Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

<= [531][532][533][534][535][536][537][538][539][540] =>

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
2017 160
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
2021 210
2022 40
2023 40
P. Z.
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
P. Z.
S. E.
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 531) Arminius, 04.08.2014, 13:00, 13:45, 21:44, 22:23, 22:48, 23:06, 23:55 (1722-1727)


James S. Saint wrote:

„And another more common word for »affect« or »affectance«, although sometimes abused, is »energy«.“ **

RM:AO is a daring metaphysics, because the modern physicist might feel threatened.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Let's just reduce that to an acronym, »CVIR-PHT-AH«, for simplicity. When everything a person does is aimed toward one goal, there is nothing more he can do in order to achieve that goal. And thus is his highest probability of reaching it. And in this case, the closer he gets, the more powerful he becomes at achieving it. It is self-reinforcing and growing.

Life is a process. And on the most reductive, essential, un-poetic, abstract, and logical level, CVIR-PHT-AH is the process that is life and the core of a SAM Corp.. Literally for millions of years, all that has been alive has been pursuing that process. Although not obvious, a DNA strand strategically does exactly that process. Everything that anyone or anything does that is not strategically associated with that process is corrupting, weakening, and destroying life. Life only exists to the degree it is in that process. And the more Life adds to the momentum of that process, the more durable and everlasting Life is.

The goal of anentropic harmony is achieved by purifying the process. And to purify it, it helps for the cognitive mind to understand it so that decisions can be made more inline with what literally its DNA has been trying to accomplish. The Nietzschean Ubermensch does nothing but purify that process. The most holy of beings does nothing but purify that process. The wisest of men do nothing but purify that process. And the wisest governments and/or religions do nothing but purify that process. There is no other point to life at all. All else is a waste and is anti-life noise.

But such is not trivial to recognize, else you would have heard of it very long ago. Again like physics, it can be seen by looking from "the bottom up" rather than trying to reverse engineer physical reality and look from "the top down" (as science attempts).

When technology and ethics (science, governments, religions, and morality) serve no other purpose but to accomplish CVIR-PHT-AH, life becomes anentropic, harmonious, joyous, and everlasting. That process is the ONLY purpose for which machines should ever be designed and built. When machines eventually design themselves into that process, void of humans, they become the anentropic, everlasting life form, and human's are left as mythological history.

The mature state of Mankind is one of being in the process of pure CVIR-PHT-AH. That is the "ascended" Mankind yet on Earth and physical. It is the speculated "Heaven on Earth" of legends. All of what Mankind has done up until then has been merely the growing pains and confusion of a lost child.

It can be said that the purpose of Mankind is to teach the universe itself the power of Life, a power greater than the immeasurable power of a black-hole. The universe learns this by life occupying the space that the universe is and distributed exactly as that process requires. Such is a journey that has barely even begun and has no end.

If by chance any part of human-mankind is already purifying that process for themselves, any machine-mankind will not interfere with it, but rather live beside it in harmony and even assist its endeavor. SAM Corps. get along with other SAM Corps. because they each clarify and verify the intent and purpose of each other. They each know that every other is merely trying to »CVIR-PHT-AH« and thus are not an adversary, but a clearly verified friend. They each see the others as another of themselves merely doing what they would be doing and for the same shared goal.

Not only is each SAM Corp a somewhat bonded life entity, but every group of SAM Corps are as well, whether human, machines, or any combination. A human SAM Corp »family« could live with an android SAM Corp next door and even share members back and forth just as molecules share electrons ... and for the same reason that molecules do that. Believe it or not, greater artificial intelligences understand Joy and its make (or certainly any that I have anything to do with).

CVIR-PHT-AH inspires pure joyous harmony, even between Man and Machine.“ **

Would you mind describing the „world of pure joyous harmony“ between humans and machines?


Wygotsky is (partly) wrong, Piaget is (partly) wrong. Do you agree to that statement, Obe?


Both Wygotski and Piaget claim to speak about something that nobody knows what it actually is: psychology (see also here [**]).


Interterrestrial wrote:

„Is human language any different than computer language?“ **

Of course: human language and computer language are different.




Interterrestrial wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Of course: human language and computer language are different.“ ** **

Incorrect, computer hardware converts electronic impulses into computer language, nearly exactly, or completely exactly, to how the human brain also converts perception into sense data, through the bio electrical impulses of the human brain.

The brain acts as a CPU.“ **

That's no argument that these two languages are the same.

Please notice that I'm not saying that this two languages have no common ground(s), but I am saying that they are just not the same.


NACH OBEN 532) Arminius, 05.08.2014, 00:30, 01:00, 02:14, 03:04, 03:20, 03:36, 03:54, 04:49, 04:57, 05:24, 05:34, 13:38, 14:55, 14:57, 15:21, 16:47, 17:09, 18:06 (1729-1746)


Obe wrote:

„Wygotski claims exactly, that language is »outside«, whereas Piaget does claim the opposite ....“ **

That's right, and (not only therefore) they are wrong.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»RM:AO is a daring metaphysics, because the modern physicist might feel threatened.« ** **

»Scared shitless« is more like it. Quantum physics and Relativity are cults, religious pseudo-science. And me being on one of their forums is like Jesus preaching in the Jewish temple.

This could be my signatue, ... if I had one.

James S. Saint wrote:

QP and Relativity are merely convenient engineering tools used for predicting things with which they have had experience. They do not describe reality, but rather merely say, »it is as if reality is quantized and relative so we can [sometimes] presume reality to be quantized and relative and predict what will happen with QM and Relativity equations.« It is common practice in engineering to use approximate and simplified models in order to get the job done, even though the engineer knows that the model is limited and only accurate within certain specific environments.

But as a cult, they lustfully try to convince the world that they are »the voice of God« and the only truth (saying »mathematics is the language of God«). They conflate their model with reality and proclaim that reality IS the model. And when the model doesn't work, they proclaim that Reality doesn't work. They have boldly announced that »reality isn't logical« - a very anti-science, cultist stance.

And even though they are the ones being cultish, they will very quickly proclaim that I am »merely a religious crackpot«. The fact that they can find no error in my reasoning merely scares them more. They will not debate me, or at least not in public. They have a very serious ego/pride problem.

And even though it is illegal to preach religion in public schools in the USA, quantum physics and relativity are the new USA's national religion (and the new secular world religion) taught in all schools and universities as »the only truth«. And it is indoctrinated with the same harsh threats as any religion has ever practiced, »believe what we say or else!!« (the exact opposite of Science).

Quantum Physics is a mathematical fairy tale, complete with fairies, ghosts, and goblins, highly dependent upon magic. Relativity is a limited engineering convenience. Both have been made into the cultic secular religion, more pretentious, superficial, and superstitious than the other religions ever were. And just as Constantine (Konstantin I.) plowed through Europe establishing the Holy Roman Empire of Christianity by demanding belief or be burned by their wizardry, the Secularists rampage the world demanding belief or be blown up by their technology.

»Feel threatened« is a serious understatement. They could no more accept me than the pharisees could accept Jesus.“ **

One can learn (whatever) from your RM:AO, and that (and not „off topic“ [for example: „post a picture of yourself“]) is crucial. Strange that so few members of this forum are interested in RM:AO. And the reason for this is not that they would have understood anything of it. That's funny, isn't it?


Pandora wrote:

„I see it as a sort of projection/perception loop. What is exactly going on when we perceive things? The eye needs »something« in order to see, but when it tries to turn on itself it tends to see itself in everything. It becomes self-referential. I don't know how else to explain it.“ **

That is one of the reasons why there must be philosophy.


Obe wrote:

„Hi, Arminius, opposites are not right or wrong, they are simply opposites. they may synch. And i am sure on some level they do. We are just not there, yet.“ **

Hi, Obe, opposites are indeed „simply opposites“, but each of them can be wrong anyway.


Who are this tough guys?


„What Is Life? is a 1944 non-fiction science book written for the lay reader by physicist Erwin Schrödinger. The book was based on a course of public lectures delivered by Schrödinger in February 1943“ (Wikipedia), when George Harrison was born ( ). In the case the text of the musician George Harrison is more right than the text of the so-called „scientist“ Erwin Schrödinger.


What are the signs of the end of history for you?


James S. Saint wrote:

„So why is there so much nonsense being spread concerning the issue (do a Google search on it) and why are they still promoting the Big Bogus Bang theory, which is actually the same issue?“ **

Because the powerful people get more power, when they are spreading more nonsense than sense.


Reformimg democracy“? (). Which Democracy?


A very lovable human - being imaged:



Guess where this foto was taken.


„Is that Dwyane Wade's house?“ (**) is a question. Questions, especially „responded“ questions, are not allowed in this game. What a shame. You have not won anything. Maybe you should try it one more time. Or you owe it to yourself to take a break.




The best place on Earth:



James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What are the signs of the end of history for you?« ** **

When I can sort through the news and see only deja vues.

In today's paradigm of eternal deciet, documented, hard to change, history is strongly disliked (shades of Nineteen Eighty-Four).

»In a dystopian 1984, Winston Smith endures a squalid existence in the totalitarian superstate of Oceania under the constant surveillance of the Thought Police. The story takes place in London, the capital city of the territory of Airstrip One (formerly ›either England or Britain‹).

Winston works in a small office cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, rewriting history in accordance with the dictates of the Party and its supreme figurehead, Big Brother. A man haunted by painful memories and restless desires, Winston is an everyman who keeps a secret diary of his private thoughts, thus creating evidence of his thoughtcrime — the crime of independent thought, contrary to the dictates and aims of the Party.«

The new socialist America (and entire West actually, if not the world).

That is partly why they favor people living for only 30 years, so they can't ever get old enough to realize that what they are seeing is merely a rerun. They hate long term memory of any sort.“ **


Do you also know Orwell's book „Animal Farm“?


James S. Saint wrote:

„Learning RM:AO today is much like learning today's physics or digital computing 500 years ago. What would you use it for?

Science took off only because it was involved in weaponry, first in wars between nations then in wars between governments and their populous. And that is still its only use.

Religion took off thousands of yeas ago only because of its use for governing and controlling populations. And now the new symbiosis of those two is the new rage playing out and keeping people occupied trying to govern with their new toy. They aren't really interested in any kind of truth, merely in whatever yields more control. Today »progress« means »greater control over others«.

So right now, RM:AO is too early for Mankind to be interested. He is too busy playing with last year's toys to be interested in anything newer or better. And since governing in a socialistic society involves controlling thought, he is very slow to learn. He spends generations convincing people of his last »truth« regardless of any better thought. He suppresses, represses, and oppresses in order to get the most from what he already had. And during that process, he inadvertently becomes dependent upon the structures formed by his prior efforts. He becomes enamored and invested in his paradigm thus very seriously dislikes any changes or challenges to it. Man is made of lustful religiosity.

RM:AO is left for the very few serious deep thinkers who want to know »what is really going on« and have the courage to reject what they have been told by the authority figures who were propped up for their admiration and faith. And as one can imagine, anything that answers everything isn't going to be a trivial thing. I didn't design AO with the intent of answering all questions through a "Grand Unified Theory". It just turned out that way. But of course, as always, almost no one really cares.

Societies are far more based upon »going along to get along«, agreeing to whatever, supporting whoever, saying whatever, doing whatever, all just to get along with the boss. Anyone "out of line" is dubbed a »malcontent«, »clandestine«, »whistle-blower«, »untrustworthy«, or just plane »crackpot«. The focus in societies is loyalty, not truth. And usually at the expense of never discovering truth because they are fully involved in maintaining confusion and deception in order to maintain control aimed toward ensuring that the wealthiest people, although already worth over $100 trillion, get even wealthier.

So the only use for RM:AO in today's world is in design efforts concerning immediate person to person psychology, not manipulating the masses. Social engineers are already fully occupied in the mass programming endeavor and aren't interested in anything new or different. Thus it is like introducing physics into society 500 years ago. The only people who would care would be those who are actively oppressing anything alien to their paradigm. And of course, their interest in it isn't kindly.

This site has almost no serious deep thinkers who also have the courage to disagree with mainstream. So I am not at all surprised by the lack of interest. RM:AO is a complicated subject, worthy of years of college study and requiring serious mental changes in perspective. This site is more for the casual thinker who most often is just toying with fanciful notions, never really expecting to believe anything he reads or even says. And then of course, there are those bent on ensuring that everyone else is complying to the new paradigm and order of thought, harassing and reporting anyone out of line.

And if I was here to »preach to and convert the masses«, I would be going about it very differently. I am not like the doctor who comes up with what he believes to be a miracle cure for something and then immediately goes spraying it into the public water supply. I believe in clarifying and verifying BEFORE preaching to the public (unlike the mainstream engineers). So it isn't entirely an issue of suppression. I am not interested in starting a new religion, but rather getting the story straight. Religions have a history of totally corrupting their founding principles.

Interestingly, RM:AO:Sociology and Psychology are largely about Clarifying and Verifying and thus corrupting the story once it is learned is really tough, unlike the social mindsets and paradigms before it. RM is not about any kind of faith, but about verifying on even the lowest level of society. So once it gets started from some interest, it isn't likely to go away nor be corrupted into another delusion and make-believe paradigm. Thus it is even more important to get it straight before dumping it into the waters.

But then also, RM:AO:Sociology/SAM is inherently self-correcting. So even if it got corrupted, it would merely take a little while to get the story straightened up again. RM, like a black-hole, is a persistent little bugger, taking any and all crap in, but letting only the purest form of energy back out. It would just be nice if it were a little simpler to learn. And some day it will be.

No one in an ancient Roman pub would have been interested in learning physics or digital computing. Most still aren't.“ **

Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same.

RM:AO does not fit into the present day; the time of RM:AO is going to come and perhaps will be known and used by more people than today, provided that there will be human beings.


Copied post in another thread.


My thousandth post !

Mithus wrote:

„The best place on Earth? For sightseeing, maybe. What about your Saltus Teutoburgiensis?“ **

My Saltus Teutoburgiensis is a very nice place. But it isn't the best one, is it?

Saltus Teutobugiensis

Saltus Teutobugiensis                           Saltus Teutobugiensis

Saltus Teutobugiensis

Saltus Teutobugiensis

Saltus Teutobugiensis


NACH OBEN 533) Arminius, 07.08.2014, 19:29, 21:09, 21:47, 22:16, 22:42, 23:25, 23:40 (1747-1753)


HVD wrote:

„I’d like to wish the All-Seeing Eye a happy 226th birthday. May (note: no, because his first forename was Johann, his second forename was Adam) Weishaupt's ghost rest in pieces. Ewige Blumenkraft, Ewige Schlangekraft (note: »Schlangenkraft«). Heute die Welt, Morgens das Sonnensystem (note: »morgen - no »s« because »morgens« means »in the morning«, and »Morgen« means »morning«, and »morgen« means »tomorrow«, and »tomorrow« is meant in that text).
Do what thou wilt.“ **

Ewige Blumenkraft, ewige Schlangenkraft. Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem.“
„Eternal flower force, eternal snake force. Today the world, tomorrow the solar system.“

Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.


