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

<= [801][802][803][804][805][806][807][808][809][810] =>

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 150
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
1140
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
15,15%
 
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
0,1869
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
1101
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
6930
 
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%
18,89%
 
  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
7,34
 
  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
3,0164
 
 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
6,079
 
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
1,1361
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 801) Arminius, 19.08.2015, 01:02, 01:06, 01:35, 02:53, 03:59, 04:06, 16:37, 17:44, 18:05, 19:53, 21:05, 21:26, 21:42, 22:29, 22:44, 23:24, 23:38, 23:43, 23:53, 23:54, 23:59, 23:59, 23:59 (3578-3601)

3578

Yes, we already have humanism, thus: much more wars than ever before and especially much more terrible / terroristic wars than ever before.

3579

A „youth bulge“ is defined as high number of young people, namely:
1) Aged 0 to 29 years: 50% and more of the whole society;
1a) Aged 0 to 14 years: 30% and more of the whole society;
1b) Aged 15 to 29 years: 20% or more of the whole society.

There are some unrests and riots in India, also some fightings because of Kashmir.

KASHMIR on the subject:

- Led Zeppelin (Plant, Page, Bonham, Jones), Kashmir, 1975.

3580

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Natural selection stops working when it stops being natural.‹ **

Exactly.

 « ** **

At which time it is NOT natural selection. You prick!“ **

When it stops being natural.

And stop trolling. You obviously do not remember what Only Humean said to you:

Only Humean wrote:

„If you don't have anything to contribute to a discussion besides snide personal attacks, you'll find yourself warned and banned fairly quickly on the Philosophy board.“ **

3581


Crimson Crow wrote:

„Living in the wild, a greater level of self-reliance can be established. There is a risk, however, for loss of territory; civilization has adequate power to enforce its policies within your territory, and exploit it economically. When I say 'wild', I don't necessarily mean a land unoccupied by foreign powers (rare or inexistant these days) but being entirely autonomous.“ **

Currently there are no autonomous territories.

3582

Hippos, cape buffalo, mosquitos - yes. But here are some attacks of other wild animals: ** ** ** ** ** **

3583

Amorphos wrote:

„A group of or all humanity will eventually perfect high IQ good looking genes/people.
Will resolve all practical problems of the world.
Will perfectly understand the universe.
Will be able to manipulate everything that is manipulable.
This ‘will’ is and will occur.“ **

Are you sure?

3584

Again:

Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore the „natural selection“ was „extended“ by the „sexual selection“, because the „natural selection“ had partly failed; then the „sexual selection“ was „extended“ by the „kin selection“, because the „seuxal selection“ had partly failed; then the „kin selection“ was „extended“ by the „social selection“, because the „kin selection“ had partly failed; ... and so on, one day the „social selection“ will be „extended“ by the „godly selection“ (again), because the „social selection“ will have partly failed.

Who selects according to the Darwinistic selection principle?
Who is the breeder according to the Darwinistic selection principle?

1) According to the „natural selection“ the breeder is the nature.
2) According to the „sexual selection“ the breeder are the females.
3) According to the „kin selection“ the breeder are the relatives.
4) According to the „social selection“ the breeder is the social state.

These just keep getting funnier.

3585

Zinnat wrote:

„I do not know the exact figures, but my guess is that India would also quality for upto 50% citizens under 29 years, given that 65% of its citizens are under 35 years.

There are nothing such happening in India right now, which you can call unrest or riots. India has huge population, more than 128 million as we speak, which is equal to the sum of the whole of Europe and North America.

So, some incidents are bound to happen, when you are talking about as large numbers as these. My guess is that if you include all incidents of those above mentioned continents, they also will be quite close to their Indian counterparts.

Secondly, if you look back at the history, there was huge unrest and riots in the US some decades back, when black movement was going on.

Does that mean that US was also facing young bulge at those times? My guess is not. Those particular circumstances lead to unrest, not the age of its citizens.

I have not looked at the stats, but again my guess is that there must be this young bulge in the US also sometime around a century back. But, US progressed more during those years. China also must have passed through this phase 3 - 4 decades back.“ **

China had its „great leap forward“ from 1958 to 1962 and its terrible so-called „cultural revolution“ from 1966 to 1976. 1979 Deng Xiaoping launched the one-child-policy.

3586

Bob wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„Yes, we already have humanism, thus: much more wars than ever before and especially much more terrible / terroristic wars than ever before.

Sorry, but this isn't a »yes«!“ **

Sorry, but I was not referring to your post.

Bob wrote:

„»Humanism« isn't what I was talking about.“ **

Yes. I know. Do you now know that I was not referring to your post? See above.

Bob wrote:

„Your black and white statement doesn't do justice to the problem! Your analysis seems to be a failure, or even a refusal to approach the problem.“ **

Again: I was not referring to your post. The post I was referring to was a black and white statement. So I responded accordingly. .... Hello? .... Wake up!

Do you now understand what I meant?

3587

James S. Saint wrote:

„Thus anyone could equally say (actually more properly say and they have) that God chose who reproduces and who doesn't. Equally, they are defined to be correct because God is whatever it is that allows or forbids everything that happens. But in that case, one would say that the individual was unfit for God.“ **

That's absolutely right.

And even if the „different types of selection“ are „different mechanisms of selection“: they contradict each other, especially the „natural selection“ and the „social selection“. A social state can and does decide against the nature, the so-called „natural selection“, and also against the „sexual selection“ and the „kin selection“, ... and so on.

In almost all cases the „social selection“ and the „natural selection“ are diametrically opposed.

The „socal selection“ just allows the „social state“ as the breeder to select whomever it wants to be selected - so: these people will die, those people will live just because of the decision of the „social state“.

3588

Statiktech wrote:

„Darwinian »fitness« has a specific meaning that differs from the colloquial usage.“ **

Typical Darwinistic excuse!

I know very well what „fitness“ means. Stop equivocating!

But Darwin knew nothing about genetics.

Do you not know that there are the „sexual selection“, the „kin selection“, and especially the „social selection“ as well? At the latest when we are talking about „social selection“: the term „fitness“ has already changed - often in its opposed meaning. So I did not change the term, but the Darwinists themselves did it. So the Darwinists themselves equivocate.

Statiktech wrote:

„I said originally that Arminius is equivocating when he talks about fitness. You're either doing the same or you're just plain confused.“ **

You are equivocating.

According to Darwin the fittest have more offspring and live on, while the unfittest have less and at last no offspring and die out. According to the „social selection“ - thus to the „social state“ - a decision of just the opposite is possible and happens in reality every day: the unfittest live on, while the fittest die out. If Darwin's selection principle was not false, the „social selection“ could and would not be possible.

You Darwinists have no single argument but merely excuses and personal attacks.

3589

It is hard for modern believers when they notice their idols are as dead as their ideologies.

3590

Another Darwinistic fairy tale: When Darwin wrote his books every single word he used had a „specific meaning“ and differed „from the colloquial usage“. Today there is nobody - except the Darwinists of course - who is capable of understanding a single word Darwin used in his books.

3591

Oh, girl.

A dictionary would help you.

Have you never heard of Anti-Darwinism or any Darwinistic criticism?

News (examples):
- Individuals are not „blind“ or absolutely dependent when it comes to the framework conditions of nature.
- The so-called „social selection“ contradicts the so-called „natural selection“ in many aspects.
- The immunity to any criticism indicates that Darwinism is a modern religious system.
- David Stove's book „Darwinian Fairytales“.
- Darwinism as an „Universal Darwinism“.
- Darwinism as an „Ultra Darwinism“.
- Darwinism explains NOTHING.

You push me in the role of an Anti-Darwinist, although I am not an Anti-Darwinist - but also not an Darwinist.

Darwinism is a system that makes humans dependent like pets. It is no accident that Darwinism and Marxism, Nietzscheanism, Freudianism have they have roughly the same age and are so much similar when it comes to speak about humans as absolutely dependent pets. Those isms have to do with compulsion systems, with dogmatism, with religion, but not with science.

Humans are not absolutely free, but they are relatively free. They do not depend on their environment like other living beings. Humans have the possibility to trick the nature. They are luxury beings. Their culture is a huge „island“ in the „ocean“ as nature. If they were not relatively free, then they could and would not be capable of destroying their environment, the whole globe, and meanwhile also the outer space, could and would not be capable of bringing every living being in an absoluetly foreign environment, could and would not be capable of having a technolgy that makes them more than demigods.

Humans do not absolutely depend on economic or fatalistic or unconscious restraints. They are relatively free. Humans are not pets, although they educate themselves as if they were pets.

3592

There are also or even exclusively cultural reasons, especially economical and social („social selection“, „social state“) reasons.

3593

Primal Rage wrote:

„There is no God ....“ **

Can you prove it?

Primal Rage wrote:

„....

**

....“ **

That could be a „window“ of God's „house“, couldn't it?

3594

What would you say, if there was a Sartre mausoleum?

3595

Too much power in the black holes.

3596


Laughing Man wrote:

„The rebuttal in rejecting the existence of God can be used for morality amongst other things.“ **

Both imply the existence of something where there is no evidence of and both need much criteria in faith to believe in.

