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

<= [1091][1092][1093][1094][1095][1096][1097][1098][1099][1100] =>

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 1091) Arminius, 01.11.2017, 15:53, 16:11, 16:25, 18:48, 19:16; 19:40; 20:51; Alf, 01.11.2017, 21:50 (6631-6638)

6631

I define „thoughts“ as „concsious thoughts“. So to me, „unsonscious thoughts“ don't exist at all, and something like „subconscious thoughts“ should not be called „thoughts“ or just „subconscious thoughts“ or „preconscious thoughts“.

6632

The difference between the age of the two kids (**) seems to be only about one year.

It reminds me of the fact that the difference between one of my brothers’ age and my age is one year.

B., M., J., M., H.

The photo shows two of my many cousins, two of my three brothers, and me. The brother in the middle is one year older than I am.

6633

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Brando wrote:

›Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.‹ **

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:

›This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?‹ **

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.« ** **

Is this fundamental way the one Heidegger described?“ ** **

Yes. I think that Brando has meant Heidegger’s fundamental ontology as a component of his existence philosophy.

6634

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»

B., M., J., M., H.

« ** **

Your playing hard to get with the camera was adorable. Too cute!“ **

What do you mean exactly?

6635

Wendy Darling wrote:

„You don't see your 'lil self staring down the camera with the, »I'm not playing along with this staged photo because I'd rather be reading an advanced chemistry book, so hurry up and take the picture, I have research to get back to?« Do you smile for pictures now?“ **

I can't!
Or, wait.
Is there a little smile?

H.

Yes.

6636

The following photo I posted once shows my daughter:

Arminius wrote:

„A very lovable human - being imaged:

L.

** **

L.

Smile?

6637

Gib wrote:

„She's adorable!“ **

Yes, she is. Thanks, Gib.

Gib wrote:

„I had no idea you had a daughter, Arminius.“ **

I have a son and a daughter. In addition, I have a stepson.

I am very happy.

6638

James S. Saint wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Thoughts are always conscious.« ** **

In a different sense, unrelated to art, a great deal of thinking and the associated »thoughts« are not conscious (unless you are defining thoughts as only the conscious thoughts). A great deal of cognition is subconscious deducing, predicting, and presuming and often very complex thoughts, difficult to express in spoken language.“ **

But the spoken language can and does express those very complex thoughts.


Those so-called „strategists“ (**) are liars and fakers; so by „strategizing“ (**) they just mean „lying“ and „faking“.

 

NACH OBEN 1092) Arminius, 03.11.2017, 18:33; Alf, 03.11.2017, 22:35 (6639-6640)

6639

Wendy Darling wrOte:

„Arminius wrote:

„Gib wrote:

»She's adorable!« **

Yes, she is. Thanks, Gib.

Gib wrote:

»I had no idea you had a daughter, Arminius.« **

I have a son and a daughter. In addition, I have a stepson.

I am very happy.“ ** **

Aw, I agree with Gib. She does take after her Daddy it seems.“ **

Yes, she does, Wendy Darling. Thanks.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»

L.

« ** **

Aw, beautiful - and this is why love evolved.“ **

Maybe that there are other reasons too why love evolved (if it did at all [because: perhaps love was, is and will always be there]), but this one belongs to them - in any case.

•••••••••••••••

By the way:

My children are adults now. If they were not, I would not publish any photo of them.

My first child was born when I was 21½ years old.

6640

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„I dislike Trixie ....“ **

That’s your subjective „opinion“ and has nothing to do with the subject here.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„I don't think that any sort of ban is the answer ....“ **

That’s a more objective contribution, and I can agree to that.

 

NACH OBEN 1093) Alf, 05.11.2017, 20:37; Arminius, 05.11.2017, 22:36, 23:26, 23:32 (6641-6644)

6641

Discuss the double standard.

6642

Except only the non-powerful majority of the white race, all other races and the powerful minority of rthe white race have a victim mentality. And this victim mentality is the powerful one these days. The global rulers as a tiny minority uses the victim mentality, and the global non-white mass as a huge majority uses the victim mentality. But the non-powerful majority of the white race as a global minority does not use the victim mentality, or, if this global minority tries to do it, it is accused of being racist, whereby the non-whites and the global rulers are excused and therefore not punishable. So the non-powerful white mass is not allowed to use the victim mentality. To the non-powerful white mass the victim mentality is a taboo these days. To all others it is just the other way round.

In times of globalism, the white mass is a minority (about 16%), whereas the non-white mass is a majority (about 83%; plus the minority of the global rulers: about 84%). To the globalists as the global rulers (about 1%) it is much easier, more advantageous, more usefull to be in „agreement“ with the global majority (about 83%).

An increasing majority of the white race (= a global minority) tries to use the victim mentality too; but whites are not allowed to do it in their own name; so they do it to in the name of the non-white global majority and/or in the name of the ruling white globalists by supporting and obeying them.

„The global business goes on.“

Globalismus Globalismus Globalismus Globalismus 

„The global business must go on.“

6643

We do not only talk in order to communicate, but also in order to e.g. get power ... and so on. So, communication can also be something like a lie, a fake, a mask, an excuse ... and so on and so forth.

6644

Imagine yourself on a philosophy forum (if there is a real one at all ) having no „thoughts“.

 

NACH OBEN 1094) Arminius, 07.11.2017, 09:08, 10:48, 20:04; Alf, 07.11.2017, 21:50, 21:53; Arminius, 07.11.2017, 22:46, 23:21, 21:53, 21:53 (6645-6648)

6645

Maybe for you (**), but not for me.

Communication is not only used, but also misused, especially for power, control. And that is absolutely relevant for all living beings.

So, ILP is an example too. The misuse of communication can be find in each ILP thread.

6646

Language is not only relevant for communication, but also for e.g. expression without any communication partner.

Also, communication can be misused.

Arminius wrote:

„We do not only talk in order to communicate, but also in order to e.g. get power ... and so on. So, communication can also be something like a lie, a fake, a mask, an excuse ... and so on and so forth.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Communication is not only used, but also misused, especially for power, control. And that is absolutely relevant for all living beings.

So, ILP is an example too. The misuse of communication can be find in each ILP thread.“ ** **

6647

Talking is langugae, regardless whether you agree or not.

6648

Copied post in another thread.

6649

Here is an „Elephant Talk“, produced by an animal herd:

- King Crimson (Fripp, Belew, Bruford, Levin), Elephant Talk, 1981.

6650

That is language too, but of different kinds. This „animal herd“ is talking by using musical instruments, bodies, voices. There is communication and there is expression in that musical and non-musical language.

By the way (and in order to come closer to the topic): It is art to a large and philosophy to a lower extent.

Now you can value it and say that this art and philosophy are typical for our late modern phase. Okay. The heck with it!

6651

I am speaking of language in general.

The misuse of communication is a wilful one, at least to a very large extent.

6652

Here is the text of that said song:

„Talk, it's only talk
Arguments, agreements, advice, answers,
Articulate announcements
It's only talk

Talk, it's only talk
Babble, burble, banter, bicker bicker bicker
Brouhaha, boulderdash, ballyhoo
It's only talk
Back talk

Talk talk talk, it's only talk
Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy
Chatter, chit-chat, chit-chat, chit-chat,
Conversation, contradiction, criticism
It's only talk
Cheap talk

Talk, talk, it's only talk
Debates, discussions
These are words with a D this time
Dialogue, dualogue, diatribe,
Dissention, declamation
Double talk, double talk

Talk, talk, it's all talk
Too much talk
Small talk
Talk that trash
Expressions, editorials, expugnations, exclamations, enfadulations
It's all talk
Elephant talk, elephant talk, elephant talk“ **

This animal herd is lamenting the senselessness of human communication.

 

NACH OBEN 1095) Alf, 09.11.2017, 02:10; Arminius, 09.11.2017, 17:47, 19:03, 19:37, 20:14 (6653-6657)

6653

I am not saying that each kind of strategizing has to do with lying and faking. I am saying that lying and faking have to do with strategizing. Do you know anyone who uses a lie without a streategy behind it?

6654

The statement that „talking is language“ (**|**) is a fact. I was talking about a fact. You are trying to put something in my mouth I never said. I did not say that there is no self-deception. If you want to tell something about self-deception, then just do it, but note that it should have to do with the topic of this thread.

6655

The purpose is power. This power is meant as mono-power over all others; and this mono-power is, economically said, a monopoly and, politcally said, a monarchy.

The other point is that humans are more and more replaced by machines, thus less and less needed (**|**).

Now, guess what the conclusion is.

6656

Language is related to how humans think, yes, but it is also related to how humans communicate in general.

6657

- Die Fantastischen Vier (Beck, Dürr, Rieke, Schmidt), Großstadt, 1991.
- Die Fantastischen Vier (Beck, Dürr, Rieke, Schmidt), Die da, 1992.
- Die Fantastischen Vier (Beck, Dürr, Rieke, Schmidt), Schizophren, 1993.
- Die Fantastischen Vier (Beck, Dürr, Rieke, Schmidt), Albert und die Philosophie, 1993.

 

NACH OBEN 1096) Arminius, 11.11.2017, 00:11, 01:20 (6658-6659)

6658

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Arcturus Descending wrote:

›Arminius wrote:

'

L.

' ** **

Aw, beautiful - and this is why love evolved.‹ **

Maybe that there are other reasons too why love evolved (if it did at all [because: perhaps love was, is and will always be there]), but this one belongs to them - in any case.

•••••••••••••••

By the way:

My children are adults now. If they were not, I would not publish any photo of them.

My first child was born when I was 21½ years old.« ** **

I think that love evolved (if we can use that word) as a way to not only perpetuate the human species but to save it.
There are different forms of love. I think that love is like the ocean, it ebbs and it flows.

Your daughter was beautiful. It also says something about you that you would not insert your children online when they are young. I can never understand the human's need to show off their children rather than to protect them.