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

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

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

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

Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.

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

The middle class carries the upper class

The middle class carries the globalists.


Copied post in another thread.


Copied post in another thread.


James S. Saint wrote:

„And no offense intended, but this whole issue of how the brain thinks is not really a philosophical issue any more. It is a hardcore engineering fact. There is actually very little mystery about it. Recursive, recurrent, and forwardfeeding processes are simply the way neural networks function, whether organic or mechanical. It doesn't matter what we would like or fancifully imagine might be taking place. There is nothing that a human brain does that an artificial brain (a neural network) hasn't been designed to replicate and surpass.“ **

Although mind (spirit, consciousness) is more than just a hardcore engineering fact, but the hardcore engineers do not need this „more“ in order to do the stuff they want to do.

James S. Saint wrote:

„When they finally get to the point of allowing you to see what real neural androids can do, it is going to make you feel so mentally handicapped that it is going to scare and depress you pretty seriously. They very seriously don't need You.“ **

You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true. And b.t.w.: not later than since the beginning of the history of the words „joblessness“ and „unemployment“ it has been being obvious! Johann Wolfgang Goethe knew that already towards the end of the 18th century!


Like I said: if there will not come up a new culture, which is not global, then the history will probably end. The globalists will bring the last historical epoch - the globalistic epoch - to its end.


Pharaoh wrote:

„At noon, +30
In the afternoon, +50
In the evening, +75
Around midnight, +90
Early morning -40
In between, there are lots of other figures.“ **

Does this apply to only one of the two questions, or both?

Here are the two questions again:

1. How much are you attracted towards philosophy?
2. How deep are you interested in philosophy?


NACH OBEN 534) Arminius, 08.08.2014, 02:51, 03:36, 04:34, 15:25, 23:09, 23:29, 23:51 (1754-1760)


For you, Obe, a gift because (1.) the following music production is a Hungarian one, (2.) sung in English, (3.) you were born in Hungary, and (4.) you can speak English.

- Omega, Time Robber, 1976.

Wikipedia wrote:

„Omega is one of the most successful Hungarian rock bands.“ **


Right now I am not reading a book, but a text of a web forum called „I LOVE PHILOSOPHY“. If I will again have time to read , I will go on with the reading of a book with the title „Zeit und Tage“ („Time and Days“) by Peter Sloterdijk.


Post your favorite pieces of art here?

Do you mean all arts, or merely visual arts?

If you mean all arts, then I post a piece of music: „A Passion Play“ (1973) by Jethro Tull.

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), A Passion Play, 1973.

If you mean merely visual arts, then I post this: „Felsenschlucht“ („Rocky Gorge“) (about 1822) by Caspar David Friedrich.

Caspar David Friedrich, „Felsenschlucht“
Caspar David Friedrich, Felsenschlucht (Rocky Gorge), about 1822.


The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I don't see why a globalist trend necessitates the end of history.“ **

A globalist trend necessitates the end of history of a culture (in this case: the Western culture) via civilisation of that culture, and the last epoch or phase with history in this sense is always globalistic. In the case of the Western (Occidental) culture it even refers to the whole globe because the Westerners have discovered and captured the whole planet Earth - and even more of the solar system. I don't see another culture which will be able to be born „soon“. So this time it is possible that there will be no culture anymore, which means there will be only cosmic developments and evolution but no history. That trend is cognoscible.

So, not the globalist trend itself necessitates the end of history, but the „life“ of a culture, and the globalism is merely a phase of a culture, a globalistic phase of a culture, the last historical phase of a culture.


The Artful Pauper wrote:

„In your last post you use the broad term of culture, western culture, when we are talking about liberal democracy, which is perhaps (at least currently seen as) the west's penultimate representative form.“ **

Why the penultimate representative form?

B.t.w.: I do not only use „the broad term of culture, Western culture“, when I am „talking about liberal democracy“, but also because the „liberal democracy“ is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I happen to be one who holds an antipathy towards life in liberal democracies.“ **

All „liberal democracies“ content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all „liberal equalities“ or all „capitalistic socialisms“. And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„It is not that I am averse to rights or other such safeguards for freedom, it is just that I do not find life lived through the institutions particularly fulfilling. This feeling may not be shared, at least by those willing to act on their sentiments.“ **

I agree.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„It is worth noting something again from Fukuyama's text:

For Hegel, all human behavior in the material world, and hence all human history, is rooted in a prior state of consciousness - an idea similar to the one expressed by John Maynard Keynes when he said that the views of men of affairs were usually derived from defunct economists and academic scribblers of earlier generations. This consciousness may not be explicit and self-aware, as are modern political doctrines, but may rather take the form of religion or simple cultural or moral habits. And yet this realm of consciousness in the long run necessarily becomes manifest in the material world, indeed creates the material world in its own image. Consciousness is cause and not effect, and can develop autonomously from the material world ....“ **

And Marx reversed this statement, although he used Hegel's dialectic.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

Many people might see the »End of History« as a very good thing, and be actively striving to bring it about. And many others are apathetic or unconscious of the role they play in holding up the dominant structures. I don't really think the »End of History« is something you can argue for or against in the sense that by constructing the more logical or rhetorically alluring turn of phrase you can win history onto your side. The result of the »End of History« is something that will come about by the actions we do or do not take. There is nothing inevitable about it, but there is a strong momentum that is leading in that direction, and I think it is not unreasonable to say that there are also powerful interests that look forward to an »End of History« in this sense, because the deck is already stacked in their favor and they would like to keep it that way, and they have the resources which they are using to make sure their positions are rested on a solid and stable foundation. I do not subscribe wholly to the view of an elite working culture behind the scenes, but I also think it would be folly to deny that figures like Rupert Murdoch are not exerting influence to keep the consciousness of the general population at a certain level and pointed in a certain direction.

I suppose the question is, as history unfolds, what role will we take in its development?“ **

Not only and perahps not mostly.


Obe wrote:

„Arminius, just curious, the table describing, those for and those against the op's proposition has been a while. Would/could a more upgradedversion be printed?“ **

That's a good idea.

B.t.w.: Did you see my gift for you?

Obe wrote:

„Or, as it looks, the number of participants have narrowed down a bit.“ **

That's right.

Obe wrote:

„May this be significant/ as far as the holding of pro/con opinions, or may be the narrowing down of opinions to only a few, be of some significance in it's self?“ **

Let's see.


Here comes the 5th interim balance sheet:

Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
(by trend)
(by trend)

James S. Saint,
Tyler Durden,
Laughing Man.

Mr. Reasonable,
Only Humean,
Ivory Man,
Eric The Pipe,
Backspace Losophy,
Sweet Misery,
Sum: 61211

Yes (by trend) means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%.
No (by trend) means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**),
4th interim balance sheet (**|**).


NACH OBEN 535) Arminius, 09.08.2014, 01:38, 02:07, 03:18, 18:39, 19:24, 19:50, 21:08, 23:06, 23:45, 23:58 (1761-1770)


D 63 wrote:

„»Why is there being and not rather nothing?«

»I thought that was Leibniz: why all this rather than nothing?«

»I didn't know that. It could be that Heidegger just quoted him. It might be interesting to check out how Heidegger relates to Leibniz ....«“ **

You are right, originally it is Leibniz' sentence, but later Heidegger were also very intensively busy relating to that sentence. Heidegger meant, inter alia, that in situations of fear nothingness becomes apparent.

„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.
My translation:
„In the bright night of nothingness of anxiety the original openness of being as such only arises: that it is being - and not nothing. Only because the nothingness is apparently on grounds of the existence (»Dasein«), the full strangeness of being can come upon us and the fundamental question of metaphysics: Why is there being rather than nothing.“ - Martin Heidegger, What is metaphysics?, 1929.


D 63 wrote:

„2 the point of self destruction: the neglect of the petty and mundane which sustains us all.“ **

Would you mind explaining what you mean?


@ Lys

Why is Caspar D. Friedrich your favourite painter?


The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Why the penultimate representative form?« ** **

My mistake on the word penultimate.“ **

Perhaps - because it is difficult to justify that the „liberal democracy ... is ... the West’s penultimate representative form“ (**). It is not so difficult to justify that the liberal democracy could be the West's last representative form. But is it also right? I don’t think so (see my last three posts of this thread [**|**|**|**|**|**]).

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»B.t.w.: I do not only use ›the broad term of culture, Western culture‹, when I am ›talking about liberal democracy«, but also because the ›liberal democracy‹ is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement.« ** **

I wrote that you seemed to use the term Western culture broadly when referring to liberal democracy because you said that the End of History would be the end of a history of culture, and while I understood that you did mean other things, it seemed to me that what is understood by western culture has been partly taken from other cultures either in its origins or throughout its development... so it seemed like what was most under focus was the spread of liberal democracy.“ **

„Arminius wrote:

»All "lliberal democracies" content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all "liberal equalities" or all "capitalistic socialisms". And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.« ** **

So we agree there is antagonism, but then it seems like you think that when I infer there might be a change in the system it would be to take away liberty, which I did not say and made clear below. I did not propose in my last post what form the government could take instead. What I did say was:

I do not find life lived through the institutions particularly fulfilling.

So the question would be, if the institutions were dramatically changed and some done away with, would it still be what is called liberal democracy (keeping in mind that we live in republics no? Perhaps it would ....“ **

Please tell me which „institutions“ you exactly mean.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Not only and perahps not mostly.« ** **

I'm not sure exactly what you meant here.

It refers mainly to this statement:

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I suppose the question is, as history unfolds, what role will we take in its development.“ **

That is not only and not mostly the questin because (1.) history is a kind of development, (2.) history will perhaps end and then there will merely be cosmic development and evolution but no history, and (3.) the term „our role“ can also be a bit unclear.


JSS wrote:

„Existence is that which has affect.
A clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable »particle« – a »standing wave« of noise.“ **

So first there is (exists) an affect or an affectance, then a noise or even a noise-clump, and only after that there is a particle.


Mithus wrote:

„The best place on Earth?
For sightseeing, maybe. ....“ **

Maybe the following map shows the best place on Earth for you:


Is that the best place on Earth for you? Or is a place named „Mithus“ the best place on Earth for you, Mithus?


James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So first there is (exists) an affect or an affectance, then a noise or even a noise-clump, and only after that there is a particle.« ** **

If thought about in sequence, that is true, although I would say, »first there is an affect. Then many affects as noise. Then clumps of noise - a particle«. But the universe has always had all of that concurrently happening. There was never a time when there is only one affect, nor a time when there were no particles.“ **

But at least as long as living beings, and especially human beings, will exist there will also be the questions: what was before »Y«?“, „what was before »X«?“, „...?“, and so on.


The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I find most of the institutions of society unfulfilling ....“ **

Yes, you are right.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Introducing a novel form of a commons would be a step in that direction.“ **

Back to the commons? Or to „communal particles“?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I understood your previous post where you said that history would in essence end if a global culture was acheived in which no other culture could arise which was not global.“ **

Not „if a global culture was achieved“ (that’s another issue), but (1.) if the global phase of a culture has reached its end, and (2.) there will be no other culture, especially a young culture (and currently there isn't any). A „global culture“, that you mean, is the Western culture, especially its modern times, but the Western culture has not yet reached its end. I think we have to wait, so the times will become even worse, and I don't know when the time for better forms will come because anything and everything on this planet Earth (and in addition already other parts of our solar system) depend on this global culture, the Western culture. That doesn't mean that every Westerner is somehow „guilty“, but the upper class is guilty, and this upper class is everywhere, not only in Western countries. There is no real resistance, and there will not be any real resistance because of the lack of a young culture. Nearly all human beings have been becoming Westerners, tributaries of the Western globalists (note: in this case of the globalists „Western“ doesn't always mean that they are original Westerners, but they are Westerners because of the fact that they are globalists, and globalists are a product of the Western culture).

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„What I don't understand here is what you mean when you say history is a kind of development. What kind of development are you talking about?“ **

Probably you haven't read the whole thread, so I quote myself:

Arminius wrote:

I define »history« as a »cultural evolution«. All »archivable artifacts« belong to history. So e.g. padded dinosaurs in a museum belong to history because they are archived artifacts, although dinosaurs themselves belong to eveolution-without-history because they did not archive artifacts, they did not have any history. Even human beings had not had any history for the most time of their existence. But they have been having story (here »story« means only »telling story«, »told story«, etc.) since they began to speak. So »story« as a »oral tradition« (tale and so on) does not belong to history.

Do you agree with that definition? If yes, then we can think about the »Eloi« as an example for humans without history in the future, can't we? The question in this thread is not, whether humans will have story in their future or not, but the question in this thread is, whether humans will have history in their future or not.

Why am I saying that? Because we should not confuse history with any development, for example with the natural development or with the natural evolution. History is cultural evolution. Archivable artifacts belong to history, and history belongs to evolution, and evolution belongs to development in nature. So history is embedded in evolution and in natural development, while evolution is only embedded in natural development. All events are based on natural (physico-chemical) development. Evolution is based on natural (physico-chemical) development. History is based on natural (physico-chemical) development and on (biological) evolution, history is defined as a cultural evolution. Story - as I define it (cp. above) - is also defined as a cultural evolution, but in contrast to history story contains no archivable artifact (except all kinds of an engineered story like an audiotape and so on). Story in this text and context means merely oral tales or oral narratives - not more.

So if we are asking in this thread, whether history ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, then we are always asking, whether cultural evolution ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, whether the relation between human beings and archivable artifacts ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not.

The „house of change“:

| History |
|____ Evolution ____|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|

History is merely the „roof“ of the „house of change“.

Arminius wrote:

»The ›end of history‹ means the end of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all ›historical existence‹ (Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on.« ** **

End of history or not, end of historical existence or not - that's the question of this thread.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„So: History is always part of the evolution, of development, of the change; and evolution is always part of development, of change; and development is always part of change; but change can be, but does not have to be development, evolution or history; development can, but does not have to be evolutuion or history; and evolution can, but does not haves to be history.“ ** **

Change > Development > Evolution > History.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„It seems that you imply that the role we play as historical beings is unimportant, and I'm not sure why.“ **

No, it is not unimportant, but it is less important than many people think.

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„I don't think that idea of a role is by any means a simple thought, and I am sure I haven't done it justice in the above, but I hope I've at least gotten across what I mean when I am asserting that individuals play a role in the development of history.“ **

The term „development of history“ is tautogical because history is always a development. History is a kind of evolution (namely a cultural one), a kind of development, a kind of change. It is the „roof“ of the „house of change“ (see above). And I didn't say that the most people play no role when it comes to history. But the role is not as much important as many people think.

Do you know how powerful the rulers of this globe already are?

The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Probably the most significant thing I've left out is any consideration of free will.“ **

Excuse me, but there is no „free will“, but merely a relative free will.


Yes. But never mind because it makes no sense anyway.


Where are the heathens posting?


NACH OBEN 536) Arminius, 10.08.2014, 00:09, 00:56, 17:50, 21:25, 23:42 (1771-1775)


Chomsky is a Leibnizian. He says what Leibniz (1646-1716) has said 300 years before him.


„Thick as a Brick“ (1972) by Jethro Tull.

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), Thick as a Brick, 1972.


James S. Saint wrote:

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

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

James S. Saint wrote:

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

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


Obe wrote:

„Kantian-Heglelian overtones.“ **

Would you mind explaining what you mean by that?

Obe wrote:

This is a war of ideas, disreputing such as the above notions brought forward by the two French thinkers mentioned. They want to reassert the war of ideas, as formative and definitive, and thereby negating any central position promoted by them, such as functionalism.“ **

Do you mean that Deleuze and Guattari want the war of ideas?

Obe wrote:

„The reason for Russia's hunger for re-possessing this former member of the Soviet Union ....“ **

What about the West? 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 ertswhile members of the USSR can also become a member of the EU, thus EUSSR.

** **

I don't think that one can speak of „Putin's game“, although Putin is more powerful than Obama - not at first because of the dictatorship, but because of the fact that US presidents are politicians (as functionaries!), but not rulers because they are dependent on their money lenders, donors, „sponsors“. Not only Russia has an interest in the erstwhile members of the USSR, but also the West, in spite of the fact that according to the deal I mentioned (see above) the West is not allowed to have an interest in the erstwhile members of the USSR. So the presumption is justified that the West is corrupt and that not the West itself - as a whole -, but his leaders, the globalists, have this interest and pretend as if the whole West would defend the so called „free world“. That's ridiculous!

Please don't understand me wrong, because I am not saying that Putin is innocent. But the West is also not innocent.


D 63 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Chomsky is a Leibnizian. He says what Leibniz (1646-1716) has said 300 years before him.« ** **

You'll have to elaborate on that for me, Arminius.“ **

Obe wrote:

„Actually, Chomsky has been signified more a Kantian, then Liebnizian.“ **

Leibniz, Wolff, Kant - that's the line from Leibniz to Kant (with some more philosophical„stations“ and persons between them, for example Martin Knutzen) which leads to many other lines, amongst others to Wilhelm von Humboldt. Why I am mentioning Wilhelm von Humboldt? Because of the fact that you mentioned Chomsky. Chomsky's linguistic theories are based on the philosophy and especially on the ideas of Leibniz and especially of Wilhelm von Humboldt (Neu-Idelaismus - New-Idealism). Generally it may be right to say that he is at first a Kantian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Humboldtian, but in some aspects (see above: linguistics) it is reverse: at first a Humboldtian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Kantian. Let's say he is a rationalist and idealist.


NACH OBEN 537) Arminius, 11.08.2014, 01:30, 02:30, 02:25, 03:52, 04:21, 21:17, 22:07 (1776-1781)


The Artful Pauper wrote:

„Are your personal actions in conformance with the goals set out in society (so mainly in the structure of its institutions)? If not, are you in any way attempting to create a way of life that differs from the currently established institutions? If so, do you believe in them?“ **

Before I answer that questions we should clarify something, I think. Would you please tell me what you mean when you are speaking of „personal actions“. Do you want to know whether I am a criminal? Or do you want to know whether I am a dropout who lives in a desert, or deep forest, or elsewhere, without any contact to the civilisation?

In any case we must expect much, because the future will not be easy.

Maybe, if history will end, the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).


** ** '' **

Or maybe, if history ends, the humans will feel happy in the dictatorship of the machines.
Or maybe, if history ends, the human evolution will also end.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Maybe, if history will end, the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).« ** **

I don't see that one. Why would all technology (for example) be forgotten just because things stopped changing?“ **

Technology does not necessarily mean an eternal progressive development because technology can be reduced, for example by humans (politics etc.) or by nature itself (catastrophes etc.).


James S. Saint wrote:

Thus the »language of the mind«, the »language of thought« is emulation of sensing, replaying events in the mind as though they were real.“ **

Are you a behaviourist, James?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Verbal language is merely one of the sensing schemes that gets triggered into emulation (that inner voice as one thinks to himself). The verbal cues, although only emulated, trigger additional pondering/emulating that would not have taken place. Inwardly verbalizing thoughts is a means for reducing interference and focusing on a topic, as is writing it down.“ **

According to linguists language is more than merely a „sensing scheme“ or a tool of behaviour. And I think the linguists are right. The function you mentioned are existent anyway. But according to many (not all!) technicians, or materialists, or behaviourists, there is nothing existent beyond their technical, or material, or behavioural „world“. And I think that's wrong.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Machines, not having to deal with the medical interference that humans do, have no need to an inner voice.“ **

That's right.

Human beingss are living beings of luxury. Therefore they have such a brain, such a mind, such a language, etc.. Machines don't need luxury. They are merely beings of logic, reason, rationality. But they are able to know what luxury really is.


Gilles Barbier, „L'Hospice“ („The Hospice“), 2002.


Obe wrote:

„The weakness You pointed out, in the West, is taken Advantage ....“ **

Do you believe that the „weakness“ in the West and its implications will change some day?


James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»But at least as long as living beings, and especially human beings, will exist there will also be the questions: ›what was before 'Y'?‹, ›what was before 'X'?‹, ›...?‹, and so on.« ** **

That is much like the questions concerning why the Sun and Moon rise and fall, what are those little sparkly things in the night sky, and from where did Man come? Do you still ask those questions with any substantial doubt?“ **

I simply wanted to make an important note that concerns the asking for developments. Asking for the „before“ does not always refer to physics.

The „house of change“:

| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|

History is merely the „roof“ of the „house of change“.

Time and the „house of change“:

| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|

_____________________ Time ______________________

History conceptually depends on evolution, development, change; evolution conceptually depends on development and change; development conceptually merely depends on change. So change is probably eternal because it is universal or cosmic; but development, evolution and a fortiori history are not eternal - they can end.

An analogy:

| Culture-Nature |
|_______ Culture _______|
|_________ Nature-Culture _________|
|_________________ Nature __________________|

_______________________ Time ________________________

So nature (compare: physics and chemistry) is probably eternal because it is universal or cosmic; but nature-culture (compare: biology and ecology/economy), culture (compare: seniotics and linguistics) and a fortiori culture-nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics) are not eternal - they can end (because neurons, brains, extensive and complex brains, mind, especially in a sense of „Geist“, are needed). Unfortunately most of the scientists and even philosophers neglect the latter, although it is the highest level. In the case of scientists, it does not surprise me, because they have, especially at present, the task to serve the rulers. But in the case of the philosophers, it surprises me a bit. If humans really were free (they are not!), they would not neglect the culture-nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics) because they would more try to transport it in reality and in their everyday life.

If there is no awareness of change, then no development can be observed; if development can not be observed, then evolution can also not be observed; if evolution can not be observed, then history can also not be observed. Backwards: If history can be observed, then evolution, development and change can also be observed; if evolution can be observed, then development and change can also be observed; if development can be observed, then change can also be observed.

What does that mean?

Space and time are probably eternal, so nature and change are probably eternal. Our capability of observing nature and change depends on space and time on the objective side and on our senses and brains on the subjective side. Without these preconditions we would not exist; so there would also not be any human answer to the question why space and time can also be observed and interpreted as nature and change, as nature-culture and development, as culture and evolution, as culture-nature and history. So if there is not only nature but also nature-culture (trannsition between nature and culture), culture and culture-nature (trannsition between culture and nature), then it is possible to find change in all four realms and to find nature in all four kinds of events.


James S. Saint wrote:

In English:

hos·pice (hsps)
1. A shelter or lodging for travelers, pilgrims, foundlings, or the destitute, especially one maintained by a monastic order.
2. A program that provides palliative care and attends to the emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients at an inpatient facility or at the patient's home.

Although in the USA, it is a place where one goes to die.“ **

Yeah. Sometimes one has also to be careful when translating from French into English.


NACH OBEN 538) Arminius, 12.08.2014, 00:37, 01:28, 03:00, 18:01, 21:31, 21:34, 22:33 (1783-1789)


James S. Saint wrote:

„And SAM is not like anything before it. It has many facets including capitalist endeavors. Each SAM Corp. lives solely for its own sake. Everything it does is entirely and openly for itself. That makes it not only capitalistic, but because its management is via the participation of all members, it is »democratic«. It is like a small business with its books on open display.

Does it have to be „democratic“? And if so: why?

You know that even SAM can merely be successful and more than ever democratically successful, if it remains a small common or corporation. But more than other forms of government democracy is prone to corruption. That is - b.t.w. - the reason why democracy has a shorter duration than other forms of government. But anyway: if this small commons or corporations do not grow in the long run, then they will have a chance. And this chance would grow, if each common or corporation would be more like a (for example!) city state, thus more like a republican aristocracy. I don't say this because of my own social and political belief or opinion, but because of the logic of „SAM“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And it is much like their preaching »true« physics in the face of RM:AO. All they can really do is run and try to hide and hide from their stumbling blocks, such as the Stopped Clock Paradox. Every direct confrontation, they will lose. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens in the long run. They will tell their lies. You can count on that. Liars lie. It's just what they do. And although considerate of what they say, neither RM:AO nor SAM is terribly concerned about what they say. SAM isn't a political movement in need of convincing the masses of anything. SAM is not a revolution, but an evolution, a new synthesis and species of non-aggressive corporation to displace the dinosaurs of the past.

But you want to be successful in the long run.

James S. Saint wrote:

The final battle between SAM and the Globzis is the classic battle between the Lord of Light and Lord of Darkness. Man even has a name for it. And they spell out the details of the battle; when to sound which trumpets, how many times, which flags to raise, where to stand, when to advance, ... all of that kind of thing. It is a battle concerning thought and behavior, »spirit«, not swords and bombs. And every type of deception is expected on the field ... handled and thwarted. Its complicated to explain.

Darkness and ignorance cannot reign over Man forever. So you can guess who wins. The only question is who will still be around. The sooner it starts, the fewer people will be murdered in the name of Globulism. But everything has its time and place.

Although whatever happens will happen in its own time, the effort of life is to always be one step ahead of the future and ever-cognizant of the past.

The forms of history repeat. In other words: The time of „SAM“ is going to come!


It is normal, typical for humans and their cultures to forget their technologies. For example: the technologies of the Mesopotamian culture, of the Egyptian culture, of the Apollinic (Greek/Roman) culture, and of the American (Maya/Inca) culture were forgotten after the „death“ of this cultures. So I predict that the technologies of the Occidental culture will be forgotten after the „death“ of the Occidental culture. Relating to the forgetfulness, it makes only a little difference that the Occidental culture is the only one which has conquered and captured the whole globe and parts of the universe.

On average it is posible that it takes merely three or four generations, until cultural affairs are forgotten, if nothing is done against that forgetful development. You don't believe that? Remember the Roman history. When the Germans conquered Rome and the Roman territory the Romans had already forgotten many of their own technologies. Or remember the Aztecan history. When the Spanish conquered the Aztecan territory the Atztecs had already forgotten how to build their pyramids.

** Pyramide in Mittelamerika


Eric the Pipe wrote:


Reforming Demography.

If we really want to reform Western „societies“ and economies, we must take into account the correlation between wealth, intelligence/knowledge and demography.

Like I said: We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). ** **

What is said in that video is merely partly right because it suggests that the knowledge would depend of the so called „free market“, and again: that is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a „free market“. (2.) Knowledge depends also on genetics, because intelligence is mostly based on genetics, and on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.

When it comes to speaking about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge for a „society“ and its economy, then it is primarily important to do it in connection with (1.) genetics and evolution of intelligence, (2.) education and history of culture (cultural evolution), (3.) information (including all kinds of communication that leads to knowledge, e.g. all sciences, semiotics, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, if they are in fact no sciences). That does not mean that economy is somehow unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological and cultural issue (remember and see above: „long time“) - and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western „societies“ -, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present (although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but will not have anymore in the future.

So first of all a „society“ has to have people with knowledge and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with a trustful will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of this people because they have enriched the economy and via economy also the „society“.

And b.t.w.: In order to get the final direction, this thread should not be called „Reforming Democracy“, but „Reforming Demography“(see above).


James S. Saint wrote:

„Understand the difference between being a democratic group and being a part of a democratic larger nation/state/body.“ **

This is reflected in my statements. I included it. My question wether it must be „democratic“ was meant generally and related to the possibility that if „SAM“ is „democratic“, it would get more and more under the control of the globalists and their system of corruption. Then you wouldn’t have a „SAM“, but a „GANG“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„SAM corps are an element within a somewhat democratic/capitalistic ....“ **

But that is what makes SAM vulnerable to corruption, even if SAM remains small.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Similarly, you might live in a democratic, capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic country, but that doesn't mean that internal to yourself, you are any of those.“ **

That’s clear. I know that difference very well, James. So there is no problem of understanding that difference. If you are not „any of them“, but a member who is known by all other members, then it would be more probable that you can almost be sure that you are not corruptible. It depends on (1.) the social/political system you belong to, (2.) the personalities and characters of the members of the social/political system, and (3.) the might around you (currently the power of the globalists and their system). (1.) SAM for instance is perhaps „democratic“, but „democracy“ means more vulnerable to corruption than other forms of government; and SAM has for example 4 groups - seers, strategists, doers, overseers -, and that doesn’t „sound“ like democracy, although SAM's smallness allows to call its social/political system „democracy“. (2.) One has to be sure, in spite of the smallness of SAM, that all members are not corruptible. (3.) The globalists as SAM's enemy can eliminate SAM, if it SAM not willing to be corrupt.

Logically, SAM has firstly to be monarchic, then aristocratic, and at last democratic. Else you can’t build it correctly. Check out the history of all hitherto successful companies/corporations! No one of them started democratically, but they all started monarchically, then they changed to aristocracy, and at last they perhaps changed to democracy (perhaps! because most of them did not want to change to democracy, but they lastly had to because the corruption had grown and forced them). It would be no good omen for SAM to start democratically, in spite of its smallness. Unless you could be sure that no one of its members is corruptible. But how can you be sure in that case? You can never be sure, but almost be sure, if your social/political system is monarchic, thus authoritarian.

That's logical.


„Affirmative action“ is racism and sexism, the increased form of racism.

„Affirmative action“ has such results (for example):

- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqCLr6MSBWk.
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGv8PQr8Uo4.
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzvlQ0hy7kg.
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr_SgD5cORs.
(„SCUM“ means Valerie Solanas' manifesto, „SCUM Manifesto“. And it's evident what „#killallmen“ means.)

And if you want to get of the top of racism and sexism, you only have to observe the white autoracism and male autosexism (the increased form of autracism), thus the autoracisms and autosexism of the male whites. Funny? No! Dangerous!

Arminius wrote:

„The whites and especially the white males seem not to need foreign race or all females for their genocide because the whites do it themselves: auto-genocide!« ** **

Sally M. Gearhart wrote:

„The proportion of men must be reduced and fixed at approximately 10% of the human race.“ **

Examiner.com wrote:

„Liberal professor calls for genocide, says white males should commit suicide.“ **

That „liberal“ „professor“ is white and male.

Do you have any question?


Copied post in another thread.


Obe wrote:

„We are at a certain disadvantage in the west by a conflation between what human rights and laissez fair's corruptible sense of meaning may imply.“ **

„Human rights“ „are“ to be read only on paper and „are“ because of merely one „right“: 1% of the humans „is“ allowed to exploit and destroy the Earth and 99% of the humans.


NACH OBEN 539) Arminius, 13.08.2014, 00:34, 01:43, 02:36, 02:55, 16:39, 17:27, 18:13, 22:24, 23:24, 23:40, 23:49 (1790-1800)


James S. Saint wrote:

„Conservative == »Keep it as it is«.
Liberal == »Change it« ... to anything else.

So as it changes, the conservative becomes what the liberal was. And eventually the liberal changing becomes what the conservative was.

At one point, the Nazis were the liberals.“ **

The Nazis were never conservative, on the contrary, the conservative humans were their greatest enemies. The only real (!) resistance against the Nazis were the conservative humans.

Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg
Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (committed an assassination on Hitler).

- Lady Morphia (Nick Nedzynski, Chris Nedzynski), Widerstand, 2007.


Arcturus Descending wrote:

„You can't be in love with the Berlin Wall.“ **

I do not anyway. But the Swedish Eija-Riitta Eklöf-Berliner-Mauer does! (**|**). Do you think that she lies?

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Your second image to me is more about a man who is wondering "Where did I go wrong with that damn woman or he might just as much be wondering »What do I want for supper?«. His look is not perplexing enough really not at all.“ **

That image should merely represent „philosophy“ or „thinking“ and a bit suggest that one can't love philosophy or thinking (**|**).


I estimate that merely 20% of this forum members are really interested in philosophy, the other 80% are not really interested in philosophy or even don't know what philosophy is, they just want to have fun, or even to derail, to troll, to insult, ... and so on. I guess, that if one asks for the emotional relationship to philosophy, the most of those 20% would say „I like phislosophy“, while the most of those 80% would say „I love philosophy“. That leads to the following questions:

1.) „Who are those 20% and 80%?“
2.) „What do they mean when they use the words »love« and »like«?“
3.) „What is philosophy?“
4.) „Is it possible or even necessary that one loves philospohy in order to philosophise?“

That are smart questions, aren't they? Am I similar to Sokrates, just because I like maieutics?

Dear 80%, I don't want to insult you; you may be right (see question 4.); but if so, then you should prove or give evidence for your thesis that one can really love philosophy.


Mithus wrote:

„She actually married the Berlin Wall in 1979 ....“ **

1979? So, the following song is her song or dedicated to her:

- The Smashing Pumpkins, 1979, 1996.
Oh scary! This picture is not of 1979 but of 1978.

But I just found out (here) that she got married on June 17, 1979.

For people who are interested in the „couple“: Http://www.Berlinermauer.se.

Mithus wrote:

„She actually married the Berlin Wall in 1979 and when it was destroyed in 1989 it was a big tragedy for her. She created the term »Objectum Sexuality«, which means that the object has feelings and a sexual desire. (I wonder how that works) «We have an equal relationship and are not bothered about conventions, our story is one of two lovers and our souls will be connected eternally.«“ **

Do you believe that, Mithus?

If she is able to be in love with the Berlin Wall and their „souls“ really „will be connected eternally“, then it might also be possible to love philosophy. But do you really believe that?

B.t.w.: Please remember the many murder victims and other victims at the Berlin Wall!

Memorial // Günter Litfin // first murder victim on 24/08/1961 // Humboldthafen in Berlin-Mitte
// and all the victims of the Berlin Wall // from 13.08.1961 until November 1989.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Maybe they should have just cemented her into the wall.“ **

Or the wall into her?


Ben J. Schmoe wrote:

„Time does not cause change ....

Time is not an effect.“ **

In this thread you can't find any word, senetence, or text that says „time causes change“ or „time is an effect“. Nobody has said that in this thread.

If there were no time, then you would not be able to measure any change. That is what I said. So, according to the meaning of time, there is no disgreement between James and me. Change can only be measured by time and be represented also as development (the most cases), or evolution (many cases) and history (few cases). What I make is a kind of linguistic classification. If you don't know which change is meant - development, evolution, or history -, you should just say „change“ because it is a superordinated word, or „development“ because it can also be used for the words „evolution“ and „history“.


Interterrestrial wrote:

„More than everybody here, added together.“ **

Would you mind „explaining“ that, if possible?


Obe wrote:

„The dying person is seldom told.

Interestingly but not surprisingly, the oldest generations and the youngest generation are seldom told anyway.

This fact reminds me of the following one of my posts in this thread:

Arminius wrote:

„Machines care for elderly.

Japan, which has the world's oldest population, has allocated 2.39bn yen (£14.3m) in the 2013 budget to develop robots to help with care.

BBC wrote:

»Toyota is developing devices to help carry the elderly or provide mobility support and Toli Corp has created a mat with a wireless sensor that can track and deliver feedback if an elderly person is moving around.

A special robot with 24 fingers has been developed for hair washing and head massage, useful if a person has limited arm movement. It is something Panasonic has also tried out in Japanese hair salons.« **

Let's look to Japan in order to see what will happen also in North America and Europe soon. How man more people will than become redundant, unemployed. The maintenance area, the area of caretakers, which is currently booming in Europe, will then be mechanised.“ ** **

In future all generations are seldom told. The end effect will be the redundance of all humans. They will not be needed anymore.


The word „philosophy“ means „love to wisdom“. So „I love philosophy“ means „I love love to wisdom“. To love a kind of love (in this case: the love to wisdom) is exaggerated, isn't it? Do you love exaggeration or hyperbolism?

It is possible to love the love, for example the love to wisdom. But my main question is not whether it is possible, but wether it is good, whether it is really worth living for. Perhaps it would be better or would be worth living for to hate philosophy, to fight philosophy, to be the antagonist of philosophy in order to overcome philosophy by philosophising. To work on at the philosophy in order to overcome it would be good, would be worth living for, wouldn't it? But I think, not „love“ and „hate“, but „like“ and „dislike“ are the most adequate words for describing the relationship between humans and philosophy.

Arminius wrote:

„Like I said: I don't love philosophy, I like philosophy. So before I give you a "number from -100 to +100", I would like to determine that scale a little bit, for example in this way:

-100 to -51) „I hate ...“;
-50 to -1) „I dislike ...“;
+1 to +50) „I like ...“;
+51 to +100) „I love ...“.

1. How much are you attracted towards philosophy (say, love philosophy)? My answer according to the scale: 40 to 50.
2. How deep are you interested in philosophy? My answer according to the scale: 90 to 100.

But again and again: I don't love philosophy, I like philosophy. Although I like philosophy very much, I don't love philosophy.

What about you?“ ** **


James S. Saint wrote:

„Once any party obtains control, they become conserving of their control, the »conservative party« actively resisting any change from that control: »We like it the way it is.«“ **

You are decribing the more „negatvie“ aspect of „conservative“, and what I was describing was the more „positive“ aspect of „conservative“.


What do you think about the differences relating to „change“? What do you think about „development“, „evolution“, „history“, their differences?

When some people talk about „nature“ or about „universe and time“, they don't make any difference and say for example „»history« of the nature“, „»history« of the universe“, ... and so on, or „»evolution« of the nature“, „»evolution« of the universe“, ... and so on. That’s not necessarily wrong, but to me the adequate word for the describing of the natural or universal „change“ - thus as a general meaning - is the word „change itself, whereas the words „development“, „evolution“ and „history“ should merely be used in special cases.


NACH OBEN 540) Arminius, 14.08.2014, 00:30, 01:43, 01:45, 02:29, 04:19, 17:50, 18:36, 23:17, 23:35 (1801-1809)


Interterrestrial wrote:

„For example, arcturus descending claims that she »knows that she is alive«.“ **

Arcturus Descending, are you alive? And if you think that you are: do you also know that you are alive? I can't believe it!

Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive!


Laughing Man wrote:

„Peter Kropotkin wrote:

»LaughingMan wrote:

›I can never afford a woman's or anybody's love really.
Everywhere you go love is all about affordability.
I always fall short somehow.‹ **

K: because it is a capitalist world, where value is define as monetary and personal values such as love, courage, honor, strength (not personal strength but intellectual and emotional strength) commitment, justice, truth, aren't valued because they have no monetary value.“ **

In a socialist or communist one it is the same.“ **

That's true!

You stole my words, Laughing Man.


„Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft,
Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.
.... Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint!
Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht,
ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht;
Drum besser wärs, daß nichts entstünde.
So ist denn alles, was ihr Sünde,
Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt,
Mein eigentliches Element.“

- Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe,
Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S. 64-67. **

„I am Part of that Power which would
The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good.
.... I am the Spirit that denies!
And rightly too; for all that doth begin
Should rightly to destruction run;
'Twere better then that nothing were begun.
Thus everything that you call Sin,
Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent -
That is my own, real element.“

- Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe,
Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, p. 64-67.



This is always the same:

Staatsformen    Spiralisches


Please follow the arrow!

And the process is a circular / elliptic or a spiral motion.

Almost like the one which is shown in the picture on the right side.

The motions of the planets and their moons are also spiral motions, even the motion of the sun is a spiral motion. And the motions of the planets and their moons belong to the motion of the sun. There is perhaps only one or even no arrow in the universe because all orbits in the universe universe belong probably either to one spiral (one arrow) or to one circular / elliptic (no arrow) orbit.

Naturally / universally considered, the forms of government have also only one or even no arrow / goal. That is the reason why we often say: „always the same“. It’s just true.


If I had to distribute the current 31 ILP smilies on the 80% philosophy „lovers“/„haters“ and the 20% philosophy „likers“/„dislikers“, I would do as follows:

- Philosophy „lovers“/„saters“ (80%): (24 several smilies).
- Philosophy „likers“/„dislikers“ (20%): (6 several smilies).
- Both:

According to this distribution the philosophy „lovers“/„haters“ (80%) are much more emotional than the philosophy „likers“/„dislikers“ (20%).

Except that this distribution is supposed to represent also an exhilaration, one can take it somehow seriously and say that it is somehow true.


Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Is that suppose to be Rodin's (?) Thinker?“ **

No - as I already told you.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„That doesn't seem compelling enough.“ **

This thread is not about art, but about philosophy; and this thread is also not about aesthetics, but about one’s emotional relationship to philosophy.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„One can grow and thrive on what philosophy brings to them. I suppose we can use the word "enamored". For me, it's seeking the truth, no matter where I find it or how it makes me feel. I think I actually enjoy and am turned on more by science than philosophy.“ **

I can’t believe what you are saying.

Arminius wrote:

„Interterrestrial wrote:

»For example, arcturus descending claims that she ›knows that she is alive‹.« **

Arcturus Descending, are you alive? And if you think that you are: do you also know that you are alive? I can't believe it!

Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive!“ ** **

Maybe we can never overcome the subject/object dualism.


Immanuel Kant for example. This German philosopher is one of the most eminent and famous philosophers.

Please tell me what do you think (a) about Kan’'s philosophy, (b) about the question whether Kant loved philosophy or not, and (c) about the question whether you love philosophy or not, if you think about Kant and his philosophy.

Or think of other philosophers and tell me what you think (a) about their philosophy, (b) about the question whether they loved or love philosophy or not, (c) about the question whether you love philosophy or not, if you think about their philosophy.


Peachy Nietzsche (Neachy) wrote:

„No fundamental distinction can be made between science and religion.“ **

That’s right, Peachy Neachy. There is only one fundament of religion and science: the belief - belief in truth. B.t.w.: philosophy has this fundament too.

BELIEF as the belief (or faith) in truth is the fundament, and then it goes:
The result is a new BELIEF (or faith) in truth.

The Occidental culture is a Faustian culture, a culture of science and has a very long history. To me this Faustain culture is the most interesting and the most likable culture of all times. But nevertheless: also this Faustian culture has two sides: a good one and a bad one. After this culture had eked out its science it reached the top of its history - science seemed to be „free“ -, then it created a new theology (new divinity) because science was regarded as a kind of deity, but then, when the first serious enemies of science emerged, it had to change its new theology (new divinity) into new religion. Today the Westerners are still on this way of changing science from a new theology (new divinity) into a new religion, but they are already very close to the goal of this way: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

What does that mainly mean?

The Faustian culture has been defending its science more and more due to the fact that it has been getting more and more enemies. One of the consequences is that science has been becoming a part of the rulers, thus its former enemies.

An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture's modern times can never be an atheist, or an areligious one, or an disbeliever - that has been being imposible since the Occidental science started its „way“ from a new theology (new divinity) to a new religion and its goal: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

There is no doubt that science is a success story of the Occidental culture, perhaps the most successful story of all times, so I am proud and grateful. But this is also not a never-ending story, and perhaps it will end very badly.

The next time you visit the scientific „church“ („universiy“) or a a public discussion of the so-called scientific „experts“ (priests and preachers), you may be reminded of the two sides of science.

Once science was an enemy of the rulers, today it is almost entirely under the control of the rulers.


Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»This thread is not about art, but about philosophy; and this thread is also not about aesthetics, but about one's emotional relationship to philosophy.« ** **

Well, philosophy could also be about art ---------------------- and aesthetics.“ **


This thread is not about art or aesthetics. I like art and aesthetics too, but that has not much to do with this thread.

Please look for a different thread, if you want to talk about art and aesthetics.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„The title could also be about how we perceive things and lie to ourselves ....“ **

Could be, but is not.

Again and again:

The title is:

„Do you really love philosophy?“ ** **