Do you not prefer one of the both? If yes: Which one do you prefer?

3597

 

Zinnat wrote:

„The more rational deduction of this young bulge should be that, if a country has more young citizens, it will gather more speed in which direction it is moving already, whether that is progress or regress. It would be wrong to conclude that young bulge is dangerous by default.“ **

Yes. I agree.

3598

Zinnat wrote:

„Lastly, this gentleman has taken 29 years as a benchmark because that is almost the world median age, 29.6 to be precise.“ **

Monaco has the oldest median age: 52.3 years.
Niger has the youngest median age: 15.2 years.

3599

Population growth 1990–2012 (%):

Africa: 73.3%
Middle East: 68.2%
Asia (excl. China): 42.8%
China: 19.0%
OECD Americas: 27.9%
Non-OECD Americas: 36.6%
OECD Europe: 11.5%
OECD Asia Oceania: 11.1%
Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia: -0.8%

Link to the source.

3600

The change of the world poulation from 1950 to 2100:

Karte

Link to the source.

3601

The world population from 1 AD to 2050:

**

Link to the source.

 

NACH OBEN 802) Arminius, 20.08.2015, 01:26, 04:04, 05:06, 15:19, 15:31, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00, (3602-3606)

3602

The „demographic transition“ model:

**

Link to the source.

3603

In Gunnar Heinsohn's book „Menschenproduktion“, published in 1979, is mentioned that from a later view the graph of the world population development could look like this:

**

3604

James S. Saint wrote:

„Phoneutria wrote:

»There is no synapse before the first touch. You touch a brick, a synapse forms and you come to know ›rough‹. You touch plush, a synapse forms an you come to know ›soft‹.« **

Emmm... no. You are born with billions of synapses already linking most of your senses together. .....“ **

Yes. And the senses can already be used before the birth: (1) sense of touch at the age of about 2 months after the fertilisation; (2) sense of balance at the age of about 2 till some more months after the fertilisation; (3) sense of taste at the age of about 3 months after the fertilisation; (4) sense of smell at the age of about 5 months after the fertilisation; (5) sense of hearing at the age of about 6 months after the fertilisation; (6) sense of sight at the age of about 9 months after the fertilisation.

3605

You (**) need a dictionary!

You have not the tiniest conception of „selection“, let alone „social selection“. „Social selection“ is not „sexual selection“. You have no conception of the „selection principle“. So why do you not look for another thread? Currently there are 41032 ILP threads. Good luck!

3606

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»....
1) According to the ›natural selection‹ the breeder is the nature.
2) According to the ›sexual selection‹ the breeder are the females.
3) According to the ›kin selection‹ the breeder are the relatives.
4) According to the ›social selection‹ the breeder is the social state.« ** **

And that is only a partial list.“ **

Yes. Of course. Therefore I always added the words „and so on“:

Arminius wrote:

„Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore the »natural selection« was »extended« by the »sexual selection«, because the »natural selection« had partly failed; then the »sexual selection« was »extended« by the »kin selection«, because the »sexual selection« had partly failed; then the »kin selection« was »extended« by the »socual selection«, because the »kin selection« had partly failed; ... and so on, one day the »social selection« will be »extended« by the »godly selection« (again), because the »social selection« will have partly failed.« ** **

Arminius wrote:

„And even if the »different types of selection« are »different mechanisms of selection«: they contradict each other, especially the »natural selection« and the »social selection«. A social state can and does decide against the nature, the so-called »natural selection«, and also against the »sexual selection« and »kin selection«, ... and so on.“ ** **

 

NACH OBEN 803) Arminius, 21.08.2015, 05:30, 05:58, 18:23, 18:35, 19:07, 19:19, 21:50, 22:14, 22:27, 22:40 (3607-3616)

3607

James S. Saint wrote:

„Don't confuse elegance with simple mindedness. If anything it was fumbling and now words have to be redefined to make it true. It is a typically ill conceived and poorly worded religion.“ **

Yes. It is a poorly worded religion, a very poorly worded religion.

The more the ILP Darwinists post the more I am an Anti-Darwinist.

3608

Zoot Allures wrote:

„What? If anything colonists and imperialists united African tribes by developing infrastructure there. They didn't divide anything. The tribal divisions already existed, and continue to exist to this day. And you say 'the little bit that's left there to have'. The majority of that continent is quite capable of being modernized if those savages would just get their shit together. They gotta do it on their own, though, because the rest of the world is getting tired of trying to help those idiots.

I think you're a case of being brainwashed by the propaganda in rap music and the liberal media, MR. You betta reconize.“ **

I agree, Zoot Allures, because it is not possible to help people who are not capable of helping themselves.

By the way: „reconize“ is not a „rap“, right?

3609

The reputable house.

A few families live in a house from which we know the following facts:

• More children than parents live in this house.
• More parents than boys live in this house.
• More boys than girls live in this house.
• More girls than families live in this house.

No family is childless, each has a different number of children. Every girl has at least one brother and at most one sister. One family has more children than all the other families combined.

How many families live in this house and how are they composed?

3610

The dice game.

Each round of a dice game consists of two fair dice; the result of one throw is the product of the eye thrown numbers. A game consists of 5 rounds.

Bob throws in the second round by 5 more than in the first, in the third round by 6 less than in the second, in the fourth round by 11 more than in the third and in the fifth round by 8 less than in the fourth.

How many points did he score in each of the 5 rounds?

3611

Barbarianhorde wrote:

„The thing is that some corp. US guys are so rich that they pull up the average while the bottom of the pyramid is like a third world country without the benefits.“ **

That's true. And I guess that till the end of this century the world pouplation will have become a poluation of a tiny number of very, very, very rich people and a huge number of very, very, very poor people - and nothing (except huge walls) between them.

3612

Phoneutria wrote:

„The reputable house:

2P
1G
1B

2P
1G
2B

2P
2G
2B

Edit: I should post the process I guess.

C > P > B > G > F

Because of the limit on the number of sisters a girl can have, from this I deducted that these have to be 2 parent families cuz there's too many damn parents.

C = B + G
P = F*2
G < F*2

(B+G) > F*2 > B > G > F

I knew that F was going to be small so after this I tried out some values of F because I got lazy.“ **

That is false.

Please read the text one more time.

3613

Moreno wrote:

„Less offspring can be fine ...“ **

Yes.

Moreno wrote:

„... from a Darwinian perspective ...“ **

No.

Moreno wrote:

„... as long that the process continues.“ **

Which process do you exactly mean?

3614

Moreno wrote:

„Zoot Allures wrote:

»What? If anything colonists and imperialists united African tribes by developing infrastructure there. They didn't divide anything. The tribal divisions already existed, and continue to exist to this day. And you say 'the little bit that's left there to have'. The majority of that continent is quite capable of being modernized if those savages would just get their shit together. They gotta do it on their own, though, because the rest of the world is getting tired of trying to help those idiots.

I think you're a case of being brainwashed by the propaganda in rap music and the liberal media, MR. You betta reconize.« **

So they should be modernized just like the decadent west - please note I am connecting positions that seem to be forgotten by proponents, read: irony. Summations like yours here are as if the West or Europe or large asian conglomerates have left AFrica to its own devices and look, they are messed up still. This is hardly the case: just a look at how corporations and say, the World Bank fuck with the countries over there gives the lie the self-fulfilling smugness of this position. And of course they had tribal divides and these were matched by geographical and economic divisions also. Now they have to work together in weird corporate subsidy 'countries' made up by the colonial powers Have no fear, however, they will soon enough, in historical terms, all be walking around with cellphones and tweeting and eating shit trasported from half way around the world and wishing they were Mylie Cyrus or Beyonce, I guess, just like everyone in 'the west'. NOtice however how the West is now treating its own like colonies, take Greece, say. Once the feeding frenzy over life in the 3rd world became a little gauche, the powers that be are quite happy to have tent cities and a huge underclass in the west also. Cheaper labor, larger law enforcement and so on. And lo, what do we see, the banks are still the major players dictating the at least pretend democracies in the West how they should live and what products they can protect and how many people they can hire in their governments. The chickens have come home to roost. The exact callous mechanical eye that so thuggishly and ignorantly 'interacted' with other cultures is now, more and more obviously, going to be interacting with you with precisely the same empathyless technocrat eye. They will patent your fucking eyes and your genes and make you and your childredn work faster and faster until that day they can replace you with machines or stick an interface in your 'I am so proud to be Euroamerican' brain.

There will likely be no discreet moment for you to feel the slightest bit of empathy for other people's who dealt with this 'outlook' in other countries and at other times because you will likely be so worried about your last tweet and whether you can afford to buy the correct outfit on the shit wages you have doing repetitive garbage as part of some corporation with more power than Belgium that makes shit that everybody needs to have.

You are confused about identities.

You're riding on the coattails of something with pride and that something views you as just another nigger to clean its porch
until that day it can cheaply replace you with the robot porch cleaner.