You are also loyal to your friends I have found.“ **

Thank you very much.

You are right.

The evolution (if we can use that word) of love is not only a way to perpetuate the human species but also to save it. We can observe this process in those families where parents protect their children as much as it is necessary for the children’s development.

Love is needed for both phylogenesis and ontogenesis. Without love there is no evolution, at least not for „higher“ living beings. The „higher“ the living beings are, the more love they need.

Here on ILP are many (too many?) members who are saying that the will to power is the only aspect when it comes to evolution; but that is only one side of the evolutionary „coin“, the other one is the will to love.

We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should we do this? - [1] By practising love; [2] by enlighten others and clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love (how? => [1] and [2]).

You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love.

6659

I would like to know what you think about the following text:

Oswald Spengler wrote:

It remains, now, to say a word as to the morphology of a history of philosophy.

There is no such thing as Philosophy »in itself«. Every Culture has its own philosophy, which is a part of its total symbolic expression and forms with its posing of problems and methods of thought an intellectual ornamentation that is closely related to that of architecture and the arts of form. From the high and distant standpoint it matters very little what »truths« thinkers have managed to formulate in words within their respective schools, for, here as in every great art, it is the schools, conventions and repertory of forms that are the basic elements. Infinitely more important than the answers are the questions – the choice of them, the inner form of them. For it is the particular way in which a macrocosm presents itself to the understanding man of a particular Culture that determines a priori the whole necessity of asking them, and the way in which they are asked.

The Classical and the Faustian Culture, and equally the Indian and the Chinese, have each their proper ways of asking, and further, in each case, all the great questions have been posed at the very outset. There is no modern problem that the Gothic did not see and bring into form, no Hellenistic problem that did not of necessity come up for the old Orphic temple-teachings.

It is of no importance whether the subtilizing turn of mind expresses itself here in oral tradition and there in books, whether such books are personal creations of an »I« as they are amongst ourselves or anonymous fluid masses of texts as in India, and whether the result is a set of comprehensible systems or, as in Egypt, glimpses of the last secrets are veiled in expressions of art and ritual. Whatever the variations, the general course of philosophies as organisms is the same. At the beginning of every springtime period, philosophy, intimately related to great architecture and religion, is the intellectual echo of a mighty metaphysical living, and its task is to establish critically the sacred causality in the world-image seen with the eye of faith. The basic distinctions, not only of science but also of philosophy, are dependent on, not divorced from, the elements of the corresponding religion. In this springtime, thinkers are, not merely in spirit but actually in status, priests. Such were the Schoolmen and the Mystics of the Gothic and the Vedic as of the Homeric (1) and the Early-Arabian centuries. With the setting-in of the Late period, and not earlier, philosophy becomes urban and worldly, frees itself from subservience to religion and even dares to make that religion itself the object of epistemological criticism. The great theme of Brahman, Ionic and Baroque philosophies is the problem of knowing. The urban spirit turns to look at itself, in order to establish the proposition that there is no higher judgment-seat of knowing beyond itself, and with that thought draws nearer to higher mathematics and instead of priests we have men of the world, statesmen and merchants and discoverers, tested in high places and by high tasks, whose ideas about thought rest upon deep experience of life. Of such are the series of great thinkers from Thales to Protagoras and from Bacon to Hume, and the series of pre-Confucian and pre-Buddha thinkers of whom we hardly know more than the fact that they existed.

(1) It is possible that the peculiar style of Heraclitus, who came of a priestly family of the temple of Ephesus, is an example of the form in which the old Orphic wisdom was orally transmitted.

At the end of such series stand Kant and Aristotle (2), and after them there set in the Civilization-philosophies. In every Culture, thought mounts to a climax, setting the questions at the outset and answering them with ever-increasing force of intellectual expression – and, as we have said before, ornamental significance – until exhausted; and then it passes into a decline in which the problems of knowing are in every respect stale repetitions of no significance. There is a metaphysical period, originally of a religious and finally of a rationalistic cast – in which thought and life still contain something of chaos, an unexploited fund that enables them effectively to create – and an ethical period in which life itself, now become megalopolitan, appears to call for inquiry and has to turn the still available remainder of philosophical creative-power on to its own conduct and maintenance. In the one period life reveals itself, the other has life as its object. The one is »theoretical« (contemplative) in the grand sense, the other perforce practical. Even the Kantian system is in its deepest characters contemplated in the first instance and only afterwards logically and systematically formulated and ordered.

(2) Here we are considering only the scholastic side. The mystic side, from which Pythagoras and Leibniz were not very far, reached its culminations in Plato and Goethe, and in our own case it has been extended beyond Goethe by the Romantics, Hegel and Nietzsche, whereas Scholasticism exhausted itself with Kant – and Aristotle – and degenerated thereafter into a routine-profession.

We see this evidenced in Kant’s attitude to mathematics. No one is a genuine metaphysician who has not penetrated into the form-world of numbers, who has not lived them into himself as a symbolism. And in fact it was the great thinkers of the Baroque who created the analytical mathematic, and the same is true, mutatis mutandis, of the great pre-Socratics and Plato . Descartes and Leibniz stand beside Newton and Gauß, Pythagoras and Plato by Archytas and Archimedes, at the summits of mathematical development. But already in Kant the philosopher has become, as mathematician, negligible. Kant no more penetrated to the last subtleties of the Calculus as it stood in his own day than he absorbed the axiomatic of Leibniz. The same may be said of Aristotle. And thenceforward there is no philosopher who is counted as a mathematician. Fichte, Hegel and the Romantics were entirely unmathematical, and so were Zeno (3) and Epicurus. Schopenhauer in this field is weak to the point of crudity, and of Nietzsche the less said the better. When the form-world of numbers passed out of its ken, philosophy lost a great convention, and since then it has lacked not only structural strength but also what may be called the grand style of thinking. Schopenhauer himself admitted that he was a hand-to-mouth thinker (Gelegenheitsdenker).

(3) Zeno the Stoic, not to be confused with Zeno of Elea, whose mathematical fineness has already been alluded to. - Translator.

With the decline of metaphysics, ethics has outgrown its status as a subordinate element in abstract theory. Henceforth it is philosophy, the other divisions being absorbed into it and practical living becoming the centre of consideration. The passion of pure thought sinks down. Metaphysics, mistress yesterday, is handmaid now; all it is required to do is to provide a foundation for practical views. And the foundation becomes more and more superfluous. It becomes the custom to despise and mock at the metaphysical, the unpractical, the philosophy of »stone for bread«. In Schopenhauer it is for the sake of the fourth book that the first three exist at all. Kant merely thought that it was the same with him; in reality, pure and not applied reason is still his centre of creation. There is exactly the same difference in Classical philosophy before and after Aristotle – on the one hand, a grandly conceived Cosmos to which a formal ethic adds almost nothing, and, on the other, ethics as such, as programme, as necessity with a desultory ad hoc metaphysic for basis. And the entire absence of logical scruple with, which Nietzsche, for instance, dashes off such theories makes no difference whatever to our appreciation of his philosophy proper.

It is well known (4) that Schopenhauer did not proceed to Pessimism from his metaphysic but, on the contrary, was led to develop his system by the pessimism that fell upon him in his seventeenth year. Shaw, a most significant witness, observes in his »Quintessence of Ibsenism« that one may quite well accept Schopenhauer’s philosophy and reject his metaphysics – therein quite accurately discriminating between that which makes him the first thinker of the new age and that which is included because an obsolete tradition held it to be indispensable in a complete philosophy. No one would undertake to divide Kant thus, and the attempt would not succeed if it were made. But with Nietzsche one has no difficulty in perceiving that his »philosophy« was through-and-through an inner and very early experience, while he covered his metaphysical requirements rapidly and often imperfectly by the aid of a few books, and never managed to state even his ethical theory with any exactitude. Just the same overlay of living seasonable ethical thought on a stratum of metaphysics required by convention (but in fact superfluous) is to be found in Epicurus and the Stoics. We need have no doubt after this as to what is the essence of a Civilization-philosophy.

(4) Neue Paralipomena, § 656.

Strict metaphysics has exhausted its possibilities. The world-city has definitely overcome the land, and now its spirit fashions a theory proper to itself, directed of necessity outward, soulless. Henceforward, we might with some justice replace the word »soul« by the word »brain«. And, since in the Western »brain« the will to power, the tyrannical set towards the Future and purpose to organize everybody and everything, demands practical expression, ethics, as it loses touch more and more with its metaphysical past, steadily assumes a social-ethical and social-economic character. The philosophy of the present that starts from Hegel and Schopenhauer is, so far as it represents the spirit of the age (which, e.g., Lotze and Herbart do not), a critique of society.

The attention that the Stoic gave to his own body, the Westerner devotes to the body social. It is not chance that Hegelian philosophy has given rise to Socialism (Marx, Engels), to Anarchism (Stirner) and to the problem-posing social drama (Hebbel). Socialism is political economy converted into the ethical and, moreover, the imperative mood. So long as a metaphysic existed (that is, till Kant) political economy remained a science. But as soon as »philosophy« became synonymous with practical ethics, it replaced mathematics as the basis of thought about the world – hence the importance of Cousin, Bentham, Comte, Mill and Spencer.

To choose his material at will is not given to the philosopher, neither is the material of philosophy always and everywhere the same. There are no eternal questions, but only questions arising out of the feelings of a particular being and posed by it. Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis applies also to every genuine philosophy as the intellectual expression of this being, as the actualization of spiritual possibilities in a form-world of concepts, judgments and thought-structures comprised in the living phenomenon of its author. Any and every such philosophy is, from the first word to the last, from its most abstract proposition to its most telltale trait of personality, a thing-become, mirrored over from soul into world, from the realm of freedom into that of necessity, from the immediate-living into the dimensional-logical; and on that very account it is mortal, and its life has prescribed rhythm and duration. The choice of them, therefore, is subject to strict necessity. Each epoch has its own, important for itself and for no other epoch. It is the mark of the born philosopher that he sees his epoch and his theme with a sure eye. Apart from this, there is nothing of any importance in philosophical production – merely technical knowledge and the industry requisite for the building up of systematic and conceptual subtleties.

Consequently, the distinctive philosophy of the 19th Century is only Ethics and social critique in the productive sense – nothing more. And consequently, again, its most important representatives (apart from actual practitioners) are the dramatists. They are the real philosophers of Faustian activism, and compared with them not one of the lecture-room philosophers and systematics counts at all. All that these unimportant pedants have done for us is, so to write and rewrite the history of philosophy (and what history! – collections of dates and »results«) that no one today knows what the history of philosophy is or what it might be.

Thanks to this, the deep organic unity in the thought of this epoch has never yet been perceived. The essence of it, from the philosophical point of view, can be precised by asking the question: In how far is Shaw the pupil and fulfiller of Nietzsche? The question is put in no ironic spirit. Shaw is the one thinker of eminence who has consistently advanced in the same direction as that of the true Nietzsche – namely, productive criticism of the Western morale – while following out as poet the last implications of Ibsen and devoting the balance of the artistic creativeness that is in him to practical discussions.

Save in so far as the belated Romanticist in him has determined the style, sound and attitude of his philosophy, Nietzsche is in every respect a disciple of the materialistic decades. That which drew him with such passion to Schopenhauer was (not that he himself or anyone else was conscious of it) that element of Schopenhauer’s doctrine by which he destroyed the great metaphysic and (without meaning to do so) parodied his master Kant; that is to say, the modification of all deep ideas of the Baroque age into tangible and mechanistic notions. Kant speaks in inadequate words, which hide a mighty and scarcely apprehensible intuition, an intuition of the world as appearance or phenomenon. In Schopenhauer this becomes the world as brain-phenomenon (Gehirnphänomen). The change-over from tragic philosophy to philosophical plebeianism is complete. It will be enough to cite one passage. In »The World as Will and Idea« Schopenhauer says: »The will, as thing-in-itself, constitutes the inner, true and indestructible essence of the man; in itself, however, it is without consciousness. For the consciousness is conditioned by the intellect and this is a mere accident of our being, since it is a function of the brain, and that again (with its dependent nerves and spinal cord) is a mere fruit, a product, nay, even a parasite of the rest of the organism, inasmuch as it does not intervene directly in the latter’s activities but only serves a purpose of self-preservation by regulating its relations with the outer world.« Here we have exactly the fundamental position of the flattest materialism. It was not for nothing that Schopenhauer, like Rousseau before him, studied the English sensualists. From them he learned to misread Kant in the spirit of megalopolitan utilitarian modernity. The intellect as instrument of the will-to-life (5), as weapon in the struggle for existence, the ideas brought to grotesque expression by Shaw in »Man and Superman« – it was because this was his view of the world that Schopenhauer became the fashionable philosopher when Darwin’s main work was published in 1859. In contrast to Schelling, Hegel and Fichte, he was a philosopher, and the only philosopher, whose metaphysical propositions could be absorbed with ease by intellectual mediocrity. The clarity of which he was so proud threatened at every moment to reveal itself as triviality. While retaining enough of formula to produce an atmosphere of profundity and exclusiveness, he presented the civilized view of the world complete and assimilable. His system is anticipated Darwinism, and the speech of Kant and the concepts of the Indians are simply clothing. In his book »Über den Willen in der Natur« (1835) we find already the struggle for self-preservation in Nature, the human intellect as master-weapon in that struggle and sexual love as unconscious selection according to biological interest. (6)

(5) Even the modern idea that unconscious and impulsive acts of life are completely efficient, while intellect can only bungle, is to be found in Schopenhauer (Vol. II, cap. 30).
(6) In the chapter »Zur Metaphysik der Geschlechtsliebe » (II, 44) the idea of natural selection for the preservation of the genus is anticipated in full.

It is the view that Darwin (via Malthus) brought to bear with irresistible success in the field of zoology. The economic origin of Darwinism is shown by the fact that the system deduced from the similarities between men and the higher animals ceases to fit even at the level of the plant-world and becomes positively absurd as soon as it is seriously attempted to apply it with its will-tendency (natural selection, mimicry) to primitive organic forms. 3 Proof, to the Darwinian, means to the ordering and pictorial presentation of a selection of facts so that they conform to his historico-dynamic basic feeling of »Evolution«. Darwinism – that is to say, that totality of very varied and discrepant ideas, in which the common factor is merely the application of the causality principle to living things, which therefore is a method and not a result – was known in all details to the 18th Century. Rousseau was championing the ape-man theory as early as 1754. What Darwin originated is only the »Manchester School« system, and it is this latent political element in it that accounts for its •popularity.

The spiritual unity of the century is manifest enough here. From Schopenhauer to Shaw, everyone has been, without being aware of it, bringing the same principle into form. Everyone (including even those who, like Hebbel, knew nothing of Darwin) is a derivative of the evolution-idea – and of the shallow civilized and not the deep Goethean form of it at that – whether he issues it with a biological or an economic imprint. There is evolution, too, in the evolution-idea itself, which is Faustian through and through, which displays (in sharpest contrast to Aristotle’s timeless entelechy-idea) all our passionate urgency towards infinite future, our will and sense of aim which is so immanent in, so specific to, the Faustian spirit as to be the a priori form rather than the discovered principle of our Nature-picture. And in the evolution of evolution we find the same change taking place as elsewhere, the turn of the Culture to the Civilization. In Goethe evolution is upright, in Darwin it is flat; in Goethe organic, in Darwin mechanical; in Goethe an experience and emblem, in Darwin a matter of cognition and law. To Goethe evolution meant inward fulfilment, to Darwin it meant »Progress«. Darwin’s struggle for existence, which he read into Nature and not out of it, is only the plebeian form of that primary feeling which in Shakespeare’s tragedies moves the great realities against one another; but what Shakespeare inwardly saw, felt and actualized in his figures as destiny, Darwinism comprehends as causal connexion and formulates as a superficial system of utilities. And it is this system and not this primary feeling that is the basis of the utterances of »Zarathustra«, the tragedy of »Ghosts«, the problems of the »Ring of the Nibelungs«. Only, it was with terror that Schopenhauer, the first of his line, perceived what his own knowledge meant – that is the root of his pessimism, and the »Tristan« music of his adherent Wagner is its highest expression – whereas the late men, and foremost among them Nietzsche, face it with enthusiasm, though it is true, the enthusiasm is sometimes rather forced.

Nietzsche’s breach with Wagner – that last product of the German spirit over which greatness broods – marks his silent change of school-allegiance, his unconscious step from Schopenhauer to Darwin, from the metaphysical to the physiological formulation of the same world-feeling, from the denial to the affirmation of the aspect that in fact is common to both, the one seeing as will-to-life what the other regards as struggle for existence. In his »Schopenhauer als Erzieher« he still means by evolution an inner ripening, but the Superman is the product of evolution as machinery. And »Zarathustra« is ethically the outcome of an unconscious protest against »Parsifal« – which artistically entirely governs it – of the rivalry of one evangelist for another.

But Nietzsche was also a Socialist without knowing it. Not his catch-words, but his instincts, were Socialistic, practical, directed to that welfare of mankind that Goethe and Kant never spent a thought upon. Materialism, Socialism and Darwinism are only artificially and on the surface separable. It was this that made it possible for Shaw in the third act of, Man and Superman (one of the most important and significant of the works that issued from the transition) to obtain, by giving just a small and indeed perfectly logical turn to the tendencies of »master-morale« and the production of the Superman, the specific maxims of his own Socialism. Here Shaw was only expressing with remorseless clarity and full consciousness of the commonplace, what the uncompleted portion of the Zarathustra would have said with Wagnerian theatricality and woolly romanticism. All that we are concerned to discover in Nietzsche’s reasoning is its practical bases and consequences, which proceed of necessity from the structure of modern public life. He moves amongst vague ideas like »new values«, »Superman«, »Sinn der Erde«, and declines or fears to shape them more precisely. Shaw does it. Nietzsche observes that the Darwinian idea of the Superman evokes the notion of breeding, and stops there, leaves it at a sounding phrase. Shaw pursues the question – for there is no object in talking about it if nothing is going to be done about it – asks how it is to be achieved, and from that comes to demand the transformation of mankind into a stud-farm. But this is merely the conclusion implicit in the Zarathustra, which Nietzsche was not bold enough, or was too fastidious, to draw. If we do talk of systematic breeding – a completely materialistic and utilitarian notion – we must be prepared to answer the questions, who shall breed what, where and how? But Nietzsche, too romantic to face the very prosaic social consequences and to expose poetic ideas to the test of facts, omits to say that his whole doctrine, as a derivative of Darwinism, presupposes Socialism and, moreover, socialistic compulsion as the means; that any systematic breeding of a class of higher men requires as condition precedent a strictly socialistic ordering of society; and that this »Dionysiac« idea, as it involves a common action and is not simply the private affair of detached thinkers, is democratic, turn it how you may. It is the climax of the ethical force of »Thou shalt »; to impose upon the world the form of his will, Faustian man sacrifices even himself.

The breeding of the Superman follows from the notion of »selection«. Nietzsche was an unconscious pupil of Darwin from the time that he wrote aphorisms, but Darwin himself had remoulded the evolution-ideas of the 18th Century according to the Malthusian tendencies of political economy, which he projected on the higher animal-world. Malthus had studied the cotton industry in Lancashire, and already in 1857 we have the whole system, only applied to men instead of to beasts, in Buckle’s History of English Civilization.

In other words, the master-morale of this last of the Romantics is derived – strangely perhaps but very significantly – from that source of all intellectual modernity, the atmosphere of the English factory. The Machiavellism that commended itself to Nietzsche as a Renaissance phenomenon is something closely (one would have supposed, obviously) akin to Darwin’s notion of »mimicry«. It is in fact that of which Marx (that other famous disciple of Malthus) treats in his Das Kapital, the bible of political (not ethical) Socialism. That is the genealogy of »Herrenmoral«. The Will-to-Power, transferred to the realistic, political and economic domain, finds its expression in Shaw’s »Major Barbara«. No doubt Nietzsche, as a personality, stands at the culmination of this series of ethical philosophers, but here Shaw the party politician reaches up to his level as a thinker. The will-to-power is to-day represented by the two poles of public life – the worker-class and the big money-and-brain men – far more effectually than it ever was by a Borgia. The millionaire Undershaft of Shaw’s best comedy is a Superman, though Nietzsche the Romanticist would not have recognized his ideal in such a figure. Nietzsche is for ever speaking of transvaluations of all values, of a philosophy of the Future (which, incidentally, is merely the Western, and not the Chinese or the African future), but when the mists of his thought do come in from the Dionysiac distance and condense into any tangible form, the will-to-power appears to him in the guise of dagger-and-poison and never in that of strike and »deal«. And yet he says that the idea first came to him when he saw the Prussian regiments marching to battle in 1870.

The drama, in this epoch, is no longer poetry in the old sense of the Culture days, but a form of agitation, debate and demonstration. The stage has become a moralizing institution. Nietzsche himself often thought of putting his ideas in the dramatic form. Wagner’s Nibelung poetry, more especially the first draft of it (1850), expresses his social-revolutionary ideas, and even when, after a circuitous course under influences artistic and non-artistic, he has completed the »Ring«, his Siegfried is still a symbol of the Fourth Estate, his Brünhilde still the »free woman«. The sexual selection of which the »Origin of Species« enunciated the theory in 1859, was finding its musical expression at the very same time in the third act of Siegfried« and in Tristan«. It is no accident that Wagner, Hebbel and Ibsen, all practically simultaneously, set to work to dramatize the Nibelung material. Hebbel, making the acquaintance in Paris of Engels’s writings, expresses (in a letter of April 2., 1844) his surprise at finding that his own conceptions of the social principle of his age, which he was then intending to exemplify in a drama Zu irgend einer Zeit, coincided precisely with those of the future Communist Manifesto«. And, upon first making the acquaintance of Schopenhauer (letter of March 2.9, 1857), he is equally surprised by the affinity that he finds between the Welt als Wille und Vorstellung and tendencies upon which he had based his Holofernes and his Herodes und Mariamne. Hebbel’s diaries, of which the most important portion belongs to the years 1835-1845, were (though he did not know it) one of the deepest philosophical efforts of the century. It would be no surprise to find whole sentences of it in Nietzsche, who never knew him and did not always come up to his level.

The actual and effective philosophy of the 19th Century, then, has as its one genuine theme the Will-to-Power. It considers this Will-to-Power in civilized-intellectual, ethical, or social forms and presents it as will-to-life, as life-force, as practical-dynamical principle, as idea, and as dramatic figure. (The period that is closed by Shaw corresponds to the period 350-150 in the Classical.) The rest of the 19th-century philosophy is, to use Schopenhauer’s phrase, »professors« philosophy by philosophy-professors«. The real landmarks are these:

1819. Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. The will to life is for the first time put as the only reality (original force, Urkraft); but, older idealist influences still being potent, it is put there to be negatived (zur Verneinung empfohlen).

1836. Schopenhauer, Über den Willen in der Natur. Anticipation of Darwinism, but in metaphysical disguise.

1840. Proudhon, Quest-ce que la Propriété, basis of Anarchism. Comte, Cours de philosophie positive; the formula »order and progress«.

1841. Hebbel, »Judith«, first dramatic conception of the »New Woman« and the »Superman«. Feuerbach, Das Wesen des Christenthums.

1844. Engels, Umriß einer Kritik des Nationalokonomie, foundation of the materialistic conception of history. Hebbel, Maria Magdalena, the first social drama.

1847. Marx, Misère de la Philosophie (synthesis of Hegel and Malthus). These are the epochal years in which economics begins to dominate social ethic and biology.

1848. Wagner’s »Death of Siegfried«; Siegfried as social-ethical revolutionary, the Fafnir hoard as symbol of Capitalism.

1850. Wagner’s Kunst und Klima; the sexual problem.

1850-1858. Wagner’s, Hebbel’s and Ibsen’s Nibelung poetry.

1859 (year of symbolic coincidences). Darwin, »Origin of Species« (application of economics to biology). Wagner’s »Tristan«. Marx, Zur Kritik der politischen Okonomie.

1863. J. S. Mill, »Utilitarianism«.

1865. Dühring, Wert des Lebens – a work which is rarely heard of, but which exercised the greatest influence upon the succeeding generation.

1867. Ibsen, »Brand«. Marx, Das Kapital.

1878. Wagner, »Parsifal«. First dissolution of materialism into mysticism.

1879. Ibsen, »Nora«.

1881. Nietzsche, Morgenrdthe; transition from Schopenhauer to Darwin, morale as biological phenomenon.

1883. Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra; the Will-to-Power, but in Romantic disguise.

1886. Ibsen, »Rosmersholm«. Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse.

1887-1888. Strindberg, »Fadren« and »Froken Julie«.

From 1890 the conclusion of the epoch approaches. The religious works of Strindberg and the symbolical of Ibsen.

1896. Ibsen, »John Gabriel Borkman«: Nietzsche’s Übermensch. 1898. Strindberg, »Till Damascus«.

From 1900 the last phenomena.

1903. Weininger, Geschlecht und Charakter; the only serious attempt to revive Kant within this epoch, by referring him to Wagner and Ibsen.

1903. Shaw, »Man and Superman«; final synthesis of Darwin and Nietzsche.

1905. Shaw, »Major Barbara«; the type of the Superman referred back to its economic origins.

With this, the ethical period exhausts itself as the metaphysical had done. Ethical Socialism, prepared by Fichte, Hegel, and Humboldt, was at its zenith of passionate greatness about the middle of the 19th Century, and at the end thereof it had reached the stage of repetitions. The 20th Century, while keeping the word Socialism, has replaced an ethical philosophy that only Epigoni suppose to be capable of further development, by a praxis of economic everyday questions. The ethical disposition of the West will remain »socialistic« but its theory has ceased to be a problem. And there remains the possibility of a third and last stage of Western philosophy, that of a physiognomic scepticism. The secret of the world appears successively as a knowledge problem, a valuation problem and a form problem. Kant saw Ethics as an object of knowledge, the 19th Century saw it as an object of valuation. The Sceptic would deal with both simply as the historical expression of a Culture.“ (*Source of the translation*) *Source of the original*

 

NACH OBEN 1097) Arminius, 13.11.2017, 00:04; Alf, 13.11.2017, 00:07, 00:08, 00:09, 00:10; Arminius, 13.11.2017, 00:11, 00:12; Kathrina, 13.11.2017, 01:37, 01:38, 01:39; Arminius, 13.11.2017, 17:11, 17:29, 18:58, 19:45, 20:18 (6660-6674)

6660

Copied post in another thread.

6661

I think that there are indeed similarities between philosophy and art in the sense of cultural forms, so that both can be in a good form and afterwards in a bad form.

6662

When you are dreaming that „you are thinking or saying »am I dreaming this?«, then your consciousness is not involved.
When you are not dreaming, but thinking or saying „am I dreaming this?“, then your consciousness is involved.

6663

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.

Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (indusrtial/mecahnical) area: *

 Phase / stage   Average machine rate  Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare)  Average fertility rate
1)   1770-1870  LOW LOW HIGH
2) 1870-1970 MIDDLE MIDDLE MIDDLE
3) 1970-        HIGH HIGH LOW

* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).

Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.

In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the „evolution“ of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called „progress“ and the so called „revolutions“) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).‹ ** **

And when will the third phase end?« ** **

One could think: 2070. Right?  –  What I know for sure in this case is that the third phase will end with the end of the average high economic status.“ ** **

If the average machine rate will remain high and the average fertility rate will remain low, but the average economic status will shrink, then it will become clear that machines are in the long run a bad thing.

6664

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Alf wrote:

'The more global control, the more `Liberias´.‹ ** **

And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million 'Liberias'?« ** **

Unless the globalists will be stopped.« ** **

When?“ ** **

When the average economic status will shrink (**|**)?

6665

The evil is either denied or regarded as tests sent by God. So, either God (1) wants to repeal the evil, but can’t; or he (2) can, but doesn’t want to; or he (3) can’t and doesn’t want to; or he (4) can and wants to. The first three cases are, with regards to God, unthinkable. The last case contradicts the existence of evil.

We can give evidence or come to, for example, the following logical conclusion which is based upon physics and metaphysics: There must be a first mover, if everything is in move (this is not a real proof, but an evidence-based conclusion). Besides such an evidence-based conclusion, it is impossible to prove or to disprove God. And basically, there is only belief when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God. So, basically, theists and anti-theists are believers.

6666

Pantheists turn God into the All (universe, space, nature) or the All into God.

Arminius wrote:

„The pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomonistic pantheism: only God exists; the self-existence of the world is repealed.
2) Physionomistic pantheism: only the world exists (but is called „God“); the self-existence of God is repealed.
3) Transcendental pantheism (also called „panentheism“): the world is an appearance of God who contains the world; the self-existence of the world is not repealed but relativised.
4) Immanent-transcendeental pantheism: God realises himself in (the things of) the world; the self-existence of God is not repealed but relativised.“ ** **

6667

Are you alright now, Meno?

6668

Perhaps, Trump is for the globalists and for the US people.

6669

Arminius wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

I know you’re trusting me to see you right.  ‹ ** **

And I know you can’t stand the fighting for one more night. ** **

Joseph, the mud gives way to coral somewhere.
And the hours of light they last and last.
We'll see no hostile flag there from craft unknown.
We will have grown free from sighing.

6670

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Wendy Darling wrote:

›You don't see your 'lil self staring down the camera with the, »I'm not playing along with this staged photo because I'd rather be reading an advanced chemistry book, so hurry up and take the picture, I have research to get back to?« Do you smile for pictures now?‹ **

I can't!
Or, wait.
Is there a little smile?

H.

Yes.« ** **

You were a handsome little boy.

Thanks.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Was that really a smile?“ **

A little smile only.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„More like an »I dare you« kind of look.
Intense and precocious though I may be wrong.“ **

Perhaps, perhaps not. I abstain from such a judgement. May others judge whether I was precocious or not.

6671

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Why do you consider power and love to be antagonistic?“ **

I have never considered power and love to be antagonistic.

This is what I have said:

Arminius wrote:

„Arcturus Descending wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Arcturus Descending wrote:

'Arminius wrote:

`

L.

´ ** **

Aw, beautiful - and this is why love evolved.' **

Maybe that there are other reasons too why love evolved (if it did at all [because: perhaps love was, is and will always be there]), but this one belongs to them - in any case.

•••••••••••••••

By the way:

My children are adults now. If they were not, I would not publish any photo of them.

My first child was born when I was 21½ years old.‹ ** **

I think that love evolved (if we can use that word) as a way to not only perpetuate the human species but to save it.
There are different forms of love. I think that love is like the ocean, it ebbs and it flows.

Your daughter was beautiful. It also says something about you that you would not insert your children online when they are young. I can never understand the human's need to show off their children rather than to protect them.

You are also loyal to your friends I have found.« **

Thank you very much.

You are right.

The evolution (if we can use that word) of love is not only a way to perpetuate the human species but also to save it. We can observe this process in those families where parents protect their children as much as it is necessary for the children’s development.

Love is needed for both phylogenesis and ontogenesis. Without love there is no evolution, at least not for „higher“ living beings. The „higher“ the living beings are, the more love they need.

Here on ILP are many (too many?) members who are saying that the will to power is the only aspect when it comes to evolution; but that is only one side of the evolutionary „coin“, the other one is the will to love.

We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should we do this? - [1] By practising love; [2] by enlighten others and clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love (how? => [1] and [2]).

You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love.“ ** **

No consideration of antagonism between power and love!

Loveable people can be powerful, powerful people can be loveable.

But there are many (too many?) people who have diceded upon only one of the two.

6672

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Prismatic 567 wrote:

›God & The Problem of Evil (title of the opening post).‹ **

The evil is either denied or regarded as tests sent by God. So, either God (1) wants to repeal the evil, but can’t; or he (2) can, but doesn’t want to; or he (3) can’t and doesn’t want to; or he (4) can and wants to. The first three cases are, with regards to God, unthinkable. The last case contradicts the existence of evil.« ** **

Not sure of your point here.“ **

I have just referred to the topic of this (your!) thread: God & The Problem of Evil (see above).

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„My argument is, God has to be an absolutely perfect God, thus has to be absolutely good. Evil is real. Therefore God is an impossibility.“ **

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!

The God of the Old Testament is one of the examples showing that God does not have to be good only, but can be and is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

›We can give evidence or come to, for example, the following logical conclusion which is based upon physics and metaphysics: There must be a first mover, if everything is in move (this is not a real proof, but an evidence-based conclusion). Besides such an evidence-based conclusion, it is impossible to prove or to disprove God. And basically, there is only belief when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God. So, basically, theists and anti-theists are believers.‹ ** **

Note you started with a logical fallacy ....“ **

No, you started with a logical fallacy (see above).

And I know that you are going to go on with it.

Q.E.D.:

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I.e. conflation of different senses, i.e. equivocation of conflicting senses, i.e.;

1. Physics - empirical
2. Metaphysics - transcendent -non-empirical.“ **

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!

The fact that physics is the most empirical science does not mean that it is not also non-empirical. Mathematics, for instance, is closer to metaphysics than to physics, but it is needed in physics too. Mathematics is what you call „non-empirical“.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Sticking to the same sense, i.e. empirical, you will encounter an infinite regression, who created the 'first mover'?

True, both non-theists and theists are believers but while non-theists rely on objective Justified True Beliefs, theists rely on psychologically driven unjustified and unverifiable beliefs [faith-based].“ **

Objectivity is not typical for non-theists and not typical for theists. It does not depend on whether you are a theist or a non-theist. So, you are biased.

You are saying (in your signature) that you are „a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious“; you are suggesting that you are a non-theist. But all that is not true. You are either an anti-theist or a theist:

ILP - Viewing Profile :  Prismatic 567

Prismatic 567 and His Most Active Forum: Religion and Spirituality.

At least you seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).

6673

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›The pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomonistic pantheism: only God exists; the self-existence of the world is repealed.
2) Physionomistic pantheism: only the world exists (but is called „God“); the self-existence of God is repealed.
3) Transcendental pantheism (also called „panentheism“): the world is an appearance of God who contains the world; the self-existence of the world is not repealed but relativised.
4) Immanent-transcendeental pantheism: God realises himself in (the things of) the world; the self-existence of God is not repealed but relativised.‹ ** **

« ** **

Ultimately whatever God is presented in pantheism, that God has to be an entity, i.e. a Being with agency. The fundamental basis of the God of pantheism I argued is psychological albeit of a lesser degree compared to the common theists. When we push the pantheists for their ultimate meaning it [Being with agency] will be reduced to an absolutely perfect Being/God.

Some pantheist who do not dig deeper compare their God to something like "energy" [Physics] (which is pervasive and has potential) or they are hoping scientists will discover some physical empirical elements that they can equate with their intended God.
Because such a God is affixed with an empirical foundation, it will succumb to infinite regression.

In this case, the only way out of infinite regression is to resort to the non-scientific and reason out [without evidence] an absolutely perfect God, which inevitably must be absolutely good, thus no evil. Since evil exists, God is an impossibility to be real.“ **

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!

The God of the Old Testament is one of the examples showing that God does not have to be good only, but can be and mostly is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.

6674

Kathrina wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

I know you’re trusting me to see you right.  ‹ ** **

And I know you can’t stand the fighting for one more night. ** **

Joseph, the mud gives way to coral somewhere.
And the hours of light they last and last.
We'll see no hostile flag there from craft unknown.
We will have grown free from sighing.
** **

Singing the dolphin through ... still waters.

Should I feel better now?

 

NACH OBEN 1098) Arminius, 15.11.2017, 09:42, 09:45, 10:01, 10:31, 10:34, 10:46, 12:03, 12:35, 13:40, 13:43, 14:11, 18:01, 18:25, 18:51, 19:07, 19:25, 22:28, 22:38, 23:59 (6675-6693)

6675

Meno wrote:

Der Herbsttag - by Johann Heinrich Voss.

Die Baume stehn der Frucht entladen,
Und gelbes Laub verweht ins Tal
Das Stoppelfeld in Schimmerfaden
Erglanzt am niedern Mittagstrahl.
Es kreist der Vogel Schwarm , und ziehet;
Das Vieh verlangt zum Stall, und fliehet
Die magern Aun,vom Reife fahl,
O geh am sanften Scheidetage
Des Jahrs zu guter letzt hinaus;
Und nenn inn Summertag und trage
Den letzten schwer gefunden StrauB.
Bald stegt Gewolk und Sscbwartz dahinter
Der Sturm,und sein Genof,der Winter,
Und hult in Flocken Feld und Haus.
Ein weiser Mann,ihr Lieben haschet
die Freuden im Voruberfliehn,
Empfangt, was kommt unuberraschet,
Und pluckt die blumen, weil sie blunt.
Und sind die Blumen auch verschwunden;
So steht am Winterherd umwunden
Sein Festpokai mit immergrun
Noch trocken fuhrt durch Tal und Hugel
Der langst vertraube Sommerpfad.
Nur rotlich hangt am wasserspiegel
Der Baum, den grun ihr neulich sacht.
Doch grunt beim1 Rot der Hagendorne
Und Spillbeern, unsure Lagenstatt!
So still an warmer Sonne liegend,
Sehn wir das bunte Feld Hinan,
Und dort, auf schwartzer Brache plugend,
Mit Lustegpfeif ,den Ackermann.
Die Krah'n in fricher Furche schwammen
Dem Pfluge nach, und scbrein und Larmen;
Und dampfend zieht das Gaulgespanm,
Natur, wie schon in jedem Kleide!
Auch noch im Sterbekleid wie schon!
Sie micht in Wehmut sanfte Freude,
Und lachelt tranend noch I'm Gehen.
Du,welkes Laub, dad niederschauert,
Du Blumchen, lispelst: Nicht getrauert!
Wir werden schoner auferstehn!

Johann Heinrich Voss.

**

The following text is the original (German) text:

Johann Heinrich Voß wrote:

„Der Herbsttag

Die Bäume stehn der Frucht entladen,
Und gelbes Laub verweht ins Tal;
Das Stoppelfeld in Schimmerfaden
Erglänzt am niedern Mittagsstrahl.
Es kreist der Vögel Schwarm, und ziehet;
Das Vieh verlangt zum Stall, und fliehet
Die magern Aun, vom Reife fahl.

O geh am sanften Scheidetage
Des Jahrs zu guter letzt hinaus;
Und nenn ihn Sommertag und trage
Den letzten schwer gefundnen Strauß.
Bald steigt Gewölk, und schwarz dahinter
Der Sturm, und sein Genoß, der Winter,
Und hüllt in Flocken Feld und Haus.

Ein weiser Mann, ihr Lieben, haschet
die Freuden im Vorüberfliehn,
Empfängt, was kommt unüberraschet,
Und pflückt die Blumen, weil sie blühn.
Und sind die Blumen auch verschwunden;
So steht am Winterherd umwunden
Sein Festpokal mit Immergrün.

Noch trocken führt durch Tal und Hügel
Der längst vertraute Sommerpfad.
Nur rötlich hängt am Wasserspiegel
Der Baum, den grün ihr neulich saht.
Doch grünt der Kamp vom Winterkorne;
Doch grünt beim Rot der Hagedorne
Und Spillbeern, unsre Lagerstatt!

So still an warmer Sonne liegend,
Sehn wir das bunte Feld hinan,
Und dort, auf schwarzer Brache pflügend,
Mit Lustgepfeif, den Ackermann:
Die Kräh'n in frischer Furche schwärmen
Dem Pfluge nach, und schrein und lärmen;
Und dampfend zieht das Gaulgespann.

Natur, wie schön in jedem Kleide!
Auch noch im Sterbekleid wie schön!
Sie mischt in Wehmut sanfte Freude,
Und lächelt tränend noch im Gehen.
Du, welkes Laub, das niederschauert,
Du Blümchen, lispelst: Nicht getrauert!
Wir werden schöner auferstehn!

6676

Meno wrote:

„Arminius could You translate this into English if You see it?
I came across it in reference to mythological works, and is be interested in finding out what it means.

Thanks.“ **

I will do the translation soon.

6677

By the way:

Rainer Maria Rilke wrote:

„Herbsttag

Herr, es ist Zeit. Der Sommer war sehr groß.
Leg deinen Schatten auf die Sonnenuhren,
und auf den Fluren lass die Winde los.

Befiehl den letzten Früchten, voll zu sein;
gib ihnen noch zwei südlichere Tage,
dränge sie zur Vollendung hin, und jage
die letzte Süße in den schweren Wein.

Wer jetzt kein Haus hat, baut sich keines mehr.
Wer jetzt allein ist, wird es lange bleiben,
wird wachen, lesen, lange Briefe schreiben
und wird in den Alleen hin und her
unruhig wandern, wenn die Blätter treiben.“

Spanish translation:

„Día de otoño

Señor: ya es tiempo. El verano fue muy grande.
Pon tu sombra en los relojes solares,
y en los campos suelta a los vientos.

Manda los ultimos frutos a llenarse;
dales todavía dos días más sureños,
apurales hacia la culminación y mete
la ultima dulzura al vino pesado.

El que no tiene casa ahora, ya no va a construir.
El que está soló ahora, va estarlo por mucho tiempo,
Permanecerá despierto, leerá, escribirá largas cartas
Y paseará inquieto en las avenidas, de aquí para allá,
Mientras las hojas se las lleva el viento.“

English translation:

„Autumn Day

Lord, it is time. Let the great summer go,
Lay your long shadows on the sundials,
And over harvest piles let the winds blow.

Command the last fruits to be ripe;
Grant them some other southern hour,
Urge them to completion, and with power
Drive final sweetness to the heavy grape.

Who's homeless now, will for long stay alone.
No home will build his weary hands,
He'll wake, read, write letters long to friends
And will the alleys up and down
Walk restlessly, when falling leaves dance.“

That’s a good poem too. Isn’t it?

6678

Demoralized wrote:

„I don't see why an all powerful God can't exist as a contradiction.“ **

This contradiction or - let us say - dichotomy is the way most people „understand“ God.

6679

Demoralized wrote:

The Book of Job.“ **

Evil! Yes.

6680

Demoralized wrote:

„I don't love philosophy. I just like deep thoughts sometimes.“ **

Do you mean your own deep thoughts or other deep thoughts too?

Arminius wrote:

„Do I really love philosophy? Love? No, I don’t love philosophy, but I like philosophy. Probably I like philosophy even very much, but I don’t love philosophy.

....

Notice that the accentuation is on the word »love«!

One can love the next related and other next, but not the philosophy. Maybe I’ve merely mentioned a problem that belongs to the contrastive linguistics, because the English verb »love« is not exactly the same as e.g. the German verb »lieben«, and the English substantive »love« is not exactly the same as e.g. the German substantive »Liebe«, but even if it is so, it would also be a philosophical problem. The term »love« can refer to people, things, and everything else, but it doesn't do it to the same extent or with the same intensity in all languages. What do you think, if someone says »I love stones« instead of »I like stones«? If »love« and »like« become the same or almost the same - I think that’s the current semantic development of these two words -, then it is quite a loss of language and philosophy.“ ** **

6681

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I have never considered power and love to be antagonistic.

This is what I have said:

Arminius wrote:

›Arcturus Descending wrote:

'Arminius wrote:

`Arcturus Descending wrote:

``Arminius wrote:

```

L.

´´´ ** **

Aw, beautiful - and this is why love evolved.´´ **

Maybe that there are other reasons too why love evolved (if it did at all [because: perhaps love was, is and will always be there]), but this one belongs to them - in any case.

•••••••••••••••

By the way:

My children are adults now. If they were not, I would not publish any photo of them.

My first child was born when I was 21½ years old.´ ** **

I think that love evolved (if we can use that word) as a way to not only perpetuate the human species but to save it.
There are different forms of love. I think that love is like the ocean, it ebbs and it flows.

Your daughter was beautiful. It also says something about you that you would not insert your children online when they are young. I can never understand the human's need to show off their children rather than to protect them.

You are also loyal to your friends I have found.' **

Thank you very much.

You are right.

The evolution (if we can use that word) of love is not only a way to perpetuate the human species but also to save it. We can observe this process in those families where parents protect their children as much as it is necessary for the children’s development.

Love is needed for both phylogenesis and ontogenesis. Without love there is no evolution, at least not for „higher“ living beings. The „higher“ the living beings are, the more love they need.

Here on ILP are many (too many?) members who are saying that the will to power is the only aspect when it comes to evolution; but that is only one side of the evolutionary „coin“, the other one is the will to love.

We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should we do this? - [1] By practising love; [2] by enlighten others and clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love (how? => [1] and [2]).

You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love.‹ ** **

No consideration of antagonism between power and love!

Loveable people can be powerful, powerful people can be loveable.

But there are many (too many?) people who have diceded upon only one of the two.« ** **

Yes, you did say that we should have both.

But consider this. Consider a father who loves his son. What does that mean? It means that the father cares for the wellbeing of his son. It means that he wants his son to be powerful. And not only that, it means that he is motivated to do whatever has to be done in order to make his son as powerful as possible. So love, at least in this isolated case, has to do with power. But not necessarily your own power.

Also, in order to be able to love, you must have some sort of power. You cannot love if you have no power.

Power can be used for the purpose of destruction. You show no love to that which you destroy. You kill an animal or a man. That's power but that's no love. So power isn't necessarily love but love is necessarily power.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Maybe you are saying that power should be used to create and not merely to destroy.
I can agree with that.“ **

Fine.

6682

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Arcturus Descending wrote:

›More like an »I dare you« kind of look.
Intense and precocious though I may be wrong.‹ **

Perhaps, perhaps not. I abstain from such a judgement. May others judge whether I was precocious or not.  « ** **

We would probably need the concert of many or at least a few voices from the past carried into the present to establish that. Does past behavior necessarily determine future behavior albeit past *experience* may very well.“ **

Since my puberty I have been looking younger, first one, then two, three, four, five and at last even ten years younger than I should according to my respective real age. But that has nothing to do with precociousness. Precociousness has to do with the predisposition of being precocious; so it is more a question of the genotype than of the phenotype. Or do you mean that the look, outwardness or other formality of the appearance can clearly show precociousness. Is, for instance, a full beard of an fourteen year old „boy“ really a sign of precociousness? If so, then I have never been precocious. I was one of the last three or four (out of 40) pupils in my school class who became pubescent. I think that the word „precociousness“ means something different, namely something that has to do with the behavior.

6683

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I am aware the God of the OT is very evil but note the change and evolution in the NT.“ **

The New Testament (NT) is very much different from the Old Testament (OT). The God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call „the idea of an absolutely perfect God“ to a God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The „change“ you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is „theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God“:

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„My main point is theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God.

Theism has evolved from animism, polytheism, monotheism, towards an absolutely perfect God.“ **

That is just not true - for several reasons.

Theism did not „evolve“ in the sense you mentioned. Also, the word „evolution“ should not be used when it comes to religion, because all religions we know are so much different that it has never been a linear or progressive development, no evolution in the sense of the also problematic evolution theory. So instaed of the word „evolution“ we should use the word „history“. But that would be another topic. In any case, the „evolution“ you are trying to see there, if we really can take it seriously, has absolutely not gone from animism towards a perfect God. Firstly, animism means that the ghosts or gods the so-called „primitive humans“ believe in are already perfect, because they are (based upon) their own ancestors. They are so perfect that they have become totem persons and determined the respective taboos. This is an absolutely differnt kind of religion than, for instance, monotheism, so that we should not bring both together in your sense of an „evolution“ from „primitive“ to „progressive“. There is still animism in the world, and nobody really knows whether animism will end someday or not. Paganism is coming back. Polytheism is increasing again. Except Islam, monotheism is stagnating and will likely decreasing in the future. (**|**|**|**|**|**). Secondly, the God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call „the idea of an absolutely perfect God“ to God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The „change“ you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is „theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God“.

So this is just another logical fallacy coming from you.

Also: Are human beings „evolving“ towards perfection according to you?

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„The ... ultimate absolutely perfect God ....“ **

Wow, „ultimate absolutely perfect“! All three words are not gradable, improvable! So, you just use them rhetorically.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Mathematics is not a posteriori, but a priori which is still empirically-based.“

Mathematics is not physics, not a natural science - that is what I am saying. And in English spoken societies: mathematics is not a science at all.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„There are degrees to objectivity.

Theists beliefs has very low level objectivity.“ **

This can also be said about anti-theists (the other side of the „coin“) and about certain atheists, namely those who are ideologs.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Theists relied on beliefs but theirs are not justified-true-beliefs that can be rationally justified, e.g. repeatedly tested by anyone at anytime with same 'independent' results, e.g. as in Science.“ **

This can also be said about anti-theists (the other side of the „coin“) and about certain atheists, namely those who are ideologs.

Again:

Arminius wrote:

„Objectivity is not typical for non-theists and not typical for theists. It does not depend on whether you are a theist or a non-theist. So, you are biased.“ ** **

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You are saying (in your signature) that you are „a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious“; you are suggesting that you are a non-theist. But all that is not true. You are either an anti-theist or a theist:

ILP - Viewing Profile :  Prismatic 567

Prismatic 567 and His Most Active Forum: Religion and Spirituality.

At least you seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).« ** **

What kind of logic is that?
That is a fallacy based on hasty generalization.“ **

Note that I said „you seem ...“. I just used a bit statistics and made an assumption according to that - not more. Assumption can be, but do not have to be right. My assumption is based upon statistics, thus upon likelihood. But you should admit finally that this numbers are no lies and „say“ something about your posting behavior and also, at least likely, about your real preferences.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I have no problem being identified as anti-theistic but I prefer non-theism, non-theistic or not-a-theist.“ **

But you are not an atheist, but an anti-theist. Most of your postings have shown that clearly. An atheist (I mean a real one) says: „I do not care about theism“. But you are one of those who say: „Theism is my favorite subject“. And the user statistics about you confirms this clearly.

So again: Cou seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„To convince such evil prone theists ....“ **

Do you really not know the fact that there are evil prone anti-theists and atheists too?

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„God is illusory and an impossibility will destroy and 'defang' the very grounds they are relying on as duty to commit those horrendous evils.“ **

Your logical fallacy again.

Note that there is no proof of the impossibility of God.

6684

James S. Saint wrote:

„If everyone believed that God is tall, would that constitute a definition of »God«?

There are many things that are tall. Being tall is a single characteristic, but not a defining characteristic. Could the real God still be God without being tall? Perhaps one person's idea of "tall" isn't quite the same as everyone's. Perhaps your idea of tall isn't actually tall at all.

There are many things that as perfect. Being perfect is a single characteristic, but not a defining characteristic. Could the real God still be God without being perfect? Perhaps one person's idea of "perfect" isn't quite the same as everyone's. Perhaps your idea of perfect isn't perfect at all.

You would have to perfect understanding yourself to know what is or is not prefect. And though you presume that your understanding is perfect as you preach to others, have you considered that perhaps it isn't? I am certain that you do not understand perfection at all.

The defining characteristic of God is as stated;
The God = Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

Any other speculated characteristic of God is just that, "speculation", subjective opinion, poetic fancies, nothing more.

And disproving any speculated characteristic concerning God in no way disproves God.

You must prove that the defining characteristic is impossible.“ **

Yes. And just this is what he can and will never try to do - for several anti-theistic reasons he has. He is not able to admit that he is biased. Otherwise he would accept at least stringent definitions. His distinction between „relative perfection“ and „aboslute perfection“ is nonsense. Something or someone is either perfect or not. Perfection is not relocatable and not gradable, not improvable!

6685

The perspective of those who wrote the Old Testament obviously required an evil God.

6686

The increased prices of everything can be caused by giving everyone more and more money or by the raising of wgaes, thus also by minimum wages. Then ( a new) immigration of poor people has to start in order to curb this process a bit, only a bit, and for a short time, only for a short time. So, indeed, in the long run, more and more humans become poorer and poorer, whereas less and less humans become richer and richer.

This development is unfair, destructive, dangerous, stupid, and it is going to be stopped (the question is only: when?). Even the question of how is not relevant, because at last nature is going to stop it.

Likely PoorLikely Rich

6687

(**)

Or what about an „iron horse“ suit?

Again: If not the human beings, then nature itself is going to stop that unfair, destructive, dangerous and - last but not least - stupid development.

Infinite growth is not possible on our planet. So, globalism also means the last step of ecnomic growth on our globe.

6688

Meno, I post that video for you here:

- Paul Hindemith, Mathis der Maler, 1934.

A good one. Thanks.

6689

Hindemith's opera „Mathis der Maler“ concerns the painter Matthias Grünewald (1470-1530).

6690

Alf wrote:

„I think that there are indeed similarities between philosophy and art in the sense of cultural forms, so that both can be in a good form and afterwards in a bad form.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Occidental philosophy compared to - for example - a tree, architectural art, clothes:

Baum im Wandel
Abendland

** **

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

** **

6691

Demoralized wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Demoralized wrote:

›I don't love philosophy. I just like deep thoughts sometimes.‹ **

Do you mean your own deep thoughts or other deep thoughts too?« ** **

Both.“ **

I guess, that's fair.

6692

We don't need no electric noise!

6693

- Johann B. Strauss, An der schönen blauen Donau, 1867. **

 

NACH OBEN 1099) Arminius, 16.11.2017, 00:28, 12:25, 13:48, 17:17, 17:58, 19:00, 20:06, 22:24, 22:48, 23:58 (6694-6703)

6694

Liederjan (Ermisch, Noffke, Wiegandt) , Lustig lustig, ihr lieben Brüder, 1978.
- Liederjan (Ermisch, Noffke, Wiegandt) , Schlemmerlied, 1979.

6695

The following text is the translation of Johann Heinrich Voß’ poem „Der Herbsttag“:

„Der Herbsttag

Die Bäume stehn der Frucht entladen,
Und gelbes Laub verweht ins Tal;
Das Stoppelfeld in Schimmerfaden
Erglänzt am niedern Mittagsstrahl.
Es kreist der Vögel Schwarm, und ziehet;
Das Vieh verlangt zum Stall, und fliehet
Die magern Aun, vom Reife fahl.

O geh am sanften Scheidetage
Des Jahrs zu guter letzt hinaus;
Und nenn ihn Sommertag und trage
Den letzten schwer gefundnen Strauß.
Bald steigt Gewölk, und schwarz dahinter
Der Sturm, und sein Genoß, der Winter,
Und hüllt in Flocken Feld und Haus.

Ein weiser Mann, ihr Lieben, haschet
die Freuden im Vorüberfliehn,
Empfängt, was kommt unüberraschet,
Und pflückt die Blumen, weil sie blühn.
Und sind die Blumen auch verschwunden;
So steht am Winterherd umwunden
Sein Festpokal mit Immergrün.

Noch trocken führt durch Tal und Hügel
Der längst vertraute Sommerpfad.
Nur rötlich hängt am Wasserspiegel
Der Baum, den grün ihr neulich saht.
Doch grünt der Kamp vom Winterkorne;
Doch grünt beim Rot der Hagedorne
Und Spillbeern, unsre Lagerstatt!

So still an warmer Sonne liegend,
Sehn wir das bunte Feld hinan,
Und dort, auf schwarzer Brache pflügend,
Mit Lustgepfeif, den Ackermann:
Die Kräh'n in frischer Furche schwärmen
Dem Pfluge nach, und schrein und lärmen;
Und dampfend zieht das Gaulgespann.

Natur, wie schön in jedem Kleide!
Auch noch im Sterbekleid wie schön!
Sie mischt in Wehmut sanfte Freude,
Und lächelt tränend noch im Gehen.
Du, welkes Laub, das niederschauert,
Du Blümchen, lispelst: Nicht getrauert!
Wir werden schöner auferstehn!“

Johann Heinrich Voß

„The autumn day

The trees stand unloaded to the fruit,
And yellow foliage drifts away in the valley;
The stubblefield in light thread
Gleams in the lower midday beam.
The bird’s swarm wheels, and moves;
The cattle demands for the stable, and flee
The meagre meadows, paled from the rime.

Oh go on the gentle scabbard day
Of the year finally out;
And call it summer day and carry
The last hardly found bunch.
Soon clouds rise, and black behind it
The storm, and his enjoying, the winter,
And wraps in flakes field and house.

A wise man, dear ones, snatches
the joys in over-fleeing,
Receives what comes unsurprised,
And picks the flowers, because they bloom.
And if the flowers have also disappeared;
So stands at the winter stove entwined
Its festival cup with evergreen.

Still drily leads through valley and hill
The long been familar summer path.
Only reddishly hangs on the water level
The tree that green you recently saw.
Yet greens the field of the winter grain;
Yet greens with red of the hawthorns
And spill berries, our bed for the night!

So quietly recumbent in the warm sun,
We see the coloured field upward,
And there, on black fallow ploughing,
With lust whistling, the field man:
The crows in fresh furrow swarm
After the plough, and scream and make a noise;
And steamingly the horse team drags.

Nature, how nicely in every dress!
Still in the dying dress as nicely!
It mixes gentle joy in melancholy,
And smiles watering still in the walking.
You, wilted foliage, that shivers down,
You little flower, lisps: not mourned!
We will more beautifully rise!“

(Translated by me.)

.

6696

You are confusing many things here again. We are not saying that we need or want a God or something like that. We are just saying that your premises and your conclusions are false. So we are not arguing religiosuly, but logically.

You have proven nothing.

What you are doing is nothing else than advertising destruction, thus nihilism.

Why are you not simply saying: „I do not believe in God, and if others do, then I do not care“. That would be at least an honest statement. Then - and only then - you could justifiably claim to be an atheist. An atheist is not interested in theistic issues. You are obviously more interested in theistic issues than theists. So you are either a theist who deneies cynically to be one or an anti-theists who confuses anti-theism with atheism, likely also because of cynical motives.

6697

Arminius wrote:

„The increased prices of everything can be caused by giving everyone more and more money or by the raising of wgaes, thus also by minimum wages. Then ( a new) immigration of poor people has to start in order to curb this process a bit, only a bit, and for a short time, only for a short time. So, indeed, in the long run, more and more humans become poorer and poorer, whereas less and less humans become richer and richer.

This development is unfair, destructive, dangerous, stupid, and it is going to be stopped (the question is only: when?). Even the question of how is not relevant, because at last nature is going to stop it.

Likely PoorLikely Rich

** **

Arminius wrote:

„Again: If not the human beings, then nature itself is going to stop that unfair, destructive, dangerous and - last but not least - stupid development.

Infinite growth is not possible on our planet. So, globalism also means the last step of ecnomic growth on our globe.“ ** **

6698

Trying to understand what you exactly meant by „precociousness“, I googled the word and found not only other words, but also some photos.

Does one of the following four photos show - more or less - the meaning of „precociousness“?
If so: Which one ist it?

Precociousness? Really? Precociousness? Really? Precociousness? Really? Precociousness? Really? 

In every case one can find also other reasons (e.g.: autism, wrong or unidirectional education) why those kids are what we think they are. They are not or not necessarily precocious. Or are they (according to you)?

6699

Why should an emotion not be a kind of an affect?

Emotions are very complex. But if they were not based upon physiological things and changes, thus at last upon physical things and changes, then we would not know anything about their natural/materialistic origin and perhaps believe in magic again.

Emotion Wheel Emotionsrad

To me, a basic polarity of emotion(s) is the thymos-eros-polarity. It is not mentioned in the figure above, but likely could be found in the "rage" realm (see in the figure above) and "love" between two realms (see in the figure above). So, to me, thymos and eros could be two of more or just the two emotionally basic constitutions.

6700

There are some regions, for instance in South Italy, Spain and Portugal, where Christians believe more in the Mother of God than in God himself.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Not sure if you are a Christian, if you are a Christian and if you do not claim your God is an absolutely perfect God, then your god is inferior to Allah and Allah can easily command and control your God to its ass.“ **

To those henotheists, that’s the point anyway. So, in reality they are not monotheists, but henotheists, because they always believe, if they are true believers, that their God is more powerful than the God of the others, which means that they acknowledge, recognize, accept the God of the others as the God of the others (!), which would be a contradiction, if they were monotheists.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„So the rational choice for any theists [who understand the dilemma] is to claim one's God is an absolutely perfect God so that one's God will not be dominated by another God who claim itself as an absolutely perfect God.

So an absolute perfect God is imperative and all theists when they are in the know will have no choice by gravitate to an absolutely perfect God.
But the catch is an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

I had argued the idea of God arose from a very primal psychological impulse and that God [illusory] is an impossibility in the first place.
This is why no matter how you argue for your God [based on faith and psychological] will never be a possibility, i.e. an impossibility. GIGO.“ **

Where did I „argue for“ my (?!) „God“?

Again and again: You have proven nothing. Your statements show your nihilistic attitude towards others’ values and likely and unconsciously also your own values.

Not God is an impossibility, but the „proof that God is an impossibility“ is an impossibility. And this impossibility is just the reason why humans or most humans have always believed in gods. It is a success story just because of the impossibility that gods are impossibilities, regardless whether they are perfect or not, regardless wether they are absoute or not. So your kind of God is possible too.

6701

Meno wrote:

„Thank You for the translation and tonight I will try to compare the Voss with the Rilke for tje interest in synonymous structural and generally aesthetic contrast.

Do You think there is a flow of influence from the Vass to the Rilke?

He may have read him although he isn't at all as well known and I came across it quite by chance.“ **

I am pretty sure that Rilke knew Voß’ poem. But I am not sure whether there was a flow of influence from Voß to Rilke.

6702

Rilke’s poem „Archaischer Torso Apollos“:

Archaischer Torso Apollos

Wir kannten nicht sein unerhörtes Haupt,
darin die Augenäpfel reiften. Aber
sein Torso glüht noch wie ein Kandelaber,
in dem sein Schauen, nur zurückgeschraubt,

sich hält und glänzt. Sonst könnte nicht der Bug
der Brust dich blenden, und im leisen Drehen
der Lenden könnte nicht ein Lächeln gehen
zu jener Mitte, die die Zeugung trug.

Sonst stünde dieser Stein entstellt und kurz
unter der Schultern durchsichtigem Sturz
und flimmerte nicht so wie Raubtierfelle;

und bräche nicht aus allen seinen Rändern
aus wie ein Stern: denn da ist keine Stelle,
die dich nicht sieht. Du mußt dein Leben ändern.

Rainer Maria Rilke

Archaic Torso of Apollo

We cannot know his legendary head
with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his torso
is still suffused with brilliance from inside,
like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned to low,

gleams in all its power. Otherwise
the curved breast could not dazzle you so, nor could
a smile run through the placid hips and thighs
to that dark center where procreation flared.

Otherwise this stone would seem defaced
beneath the translucent cascade of the shoulders
and would not glisten like a wild beast's fur:

would not, from all the borders of itself,
burst like a star: for here there is no place
that does not see you. You must change your life.

(Translated by me.)

 


Demoralized wrote:

„Government often doesn't do things as efficiently as the private sector.“ **

That is not true in any case. And privatizing of sectors often looks like this: expensive, thus non-efficient subsectors of the sector remain in possession of the state, whereas the cheap, thus efficient subsectors of the sector become privatized. There are many examples, at least in Europe. The loosers are the states, thus the tax payers, thus especially the middle class, but at last also the lower class (because: if there is no state anymore, then there will be no tax payers anymore who can pay for the lower class). The problem is typical for the whole economy of the globalistic system. And the extinction of the states and the middle class is a problem. I think it is going to end up in societies having no or just very inefficient states, no or just very inefficient institutions, no or just a very inefficient midlle class. So, at last, 99% of all humans will live in „Third World“ societies.


In addition, the belief in gods of primitves, of pagans, of polytheists is not a step „below“ the step of the belief in gods of henotheists or monotheists. There is no such progress you believe in - wishfully. Monotheism is no goal of theism, and atheism is no goal either. Basically, beliefs, religions, theisms are always possible. Theisms are comparable with theories and ideologies (most of the ideologies are polytheisms); many theorists and ideologs believe in false gods.

Just look at the globalistic process we have experienced since about 1990. There is no single state and no single middle class of the „First World“ that has benefitted from this globalistic process.

6703

The concept of the „perception of hope and threat“ is similar to my concept of the „ellipse with thymos and love as its two focal points“.

 

NACH OBEN 1100) Arminius, 17.11.2017, 09:39, 10:13, 10:39, 12:47, 18:08, 18:42 (6704-6709)

6704

Sure, states can be monsters (according to Nietzsche, states are the coldest of all cold monsters), but if you compare them with the current private globalistic institutions, companies/corporations, then you will likely support the statement that these kinds of monsters are even colder than each kind of the states. Both are like superorganisms in which humans are working like supercells - comparable with the cells in their own bodies.

Currently it seems that the fight between those superorganisms will end up with a victory of the private globalists. But that is only how it seems. Who really knows how it will end up? More and more people will miss a functionable state, will wish it back, hopely not when it will be too late. I hope that humans will someday be able again to say about a state what Hegel already said about it in the end of the 18th century.

If the states function efficiently, thus work efficiently, then they are not as bad as the private institutions, companies/corporations of the globalists. Private institutions, companies/corporations of the globalists do not care about nature, do not care about culture, do not care about humans, do not care about living beings at all. Infinite growth is not possible on our planet. We should not accept that more and more humans become poorer and poorer, whereas less and less humans become richer and richer. If not the human beings, then nature itself will stop that unfair, destructive, dangerous and stupid development.

6705

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The concept of the ›perception of hope and threat‹ is similar to my concept of the ›ellipse with thymos and love as its two focal points‹.« “ ** **

Yes. I had thought of mentioning that.

It is also analogous to the increasing and decreasing of PtA being at the root of all physical existence.

It seems that all of reality stands on 3 legs:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

Threat/Fear/Negative scatters
Hope/Love/Positive gathers
Everything else stands around and watches.

And »from the heart« means high priority or important.“ **

Yes.

6706

I guess, the reason why many people do not understand this is that they do not really know the logic, especially the mathematics behind it.

The „universal basic income“ will never lead to a better economic/social status, but always to more injustice, because the same minority will become even richer, whereas the same poor majority will become even poorer.

6707

This is what I found amongst others:

1) W O R L D :

Wealth Distribution on EarthReichtumsverteilung auf der Erde

2) U. S. A. :

Wealth Distribution in the U.S.A.

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»POVERTY almost everywhere IN THE USA ....

US Wealth Distribution

MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN?“ ** **

1% of all US people has 40% of all the nation’s wealth (**). And the poorest 80% of all US people have merely 7% of all the nation’s wealth (**).

US Wealth Distribution

Watch the video (**) Serendipper posted (especially 4:42–4:54):

Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›....

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.)‹ ** **

« ** **

** **

6708

„Amercia first“ has nothing to do with „Deutschland über alles“ (composed in 1797 by Franz Joseph Haydn and written in 1841 by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben).

Wikipedia wrote:

„Among the best known is the patriotic „Das Lied der Deutschen“ which starts with the words Deutschland, Deutschland über alles and is set to a 1797 tune by Joseph Haydn. The lyrics were written in 1841 on the island of Helgoland .... The text of the song expresses the pan-German sentiments common in revolutionary republicans of the period and were highly inflammatory in the princedoms of the German-speaking world. This sentiment was, of course, considered high treason. The phrase über alles did not refer to militant ideas of conquest of foreign countries, but to the need for loyalty to a united Germany to replace all other regional loyalties.“ **

As opposed to that, „Amercia first“ is problematic, Firstly, America is not „USA“, but a double continent; so, the term „Amercia first“ does not only address the US citizens, but all Americans. Secondly, the term „Amercia first“ does not mean that an unification would be needed in order to replace all other regional loyalties; so, others can easily think this is indeed meant as a militant idea of conquest of foreign countries. Thirdly, the term „Amercia first“ is an anachronistic term.

So, I can only give the advice to the US citizens that they should avoid the term „Amercia first“. In any case, it is more intelligent to avoid it than to use it these days.

6709

I said: „... others can easily think this is indeed meant as a militant idea of conquest of foreign countries.“ ** **

It is not really difficult to understand, if you havent been brainwashed.

But never mind, stupid dreamer, Dream on!

- Supertramp (Davies, Hodgson, Helliwell, Siebenberg, Thomson), Dreamer, 1974.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN