1511) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 11.06.2021, 23:11 (8457)

I am not isolated in my group, but my group knows that it is isolated and does not want to isolate anyone.

1512) Otto, 12.06.2021, 01:09 (8458)

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„I am not isolated in my group, but my group knows that it is isolated and does not want to isolate anyone.“ ** **

A clear case. You belong to group II.

Look:

„Isolated in this Webforum?

Do you think that you could be isolated in this webforum?

You could belong to one of these four groups:

I) An isolated group that does not know about its isolation and wants to drive others into isolation.
II) An isolated group that knows about its isolation and does not want to drive others into isolation.
III) An isolated group that knows about its isolation and wants to drive others into isolation.
IV) An isolated group that does not know about its isolation and does not want to drive others into isolation.

Feel free to come out of the closet.

Please copy the following depiction, fill in your position within one of the four groups and post it.

Thank you.“ ** **

1513) Otto, 13.06.2021, 23:14 (8459)

Otto von Northeim was one of my ancestors. As true as I write here, folks.

If he were a moderator here, all would be right with the world again. **

Also:

A new moderation is no solution.
What we need is an old revolution.

The Beatles (John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr), „Revolution“, 1968.

1514) Otto, 14.06.2021, 18:15, 18:29 (8460-8461)

The Anglo-Saxons were called „Anglo-Saxons“ because they came from Saxony (Old Saxony) and from Angles. Today there are still areas and peoples called Saxons and Angles. Westphalia, Engern and Eastphalia belong to Saxony. Angeln is a peninsula in Schleswig-Holstein.

Otto von Northeim came from Northeim in the Eastphalian part of Saxony (Old Saxony).

Yes.

Have you read everything so far in this thread?

1515) Otto, 15.06.2021, 23:27 (8462)

Alf worte:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Or a question! A good philosopher should be a good questioner.

One could proceed in such a way that opening posts that do not contain arguments or questions are moved to the non-philosophical chat subforum. In case of repetition, a warning or ban will be issued.« ** **

I agree, Kathrina.

One can't really do much wrong with a question in an opening post. Well, it has to be appropriate to the forum and the subforum where the thread with the question is to be opened, and it has to be serious, understandable and not offensive.“ ** **

Like this one: „Isolated in this Webforum?“ ** **

1516) Otto, 16.06.2021, 15:37 (8463)

Angles and Saxons are or - let's say - were separate people. They became one people, more or less. If someone tried to separate them again today, it would be pretty difficult, I guess.

By the way, the name „England“ contains the word „Angles“. You (**) certainly know that.

*

And because I don't want to drift from the topic of this thread: An Anglo-Saxon as moderator would certainly be a good solution for ILP.

Encode Decode:

„You have no shame, Otto ..., sneak in a quick advertisement ....“ **

I like it.

Thanks, Encode.

I try my very best. ()

1517) Kultur, 17.06.2021, 23:34 (8464)

States and nations are only not made to disappear completely, because they are very well suited as scapegoats. If this were not so, the real rulers of this world - the globalists (who rule privately!) - would have destroyed the states and nations long ago.

Already in 1990 the world order of Bretton Woods should have been overturned, because it was no longer up-to-date after the „Cold War“. Instead, the then U.S. President George. H. Bush spoke of a „New World Order“ after the collapse of the Eastern bloc, but the Bretton Woods system is still there, albeit barely functional. By the Bretton Woods system I mean not only the economic part, but the whole order, including, for example, the geostrategic part.

I do not know whether the USA or/and the EU will break up or not. In Ancient Rome the civil war lasted for more than a century. It led to a synthesis: the principate of Augustus.

1518) Great Again, 18.06.2021, 01:00 (8465)

Obsrvr wrote:

„What is the difference between affectance and energy?

Don't they both mean - the ability to change something?“ **

Obsrvr wrote:

„To affect means to cause change.“ **

Because of the similarity of „cause“ and „affect“, you can also say „to cause means to cause a change“. The word „affect“ and the word „cause“ are not completely, but almost completely interchangeable. If you say „to affect means to cause change“, you can also say „to cause means to cause change“. Well, we all know that both statements may not mean exactly the same thing, but they mean almost exactly the same thing.

Obsrvr wrote:

„All of science is built upon ontologies.“ **

„All of science is built upon ontologies“, yes, but scientists would never admit that. In fact, it is so much the case, as Heidegger once said, that scientists depend on thinking or philosophy (metaphyics/ontology), because they themselves do not think, are not capable of thinking. Scientists have nothing to do with thinking and do not want it at all, but they are dependent on thinking, and this being dependent is denied by them since their triumph over thinking (philosophy).

Obsrvr wrote:

„How do you do that with only »information« - information is the result of an ontology being physically tested for consistency. Information is a tool and dependent entirely on the ontology that was presumed when gathering that information.“ **

Interestingly, the Ancient Greek at the time of the Presocratics, „logos“ meant „gathering“, but after that it became more and more what we know as „speech“, „talk“, „lecture“, „exposition“, became a system with Aristotle and we know it since then as „logic“.

If one undertakes a linguistic-historical (philological) investigation, one soon notices that in the course of time the understanding of being has changed fundamentally at least three times. The understanding of being, as it has been attempted since Aristotle by means of the logic system just mentioned, is that which also underlies RM:AO. One can also say that RM:AO has its orientation between the great masters of this system - Aristotle (in the beginning) and Kant or Hegel (in the perfection).

But does that solve the problem that this thread is about?

As I said, a cause can also be defined as „(the ability to cause change is) the ability to change - something“.

Ultimately, language (including thinking [including mathematics]) was, is, and will be used here - as always when it comes to knowledge.

Existence is that which has a cause.

Existence is that which has an affect.

In RM:AO it is called „affect“, so that it can be applied to psychology and sociology as well.

Existence is that what the Presocratics knew much more directly and from which we have said goodbye more and more and will get knowledge again only with much patience.

1519) Kultur, 19.06.2021, 21:53 (8466)

Æon wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»States and nations are only not made to disappear completely, because they are very well suited as scapegoats. If this were not so, the real rulers of this world - the globalists (who rule privately!) - would have destroyed the states and nations long ago.

Already in 1990 the world order of Bretton Woods should have been overturned, because it was no longer up-to-date after the ›Cold War‹. Instead, the then U.S. President George. H. Bush spoke of a ›New World Order‹ after the collapse of the Eastern bloc, but the Bretton Woods system is still there, albeit barely functional. By the Bretton Woods system I mean not only the economic part, but the whole order, including, for example, the geostrategic part.

I do not know whether the USA or/and the EU will break up or not. In Ancient Rome the civil war lasted for more than a century. It led to a synthesis: the principate of Augustus.« ** **

What is the Bretton Woods?“ **

Do you really not know Bretton Woods and the Bretton Woods system?«

1520) Otto, 20.06.2021, 01:28, 01:31 (8467-8468)

I decline an ILP moderation with thanks.

Are you (**) isolating yourself?

==>