What a fucking civilization.“ **

I agree, Moreno, as you know from my machine thread (**|**). But how many and which options do 99% of the current people have? And how many and which options do the current black Africans have?

3615

Phoneutria wrote:

„Dang, left out the „One family has more children than all the other families combined.“ part.“ **

Yes.

3616

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Could the world be any better?“ **

Better than what? Better than another world?

Leibniz said: „Die beste aller möglichen Welten“. Translation: „The best of all possible worlds“.
Schopenhauer said: „Die schlechteste aller möglichen Welten“. Translation: „The worst of all possible worlds“.

 

NACH OBEN 804) Arminius, 22.08.2015, 03:38, 04:00, 04:54, 05:10, 17:00, 17:03, 22:25, 22:35, 23:06, 23:58 (3617-3626)

3617

Do you (**|**) have to heat in August?

And:

Are you going to have some beer tonight?

And listen to music?

Is that (**) your favorite music?

Sounds good. I like it. At least it is rhythmic.

3618

Laughing Man wrote:

„Some nights during the summer here especially if there is a lot of wind or moisture in the air it can be between 45-50 degrees outside.“ **

45-50 degrees (Fahrenheit of course). Hey! that's cold!

Laughing Man wrote:

„I also make fires to cook as well.“ **

Really? And if so: always?

3619

James S. Saint wrote:

„I feel like I must be missing something:

3 families, each with 2 parents:
p = 2 2 2 = 6
g = 2 0 2 = 4
b = 1 1 3 = 5
c = 3 1 5 = 9 “  **

Well done.

What about the solution process?

James S. Saint wrote:

„....
1 3 = 4
2 7 = 9
3 4 = 7
4 1 = 5
5 1 = 6 “  **

That is false. Please read the text one more time.

3620

Phoneutria wrote:

„The reputable house:

....

2P
1B

2P
2G
1B

2P
2G
3B “  **

Well done.

What about the solution process?

3621

Phoneutria wrote:

„The dice game:

a
b = a + 5
c = b - 6
d =c + 11
e = d - 8

c= (a + 5) - 6
d = [( a+ 5) - 6] + 11
e = {[(a + 5) - 6] + 11} - 8
max total = 12

Round d can only be 11+1.

a=2
b= 7
c=1
d=12
e=4 “  **

That is false.

Please read the text one more time.

3622

James S. Saint wrote:

„Damn ..., looking at my scratch work, it looks like I rewrote the whole puzzle.

2 * 5 = 10
3 * 5 = 15
3 * 3 = 9
4 * 5 = 20
2 * 6 = 12 “  **

Well done.

What about the solution process?

3623

James S. Saint wrote:

„Hey, my job is to answer questions. Your job is to figure out how I got the answers.“ **

Let me guess twice:

1) By reading, understanding, thinking, and calculating.
2) By finding the answers in the internet.

3624

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Which process do you exactly mean?« ** **

The process of having offspring.“ **

Yes. But if we assume that Darwin's theory of evolution is not false and that „less offspring can be fine“ (**), then having less offspring can merely be fine in a cultural sense and perhaps for a very short time (!) also in a natural sense but not in the sense of Darwin's theory of evolution, especially his „selection principle“. So according to Darwin's theory of evolution having less offspring is always a disadvantage, because it leads to extinction. According to Darwin's „selection principle“ the living beings with less offspring die out because of their unfitness and the fitness of the living beings with more offspring. That is the main point of Darwin's „selection principle“. Darwin's theory of evolution refers to developments in the long run - otherwise it would not be accepted as a theory of evolution but „merely“ as a theory of breeding - and by the way: the theory of breeding is very much older than Darwin's theory of evolution.

„Arminius wrote:

»Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore the ›natural selection‹ was ›extended‹ by the ›sexual selection‹, because the ›natural selection‹ had partly failed; then the ›sexual selection‹ was ›extended‹ by the ›kin selection‹, because the ›sexual selection‹ had partly failed; then the ›kin selection‹ was ›extended‹ by the ›socual selection‹, because the ›kin selection‹ had partly failed; ... and so on, one day the ›social selection‹ will be ›extended‹ by the ›godly selection‹ (again), because the ›social selection‹ will have partly failed.« ** **

Arminius wrote:

»And even if the ›different types of selection‹ are ›different mechanisms of selection‹: they contradict each other, especially the ›natural selection‹ and the ›social selection‹. A social state can and does decide against the nature, the so-called ›natural selection‹, and also against the ›sexual selection‹ and ›kin selection‹, ... and so on.« ** **

I am interested in getting exactly what your sense of the falsity is. If there is a post that sums it up, let me know. I will hop in here and probe a little.

It seems to me that the moment you have a social mammal, sexual selection and even what might be called natural selection is no longer natural. It is chosen by the society and even by individuals in that society, e ven if it is a society of wolves or ground hogs.“ **

Yes. Cultures or societies often contradict nature. The so-called „social selection“ is the selection of some rulers who decide against nature just because of their own interests - e.g. money, thus power - just in order to remain powerful. The „social selection“ can lead to the extinction of all who are involved in the „social selection“, and in a global society of humans all humans are involved in that „social selection“. Look what the rulers do: they destroy the human's environment, the whole globe, they sterilise the other humans (by poison and other means) and at last probably themselves too, they murder other living beings, ... and so on, ... and so on ..., just for money, thus power. If this human beings were nothing else than natural, thus living beings that completely depend on nature, then they could not do such nonsense. Humans are relativeley free (not absoluetly free - because they are not gods), so they can decide and act against nature, and they do decide and act against nature.

This „social selection“ is mostly directed against the „natural selection“, against nature at all, because those who select, want to exploit and to control anything and everything, thus also nature, want to wield power over anything and everything, thus also over nature.

Humans are capable to destroy all living beings on our planet. According to Darwin's „selection principle“ this means that the species homo sapiens is the fittest species of all times while most of all other species are the unfittest species of all times, just because of the fact that homo sapiens is capable of replacing most of all other species. But in addition the species homo sapiens is capable of deciding and acting against nature and the so-called „natural selection“. Instead of „fit“ one can also say „capable“, „competent“, or „successful“.

Arminius wrote:

„Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.“ ** **

3625

Bob wrote:

„I seem to have overseen a post. Sorry.“ **

Never mind.

3626

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I agree, Moreno, as you know from my machine thread (**|**). But how many and which options do 99% of the current people have? And how many and which options do the current black Africans have?« ** **

I am not completely sure the angle you are taking here. I mean, I understand the words and the sentences, but how they function as an argument. IOW let's agree, most people have few options. Does this mean something I said was incorrect?

But now I will go ahead as if I understand you. I don't see most people as having many options. In my own life I have to fight to breathe, though this is at a level many would not understand, given their situations - most Africans for example. The difference, me guessing here, is that when I say I am a pagan, I mean this in perhaps a more literal sense than you do. I actually believe in stuff that does not fit with scientific consensus - though it doesn't actually contradict any well confirmed research either, whatever my metaphysical differences with scientism. I do think that there is an approach here and as I have said in your AI thread do not assume that AI will take over. But that's because I see possibilities available because of those same paradigmatic differences I just mentioned. Likewise in relation to the kinds of global societal changes that are now more openly (again) appearing in the West now that they do not need us - the people in the West - anymore as a base of operations.

Just to jump to the side: if you think that AI is going to take over and that the current global processes are inevitably leading to a dystopic future, why haven't you become a decadent hedonist? That option is problematic where there is something more valuable to be doing, more interesting, challenging, creative, etc, but if there is no hope ...?

If you do see a way out - which seems implicit in the Pagan thread - how do you see this playing out?

Based on the replacement of all humans by machines I am speaking of a 80% probability (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**). 80% is a high probability, but not 100%, so 20% are left.

 

NACH OBEN 805) Arminius, 23.08.2015, 05:41, 14:36, 19:23, 20:06, 21:47, 23:20, 23:51 (3627-3633)

3627


Laughing Man wrote:

„Lev Muishkin wrote:

»It can be amazing how the most stupidly phrased Topics can run and run.
Anyone with a brain, reading carefully the thread title, could only laugh and move on to the next topic in the list.
The clue is ›completely‹ and ›all‹ that makes the question more than absurd.« **

Well, if you're so uninterested in the conversation you can do all of us a favor and leave providing us an absence of your useless posturing.“ **

Yes, thank you, Laughing Man.

His „statements“ are more than absurd. Obviously he is both uninterested and interested in this thread. Here are some facts: He posted 43 posts in this thread (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|** ); so he obviously did never „only laugh and move on to the next topic in the list“ (**) but relatively often look for this thread. Currently this thread contains 1689 posts; so his contribution to this thread is about 2.55%, and this means that - - averagely - he posted about 6.32 posts per 10 pages. But unfortunately his contributions contain merely nonsense, personal attacks, at least he was almost always off-topic - just as we know it from other threads.

So you are right, Laughing Man: He can do all of us a favor and leave providing us an absence of his useless posturing.

3628

Copied post in another thread.

So there is hope, yes, but if there will be no accident like a big failure of the humans or a huge natural catastrophe, then it will be nearly impossible to go back to times before the so-called „industrial revolution“.

3629

Laughing Man wrote:

„Yes, this northern climate never ceases to amaze me even in the summers.“ **

But the nature is more beautiful.

Please compare North America with Europe:

Erdgeschichte

Europe owes its higher temperatures the Gulf Stream.

3630

Orbie wrote:

„Laughing, I agree with this to a large extent. However, the Chinese economy is a dupicating machine, not a creatove machine. Do You ever wonder why they go traveling abroad, and instead taking everything in consciously, they subordinate their awareness to visual pictures, which they will LATER re-process. This is very apro-po, their cameras are there before anything else. For that reason, they are sublimating awareness, and re-using them at a later date.

In China today, as tourist attractions, there are minutiarized models of most of the tourist attractions of the world, incuding such notables asthe Notre Dame, The Eiffel Tower, BigBen just to name a few.“ **

Do not forget Neuschwanstein!

The original (in Germany):

Neuschwanstein

And its copy (in China):

Kopie

Orbie wrote:

„The Japanese are likewise. Their Mercedes', the Lexus, is an exact replica minus the emblem.

That is why Chinese students educated in the vast, have been involved in vast subterfuges of intelligene compromise and violations of patent rights.

Again, this is not meant to discredit an enourmosly heritiged one time culture, but to maybe ask whether this immen se culture had not prevented the occurance of modernization, where quality has now to be submerged in vast production of bad quality products world-wide.“ **

What we do and will economically and technically experience with China is and will be the same that we have been economically and technically experiencing with Japan since the early 1970's and with South Corea since the late 1970's. The next one after China will probably be India.

3631

Primal Rage wrote:

„What is the purpose of philosophy?“ **

Philosophia perennis.

3632

Topic: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Was the great musician Frank Zappa also a great philosopher?

**

„Was he what he were?“

I do not think that Frank Zappa was also a great philosopher. So the question in the title of this thread and in this opening post is not as serious meant as it seems.

Is, for example, the title of Zappa's first LP - „Fraek Out“ - already a philosophical statement or just similar to some statements here on „ILP“?

Contains, for example, the title of Zappa's second LP - „Absolutely Free“ - an ontology of the will, thus a metaphysical and thus a philosophical statement?

Is, for example, the title of Zappa's third LP - „We're Only in It for the Money“ - a philosophical statement or just similar to some statements here on „ILP“?

What do you think?

Wikipedia wrote:

„Zappa uniquely contributed to the avant-garde, anti-establishment music scene of the 60's, sampling radio tape recordings and incorporating his own philosophical ideals to music and freedom of expression in his pieces. Bands such as AMM and Faust also contributed to the radio sampling techniques of the 60's, yet Zappa was unique in his mixtures of rock, classical, jazz, and avant-garde styles of composition. He is credited by musicologists as making a fundamental contribution to the studies of how sound determines music, and music sound.

....

Describing his philosophical views, Zappa stated, »I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a ›temporary license to exist‹ - in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government - it doesn't own you.«

....

On commenting on Zappa's music, politics and philosophy, Barry Miles noted in 2004 that they cannot be separated: »It was all one; all part of his ›conceptual continuity‹.«“ **

Zappa also said for example: „You are what you is“. That is lingustically false but peotically allowed. My question: Is it also philosophically false?

- Frank Zappa, You are what you is, 1981. -

My advice: Please do not take this thread too seriously.

3633

Copied post in another thread.

So there is hope, yes, but if there will be no accident like a big failure of the humans or a huge natural catastrophe, then it will be nearly impossible to go back to times before the so-called „industrial revolution“.

3634

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„What's with that rat's nest he calls a mane?“ **

„It is what it are.“

Compare:

„You are what you is“ - Frank Zappa, 1981.

 

NACH OBEN 806) Arminius, 24.08.2015, 01:12, 02:17, 02:59, 04:02, 04:29, 04:44, 04:58, 04:58, 05:44, 05:59, 21:05, 21:28, 23:49 (3635-3647)

3635

Zoot Allures wrote:

„The greatest composer of the twentieth century, Arminius, and an excellent musician. Very intelligent, but scientifically minded.. not big on philosophy. Atheist and practical conservative. Father of four. His music could not be classified; there was [insert musical genres] and then there was Frank Vincent Zappa.“ **

I know Frank Zappa's music very well and I saw Frank Zappa in Germany several times - a long time ago.

In addition: December 21 - the birthday of both Frank Zappa and Arminius.

To me Frank Zappa was the second greatest, because Carl Orff (1895-1982) was the greatest composer of the twentieth century. See also here.

- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana, 1937. **

Carl Orff
Bust of Carl Orff in München,
Ruhmeshalle (= hall of fame).

An information about the Zappanale:

„Zappanale is an annual music festival held outside Bad Doberan, a German town .... The festival was first held in 1990, and the program features various bands performing the music of the late composer and guitarist Frank Zappa. Many musicians who have previously played with Zappa have performed at the festival over the years.“ **

Carl Orff
Bust of Frank Zappa in Bad Doberan.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

»Mediocre musician ....« **

Trixie, you are now on ignore until further notice.“ **

Oh, wait. Will my name be on your ignore list, Zoot Allures, because I said that Frank Zappa was merely the second greatest composer of the twentieth century?

3636

Only Humean
„Civility please, gentlemen.“
- Only Humean (moderator).

Great and Wise Trixie, relax - please, relax - and listen to „Zoot Allures“:

- Frank Zappa, Zoot Allures, 1976.


But here comes my question again: What about Frank Zappa's philosophy?

3637


Zoot Allures wrote:

„Wait, don't listen to it! Listen to the studio version first, it's always cleaner.“ **

Yes, I know, but unfortunately I can't open it - like the most of Zappa's music, especially his studio versions, as I already told you once in another thread. The reasons are the copyrights.

There are two Zappa songs I like the most: „Apostrophe“ (1974) and „The Purple Lagoon“ (1977).

Zoot Allures wrote:

„About his philosophy: I've read his biography and the quotes that are found on the internet. There are bits and pieces of religious criticism and political commentary, but nothing really straight forwardly philosophical. He was interested in science more than anything (his biography was dedicated to Stephen Hawking, in fact).“ **

I am also interested in science more than anything. But the older I have become the more my critique of science has increased.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Of course you can glean philosophical meaning from some of his song lyrics once in a while, but nothing officially philosophical.“ **

Did he never say anything about the most famous philosophers?

I know that he was religiously and politically incorrect. So he was quite correct

3638

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Why should I be civil when he rapes my ears with this shtick he calls music? It's so ... boring.“ **

What music do you prefer then?

3639


Magnus Anderson wrote:

„I think the guy in the photo in the original post needs a haircut, don't you think? How is it possible for a man who not only accepts but glorifies taking photos in a messy physical state be capable of composing good music? Alright, there are exceptions, but don't you think this is his general attitude towards life? to be sloppy? to disobey laws, to be against any sort of discipline? Isn't that what all rock 'n' roll, and later on, punk music is all about? To be an ugly leper celebrating ugliness?“ **

I was joking a bit. The photo was satirically meant. Zappa would probably have done the same as I did with his photo, because Zappa was not always serious.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„How can you compare Carl Orff to Frank Zappa?“ **

Actually I would never compare Carl Orff to Frank Zappa, but I did it in this case, because of the fact that I like classical music as well as rock music and of the fact that I was quickly confronted with Carl Orff to Frank Zappa when Zoot Allures' said something about the best composer of the 20th centurry in his first post of this thread.

3640

Some other (more serious) photos of Frank Zappa: **

3641

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Zappa's philosophy:

»One day I discovered that if you took a missle, and added ten warheads to the missle, instead of just one, you can blow more things up. I was impressed with the atomic bomb.«“ **

This he thought when he was a little child.

For comparison: **

3642

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Best rock composer of the 20th century is probably Peter Gabriel.“ **

Why?

3643

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Because number one, its progressive rock.“ **

I like progressive rock music very much. It is my favorite kind of rock music. But that does not automatically mean that the best rock composer is a progressive rock musician. Please do not forget other rock musicians, especially the jazz rock musicians, because they are also very good rock composers.

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Its like a hybrid of classical music, rock music, and futuristic music.“ **

I totally agree.

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„It is of higher musical quality ....“ **

Thre quality of the classical music is a little bit higher than the quality of the progressive rock music.

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Zappa is just like a cacophony of crap.“ **

No.

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„In that one song you posted, he attempted to emulate progressive rock, but it just sound like a kid in the garage, hammering random notes, like an improvised jazz garage jam session. No identity, no substance, just gibberish. And it he puts it all together through the veil of comedic humor. It's the glue of his poop, the only thinking holding the pieces.“ **

It is more like doing it in another way (comedic humor included), but Frank Zappa did not hide anything behind his humor; he had a very serious side as well.

3644

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Yes he was so serious that his jokes werent very funny. It was obvious he had a serious demeanor, which is why his jokes fell flat. He was very masculine, not in touch with his feminine side, so his humor fell flat. He was no daemon, no Loki, no Joker, no comedian, no clown.

