules.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»If one »wants« for anything, one must have rules to obtain it.

Without rules, one gets whatever comes without any consideration from others - every man for himself and by himself. And no such thing as »money« or time to try to make it.« **

We have two words that fit the absence of regulation the most: »chaos« and »anarchy«.

Serendipper wrote:

„We have to keep in mind that capitalism is absence of regulation. As soon as even one regulation is imposed for the good of society, it is socialism.

Once you concede one regulation, then it's a matter of how many are appropriate.

So to really get a picture of what capitalism is, we have to go back before regulations were in place.“ **

Capitalism is not the „absence of regulation“. If it was, then it would be anarchy, chaos.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›Any interference at all is not free.

The purpose of freedom is to allow competition and if gov takes any action to protect free trade (or anything else), then it's not the fittest who are surviving but the chosen of government or those working under the constraints of an artificial system of regulation.

The purpose of competition is to not presume we know what is best. That begs the question of whether we actually DO know what is best. I think, concerning some things, we do; other things, we don't.‹ **

So you believe that football, for example, should have no rules at all.
Interesting.« **

Yes.

Or, maybe, the philosophers try to play football (soccer) and to find out a rule (**). ** **

6199

Está bien (**) !

6200

It is a relatively huge difference whether you ask „will you fight a war for your liberal, feminist, multicultural country?“ or just „will you fight a war for your country?“ !

6201

- Can (Schmidt, Liebezeit, Czukay, Karoli, Mooney), Yoo doo right, 1969.

6202

- City (Krahl, Puppel, Gogow, Selmke), Am Fenster, 1978.

6203

- Birthcontrol (Frenzel, Föller, Noske, Held), Gamma Ray, Live, 1974.

 

NACH OBEN 1035) Alf, 05.09.2017, 17:42, 17:48, 18:07, 18:35, 18:53, 18:59, 20:02; Arminius, 05.09.2017, 20:51, 21:14, 21:19, 22:01, 23:03, 23:25, 23:39 (6204-6217)

6204

Unfortunately, this (**) is true.

6205

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„Serendipper wrote:

»The problem is people never arrive at infinity by their own reasoning but because a math book says so and they accept its authority on faith.« **

This is not true for I can accept that infinity exists as a mathematical concept by rationalising it just using my own reasoning. You have said the largest number you
can think of is the largest that exists. But no such number actually does exist.“ **

True.

Numbers are constructs of thoughts, logic, reasoning.

And the term „natural numbers“ doesn't mean that they „are“ natural, but that they „refer to nature“.

6206

Arminius wrote:

„@ Serendipper.

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

I was talking about the metaphor »›islands‹ in the ›ocean‹ nature«. The ISS, for example, is such an »›islands‹ in the ›ocean‹ nature« This »island« is a man-made island and its selection principle is not natural but human (cultural artificial).“ ** **

Yea. The ISS is artficial and has nothing to do with the universe as the natural environment, because it has its own artificial environment.

6207

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„Serendipper wrote:

»Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural?
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone tools?« **

Whatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created.
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were.“ **

Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like the „island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The „island“ culture resists the „ocean“ nature as long as possible. So do humans.

6208


Zinnat wrote:

„What is death?“ **

Death is „absence of life“.

Zinnat wrote:

„How we should define death?“ **

The shortest definition is certainly „absence of life“.

Zinnat wrote:

„How can we know that one is now dead permanently for sure?“ **

1) Knowing that there is no heartbeat of this one.
2) Knowing that there is no brain activity of this one.
3) Knowing after observing this very probably dead one further over a certain time (at least three days).

6209


Gib wrote:

„While I'm a subjectivist, James (James S. Saint) remains an objectivist. He has came up with a reductionist physicalist theory--much like string theory says that all is strings, one dimensional vibrating strands of energy, or much like quantum theory says that all are waves of probabilities--he says all is affectance. But like string theory, or quantum theory, or James' affectance theory, I am still able to say: okay, well whatever turns out to be the truth in physics, it's still a representation of experiences being had by the universe. Similar to what I said above about modern science reinterpreting the original message given to us by God, James' theory may be yet another such reinterpretation. If it is scientifically testable at all, and if it passes such testing, that's God giving James a 'yeay'. The only point on which we would differ is that James' would never say affectance is but a mere representation of something else (I don't think), whereas I would. He really wants to say affectance is fundamental. I want to disagree. I want to say experience is fundamental, and if his theory is right, affectance is only a physical representation of foreign subjective experiences.“ **

Is „experience“ your interpretation of „subjectivity“?

6210

Urwrong wrote:

„Government restricts freedom.“ **

Not always and not necessarily. It can, but doesn't have to restrict freedom. Freedom for the one is unfreedom for the other one. Governments can make laws for both freedom and unfreedom. It depends on whom they obey.

Urwrong wrote:

„Liberalism (pro-freedom), by definition, is anti-government.“ **

Anarchy is anti-government. Liberalism (pro-freedom) isn't always and necessarily anti-government. Laws can be made for freedom and can be made for anti-freedom.

6211

Sorry. Conceptually, I have already „been in Spain“ where I am going to spent my next holidays.

6212

Alf wrote:

Arminius wrote:

„@ Serendipper.

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

I was talking about the metaphor »›islands‹ in the ›ocean‹ nature«. The ISS, for example, is such an »›islands‹ in the ›ocean‹ nature« This »island« is a man-made island and its selection principle is not natural but human (cultural artificial).« ** **

Yea. The ISS is artficial and has nothing to do with the universe as the natural environment, because it has its own artificial environment.“ ** **

Alf wrote:

„Surreptitious 75 wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural?
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone tools?‹ **

Whatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created.
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were.« **

Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like the „island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The »island culture« resists the »ocean nature«as long as possible. So do humans.“ ** **

Exactly.

And this „island“ (=> culture) can be so isolated that it is just deadly to connect with the „ocean“ (=> nature). Think of the astronauts, the ISS and other „islands“.

Nächstes Bild

Absolute Insel (Beispiel: ISS)

   

6213

Alf wrote:

„Urwrong wrote:

»Government restricts freedom.« **

Not always and not necessarily. It can, but doesn't have to restrict freedom. Freedom for the one is unfreedom for the other one. Governments can make laws for both freedom and unfreedom. It depends on whom they obey.

Urwrong wrote:

»Liberalism (pro-freedom), by definition, is anti-government.«“ **

Anarchy is anti-government. Liberalism (pro-freedom) isn't always and necessarily anti-government. Laws can be made for freedom and can be made for anti-freedom.“ ** **

Yes.

6214

Liberalism may be a precursor for anarchy, but it is not identical with it. Liberalism can even have many rules. Socialism can have merely few rules. It is just a stereotype to say that „liberalism is always against laws and socialism is always for laws“, although this stereotype is often correct, but just not always.

6215

Autsider wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»It is a relatively huge difference whether you ask ›will you fight a war for your liberal, feminist, multicultural country?‹ or just ›will you fight a war for your country?‹ !« ** **

All European countries are liberal, feminist and multicultural so the only difference is if it is said explicitly or not.“ **


Sure. But do you think that the question has been asked explicitly?

The percentage of each country can be smaller or larger than those in the map (depending on how explicitly the question has been asked).

6216

The most ILP members are subjectivists. The poll in my thread „Subjectivity versus Objectivity“ (**|**) is unfortunately not representative.

6217

Alf wrote:

„Unfortunately, this (**) is true.“ ** **

But it is also true that the Occident is declining. There is a demographic aspect too.

 

NACH OBEN 1036) Kathrina, 06.09.2017, 01:01, 01:07, 01:08, 01:20, 01:44, 02:01, 02:02; Arminius, 06.09.2017, 03:21, 03:29, 04:03, 04:23; Kathrina, 06.09.2017, 04:50, 05:02, 05:08; Arminius, 06.09.2017, 05:10; Kathrina, 06.09.2017, 16:51, 17:45, 18:02, 18:25, 18:38, 18:54; Alf, 06.09.2017, 19:40, 20:04, 20:50; Arminius, 06.09.2017, 22:35, 22:48, 23:21, 22:35, 22:58 (6218-6247)

6218

- Patrick Hernandez, Born to Be Alive, 1979.

6219

Copied post in another thread.

6220


Merriam Webster wrote:

„Definition of life

plural
lives
play \'livz\

1
a
:
the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b
:
a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c
:
an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism (see metabolism 1), growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.“ **

Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form.

„Negative entropy“ can also be interpreted as „negative chaos“.

6221

And what change (**), please?

6222

And what did the caterpillar (**) answer?

6223

Arminius wrote:

„Autsider wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›It is a relatively huge difference whether you ask 'will you fight a war for your liberal, feminist, multicultural country?' or just 'will you fight a war for your country?' !‹‹ ** **

All European countries are liberal, feminist and multicultural so the only difference is if it is said explicitly or not.« “ **

Sure. But do you think that the question has been asked explicitly?

The percentage of each country can be smaller or larger than those in the map (depending on how explicitly the question has been asked).“ ** **

But the survey isn’t useless, is it?

6224

Hormones are beyond good and evil (**). So they are neither good nor evil.

6225

Arminius wrote:

„Serendipper wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Serendipper wrote:

'Like Warren Buffett says: had he been born long ago, he would have been some animal's meal rather than the richest man on earth.' **

He is not the richest man on earth.‹ ** **

You're going to point that out like it matters to the discussion?« **

Did I or did you (**) mention his name in a discussion where he has nothing to do with?

Serendipper wrote:

»He has often been the richest man and could be again soon.

In 2008, he was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world.“ **

That does not mean that he was or has often been or is the richest man on earth.« ** **

You were the first one who mentioned that name here in this thread (**).

Also, you have no proof at all for your statement. Mentioning Forbes is no proof.

6226

Serendipper wrote:

„I pointed out a false equivocation and your defense is a lack of question mark?“ **

My defense? I have posted a lot of posts here. And your problem is that I have mentioned the lack of a question mark?

You pointed out nothing. You were talking about questions that were no questions at all.

If you do not want any discussion in this thread, then just post in another thread. You are always circumventing important statements of other posters and focussing on irrelevances.

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.‹ **

But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.« ** **

Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?“ **

Serendipper wrote

„Arminius wrote:

»Have you not read my posts?« ** **

After this series of displays, I don't see a reason to.“ **

You don't see a reason to not have read my posts? What is your first language?

6227


Serendipper wrote:

„Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits (FALSE, the Soviet Union is not an example for all other examples)
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong).**

You said: „Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits“ (**).
You said: „Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits“ (**).
You said: „Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits“ (**).
You said: „Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits“ (**).

You really said that (**). And that is 100% nonsense!

Serendipper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»History has shown that your statement is wrong.“ ** **

1) You have no proof.
2) My definitions do not depend on proof. I conjured them into existence.

So even if you did manage to comb through history and find an example of so-called "communism" that wasn't real communism as some sort of proof, it wouldn't mean poop. That leaves you sticking your fingers in your ears screaming ›you're wrong«.“ **

You are the one who has absolutely no proof and absolutely no idea.

China's current government as a communistic government does not control 100% of means of production and not keep 100% of profits.
The fascistic governments did not control 100% of means of production and not keep <100% of profits.
The socialistic governments did and do not control 100% of means of production and not keep <100% of profits.
The capitalistic governments do not control 0% of means of production and not keep 0% of profits.

6229

Kathrina wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Autsider wrote:

›Arminius wrote:

'It is a relatively huge difference whether you ask `will you fight a war for your liberal, feminist, multicultural country?´ or just `will you fight a war for your country?´ !' ** **

All European countries are liberal, feminist and multicultural so the only difference is if it is said explicitly or not.‹ **

Sure. But do you think that the question has been asked explicitly?

The percentage of each country can be smaller or larger than those in the map (depending on how explicitly the question has been asked).« ** **

But the survey isn’t useless, is it?“ ** **

The survey is not useless.

6230

Phyllo wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»But the survey isn't useless, is it?« ** **

What use does it have?“ **

You're not serious, are you?

INFORMATION !

6231

That’s a philosophical, very wise answer.

6232

Are you a subjectivist, Sanjay?

6233

Information is information. Misinformation is misinformation.

6234


Carleas wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Phyllo wrote:

›What use does it have?« **

[...] INFORMATION !“ ** **

But what information? Clearly the survey is being interpreted as providing the information, 'X% of people from Y country would be willing to fight a war for their country'. But that's not the information that was collected. The information collected was, 'X% of people form Y country would respond positively when asked in peacetime by a pollster about their willingness to go to war for their country". That is a meaningful difference, and one piece of information is clearly more useful than the other.“ **

Methodology matters, Kathrina.“ **

What matters the most is who is interested in it and for what reason.

If you find it useless, somebody else will find it useful. One shouldn’t always judge this from the people’s view. If the people find it useless, others will find it useful.

Also, information and misinformation are often mixed, This is a kind of methodology too.

Arminius wrote:

„Information is information. Misinformation is misinformation.“ ** **

And there is always someone who can use information or misinformation, for whatever reason.

6235

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Kathrina,

You couldn't define what you meant by Life in your own words?!“ **

You'll find my own words below the Merriam-Webster quote. Please read it (again).

Kathrina wrote:

„Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form.

»Negative entropy« can also be interpreted as »negative chaos«.“ ** **

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Spoken in Merriam-Webster/s terms, do you think that those human beings who have experienced Hurricanes Harvey and Irma would say that Life ~~ their Life ~~ has not become chaotic?
How would you measure things about now ~~ entropy or negative entropy?

Unless you see life from rose-colored glasses, you will see that Life IS chaotic, may be chaotic, can easily turn chaotic, life DOES turn on a dime.“ **

I was referring to thermodynamics.

Kathrina wrote:

„Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form.

»Negative entropy« can also be interpreted as »negative chaos«.“ ** **

6236

Meno, you don't want to commit yourself.

6237

Otto West wrote:

„Except China has over extended itself economically where it is equally in worse shape as the U.S. Actually as far as super powers are concerned Russia is doing better than both China and the United States.“ **

You mean that Putin has more under control?

6238

The machines will perhaps get rid of the humans.

6239

I think there is always enough room for instinct and Intuition.

6240

Amorphos wrote:

„I currently don’t have a soul.“ **

The premise is that soul has existed and does probably still exist outside of your body.

But what if this premis isn't true?

6241

Serendipper wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like ›the island in the ocean‹, and the ocean is not like the island. The ›island‹ culture resists the ›ocean‹ nature as long as possible. So do humans.« ** **

Same questions (**) to you:

Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?

If you came into it, from where did you come?

If you came out of it, how are you not natural?“ **

If there is an universe, there can, but doesn't have to be a planet too.
If there is an ocean, there can, but doesn't have to be an island too.

Smaller systems have their own rules. Not all, but most of this rules are subordinated to the larger system. The not subordinated rules of the smaller system temporarily circumvent, resist, contradict the rules of its superordinated larger system. That’s evident and can be observed almost everywhere.

6242

With my answers above (**|**), I am in absolute agreement with all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists.

And you are saying that they are „wrong“ (**)?

6243


Arminius wrote:

„But it is also true that the Occident is declining. There is a demographic aspect too.“ ** **

Do you mean that there are two reasons for those „smarmy, smirky people in managerial positions“ (**) and for the „objective ... to weaken European power“ (**) ?

6244

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„But it is also true that the Occident is declining. There is a demographic aspect too.“ ** **

Do you mean that there are two reasons for those „smarmy, smirky people in managerial positions“ (**) and for the „objective ... to weaken European power“ (**) ?“ ** **

There is one main reason, all others are subordinated to it. This one main reason is the decline of the West (cp. Spengler). The negative demographic development, the said „smarmy, smirky people in managerial positions“ (**), the said „objective ... to weaken European power“ (**) are some examples for the consequences of the decline of the West. The weaker you are, the more blackmailable you are. Those who decide to weaken European power (thus: German power) are mostly Europeans or at least of European origin.

Arminius wrote:

„And we know that all the immigration to Europe is kicked off and organited by the USA as the main state vassal of the globalists and by certain non-governmental organizations as the main non-state vassals of the globalists.

The enemy is Germany (again; two world wars are obviously not enough; cf.: »Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam« - Cato the Elder), regardless whether it is a member of the same military alliance or not. They try to weaken Germany and to drive a wedge between Germany and the other EU members. The EU itself is such a wedge. The Euro too. They want the German wealth, the German money, the Germoney. This war is a huge economical war and the globalists and their US politicians do not care about the fact that Germany is a member of the NATO. Quite the contrary: Germany and Russia as a possible alliance has always been has always been being globalists’ and their US politicians’fear, at least according to George Friedman ([**] Note the title: »Stratfor: The US Main Interest is to Stop Alliance Between Russia and Germany«. To STOP? To stop WHAT? An »Alliance Between Russia and Germany«? There is not such an »alliance«! There is only the absolutely unfounded »fear« of it!  –  And by the way: It would be very much more understandable if the Germans had the fear of an alliance between USA and Russia! There was such an alliance in both the first and the second world war!  –  Again: Remember what Cato the Elder [234-149] said before the third Punic war [149-146]: »Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam« (»Besides, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed«). There was no real »reason«, no »alliance«, but only the Romans’ absolutely unfounded »fear« of Carthage!  –  But then [146 B.C.] .... [**|**]).“ ** **

Europeans would resist this development, if they were politically unified. But they are not politically unified. The more „EU“ and „Euro“ they get, the less politically unified they are. There are too many powerful people who want to weaken Europe. So the political unification of Europe will probably never happen.


What will happen in Europe is a WAR (**|**) in order to weaken Europe (thus: Germany). This was the result of the both world wars too. Each result led to more European weakness.

Greetings from Carthage:

Greetings from Carthage

6245

Thank you (**).

6246

Meno wrote

„Arminius wrote:

»Do some (and if yes: how many) of the U.S. citizens hate their country, for example because of the unjustice in the world? Many haters of this kind argue in this way, I think, but I do not know for sure, and that is the reason why I want to ask an U.S. citizen, for example you (or are you not an U.S. citizen?).« ** **

Good.one. The best way to come.to grips with this is through social psychological approbation. Very simple transference of relatively unknown ideas, inter-project, introject, to form apparent stability. Between the psychology and the sociology creeps expediency of a nasty political kind, like a mirror, deflecting and revising facts, disfiguring into a successive calculus of grotesque images.

That is why, the masses go on board with anything that is made appealing by flowery rhetoric.

For that reason, Arminius, Your question remains unanswered, since the fulcrum shifts away toward effects of social reality, fixed into and through its own language.“ **

For that reason? And: Only one or both of my questions?

6247

Kathrina wrote:

„The machines will perhaps get rid of the humans.“ ** **

Possibly, yes.

Based on the replacement of all humans by machines I am speaking of a 80% probability (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**). 80% is a high probability, but not 100%, so 20% are left.

 

NACH OBEN 1037) Arminius, 07.09.2017, 01:30, 20:26, 20:55; Alf, 07.09.2017, 21:40; Arminius, 07.09.2017, 22:03; Alf, 07.09.2017, 22:08; Arminius, 07.09.2017, 22:12; Alf, 07.09.2017, 22:29, 22:43, 23:03, 23:24, 23:36, 23:43, 23:50, 23:56, 23:59 (6248-6263)

6248

Meno wrote:

„Sorry guys I have drunk too much, I hope I will be forgiven for this transgression.“ **

Forgiven.

(I admit that I have been a bit surprised.)

Obe wrote:

„See what Ouzo does? Arminius, if you had known me in Solingen, well, that's another story.“ **

Arminius wrote:

Ouzo?

**

And you in Solingen, Obe?“ ** **

Obe wrote:

„I was in Solingen, once. But in a sense i will always be there. Solingen for me is not an ouzo, but an ouza.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„And don't forget this (b.t.w.):

**

Cheers!“ ** **

6249

Mannequin wrote:

„If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, doesn't that law suggest that a god exists? that God is that energy and all comes from it as a original source and it continues to perpetually exist?“ **

We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that „universe“ is a concept) ... and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.

Is that true? What do you think about that?

----------------------------------------------------------------

There are at least two realms: a physical one and a spiritual one.

6250

Alf wrote:

„With my answers above (**|**), I am in absolute agreement with all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists.

And you are saying that they are »wrong« (**) ?“ ** **

We have to consider the two realms again: the physical one and the spiritual one.

You and all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists are right when it comes to the physical realm.
You and all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists are wrong when it comes to the spiritual realm.

Compare this with the following quote:

Arminius wrote:

„Mannequin wrote:

»If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, doesn't that law suggest that a god exists? that God is that energy and all comes from it as a original source and it continues to perpetually exist?« **

We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that »universe« is a concept) ... and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.

Is that true? What do you think about that?

----------------------------------------------------------------

There are at least two realms: a physical one and a spiritual one.“ ** **

6251

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»With my answers above (**|**), I am in absolute agreement with all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists.

And you are saying that they are ›wrong‹ (**) ?« ** **

We have to consider the two realms again: the physical one and the spiritual one.

You and all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists are right when it comes to the physical realm.
You and all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists are wrong when it comes to the spiritual realm.

Compare this with the following quote:

Arminius wrote:

»Mannequin wrote:

›If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, doesn't that law suggest that a god exists? that God is that energy and all comes from it as a original source and it continues to perpetually exist?‹ **

We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that »universe« is a concept) ... and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.

Is that true? What do you think about that?

----------------------------------------------------------------

There are at least two realms: a physical one and a spiritual one.« ** **

** **

But if so, then one will probably never really know what „death“ is. Or does death not exist at all?

6252

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›With my answers above (**|**), I am in absolute agreement with all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists.

And you are saying that they are 'wrong' (**) ?‹ ** **

We have to consider the two realms again: the physical one and the spiritual one.

You and all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists are right when it comes to the physical realm.
You and all doctors, all physicians, all neurologists, all natural scientists are wrong when it comes to the spiritual realm.

Compare this with the following quote:

Arminius wrote:

›Mannequin wrote:

'If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, doesn't that law suggest that a god exists? that God is that energy and all comes from it as a original source and it continues to perpetually exist?' **

We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that ›universe‹ is a concept) ... and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.

Is that true? What do you think about that?

----------------------------------------------------------------

There are at least two realms: a physical one and a spiritual one.‹ ** **

« ** **

But if so, then one will probably never really know what »death« is. Or does death not exist at all?“ ** **

Possibly.

Compare:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Death doesn't actually exist. But the real and much more relevant question is: What do you want to believe?**

What do you believe?

6253

I believe that death exists in what we call reality.

6254

James S. Saint wrote:

„What do you Want me to believe?
**

Sorry, I did not mean you. I meant Alf.

6255

Faust wrote:

„So, Otto West, you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.“ **

That's anti-White racism.

Replace the word „white“ with the word „black“, and you'll get this.

„Kunta Kinte, you're poor and educated. And black. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are black and educated yet poor? I talk to poor black people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.“

6256

The western kind of action and reaction is very invasive, very dynamic, very straight. The eastern kind of acting and reaction is just the opposite.

6257

Encode Decode wrote:

„Science is one way to look at things but it is not the only way ....“ **

Correct. Interestingly, philosophy takes science into account very often, but science takes philosophy into account very seldom.

6258

Rationality isn’t overrated. Maybe it was overrated in the past.

Irrationality has more and more taken over.

6259

Meno, what are you talking about here?

6260

Meno, I often don't know what you are talking about.

Are you often drunk?

6261

Are there two realities then, or do both realms belong to the same reality?

6262

I found this ....

6263

Is the Chinese religion represented much in China today?

Have you visited China?

 

NACH OBEN 1038) Arminius, 08.09.2017, 01:11, 01:56, 01:59, 02:42, 02:46, 02:55; Alf, 08.09.2017, 03:19, 03:55, 04:43, Arminius, 08.09.2017, 14:29, 15:36, 16:05, 16:45; Alf, 08.09.2017, 19:23, 19:23, 19:24, 23:09, Arminius, 08.09.2017, 23:35, 23:48, 23:56, 23:57 (6264-6284)

6264

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Is the Chinese religion represented much in China today?“ **

Have you visited China?« ** **

My experience living in China ... almost 12 years and counting ... suggests the Chinese religion remains very much alive In rural China ....“ **

Interesting.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Not so much in urban China for the obvious reason that Western culture has diluted it's influence.“ **

Yes.

What about the future of this old religion?

6265

Alf wrote:

„Are there two realities then, or do both realms belong to the same reality?“ ** **

Both realms belong to our world. I would not use the word „reality“ in this case, because this word has got too many definitions that are too much controversal.

This is what Wikipedia wrote introductorily about „reality“:

„Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. Reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes that which has existed, exists, or will exist.

Philosophers, mathematicians, and other ancient and modern thinkers, such as Aristotle, Plato, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Russell, have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions (thoughts of things that are imaginable but not real), and that which cannot even be rationally thought. By contrast existence is often restricted solely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do in the brain.

Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, illusory, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is false, what is fictional, or what is abstract. At the same time, what is abstract plays a role both in everyday life and in academic research. For instance, causality, virtue, life, and distributive justice are abstract concepts that can be difficult to define, but they are only rarely equated with pure delusions. Both the existence and reality of abstractions are in dispute: one extreme position regards them as mere words; another position regards them as higher truths than less abstract concepts. This disagreement is the basis of the philosophical problem of universals.

The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real.“ **

More ... (**).

6266

China has its own, its old religion too. It is older than Buddhism.

6267

Alf wrote:

„Rationality isn’t overrated. Maybe it was overrated in the past.

Irrationality has more and more taken over.“ ** **

Unfortunately.

6268

James S. Saint wrote:

„Only irrational people separate their instincts and »gut feelings« from their rationale.“ **

Unfortunately.

6269

James S. Saint wrote:

„Gib wrote:

»James S Saint wrote:

›Only irrational people separate their instincts and 'gut feelings' from their rationale.‹ **

Do you mean that if you integrate them, then it's still rational?« **

I mean that if you Don't integrate them, it is Irrational.“ **

Exactly.

And you have to manage the integration rightly.

6270

Just an example:

Art ?

Is that art?

6271


Faust wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Faust wrote:

›So, Otto West, you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.‹ **

That's anti-White racism.

Replace the word »white« with the word »black«, and you'll get this.

»Kunta Kinte, you're poor and educated. And black. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are black and educated yet poor? I talk to poor black people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.«

« ** **

So, Alf. You're not too strong on logic. Can you explain why you post on a philosophy website yet seem to know no logic?

I talk to people who aren't too strong on logic. Mostly, they're good people. They're just not too strong on logic.

By the way, I rarely talk to poor black people. Mostly because there aren't too many black people, rich or poor, where I live. Most of them (poor black people that I talk to) have a drug problem. That's just my experience.

Reporting my particular experience, without generalizing to all poor white people, or to all poor black people, is not racism. It's just reporting on my particular experience.“ **

No. Obviously, you are the one who is not too strong on logic.

It's a fact that talking about „Blacks“ like you do about the „White“ Otto West is called „racism“. Say what you want, but that's currently the legal regulation. You were not only reporting, you were suggesting too.

And now, you are hiding yourself behind a bogus argument.

6272

Meno wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Meno, what are you talking about here?« ** **

Alf, I'm talking about whether Trump is dangerous, or not. I think it's a toss up, where one part of the equation has to do with rhetoric, as a search for truth, and the other, the underlying dynamics of what power truly is. The search for stability needs some kind of meeting of the minds, between those in the so called 'know' , and the ones merely guessing.“ **

Rhetoric as a research for truth? Isn't that the other way around here?

6273

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Surreptitious75 wrote:

»Reality may pertain to things that exist but science makes a distinction between what is real and what can be observed.
Since it only investigates observable phenomena and has absolutely nothing to say about whether or not any of it is real.« **

Science speaks loud and clear to the masses via osmosis ... ergo ...if »it« isn't proven by science ... it isn't real/true.“ **

This is what Wikipedia says about „scientific realism“:

„Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science (perhaps ideal science) is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be. Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?" The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of entities that are not directly observable discussed by scientific theories. Generally, those who are scientific realists state that one can make reliable claims about these entities (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as directly observable entities, as opposed to instrumentalism. The most used and studied scientific theories today state more or less the truth.“ **

It is not expectable to get a proper definition for „reality“ from science - especially because of the fact that science itself is more idealistic than realistic (see above: „ideal science“).

6274

Kant knew much about science.

„Kant is best known for his work in the philosophy of ethics and metaphysics, but he made significant contributions to other disciplines. He made an important astronomical discovery about the nature of Earth's rotation, for which he won the Berlin Academy Prize in 1754. According to Lord Kelvin in 1897, Kant made contributions useful to mathematicians or physical astronomers. According to Thomas Huxley in 1867 Kant made contributions to geology as well when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles."

In the General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens (Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels) (1755), Kant laid out the Nebular hypothesis, in which he deduced that the Solar System formed from a large cloud of gas, a nebula. Thus he tried to explain the order of the solar system, which Isaac Newton had explained as imposed from the beginning by God. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars, which he theorized also formed from a (much larger) spinning cloud of gas. He further suggested that other nebulae might also be similarly large and distant disks of stars. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy: for the first time extending astronomy beyond the solar system to galactic and extragalactic realms.“ **

6275

Axial Age.

„Axial Age (also Axis Age, from German: Achsenzeit) is a term coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers after Victor von Strauß (1859) and Ernst von Lasaulx (1870)[2] in the sense of a »pivotal age« characterizing the period of ancient history from about the 8th to the 3rd century BC.

Then, according to Jaspers' concept, new ways of thinking appeared in Persia, India, China and the Greco-Roman world in religion and philosophy, in a striking parallel development, without any obvious direct cultural contact between all of the participating Eurasian cultures.

The concept was introduced in his book Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte (The Origin and Goal of History, published in 1949. Jaspers claimed that the Axial Age should be viewed as an objective empirical fact of history, independently of religious considerations. He identified a number of key thinkers as having had a profound influence on future philosophies and religions, and identified characteristics common to each area from which those thinkers emerged. Jaspers held up this age as unique, and one to which the rest of the history of human thought might be compared. Jaspers' approach to the culture of the middle of the first millennium BC has been adopted by other scholars and academics, and has become a point of discussion in the history of religion.“ **

6276

Zinnat wrote:

„The Chinese are not yet tested against other communities. In spite of so much economic development in China, no chinese individual or companies are yet able to establish a successful big business outside china. On the other hand, Jews have done that successfully all over the world. Chinese have succeeded to some extent outside China only in some Asian countries like Malaysia but have failed to repeat that success in the developed world, both individual and organizational level too.“ **

And in Africa!

Otto West wrote:

„You know I once was thinking to myself that China taking over Africa politically and economically was a terrible thing in conjunction with the west but upon further inspection it looks like Africa will probably bankrupt China financially. This documentary is hilarious full of racist interactions, where the Chinese look upon the Congolese as apes the Congolese remark that the Chinese look like pigs. I'm just so happy that under globalization people from around the world are coming together and uniting. This documentary literally brought tears to my eyes and by tears I mean tears of laughter.

Between one and ten stars I rate this documentary an eight.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„What can we do?“

- „Probably nothing.“

„When will the boss come?“

- „Probably never.“

„Will we arrange a deal?“

- „I don't know.“

„Nothing is going on here.“

- „Yes.“

„What can we do today?“

- „Wait. .... Nothing.“

** **

Otto West wrote:

„You can tell that Chinese guy just wants to rip his own hair out over constant frustration.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„The Chinese people in Africa are very frustrated. What are the Africans doing all the time? Nothing - except stealing and sleeping.

And the Chinese reaction is always: „We have to punish them!“

* * * * * * * * “ ** **

Otto West wrote:

„Chinese are about to get a lesson as to why Europeans left Africa for the most part.“ **

6277

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Just an example:

Art ?

Is that art?« ** **

Art is simply how an artist perceives the world at any given time. The only limitation is imagination but beyond that nothing. So anything labelled as art is art regardless of anything else. And it comes from the mind or the soul [the non metaphysical type].“ **

So the art object above „tells“ us that a certain artist perceives the decline.

6278

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Faust wrote:

›So, Otto West, you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.‹ **

That's anti-White racism.

Replace the word »white« with the word »black«, and you'll get this.

»Kunta Kinte, you're poor and educated. And black. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are black and educated yet poor? I talk to poor black people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.«

« ** **

Many white liberals espouse an anti-white mentality.“ **

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„Faust doesn’t mind being anti-White, actually it’s good manners to be anti-White among the “Inner Party” members. Some do so to stay in cover but many have simply adopted this mindset as their own.
If the boss doesn’t like cheesecake and sees it as a moral virtue to not like cheesecake then his employees will tend to also not like cheesecake. A few will feign it but many will simply learn to appreciate this new taste because of it. One could call it an acquired taste.

This anti-White hatred is not to be confused with the »hate«, »bigotry« and »racism« which the Inner Party members like to project on the White working class and generally Whites not playing ball with the (((boss))), in this game of White dispossession.
Imagine saying that the current economic social paradigm is for making labor cheaper by flooding the country with immigrants who work for less money and have their social-economic ties and status still in their homeland where they send their money while the White working class has to compete against them in the local socio-economic realities and then insinuate that White people who are poor must have something wrong with them.

Says the increase of cheap labor is an inevitable part of the current economic social paradigm yet doesn’t understand how people are poor.

There are lots of college educated Whites who are already poor and there will be many more to follow that’s a reality and it’s also not surprising.
Thankfully the current elite and managerial classes (who will also experience a tightening around their neck) can always hide behind the magical properties of democracy which render those in power to be mere servants of the people and thus free of any charge.

To the starving people they said »Let them have cake«.
But actually that was never said by Marie-Antoinette, it’s attributed to her, projected, by the same kinds of people who are now openly admitting that the racial displacement and replacement of Whites in their homelands is social policy. Then they turn around and say: »What’s wrong with you? Why are you poor? You have White privilege after all. «

…. No, they are not That mentally retarded, they are just seething with anti-White hatred.“ **

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Faust wrote:

»All that counts is purchasing power, for the simple reason that money is worth only what it can buy.« **

Money can always buy cheap products and cheap mindsets which means that those cheapened lack integrity which is a liberal and Jewish way of life. I have an issue with your lack of integrity (your cheap mindset) through your support for cheap labor without using your noggin to see the consequences of the shortcuts you and other Americans take at the expense of our nation itself being overrun by uneducated, unskilled, non-assimilating illegal immigrants to the tune of over 30 million just so you can have a cheap roof and a few bucks in your pockets. Screw the other native USA citizens who cannot find work in the construction business or many other industries due to those illegal immigrants and the immigrants who stay here illegally on overextended visas so that Faust and his white cohorts can have a cheap this and that. You cheapen what it means to be a quality American who supports other quality Americans.

Was the entrepreneurial spirit born in the USA supposed to be at the expense of the USA? At little to no cost, you too can have your part of the American pie until its all gone ... thanks for selling out our country so you and your anti-white buddies can have a few bucks in your pocket.“ **

Agreed, Wendy Darling and Is Yde Opn.

6279

A Shieldmaiden wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»The soul is the fundamental concept and definition of what an individually is. It is necessarily eternal, as are all concepts.« **

What is your source?“ **

6280

Liberals should have the right, but also the duty to go home, back to Africa, because they like to be a „product of immigration“ and are „Africans“, at least according to the „Out of Africa“ hypothesis. A new state as an old one should be founded there again. Liberals may call this state „Liberia 2.0“.

Liberia & Liberia 2.0

6281

Alf wrote:

„Surreptitious 75 wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›Just an example:

Art ?

Is that art?‹ ** **

Art is simply how an artist perceives the world at any given time. The only limitation is imagination but beyond that nothing. So anything labelled as art is art regardless of anything else. And it comes from the mind or the soul [the non metaphysical type].« **

So the art object above »tells« us that a certain artist perceives the decline.“ ** **

Perceiving this (?):

Kolosseum (Colosseum) => Kolosseum (Colosseum)

Guggenheim-Museum => Guggenheim-Museum

6282

Kant knew much about the biological sciences too, ecpecially about anthropological sciences. Kant was really ingenious.

6283

Ierrellus wrote:

„Can anyone give me an objective description of ... God?“ **

Do you mean „The Real God“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Real God = The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = »The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is«.“ **

6284

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Surreptitious 75 wrote:

›Alf wrote:

'Just an example:

Art ?

Is that art?' ** **

Art is simply how an artist perceives the world at any given time. The only limitation is imagination but beyond that nothing. So anything labelled as art is art regardless of anything else. And it comes from the mind or the soul [the non metaphysical type].‹ **

So the art object above »tells« us that a certain artist perceives the decline.« ** **

Perceiving this (?):

Kolosseum (Colosseum) => Kolosseum (Colosseum)

Guggenheim-Museum => Guggenheim-Museum

** **

It’s a perceived decline. So yes.

NACH OBEN 1039) Arminius, 09.09.2017, 01:04, 01:15, 01:43; Alf, 09.09.2017, 02:11, 20:59, 22:19, 22:57, 23:19; Arminius, 09.09.2017, 23:22; Alf, 09.09.2017, 23:33, 33:39; Arminius, 09.09.2017, 23:22, 23:57 (6285-6299)

6285

Copied post in another thread.

6286

Now decide where you can find the decline in the following pictures:

Baum im Wandel
Abendland

6287

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Recorded history suggests the Chinese civilization always ... and continues to ... prefer insulation and isolation. Until recently, the previous serious attempt to gaze beyond the borders of the civilization occurred early in the 15th century, prior to the dawn of Western imperialism and colonialism. The result being China closed it's doors to the outside world for 500 years.“ **

Arminius wrote:

Note: In the following I am going to use the word „Europeans“ for all those people who are of European origin (except those who are globalists), regardless where they currently live.

China started its protectionism politics about 2200 years ago by building the big wall. Why should the Europeans not start doing it today too? The answer is that the globalists do not want the Europeans to do it, and that all European politicians are the henchmen of the globalists.

During the so-called »cold war« the peoples of the NATO-bloc were told that the NATO was a »military defense alliance« - a lie. At the very latest since the 1990’s we have clearly experienced that the NATO is not a »military defense« but a military offense alliance. The Europeans have to reform the NATO, so that it can be a real military defense alliance. This is possible without huge economical disadvantages, if they start doing this as soon as possible. The later they will start doing this, the more expensive their doing and the more likely their breakup or even extinction will become.

The demographic development is one point, but the huge economic and military power - both based on and correlative with the technological advance the Europeans still have - is the other point. As long as the said advance will remain, the Europeans will be capable of doing whatever they want, provided that this doing will serve real European interests. So we have two questions in this case: (1) Will the Europeans start defending themselves early enough? (2) How long will the said advance remain?

But I fear that the Europeans will further on serve the globalists. In that case, we can only hope that the globalists will some day get their senses back, get some common sense. The last chance for the Europeans in the case of remaining homogenous will be one country somewhere on this planet (or on the planet Mars or the moon Europa? ), but even then they will have to calculate on much resistance against them. In the long run, the globalists themselves will have no future either. After that globalistic era many solutions will be possible, also SAM or a reign of machines (AI).“ ** **

6288

Arminius wrote:

„Now decide where you can find the decline in the following pictures:

Baum im Wandel
Abendland

** **

Beginning of atumn (fall).

6289

Actually or cosmologically, it is the beginning of summer (alraedy), but culturally or historically, it is the beginning of autumn (fall). So the laying of the foundation stone of the French „Arc de Triomphe“ in 1806 was already part of the declining era, which can also be called the „era of the bourgeois clothing“.

Bild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur KulturBild zur Kultur

6290

Example: It is not possible that a physical experiment explains what physics „is“. This was what Heidegger meant when he said: „Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht“ („the science does not think“).

Arminius wrote:

„Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.“ ** **

So philosophy (especially its ontology) has to say what physics „is“ and what reality „is“.

6291

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Arminius ... your post triggered some new thoughts. New thoughts ... like red wine ... need time to age for a while before one knows if they have any merit.

Nonetheless ... I'm in the mood for sharing.

1) Let me repeat an earlier comment ... Are we in the midst of an epoch transformation and we can't see the forest for the trees?

2) The idiom ... »shut/close the stable/barn door after the horse has bolted.«

3) The law of unintentional consequences ... in attempting to expand the boundaries of their "homeland" ... the Europeans have lost their homeland.

4) At this point in the game can Europeans really expect to achieve what the Chinese have worked diligently to protect for thousands of years ... insulation and isolation?

Yes, Pilgrim Tom.

I think that the Europeans should take the option of insulation or isolation („what the Chinese have worked diligently to protect for thousands of years“) into account.“ **

6292

Faust wrote:

„So, Otto, you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.“ **

Faust wrote:

„For the record, while i am white, I am not a liberal. In fact, I am a registered Republican. That doesn't make me necessarily a conservative on all issues, but neither does it make me a liberal. Neither am i anti-white. I am curious to know why any educated person, especially a white one, can be chronically poor. I do know that there can be reasons, some of which I have mentioned. None of those may be the reason why otto is poor, despite being educated. It could be a physical disability. I don't know, which is why I am asking.“ **

You are asking because you „don’t know“?
You are „curious to know why an educated person, especially a white one, can be chronically poor“?
Have you noticed that we live in the 21st century?
Do you live under a rock or on the dark side of the moon?

- Pink Floyd (Waters, Mason, Wright, Gilmour), The Dark Side of the Moon, 1973 -

There is no contradiction between being a poor and being a well educated white. Either you (a) are too dumb to know the facts (and correct premises), or you (b) use bogus arguments - rhetorically or not rhetorically (see: a).

You started being biased in 1958, as you’ve stated in your signature. So, apparently, you have never noticed that your society has produced more and more poorness and that especially the universities of your society (and those of other Western societes too) have produced a poor precariat of well educated whites (think for example of all the unemployed becoming hippies, flower people, punks, taxi drivers etc.), an academic precarity.

If you are well educated, you aren’t necessarily prevented against poorness. There are corresponding proverbs in many languages. So this is common sense. You should have known it. But you haven't.

6293

Faust wrote:

„When legal immigrants will take less than native born americans, it's just the market.“ **

And if it is vice versa, it's just the market too. This market would be less free. So what? It would still be a market.

Faust wrote:

„Now, we can argue about immigration quotas if you like. But it is clear that the economy benefits from at least some immigration. The answer is a dispassionate look at immigration laws, from an economic point of view. It is not to disallow all immigration. Most of us are the product of immigration.“ **

The „Out of Africa“ hypothesis again:

Alf wrote:

„Liberals should have the right, but also the duty to go home, back to Africa, because they like to be a »product of immigration« and are »Africans«, at least according to the »Out of Africa« hypothesis. A new state as an old one should be founded there again. Liberals may call this state »Liberia 2.0«.

Liberia & Liberia 2.0

** **

Faust wrote:

„You can't automate everything ....“ **

You can’t automate everything, yes, but others can.

Faust wrote:

„Not all illegas are criminals.“ **

PC.

Not all Fausts are Faustians.

Faust wrote:

„WendyDarling wrote:

»The criminal illegal for being here illegally first and foremost. They need to be deported...no, there needs to be border security so these other laws of less than minimum wage being violated won't be an issue. No illegals, no issues of less than minimum wage being paid by companies far and wide that are on the books. There are always going to be unscrupulous people wheeling and dealing off the books, but that becomes an issue for the citizen who is being treated unfairly in his workplace...them laws and them police who serve legal residents and legal visitors.« **

Not all illegals are criminals. Unlawful presence is, for instance, not subject to criminal penalties. That happens when people overstay their work visas. Not all wage theft is criminal either, at least in my state. Wage theft is an issue among workers that are not illegal, as well. So you're not correct to say that eliminating illegals would eliminate that problem.“ **

So, you are saying that all allopathic medicine is an error. If you’ve morbid bacteria in your mouth, you won’t go to the dentist in order to get rid of the morbid bacteria.

Morbid bbacteria in the mouth of an ILP member

6294

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Common sense is dead.“ **

Common sense will never die.

6295

So this belongs to the „era of the bourgeois clothing“ too:

Late era of the bourgeois clothing

Right?

6296

Wendy Darling wrote:

„It died in Faust and all the raving liberals.“ **

That is probably true, isn’t it?

6297

Yep.

6298

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Is the Chinese religion represented much in China today?“ **

Have you visited China?« ** **

My experience living in China ... almost 12 years and counting ... suggests the Chinese religion remains very much alive In rural China ....“ **

China will become even more urban. So the religion of the Chinese ancestors will perhaps vanish.

6299

Alf wrote:

So this belongs to the „era of the bourgeois clothing“ too:

Late era of the bourgeois clothing

Right?“ ** **

Absolutely.

By the way: I call this late period, which is also the latest phase of our whole cultural cycle: „Globalism“ or - with reference to Spengler - „Caesarism“.

Arminius wrote:

„The demonstrations against G7 or G20 are demonstrations against the globalism. And they are violent in every Western country.

If you want to see burning suburbs without any G7 or G20 demonstration, then go to France where suburbs burn every day.

G7 or G20 events are no argument at all for saying „the end of ...“.

And by the way: It is more likely that the end of the Western world will come slowly.

Everything that has become is fading. Our Western plutocracy too. It is already fading. According to Oswald A. G. Spengler the plutocrats and its supporters - the democrats - will be defeated by the Caesars. And if our Western culture will not have any Caesar, then the plutocrats themselves will become the Caesars. The Caesarism is unavoidable according to Spengler. So the only alternative to that is the „sudden death“ (by a huge catastrophe for example) of the whole culture. But are you seeing that catastrophe at the moment?  “ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„And when will they start the next world war?

The economical part (including e.g. a sociological part and a pyscholgical part) and the demographical part (**|**) of ww3 started alraedy a long time ago. It has not reached its peak yet. And, as I guess, when it will have, then the physical, chemical, biological parts of ww3 will follow.. Thus: yes, before 2050, probably even before 2030.

Oswald A. G. Spengler wrote:

„1. (1800-2000): Domination of money (»democracy«). Economic powers permeating the political forms and authorities.
2. (2000-2200): Formation of Caesarism. Victory of force-politics over money. Increasing primitiveness of political forms. Inward decline of the nations into a formless population, and constitution thereof as an imperium of gradually increasing crudity of despotism.
3. (after 2200): Maturing of the final form. Private and family policies of individual leaders. The world as spoil. Egypticism, mandarinism, Byzantinism. Historyless stiffening and enfeeblement even of the imperial machinery, against young peoples eager for spoil, or alien conquerors. Primitive human conditions slowly thrust up into the highly civilized mode of living.“ (*Source of the translation*) *Source of the original*

According to Spengler’s schedule (**), we are now in the beginning of the „formation of Caesarism“ (see: 2. (2000-2200)).  “ ** **

 

NACH OBEN 1040) Arminius, 10.09.2017, 02:38, 04:10, 15:23, 20:18, 21:26, 21:33, 21:45, 21:59; Alf, 10.09.2017, 23:23, 23:59 (6300-6309)

6300

Now, look at the typical architecture of the current phase:

Transparenz-BauDekonstruktivistischer BauDekonstruktivistischer BauMilitärhistorisches Museum in DresdenAllianz-Arena

6301

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, Pilgrim-Seeker Tom.

I think that the Europeans should take the option of insulation or isolation (›what the Chinese have worked diligently to protect for thousands of years‹) into account.« ** **

Seems the 'crowd' supporting your view is growing:

1) Early in Xi's term as leadership his motto was ... »Restore Chinese Glory«.

2) Trump won the election with the slogan ... »Make America Great Again«.

3) Putin's popularity stems from his efforts to ... »Restore Russian Dignity«.

4) Brexit is an attempt to ... »Restore British Exceptionalism«.

5) Zionism is a project to ... »Restore Greater Israel«.

The common denomination seems to be a romantic yearning to return to the past ... is this realistic?“ **

1] The motto of Xi is what the Westerners (Europeans [with or without the Europeans in North America, Australia and other regions]) could and should imitate. But this is what the current globalists do not want to be realized.

2] Trump is probably not able and not powerful enough to do what I just have said (=> 1]). Also, he is probably a traitor.

3] Putin is probably the best example when it comes to restricting those globalists who own most major banks and/or major coporations. But Russia is - by far - less powerful than the USA.

4] The Brexit is no good example when it comes to a political union and a military alliance of Europe (at least: Old Europe), but the Brexit is a good example when it comes to the collapse of the EU, although the UK is - by far - not powerful enough to achieve this collapse. So, the Brexit is a good sign, if the Europeans want to see how the EU must be reformed. What Europe needs is a military alliance, the goal must be a political union, a federation, with borders like the Chinese wall, if necessary. The economic union must be included, of course. This all is not easy to do. At first there must be probably given a speech like Churchill's „blood, sweat and tears“ speech of 1940. What we now have in Old Europe is neither a militarty alliance of a political union nor an economic union for Europeans (but merely for globalists). Currently there is no chance for such an European fortress to be realized. But wait and see. Did you expect during the so-called "cold war" that the Soviet Union and its satellite states would start collapsing in 1989?

6302

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Arminius ... as usual ... very constructive comments.“ **

Thank you.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

Brings to mind the American sport »football« ... are you familiar with the game?

Until recently ... pick a date ... the »globalists« seemed to be on the goal line ... a »touch down« seemed imminent.

Recent anti globalist chatter and activities suggest they (anti globalists) are now in possession of the ball. Only time will tell if they will succeed in pushing the globalists away from the goal line ... a gargantuan task.

One thing is certain ... one side or the other will eventually »score«.“ **

I am not very much familiar with that kind of sport, but I know what you mean. And: I am in agreement with that.

6303

But please note again that there are many problems: the negative demography, the military weakness and the political subservience to the gobalist’s demands - all this works against the interests of a European political unity. So a merely economic unity of Europe does also works against the interests of a European political unity.

As you probably know, before the Chinese regions became unified and the first Chinese empire under , there was a long-lasting time of war, the so-called „Warring States period“.

China's „Warring State Period“

„In 221 BC, Qin conquered Qi. Qi was the final unconquered warring state. It had not previously contributed or helped other states when Qin was conquering them. As soon as Qin's intention to invade it became clear, Qi swiftly surrendered all its cities, completing the unification of China and ushering in the Qin dynasty. The last Qi king lived out his days in exile in Gong and was not given a posthumous name after death, therefore he is known to posterity by his personal name Jian.

The Qin king Zheng declared himself Qin Shi Huangdi (Schi Hoang-ti), »The first Sovereign Emperor of Qin«.

In the rule of the Qin state, the union was based solely on military power. The feudal holdings were abolished, and noble families were forced to live in the capital of China, Xianyang in order to be supervised. A national road as well as greater use of canals was used in order for deployment and supply of the army to be done with ease and speed. The peasants were given a wider range of rights in regards of land, although they were subject to taxation, creating a large amount of revenue to the state.“ **

Qin Shi Huangdi was the „Chinese Augustus“.

6304

Maybe we will get the European unification after a civil war as it has taken place in the Ancient Roman times. So we will get „Marius“, a „Sulla“, a „Ceasar“ and at last an „Augustus“.

„The Crisis of the Roman Republic - an extended period of political instability and social unrest, from about 133 BC to 30 BC.
Social War (91–88 BC), between Rome and many of its Italian allies - Roman victory.
Sulla's first civil war (88–87 BC), between Lucius Cornelius Sulla's supporters and Gaius Marius' forces - Sullan victory.
Sertorian War (83–72 BC ), between Rome and the provinces of Hispania under the leadership of Quintus Sertorius, a supporter of Gaius Marius - Sullan victory.
Sulla's second civil war (82–81 BC), between Sulla and Marius' supporters - Sullan victory.
Lepidus' rebellion (77 BC), when Lepidus rebelled against the Sullan regime.
Catiline Conspiracy (63–62 BC), between the Senate and the dissatisfied followers of Catiline - Senatorial victory.
Caesar's Civil War (49–45 BC), between Julius Caesar and the Optimates initially led by Pompey - Caesarean victory.
Post-Caesarian civil war (44–43 BC), between the Senate's army (led first by Cicero and then by Octavius) and the army of Antony, Lepidus, and their colleagues - Truce results in union of forces.
Liberators' civil war (44–42 BC), between the Second Triumvirate and the Liberators (Brutus and Cassius, Caesar's assassins) - Triumvirate victory.
Sicilian revolt (44–36 BC), between the Second Triumvirate (particularly Octavius and Agrippa) and Sextus Pompey, the son of Pompey - Triumvirate victory.
Perusine War (41–40 BC), between the forces of Octavius against Lucius Antonius and Fulvia (the younger brother and wife of Mark Antony) - Octavius victory.
Final War of the Roman Republic (32–31 BC), between Octavius and his friend and general Agrippa against Mark Antony and Cleopatra - Octavius victory.“ **

Blood, sweat and tears.

6305

Science is not capable of answering philosophic questions like „what is reality?“ or „what is nature?“ or „what is physics?“ and many other philosophic questions that have not to do with empirical evidence.

Arminius wrote:

„Example: It is not possible that a physical experiment explains what physics „is“. This was what Heidegger meant when he said: „Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht“ („the science does not think“).

Arminius wrote:

»Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.« ** **

So philosophy (especially its ontology) has to say what physics „is“ and what reality „is“.“ ** **

Gib wrote:

„If science strikes out, then philosophy seems next up to bat. But even that can strike out as history proves. What about one's own personal experiences?“ **

Then you will immediately get the old blame: „You are a subjectivist“. Philosophers should not be either subjectivists or objectivists, but should try to overcome the subject/object problem.

6306

Nihilists want to destroy everything, especially all values, and if they are successful, there will be nothing left.

6307

Arminius wrote:

„Example: It is not possible that a physical experiment explains what physics „is“. This was what Heidegger meant when he said: „Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht“ („the science does not think“).

Arminius wrote:

»Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.« ** **

So philosophy (especially its ontology) has to say what physics „is“ and what reality „is“.“ ** **

Gib wrote:

„If science strikes out, then philosophy seems next up to bat. But even that can strike out as history proves. What about one's own personal experiences?“ **

Then you will immediately get the old blame: „You are a subjectivist“. Philosophers should not be either subjectivists or objectivists, but should try to overcome the subject/object problem.

6308

Arminius wrote:

„Now, look at the typical architecture of the current phase:

Transparenz-BauDekonstruktivistischer BauDekonstruktivistischer BauMilitärhistorisches Museum in DresdenAllianz-Arena

** **

Form follows fantasy.

More.

6309

Arminius wrote:

„Maybe we will get the European unification after a civil war as it has taken place in the Ancient Roman times. So we will get „Marius“, a „Sulla“, a „Ceasar“ and at last an „Augustus“.

„The Crisis of the Roman Republic - an extended period of political instability and social unrest, from about 133 BC to 30 BC.
Social War (91–88 BC), between Rome and many of its Italian allies - Roman victory.
Sulla's first civil war (88–87 BC), between Lucius Cornelius Sulla's supporters and Gaius Marius' forces - Sullan victory.
Sertorian War (83–72 BC ), between Rome and the provinces of Hispania under the leadership of Quintus Sertorius, a supporter of Gaius Marius - Sullan victory.
Sulla's second civil war (82–81 BC), between Sulla and Marius' supporters - Sullan victory.
Lepidus' rebellion (77 BC), when Lepidus rebelled against the Sullan regime.
Catiline Conspiracy (63–62 BC), between the Senate and the dissatisfied followers of Catiline - Senatorial victory.
Caesar's Civil War (49–45 BC), between Julius Caesar and the Optimates initially led by Pompey - Caesarean victory.
Post-Caesarian civil war (44–43 BC), between the Senate's army (led first by Cicero and then by Octavius) and the army of Antony, Lepidus, and their colleagues - Truce results in union of forces.
Liberators' civil war (44–42 BC), between the Second Triumvirate and the Liberators (Brutus and Cassius, Caesar's assassins) - Triumvirate victory.
Sicilian revolt (44–36 BC), between the Second Triumvirate (particularly Octavius and Agrippa) and Sextus Pompey, the son of Pompey - Triumvirate victory.
Perusine War (41–40 BC), between the forces of Octavius against Lucius Antonius and Fulvia (the younger brother and wife of Mark Antony) - Octavius victory.
Final War of the Roman Republic (32–31 BC), between Octavius and his friend and general Agrippa against Mark Antony and Cleopatra - Octavius victory.“ **

Blood, sweat and tears.“ ** **

Our Crisis as an extended period of political instability and social unrest has already begun.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN