1101) Arminius, 18.11.2017, 00:06, 00:59; Kathrina, 17.11.2017, 01:20; Arminius, 18.11.2017, 09:46, 10:43, 22:23, 22:34, 23:19 (6712-6719)

James S. Saint wrote:

„The argument is that the UBI-alone will make it worse because what is causing it is the relatively unobstructed global free flow of money or influence.“ **

Exactly. You have got it.

I am working in my High-Tech Autoclave Germfree Mobile Laboratory with scientific support staff - again.

By the way:

Will we get Gifts for Christmas this year again?
Or have we been too naughty, too bad, too wicked?

Oh, the cuckoo of one of my cuckoo clocks just „told“ me that we still have to wait.

Everything will be fine again, my dear.

Just wait. Tomorrow I will park my High-Tech Autoclave Germfree Mobile Laboratory right at your doorstep.

Just give me you address by private message and I will be at your doorstep tomorrow morning.

Maybe we will have breakfast then together.

Do you like germfree food?

Alf wrote:

„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 (industrial/mechanical) area: *

* 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.“ ** **

Yes, and the shrunken average economic status will perhaps (thus: not certainly) cause a shrinking average machine rate. The answer to the question whether the average machine rate will shrink then or not will probably depend on the development of the machines. If they will not sufficiently enough be developed then, then the average machine rate will certainly shrink. But the crux is that the humans will try to avoid a shrinking average economic status, although, if they will do, this will lead to an even higher average machine rate and at last to the extinction of all humans. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to believe that the average economic status will shrink and cause a shrinking average machine rate. Like I said: I know that the everage economic status will shrink, but I do not know whether this will really lead to a shrinking average machine rate or not, since the development status of the machines at that time in the future is currently quite unknown.

The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.

James (James S. Saint), maybe you remember that we had the following dialogue:

Arminius wrote:

„The history clearly shows that all previous socialisms, because they were modern, were either national or - in the worst case - imperial totalitarianisms. The current globalism is also such an modern imperial totalitarianism, namely the worst case of the worst cases because it is the greatest of history.

The two ways to get out of the imperial madness are the alternatives as city states or as nation states; but because both are about to be destroyed (and even are going to destroy themselves), only one possibility remains: the very small social units, for example something like the „communal particles“. But this only possibility will come again anyway, because history repeats its form.

So one could think one has only to wait. But there is another modern problem: the modern trend itself which means also - and amongst other powerful things - machines! You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true.

And if someone has an idea like James with his „SAM“ / „communal particle“ (see above), then he is threatened with lies, that he is a „friend“ of the „bad socialists“ of the past (for example: Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot), although / because the liars themselves are this bad socialists, even in a global scale of imperialism.

Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.

The middle class has to carry everything and everyone. The only difference between former modern times and curent modern times is that the nobility and clergy have been becoming globalists.

“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»The end result is that across the world, any and every abstract question gets resolved and distributed across the world overnight. And as each resolve is understood by each corp., if the resolve is applicable to their group, it is immediately incorporated (although ideas are communistic, the use of them is strictly democratic).« **

The reason why the Glozis, their functionaries, and their seduced crowd can say that it is communistic or socialistic - and not just democratic. They say: »You are not democratic. You are communistic or socialistic like Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and many others were.« And so they can incite their seduced crwod against you. The crowd is too much influenced by the Glozis and their functionaries.

James S. Saint wrote:

»Thus the greatest intelligence of Man, rather than the least common denominator, becomes the functioning authority within Man. Man as a whole quickly and suddenly becomes sane after some 10,000 years of blindness and foolishness.« **

Anyway, they say: „That is communistic or socialistic, thus not democratic.“ (See above). They themselves are more communistic or socialistic than you, I know, but they have the power.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.« ** **

Very true.

If you're going to be exploited, at least ensure that it is by someone you know.  “ **

And if you are going to be exploited by someone you do not know, ask yourself how and why this could happen and get knowledge about that someone.

1102) Arminius, 19.11.2017, 11:55; Alf, 19.11.2017, 13:47, 13:51; Arminius, 19.11.2017, 19:12, 19:34, 19:46; Alf, 21:04, 21:37, 21:57; Arminius, 19.11.2017, 23:46 (6720-6729)

It is - of course - true that every major change in economy has had to have all kinds of wars, anarchy, chaos before it, but I was mainly talking about a kind of a dialectic process concerning the three main modern major changes in economy and politics, namely about capitalism (thesis), communism (antithesis), globalism (synthesis).

No. I did not sy that.

The following links lead to all of my postings of this thread:

1] ** **
2] ** **
3] ** **
4] ** **
5] ** **
6] ** **
7] ** **
8] ** **
9] ** **

Rodney Brooks wrote:

„The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI.

.... Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will take half of today’s jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.

.... For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10 to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently require physical presence at some particular job site.“ ** (**)

That is a good article, Alf.

Thanks.

Experience has both sides: subjectivity and objectivity. Both are aspects of epistemology.

I am waiting.

Consciousness influences (affects) unconsciousness - and vice versa. But the dreams as such are not conscious. That’s what I am saying.

Let's have a film production as an analogy. The film is the „dream“, the consciousness is the „screenwriter“, the unconsciousness is the „film producer“. The screenwriter has directly nothing to do with the film. The thoughts of the screenwriter are hidden in the script, only the language gives information about them to others. The film producer „knows“ the script (language) of the screenwriter and the film.

Arminius wrote:

„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:

« ** **

Arminius wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›Surreptitious 75 wrote:

'Alf wrote:

`Just an example:

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 (?):

=>

=>

« ** **

“ ** **

Both are in bad form, of course.

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Rodney Brooks wrote:

›The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI.

.... Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will take half of today’s jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.

.... For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10 to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently require physical presence at some particular job site.‹ ** (**) “ ** **

That is a good article, Alf.“ ** **

Thanks.

My pleasure.

What I find very intersing is that the retail salespersons have a 90% chance of becoming automated.

I am afraid, he (**) will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....

1103) Arminius, 20.11.2017, 11:59, 12:44, 21:45, 22:29, 23:15 (6730-6734)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I am afraid, he (**) will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....« ** **

I guess he proved you right.“ **

Yes, of course. But he did not realize it. (Psst!)

Jams S. Saint wrote:

„Prismatic567 wrote:

»Einstein Theory of Gravity is abducted from empirical evidence and proven empirical based theories, then it is finally proven with the relevant empirical evidences.« **

And just to clue you in, Einstein's version of the theory of gravity was not only never proven correct, but has been proven incorrect. But that discussion is way, way too deep for you. It, like all Relativity, has merely been proven useful mathematics in specific cases only. One can get a correct answer to a calculation without having a correct understanding. Einstein himself said that something was wrong with his theories, his Relativity Ontology. Some people, like the QM with their different ontology, disagree with him and still other people know why.“ **

Not only do they disagree with him. This two different theories are so much different frome each other, that one can say that they refer to two different realities, two different worlds; and since these described realities (worlds) are so much different from each other and we can only have one reality (worlds) by definition, either one or both of the theories must be false.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I am afraid, he (**) will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....« ** **

Apparently he will never understand what »ontology« means either.

Preachers never learn. I can't imagine why.“ **

There are (a) incapable preachers, (b) preachers who use their preaching as a defense mechanism against learning, (c) preachers who get money for their preaching, thus they get money in order to not learn.

The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.

Le Corbusier: Sainte-Marie de la Tourette near Lyon (**):

Unité d'habitation in Marseille (**):

**

....

Moshe Safdie: Habitat 67 in Montreal (**):

Condominium in Singapore (**):

**

....

Daniel Libeskind: Imperial War Museum North in Manchester (**):

Militärhistorisches Museum in Dresden (**) ....

Militärhistorisches Museum in Dresden

....

„Being“ is the equivalent to the Ancient-Greek „on“ („ón“) whick led to „ontology“, the „science of being“.

Therefore I used the word „being(s)“ instead of the word „thing(s)“. The other reason was the succession or the chronology from beings (things) to living beings (things) and to human beings (things).

Now my question: Is it customary to say „human things“?

1104) Arminius, 21.11.2017, 01:01, 14:47, 17:43, 18:22, 22:04, 22:39, 22:59 (6735-6741)

Your (**) logical fallacy again.

I am pretty sure that most readers know what is meant by the word „being“.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Since this OP is about God which must be a 'living' thing with agency it would be ridiculous to defined God as a non-living without agency.“ **

How do you come to the false conclusion again that it would be „ridiculous“ to define „God as a non-living without agency“?

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.« ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

»The problem is that creating disagreement is the purpose (obfuscation, misdirection, and extortion).

If everyone has their own »reality«, then nothing and everything can be said to be real. That makes all history and facts questionable, and thus changeable. And manipulated change is the goal. Why allow people to restrain you with Truth?“ **

Both you of, those are known as the »slippery slope« fallacy: X can't be true because bad things would happen if it were true. Wanna be comfortable, better not seek out the truth.“ **

No. Either you do not know what a „slippery slope“ fallacy means or you did not understand what we said. Nobody of us said anything in the sense of „X can‘t be true because ... if ...“. Just see what James S. Saint already responded to you:

James S. Saint wrote:

„We were not saying that "X is true because if not....". Arminius was saying that too much is too much. And I was saying that too much is intentional, to serve a purpose. Neither of those constitute a "slippery slope" fallacy.“ **

This is exactly what I would have answered, if James S. Saint had not done it before me.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius, some people might take subjectivism to its solipsistic extremes, but not I.“ **

Yes, I also think that you are not an extreme subjectivist. But I remind you of our dialogue in this thread on page 3 where I said:

Arminius wrote:

„The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a »subject« is, a second one is needed ....“ ** **

This second one could be a tiny thing, since it does not have to be a huge living being (thing) in order to be an object.

Imagine, you are your brain and the only one, the first one (see above). You know nothing about a subject and an object, since no thing (nothing) is there - except you as you brain. It makes no sense (nonsense) then to have senses, since there is nothing to observe. There is no object, thus there is no subject. You do not know that you are your brain (thoughts). You can think but you do not know that you think. You have no evidence, because you have no empirical data, no experience at all. Your thoughts are not your experience, because they are not objects but you yourself as your brain . So it is not possible to think „cogito ergo sum“.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„The default is; God is the creator of the Whole Universe. It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency. “ **

It is not ridiculous. So you have concluded falsely again.

Why do you not say: „Living beings or living things are not perfect; so it is very likely that God is different from them“? This would make much more sense than your ridiculous statement: „It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency“.

Gib wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»I suspect that you don’t understand what we each said, but perhaps you merely misunderstand the »slippery slope« fallacy.

We were not saying that ›X is true because if not....‹. Arminius was saying that too much is too much. And I was saying that too much is intentional, to serve a purpose. Neither of those constitute a ›slippery slope‹ fallacy.« **

I still don’t see how that's not the slippery slope fallacy. Here's what Arminius said:

Arminius wrote:

»The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.« ** **

All he's saying is that if you take subjectivism to its logical conclusion, you get solipsism. <-- Why that makes subjectivism wrong isn't highlighted in Arminius's argument. It just leaves one with the sense that »Gee, I don't want to be a solipsist ... better denounce subjectivism«. Not that I am a solipsist, but I don't see how solipsism is logically ruled out by this.“ **

No. That is not exactly what I am saying. I really meant it in the sense of „too much“: Too much subjectivism can lead to solipsism. It was meant as a fact. It was meant objectively.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Gib wrote:

›Arminius, some people might take subjectivism to its solipsistic extremes, but not I.‹ **

Yes, I also think that you are not an extreme subjectivist. But I remind you of our dialogue in this thread on page 3 where I said:

Arminius wrote:

›The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a 'subject' is, a second one is needed ....‹ ** **

This second one could be a tiny thing, since it does not have to be a huge living being (thing) in order to be an object.« ** **

I remember this. Your wording is rather vague here; I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Sounds like you're saying: a subject is only a subject if it is known as a subject, and that requires something else to do the knowing. I take this means solipsism can't be true because there must be something other than the subject.“ **

I mean that a „subject“ needs an object in order to be a subject.

Gib wrote:

„The reason I'm not a solipsist is because I believe there is an extension to existence beyond myself. What I don't believe is that this extension is not a subject too (it's just not me).“ **

It is because you have observed, experienced it.

If there is only one (I mean one entity), then there is nothing else. Let this one be a thought or whatever. In order to have this one as a subject (which can know what it is for the first time), an object is needed.

There is no distiction or differentiation without an object. A subject is not possible without an object.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Imagine, you are your brain and the only one, the first one (see above). You know nothing about a subject and an object, since no thing (nothing) is there - except you as you brain. It makes no sense (nonsense) then to have senses, since there is nothing to observe. There is no object, thus there is no subject. You do not know that you are your brain (thoughts). You can think but you do not know that you think. You have no evidence, because you have no empirical data, no experience at all. Your thoughts are not your experience, because they are not objects but you yourself as your brain . So it is not possible to think ›cogito ergo sum‹.« ** **

True, you wouldn't recognize yourself as a self. But you would have experience (even if that's just thought). The experience (thought) projects as a reality (truth). The truth and the thought are one and the same. <-- That's the kind of monism I'm getting at with my subjectivism. I don't mean to say the subject exist as a 'self' per se, just that as a fusion of truth and thought, the thought aspect is what makes it a subject at the same that the truth aspect makes it an object (an abstract object in this case).“ **

According to my example (see above), you would not have any experience. See above again where I said: „You have no evidence, because you have no empirical data, no experience at all“.

Kant did not say „God is an impossibilty“. Maybe the English translator said this ....

Very likely (**).

Gib.

I just had no better example than the brain.

1105) Arminius, 22.11.2017, 00:17, 21:02, 21:06, 21:33, 21:49 (6742-6746)

For comparison:

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 (industrial/mechanical) area: *

* 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.“ ** **

I believe that it is not necessary „to think of a better example“ or another way“ (**), since you know what I mean. Right?

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Kant did not say ›God is an impossibilty‹.« ** **

If you read the CPR carefully, you will note [read carefully] Kant concluded [not in exact] words, »God is an impossibility« within an empirical-rational reality.

Here is one clue [mine] where the idea of a God is illusory without empirical premisses;

Kant in CPR wrote:

»There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions [God, Soul, Whole-Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. - b397.“ **

So, I am right: Kant did not say „God is an impossibilty“.

The term „human things“ (**|**) comes pretty close to a contradiction. That was the reason why my question above was a more rhetorical one.

Just a thought: If it is allowed to speak of a dualism between heart and brain, between blood and nerves, then it should also be allowed to speak of a dualism between emotion/emotionality and reason/rationality.

1106) Arminius, 23.11.2017, 00:40, 00:48; Alf, 23.11.2017, 13:27; Arminius, 23.11.2017, 14:19, 23:08 (6747-6751)

You (**) probably were Neitzche, but most certainly not Nietzsche.

When you (**) came to England, did you discover England like the Vikings when they discovered North America?

Are you (**) always drunk?

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Kant raised a detailed chapter [N. K. Smith] regarding;

»
Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason ....
Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ......... 500
Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ......... 507
Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being ......... 514
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof ......... 518
Section 7. Critique of all Theology based upon Speculative Principles of Reason ......... 525
«

In the finality following the above, Kant presented the conclusion, the idea of God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. Re B397 I quoted above. The conclusion of B397 is based on one big argument represented by the whole of the Critique of Pure Reason.“ **

The statement „God is an impossibility“ (Prismatic 567) and the statement „The Impossibility of an Ontological (or Cosmological or Trancendental or Physico-theological) Proof of the Existence of God“ (Kant) are different statements. You believe that the fact that Kant and you used the word „impossibility“ proves the impossibility of God? You are wrong. Note that Kant meant „the proof of God“ and that you mean „God“ (God himself). Linguistically said: In Kant's sentence, the object is „proof“ (whereas „God“ is merely the second genitive object, thus: not the object itself); in your sentence, the object is „God“. „Proof of God is impossible“ does not mean „God is impossible“.

So again:

Kant did not say „God is impossible“.

Arminius wrote:

„The first who discovered America were the Vikings under Leif Eriksson who lived from 970 to 1020. They discovered it around the year 1000.

»Leif had one ship and a crew of 35, including himself. History records the group as containing 34 Vikings and 1 German. After leaving Greenland, they first happened upon an undiscovered island made of rock with ice mountains in the background. The second island they found contained flat white sand beaches and woodlands. Continuing westward, the third giant island they found may not have been an island at all. Many historians believe that Leif and his crew had just discovered the New England coast.« **

In 1473, an expedition under the command of the Germans Didrik Pining und Hans Pothorst with the Danish navigator Johannes Scolvus and the Portuguese João Vaz Corte-Real discovered America also before Christopher Columbus (1492).“ ** **

1107) Arminius, 24.11.2017, 00:43, 00:46, 01:50 13:22, 14:03, 14:21, 14:28, 14:50 (6752-6759)

The problem is that it is very difficult to tell about a non-existent „world“, thus a about a „world“ without any object. If one tells about a subject, then it is already an object. Therefore I said you should imagine to be a brain or a thought as a singularity in which it is impossible to experience anything. If you think about „anything“, then this is already an object. And if I should tell you how you only think (but not about anything), thus without experience, without an object, then it would not be possible to say „what happens“, because there is no object, thus no experience. So, „I think“ („cogito“ in Latin) means already „I can have an object“ (not: „I have already an object“, but: „I can have an object“), so this quickly leads to „thus I am“ („ergo sum“ in Latin). But in my example (see above), this „thus I am“ is not possible, because I had to give you an example without any object. And the problem is that we do not really know such an example. „The only one in the world“? No! Because there is no world in that example. So, actually, I can not even use the word „you“. There is no reality, because there is nothing that „you“ (not existent in an objective way) can experience, thus even you yourself are nothing that can be experienced. This is difficult to imagine. I know. You would have to be capable of being an object, if you wanted to know yourself as a subject. But there is no and can never be an object in that said example. A subject needs an object in order to be a subject.

The question whether an object needs a subject in oder to be an object is not the subject in this example.

If the semantics of the word „discoverer“ or the word „discovering“ has to meet two conditions - (1.) to be the first one who has arrived and (2.) to know for sure what exactly has been discovered -, then nobody has ever discovered North America.

Subjectivists are those who insist that their own arguments are necessarily right. The word „own“ already stands for this. Additionaly, subjectivists have more reasons to insist that their own arguments are necessarily right, because they lack objectivity, at least always more than objectivists lack subjectivity. It is not difficult to be a subjectivist, it is more difficult to be an objectivist. Objectivists consider the objects before considering their own emotions and other endogenous affects - that is difficult enough and probably not completely possible. Subjectivists do just the opposite - that is not difficult, although probably not completely possible either.

There are nonetheless many people who state to be, but are not objectivists. So, I am not talking about those alleged objectivists here. Most people are subjectivists, regardless whether they know it or not.

There are three main aspects: (1) Ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen (eternal return of the same); (2) Übermensch; (3) Wille zur Macht (will to might/power).

Martin Waldseemüller (1470-1520), Universalis Cosmographia, Waldseemüller’s 1507 world map which was the first to show the Americas.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Perhaps ... than again ... 1421: The Year China Discovered America.

And the Chinese likely were aware of the geography of the Western Hemisphere ... at least in a broad/general sense.“ **

This is rejected by historians as a fiction.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Here are some facts ..., draw your own conclusions.

I was living and working in Pond Inlet Nunavut before coming to China.

In bidding farewell to my boss ... a middle aged Inuit man ... born in an igloo ... probably one of the last Inuit people to be born in such circumstances ... he shared an oral Inuit legend ... »The Chinese will be back«.

12 years later the echo of his story is carried on the wind for all those with eyes to see or ears to hear. The message is crystal clear and the intensity of the message is both blinding and deafening ... in essence ... »The Chinese will be back!«.“ **

They may have heard of this legend. But not everything that has been said and heard is true.

Encode Decode wrote:

„RM:AO - EN:DE.“ **

„EN:DE“ reminds me of the German word „Ende“ („end“ ).

So, do you understand your „EN:DE“ as a „Vollendung“ („completion“) of RM:AO?

1108) Arminius, 25.11.2017, 00:08, 00:11, 00:29, 20:28, 20:28, 23:02, 23:25 (6760-6766)

Most Chinese historians also reject the alleged Chinese discovery of America as a fiction.

Is that your opening post, Pilgrim Tom?

That is one of more possible reasons why „liberals“ believe that God is „impossible“ (Prismatic 567) or at least less possible than they themselves are: they are less possible than God, and as „liberal“ god(wannabe)s they do not tolerate God besides them.

The subject can overtake the role of an object. For instance: If a subject adopts the point of view of an object or observes the own body with all its affects, then this subject is in the position of both subject and object. And to others this subject is an object anyway.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„To me, it obvious God is an impossibility to be real within empirical-rational reality ....“ **

To YOU! And this means that it is your own, your subjectie opinion, belief, religion, theology/theorie - but not more. Objectively said, you are wrong. Your logical conclusions are false. And already many people have said that to you.

Why are you so stubborn?

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Because I am well aware the illusory God is idealized via desperate psychological existential impulses to deal with an existential crisis. This point is supported by Eastern non-theistic spiritualities.“ **

Your subjective opinion may be supported as much as you want it to be: it does not matter, because you have no argument, you have no proof, you have no evidence, you have nothing except your subjective statement based upon a logical fallacy.

For comparison:

Related to the global population, the number of the unaffiliated decreases and will further on decrease, whereas the number of the muslims increase and will further on increase.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

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

What do YOU mean by *required*?“ **

Those who wrote the OLd Testament - many during many centuries - had to find a „consensus“, and the consensus seemed to not allow another option than an evil god, a furious god.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„What would make them *require* an evil God?“ **

Fear, angst, anxiety, awe, deep respect ....

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Wouldn't it have been simpler to just explain that life at times just has no satisfactory, answerable questions as to why things happen though showing cause and effect in many cases may have just explained those things away?“ **

Yes, but not to them (at that time).

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Anyway, I wonder if any explanation would have sufficed?“ **

Yes, but not at that time (to them).

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„We humans always need a scapegoat.“ **

Instead of „we humans“ I would say „a majority of the humans“.

1109) Arminius, 26.11.2017, 01:21, 14:22 (6767-6768)

Magic word: „EQUALity“!

Thus: No quality !

But EN:DE must be much orientated on language too.

1110) Arminius, 27.11.2017, 01:49, 02:18, 16:59; Alf, 27.11.2017, 17:34; Arminius, 27.11.2017, 18:29, 18:43, 19:36, 20:03, 20:53, 21:17, 21:50, 23:33 (6769-6780)

I seldom drink, but now it’s time to drink two of the big beers:

Cheers!

You (**) will manage it. I am looking forward.

At the moment, I have still two big beers in mind.

One for RM:AO, and one for EN:DE.

Cheers.

I find that no sort of books is helpful when it comes to writing, unless you (**) are someone who really needs help for writing. Are you one of them who need writing help? If you are not one of them, then just start writing and see what happens. Good luck.

My pleasure.

It’s not „very strange“ (**).

You have been drunk again (**|**).

Interestingly, before the relativity theory of 1905/1916, the most accepted cosmological theory was the ether theory; and if someone wants to imagine how full the universe is of affectance according to RM:AO, it is helpful to imagine how the universe is full of ether according to the ether theory. But anyway, the ether theory and RM:AO are not the same.

- Zupfgeigenhansel (Thomas Friz, Erich Schmeckenbecher), Fordre niemand, mein Schicksal zu hören, 1978.
- Zupfgeigenhansel (Thomas Friz, Erich Schmeckenbecher), Ein stolzes Schiff, 1978.

„Fordre niemand, mein Schicksal zu hören.

Fordre niemand, mein Schicksal zu hören
von Euch allen, die Ihr in Arbeit steht.
Ja, wohl könnte ich Meister beschwören,
es wär doch bis morgen schon zu spät.
Aus der Wanderschaft lustigen Tagen
setz ich Kleider und Reisegeld zu.
Und so hab ich denn nun weiter nichts zu tragen
als mein´ Rock und mein´ Stock und die Schuh.
Keine Hoffnung ist Wahrheit geworden,
selbst in Schlesien war alles besetzt.
Als ich reiste über Frankfurt nach Norden,
ward ich stets von Gendarmen gehetzt.
Von Stettin aus nach Hause geschrieben,
ging ich dennoch Berlin erst noch zu,
und so ist mir denn nun weiter nichts geblieben
als der Rock und der Stock und die Schuh'.
In der Heimat darf ich mich nicht zeigen,
denn dahin ist das Geld und der Rock.
Laßt mich meinen Namen verschweigen,
denn sonst droht mir ein knotiger Stock.
Statt in Betten, in Wäldern gebettet,
Oh, ich hatte nur wenige Ruh.
Und so hab ich in der Fremde nichts gerettet
als die Hosen und zerrissene Schuh.

Text: von einem Handwerksburschen.

- Berthold Auerbach, 1840.

„Ein Stolzes Schiff.

Ein stolzes Schiff streicht einsam durch die Wellen
Und führt uns uns´re deutschen Brüder fort.
Die Fahne weht, die weißen Segel schwellen.
Amerika ist ihr Bestimmungsort.
Seht auf dem Verdeck sie stehen,
Sich noch einmal umzudrehen
Ins Vaterland, ins heimatliche Grün.
Seht, wie sie über´s große Weltmeer zieh´n.
Sie zieh´n dahin auf blauen Meereswogen.
Warum verlassen sie ihr Heimatland?
Man hat sie um ihr Leben schwer betrogen.
Die Armut trieb sie aus dem eig´nen Land.
Schauet auf, ihr Unterdrücker,
Blicket auf, ihr Volksbetrüger.
Seht eure besten Arbeitskräfte flieh´n.
Seht, wie sie übers große Weltmeer ziehn.
Sie zieh´n dahin, wer wagt sie noch zu fragen.
Warum verlassen sie ihr Heimatland?
O armes Deutschland, wie kannst du es ertragen,
Daß deine Brüder werden so verbannt?
Was sie hofften, hier zu gründen,
Suchen sie dort drüben zu finden.
D´rum zieh´n sie fort von deutschem Boden ab,
Und finden in Amerika ihr Grab.

- Heinrich Schacht, 1855.

The ecological catastrophe is merely one of some more options for the end of humans and many other living creatures.
Other options are, for instance, military catastrophes, technical/scientifical research catastrophes, natural catastrophes.

But all these catastophes will not mean the „end of the world“ (**) and not mean the end of this planet either; but they will just mean huge catastrophes for humans and many other living creatures.

- Eroc (Ehrig), Der Traum vom Wald, 1976.

Der Traum vom Wald.

Sie müssen kommerzieller denken, junger Mann,
Sie müssen marktgerecht produzieren,
Ich muß ihr Produkt ja schließlich verkaufen!
Und vor allen Dingen: Gewöhnen Sie sich 'mal einen einheitlichen Stil an!
Sehen Sie: Wenn Sie auf ihrer ersten LP die zweite Seite so wie die erste gemacht hätten,
Wären Sie besser gelaufen.
Auch das Ausland war von der ersten Seite begeistert.
Sie brauchen ja nicht unbedingt dem Trend zu folgen.
Aber schließlich sollte man auch mal an die Stückzahl denken!
Am besten lassen Sie Ihren neuen Reim sein!
Vogelgezwitscher haben die Leute im Wald.
Sie müssen die Leute unterhalten, junger Mann!
Gut unterhalten!
Dann haben Sie Erfolg!

Es war einmal ein kleiner Wald,
Ganz weit draußen,
Hinter dem großen Wald, den großen Wiesen.
Keine Häuser gab es dort, keine Straßen
Und überhaupt keinen Lärm
Wenn schönes Wetter war,
Kam oft ein kleiner Junge mit seinen Eltern den kleinen Wald besuchen.
Und sie blieben den ganzen Tag lang.
Es war schön da.

Er hörte den Wind in den Bäumen rauschen,
Und tausend Vögel zwitscherten.
Und wenn es sehr heiß war,
Summten die Bienen in den Himbeerbüschen.
Der kleine Junge hatte den kleinen Wald lieb,
Weil er dort spielen konnte und singen
Und rumtoben, wie er wollte,
Ohne daß jemand schimpfte.
Es war sein Wald.
Abends hing die Sonne hinter den Hügeln
Wie eine dicke Apfelsine.

Einmal fand der kleine Junge einen Pilz,
Der war fast so groß wie ein Fußball,
Sah dabei aus wie ein Regenschirm.
Das war schon aufregend!
Weniger aufregend fand er die weiß-roten Stangen,
Die eines Tages zwischen den Bäumen im Boden steckten.
Die vermessen was, sagte sein Vater,
Aber der Junge wußte sowieso nicht,
Was das ist.
Er pinkelte eine von ihnen an,
Da schimpfte seine Mutter,
Aber sie lachte dabei.

Man hörte den Wind in den Bäumen rauschen,
Und tausend Vögel zwitscherten.
Und wenn es sehr heiß war,
Summten die Bienen in den Himbeerbüschen.
Der kleine Junge war gern dort,
Weit weg von den Schulkameraden,
Ihren blöden Kloppereien, die er leid war,
Er war alleine und doch nicht einsam in seinem Wald.
Abends hing die Sonne über den Hügeln
Wie eine dicke Apfelsine.

Eine Zeitlang konnten sie den kleinen Wald nicht besuchen,
Der Junge und seine Eltern.
Und eines Tages hörten sie schon von weitem einen Lärm.
Der Kleine rannte voraus und wollte gucken,
Was da los wär'.
Er sah viele Menschen mit Maschinen,
Die dabei waren die Bäume zu zersägen,
Alles plattzuwalzen.
Den kleinen Wald gab es nicht mehr.

Man hörte vor Krach kaum das eigene Wort.
Alles ratterte und quietschte und qualmte.
Der kleine Junge fand das unheimlich toll
Und rannte zwischen den Autos herum.
Am besten gefielen ihm die dicken, runden Räder.
Er wollte sie immer anfassen,
Aber seine Mutter lief hinter ihm her,
Sie hielt ihn fest.
Wir müssen jetzt gehen, sagte sie.
Der Staub legte sich auf die Sonne,
Sie sah aus wie eine verwelkte Tomate.

Inzwischen bin ich nun fast ein ganzes Vierteljahrhundert alt
Und glaube zu verstehen,
Warum ich an jenem Tag nicht geweint habe.
Wo einmal der kleine Wald war,
Ist heute eine Autobahn.
Sauerlandlinie nennen sie sie
Und sagen, sie sei eine der schönsten.
Das verstehe ich nicht.
Ich finde, mein kleiner Wald war schöner.

Jetzt rasen sie chromblitzend und servogelenkt an den Wäldern vorbei
Und quälen sie mit Dröhnen und Gestank.
Ja, sie fahren, fahren, fahren auf der Autobahn!
Und singen dabei ihre dümmlichen Lieder
Vom leicht bescheuerten Walter,
Den eine dumme Redensart sogar noch zu ihrem Gott erhebt!
Aber anscheinend ist er doch ein ziemlich blöder Gott,
Denn er schafft es noch nicht mal,
Zu verhindern, daß sich der Abendnebel auf die Autobahn legt.

Und manchmal fahre ich sogar selbst da lang.
Zum Beispiel, wenn wir irgendwo südlich spielen mit der Gruppe.
Die Jungs sitzen dann im Auto rum
Und spielen Karten oder lesen die Zeitung
Oder machen irgendwelchen Blödsinn.
Und demnächst fahre ich wieder dort entlang,
Denn das Überschneidestudio für diese Langspielplatte ist in Frankfurt.

Hahahaha ....
Oh nein! Das, das ist doch unvermeidbar!
Ich muss dort hin,
Das muss doch gemacht werden!
Alles ist irgendwie unvermeidbar.
Und doch komme ich mir oft vor wie ein Verräter.
Aber das weiß ja keiner,
Denn keiner weiß von dem kleinen Wald.
Ich war ja allein dort, ganz allein,
Allein mit einer dicken runden Apfelsine!

- Joachim Heinz Ehrig, 1976.

Fact is that there are several cultures. In certain cultures it is not allowed to be homosexual, in ceratin other cultures it is allowed to be homosexual.

So, if you are saying that homosexuality is somehow „unnatural“ or „abnormal“, then you are in conflict with those certain cultures in which homsexuality is allowed.
So, if you are saying that homosexuality is somehow „natural“ or „normal“, then you are in conflict with those certain cultures in which homsexuality is not allowed.

Currently, there is merely one culture in which homosexuality is not allowed. I am speaking of the so-called „islamic“ culture (Prismatic's enemy? ).

I make a proposal: the „steepest climbing race“ as the „steepest running race“.

Sorry, Mags (**), but I have not read all your 16959 posts. I would like to ..., if I had enough time.

To me, a discovery must have to do with objectivity like for example a scientific discovery.

One should know „something“ about the discovered object before the discovery.

The question is what exactly one should know about it before the discovery.

Arminius wrote:

„If the semantics of the word »discoverer« or the word »discovering« has to meet two conditions - (1.) to be the first one who has arrived and (2.) to know for sure what exactly has been discovered -, then nobody has ever discovered North America.“ ** **

Thinkdr wrote:

„Do you believe that if children learn (or as you say, »are programmed« [**]) those values - including Responsibility, Honesty, and Cooperation - mentioned in the original post (**), that this is »bad«.?

If I may answer.

The so-called „values“ can be used/misused by almost everyone. So, for example, responsibility, honesty, cooperation can be misused by, for example, leftists, centrists, rightists. Think of the current leftist dictatorship of „political correctness“ which requires from the children to think and say, for example, that „non-whites are good“ and or even because „whites are evil“, that it is everyone’s „responsibility“ and „honesty“ to think and say this over and over again, also to do this in „cooperation“ over and over again.

==>