Musically, it was just improvized Jazz. His music was just garage band rubbish, joke music, random improv lyrics he made up at a campfire with no musical flow whatsoever, a kid making up off beat lyrics to banging goofy music in the background.

Jazz causes psychosis.“ **

Are you sure that you are not confusing jazz rock or jazz in general with your „1990's pop songs“ or your „my little pony songs“?

3645

@ Great and Wise Trixie.

The genres of Frank Zappa's music I found (chronological order):

Rock, progressive rock, avant garde, experimental rock, doo-wop, spoken word, 20th century classic music, psychedelic rock, rock and roll, jazz, instrumental rock, jazz fusion, comedy rock, hard rock, heavy metal, parody of disco, punk rock, symphonic rock, rock opera, reggae, art rock, electronic rock, chamber music, computer music. *

To me the following genres are warranted in terms of Zappa's music:

Rock, progressive rock, experimental rock, instrumental rock, jazz fusion, comedy rock, symphonic rock, rock opera. *

The common denominator of Zappa's music is:

Rock!
_____

Great and wise is to realise that the music of Frank Zappa and his Mothers of Invention was also associated to the progressive rock genre; so you should not deny it, Trixie.

____________________________________________


* To me the late 1960's and especially the early 1970's were the best time of rock music. So some of the genres that are mentioned above are not that important to me.

3646

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Have you even heard the old Genesis, Trixie? Like Foxtrot or Selling England By The Pound? This is some of the best progressive rock ever made ....“ **

I totally agree and add „Trespass“ and „Nursery Crime“.

Listen to it:

- Genesis (Gabriel, Phillips, Banks, Rutherford, Mayhew), Trespass, 1970.
- Genesis (Gabriel, Collins, Banks, Rutherford, Hackett), Nursery Crime, 1971.
- Genesis (Gabriel, Collins, Banks, Rutherford, Hackett), Foxtrot, 1972.
- Genesis (Gabriel, Collins, Banks, Rutherford, Hackett), Selling England by the Pound, 1973.

After those albums the time of Genesis was already almost over - unfortunately!

But do not forget the music productions of Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, and most of the other progressive rock bands - all of the same time (about 1968-1973). Great!

3647

@ Levy Mushinsky.

You should not merely read your own posts but also the other posts of this thread - and you should read them precisely. I am pretty sure that you have not understood Darwin. Have you read his books? I do not think so. He himself already ascertained some falsities in his theory. Spencer and Haeckel tried to extend Darwin's theory hoping to be able to eliminate his falsities. Later many other Darwinists tried the same. The last famous one was Richard Dawkins. They all failed - and the later they were the more they failed.

Your „statements“ are no arguments. And you are confusing theory of evolution with economy, although that is no surprise, because Darwin himself made the same mistake by referring to Malthus.

If you really wanted (you do not want) to discuss Darwin's „selection principle“, then you would have to admit (a) that the „natural selection“ is at least partly false, (b) that the „sexual selection“ is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false „natural selection“ , although they already contradict each other, (c) that the „kin selection“ is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false „natural selection“ and the partly false „sexual selection“, although they already contradict each other, and (d) that the „social selection“ is at least partly false and was invented because of partly false „natural selection“ , the partly false „sexual selection“ , and the partly false the „kin selection“ , although they all contradict each other and a contradicted by the „social selection“ . We are talking about fitness. And when the fittest die out, and the unfittest live on, then you have no right to speak of a „survival of the fittest“ . The whole theory is false then.
____________________________________________________________________________________

And by the way: I warn you again because of your silly personal attacks! Stop behaving childishly!

 

NACH OBEN 807) Arminius, 25.08.2015, 01:06, 01:19, 01:29, 03:15, 04:09, 04:54, 18:16, 18:34, 18:48, 19:37, 23:58 (3648-3658)

3648

You are totally clueless about Darwin's thinking on this topic, as I already said several times. There is no doubt. You do not know what you are talking about, because you are talking about a theory of economy and think that you are talking abot a theory of evolution. If they were (they are not) the same, then one of them would be absolutely waste.

3649

Moreno wrote:

„The elite is no longer part of most selection.“ **

Then we are in agreement, because that is what I said before, even several times, also in this thread. But what I additionally said is that the other humans are also not or almost not a part of most selection in a Darwinistic sense. No other living being than the human being is capable of circumventing the Darwinistic selection principle.

Moreno wrote:

„They don't need many kids.“ **

Yes. But are they fit?

Moreno wrote:

„I am not taking about, say, the wealthiest 10% in the West. I am talking about the real power brokers.“ **

Yes, I know.

Moreno wrote:

„They can weather any shit they want - and their genes are ALSO going off on the side - and can get along fine with the few kids they have. I would guess to that the real power elites are careful to maintain at the very least their numbers. And good luck getting solid statistics on what they are doing.“ **

So basically you are confirming my theses.

3650


James S. Saint wrote:

„Darwinism is NOT the »god of« evolution, merely one of the angels.“ **

Does the Darwnism belong to the angel newtork?

3651

Laughing Man wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What we do and will economically and technically experience with China is and will be the same that we have been economically and technically experiencing with Japan since the early 1970's and with South Corea since the late 1970's. The next one after China will probably be India (hello Zinnat/Sanjay!).« ** **

There is no level of comparing old economic problems to the current one facing us globally.“ **

This global meltdown we're facing is unprecedented.
That does not contradict what I said.

3652

Moreno wrote:

„So how do you see 'working towards eliminating the threat of human replacement?“ **

1) Upheaval (but unfortunately it is not very probable).
2) Failure of the humans (it is very probable, but what follows depends probably on the case 1)).
3) Natural catastrophe (with reference to the near future it is also not very probable).

Do you, and if yes, how do you see „working towards eliminating the threat of human replacement“?

3653

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Well, the rulers need the lie in order to rule, and those who are ruled need the lie in order to not to be pushed over the edge. The truth is that humans need the lie and that humans also need the truth in order to overcome the lie, but the question is whether and, if yes, when they will fully overcome the lie (when the machines will have taken over ? ? ?).« ** **

Or they think they need the lie.“ **

Yes, that was my assumption. The problem is that they do not always know what lie and what truth is.

Moreno wrote:

„I tend to think unfaced fears on all sides are the root of the problem. Also I do not accept that what is take for self-interest or even will to power is actually self-interest or, hm, how to put this, an effective way of getting power. To come at it from the side...the powers that be seem very scared to me. Reactive and even sloppy, these days. Note: it is not the sloppiness that I think is the problem, it's a sign of the fear. Its what they think they want and what a good life is that seems loopy to me. Note: I am not saying that what they promote for others as a good life is loopy - that is also true - but what they think a good base of self-interest is.“ **

Every human has a self-interest, a drive to be recognised, a will to live - you may also call it a „will to power“.

3654


Phoneutria wrote:

„We think of religion of a political tool, just as any »belonging to« any group is a political tool.
These just so happen to be such effective tools because our impulse to belong is so strong.
Not only that , but religion combines this desire to be under a banner with another deep set impulse, the desire to marvel and be overwhelmed and take a glimpse at something of transcendent beauty and importance.
Religion, for that reason, will always exist. If the ones that we have now are not good enough, we'll make up other ones to replace them. If our civilization is wiped out, and with it our gods, other gods will come to take its place.
However, on the question of wether we will have one religion composed of all others, I think probably not, as this desire to say »I am like these« is meaningless without the ability to say »I am unlike those«.“ **

I agree. Humans want the difference - even if we call religions „misunderstood spiritual exercise systems“ (Peter Sloterdijk). So they will exist as long as human beings or other religious beings will exist.

3655

Fuse wrote:

„If you put up your essays on Darwin I'd read them. Maybe they will spark an actual discussion. I've followed the thread and I agree with you on natural selection. Whatever ways human beings consider one another »fit« -- whatever ways human beings consider themselves to be selecting agents -- does not matter for natural selection.“ **

No. You are wrong. All mechanisms of the Darwinistic „selection principle“ and all human's „selections“ (for example the „social selection“) do not coincide. Humans are luxury beings. They are too wealthy; they are too rich; so they have their own „selection principle“; they have, for example, their „social selection“. Culture is embedded in nature; the „social selection“ is embedded in the „natural selection“; culture fights nature; the „social selection“ contradicts the „natural selection“.

Fuse wrote:

„Evolutionary fitness is an independent category of »fitness«.“ **

No. Absoluetly no. Evolutionary fitness is not an independent category of „fitness“.

Just because you and the other current Darwinists want the „fitness“ to be more than the fitness does not change anything of the facts.

3656

Phoneutria wrote:

„Procrastinating ....

Dice game:

A=10 (2 and 5)
B=15 (3 and 5)
C=9 (3 and 3)
D=20 (4 and 5)
E=12 (2 and 6)

Solution process: I put it on a spreadsheet:

**

....“ **

Well done, Phoneutria.

3657

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Electric guitar, in general, is rubbish.“ **

An interesting statemnet. Do you mean that the elctric guitar - the first one occured about 1920 - brought the nihilism / decadence to the musicians?

3658

Laughing Man wrote:

Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Bunker, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), Aqualung, 1971.**

- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), Thick as a Brick, 1972.
- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), A Passion Play, 1973.

 

NACH OBEN 808) Arminius, 26.08.2015, 01:37, 05:09, 18:01, 18:32, 20:42, 23:50, 23:51, 23:52 (3659-3666)

3659

James S. Saint wrote:

„Lev Muishkin wrote:

»Masters in Intellectual History at Sussex University.« **

Oh gyahd.  “  **

He studied „intellectual history“ - as if „history“ was not enough.

But it is no surprise that Darwinism is merely teached (and not taught) in history. Darwinism is mereely one of the religious parts of the modern (hi)story.

Allegedly he wrote his „essays“ in 1992 and 1995 (**), but there are some books as sources mentioned that were later published - namely 2001, 2004, 2006 (**) - than he allegedly wrote his „essays“. Compare the bibliography of his „essays“ (**).

Is that how historians work? No, it is just „first class“ (**)!

Forgive me the many smilies, because they might remind you of Platospuppy. But the story of those „essays“ is just too funny!

James S. Saint wrote:

„One should never study history until one has excelled in the study of propaganda, else one will only learn propaganda. One should never listen to a historian who hasn't first studied propaganda, else one will hear only propaganda. Historians are infamous for being the mindless targets and puppets of propagandists.“ **

Not only the historians.

One of the really good historians - Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886) - said once: „The historian has to become old, because one can merely understand great changes, if one has personally experienced great changes“ (loosely translated) ...! Leopold von Ranke became very old ....

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Darwinism is NOT the 'god of' evolution, merely one of the angels.‹ **

Does the Darwinism belong to the angel network, James?« ** **

Such decisions wouldn't be mine to make, but I can't see how the essential concept, most probably under a different name, wouldn't be included. The fundamental idea is merely that what survives a given situation is what was suited to survive it. One can't hardly argue with that. But as »Darwinism«, much more serious implications are promoted (propagandized).

Darwinian propaganda is that you only die out because you were too weak. Everything is your own fault and flaw. No one caused any harm to other peoples (unless specifically taught otherwise, such as white males causing all harm to all other peoples). The only reason anyone dies is because they were not fit enough. They did not listen well enough. They were not smart enough. They did not eat properly. They did not exercise properly. They simply did not live properly. And the harder we make life for all people, especially the strong ones, the better all life will become because the weaker will die out, as they should.

Darwinism and Nietzscheanism go hand in hand.“ **

And they go hand in hand with Marxism and Freudianism too.

For those who do not understand: I did not say that Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud went hand in hand. I am saying that Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzscheanism, and Freudianism go hand in hand.“ **

I wrote:

„It is no accident that Darwinism and Marxism, Nietzscheanism, Freudianism have roughly the same age and are so much similar ....“ ** **

Historically similar times produce culturally similar humans.

3660

Women do marry men who lack money and power. I do not know the number of those women, but that does not matter. One reason for the false conclusion that women merely marry men with much money and thus with much power is one of the many consequences of the partly false Darwinistic „selection principle“ („natural selection“, „sexual selection“, ... and so on [**|**]).

What women want and what women do are not always the same matter. Humans have a relatively free will. They do not as much depend on nature (=> Darwin) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on economy as a living basis (=> Marx) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on fate /destiny (=> Nietzsche) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on „the unconscious“ (=> Freud) as other living beings do. Humans are relatively free because of their high developed brains, because high developed brains mean a relatively high intelligence, thus also relatively high culture/s, and that means a relative indepencence of nature.

3661

Phoneutria wrote:

„Did you post your method for that, and I missed it, Arminius? I'd like to see it, because I pretty much brute forced it.“ **

I guess you mean the solution process.

1st round = x.
2nd round = x + 5.
3rd round = x + 5 - 6 = x - 1.
4th round = x - 1 + 11 = x + 10.
5th round = x + 10 - 8 = x + 2.

All possible throw combinations:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 30, 36.

A possible combination in each round is only possible with x = 10:

1st round = 10.
2nd round = 15.
3rd round = 9.
4th round = 20.
5th rounde = 12.

So as I already said: Well done.

3662

Platospuppy wrote:

„Women may marry men who lack power and money but they always trade up and never trade down. Thus, the males must have some valuable intrinsic qualities that the women needs.“ **

That is black-and-white-thinking. If the qualities of the males are not inside of the body, then they must be outside of the body. This „black box“ can never be proven or disproven. Great, Puppy, good boy.

Platospuppy wrote:

„A woman would never marry a man who was in a lower social/economic position, especially if it was in a work situation.“ **

Said the Darwinist, while the Marxist, the Nietzscheanist, and the Freudianist clapped their hands. Your statement shows that the Darwinism is more an sociological/economical than a biological theory. No surprise to me, because Darwin was a Malthusianist, and Malthus was an economist.

Why should „a woman never marry a man who was in a lower social/economic position, especially if it was in a work situation“? The theory of your false god is false, at least partly false.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Women are responsible for the genetic improvement of the human species.“ **

You are talking about the „sexual selection“ of your false gods. Do you want to murder the women who do not select the „fittest“ men?

Platospuppy wrote:

„Thus, it is only by their selectivity, that the human species can progress. God help us poor males!“ **

Nonsense. Shall god or „god's warriors“ murder the women who do not select the „fittest“ men?

3663

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„Teached“ ??? „Teached“.“ **

Yes, because „intellectual historians“ are teached, all others are taught.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

„ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?

FFS.“ **

You seem to be very frustrated. Otherwise you would not use such silly and antisocial words. Studied and academic persons do not use those words you always use. You have never studied.


Lev Muishkin wrote:

„I did my BA in 1992-95, and my MA 2010.“ **

I do not believe it, as I already said (see above).

3664

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

My Little Ponies are Manly Men.
They are leaders of their community, trend setters, rule-breakers.
They are pioneers, on quests. Independent, and assertive. A brotherhood. A commune of warriors.“ **

They are just toys for girls.

My daughter had some many of such ponies.

3665

Religions 2010-2050.

**

**

3666

Copied post in another thread.

 

NACH OBEN 809) Arminius, 27.08.2015, 01:23, 03:21, 18:58, 19:06, 19:21, 20:36 (3667-3672)

3667

Pink Floyd again:

- Pink Floyd (Barrett, Waters, Wright, Mason), Interstellar Overdrive, 1967.
- Pink Floyd (Gilmour, Wright, Mason, a.o.), Poles Apart, 1994.

3668

James S. Saint wrote:

„The speed of travel of these photons (the »speed of light«) depends upon the density of their ambient affectance (»mass/gravity field«). Near massive objects where the mass field is strong they travel slower. The tiny portion of each photon that is closer to the object travels a tiny bit slower and thus causes the photon puff to gradually veer toward the direction of the object. In contemporary physics, this effect is called »gravitational lensing« and depicted below as a light source passes behind a black-hole:

**

....“ **

According to the current mainstream physics everything becomes faster near massive objects (because of the gravitation), but according to the affectance ontology photons become slower near massive objects. I know according to the affectance ontology there is no pushing and pulling. Do the density of the photon's ambient affectance („mass/gravity field“) and the near massive objects (because they are also affectance) strengthen each other, so that we have to add their amounts together and note that both slow down the speed of travel of that said photon?

3669

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Why can't the English teach the English how to speak!?«“ **

Because they are teached and not taught.

3670

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Why can't the English teach the English how to speak!?«“ **

Because they are teached and not taught. What I meant was this: They are influenced by the propaganda without even realizing it. So they also do not realize that the Darwinistic selection principle is partly false. They are just teached, not taught.

That is the difference between „intellectuat historians“ and real historians. „Intellectual historians“ will never realize how religious Darwinists are, because they are just teached, not taught. So it is also no surprise to me when „intellectual historians“ do not know the difference between „fit“ and „unfit“, or the difference between „spelling“ and „conjugating“, or many other differences, because they are teached, not taught.

3671

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius, can you define »fit«?

Yes. I can. And what about you, Phoneutria? Can you define „fit“?

3672

Platospuppy wrote:

„I see proof every day. You must observe what is around you.“ **

You must observe what is around you. So you have to come out of your puppy nest. Maybe you are just too young to observe, puppy. But, however, you have to open your eyes before you observe. Or are you blind?

Platospuppy wrote:

„Look at all the couples that you know personally and in great detail and you will see that there is a certain balance of personal qualities which is always slightly in favour of the male Whereas, the female uses her attractiveness as a genetic weapon and bargaining tool to obtain the best mate. It is generally a cold hearted decision making process of which love is the last and least important criteria. Thus, love is an over-rated Hollywood based concept which has little to do with the generally cold and dispassionate mating processes.“ **

I did not say anything against it.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Marx, Freud and Nietzsche were all psychopathic nut cases. So its no surprise to me that you admire them and use them as examples of merit and worth.“ **

I did not say that I admired them and used them as examples of merit and worth. I am saying that Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud are very similar. Have you not read my text?

I wrote:

„What women want and what women do are not always the same matter. Humans have a relatively free will. They do not as much depend on nature (=> Darwin) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on economy as a living basis (=> Marx) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on fate /destiny (=> Nietzsche) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on "the unconscious" (=> Freud) as other living beings do. Humans are relatively free because of their high developed brains, because high developed brains mean a relatively high intelligence, thus also relatively high culture/s, and that means a relative indepencence of nature.

Could you read that this time?

Platospuppy wrote:

„Malthusianist - Someone who is concerned about population growth and food supply? What has Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche and Marx got to do with food supply and population growth?“ **

You have not read my text. Or are you not capable of reading? This is what I said:

I wrote:

„Said the Darwinist, while the Marxist, the Nietzscheanist, and the Freudianist clapped their hands. Your statement shows that the Darwinism is more an sociological/economical than a biological theory. No surprise to me, because Darwin was a Malthusianist, and Malthus was an economist.

Could you read that this time?

Platospuppy wrote:

„I have never seen a woman have a work based relationship with a man who was in a lower position.“ **

Again: You have to open your eyes before you observe. Or are you blind?

Additionally you often contradict yourself. An example:

Platospuppy wrote:

„Women are only interested in men when -

(a) They have lots of money.

(b) They have lots of power.

(c) They have lots of talent.

(d) They have good genes.

A women will never marry a man solely because she loves him, unless he has at least one or more of the above.“ **

Platospuppy wrote:

„Women always trade up and never, ever trade down. Thus, they are all calculating bitches.“ **

Platospuppy wrote:

„99% of people only marry someone of equal personal attractive qualities.“ **

Zinnat wrote:

„Then, for what you are complaining?

With love,
Sanjay.“ **

Did you get it?

Platospuppy wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The theory of your false god is false, at least partly false.«

Note - Partly false is also partly right!“ **

Note: „at least partly false“ includes the possibility of „absolutely false“!

Platospuppy wrote:

„I don't have to murder them, nature will do that for me!“ **

What is so funny about that?

 

NACH OBEN 810) Arminius, 28.08.2015, 02:38, 05:32, 06:36, 19:37, 22:56 23:23 (3673-3678)

3673

Phoneutria wrote:

„Indeed I can!

*High five.*

Would you define it in this thread, right here, again if you have already defined it before, for focus/emphasis?

Oh, this would refresh the discussion we already had. But okay, the following quotes refer to the term „fitness“ I subscribe:

Arminius wrote:

„In nature (in nature!) fitness or success is measured by reproduction. Living beings that have the most offspring are the »fittest«, thus are most successfull (because you can merely be most successful, if you are the »fittest«). Success is the consequence of fitness. The success follows the fitness. So when it comes to nature it is absolutely correct to say that successful living beings live on, because they have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings, whereas successful living beings die out, because they have no offspring or less offspring than the unsuccessful living beings. But when it come to humans, especially to modern humans culture/s, it is not correct to say that, because modern humans are fit, thus successful, when they have no offspring or less offspring than those humans who are not fit, thus unseccessful.

The said „social selection“ contains the possibility of selecting against the Darwinistic selection principle. And this happened and happens. Thus it was and is a fact.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„And since I first heard of the phrase "survival of the fittest", I immediately noted that it is actually the "survival of the fitted" (those who fit into their environment at the time).“ **

The following post refers to nothing else than to the human beings:

Arminius wrote:

„I used the word »success« instead of »fitness« just in order to rescue the Darwinistic theory, because the concept of »fItness« is problematic. Those humans who are »fit« have less offspring than those humans who are »unfit«. You can easily observe and prove this as a fact.“ ** **

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„Fitness in evolutionary context literally translates to a set of traits conducive to production of healthy offspring in a particular environment.

What you're getting at is the fact that humans are capable of creating artificial environments which invert nature, in which the naturally unfit will reproduce by acting as parasites on those who would be considered more fit in nature itself. This is observable in socialism and similar leftist systems but they eventually collapse, either on their own or they are conquered by a system better aligned with nature. Socialism/leftism basically creates an environment which breeds weakness and slowly eats the system inside out, so such an outcome is inevitable. Evolution is slow though, so it may take a few generations to do so, depending on how extreme the socialism is, a minor degree of it might even prove useful. Remember, a few generations is a lot of time from a human perspective, but from an evolutionary one it is nothing.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„If I do not like you because you are British and thus infect your children with a slowly fatal disease, does that make them "unfit"? Indirectly you are not reproducing either. So does that make you unfit?“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Statiktech wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Does that story (or the prior) tell of one man being more unfit than the other?‹ **

Yeah, the dead guy wasn't able to make a genetic contribution to the next generation's gene pool.« **

And see ..., that is just defining your own conclusion into validity - »unfit means ›unfit for the situation at that moment in time‹ such that reproduction did not happen«.

It says nothing at all about the fitness of the individual, but merely of the situation on that day.

It is just a word game when you do it that way, because "unfit" doesn't normally mean that at all.

Thus anyone could equally say (actually more properly say and they have) that God chose who reproduces and who doesn't. Equally, they are defined to be correct because God is whatever it is that allows or forbids everything that happens. But in that case, one would say that the individual was unfit for God.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„According to Darwin the fittest have more offspring and live on, while the unfittest have less and at last no offspring and die out. According to the »social selection« - thus to the »social state« - a decision of just the opposite is possible and happens in reality every day: the unfittest live on, while the fittest die out. If Darwin's selection principle was not false, the »social selection« could and would not be possible.

You Darwinists have no single argument but merely excuses and personal attacks.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Google wrote:

fit·ness
'fitn?s/
noun
noun: fitness

1) the condition of being physically fit and healthy.
»disease and lack of fitness are closely related«.
Synonyms: good health, strength, robustness, vigor, athleticism, toughness, physical fitness, muscularity; More
good condition, good shape, well-being »marathon running requires tremendous fitness«.
2) the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task.
»he had a year in which to establish his fitness for the office«.
Synonyms: suitability, capability, competence, ability, aptitude;
more readiness, preparedness, eligibility »his fitness for active service«.
Biology:
On organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment.
Plural noun: fitnesses.
»If sharp teeth increase fitness, then genes causing teeth to be sharp will increase in frequency.«
So assuming all environmental concerns are removed such that only biology is dictating the results of evolution rather than all of the other factors, the word »fitness« is restricted to only the biological reproduction ability.

In other words, the Darwinian principle only applies after the other situational factors are disregarded (I think that I said that in the beginning).

Arminius wrote:

»....
1) According to the ›natural selection‹ the breeder is the nature.
2) According to the ›sexual selection‹ the breeder are the females.
3) According to the ›kin selection‹ the breeder are the relatives.
4) According to the ›social selection‹ the breeder is the social state.« ** **

And that is only a partial list.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„Moreno wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Which process do you exactly mean?‹ ** **

The process of having offspring.« **

Yes. But if we assume that Darwin's theory of evolution is not false and that »less offspring can be fine« (**), then having less offspring can merely be fine in a cultural sense and perhaps for a very short time (!) also in a natural sense but not in the sense of Darwin's theory of evolution, especially his »selection principle«. So according to Darwin's theory of evolution having less offspring is always a disadvantage, because it leads to extinction. According to Darwin's »selection principle« the living beings with less offspring die out because of their unfitness and the fitness of the living beings with more offspring. That is the main point of Darwin's »selection principle«. Darwin's theory of evolution refers to developments in the long run - otherwise it would not be accepted as a theory of evolution but „merely“ as a theory of breeding - and by the way: the theory of breeding is very much older than Darwin's theory of evolution.

Moreno wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore the 'natural selection' was 'extended' by the 'sexual selection', because the 'natural selection' had partly failed; then the 'sexual selection' was 'extended' by the 'kin selection', because the 'sexual selection' had partly failed; then the 'kin selection' was 'extended' by the 'socual selection', because the 'kin selection' had partly failed; ... and so on, one day the 'social selection' will be 'extended' by the 'godly selection' (again), because the 'social selection' will have partly failed.‹ ** **

Arminius wrote:

›And even if the 'different types of selection' are 'different mechanisms of selection': they contradict each other, especially the 'natural selection' and the 'social selection'. A social state can and does decide against the nature, the so-called 'natural selection', and also against the 'sexual selection' and 'kin selection', ... and so on.‹ ** **

I am interested in getting exactly what your sense of the falsity is. If there is a post that sums it up, let me know. I will hop in here and probe a little.

It seems to me that the moment you have a social mammal, sexual selection and even what might be called natural selection is no longer natural. It is chosen by the society and even by individuals in that society, e ven if it is a society of wolves or ground hogs.« **

Yes. Cultures or societies often contradict nature. The so-called »social selection« is the selection of some rulers who decide against nature just because of their own interests - e.g. money, thus power - just in order to remain powerful. The »social selection« can lead to the extinction of all who are involved in the »social selection«, and in a global society of humans all humans are involved in that »social selection«. Look what the rulers do: they destroy the human's environment, the whole globe, they sterilise the other humans (by poison and other means) and at last probably themselves too, they murder other living beings, ... and so on, ... and so on ..., just for money, thus power. If this human beings were nothing else than natural, thus living beings that completely depend on nature, then they could not do such nonsense. Humans are relativeley free (not absoluetly free - because they are not gods), so they can decide and act against nature, and they do decide and act against nature.

This »social selection« is mostly directed against the »natural selection«, against nature at all, because those who select, want to exploit and to control anything and everything, thus also nature, want to wield power over anything and everything, thus also over nature.

Humans are capable to destroy all living beings on our planet. According to Darwin's »selection principle« this means that the species homo sapiens is the fittest species of all times while most of all other species are the unfittest species of all times, just because of the fact that homo sapiens is capable of replacing most of all other species. But in addition the species homo sapiens is capable of deciding and acting against nature and the so-called »natural selection«. Instead of »fit« one can also say »capable«, »competent«, or »successful«.

Arminius wrote:

»Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.« ** **

....“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Lev Muishkin wrote:

»Fitness is the ability to survive to have viable progeny.« **

Only in biology. But biology doesn't dictate evolution.

Darwinism is NOT the »god of« evolution, merely one of the angels.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„If you really wanted (you do not want) to discuss Darwin's »selection principle«, then you would have to admit (a) that the »natural selection« is at least partly false, (b) that the »sexual selection« is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false »natural selection«, although they already contradict each other, (c) that the »kin selection« is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false »natural selection« and the partly false »sexual selection«, although they already contradict each other, and (d) that the »social selection« is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false »natural selection«, the partly false »sexual selection«, and the partly false »kin selection«, although they all contradict each other and are absolutely contradicted by the »social selection«. We are talking about fitness. And when the fittest die out, and the unfittest live on, then you have no right to speak of a »survival of the fittest«. The whole theory is false then.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Fuse wrote:

»Evolutionary fitness is an independent category of ›fitness‹.« **

No. Absoluetly no. Evolutionary fitness is not an independent category of »fitness«.

Just because you and the other current Darwinists want the »fitness« to be more than the fitness does not change anything of the facts.“ ** **

Are you satisfied, Phoneutria?

3674

Platospuppy wrote:

„Oh sorry! So, first you point out their differences and then do a 180 degree turn around and say they are all similar? You must be a very confused person.“ **

You are the one who did the 180° degree. You always contradict yourself, as I already said several times. And you do not notice your contradictions - as usual. So you are also the one who is a very confused person.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Women are only interested in men when -

(a) They have lots of money.

(b) They have lots of power.

(c) They have lots of talent.

(d) They have good genes.

A women will never marry a man solely because she loves him, unless he has at least one or more of the above.“ **

Platospuppy wrote:

„Women always trade up and never, ever trade down. Thus, they are all calculating bitches.“ **

Platospuppy wrote:

„99% of people only marry someone of equal personal attractive qualities.“ **

Zinnat wrote:

„Then, for what you are complaining?

With love,
Sanjay.“ **

By the way: Do you know what love is?

You do not know what you are talking about, my puppy. You confuse viruses with bacteria, you confuse your text with any other text, you confuse destinations with disappointments, you confuse facts with values (like all ILP-Nietzscheanists), you confuse demographically armed societies with demographically unarmed societies, you confuse your own ideological belief with knowledge, you confuse biology with sociology and economy, you confuse all women with feminism, you confuse differences with equality, ..., and so on. .... You confuse almost everything.

Platospuppy wrote:

„If they are similar, then what is that similarity that you are talking about?“ **

Be honest. You do not want to know it. You are just waiting for the next chance of personal attacks.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Note - Marx, Nietzsche and Freud were all German, that's where the similarity ends.“ **

You are clueless.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Darwin and Malthus are the only two that have anything in common.“ **

Again: You are clueless.

**

Platospuppy wrote:

„I am just discusing the sociological and economical aspects of Darwinism.“ **

When Darwinists talk about Darwinism, then they always talk about „sociological and economical aspects“. That is - again - something you do not understand. I know. You do not know what you are talking about.

Platospuppy wrote:

„So, you have no sense of humour.“ **

More than you. Your eternal lol-smilies and your clown mask do not autoamtically make you humorous - the revers is true: you are an extremely humorless person and need to hide your humorlessness behind an exaggerated number of lol-smilies and behind a clown mask.

Puppies are not old. But may I - nevertheless - ask you how old you are?

Platospuppy wrote:

„What else could one expect from a person of German heritage. :lol: :lol: :lol: Now that's funny! Laugh German laugh! :lol: :lol: :lol:.“ **

So you are a woman-hater, a misogynist, a sexist, and - of course - a racist. Typical. Your last silly „argument“ is always an ugly personal attack. We also know it from other threads, just as we already know from this thread that according to you all women are „calculating bitches“. What will be your next „argument“? „Negroes are like apes“? Or: „Jews are like rats“?

I am not interested in your misogynistic sexism and your racism.

3675

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»According to the current mainstream physics everything becomes faster near massive objects (because of the gravitation) ....« ** **

„?? Did you mean »smaller«? Objects become smaller but not faster, according to both contemporary physics and RM:AO. In relativity perspective, the objects do not change at all, but rather everything else changes in reverse (relativists are extremely self centered).“ **

I meant the fact that if two objects come closer then the orbital speed of the less massive increases. For example: The orbital speed of the Moon was higher when the Moon was closer to the Earth. Today the orbital speed of the Moon is lower than it was at the time when the Moon and the Earth were much closer than today.

What about the rotation?

The physicist call that effect „synchronisation“ or „synchronous rotation“. Today the Moon shows us always the same side, becasue the Moon is synchronisated by the Earth.

**

3676


Zoot Allures wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Is, for example, the title of Zappa's first LP - ›Freak Out‹ - already a philosophical statement or just similar to some statements here on ›ILP‹?

Contains, for example, the title of Zappa's second LP - "Absolutely Free" - an ontology of the will, thus a metaphysical and thus a philosophical statement?« ** **

Freak Out and Absolutely Free were parodies of the sixties psychedelic hippy rock scene, but also a shot at the record industries and the values that were prevalent over the music of that period. Frank was against censorship of any kind.. though not for the reasons we might suppose. His attitude during the early Mother's Of Invention period was two sided; he didn't want to enter the rock scene (because it was silly and below him), but he had to, to make some money. Nobody was paying composers back then. Pop music and rock was where it was at. So what does he do? He enters the mainstream scene with a card up his sleeve. He will write music of the appropriate genre better than the rest, but at the same time make a mockery of it. A statement is made to the music consumers, music genre, music industry and the dominant values of the time with this one gesture: this is what you are, hippies.. this is how simple your music is.. this is how cheap your industry is.. and this is how lame your values are. He didn't want to censor these trends.. he wanted to indulge them, set them loose, let them play out naturally. He used all this as material to work with in order to show people what they were. He was the master parodist.

Arminius wrote:

»Is, for example, the title of Zappa's third LP - ›We're Only in It for the Money‹ - a philosophical statement or just similar to some statements here on ›ILP‹?« ** **

This one was a shot at the bands of that era. You see the parody of The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album cover there. It was also a kind of tongue and cheek admittance to his being in the rock music industry for all the wrong reasons. Because this industry was a joke, he felt, he was only in it for the money.

Arminius wrote:

»Zappa also said for example: ›You are what you is‹. That is lingustically false but peotically allowed. My question: Is it also philosophically false?« ** **

You Are What You Is can be understood independently, but also understood within the context of Thing Fish, the concept rock-opera album of which it was a part. Independently is can be seen as a social critique of consumerism and consumer identities. As part of Thing Fish it is specifically for the purposes of criticizing American negro culture. Note the incorrect grammar; you are what you is.“ **

Yes. Great. Much of the modern philosophy is social criticism, and based on that fact one can say Frank Zappa was at least a little bit a modern philosopher. I know Zappa's biography and his attitude towards social conventions; so I can say that your interpretations of the said music albums (see above) and Zappa's person are right.

Musically I do not like the time since about 1980 very much; so it is not really a surprise that I know Zappa's early music better than his later music. However. I want to show you a video from the 1980s with Frank Zappa. The official title of that video is „Frank Zappa on Crossfire“ (1986).

„We are talking about words. .... The whole thing is words. ....“ (Frank Zappa, 1986):

„Frank Zappa on Crossfire“, 1986.

My short comment: Words on crossfire.

What do you think about that video?

_______________________________

„The world's most plentiful ingredient is stupidity.“ - Frank Zappa.

3677

Zoot Allures wrote:

„You've seen the hearings with Tipper Gore, yes?“ **

I have seen it, if you mean the following video: **

3678

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius, why do you say that unfit humans have more offspring?
If you define fitness as the one with most offspring, whoever has the most offspring is the most fit.“ **

I am saying that the „social selection“ (you may also call it the „human/cultural selection“ or the „social state selection“), can and does often contradict the „natural selection“, so that the „fittest“ humans have less and at last no offspring and die out, whereas the „unfittest“ have more offspring and at last the only offspring and survive (this you may call „survning of the unfittest“). Therefore Darwin's „selection principle“ must be false, at least partly false.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN