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

<= [751][752][753][754][755][756][757][758][759][760] =>

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 751) Arminius, 23.06.2015, 01:19, 10:55, 17:44, 19:14 (3243-3246)

3243

Uccisore wrote:

„Spreading the means of production out as much as possible among small communities isn't socialism, it's a form of distributivism.“ **

Socialism is a form of distributivism. Especially the lefish socialism wants to publicly (via state, thus via taxpayers) distribute like a huge monster of Robin Hood. A small common has nothing to do with states or taxpayers. Commons have a long tradition - but unfortunatley also their tragedy (**). This tragedy is merely then a huge problem, if the commons are no real commons anymore but a cartel / trust or antitrust of so-called "global players".

Uccisore wrote:

„It's really worth your while to look and see what distributivism is and what it's accomplished before you continue telling me that everything is some degree of capitalism or socialism.“ **

Would you mind telling me how you interpret the word „distributivism“ then?

„Distributism (also known as distributionism or distributivism) is an economic ideology that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno.
....
Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative. Thomas Storck argues that „both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. Further, some distributists argue that socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of socialism. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life“.
....
Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism. “ **

Is it like that?

3244

I also say that the state-controlled means of production is a bad idea, but nonetheless: socialism is also a form of distributivism. Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor („proletariat“, „precariat“). It is a fact which we can also call „distribution“,more precisely „distribution after theft“, or just „redistribution“. One should not deny this fact, although state-controlled means of production is a bad idea. But how can the means of production really be controlled by all people without any help of a powerful institution like state or church?

Could „SAM“ be a solution?

3245

All authority must be in the form of very small groups / cooperatives. That is important. Otherwise the authority would become corrupt, all economic and political relations and situations would again become the same old (although called "modern") corrupted relations and situations.

3246

No. I meant the distribution of money. As I said: „Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor („proletariat“, „precariat“).“ (**|**). That has nothing to do with Facebook!

And you did not answer my questions:

„But how can the means of production really be controlled by all people without any help of a powerful institution like state or church?“ ** **

„Could »SAM« be a solution?“ ** **

Would you mind answering my questions?

 

NACH OBEN 752) Herr Schütze, 24.06.2015, 17:10 (3247)

3247

Diese Allianz will ganz Rußland und möglichst auch China erobern.

 

NACH OBEN 753) Arminius, 25.06.2015, 17:04 (3248)

3248

James S. Saint wrote:

„I'm pretty certain that Arminius understands that socialism is about the »redistribution of wealth« in terms of merely a »welfare program« and »government grants« involving money with strings attached. Socialism does nothing without »strings attached«. The whole point in socialism is to force all people to bow to the supreme leader(s) (polyarchy). Money (specifically) is the primary means (the strings), even though media and medical pressures are also a serious part of the game.“ **

Probably Uccisore did not understand what I meant.

James S. Saint wrote:

„SAM is a game changer, independent of prior schemes but its inherent structure (not requiring the whole nation to convert) is one of »distributivism of authority« (more commonly known as »distributed intelligence«).“ **

How can people of „SAM“ defend themselves against corruption?

 

NACH OBEN 754) Arminius, 26.06.2015, 22:15 (3249)

3249

If you think that socialism has nothing to do with „distribution“, especially „redistribution“, then you are wrong. Please don't tell me again that the word „distribution“ does not mean distribution because „that's not how“ your „language works“ (**).

You mean a specific distributi(vi)sm:

„Distributism (also known as distributionism or distributivism) is an economic ideology that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno.
....
Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative. Thomas Storck argues that „both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. Further, some distributists argue that socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of socialism. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life“.
....
Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism. “ **

Distributi(vi)sm has to do with distribution. Nobody can change this. And socialism has also to do with distribution, especially redistribution, regardless whether socialists use these words merely rhetorically or not. We know that socialists distribute or, more precisely said, redistribute wealth, and according to this fact we can say that socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm. Nevertheless it is not the same distributi(vi)sm as the distributi(vi)sm of the Cathoilc social teaching. Did you just notice the word „social“ in the term „Cathoilc social teaching“?

I was right, and I am right.

 

NACH OBEN 755) Arminius, 27.06.2015, 01:12, 04:52, 05:33, 16:08, 17:00, 17:48, 17:56, 18:14, 19:18, 20:23 (3250-3259)

3250

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If you think that socialism has nothing to do with ›distribution‹ ....« ** **

Didn't say anything like that.“ **

IF“ - I said: „If ...“.

Uccisore wrote:

„You're really being dense about this.“ **

No. You're really being dense about this (and about the whole topic).

Uccisore wrote:

„»Distribution« merely means »giving things to people«. Socialism, Distributivism, and Capitalism all involve giving things to people. That doesn't make them all distributivism.“ **

Not all but some of them. We - you and I - have two different definitions. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Uccisore wrote:

„Distributivism is a specific economic philosophy different from capitalism and socialism.“ **

That is your definition and the definition of the Catholic social teaching. I can merely partly accept that definition - as I already said in almost all my posts of this thread.

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Distributi(vi)sm has to do with distribution.« ** **

Yes, and capitalism has to do with capital. So does socialism. Does that make socialism a form of capitalism?“ **

Partly yes and partly no. Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Socialism can also be a form of distributi(vi)sm, although the distributi(vi)sts say that distributi(vi)sm has nothing to do with both capitalism and socialism.

The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word „distributi(vi)sm“. Would you say that merely the members of the party „X“ should be allowed to define the word „socialism“? I do not accept this, and - above all - I do not accept it in a thread of a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“!

The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I am right: Distributi(vi)sm is not only what the Catholic social teaching wants it to be.

Are merely the leaders of capitalism allowed to say what capitalism is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of socialism allowed to say what socialism is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of distributi(vi)sm allowed to say what distributi(vi)sm is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?

And I remind you of this:

Zinnat wrote:

„Ucci,

It is not anyone else but you who is in the dark and misunderstanding the issue from very starting.

It is not socialism which is extreme opposite of capitalism, but communism. Socialism is a mix of two, with having capitism as a major ingredient.

The debate is only about the ratio in the mix, not about ingredients per se.

Think about it, again.“ **

Think about it, again.

3251

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Partly yes and partly no. Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism.« ** **

Needs capitalism? I was asking if it was a form of capitalism. I'd like an answer!“ **

You did not notice that I gave you the answer - several times: in my last post and also in other posts.

Uccisore wrote:

„Is socialism a form of capitalism merely because it 'deals with capital'? Because that's the argument you made for socialism being a form of distributivism, and I'd like to see if you're being consistent.“ **

You did not notice that I gave you the answer - several times: in my last post and also in other posts.

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word ›distributi(vi)sm‹.« ** **

Ah, I see. So you were using your own made up definition of distributivism when you told me that socialism was a form of distributivism, and resisted being corrected for three days.“ **

And „resisted being corrected for three days“? It seem that you are using rhetoric instead of logic.

Uccisore wrote:

„Kind of odd, considering I'm the one who brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it's a third way.“ **

No. It is absolutely not odd. But it is odd that you believe it could be important for this topic just only because you „brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it's a third way“. That's really odd.

Why are you not talking about the possibilities of this „third way“ (b.t.w.: not the first third way) to overcome the „faked coin“ (**|**) I was talking about?

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?« ** **

„Yes, according to whatever definition of »distributivism« lurks in your mind, socialism may well be form of it.“ **

It lurks in logic as well in the definitions and meanings of the words. And I did not use the word „well“. Stop using rhetoric instead of logic. I did not say that socialism is a good thing. Read my posts, please. Otherwise we go around in circles.

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„Would you say that merely the members of the party ›X‹ should be allowed to define the word ›socialism‹?« ** **

Yes ...“ **

Then welcome to the socialistic dictatorship of the US.

Uccisore wrote:

„... and at least we arrive at the point. Socialism is a form of distributivism IF we just let you make up some wierd definition of one or the other of these terms that nobody is familiar with but you.“ **

My definition has to do with logic not with rhetoric like your definition. You do not know anything about the realisation of your odd kind of distributivism, because the statemnets of the Catholic social teaching are not more than theoretical statements - means: that there is no practical example. The only practical examples we have are those of the history where I referred to. The rest must be defined, preferably by logic.

Uccisore wrote:

„Just as cats might be a sort of turtle if you choose to define the words as such. After all, why should it only be biologists who get to define »cat«? If you need to say cats are turtles or socialism is distributivism in order to avoid looking foolish, then by all means butcher the language until you get what you need from it.“ **

That's merely rhetorical cynism, thus nonsense. Everyone - except you and some other people who are dense about this topic - know what the word „distribution“ means, what the morpheme „ism“ of the word „distribution“ means, and what the word „distributioni(vi)sm“ means. A philosopher does not have to follow the definition of the Catholic social teaching (I - myself - am a Catholic, but that does not mean that I obey everything what the Catholic church said, says and will say). But on ILP it seems to be forbidden to be a philosopher.

Uccisore wrote:

„Nevertheless, the distributivism I was talking about, which is an economic system, and I clearly stated it was an economic system, and you clearly know the one I mean because you cited the wikipedia entry at me ..., socialism is not a form of that.“ **

Yes, and I never said that I would have a problem with it, if you tried to explain how this kind of distributivism can be realised in the future. But you did not try to explain it but started a kind of war by using cynical nonsense.

Uccisore wrote:

„I think I see a bit more clearly how you are pretending your mind works.“ **

That is again cynisms and rhetoric. Your first response (**) to my first post (**|**) of this thread was probably the only honest one, because after it you became more and more cynical - I guess it was because of the lack of arguments.

Uccisore wrote:

„What I told you days ago, is what you're telling me now; Yes, you are using »distributivism« as a general term for »any time you distribute things«. Yes, yes, I know. I told YOU that. You're using distributivism in a very loose and generic way, and I'm actually talking about the economic system ....“ **

Yes. Where is the problem? There is no problem at all. Why should it not be allwoed to use the word „distributivism in a very loose and generic way“? Please do not forget that there is no practical evidence. The examples of the premodern economic situations do not count, because we are talking about modern economic situations.

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I am right: Distributi(vi)sm is not only what the Catholic social teaching wants it to be.« ** **

Right, words mean whatever you need them to mean to win arguments on the internet.“ **

If this was true, Uccisore, then I would more argue in the opposite direction. Again: I am Catholic. I think you are the one who tries to win arguments by using those words whatever you need them to mean: you started with the word „dense“, and now you are already at the point to allege that I want to win arguments on the internet. That is ridiculous.

Uccisore wrote:

„Meanwhile, socialism is not a type of the economic system that the rest of the world referrs to by the word »distributivism«.“ **

You are wrong. Because of the fact that socialism needs money in order to redistribute wealth, it depends on capitalism. That is logical. Therefore socialism became a part of the economic system.

Uccisore wrote:

„They are two completely different things, as economic systems go.“ **

No. In your sentence the word „completely“ is completely wrong.

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

I would like to read some arguments for the thesis that the distributivism of the Catholic social teaching will have a chance to win in the near future. Are you interested in such arguments or not?

3252

James S. Saint wrote:

„More than the Sum of Its Parts.

Just think about it.
**

Count them.
**

....“ **

Well done, James.

This thread is obviously interesting.

 

3253

Zinnat wrote:

„This continued till the middle of 19th century, when Adam Smith ....“ **

Adam Smith (1723-1790) lived in the 18th century. „An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations“ (1776), usually abbreviated as „The Wealth of Nations“, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. It was published in 1776.

3254

Look at this:

Religion —› Theology —› Philosophy / Science —› Theology —› Religion

3255

Concepts do not change, if they are true - that means: logically true, correctly defined, logically correct. But if they are not true, then they change - mostly just after the changing of the power relations. Currently there are many untrue concepts.

3256

Respecting reality is always good.

3257

James S. Saint wrote:

„Thought of any kind doesn't begin without inherent philosophizing. Even animals and insects are prewired with innate philosophies, »eat - drink - and get laid«.“ **

It depends on the definition of the word "philosophy". So you are saying that animals have philosophies. (By the way: insects are animals too.)

3258

James S. Saint wrote:

„There is
A) ontological philosophy
B) behavioral philosophy

And (B) depends upon (A).

Non-cognitive creatures rely on pre-wired ontological and epistemological presumptions within the neurological system; "If I feel touched on my right, something is touching me on my right", "If I see it, it is there", and so on. Being non-cognitive, they do not think about such things at all. They merely accept the truth of them without cognitive thought, and without which they could not survive at all.

And such ontological presumptions constitute a philosophy of survival involving ontological constructs (solid surfaces, dangerous enemies, good foods,...) as well as recommended behaviors (run, eat, sleep, watch, listen,...). They do not CHOOSE to do these things, They are pre-wired with the philosophy, not educated into it (although some do learn from their parents or by watching others).“ **

And what about plants and mushrooms? They have no brains, but they obviously need to „know“ something in order to survive. They get informations about their environment, process this informations, and react. Without that kind of „knowledge“ they could not survive - just as many other living beings that have a kind of „knowledge“. Do you think that they also have a kind of „philosophy“?

3259

James S. Saint wrote:

„The philosophy of a Man is different than that of a human.
The philosophy of a woman is different than that of a man.
The philosophy of a bull is different than that of a sheep.
The philosophy of a spider is different than that of an ant.
The philosophy of a grass is different than that of a tree.
The philosophy of a mountain is different than that of a lake.
The philosophy of radiant energy is different than that of matter.

But the philosophy of Affectance encompasses them all.“ **

I conclude: Affectance has the greatest philosophy.

 

NACH OBEN 756) Arminius, 28.06.2015, 18:57 (3260)

3260

Do you think that language is based on an instinct?

A) No.
B) Yes.
C) I do not know.

If you voted „B“: What do you think about that kind of instinct?

B1) It is an interactional instinct.
B2) It is a mere language instinct.
B3) It is an interactional and a language instinct.
B4) It is neither an interactional nor a language instinct.

 

NACH OBEN 757) Arminius, 29.06.2015, 02:27, 03:06, 04:12, 05:20 (3261-3269)

3261

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Notes from my journal. ICON (intensive control) 23 hour per day lock-down, and regular population. In no particular order.
Temperatures outside were an average of 45 degrees for three months before I was finally given a long sleeved shirt. Temperatures then averaged 40 degrees for another three weeks before I was given a pair of thermals. By the end of November, temperatures averaged 30-40 degrees, and I was given no coat. By the middle of January, temperatures reached as low as 25 degrees. All I had was one thermal and a long sleeve shirt. Throughout the entire winter I was never given a coat. I got one hour per day in the cage outside, a ten by fifteen foot space between four brick walls thirty feet high. My rec time was at 6:00 in the morning. I would secretly wrap my shower towel around my upper body underneath my shirt so I could bear the cold. If I had been caught taking my towel outside, I would have been punished. I would put socks over my hands because I had no gloves.
On several occasions I was served rotten apples and bananas with meals. When I asked for fruit that wasn't rotten, I was told "all the fruit is like that".
I was given warm milk for breakfast. When I asked for refrigerated milk, I was refused.
A Sgt. in ICON made the decision to have inside rec at 6:00 because it was raining lightly. By 7:00 the rain had stopped. Still the Sgt. denied inmates their opportunity to have outside rec.
I paid for a new battery from the canteen and was given a half-dead battery by an officer who brought my order to me in my cell. I asked to be given what I had paid for- a new battery- and was refused. I wasn't able to listen to my radio for seven days because of this, and sat in silence in my cell.
Whe I arrived at Bertie Maximum Custody, my property was inventoried and recorded by staff. The officer took my sunglasses and threw them away. The glasses were not unauthorized contraband, but I was never compensated for the glasses. I worked five days to make the money to buy those glasses. I made 70 cents a day.
Several times I was given inadequate servings of food items on my tray. Inmates who work in the kitchen 'shake the spoon' (don't get a full scoop), and the officers supervising them don't care.
I was given less calories per day than regular population inmates. I was told by the food service department that inmates in ICON are less active and therefore require less calories. False. I could do more exercise in my cell in one day than many regular population inmates do in a week.
I had the same shirt-jacket for three months. When I asked for a clean one, I was refused.
Several times I was given the wrong books by the librarian. When I asked for books by the author I requested, or an alternative if they were not available, I was ignored.
The only time I ever refused a tray that didn't have full servings of something, it took 45 minutes for the staff to come to my cell and get my tray, another 30 minutes to bring me a new one. Never again did I refuse a tray that didn't have full servings.
Different prisons have different rules concerning the amount of canteen items allowed to inmates. Because of this inconsistency between prisons, I was forced to throw away over $15 worth of canteen upon transferring to Bertie. I took me roughly three weeks to make $15.
At Hyde I was wrongfully charged and convicted of a B14. There was absolutely mo witnesses or evidence showing or proving that I destroyed state property. I was charged $10, lost all my earned time, radio privileges, put into disciplinary segregation, and gained 11 disciplinary points.
At Hyde, after my locker was broken into and my property stolen, my mattress urinated on and thrown in the hallway, tobacco planted in my locker to frame me for a B16, and threatened by gang members, I asked to be moved to another block. I was refused. That night I took one of the gang members to the 'box' (shower area hidden from officer's view) and beat him to within an inch of his life. I was charged with a C3 and put into segregation.
Nurses screwed up my ibuprofen prescription dates and refused to refill them.
I was denied the use the sanitized clippers because the barber refused to clean them. The officers said nothing. I went without a haircut or a shave.
In ICON, the cell lights are off all the time. Staff do not follow policy and turn the lights on at scheduled times. I sat in darkness from 5:00 p.m. to about 9:00 a.m., when a small ray of light finally made it through my tiny window.
Officers did not provide me with a mop to clean my cell the entire time I was in ICON. I would clean my floor with a dirty shirt.
Officers did not respond to the emergency call button in my cell the entire time I was there. If I had a heart attack, nobody would have known.
At Hyde, officers made a payroll mistake and did not pay me one weeks wages for my grounds-keeper job. I was never compensated.
At Hyde, I found a dead grasshopper in my turnip greens. I ate it.
At Hyde, I was expected to use a filthy bathroom that leaked toilet water. The dorm janitor never did his job, and the supervising staff didn't care.
I was punished for breaking rules I did not know existed. I was not given a policy handbook to be informed of the rules. If I accidentally broke a rule I wasn't aware of, I was punished.
While at Hyde, I was not informed of the Thinking For A Change class, nor that I was required to take it before I could transfer to minimum custody. Because my case manager failed to tell me this, I wasted several months in medium custody, all the while assuming I was to become eligible for minimum custody.
At Hyde, inmates working the kitchen would sneak food out of the kitchen to sell on the yard. By the time my block got to the mess hall, there was no more dessert left.
At Burgaw, I was told by staff to share a bunk with an inmate who had hepatitis C. I refused, and was put into segregation for thirty days.
Ay Hyde I found a worm in my potatoes. I showed the kitchen Sgt. He did nothing.
In New Hanover county I chipped a tooth when I bit down on a rock that was in my beans. I was refused dental treatment to repair the tooth.
At Bertie I was charged twice for a single sick-call. When I reported it, nothing was done.
At Hyde I was put on a waiting list for the next available job. When the job became available, the staff responsible for for giving job assignments gave the job to another inmate who had only just arrived, instead of me.
At Bertie I was not given a clean blanket the entire time I was there.
At Hyde, the water was visibly blue with some chemical- so concentrated that the water literally stained the sink bright blue.
Canteen was called during my rec period. I had to go to canteen, but was not allowed to finish my rec time afterward. Staff would purposely schedule both times at once so inmates would have to sacrifice one for the other.
Staff refused to give me a roll of toilet paper in ICON. I used a dirty sock instead, and had to wash it out afterward because I couldn't do anything with the sock in the cell.
I was not given an official cell card when I got to blue unit. I had to make one. Staff in the control booth would open your cell door to any inmate that showed them a fake card. You had to watch your cell the entire time or another inmate would get into it.
At Hyde, my good friend Matthew was extorted by gang members. They took everything he had. I couldn't help him. You mind your own business or pay the price.
At Bertie, John's tattoo gun was taken by gang members. He asked me and Auto to help him get it back. Impossible. A suicide mission. So, I negotiated with the Aryan Brotherhood, got a squad together, and went to work on the monkeys. Staff never found out what happened.
More later ....“ **

Interesting .... But ..., oh, oh ....

Orbie wrote:

„I was in prison only once for prostitution. I sold myself so i could study philosophy. In prisn, one month, i did not experoence anything, because i was in with the blacks, and nobody bothered me in spite of my pretty boy status. I was not queered, nor did i become anyone's bitch, because i knew how to play the game, learned from the streets. I lost my job with traffic violations when they found out, but had the whole affair ex-punged after 3 years because i was considered a minor at the time. I was arrested several times after that but never served time for them. I became very claustrophobic after this, and even to this day, developed all kids of phobias. I developed a very deep respect for the law there after. Thank You.“ **

Interesting .... But is your story a wishful dream or a teen film clip?

Mags J. wrote:

„Glad to hear it.“ **

Interesting .... But can you really hear Orbie's post?

3262

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you think that language is based on an instinct?

A) No.
B) Yes.
C) I do not know.

If you voted ›B‹: What do you think about that kind of instinct?

B1) It is an interactional instinct.
B2) It is a mere language instinct.
B3) It is an interactional and a language instinct.
B4) It is neither an interactional nor a language instinct.« ** **

Hmm .., I would say more of (B) than of (A).
But I am not clear on what you mean by »interactional« vs. »language«.“ **

For example: A prenatal human interacts with the mother's womb, a postnatal baby interacts with the mother, other familiar persons, and surrounding things; but a non-baby (an „ababy“[Mutcer?]) child interacts and speaks with many humans and many things, thus already uses a real language (e.g.: English).

James S. Saint wrote:

„To me, a language is an »interactional« device.“ **

Because of RM:AO, especially of SAM? So if you decided to vote „B“ by considering RM:AO, especially SAM, then I would say your further vote should be „B1“.

3263

James S. Saint wrote:

„Ierrellus wrote:

»Anthropomorphism. In that sense everything is philosophy. Do you know that spiders and ants have minds? Mountains? Lakes? I thought philosophy meant having a mind in order to be aware of one's existence.« **

It has nothing to do with anthropomorphism. A mind is only required for cognitive thoughts concerning what might exist or not. Behavioral philosophies (strategies for survival) are inherent in all that has a behavior to it. Mind is not required.

Ants, for example, have a social strategy, a socialist philosophy, that allows them to continue as a species. They do not think about it in any way, they merely do it, a "pre-wired" philosophy for dealing with life. A part of that pre-wired philosophy is an inherent ontology that involves the existence of food, water, enemies, queens, and so on.“ **

So does a "'pre-wired' philosophy for dealing with life" mean something like an instinctive philosophy for dealing with life? And, if so, what can a philosophy of non-life things be?

Compare:

James S. Saint wrote:

„RM:AO allows for a »physical realm of existence« (or »material«) and also a »conceptual realm of existence«. And understand that as the material existence reduces to zero, it approaches the conceptual realm. They share a border at »zero physical existence«. **

3264

Would you agree, if someone said that most of the human governments are like cancerous ulcers, so that the said cells become more and more ill cells / cells that wrongly handle their environment and will be dead soon?

 

NACH OBEN 758) Arminius, 08.07.2015, 22:35 (3265)

3265

Project 2501 wrote:

„My definition of human nature is...quite extensive.“ **

Would you mind explainig it a bit?

Orbie wrote:

„“ **

Orbie wrote:

„“ **

Orbie wrote nothing.

 

NACH OBEN 759) Arminius, 09.07.2015, 18:48, 20:16, 20:17, 22:27, 22:36 (3266-3270)

3266

James S. Saint wrote:

„This is that »Equation of Space« that provides a single field which explains all others in physics.

**

That equation is absolutely necessarily true, although I have not explained how to use it.“ **

Would you mind telling me a bit about the equation itself (for example about the term to the right of the „p +“)?

3267

James S. Saint wrote:

„In common English, the equation states that every point in space is defined by the sum of its potential-to-affect, »p«, and all changes to its potential-to-affect - the time derivatives.

In philosophical terms, it is merely stating that every point in existence is defined by the rate of change of its potential to alter the degree of existence (its ability to affect anything = its degree of existence).

The terms following the »p +« are the sum of all changes at all rates in p through time, expressed as the sum:
a0*dp/dt +
a1*d²p/dt² +
a2*d³ p/dt³ + ...,
wherein the «a« values are scalars suited to each point.“ **

I thought so. But if all terms following the „p +“ (thus the „pta +“) are „the sum of all changes at all rates in p through time“, then they have to include the entire time of the universe, thus also the future of the universe. Okay, this could also be a part of my thread „Universe and Time“ (**|**).

3268

Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.

3269

How did you figure out the use of the equation? Did you use the equation? And if you did: How did you do it?

3270

Arminius wrote:

„Let's have a first interim result for the question: „What is your attitude towards theism?“:

I am a theist: 3 => 33%.
I am an antitheist: 1 => 11%.
I am a syntheist (synthesis of a theist and an antitheist): 1 => 11%.
I am an atheist: 2 => 22%.
I am no theist, no antitheist, no syntheist, and no atheist: 1 => 11%.
I do not know: 1 => 11%.“ ** **

Let's have a second interim result for the question: „What is your attitude towards theism?“:

I am a theist: 4 => 33%.
I am an antitheist: 1 => 8%.
I am a syntheist (synthesis of a theist and an antitheist): 1 => 8%.
I am an atheist: 3 => 25%.
I am no theist, no antitheist, no syntheist, and no atheist: 2 => 17%.
I do not know: 1 => 8%.

 

NACH OBEN 760) Arminius, 10.07.2015, 22:32, 22:41, 23:24 (3271-3273)

3271

No. You (**) should get a new pair of glasses. Try to read the text one more time. I said: „Perhaps there is symmetry of time in our universe“ (**|**). Perhaps .... It was not my statement but my suggestion, because I wanted to suggest a discussion. I was referring to the text of the physicist Sean M. Carroll: The Origin of the Universe and the Arrow of Time (**).

3272


Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„ Physics is not time symettric. If you reverse time, an apple is repelled by gravity.“ **

Yes, for example, but do you think that it is possible? Do you think or believe that it is possible to have a reversed time in this or another universe? That is the question.

3273


Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„We are agents of time. Our consciousness, may be propelling time forward.

Our memories, act as anchors. Making the past stationary, anchored.

If we die, time will travel at an infinite rate until the next consciousness is online.

If we get enough telepathic powers, if we can predict the future so well and integrate future sight into our consciousness, and remove all memory modules ..., it is perhaps possible that we can reverse the flow of time itself.

This is all hyperbole by the way.“ **

Yes. But this is (or should be?) a philosophy forum. So we should try to ask and answer all questions in order to finally get the truth.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN