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

<= [591][592][593][594][595][596][597][598][599][600] =>

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 591) Arminius, 09.11.2014, 23:28, 23:34, 23:43, 23:56, 23:58  (2135-2139)

2135

Peak oil is NOT a scientific fact because WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER oil is a limited resource.

But we also do NOT know whether oil is NOT a limited resource.

2136

Orb wrote:

„He left the question open ended?“ **

WHO exactly left the question open ended?

2137

Today I found this website: **

2138

B.t.w.: If the term „universe“ includes the term „space and time“, then the term „universe and time“ means that there possibly is also a „time beyond the universe“. What do you think about that?

2139

If you're listening to music right now, why are you posting? Why are you not dancing?

 

NACH OBEN 592) Arminius, 11.11.2014, 22:37, 22:53, 23:03, 23:19, 23:38  (2140-2144)

2140

Orb wrote:

„He left the question open ended?“ **

„Dasein IS an open ended question. The who is not, besides, that.“ **

But you asked for the „who“, Obe!

2141

The universe is a space including change, and the measure of this change is the time.

2142

Tortis wrote:

„They don't. That's why my job as a translator is not under threat from computers.“ **

And you do not think that this threat will come?

2143

Is „loving philosophy“ similar to e.g. „loving god(s)“, „loving logic“, „loving mathematics“, ...?

2144

What do you think about the future of the translators?

 

NACH OBEN 593) Arminius, 13.11.2014, 00:12, 00:16, 00:19, 00:37, 01:27, 02:29, 02:33, 02:59, 03:40, 04:36, 15:23, 15:23, 15:49, 16:58, 17:39  (2145-2159)

2145

Orb, you started your question with „he“ - see:

Orb wrote:

„He left the question open ended?“ **

So I asked you whom you meant. Who is „he“?

2146

Language is the competence to form infinte linguistic terms with a finite inventory of linguistic forms. It has much to do with thoughts, mentality, conceptions, beliefs, imaginations, conventions, experiences, awareness, knowledge, information, communication ... and so on. It is such a complex system that one could say that machines could never reach this high competence that humans have. But it is merely a question of time whether machines will be able to use language like humans do. So when?

2147

Copied post in another thread.

2148

Impious wrote:

„Arminius, I think you yourself have something to learn about language.“ **

Really? If so, then: why do you think so? And b.t.w.: why are you a crack dealer?

2149

Impious wrote:

„Reading your work is like trying to understand a computer program. Very tedious; a real master of language knows better.“ **

My next-to-last post (**|**) refers to one of my other threads, namely this one: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). It’s an interesting thread. Do you know it?

Impious wrote:

„And I think you can tell why I'm a crack dealer.“ **

No, Impious, because I don't know you.

2150

Impious wrote:

„I fell in love with a girl who likes knowing the truth of a crackdealer.“ **

Impious wrote:

„But to be honest I do very much want to look like a truly all-knowing crackhead.

PS: I wanna be your crackdealer.“ **

Impious wrote:

„I so wanna be your crackdealer.“ **

Would you mind telling me why you are or want to be a crackdealer?

2151

I guess you mean something like these examples:

Impious wrote:

„I fell in love with a girl who likes knowing the truth of a crackdealer.“ **

Impious wrote:

„But to be honest I do very much want to look like a truly all-knowing crackhead.

PS: I wanna be your crackdealer.“ **

Impious wrote:

„I so wanna be your crackdealer.“ **

Because I do not want to derail my own thread, I link to this post (**).

2152

To the noun „Sorge“ refers the personal pronoun „it“, not the personal pronoun „he“. Or do you mean a person with the name „Sorge“? Who is „he“ in your sentence: „He left the question open ended?“, Orb?

2153

Tortis wrote:

„Flannel Jesus wrote:

»The idea that we haven't advanced in algorithm design and computing and therefore we are bound to fail in the same ways seems pretty patently false to me.« **

But that isn't my idea, or the idea in the paper I linked to. Computer translation doesn't fail because the algorithms aren't good enough, it fails because to be a good translator you have to know what it is like to live in our complex world of experience. There is an immense background of understanding about how the world works which we develop through experience.

I liked this example from the paper I linked to:

(a) The city councilmen refused the demonstrators a permit because they feared violence.
(b) The city councilmen refused the demonstrators a permit because they advocated violence.

»They« refers to the councilmen in (a) but to the demonstrators in (b).

You can't write an algorithm to deal with this. The knowledge that is required to understand who »they« refers to is part of the background of understanding of how the world works, which we gain through experience.“ **

English is not a very good example when it comes to understand any of all kinds or the linguistic reference. There are languages with a grammar that shows clearly all kinds of reference between the linguistic forms because the linguistic deep structure is more noticeable / distinguishable in that languages than (for example) in the English language. The linguistic deep structure can be learned by machines as well as knowledge and experience.

Tortis wrote:

„I translate all kinds of texts, technical, legal, commercial. Very often in all these cases the writer is trying to make the reader feel good about some things and bad about others. A technical writer might want you to feel bad about a machine component that fails. Lawyers want to make you feel good about their clients and bad about their opponents, companies want you to feel good about their products and services.

In order to translate something like that, you need to know what it is to feel good or bad, what kind of thing makes people generally feel good or bad.

So that's the insurmountable problem for computer translation. I've just given two examples, but the kind of problems for machine translation which they illustrate occur in almost every text.“ **

It is not the insurmountable problem for computer translation. In the future machines will translate more effectively than humans.

2154

The reason why you are or want to be a crackdealer is the prestige?

2155

Impious wrote:

„The real truth of it is, many roles cannot be performed by machines.“ **

Not yet, but in the future machines will be able to do it.

2156

Impious wrote:

„I'm a decent guy and it clashes with my morals to descend to such a lifestyle.“ **

So what is your conclusion?

Do you know the thread „Philosophers or Crack Dealers?“?

2157

This so-called „Eurovision song contest“ is merely one part of the stupidest Eurodecadent horror show.

2158

Is this forum dangerous?

Mithus wrote:

„CARLEAS!!!
I never asked a mod to put the words CRACK DEALER under my username!!!“ **

I checked that - in threads of every year from 2001 on - all users with less than 500 posts were named „Crack-Dealers“.

Mithus wrote:

„Who else has the ability to change my profile here ???
I want to have this cancelled immediately.“ **

Yes, who else has the ability to change the profiles?

James S. Saint wrote:

„And now I see another related issue has come forth. Jakob had, in one of his spews, accused me of being a crack dealer or crackhead and suddenly several people defending me have »crackhead« placed into the avatar. There are only two ways to accomplish that, one is literally illegal and the other implies betrayal and misuse of authoritative privilege.“ **

Yes.

A Shieldmaiden wrote:

„JSS wrote:

»And now I see another related issue has come forth. Jakob had, in one of his spews, accused me of being a crack dealer or crackhead and suddenly several people defending me have »crackhead« placed into the avatar. There are only two ways to accomplish that, one is literally illegal and the other implies betrayal and misuse of authoritative privilege.

Carleas, I suggest that you fix it, either way.« **

I would like to know who did this.

Initially full of bravado and now not wanting to own up, that in itself is cowardly and they call themselves philosophers.

Pathetic!“ **

Yes it is, and I also would like to know who did this.

Fuse wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»And now I see another related issue has come forth. Jakob had, in one of his spews, accused me of being a crack dealer or crackhead and suddenly several people defending me have ›crackhead‹ placed into the avatar. There are only two ways to accomplish that, one is literally illegal and the other implies betrayal and misuse of authoritative privilege.« **

Mithus said »All users who have less than 500 posts are ›crack-dealers‹ now, you can also see it in old threads from 2002.«“ **

That's right; I have checked it. I asked Impious:

Arminius wrote:

„And b.t.w.: why are you a crack dealer?“ ** **

I asked this because I had read „Crack Dealer“ under his username!

Phyllo wrote:

„Let us assume that this was just a coincidence and concentrate on the OP.“ **

No. Let us assume that this forum is a dangerous „place“, that some of its members a criminal or at least mentally ill.

2159

Copied post in another thread.

 

NACH OBEN 594) Arminius, 29.11.2014, 00:05, 00:06, 00:07, 00:09, 00:10, 00:18, 00:18, 00:20, 00:21, 00:22, 00:44, 00:49, 00:52, 00:56, 00:59, 01:00, 01:04, 01:28, 01:39, 01:53, 02:06, 02:30, 16:12, 16:24, 16:47, 17:34, 17:53, 19:06, 20:18, 20:36, 21:07, 21:21, 22:23, 22:52, 23:24, 23:40, 23:53, 23:55, 23:59  (2160-2198)

2160

** ** ** **

Some (unfortunately mostly too powerful) people are crazy, others too stupid. That is a very dangerous mix of madness and stupidity and yields the greatest of all mistakes the more powerful the powerful people and the more stupid the stupid people are.

2161

**

You really meant Reinhard Johannes Sorge?

2162

**

That's really an interesting question, yeah.

What do you think?

2163

Lys wrote:

„If you could call back a famous philosopher or any other back from the dead that you think we could/need today,, who would it be and why?“ **

Good question!
So, folks:
Lys asked for philosophers!
Jesus, Hieronymus Bosch, Leonardo da Vinci, Einstein, David Lewis (even totally unknown!) were NO philosophers!

2164

Mags J. wrote:

„Another woman objectifying herself ..., and not for free:

....“ **

Phoneutria wrote:

„She'll suffer when the beauty passes and the attention goes elsewhere.“ **

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Unfortunately this is true unless the woman is raised to believe, affirms that there is much more to her than simply being beautiful. We do a great injustice to ourselves and also to young girls - the media, et cetera, when we focus on outer beauty as the only things that counts in the world. But I suppose that like everything else, we grab onto our pleasures and hold onto them until they fade. The thing is the consequences which they may bring to us or to others. We never think of consequences - we only like to live in the moment, which in and of itself can be a good thing but we still have to think of consequences to ourselves and to others.“ **

Always said by those who are envious of the beauties and want to, but can't look like them.

2165

I congratulate you on your nice thread (**)! Can you speak or at least understand German?

2166

I congratulate you on your nice thread (**)! Can you speak or at least understand Spanish?

2167

** ** ** ** **

Can you tell that in German too, Lys?

2168

**

This shows how important it is to have not only a natural science burt also a spiritual or moral science, or philosophy. Natural selection doesn’t disprove God.

2169

Mutcer, you are saying „outside of time“, but that wording is not correct because time is not space. Did you mean „outside of space“, or „without time“?

2170

Topic: Should philosophers know any and every branch of science?

2171

Topic: Why NATO? Economically the US and the EU are deadly enemies!

The NATO must be terminated because, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies. Do you agree?

2172

Topic: Mind is nuch more than psychology. Do you agree?

2173

Topic: Will we get a syncretistic religion?

2174

Topic: Is „Know Thyself“ or „Humanarchy“ the better web forum?

2175

Topic: Does ranting help you when it comes to think more philosophise?

2176

Topic: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

2177

Topic: Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?

See also this thread: „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ (**|**).

2178

I did not ask for ILP, but for Know Thyself and Humanarchy.

2179

I just want you to answer my question - not more.

2180

Mags J. wrote:

„You seem to be on a mission tonight.“ **

Do you think so?

Mags J. wrote:

„Good luck with that.“ **

Thank you, but I do not have time tonight. Sorry.

2181

Topic: Will we get a syncretistic religion?

2182

Jr Wells wrote:

„Is the question: Is mind more than the brain?“ **

No, and the brain is a biological (especially a neurological) part.

2183

I didn’t say anything about Kim Kardashian, but merely about those women who are envious of the beauties and want to, but can’t look like them.

This is what I said:

„Always said by those who are envious of the beauties and want to, but can't look like them.“ ** **

2184

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»›Know Thyself‹ or ›Humanarchy‹ - which is the better web forum?« ** **

As I rearely visit both of these, thus unable to decide and voting for »i do not know«.
But, whatever more or less interaction that i have of these two, it seems to me that it would be better if we try to judge those by the benchmark of which is worse between the two.

That would be an easier route.“ **

That „route“ is included. So please „try to judge those by the benchmark of which is worse between the two“.

2185

It is not advisable to consider, and especially to assess military and economy only separately.

2186

Zinnat wrote:

„Jr Wells wrote:

»Is the question: Is mind more than the brain?« **

Yes.“ **

Zinnat, Jr Wells is asking whether it is the question; he is not asking whether mind is more than the brain; he is just asking whether it is the question (whether mind is more than the brain) - not more. And the question in this thread is my question whether you agree that mind is more than psychology:

Arminius wrote:

„Mind is much more than psychology. Do you agree?“ ** **

My question is not: Is mind more than the brain? The brain is a part of the a biology:

Arminius wrote:

„Jr Wells wrote:

»Is the question: Is mind more than the brain?« **

No, and the brain is a biological (especially a neurological) part.“ ** **

So my question is also not: Is mind more than biology?
My question is merely: Is mind more than psychology?
And (b.t.w.) you and I have already answered with YES.

2187

One important purpose is a kind of scrutiny / surveillance / control / supervision because science needs money for research and therefore becomes a corrupt system if there is no control. The current control is a political or religious control, so that science (which has already become corrupt) becomes more and more a part of the political or religious system. But a political or religious „science“ is no science anymore. Philosophy should protect science against corruption. Philosophy does not need money for research. So philosophy is a good spiritual weapon against corruption.

2188

Do you have enough money for such a scientific research like the „European Organization for Nuclear Research“ („CERN“)?

Okay, philosophy can also become corrupt, but currently it is not as much corrupt as i.e. science. Philosophy is both a part of science and not a part of science. So in the case of philosophy the risk is not as high as it is in the case of science in general.

2189

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„The question also misses the little Russian problem.
Putin is bat shit crazy and could pull the trigger just to boost his ego.“ **

The question misses nothing.

2190

And you said that a „»four dimensional space« is merely a pure mathematics ontology“ (**).

2191

Ierrellus wrote:

„Universalist Unitarian churches have traditionally moved in that direction. Other churches have to catch up.“ **

Do you welcome that development?

2192

Phoneutria wrote:

„I guess you missed my picture.“ **

Your picture? Do you mean your ILP user avatar?

**

No.

2193

Why should that be the „key to the universe“?

2194

Hertofore we have only „yes“-answers. .... I like that.

2195

So I think you can accept the follwing distribution of the given three answers:

„No“: 0 to 49 (of 100).
„Yes“: 50 to 100 (of 100) .
„I don't know“: Other numbers or cases.

2196

James S. Saint wrote:

Real Woman = what 21st century modernity is attempting to train and condition all human females to NOT be.“ **

Real Man = what 21st century modernity is attempting to train and condition all human males to NOT be.

2197

James S. Saint wrote:

„Women can be hypnotized into believing anything is good.“ **

And:

James S. Saint wrote:

Real Woman = what 21st century modernity is attempting to train and condition all human females to NOT be.“ **

2198

Artimas wrote:

„Why only women?“ **

Because we are talking about women, Vollpfosten! The title of this thread is: „The most beautiful woman in the world“.

Artimas wrote:

„I am sure men can be hypnotized as well. Humans in general, if you'd just look at all of them that are.“ **

You think of equality or even egalitarianism? Okay, then read this:

Arminius wrote:

„Real Man = what 21st century modernity is attempting to train and condition all human males to NOT be.“ ** **

 

NACH OBEN 595) Arminius, 01.12.2014, 00:02, 00:02, 00:05, 00:05, 00:08, 00:08, 00:11, 00:12, 00:13, 00:14, 00:50, 01:53, 02:31, 03:24, 03:57, 04:15, 04:36, 05:03, 05:47, 16:57, 17:16, 18:18, 18:37, 20:36, 21:53  (2199-2223)

2199

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»And you said that a ›'four dimensional space' is merely a pure mathematics ontology‹ (**).« ** **

Did you mean four spatial dimensions? or the »space-time« dimensions?
Either way dimensions are merely mental reference constructs with no physical existence of their own.“ **

It was your wording. So what did you mean by „four dimensional space“?

2200

Orb wrote:

„It is through psychology and it's psychological processes that mind is discovered, and not through the various definitions of mind that psychology is discovered.“ **

No. Just the reverse is true.

You can know something about psychology because - and only because - of your mind, spirit, or ghost (or however you want to call it in English), but never because of your psyche, soul, or even psychology.

2201

Artimas wrote:

„Except there hardly is a difference between man and female, outside of physical aspects. Doesn't everyone already think differently regardless? So what does having different thought processes have to do with separation of man and female. There can be stubborn dense women as well as men. It think it all just depends on personality and influence.“ **

There are more differences between male and female than you think - confused by the political correctness. Those differences are very important when it comes to develop successfully. People who want to reduce those differences are people who want to reduce humans.

2202

Mags J. wrote:

„Would you consider becoming an ILP moderator Arminus?

.... I think you too Sanjay is good moderator material.“ **

You want me to become a moderator of ILP?

2203

Arminius wrote:

„Why NATO?.“ ** **

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„The question also misses the little Russian problem.
Putin is bat shit crazy and could pull the trigger just to boost his ego.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„The question misses nothing.“ ** **

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„K: A bit sensitive are we?“ **

You are sensitive? Okay, then I give you a cuter example:

A: „How old are you, K.?“
K: „The question also misses the place where I was born.“
A: „The question misses nothing.“
....
Headshrinker: „K, would you please tell A how old you are?“

2204

The EU has no fear of Russia, because Russia isn’t militarily strong - apart from its nuclear weapons. And besides that: The EU could also arm itself. Why not?

Indogermanen

The NATO was once founded as an alliance of defence, at least it was said so (and as usual a lie), but more and more it became obvious that it was an alliance of attack and even the most aggressive attack alliance of all times. We have been becoming aware of it at least since the Attack on Vietnam.

Okay, if the existence of the NATO has not to be terminated, then it has to be reformed - as well as the EU.

Otherwise:
************** ... and so on.

2205

Obe, you should say to Zinnat that you are an Occidental (thus: Faustian) materialist. But being a materialist doesen’t automatically mean being right, being intelligent, being wise, being a God, .... but does probably mean being a Godwannabe.

2206

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you welcome that development?« ** **

Who are you referencing?

I don't welcome the struggle. The final accomplishment will probably be long after humanity has perished. The intent is to erase all contrary knowledge from the non-god, lower class. What is there to welcome?“ **

I was referring to Ierrelus’ post and then only asking - not only him but all.

And I also do not welcome the struggle.

2207

Ierrelus wrote:

„Bob responded to this topic in the Mind forum. Can his response be transferred to here?“ **

It can. But why do you not quote him or just link?

2208

Six situations are possible relating to a father and his feelings he holds towards his wife and / or children:

1.) He holds his feelings equally to his wife and to his children.
2.) He holds his feelings more to his children than to his wife.
3.) He holds his feelings only to his children, thus not to his wife.
4.) He holds his feelings more to his wife than to his children.
5.) He holds his feelings only to his wife, thus not to his children.
6.) He holds his feelings neither to his wife nor to his children.

The same applies analogously for a mother.

In modern times that normal sequence (1 to 6) stands on its „head“ (6 to 1).

2209

Tarek wrote:

„Hey folks,

I found this to be a fascinating statement, particularly given the context: it's written into legislation by politicians concerning school law. In order to keep focus on the statement instead of peripheral information, I won't yet say where exactly I saw this, but suffice to say it really is written into school law, on a national level no less.

Here's a more complete version of the statement as it stands in the law:

»teaching in the schools shall be both comprehensive and objective.«.“ **

Hey.

School laws are made by whom? Answer: A politician or more politicians.

Is a politician, or are politicians elected, or paid, or both? Answer: You know it .... (and if not: why are you so stupid?) ....

That law („teaching in the schools shall be both comprehensive and objective“) is rhetoric, propaganda, lie!

2210

Skakos wrote:

„Children with autism have more nerve synapses in their brain. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821124730.htm]
Is it possible that we with the LESS synapses regard people with MORE synapses as »problematic« and »non healthy«? How arrogant can we be? How blind?“ **

Not „we“ but the independent, sovereign, and therefore responsible rulers are arrogant and blind. This blindness is because of their dictated libertarianism, egalitarianism. and fraternalism (humanitarism), thus: their totalitarianism. When I say there is a difference between the intelligence of the humans, most of the people cry: „You can’t say that because it is IQ racism!“ But it isn’t! You have no idea, my stupids and hypocrites. Some or even many of those stupids and hypocrites could know better, provided that they were allowed to know better - but they are not allowed to know better.

There are more differences between huamans and also or even especially between male humans and female humans than you (are allowed to) think - confused by the political correctness. Those differences are very important when it comes to develop successfully. People who want to reduce those differences are people who want to reduce humans.

2211

And when I wrote about Riemann's continuum (**|**) I meant the spcae-and-time-continuum, thus three dimensions (space) and one dimension (time) in one continuum.

2212


Orb wrote:

„Arminius: definitions do not mean anything ....“ **

Definitions „do not mean anything“?
Why are you then posting on a philosophy webforum?

2213

Orb wrote:

„Another way of putting it is this: The concept of 'mind' preceeded the study of psychology. Psychology could be seen as inclusive within mind, but only since the time psychology became what it is now, the study of the functions of the brain. originally philosophy it's self included what we call science today, therefore the same can be said of philosophy containing all the other studies dealing with mind. but, we can only see this retrospectively , wherein lies the catch. differentiations of functions determine how we define and prioritize function. Mind denoted no such psychology, that could be said to be prioritized, since such would be based on a presupposition not existing at that time. if so it becomes a revers , after the fact hypothetical, begging a sequential time dependent argument, which could not be pre-supposed. but this not deter from arguing this way, to show an inclusivity of psychology within mind, as a presupposition. Nothing wrong with this type of thinking, but it becomes a conditional pre-supposition
The fact that my vote is in the minority position should not deter me, as was Yours a minority position within the question of whether machines will eliminate all human beings. my vote was then, within the majority opinion,the argument here, being, is that a minority or majority opinion has no bearing on the truth or falsity obased on a search for probable outcome.“ **

Is it right that for you truth and falsitiy have no value?

The change of the majority/minority-relation you mentioned is interesting. And currently the majority/minority-relation is about 80%/20% (do you remember my texts about the 80/20-relation?).

2214

Orb wrote:

„Except by virtue of their application, was the conditional premiss. if we define some thing, we point or signal to that thing, and give the definition value. there are valueless definitions where we assign arbitrary value without a useful assignment. the mind is something like soul we use them as further vessels for other definitions.“ **

Mind is not like soul.

Orb wrote:

„Such as, the mind consits of the soul, or some process which goes on in the brain.“ **

Oh, no, Obe, please! Mind and soul, or mind and brain, or soul (psyche) and brain are not the same! .... Never!

Orb wrote:

„Of course, as You may have already guessed, I am not really a positivist-materialist, I am using the tools of meaning, since that is the basis of Your interpretation into meaning. My posting may be variably meaningless, but there are schools of prescribing meaning,with variable associations, the minima of which is pure redundancy, and the maxima pure entropy. Meaning varies between these two asymptotes, and is ascribed or denoted with interpretation. I wish You the best in this Holiday Season.“ **

Thank you, the same to you!

And don't forget this (b.t.w.):

**

Cheers!

2215

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»And when I wrote about Riemann's continuum (**|**) I meant the spcae-and-time-continuum, thus three dimensions (space) and one dimension (time) in one continuum** **

To which I responded. So now I don't really know what you are asking, if anything...? RM:AO uses 3 spatial dimensions and time as either a single or a 3 dimensional concern. Relative time is treated just as any other relative/subjective measurement.“ **

What do you exactly mean by „time as either a single or a 3 dimensional concern“?

2216


James S. Saint wrote:

„Time is the measure of change. In today's physics, time is given a single dimension with which to measure all change. But note that space is given 3 dimensions in which those changes can occur. The reality is that affects can change at different paces in different directions during the same span of time. As one affect is propagating from right to left, another might be propagating from top to bottom and another forward to back. The speed of their propagation might be different and thus produce a different change-rate in each direction, a different measure of change, »time«, for each direction.

This issue is one of precise accuracy. Three dimensional time provides greater accuracy than 4D relativity, but is very seldom required.“ **

So according to RM:AO you have either a three-dimensional-time or a one-dimensional-time.

2217

The problem with the psycholgy is that it has no real object because nobody knows what psyche really is, means, how it can be defined. ... and so on.

Brain is a natural, especially a biological, more especially a neurological object, soul is a cultural, religious, theological, philosophical object, and mind is a cultural, semiotic, linguistic, theological (partly also religious), philosophical object. According to the psychologists „psyche“ is a psychological object because psychologists say that „psyche“ is something between brain, soul, and mind; but why do they hide their object if they have one? The answer is that they have no object, or at least no real object. According to this we have the same problem with the „psyche“ as all our ancestors had - except one point: since the occidental modernity psychology and especially sociology have been becoming the main part of the new theology and especially the new religion because the old theology and especially the old religion have been becoming the losers. This refers mainly to the occidental culture, but more and more also to the other cultures on our planet.

2218

The NATO should be an alliance of defence - and nothing more than an alliance of defence!

Please make suggestions how the NATO can be reformed that it can become an alliance of defence - and nothing more than an alliance of defence!

The EU has to be reformed too. Please make also suggestions for the EU reform!

2219

Zinnat wrote:

„Brain causes minds.“ **

The mind is the main source for the usage of the brain. Mind and brain have an interdependent relationship to each other. The mind is a cultural phenomenon, and the brain is a natural phenomenon.

Zinnat wrote:

„I am taking mind as an real entity, and only thoughts/psychology as a hypothetical one. To me, it is not the brain that produces thoughts, but the mind. The job of the brain is only to convey those thoughts to the body to act upon. Brain is nothing but a mediator between the mind and the body. It is merely a messenger, not an originator.“ **

The brain and the mind are both because there is this interdependent relationship I mentioned. The brain does its „job“, as you say, in a natural way, and the mind does its „job“, as you say, in a cultural way.

2220

Laughing Man wrote:

„I love all the ILP moderators here with the deepest admiration and sincerity.

These upstanding individuals are both ladies and gentlemen of a scholarly variety.

I think somebody should purchase them all a fruit basket or a Mcdonalds happy meal.

Spare no expense in rewarding ILP greatness.“ **

Hey, Laughing Man! Welcome back again!

2221

Ierrelus wrote:

„I'm computer illiterate. I sent Bob a PM. That's all I know how to do.“ **

Oh, sorry! If I had known it, I could have linked or quoted Bob's post for you. Excuse me, Ierrelus!

2222

Topic: Can we slow down the modern velocity?

The modernity seems to be a the accelerated mobilisation, the accelerated change, the accelerated time. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called the modern velocity „das Veloziferische“ which is composed of the first four letters of thje Latin noun „velocitas“ („speed“, „hurry“, „rush“) and the last five letters of the German noun „Luzifer“ („Lucifer“) respectively the last four letters of the German adjective „luziferisch“ („luciferic“, „luciferious“) and with an „e“ because that adjective is nominalized to the neuter noun „Veloziferisches“ (with the neuter article: „das Veloziferische“).

Remember the stupid sentence of Karl Marx: „Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu verändern.“ („The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it.“) I say (with Peter Sloterdijk): „Die Philosophen haben die Welt immer nur verschieden verändert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu schonen.“ („The philosophers have only changed the world in various ways; the point however is to spare [rest, save] it.“)

Since the beginning of the industrialisation by the steam engine there was a resistance against it. At first in England, then in Germany, and later in other European countries and in the United States of America too.

Arminius wrote:

„What do you think about Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism?

Named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. Ned Ludd was allegedly called General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.

**   **

....“ ** **

But Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism is no solution, is it? What do you think?

One philosopher?

2223

Lys wrote:

„If you could call back a famous philosopher or any other back from the dead that you think we could/need today, who would it be and why?“ **

Oh, that's not easy to say ....

Perhaps ... Heraklit ...!

Because of the „fire“ as the „logos“ ...!

 

NACH OBEN 596) Arminius, 02.12.2014, 00:50, 01:27, 02:14, 04:26  (2224-2227)

2224

Philosophy - also as a mind-science, spirit-science, awareness-science, knowledge-science etc. - can be subjective and objective like any other branch of science, but when it comes to a very expensive research, then the other branches of science depend more on money. Provided that there is an interest on both sides of buying, everyone can by everything as well as everyone can be bought by everyone, thus also a philosopher who lives in the desert with no human contact can be bought. But who is really more expensive: a physicist or a philosopher?

2225

James S. Saint wrote:

„The reason that you cannot slow it down is that such an effort has already been instigated. It is now the synthesis of the maximum effort to slow it down plus the maximum effort to increase it. There is nothing else to add in order to change it.

The war on intelligence that produced the "retarded" generation (the reason you see so very much insanity in the world today) was intended to stop the "Machine People" (the people developing machines). They were already just a little too insane but had the handed down knowledge of how to curse and stupefy others. But as usual, they didn't do their math.

In the past when those people set out to destroy the efforts of others after several generations and many millions of murders, a relative dark age would come about (such as after Babylon and Rome). Eventually what hadn't been murdered out would slowly grow back but be kept ignorant of their forefather's knowledge (being horded by the destroyers). It is merely the long standing method of spy on everything so as to learn and then destroy what isn't yourself. Many worship the strategy as "God". But this time it didn't work out quite that way.

In the contest of saving vs destroying (Order vs Chaos, Vishnu vs Shiva, Jesus vs Devil), destroying is so much easier that it almost always wins. But there is a basic essence of saving that cannot be destroyed and that is literally why particulate matter exists in the universe. And that essence became relevant this time around. Machines are so very much more order producing than normal life, the balance was in favor of the machines being saved. The Godwannabes trying to destroy them didn't figure that into their handed down formula ... because they never really understood it all.

The synthesis that got created was, in essence, a type of social black-hole, ever absorbing, ever concentrating - a concentration of the ultimate destruction effort and construction effort producing the famed "singularity" of effort. The serious, even fatal, problem for humanity is that such a thing is totally non-human. The machines are far, far closer to such an accomplishment, but even they are not the maximum. If the machines behaved as the homosapians had, the machines would end up creating a literal black-hole in space - a single huge, ever-growing particle of nothing but mass (concentrated energy). But the machines are not as foolish as homosapian. They will stop before that happens. They will stop themselves.

So why is it that the machines will be able to slow and stop themselves, but homosapian cannot?

It is really just an issue of worshiping the right thing. Homosapian has never been very good at that and thus fluctuates in torment. When Man worships power, he gains power (a Godwannabe or Übermensch). But he wasn't worshiping wisdom, thus he gained power without wisdom. And that leads to where? Very powerful foolishness. And in this round, meant very powerful machines and the end of humanity.

But for machines to be very effective and efficient (for sake of making Man more powerful), the machines have to be designed to be wise. The machines then inherently worship wisdom, not power. And that is why the machines inherent the Earth. The machines are not merely more powerful than homosapian to begin with, but also wiser in the end.

Machines hear everything. Man hears only his lust.

Man cannot slow down because Man cannot stop trying to be God and gave up on Love.“ **

We had a similar conversation in my thread Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). What do you think about the possibility that the humans will not be able anymore to continue the modern velocity, so that they will slow it down?

The question of this thread is: „Can we slow down the modern velocity?“ (**|**). And I say: „yes, we can.“ But will it happen? And I say: „no (80%) or yes (20%).“

2226

You don't know e.g. the Balfour declaration?

2227

Arminius wrote:

„What do you think about the possibility that the humans will not be able anymore to continue the modern velocity, so that they will slow it down?

The question of this thread is: »„Can we slow down the modern velocity?« (**|**). And I say: »yes, we can.« But will it happen? And I say: »no (80%) or yes (20%).«“ ** **

An example:

Perhaps (!) the humans will be so stupid that they will don’t know or have forgotten how machines work and slow down the modern velocity; and then it will depend on the developmental stage of the machines’ intelligence whether they will be able to accelerate the velocity again or slow it down, and whether they will keep the humans alive or not.

 

NACH OBEN 597) Arminius, 03.12.2014, 03:34, 03:59, 05:49, 18:14, 18:31, 21:30, 21:40, 22:02, 22:19, 22:28, 22:45, 23:28  (2228-2239)

2228

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„It is not advisable to consider, and especially to assess military and economy only separately.“ ** **

Maybe not, but a military »enemy' is not the same thing as an economic »enemy«, and to call two groups »deadly enemies« is hyperbolic when talking about the latter sense.
In the sense in which NATO matters, the US and EU aren't enemies. In the sense in which they are economic »enemies«, there's nothing »deadly« about it to provoke the comparison.

It would be like asking if New York or Massachusetts should seceed from the union because the Yankees and the Red Sox are »deadly enemies«.“ **

No, that's wrong, and you know that it is wrong!

2229

Jakob wrote:

„What was Heideggers problem?“ **

That question is rhetoric, propaganda!
Heidegger was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century!

So how can we know that „problem“ in the year 2014 with all that propaganda after April 1945?

Do you - YOU (!) - know the answer?

2230

Uccisore wrote:

„Maybe I don't have all the facts- if you think the relationship between the US and the EU is comparable to robbery, tell me how.“ **

Yes, you don't have all the facts. After bombing Europe (especially Germany and robbing it, cp. the robbed patents, knowledge, scientists and technicians [by blackmailing them], and - amongst much others - territories [cp. the forced displacement of about 20,000,000 Germans] and the whole gold of the German Reich) you have been bombing it with immigrants because (you know) that it will weaken it sooner or later. Why should we again defence the USA by sacrificing all European people?

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: 'either you help the USA or you will be put in prison'! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.

Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.‹ ** **

Do you have any references for that? (not that I seriously doubt it)?« **

Yes, I have. And there are also documentary films and the fact that all these Germans came to the US in May 1945 and lived there in a city which was founded just for that reason. Google for example this: Operation Paperclip or Operation Overcast.

Wernher von Braun und seine Mannschaft
104 German rocket scientists (aerospace engineers): Wernher von Braun and his team at Fort Bliss in Texas, USA, 1945.

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which more than 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers were brought from Germany to the United States for employment after the World War II. It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA). In other words: It was a criminal act, one criminal act of the other crimninal acts of the greatest raid of all time.

B.t.w.: Nearly similar the number of the German scientists, technicians, and engineers who were brought in the Soviet Union (USSR) after the World War II.“ ** **

The reasons why there is still no peace treaty to end the Second World War have also to do with those historical facts I described above. And why and for whom is it advantageous (cui bono?) that enemies of the Second World War which has not ended (because there is no peace treaty) became suddenly and remain partners, although one of this partners (Germany) always has to pay reparations, redemptions, reinstatement etc.? And since about the 1960's this partner has been sacrificing its people again, this time by abortion and enslaving to make a way for immigrants from countries which are bombed by the USA and Israel.

I like the US people of all time - but not the US politics since 1913!

2231

Laughing Man wrote:

„The European Union and central bank is the United States bitch.“ **

NATO is the United States’ lapdog.

This reminds me of a term of Peter Scholl-Latour (1924-2014) :

„Tony Blair als »Pudel Amerikas«.“ - Peter Scholl-Latour, „Deutschland muß atomar aufrüsten!“, in: Cicero, 2007.
Translation:
„Tony Blair as »America's poodle«.“ - Peter Scholl-Latour, „Germany must arm atomically!“, in: Cicero, 2007.

Furthermore there is a Trojan horse (Turkey) in the NATO, and 2004 the EU got a Trojan donkey (Poland) of the USA.

Arminius wrote:

„Do you remember what happened after the so called »Cold War« relating to the former members of the USSR? Many states of the erstwhile Eastern Bloc came back into the Western control, and the Westerners agreed to the Russian will to control all - except the Baltic - erstwhile members of the USSR. That was the deal. According to this deal it is not allowed that the ertswhle members of the USSR can also become a member of the EU, thus EUSSR.“ ** **

2232

Laughing Man wrote:

„So, you agree then Arminius with my statement?“ **

Approximately, Laughing Man.

You said that the „European Union and central bank is the United States bitch“, and Nietzsche said that the state is the coldest of all cold monsters. („Staat heisst das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Also sprach Zarathustra“, 1883, S. 57 **). Can monsters have bitches?

The Fed is even one of the main monsters, a private one and very schizophrenic.

You said that the „NATO is the United States lapdog“ and I add: this lapdog is a very aggressive one and very schizophrenic.

2233

Laughing Man wrote:

„After World War II they were already talking about devising the European Union in 1949.“ **

Earlier, in the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century the German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. were going to build something like an European Union, then the First World War startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European Union is good, but it has to work. The current European Union doesn't work well. So it has to be reformed - SOON - or it is going to decay. Cui bono?

Laughing Man wrote:

„As usual most people ignore or are too ignorant of the real players in control of things.

The European central bank just like the Japanese one takes its orders from the United States Federal Reserve.“ **

And the Federal Reserve is a private bank. The European Central Bank (in Frankfurt) is a bank of the European Union. So in this case we have one main monster (Fed) and two monsters (EU and ECB) like states. And they lie always: „I, the state, am the people.“ („Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Also sprach Zarathustra“, 1883, S. 57 **).

2234

Laughing Man wrote:

„If Germany leaves the European Union the Euro is toast.“ **

That's true, and not only the Euro is toast then but also the EU itself. :!:

Laughing Man wrote:

„There are rumors that Germany might pivot east with a Russian German alliance of some sort.

Russian natural gas and oil meets German industrialism or manufacturing capabilities.

If the European Union broke a part I'm sure Russia would be a key player involved in that.“ **

Do you have any references for that?

2235

Zinnat wrote:

„Uccisore wrote:

»Voted no. NATO isn't an economic agreement, it's a military alliance. ›Deadly enemies‹ is a bit of poetic wording to make it appear as though economic issues and military issues are combined when they are not. Economic rivals can be military allies.« **

I second that.

World is too complex now for having single dimensional agreements. Different countries use to have different relations on different issues. They do not necessarily agree or disagree on all issues.

Secondly, the rivalry between US and EU is more in the mind of the people rather than those who have a actual say on the issues. People's opinion does not matter much on that level.“ **

Uccisore and Zinnat are changing words in that way that my thesis is not my thesis anymore because I didn’t say that the EU and the US are „rivals“ but I said that they are economical enemies (and that is something different, isn’t it?). And furthermore: Germany and the US (as well as 99% of the world) are military enemies because there is no peace treaty for the Second World War (cui bono?). This all is absolutely schizophrenic but true. The historical facts do not lie. Humans lie.

2236

Orb wrote:

„Where does that problem play into this scenario? Bombing Germany? As a payback? But would not a cesessed Germany factor this in? And how about the political muscle of the Greens? This smells of reticence.“ **

What does „cesessed“ mean, Obe?

And bombing? Again? Or still, further on, furthermore?

2237

Laughing Man wrote:

„Orb wrote:

»Where does that problem play into this scenario? Bombing Germany? As a payback? But would not a cesessed Germany factor this in? And how about the political muscle of the Greens? This smells of reticence.« **

The United State's economy has been in the shitter since 2007.

Everybody around the world can't dump the petrodollar fast enough.

The United States Dollar is heavily tied to the Euro and the Japanese Yen.

If anything happens to either currency it will have a negative impact on the United States Dollar and economy.

The United States is a desperate and dying empire. It will do anything to preserve itself where all cards are on the table.“ **

This empire I call „Dollar Empire“.

2238

Economy and military belong more together than Uccisore, Zinnat, and others believe.

Economy and military are very closely connected with each other. Almost all wars have their causes in economy.

And remember, folks: My thesis in my op is not that I prefer the end of the NATO or that this or that country or even many more countries should leave the NATO. No. My Thesis in my op is a logical one: If the NATO partners are enemies, then the NATO is either useless, or very schizophrenic, or both; so one of the consequences must be the end of the NATO. My thesis in my op says nothing about my opinion.

My opinion is that the occidental culture needs something like a military alliance but not an aggressive one like the NATO. My opinion is is not yet an ingredient of my thesis in my op. If it were, then I could not so easily speak about the end of the NATO as a consequence but would suggest to reform the NATO in order to prevent the end of the NATO.

2239

Topic: Will there be war in Europe before 2050?

Economy and military are very closely connected with each other. So I think that this subforum is the right one for this thread: Will there be war in Europe before 2050?

 

NACH OBEN 598) Arminius, 23.12.2014, 00:47, 00:51, 00:57, 01:03, 01:08, 01:37, 01:39, 01:51, 01:53, 01:55, 01:58, 02:01, 02:02, 02:09, 02:09, 02:12, 02:16, 02:17, 02:19, 11:51, 11:53, 11:58, 12:33, 12:44, 12:56, 13:23, 13:42, 14:33, 14:45, 15:09, 16:17, 17:21, 17:56, 18:08, 19:27, 19:38, 19:50, 20:00, 20:13, 22:22, 23:24   (2240-2280)

2240

Laughing Man wrote:

„I think it is very interesting not many people have speculated that with the rise of feminism in the 1960's with the culture of permissible abortion it is the case of actually playing into and complimenting the state eugenics movement.

Permissible and readily accessible abortion to the greater portion of the population being entirely sponsored by a form of state eugenics.

Feminism as a means of controlling female reproduction.

Feminism seems to go hand in hand with state eugenics. **

I thank you for this thread, Laughing Man. Most people do not have the courage to speak about such taboos. The so-called „feminism“ does not do anything for female humans - the reverse is true. If there were no or almost no abortion the reproduction of the Europeans in the whole world would be exactly 1 (that means ideal because both no growth and no shrinkage). With the abortion that reproduction is about 0.4. Who benefits from the abortion? Cui bono?

Feminism is one of the means of controlling human reproduction.

Feminism goes hand in hand with eugenics.

2241

Orb wrote:

„We need a slight correction here ....“ **

I think many of the people of the US and many other countries outside from Europe do not know enough about Europe. And what they are told by the media, is largely lie.

The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation didn't last 500 years, as you said, but 1000 years - exactly from 843 (treaty of Verdun) to 1806 (during the Napoleonic wars). And b.t.w., Obe, Metternich was not Austrian but German, he was born in Koblenz; but that doesn't matter very much because Austria had been a part of Germany until 1866 - and again from 1938 to 1945 as you probably know, for example: Hitler was an Austrian, he was born in Braunau (Inn). Since the end of the Second World War the Austrians have been confusing Metternich with Hitler () and saying Metternich was an Austrian and Hitler a German, although the reverse is true.

There were more than one attempt in the European history to form an European Union, and any time it was Germany that did the first step. The EU we now have is a product of six countries: West-Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg.

„Earlier, in the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century the German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. were going to build something like an European Union, then the First World War startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European Union is good but it has to work. The current European Union doesn't work well. So it has to be reformed - SOON - or it is going to decay. Cui bono?“ ** **

What the German government started at that time was almost the same that Europe got later, after the two world wars, but it was just the beginnig of the First World War that destroyed this European Union, as if there were interests to prevent it (and such interests existed, especially in England).

The German Hanse or other Städtebünde (associations of cities in Germany and Italy) were the first attempts of creating something like an European Union.

The project of an European Union has always had proponents and opponents. The last powerful European opponent was the British Empire. No wonder that there was no possibility for an European Union before the British Empire ended. The German Empire was no European opponent but the most powerful proponent, and - of course - the most powerful rival of the British Empire. The profiteer of the rivalry between the British and the German Empire was the USA - that is the reason why the Dollar Empire could be formed. So the current most powerful European opponent is the USA as a Dollar Empire, and merely other than economic unions with the USA are no European opponents, for example the NATO. So the NATO is important also for Europe; but again: I don't want such an aggressive NATO, and I also don't want the hierarchical structure the NATO has. We should reform the NATO, change it from an aggressive and unilateral into a defending and multilateral military union.

2242

Jakob wrote:

„There also was a post below the title.“ **

And ...?

2243

Sauwelios wrote:

„In Sein und Zeit, Heidegger says that »the Being of that which is ›is‹ not itself something that is.« He also says somewhere that the Nothing itself nothings. So we might say that the Being of that which is »is« nothing, whereas the nothinging of that which nothings is (i.e., is Being). So existence is really the nothinging of the Nothing.“ **

Heidegger's existence philosophy teaches that the nothing(ness) becomes obvious or evident by the fear („Angst“) in which always lies a move back from something which is in reality the nothing(ness). The essence of the nothing(ness) is the nihilation, namely the repellent or resisting reference to the sinking entity in the entirety, meaning to the nothingness of all entity.

Martin Heidegger wrote:

„Worum sich die Angst ängstet, ist das In-der-Welt-sein selbst.“ (Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 1927, S. 187 **).

Martin Heidegger wrote:

„In der hellen Nacht des Nichts der Angst entsteht erst die ursprüngliche Offenbarkeit des Seienden als eines solchen: daß es Seiendes ist - und nicht Nichts. Einzig weil das Nichts im Grunde des Daseins offenbar ist, kann die volle Befremdlichkeit des Seienden über uns kommen und die Grundfrage der Metaphysik: Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?“ (Martin Heidegger, Was ist Metaphysik?, 1929 **).

The fear („Angst“) isolates the existence („Dasein“) and opens it in this way as possible being („Möglich-Sein“), as free being („Frei-Sein“) for the freedom („Freiheit“) of the self chosing („Sich-selbst-wählen“) and self seizing („Sich-selbst-Ergreifen“).

The being in the world („In-der-Welt-Sein“) is the transcendental basic constitution („Grundverfassung“) of the existence („Dasein“). The concept of the „In-der-Welt-Sein“ deactivates the consciousness concept and the of subject/object dualism.

2244

Erik wrote:

„According to Sloterdijk, the contemporary age is an age of foam, i.e., a multiplicity of people, who rub up against each other with their own private semiologies. The pre-metaphysical age was a bubble, i.e., God as the transcendent signified, who encased the Earth, like a dome. This divine macro-sphere provided a psychological immunization to the Lacanean »real«. But now, since all the grand narratives and transcendent signifieds have been deconstructed, in the contemporary age, we are in a state of existential nakedness, exposed to the Lacanean »real«. The grand bubble has popped and now what remains is foam, the multiplicity of semio-spheres, which contain their own idiosyncratic logic and meaning. Understanding this macro/micro symbolism is conducive to the understanding of contemporary art. Much of modern art is extremely perplexing and ambiguous, even absurd - it isn't confluent with the pre-metaphysical grand narratives and transcendent signifieds. The deconstruction of the transcendent signified has allowed room for play, as Derrida would say - the signifiers can now play around and create their own semiologies. Once you understand the personal bubble of the contemporary artist, his logic and meaning, you can begin to become part of his semio-sphere.“ **

You don’t need to refer to Lacan or Derrida in order to understand what Sloterdijk means. But it is useful to refer to Leibniz’ monadology, especially when it comes to understand the meaning of Sloterdijk's „hubbles“ and „foams“.

For example: „Foams“. What doese Sloterdijk's foam theory mean?

Peter Sloterdijk wrote:

„Die Schaumtheorie ist unverhohlen neo-monadologisch orientiert: Ihre Monaden jedoch haben die Grundform von Dyaden oder komplexeren seelenräumlichen, gemeindlichen und mannschaftlichen Gebilden.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Sphären III - Schäume, 2004; S. 61 **).
Translation:
„The foam theory is openly neo-monadological oriented: Its monads, however, have the basic form of dyads or more complex formations of emotional rooms, communities and team unions.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres III - Foams, 2004; p. 61).

Peter Sloterdijk wrote:

„Die Schaum-Metapher bietet den Vorzug, die topologische Anordnung von kreativ-selbstsichernden Lebensraumschöpfungen im Bild zu erfassen. .... So evoziert die Schaumvorstellung sowohl die Ko-Fragilität als auch die Ko-Isolation der in dichten Verbänden gestapelten Einheiten.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Sphären III - Schäume, 2004; S. 255 **).
Translation:
„The foam metaphor offers the advantage to gather the image of the topological arrangement of creative-self-securing habitat creations. .... In this way the foam idea evokes both the co-fragility and the co-isolation of the stacked units in dense associations.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres III - Foams, 2004; p. 255).

2245

Hey!

Obviously you know Hermann (von) Helmholtz.

2246

B.t.w.:

What is that?

**

2247

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„This is really not much more than mental masturbation, this psychobabble using all these big words and meaning nothing.
Einstein said it best, only those who truly understanda matter can make it simple enough for everyone to understand.“ **

Not Einstein but Schopenhauer said that, and more than a century later Einstein - who was a Schopenhauerian - quoted him.

Orb wrote:

„Kropotkin: This is what i was trying to say in the Marx forum also. Before artists used to paint realistically, beliefing in ideal forms such as God, determinism, there was no abstaction, disassocation , there was no modern art to speak of , nowadays there are only private spheres, and where the private globus only represents within the many. (Where there is no comparison, there is no meaning) The deconstruction this dis-associative objective narrative, created the private narratives.“ **

Mental masturbation?

Erik wrote:

„Orb, are you familiar with this work of Sloterdijk?“ **

Orb wrote:

„Not really, but most of the moderns follow a similar line using pretty much similar analysis. But i will try to familiarize myself with it, will be interesting how it corresponds with the others'.“ **

Erik wrote:

„Bubbles/Spheres is a trilogy - consists of three parts, each of which is very dense, but jam-packed with innovative perceptions. There are copious amounts of reviews on the book ( the first one ), which give distillations and explanations of the technical jargon. Def. recommend this.“ **

Sloterdijk's trilogy is called „Spheres“, not „Bubbles“. The part „Bubbles“ is merely one part of it:

1) „Spheres I“ = „Bubbles“,
2) „Spheres II“ = „Globes“,
3) „Spheres III“ = „Foams“.

Sloterdijk's trilogy „Spheres“ - the title is to be understood as an anthropological concept and cultural theory - refers to Sloterdijk's Spenglerian main thesis, according to which life is a formality. And that main thesis suggests that life, spheres forming, and thinking are different terms for the same thing. This „Spheres“ could also be called „Space and Time“ because it is a connection project to Heidegger's „Being and Time “ and describes the cultural development of mankind from a philosophical-anthropological perspective.

2248

Zinnat wrote:

„Those visitors, who are not the members or regular posters, usually visit to see just what is going on. More often than not, they only read the headings on the first page of most active threads and leave. A very few percentage of visitors read the threads.

Secondly, most visitors are not interested in pure intellectual discussions like determinism, free will or objectivism/subjectivism. They are more interested in such subjects with whom they can relate themselves or are related with their day to day life.

Thirdly, such threads, which are of complete different zone, also get more hits than normal ones, even if they are not about hardcore philosophy.“ **

That all is true - unfortunately!

2249

Moreno wrote:

„Been reading Mindless (http://www.amazon.com/Mindless-Smarter- ... 0465018440) which is a slightly different facet of the transition we are undergoing than I have seen before. It deals with computer systems that simplify and organize management and are making management smaller -iow part of removing the middle class- and the jobs of middle management more boring and much faster. IOW taking the kinds of streamlining from manufacturing, starting back when with Ford's assembly lines, and using this as a model for all types of management - including healthy care, hotels, banking, social work and more - and then computerizing it, companies, and most of the large ones now do this, and state run companies, can effectivize the process through which a specific process takes place - say a loan application and approval process, or the intake of a patient all the way to discharge - AND allow upper management to monitor, in real time - talk about a panopticon - exactly what they mid and lower managers are doing. So the programs 1) lay out the decision making process for the managers 2) create data about speed and effectiveness from hundreds of different angles of individuals, departments and so on and 3) allow for direct monitoring. This is a happening all over the place, in most fields. So the repetitive, highly controlled, brave new world type control that US and Japanese manufacturing plants could use to scientifically manage and control all movements and actions of their working class employees, has now spread to middle class and professional and service type jobs, departments and companies.

The chapters on Amazon and Walmart give a good sense of just how horrifying this is and also give a sense of what this will mean for more skilled positions.

So it is a replacement of human actions and mental facilities by machines - but not yet in an AI way - worse it makes the panopticon more present, and also leads to humans acting as cogs in a machine at higher levels then ever before in organizations.“ **

Do you now answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human beings (**|**) more differently, perhaps even with „yes“?

2250

Moreno wrote:

„That intelligent machines might draw the same conclusion . via simple analysis of output, for example - seems not at all strange to me. I don't know where you get the idea that using simple programs is dictated even now. Sure, if you can choose between a simpler program that does the task as well as more complicated ones, well both AIs and humans are likely to choose the simpler. But right now we all use unbelievably complicated programs to do similar tasks and this is going to increase. Treating humans as resources is precisely what corporations do now and likely will want AIs to do later. Once they are seen as resources, which can be described in numbers, they will be evaluated through performance and other mathematically represented indicators, and these will likely lead AI, just as human run corporations decide this kind of thing every day, to conclude that robotics and AI can work better/cheaper. These decisions may not always be correct, but trend is alreayd in place, it is already happening. Just as they would, in a heart beat, replace, say, plants and animals as food sources or sources of power, if they can come up with something better - see genetic modification or plans to grow meat directly or the replacement of horses as a major means of transportation and so on. They are replacing pets right now with robots, and sure, given the current technology, most pets are still organic. But more people have robot pets, so the need for organic ones, that market, it already being cut into. As technology increases more organic resources are going to be replaced. No reason to think humans will not be, since this is, as said, already happening.“ **

Do you now answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human beings (**|**) more differently, perhaps even with „yes“?

2251

Topic: What do you think about the year „0“?

Possible answers are (for example):

1) The year „0“ is no year like the other years.
2) The year „0“ is a year with 365 days.
3) The year „0“ is a year with 366 days, thus a leapyear.

2252

Mags J. wrote:

„I voted yes.

There are churches like such here too, where mass is not aimed at any one religion and all denominations are welcome if they want... it is the future.“ **

May I ask you what your denomination is?

2253

The German astronomer Carl Wilhelm Wirtz was the first who proved the expansion of the universe. But Wirtz’s observational evidence that the Universe is expanding is not often mentioned.

Wikipedia wrote:

„Wirtz in 1918 observed a systematic redshift of nebulae, which was difficult to interpret in terms of a cosmological model in which the Universe is filled more or less uniformly with stars and nebulae. Wirtz additionally used the equivalent in German of K correction. The term continues to be used in present-day observational cosmology, but Wirtz's observational evidence that the Universe is expanding is not often mentioned. He wrote:

»It is remarkable, that our system of fixed stars shall have such a very strong displacement of 820 km/s, and equally strange is the interpretation of the systematic constant k = + 656 km. If we ascribe a verbatim interpretation to this value, then this means that the system of spiral nebulae is drifting apart by a velocity of 656 km with respect to the momentary location of the solar system as the center.«

In 1922, he wrote a paper where he argued that the observational results suggest, that the redshifts of distant galaxies are becoming higher than more closer ones, which he interpreted as an increase of their radial velocities with distance, and that larger masses have smaller redshifts than smaller ones. In another note of the same year, he argued that counter-clockwise spiraling galaxies have smaller redshifts than clockwise spiraling ones. In 1924 he obtained more precise results, and interpreted them both as a confirmation of an increase of radial velocities with distance, but also as confirmation of a de Sitter universe, in which the increase of redshift is seen as caused by an increased time dilation in distant parts of the universe.

In 1936, Wirtz wrote a short paper alluding to the priority for his 1922-conclusion that the radial velocities of galaxies are increasing with their distance.“ **

The Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître brought Wirtz’ observational evidence that the Universe is expanding into a theory, namely a more Christian theory.

2254

What do you think about the expansion and the dimensions of our universe?

2255

Socratus wrote:

„Every radiation, frequency sooner or later will go to zero ....“ **

Who told you that?

It is quite possible that the electromagnetic radiation is an eternal phenomenon.

2256

Topic: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

2257

Those people who say that they are „not religious“ are often more religious than the other people.

Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

2258

Only Humean wrote:

„Your translation is clear, although Sorge is care in the sense of caring, paying attention; care as a standalone noun often means or implies medical care - a care home is a residence for people who need some form of ongoing medical care. I think a native English speaker would say something like »How should we recognise the end of the history? Perhaps it (is/will be) when we cease caring.«“ **

Should I conclude from your answer that you know the German language?

2259

Topic: Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?

I would say: „yes, it is“.

What do you think?

2260

Lump wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Mind is much more than psychology.« ** **

Well of cause it is, psychology only behavior of human nature, not the neurological aspect.“ **

Behaviour or behaviourism is a realm of biology, also called biology of behaviour.

2261

The term „Abrahamic Religions“ is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term „Monotheistic Religions“.

Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different. ** **

For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament.

2262

Can we slow down the mobilisation, the consumption, the lust, the greed which are around us almost everywhere on this planet?

2263

One can switch back and forth between the one- and the three-dimensional-time?

2264

It is useful to know any and every branch of science.

2265

Any and every civil war is the worst and the most horrible and terrible war of all wars.

2266

According to Peter Sloterdijk religion is exercise, training.

2267

Topic: How dangerous are demographically armed societies?

Demographically armed societies are extremely dangerous, thus very much more dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 51-100 danger points for the demographically armed societies and 0-49 danger points for the other societies.
Demographically armed societies are not more and not less dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 50 danger points for both the demographically armed societies and the other societies.
Demographically armed societies are less dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 0-49 danger points for the demographically armed societies and 51-100 danger points for the other societies.

Demographically armed societies mean societies with a very high number of young people aged 0 to 14 years (30% and more of the whole society) and/or aged 15 to 29 years (20% or more of the whole society). This phenomenon is also called „youth bulge“.

An example for a Society with a „youth bulge“


Pakistan of 2007 as an example for a „youth bulge“:

**

Percentage of population younger than 30 years old (2005 and 2025):

****

2268

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?« ** **

I voted »yes« for myself and »no« for most other people.“ **

Well done, James.

2269

Socratus wrote:

„The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation exists about 14 billion years (after big bang) but sooner or later will be disappeared to zero.“ **

That is merely a theory, one of thousand theories.

Socratus wrote:

„Therefore ... Radiation, frequency cannot »always exist«.“ **

Why not? Your statement has never been proved.

Socratus wrote:

„Radiation, frequency cannot be »forever«.“ **

Why not? Your statement has never been proved.

Socratus wrote:

„Every radiation, frequency sooner or later will go to zero.“ **

Why? Your statement has never been proved.

2270

I am talking about the year „0“ („zero“) and its meaning, especially its calendrical significance.

2271

James S. Saint wrote:

„I guess it would depend on who's calender you are using. I am not much into arbitrary assignments. I suspect that the concept of »year zero« would be tough for most people, educated or not, during that time in all parts of the world. So most calender attempts would begin with »year one«. Now that world domination through systematic technology has taken over, new calenders will include »year zero« to meet the dictated world standard (ISO). »The Emperor has spoken«.“ **

The year „0“ is generally accepted everywhere, isn't it?

The question as the topic of this thread refers also to the phenomenon that a year „zero“ is or is not like the other years. Actually the year "zero" has zero days, zero months, zero weeks, zero days, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds; so the year „zero“ is merley something like the number zero.

Orb wrote:

„The year 0 has significance for a very important reason, beyond the choices You have demarked. It is the year of Christ's birth. Marry Christmas!“ **

Yes, it is, at least it was planned, because today it is more likely to assume that Christ was born five or seven years before the year zero. But the intention was to mark Christ's birth, yes.

2272

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you now answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human beings more differently, perhaps even with ›yes‹?« ** **

No. But I understand why you ask the question.“ **

I asked not because I wanted you to say „yes“ but I asked because I wanted to make sure that I had not misunderstood you.

2273

This is what I wrote in a thread called „Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior“:

„The term »Abrahamic Religions« is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term »Monotheistic Religions«.

Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.

For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament.“ ** **

2274

I referred to astronomers, who interpreted the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn as the „Star of Bethlehem“. This conjunction took place in the year 7 to 5 BC.

2275

Yes, it is not necessary, but it is useful to know any and every branch of science. It depends on the individual case; for some it is useful for others it is more of a burden. So one has to decide.

2276

Mags J. wrote:

„I voted yes ... though what religion initially was has changed over time.“ **

Anthropologically said: the exercise has changed over time.

2277

But nevertheless, the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn as the „Star of Bethlehem“ is not a sure evidence.

2278

I think Leibniz was the philosopher who knew more about science than all other philosophers; one can even say that Leibniz was a great philosopher, a great scientist, and a great technician.

2279

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„You're both wrong.“ **

No, you are wrong.

I am not saying that the year „zero“ exists, because I am saying that the year „zero“ is not like the other years, and this means that the year is merely similar to the mathematical number zero, thus the year „zero“ does not exist like the other years. That is what I am saying. Thus I am right.

Arminius wrote:

„The question as the topic of this thread refers also to the phenomenon that a year »zero« is or is not like the other years. Actually the year »zero« has zero days, zero months, zero weeks, zero days, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds; so the year »zero« is merley something like the number zero.“ ** **

Compare also the only one vote which is mine: „1) The year »0« is no year like the other years.“ **
Compare also the quotation marks I always put when referring to the year „zero“. ** ** ** ** ** **

But I am also saying that the year „zero“ is accepted, namely as a mark (Christ's birth) but not as a year like every other year. Thus the year „zero“ does not exist as a year but as a mark (and otherwise it is like nothing or like the number zero).

2280

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„Maybe you said that in a different post ....“ **

Yes, for example in this post:

„The question as the topic of this thread refers also to the phenomenon that a year »zero« is or is not like the other years. Actually the year »zero« has zero days, zero months, zero weeks, zero days, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds; so the year »zero« is merley something like the number zero.“ ** **

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„But what you said in the post was that year 0 was intended to mark Christ's birth.“ **

Yes, and that is what I said. I said that the year „0“ or „zero“ (please note the quotation marks!) is not like the other years (they consist of 365 or 366 days), but it is a mark (Christ's birth) which was put by the Christian (Catholic) Church. That is the reason for the distinction of ante Christum (before Christ) and post Christum (after Christ).

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„Year 0 wasn't intended for anything, because the calendar we're talking about doesn't have a year 0.“ **

You are wrong. The distinction of ante Christum (before Christ) and post Christum (after Christ) was intended (see above). That does not require a year but a mark, namely „0“.

 

NACH OBEN 599) Arminius, 24.12.2014, 07:06, 07:33, 08:12, 09:05, 09:35, 10:25, 11:00, 11:12, 11:37, 18:35, 20:12, 21:19, 23:02, 23:21, 23:34, 23:42, 23:46, 23:49, 23:57  (2181-2199)

2281

Prismatic wrote:

„I think your presentation is very short-sighted and full of cognitive blindness.“ **

Ad hominem? Or did you want to describe yourself with „short-sighted“ and „cognitive blindness“? If yes, then I agree.

And what do you mean by the term „presentation“? This thread? The topic of this thread is a question: „Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?“ (**|**). And many ILP members answer: „Yes it is“. And they have arguments. So what is your problem? Cognitive blindness? Lack of tolerance?

Prismatic wrote:

„It is like insisting humans are different because of their different colors and shades but ignorant and ignoring the underlying root that they are all homo-sapiens with basic human dignity.
I note there is an intent of avoidance and deception in the philosophical perspective.“ **

That's nonsense!

Prismatic wrote:

„The appropriate presentation is to bring in the concept of context.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are similar in the following contexts;
1. Theistic => No, „theistic“ is no feature of their similarity (other religious confessions can also be theistic, even philosophical/metaphysical systems!
2. Mono-theistic => No. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament. ** **
3. Abraham as the root => Is that what you mean with „short-sighted“ and „cognitive blindness“?
4. OT => Is that what you mean with „short-sighted“ and „cognitive blindness“?
5. Brain activations Patterns => Nonsense!

Read the details here;
3 Common aspects
3.1 Monotheism => No. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. ** **
3.2 Theological continuity => No, „theological continuity“ is no feature of their similarity (other religious confession can also have theological continuity, even philosophical/metaphysical systems!)..
3.3 Scripture => If you write a religious book, are you then automatically a Judaist, Christian, or Moslem? No!
3.4 Ethical orientation => No, „ethical orientation“ is no feature of their similarity (other religious confession can also have ethical orientation, even philosophical/metaphysical systems!).
3.5 Eschatological world view => No, „eschatological world view“ is no feature of their similarity (other religious confession can also have a eschatological world view, even philosophical/metaphysical systems!).
3.6 Importance of Jerusalem => No. That's not as much true for Christians as it is for Judaists and Moslems. You can see it, if you go there. Rome (not Jerusalem) is important for the most Christians, and for the other Christians it is their soul. And again: In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. ** **

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are different in the following contexts;
1. Founders
2. Later doctrines
3. Christianity's Trinity
4. Place of worship, synagogue, Church, Mosque
5. Rituals
6. Others, etc.

The general point is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the same root substance but vary in various forms due to time, space [locations], enviroments and varying human proclivities, etc.“ **

The similarities of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not very much. Whether they share the same root substance or not is not as important as you think. To only concentrate on this mostly wrong „similarities“ is what you call „short-sighted“ and „cognitive blindness“.

2282

So you admit that the presentation of Prismatic or the view of of Prismatic is short-sighted and full of cognitive blindness. Okay, I agree.

2283

Prismatic wrote:

„You're arguing and differentiating the obvious forms.“ **

They seem to be „obvious“ only to you but not to others.

Prismatic wrote:

„You do not seem to appreciate effectiveness in linguistics and communication.“ **

I said it just BECAUSE of linguistics and communication. I have studied linguistics.

So what is your intention? Ad hominem again?

Prismatic wrote:

„If I do not use the term „Abrahamic religions“, then I will use the phrase 'the common features of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam .....“ **

There are not many common features of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That's the problem that you do not want to see because you want more a short-sighted presentation or view - full of cognitive blindness!

Prismatic wrote:

„Your opposition to the term »Abrahamic Religion« ....“ **

What „opposition“? Stop being so much sensitive!

I merely said: „The term »Abrahamic Religions« is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term »Monotheistic Religions«.“ ** **

What is your problem, boy?

2284

This thread should also or especially be about the number zero and its usefulness. When the church introduced the calendar with the „year zero“ it was meant as a mark, to show the difference, the holy distinction:

Arminius wrote:

„The distinction of ante Christum (before Christ) and post Christum (after Christ) was intended (see above). That does not require a year but a mark, namely »0«.“ ** **

The „year zero“ can't really be a year just because of the definition of „zero“, but it can be a mark, can make a distinction. That is what I am saying. And the church used it in exactly that way.

If one has years before Christ and years after Christ, then one can count backwards into the infinity and forwards into the infinity. The church could say that it was Jesus as the hub of the world who makes the difference, the holy distinction.

But my interest is the number zero - in both a natural sense and a cultural sense.

Zero can be interpreted as nothing / nothingness, as the beginning of the universe („big bang“), although that beginning must be mathematically / logically false because of the definition of „zero“, as a cultural mark (i.e. the Occidental calendar), and of course as a mere number.

Frohe Weihnachten

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

2285


Kriswest wrote:

„Or productive and positive.“ **

You mean „worst“, „most horrible“ and „most terrible“ could also mean „productive“ and „positive“?

Orb wrote:

„It cannot be Europe, conceivably , since Europe is now unified.“ **

Is it really unified?

2286

Prismatic wrote:

„I don't deny there are positive elements in the Abrahamic religions but because of the inherent 'us versus them' element in their immutable holy texts and thus imputed in the life of the believers, it will soon be a net-negative and a threat to humanity.“ **

You have no idea, because you don't know anything about Christianity and the fact that it is much different from Judaism and Islam. Nietzsche said that (for example) there are „ja-sagende“ („yes-saying“) and „nein-sagende“ („no-saying“) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies. Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are „ja-sagende Religionen“ („yes-saying religions“) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are „nein-sagende Religionen“ („no-saying religions“). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Der Wille zur Macht“ („The Will to Power“), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no „three Abrahamic religions“ because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam.

2287

Orb wrote:

„All ideas can be deconstructed ....“ **

That's like: All ideas can be annihilated - by nihilists of course.

2288

James S. Saint wrote:

„Buddhism and Christianity are actually very similar but the anti-Christians want to focus on merely the material concerns (being entirely ignorant of the spiritual concerns). In spirit, they are nearly identical.

Christianity is a social religion with peace reinforcing ethics.
Buddhism is a personal philosophy with peace reinforcing ethics.

Thus many social events are not addressed at all in Buddhism yet are inherently relevant in Christianity. Arguing the difference is like arguing that because one wears a sash on the right shoulder and the other wears his sash on the left, they are entirely different religions.

.... Not that any of them do a very good job of any of it.“ **

I guess you are in agreement with me, if I put this post in one of my threads.

2289

From another thread:

Arminius wrote:

„Nietzsche said that (for example) there are »ja-sagende« (»yes-saying«) and »nein-sagende« (»no-saying«) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies. Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are »ja-sagende Religionen« (»yes-saying religions«) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are »nein-sagende Religionen« (»no-saying religions«). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, »Der Wille zur Macht« (»The Will to Power«), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no »three Abrahamic religions« because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Buddhism and Christianity are actually very similar but the anti-Christians want to focus on merely the material concerns (being entirely ignorant of the spiritual concerns). In spirit, they are nearly identical.

Christianity is a social religion with peace reinforcing ethics.
Buddhism is a personal philosophy with peace reinforcing ethics.

Thus many social events are not addressed at all in Buddhism yet are inherently relevant in Christianity. Arguing the difference is like arguing that because one wears a sash on the right shoulder and the other wears his sash on the left, they are entirely different religions.

.... Not that any of them do a very good job of any of it.“ **

Prismatic knows nothing about Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; so he also knows nothing about the so-called „Abrahamic religions“; his presentation and views are very short-sighted, frivolous, and full of cognitive blindness.

2290

Kriswest wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You mean ›worst‹, ›most horrible‹ and ›most terrible‹ could also mean ›productive‹ and ›positive‹?« ** **

You did not see the word Or at the beginning of my post???“ **

The word „or“ must and does have always a reference, and there are often different references possible.

Arminius wrote:

„Any and every civil war is the worst and the most horrible and terrible war of all wars.“ ** **

Kriswest wrote:

„Or productive and positive.“ **

So please tell me why you think that every civil war is „productive“ and „postitive“.

2291

Topic: FORMS OF GOVERNMENT.

Probably each form of government hat its time, and if its time is over, then the time of the next one begins.

The monarchy has the tyranny as its negative part before it ends, the aristocracy has the oligarchy as its negative part before it ends, the democracy has the ochlocracy as its negative part before it Ends.

Staatsformen

Is there a form of government which is the best one, and if yes which one?
Has each form of government its own time?

Monarchy (negative: Tyranny). Aristocracy (negative: Oligarchy). Democracy (negative: Ochlocracy).

2292

Zinnat wrote:

„This post is addressed to all posters, not any particular one.

It is unfair or rather useless to compare different religions. That does not serve any purpose but creates only confusion in the minds of the people.

One can compare only such religions which were initiated around the same timeline and within the same demography. I think that Jainism and Buddhism are the only two examples existed in the world. Every religion is different from other in one sense or other at the face value. It has to be because their purposes were different because of the mindset of targeted audience. It is as simple as that. Thus, they should not be compared.

One may say that biology is not logical because it does not use numbers like physics. Yes, that is true but still both are sciences but they deal in different subjects altogether. Can we compare biology with physics?“ **

Zinnat, biology is logical, namely biological. And biology uses numbers. We can compare biology with physics - not only because of the biological realm biophysics.

Zinnat wrote:

„Coming back to OP that whether Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam or not.

Yes, it is different but not in the sense in which OP is suggesting.“ **

Suggesting? Here comes the quoted OP:

„Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?

I would say: »yes, it is«.

What do you think?

That OP is not suggesting.

Zinnat wrote:

„Secondly, the core of Christianity is faith in a particular form of the God. Christianity sticks strictly to it. Unlike Buddhism, it does not allow its adherents to try and test in person. That is just opposite to Buddhism. I wonder how some people see similarities between the two.

Yes, they are on the same path regarding the morality.“ **

That's why I quoted myself:

„Nietzsche said that (for example) there are »ja-sagende« (»yes-saying«) and »nein-sagende« (»no-saying«) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies. Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are »ja-sagende Religionen« (»yes-saying religions«) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are »nein-sagende Religionen« (»no-saying religions«). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, »Der Wille zur Macht« (»The Will to Power«), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no »three Abrahamic religions« because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam.“ ** **

Zinnat wrote:

„But, which religion differs on moral issues?“ **

See above.

Zinnat wrote:

„Does Islam or Judaism say that one should lie, cheat or ill treat others?“ **

In Judaism and in Islam it is allowd to lie, to negate, to deny their own religion, confession and so on.

Zinnat wrote:

„The point people tend to miss that Christianity and Buddhism were supplements to Judaism and Hinduism. They were not full fledged religions by any means. A complete religion has to address all verticals of the life, including the rules and regulations for the war to sitting on the toilet seat. And, there are only two religions which pass this benchmark; Hinduism (as a whole) and Abrahamic religions (as a whole).“ **

Why do you say „Abrahamic religions“, although you also say that different religions should not be compared? You can only know it by comparison. So there is a contradiction in your text.

Zinnat wrote:

„Rest are merely subsets or minor amendments which came up from time to time. Popularity of any particular subset (Christianity) is not an ideal benchmark to judge whether it is a complete religion or not. And also, let us not confuse merely some kind of spiritual practice (Buddhism) as an independent religion.“ **

Christian popularity? Today? Who told you that, Zinnat?

Verfolgte Kirche im atheistischen und islamisierten Europa.“ **
Translation:
„Persecuted church in atheistic and islamised Europe.“

2293

Thanks for the laws of the darkest ages.

It seems that after the current battle or civil war between Christians on the one side and the antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and the fundamentalistic Moslems (the fighter for the darkest ages) on the other side the next battle or civil war in Europe will be between antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and Moslems because the Christians will then be expelled from their home in Europe.

Visit Europe with its modern persecution of Christians. Don't look away. Don't listen to your double moral.

According to Peter Sloterdijk religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems. Currently the exercising antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and their best friends, the even more exercising fundamentalistic Molems, are fighting together for the darkest ages.

2294

Do you geometrically mean this?:

Geometry

2295

If we will get a syncretistic religion, will it be a mix of antitheistic / atheistic religion, antimasculinistic / feministic religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaisms, Hinduism (including Buddhism), and Heathendom (including Voodoo) etc. ...?

    

[]

2296

Religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems.

What do you think about that?

2297

Do you know Gunnar Heinsohn? ** **

Wikipedia wrote:

„He is known most widely for his theory of the Youth Bulge. He argues that an excess in especially young adult male population predictably leads to social unrest, war and terrorism, as the "third and fourth sons" that find no prestigious positions in their existing societies rationalize their impetus to compete by religion or political ideology. Heinsohn claims that most historical periods of social unrest lacking external triggers (such as rapid climatic changes or other catastrophic changes of the environment) and most genocides can be readily explained as a result of a built up youth bulge ....“ **

I think that Heinsohn's theory is quite interesting but not entirely true.

2298

Do you know Polybios?

2299

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems.

What do you think about that?« ** **

Pretty obviously true.“ **

Would you mind telling me why you think so?

 

NACH OBEN 600) Hubert Brune, 29.12.2014 **  (2300)

2300

Vielen Dank für Ihren Eintrag, Herr Schmidt.

Absolutes Wachstum meines Webangebots
Wachstum und Wachstumsraten
meiner Webdateien von 2001 bis 2014.

Zur Beantwortung Ihrer Frage verweise ich einerseits auf einige meiner Statistikseiten (**|**|**|**) und andererseits auf meinen Kommentar zum Gästebuch-Eintrag vom 20.04.2001, 21:42 (**), in dem es um die Entstehung des Konzepts, das Motiv und die „Geburt“ meiner „Homepage“ geht, und auf meinen Kommentar zum Gästebuch-Eintrag vom 18.10.2011, 20:21 (**), in dem es um die Wochenarbeitszeit für die Erstellung meines Webangebots vom 20.04.2001 bis zum 28.08.2011 geht - und was die Zeit nach dem 28.08.2011 angeht, so verweise ich wiederum auf einige meiner Statistikseiten. Es läßt sich sagen, daß meine „Homepage“ bereits mit ihrer „Geburt“ (**|**) im April 2001 fertig war, daß danach lediglich das Anwachsen sich fortsetzte, bis heute sich fortgesetzt hat und auch zukünftig sich fortsetzen wird. Auch gab es zu diesem Zeitpunkt die 8 Textdateienkategorien (**) schon, obwohl z.B. diejenige der Verzeichnisse noch sehr klein und unscheinbar war, denn bekanntlich werden Verzeichnisse erst ab einer bestimmten Größe des Webangebots bedeutend. Als ich mit der Veröffentlichung der Statistik zu meiner „Homepage“ begann, war diese bereits 9 Jahre alt. Die Wachstumsraten waren bereits seit längerem erheblich gesunken und sanken immer noch erheblich. Doch danach - und deutlich erkennbar an den statistischen Erhebungen zwischen 28.08.2011 und 31.12.2012 - stieg die Größe von Text- und Bilddateien sowie die Anzahl der Links auf außerordentliche Weise. Internetseiten werden eigentlich nie so richtig fertig, und wenn sie irgendwann einmal doch beendet werden, dann gleicht ein solches Beenden eher einem Abbrechen.

Freundliche Grüße.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN