901) Arminius, 23.07.2016, 01:26, 01:28, 01:30, 01:39, 01:47, 01:59, 17:07, 17:26, 17:40, 20:09 (4868-4877)

Pandora wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Pandora wrote:

›It was an early Sunday morning and I was walking around a small town. Everything was still closed and the streets were empty and quiet. I was about to cross a small street and I stopped at the light. A young man with a baby stroller came up behind me. The red light was taking forever and because there were no cars around, I crossed the street. The man stayed behind but apparently got upset and started yelling 'Nein! Nein!' after me. So I take it as type of peer pressure or psychology of social conformism. This kind of thinking lacks discernment outside of prescribed rules (thinking in the box mentality).‹ **

No. That was because of the child, Pandora. The man did not want the child to sea somebody doing something that is dangerous.« ** **

Actually, it was an infant in a covered stroller, like this one.

 “ **

It seems that you are talking about a false stereotype. I have never made such an experience what you are talking about.

Where are you from, Pandora?

Here is a story a friend of mine once told me:

„It was on a Monday morning. I was in an English town, and I had a hangover, ran to a garden, because I had to barf. Suddenly I heard a voice shouting: »My lawn! Get ou of my garden!«. The owner of the lawn resp. garden was very annoyed and threatened me with his right fist, later with his right forefinger.“

Like this one:

I said to my friend: „Do not take him so seriously now“. But he answered: „I shall not take him seriously, although he was very annoyed and threatening me?“. I ressured him and said: „Now, I said »now«, do not take him so seriously now“.

We should not take the „Law of Jante“ as seriously as certain people do. But nevertheless: As a freethinker I am against the „Law of Jante“. Maybe I underestimate it, because I am not a Protestant, but maybe I do not. Who knows? About 50% of all Christians in Germany are Catholics, and about 50% of all Christians in Germany are Protestants (most of them are Lutherans), and they have no problems with each other. The proportion in the U.S. is almost the same.

Currently, we have much more and huger problems than the „Law of Jante“.

Pandora wrote:

„Nice guess though.“ **

That educational case is the only one that fits your story. Again: I have never made such an experience what you are talking about.

Pandora wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I would not call it ›psycholgy‹! It is only ›logy‹ (thus without ›psyche‹), because the pure logic and the common sense tell us that it leads to a relatively strong uniformity.« ** **

Good logic should also tell you that enforced uniformity will lower the average and make the whole easier to control and manipulate.“ **

There are many ways when it comes to control and manipulation. The most evil one is the one that we are currenly experiencing, and by that one I do not mean the „Law of Jante“.

Pandora wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»But whether it does or not is also a question of experience, observation, empirism. I did not experience much of the ›Law of Jante‹ when I was in Scandinavia. I merely had much fun there.« ** **

So if it is a question of experience and empiricism (I was not talking about empiricism but merely about empirism, thus in the sense of experience, obeservation, and that it is also or even primarily a question of logic), we can look back into history to see societies which implemented the mentality of uniformity (constancy) and see how long they've lasted in comparison to societies which were more flexible in their views.“ **

Yes. Of course.

Do you know how old, for example, the Chinese society is and, for example, how old the Japanese society is?

Pandora wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Pandora wrote:

›What is the quality of that which you preserve?‹ **

I do not preserve anything in this case. Ask the Scandinavians. I have nothing to do with the ›Law of Jante‹. The ›Law of Jante‹ is exclusively a Scandinavian phenomenon.« ** **

It was a rhetorical question, Arminius.“ **

I know. My answer was a bit rhetorical too, Pandora.

Pandora wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Pandora wrote:

›Is the goal to preserve a herd of beautiful fluffy white sheep?‹ **

Maybe, Pandora, but I do not know that for sure, because the ›Law of Jante‹ is exclusively a Scandinavian phenomenon, and I am not a Scandinavian. Maybe you should read something about the author of the ›Law of Jante‹: Axel Nielsen (1899–1965), since 1921: Aksel Sandemose.« ** **

I see it as a portrayal of peasant mentality. And in my experience, Scandinavian »soul« does have a tendency of romanticizing it, perhaps a kind of nostalgia. I suspect this mentality is an offshoot from quite strong influence of Lutheran church which upheld the values of peasant parsimony and modesty.“ **

Again: Where are you from, Pandora?

And what kind of Scandinavian experience do you have?

The „Law of Jante“ is based on a novel („En flyktning krysser sitt spor“) that was published in 1933, and it is perhaps only a guess that it could have much to do with tradition.

Let us have another interpretation of the „Law of Jante“:

The „Law of Jante“ was published in 1933, as I already said, and this was the time of totalitarianism, started 1917 by the Soviet communism and - in reaction to it - 1919 by the Italian fascism („Fasci di combattimento“ [„Squadri“]), ended 1945/1990 when the synthesis of both - the globalism as the omnivorous monster - started. The totalitarianists wanted to break with the tradition and to create a new tradition with a new „human“ (this is typical for modern ideologies), either a communistic one or a fascistic one. During the main time of totalitarianism, when the „Law of Jante“ was published, there was totalitarianism everywhere in Europe. So the „Law of Jante“ is perhaps the „law“ of the Scandinavian type of totalitarianism.

Note: It is merely one of more possible interpretations.

Pandora wrote:

„And there is nothing noble about it. Unless, you're a Christian.“ **

Are you a Christian?

Only Humean wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Only Humean wrote:

»Philosophy [Society] is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.« **

I'm surprised you substitute Society in for Philosophy and not Language.“ **

Yes. Language fits.

Only Humean wrore:

„A society is basically a collection of people working together to increase their welfare and security, and can do this in better or worse ways, with different criteria for judging it. In a Scandinavian society the success is judged by more equal outcomes, stability and uniformity of outlook; ambitious and eccentric people threaten the order. In the US success is measured by the success of the top, and people who argue for greater equality may be vilified for holding back the ambitious achievers and stealing their success to pay for lazy layabouts. This is less of an issue in Scandinavia, where there's a protestant work ethic, etc..“ **

Max Weher's „Leistungsethik“ must be translated by „performance ethic“ or „achievement ethic“, because he did not mean „Arbeitsethik“ which is correctly translated by „work ethic“.

Only Humean wrote:

„Some cultures have the same word for green and blue. They can obviously see the difference between grass and sky, they just denote them with the same word.

English speakers see red and pink as different colours. Russians do too, but they have exactly the same with blue - navy and sky blue are not different shades, but different colours.“ **

I guess, you know something about the linguistic relativity, Only Humean.

Anomaleigh wrote:

„Isn't it obvious, do you wish to see nature destroyed?“ **

Actually, there are two subitems in that item (the question: „Do you want to maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature?“ [**|**]), and only the second of that two subitems is quite obvious, namely the „perpetual balance with nature“ (**|**). The first subitem („maintain humanity under 500,000,000“ [**|**]) is not obvious, because the number 500,000,000 does not necessarily fit the second item („perpetual balance with nature?“ [**|**]). Who said (you) that only the number 500,000,000 is the proper number for the perpetual balance with nature? It is also possible by a different number.

Anomaleigh wrote:

„I would like to see it make somewhat of a comeback.“ **

What a kind of „comeback“ do you mean exactly? Do you mean the general comeback of the time before 1750 or before 1600 when the number of the global inhabitants had always been less than 500,000,000?

„Some estimates extend their timeline into deep prehistory, to »10,000 BC«, i.e. the last glacial maximum, when world population estimates range roughly between one and ten million.

Estimates for yet deeper prehistory, into the Upper Paleolithic, are of a different nature. At this time human populations consisted entirely of non-sedentary hunter-gatherer populations, which fall into a number of archaic species or sub-species, some but not all of which may be ancestral to the modern human population due to possible archaic human admixture with modern humans taking place during the Upper Paleolithic. Estimates of the size of these populations are a topic of paleoanthropology. A late human population bottleneck is postulated by some scholars at approximately 70,000 years ago, during the Toba catastrophe, when the Homo sapiens population may have dropped to as low as between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals.

For the time of speciation of Homo sapiens, ca. 130,000 years ago, Sjödin et al. (2012) estimate an effective population size of the order of 10,000 to 30,000 individuals, inferring an actual »census population« of early Homo sapiens of roughly 100,000 to 300,000 individuals.“ **

Most people are always cheated.

There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.

Mathematics is a subset of logic.

Should the universe (nature) „just appear“ (**)?
If yes: Why?
If no: Why?

Should there be „a creator“ (**)?
If yes: Why?
If no: Why?

And those who emigrate are those who can pay the people smuggler, so that the left homelands become even poorer than before.

You (**) are right. The „knowledge is power“ model is not absolutely but merely relatively right.

The wishful thinking that „knowledge leads to the most powerful position ever“ is similar to the wishful thinking that „one can be absolutely free“.

902) Arminius, 28.07.2016, 01:05, 01:09, 01:11, 01:14, 01:21, 01:29, 01:31, 13:22, 13:30, 13:41, 14:27, 14:48, 14:59, 15:05, 15:55, 18:10, 19:01, 22:28, 22:35, 22:43, 23:06 (4878-4898)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.

Mathematics is a subset of logic.

« ** **

That is true. And if one cannot get the logic straight, the mathematics is wrong, regardless of what anyone has ever said or believed.

The Zeno Dichotomy conundrum has a logically valid solution without having to distort the logic in mathematics.“ **

Yes. That's the point.

Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I guess you know that Thomas Hobbes wrote his book ›Leviathan or the Matter, Form and Authority of Government‹ (1651) because of the experiences with the terrible civil war in England. ** **

That would be his ideal containment of human nature I was referencing in which I disagree with.“ **

Yes, I know. But ...:

Laughing Man wrote:

„Thomas Hobbes was quite correct.“ **

Is he or not - in your opinion?

Copied part of a post in another thread.

What is Frau Killary hiding?

When it comes to human culture, then the „we“ is before the „I“.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

What I meant is that in an early human group an „I“ could not behave individually in a modern sense, thus like a modern „I“, because every „I“ had to be like the „we“ , every son had to be like his father and former ancestors, every daughter had to be like her mother and former ancestors. If someone tried to not follow this main rule of that early human culture, then this one would be killed. Someone who broke this rule was punished to death. There was no way out of the group.

Arminius wrote:

„When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:

»The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.« ** **

Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires ... and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak of several human cultures and not of one human culture.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Naturally human beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just because of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„We can say that an »authentic human life« means a »life according to the human's nature«, whereas an »unauthentic life« means a »life according to the human's culture/s«.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (**|**), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.“ ** **

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Do you know, for example, the rules of modern „gangs“? What do this „modern“ gangs do when it comes to breaking their rules (this rules are like „laws“ for them)? They punish their members to death, if they trie to break their rules. So they are referring to one of the first human rules. Why are they doing that? They are doing that, because they do not want any member of the gang to leave the gang. They are going back to early times of the humans. Development is more cyclical or spiral than just linear („progressive“).

Hillary-ous (**). Yes.

Not much?

There are no real „liberals“ and no real „conservatives“ - there are only liars.

Thanks (**).

Yes. Of course.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Or this one (posted by Only Humean [**]):

Is your motive for killing flys and mosquitos a morally good or a morally bad (evil) one?

903) Arminius, 02.08.2016, 01:31, 01:34, 01:37, 01:40, 02:04, 02:16, 02:26, 02:34, 02:44, 03:07, 14:00, 16:52, 17:10, 17:20, 17:48, 22:25, 23:30, 23:50 (4899-4916)

One Liner wrote:

„I still fail to see how we currently don't live in a culture of »we« but I agree that there may be a contradiction between »Individualism« and how culture actually IS.“ **

Oh, there is stiil a cultural „we“ for us Westerners, but it is not as strong as it was in former times. Our „we“ has been becoming weak.

You may call it „regression“, but what I mean is more the cyclic or spiral aspect of any development, thus also any cultural development (evolution, history). So any development means much of analogical repetition, retry, iterance. So this behavior is not pathological but normal in the sense of the respective cultural development. If there had been „modern gangs“ during the 18th century in the Occidental culture, then their members would have been punished to death before joining, so they would have had no chance at all. But the same thing at the same place but at a different time (for example the current time or the time of the late antique Imperium Romanum) is possible. Societies must be decadent enough to have such „modern gangs“. this „modern gangs“ or other examples show very clearly that the development is backward („regressive“), although it is forward („progressive“).

Okay, some people may say that decadent cultures (humans) are just pathogical cultures (humans), but that it is not true, because they are just old. Being old is (still!) not pathological.

Please do not forget: Not merely desperation and nightmare are associated with the senselessness of life - but also sensemaking celebration of life, lust for life, life in the here and now because of consciousness in the here and now, ... and so on.

Probably it is just the negative meaning of life that shows (and hopefully convinces) us that we should prefer the positive meaning of life. So, for example, the more you are reminded of your death, the more you are also reminded of your life in the sense of a positive meaning.

I think that this is also the true meaning of Martin Heidegger's „Sein zum Tode“ („being to death“), because he did not mean that it is „positive“ to die, but he meant that philosophy and science of the 19th century had objectivated the deaths of the others - but not of the self, the „I“. Heidegger's theory of death stopped the theoretical cynisms of the 19th century (for example: the concept of revolution, the imagination of evolution, the concept of selection, of the struggle for life, of the surviving of the fittest, the idea of progress, ... and so on ), because: what they made thinkable was the death of the others - thus: not of the self, the „I“ -, and hereby they caused suppression and forgottenness of one's own death. The theories of the 19th century were a gift for the war industry, because the soldiers should not be reminded of their own death. The military is the biggest guarantor when it comes to suppression and forgottenness of one's own death. And during the the First World War - thus: in the early 20th century, when those theories of the 19th century were still intact - each soldier thought that merely others but not he himself had to die. (This is also the meaning of Heidegger's „Man“: the „Man“ prevents the courage to the fear of the death - the „Man“ means the normal inauthenticity, that each one is the others and no one is him-/herself.)

Do you know what I mean?

Nonsense.

You are not capable of understanding the simpliest sentences.

Example: „Achilleus“ - Zenon's fallacy.

The error is the confusion and permutation of (a) the thought of the succession of time with (b) the thought of the succession of space. One could also say: It is a misjudgement of the fact that the merely mathematically infinite divisibility of a stretch or a time length says nothing aginst its real finiteness.

Copied post in another thread.

Sometimes, and sometimes it is just the other way around.

Not all soldiers are stupid, because there are many averagely intelligent and some very intelligent soldiers too.

Life means forming spheres, doesn't it?

Philosophically important questions are - for example - questions that deal with something like the „birth process“:

- How does man in the world come to his world?
- How does this „adventic animal“ man find the expression under the terms of himself?
- How does the world honor the promise that is given to man?
- How does man come to the faith / confidence / trust therewith he can give promise to the world?

One Liner wrote:

„Our »we« is just as strong as it has always been (if not stronger) but we just do not value it as much.“ **

But what do you mean by „our »we«“ exactly? The „we“ of the U.S.?

I meant the Occidental „we“.

Maybe every kind of „revolution“ is a „repetition of birth“ on another stage; accordingly there are „repetitions of abortive births / miscarriages“ too. Perhaps life is somehow a „permanent (abortive) birth and repetition of (abortive) birth“. Humans have to arrive. They are arriving („adventic“) animals. And if they have arrived, they start again - straightaway. They are always underway.

Yes, that is what Martin Heidegger called „man“ („man“ does not mean the same as in English here). Each one is the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another manages averageness, inauthenticity.

Have you never been told (for example by your father) in the absolutely right way, that this or that what you are (or another one is) doing does make no sense at all (so that you had to agree)?

James S, Saint wrote:

„When two people have resolved a debate to the point of disagreeing upon a particular thought or principle, what is left to do but to attempt to teach of the correctness of one's stand?

Math is not some mystical field independent of logical and rational thought. Math is in fact a product of logical thought concerning quantities.

But of course, as history strongly reveals, Man often preaches with grand certainty against logical thought, only to later fall. The issue of infinities and infinitesimals seems to stretch Man's mind to a dubious limit whereat he chooses passion for preference over restraint to rationality.

Note that the title and OP ask if the concept is »Really« true. The question isn't about what is currently most popular to believe or what the contemporary experts teach. And to discover what is really true despite what authorities are preaching requires logic. Unfortunately even on a philosophy forum, logic is seldom the guiding light.“ **

Unfortunately, yes. That is very sad.

Arminius wrote:

„I suggest to reform ILP and to call it »IL« with the following eight subforums:

(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«).“ ** **

The enlightenment, for example, reduces fear, angst, superstition, ... and so on. But now it seems that there is merely a small rest of enlightenment.

But does the word „rationalization“ not also have a positive meaning? I know, the psychologization has changed the meaning of the word „rationalization“, but the word had a different meaning before that psychologization. I prefer the non-psychologized meaning of the word „rationalization“. Or is this not any longer possible in English? Am I now not „welcomed“ to the psycholgism club?

Copied post.

If reality was (it is not) merely mathematical, then Achilleus could not reach the turtle, thus the mathematical solution (see: a) would be right in any case (because: reality = ideality); but our reality is also resp. mainly physical (see: b), and we have senses and brains for experiencing (observating, perceiving) this reality, so that we can know that Achilleus can reach the turtle. All this (see: a and b) means that we can solve the „Achilleus“ problem exactly, thus mathematically.

The merely mathematically infinite divisibility of a stretch or a time length does not contradict its real finiteness.

904) Arminius, 04.08.2016, 01:03, 01:06, 01:09, 01:11, 01:33, 01:50, 12:26, 12:44, 12:50, 12:56, 12:58, 13:05, 13:13, 13:19, 13:48, 14:12, 14:40, 14:41, 16:00, 16:51, 17:09, 17:36, 18:09, 22:20, 22:51, 23:10, 23:27, 23:37, 23:43, 23:51 (4917-4946)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The merely mathematically infinite divisibility of a stretch or a time length does not contradict its real finiteness.« ** **

Precisely.

It is always and forever merely up to what standard of minimal measure one chooses - what degree of infinitesimal is going to represent »1«. If none is chosen, then a physical ontology cannot be formed because every infinitesimal distance could be infinitely divided such as to have no means to sum up any distance at all.

Ontology is a Choice. One must choose how many infinitesimals are going to exist between 0 and 1.

And a necessary choice if any understanding is to be formed or maintained. Ontological understanding is not reality itself, which has no limits for infinity. Thus the limits for infinity and infinitesimal must be set by choosing a standard independent of the fact that reality has no limit. It really isn't any different than choosing the length of a meter. Reality has no such thing as a meter, so someone must choose a length, else length measurements are impossible to logically handle.“ **

Yes.

We have to distinguish between (1.) the realm(s) of ratiocination / logic / mathematics and (2.) the realm(s) of physics / chemnistry / biology. So if one logical / mathematical task does not only contain a mathematical subtask but also a physical subtask (like the „Achilleus“ task does), then we have to consider that two subtasks.

One Liner wrote:

„Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive ....“ **

That is not true.

The words „rational“ and „rationalization“ have the same root. What you are saying is that, for example, all enlightenment is „deceptive“. And that is - of course - not true.

Political correctness, psychologism and sociologism, for example, are deceptive.

One Liner wrote:

„I don't have a motive (moral or immoral) for killing insects.“ **

So you do not kill insects?

Do you live according Ecamndu’s „rule“?

Ecmandu wrote:

„Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.“ ** (**|**)

One Liner wrote:

„I think the »I« and »we« continue to function how they have always functioned but we have developed exaggerated views of these; which subsequently creates dysfunction as they do not behave how we expect them to behave.“ **

Uh-huh. .... Although .... I am not profoundly convinced that your one liner is absolutely right here. How do „we“ expect „them“ to behave?

When physicians use mathematics so willingly, then it is because mathematics is at a higher level than physics.

Merely the realm of ratiocination/logic is at a higher level than the realm of mathematics:

Or just follow the grey arrow in the follwing chart:

** ** ** ** **

One can also say that mathematics is a subset of the set logic:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.

Mathematics is a subset of logic.

« ** **

Exactly. Get the logic square/clean, and the math will be just fine.“ **

That's the point.

And in terms of the mathematical realm and the physical realm:

Arminius wrote:

„The merely mathematically infinite divisibility of a stretch or a time length does not contradict its real finiteness.“ ** **

One Liner wrote:

„We have the expectation that they behave (function) according to how we view them and we never question our view when things don't work out how we expected them to.“ **

There are a lot of „we“’s in your one liner, One Liner.

The Occidental culture is an „I“ -culture, thus it is very much more individualistic than all other cultures. So in the Occidental culture the „I“ is more considered than in all other cultures. But this does not mean that the Occidental culture does not consider the „we“- it merely means that it considers the „I“ much more than all other cultures do. And this is especially due to the reformation (protestantism) as Ierrellus and I have pointed out:

Arminius wrote:

„Ierrelus wrote:

»The protestant reformation essentially established the I as having precedent over the we. It preached rugged individualism that has affected both religion and politics.« **

Martin Luther was a very intelligent person. (By the way: I am not Protestant but Catholic.) Now the average global intelligence is shrinking. Thus: such an intelligent reformation or even another reformation will probably not take place in the near future or in the future at all. Individualism has to do (although not only) with intelligence, intellectualism in the right sense. This means that we are facing an authoritarian social form of anti-individualism, anti-intelligence, and anti-intellectualism. Unfortunately. They will preach the »we« more than the »I«. The »we« is important, yes, but the »I« is important as well.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Martin Luther appealed to the „I“. The belief or faith should be a thing of the „I“ and no longer of the „we“, namely the church that exploited its believers, for example by indulgence, thus payments!“ ** **

Copied post in another thread.

One Liner wrote:

„I have no idea what you mean by enlightenment.“ **

You really do not know what „enlightenment“ means?

One Liner wrote:

„I do not have an emotional need to kill insects and if I did then I would have to rationalize my emotional needs.“ **

And there could be good reasons (for example healthy reasons) too to rationalize your motive(s).

One Liner wrote:

„I didn't say... I don't know what enlightenment means.“ **

Okay.

One Liner wrote:

„I did not post that in this thread.“ **

Oh, sorry. Shall I delete that quote?

One Liner wrote:

„Ultimately, all rationalizations (positive or negative) are deceptive even though they can be functional and useful.“ **

Again: That is not true.

If you have good reasons (for example healthy reasons) to rationalize your motive(s) for killing insects, for example (by the way: it was your example) , then this rationalization is not deceptive.

One Liner wrote:

„You don't have to delete it.“ **

Thanks.

Health is always a good reason. It is good resp. okay and especially healthy to be self-preservative. No living being is capable of living without self-preservation. Life is self-preservation.

So I ask you: Why should it be better for you to be killed by other living beings (for example: insects)?

One Liner wrote:

„You are making the statement that your health/life is more important than the health/life of an insect without any good reason.“ **

That’s right. And if you asked that insect and were capable of understanding its answer, then you would soon know that the insect would make the same statement as I do.

Claiming to be the one who has reduced unemployment is almost always a lie.

There is an increasing number of lost jobs.
There is an increasing number of machines that replace the jobs of humans.
There is an increasing number of immigrants that replace the jobs of natives.
There is an increasing number of women that replace the jobs of men.

According to this facts there can only be an increasing number of unemployed humans. The said machines, immigrants and women have never been a part of the employment-market before entereing it. So, for the Western societies, it is not possible anymore to add so many jobs that are needed to - at least - hold the number of enemployment on the same level. The politicians of this societies have no other choice than letting the number of unemployment increase more and more. Or do you believe in wizards and wonders? It seems that only a catastrophe can stop this insane politics.

Hahaha wrote:

„Don't bother Arminius as nobody listens to reason anymore if it is not apart of the corporate controlled script.“ **

Okay. But I find it very silly or cheeky when those lies are always repeated in a webforum that claims to be a „philosophy“ webforum.

Hahaha wrote:

„In the Bush administration the unemployment ratio was a lot higher than the official government released number just as it is right now under Obama. The United States economy really is in a death spiral and nothing you quote from HuffingtonPost or Bloomberg is going to change that.

Failure to adapt? With technological automation replacing all segments of societies where there is no margin of biological adaptation that is just a bullshit cop out by technocrats.

The influx of global immigration is a mechanism of driving down wages of native or indigenous workers keeping them stagnant which is why corporations everywhere have adopted the neo-liberal and multicultural political script. It's good for their financial bottom line. Of course they won't admit that it's all about greed or profit where rather conveniently they hide behind social justice, multiculturalism, and historical revisionism in masquerade.“ **

Yes. Of course.

Hahaha wrote:

„There needs to be a serious public discussion or discourse on how global immigration is a financial tool or policy by corporations to depreciate domestic wages of nations. Americans are sick of it and Europeans don't want any of it.

In the future historians will note that the decline and death of union jobs or occupations with some level of security for its workers died with the advent of enacted global immigration policies.“ **

Yes, and machines and women too. The meaning of feminism has not to do with females but with female work, which means the replacement of expensive male work by cheap female work. If you compare feminism and immigration with the machine revolution we have been experiencing since the last third of the 18th century, then you will see that both feminism and Immigration have the same economical and demographical function as the machines have: replacing the espensive occidental male workers by cheap workers, destroying the occidental patriarchalism, thus destroying the occidental families and reducing the occidental birthrates.

Maybe we should or we should not tolerate this till the castrophe, the great chaos. But we certainly should not tolerate the lies in a forum that is called „I Love Philosophy“.

Hahaha wrote:

„In the world political deception is becoming the norm suffocating, silencing,and choking everybody. We're just supposed to get used to it, right?“ **

You are right. Deception is everywhere, because it is a part of life in general. So decpetion is in nature as well as in culture. But the most deception can be found among humans, especially human cultures, more especially: civilizations. In other words: There has never been more deception in the world than today.

Consumerism appeals to the „I“ in order to get the whole „we“. So in the medium run the „we“ is always more appealed than the „I“. If there was only one consumer, namely the „I“, then there would be almost no profit for the provider. So we - as the „we“ - have to be the consumers. Consumerism wants the „we“ as the consumerist society.

So the rulers (regardless whether they are economical rulers or political rulers) are always trying to put the „I“ and the „we“ together. This does not completely but partly work. And this was why I mentioned Heidegger's „man“ („man“ does not mean the same as in English here). Each one is the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another manages averageness, inauthenticity. And if there is no authentic „I“ but an „I“, namely the inauthentic „I“, then it is easier for the rulers to influence the whole „we“. They can use the „we“ (including the „I“ - the inauthentic „I“ of course) for wars, for consume, ... for whatever they want to.

The unemployment rate in the United States is currently about 23% (tending upwards - of course), I guess. So about every fourth US citizen has currently no job.

Like I said: Life is self-preservation.

So I ask you again: Why should it be better for you to be killed by other living beings?

If you did not preserve your life, you would just die.

The meaning of feminism has not to do with females as such but with cheap wages, which means the replacement of expensive male work by cheap female work. If you compare feminism and immigration with the machine revolution we have been experiencing since the last third of the 18th century, then you will see that both feminism and Immigration have the same economical and demographical function as the machines have: replacing the espensive occidental male workers by cheap workers, destroying the occidental patriarchalism, thus destroying the occidental families and reducing the occidental birthrates.

Thank you, President ..., X, Y, Z.

One Liner wrote:

„I found myself asking the question, »can temperature exist in a singularity?«.“ **

That can not be answered, because „singularity“ means conditions under which physical „laws“ are not defined. It is not possible to get any information out of a „singularity“.

By the way: I found myself asking the question „is the big bang theory false?“.

In order to understand the thread and what is meant in the opening post of this thread it is favourable to not only consider mathematical aspects but also and especially, namely in relation to mathematics, physical aspects (often called „reality“).

905) Arminius, 06.08.2016, 01:27, 01:31, 01:33, 01:35, 01:59, 02:16, 02:36, 03:25, 03:49, 03:57, 04:28, 17:00, 17:06, 17:16, 17:49, 18:12, 18:36, 18:15, 18:54, 18:59 (4947-4966)

I know much about the biography and the works of the physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and that he and, for example, Otto Hahn and Werner Heisenberg were members of the „Uranprojekt“ („Uran Project“) before and during the Second World War.

To the subject „Big Bang“:

Arminius wrote:

„The hypothesis of the »big bang« has much more to do with dogmatism than with science.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„The theory of the Big Bank is true, but the theory of the Big Bang is probably not true.“ ** **

4949

Celine K. wrote:

„Psychology and sociology, as practiced today, are a monumental hoaxes.“ **

That statement is true.

4950

If I had to choose only one attribute for describing the Occidental culture, then I would always choose „faustic“ (just like Spengler did with reference to Goethe’s „Faust“).

Sorry, English is not my fisrt language. I meant „physicist“ - of course. It is the second time already that I confused the word „physicist“ with the word „physician“.

More like a physiotherapist?

Socratus wrote:

„Arminius, I do much more mistakes.“ **

Really?

Ah, by the way: My name is Arminius. You forgot the „i“.

Socratus wrote:

„Big bang is scientific fantasy . . . .
===…
According to ‘big bang’ the Universe exists 14 billion years. Woman gives birth to a reasonable child during 280 days. A body made up of perhaps 100 trillion different cells. A single human cell contains as much information as a librarywith a thousand volumes. Book: “ The unity of Nature” - “ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.” / page 40, by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (**).

Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a thousand volumes in each) create a reasonable child ( by the chance ) during 9 months if according to the Probability theory it is impossible? By the chance woman must be pregnant more than 14 billion years before to give life to her reasonable child. So, before a ‘big bang’ was an intelligent woman. She was pregnant and gave life to a child . . . and . . .. . . . . . . after 13.7 billion years and after many generations new children invented the ‘big bang’ theory.“ **

The „mainstream“ physicists (not physicians) and probably also the most „mainstream“ biophysicists would possibly answer your question as follows: The universe is a system of chaos with a small amount of information and thus a great amount of entropy, whereas living beings are self-preservation systems of order and complexity with a great amount of information and a small amount of entropy. This is the reason why living beiings are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short time, whereas the universe needs a very long time, for example at least 10 billion years for making the first complex living being.

One Liner wrote:

„Yes, I will die despite all of my efforts to preserve my life and no amount of killing other people or other animals will preserve my life.“ **

Are you referring to this post?

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Claiming to be the one who has reduced unemployment is almost always a lie.« ** **

It's true, but all presidential legacies are built on such lies. Honestly, Obama's greatest achievement in the economic recovery was not fucking it up. Fact is though, the economy is, for the moment, just about where it needs to be in a capitalist economy. Since the global recession hit its nadir around 08-09 the US has basically enjoyed the most robust economic recovery of any advanced nation in the world.“ **

After a recession there is always a positive trend. Duh. In other advanced nations the nadir of the said recession occurred later than in the US, just because of the fact that the cause of that recession came from the US. There is time between the cause and its effect.

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There is an increasing number of lost jobs.« ** **

Well yeah, duh. The more jobs get added the more jobs will be lost.“ **

No. Here is no „duh“ possible. It does not automatically mean that jobs will be lost when jobs are added. Who told you such a nonsense?

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There is an increasing number of machines that replace the jobs of humans.« ** **

Yup, that's how technology works.“ **

That is only rhetoric. You are completely off the subject. We are not talking about tecnology but about pure economy here. And it is an economical fact that machines replace the jobs of humans (in the long run perhaps humans at all [**|**]).

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There is an increasing number of immigrants that replace the jobs of natives.« ** **

Now this is bullshit.“ **

That is no argument.

We already talked about this in other threads. You are not willing to talk about facts.

An example: In the 1950’s and largely also in the 1960’s there was full employment in Europe as well as in the US and in Canada. Then many errors occurred, for example: (1.) the exponentially increasing debts; (2.) the reversing the gold backing of the US Dollar by Richard Nixon in 1971 (which means even much more accelerated, thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard economy); (3.) the increasing number of unemployed native men, especially the first unemployment of young men (the first youth unemployment started) because of the increasing number of immigrants and female wageworkers. I am not judging here, I am only talking about facts. And if it is right what politicians always and mantra-like claim, namely that full employment, thus the prevention of unemployment, is the main goal, then these said decisions and actions (see: 1., 2., 3.) are very extreme errors.

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

Back it up, i challenge you.“ **

On one condition: We are talking in my first language, thus not always only in your first language (as I have to do here since I joined ILP). This would be - finally - fair. Do you know what „fairness“ means?

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There is an increasing number of women that replace the jobs of men.« ** **

That's so hilarious that you would say that. Seriously. Because women fill positions previously occupied by men just as well as men, and often better than men ...“ **

What you are saying here is no argument, but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about capabilities, because we are talking about economical facts.

This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„... that is framed as some kind of injustice ....“ **

Again: What you are saying here is no argument but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about injustice or justice, because we are talking about economical facts.

This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„The fact that women are just as, if not more, capable than men of fulfilling traditionally masculine roles ....“ **

That is (again and again) no argument but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about capabilities, because we are talking about economical facts.

This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„... means men are fucking victims of ... idk, liberal worldviews?“ **

That is (over and over again) no argument but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about the current dictatorship of political correctness and its misandrous sexism, because we are talking about economical facts.

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Fuckin ridiculous.“ **

That is (over and over again) no argument.

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»According to this facts there can only be an increasing number of unemployed humans.« ** **

Which facts?“ **

See above. Forget your cheap phrase (rhetoric).

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„I mean, yeah, as the overall population rises, so will the population of unemployed, but by no means the overall percentage.“ **

The overall population of the US rises just because of the immigration. You have no single argument. And very often, you are completely off the subject.

A philosophy forum does or should not need rhetoric or dictatoship of political correctness.

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The said machines, immigrants and women have never been a part of the employment-market before entereing it. So, for the Western societies, it is not possible anymore to add so many jobs that are needed to - at least - hold the number of enemployment on the same level. The politicians of this societies have no other choice than letting the number of unemployment increase more and more. Or do you believe in wizards and wonders? It seems that only a catastrophe can stop this insane politics.« ** **

Uh, the unemployment rate has fallen. Steadily and continuously for the last 7 to 8 years..“ **

That is not true. And you should know that it is not true (see here, here, here, and below).

John Williams wrote;

„And the headline May 2016 ShadowStats unemployment estimate holding at 23.0%, up from 22.9% in April.“ **

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The unemployment rate in the United States is currently about 23% (tending upwards - of course), I guess. So about every fourth US citizen has currently no job.

Uh, i call bullshit.“ **

That is (over and over again) no argument.

You are not right, because you are left.

Life is not limbo, life is not hovering, life is, at least sometimes, a burden that one has to bear. And if there are people that are not capable of bearing it, then they must be belped, for example by good politicians. Our „liberal“ and „social“ politicians are not good, because they are leftists. They are just saying: „life is hovering, and if it is not, then we give you money and, yes, more money“ - not mentioning that this all means: DEBTS!

Debts over and over again - that is the real meaning of Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism, of inflationism. It is not possible to solve all problems by creating money out of the blue, because it is not possible to create something out of nothing. „Von nichts kommt nichts“ is a German saying. You can't make something out of nothing. Thus: You can't make money out of nothing. And if you try it, you will only get DEBTS.

Basta! Full stop! Enough! End of the story.

Socratus wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The ›mainstream‹ physicists (not physicians) and probably also the most ›mainstream‹ biophysicists would possibly answer your question as follows: The universe is a system of chaos with a small amount of information and thus a great amount of entropy, whereas living beings are self-preservation systems of order and complexity with a great amount of information and a small amount of entropy. This is the reason why living beiings are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short time, whereas the universe needs a very long time, for example at least 10 billion years for making the first complex living being.
I understand you.

The »small information« of universe was pregnant. Because was chaos we don’t know who was here lover. But somehow the “small information” gave birth to »a great amount of information« ... which were adopted
by living beings.“ **

That is a good metaphor - especially for me, because I like philosophical issues dealing with „prenatal“ and „perinatal“ metaphors. Humans have to come into the world somehow, even if their real birth is past.

Socratus wrote:

„This is the reason why living beings are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short time.“ **

Yes. One can say so.

Socratus wrote:

„Question. Why the »great amount of information« cannot explain the » small information«?“ **

I gues you mean: „Why can't the »great amount of information« explain the » small information«?“

Because the „great amount of information“ is only capable of explaining the medium or averarge issues, but not other issues like the beginning or the end of the „small information“. The „small information“ is possibly too „small“ (simple) for explaining it. The example „homo sapiens“ makes it clear, I think: Humans often do not have many answers to the simpliest questions of their own dasein. Why are humans in the world?

Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the universe emerged, if it emerged at all.

The humans’ brains are made for surviving.

Tab wrote:

„It's been 3 years or so, so I guess I'd better re-introduce myself.

English-born expat living abroad for the last 20 years, married, 2 children. English teacher for far too long.

Part-time post-philosophic empiricist/pragmatist if you want a classification, and full time asshat.“ **

Your re-introducing is not really necessary:

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»

A brainteaser: Who knows these nice guys?« ** **

Ben, Tab, SIATD, Only Humean, Smears, Durden.

Smears' I saw at the top of the page, but the others were easily recognizable.“ **

Thanks.

One Liner wrote:

„I will not survive.“ **

Will the „we“?

One Liner wrote:

„Hence, all rationilzation is deceptive even if we take life is self preservation as the so called „meaning of life“ (which is a rationilzation in itself).“ **

No.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Love is the means.“ **

Like a hammer?

Thinkdr wrote:

„Do you know your own self-interest?“ **

Your self-interest is always your own self-interest. My self-interest is always my own self-interest. The word „own“ makes your question tautological, Thinkdr.

906) Arminius, 08.08.2016, 20:49, 20:59, 21:12, 21:48, 21:58, 22:21 (4967-4972)

Socratus wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Because the ›great amount of information‹ is only capable of explaining the medium or averarge issues, but not other issues like the beginning or the end of the ›small Information‹. The ›small Information‹ is possibly too ›small‹ (simple) for explaining it. The example ›homo sapiens‹ makes it clear, I think: Humans often do not have many answers to the simpliest questions of their own dasein. Why are humans in the world?« ** **

So, we can have only »the medium or average issues« of information.“ **

Assumed that there is macrophysics, mesophysics, and microphysics, I would say that we can know much about mesophysics, which is - by the way - the main part of physics, but not much about macro- and microphysics, namely something about the beginning and ending of the universe or of the so called„quantum world“. I guess that micro- and macrophysics are more like metaphysics than physics, because almost everything they deal with is - more or less - theoretical, mathematical, logical, just metaphysical, thus philosophical.

4968

One Liner wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the universe emerged, if it emerged at all.« ** **

We are capable of explain anything we want to explain (it just may not be true).“ **

No. If we really were, then we would already know everything.

4969

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the universe emerged, if it emerged at all.« ** **

You certain of that?.“ **

The theory of the „Big Bang“ is a relatively ridiculous theory, isn't it?

4970

You mean the „trial and error“ system, don't you?

This one?

And a flat universe would not really be infinite.

907) Arminius, 10.08.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:03, 01:05, 01:07, 01:09, 01:14, 01:21, 01:43, 02:30, 15:12, 16:06, 16:25, 16:29, 17:00, 17:12, 17:21, 17:32, 18:03, 18:14, 23:58 (4973-4994)

Leyla wrote:

„Like a flashlight.“ **

Are you sure?

One Liner wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Will the ›we‹?« ** **

Yes, and so the »we« is far more important than the »I« and not equally important.“ **

It depends on. In our culture the „I“ is more inportant than in others but is nevertheless embedded in the „we“ (that has become weaker and weaker).

One Liner wrote:

„They are all just common opinions that form definitions just like some would argue that this life is just a means (ontology, ontology, ontology, etc).“ **

„Common opinions“ or the inauthentic „I“ of everybody of the „we“.

One Liner wrote:

„Wasn't one of the reasons for the Brexit an anti-refugee sentiment (doesn't seem like an indeed to me).“ **

Yes.

Mags J. wrote

„One Liner wrote:

»Wasn't one of the reasons for the Brexit an anti-refugee sentiment (doesn't seem like an indeed to me).« **

If we took on any more refugees (as a small clay-based island) we would sink quicker than we already are.“ **

How quick is your sinking?

Mags J. wrote:

„Most of them are not refugees.“ **

Yes.

There should be a third option, namely the option „BOTH (nature and nurture)“ too. It is both, and it is more nature than nurture.

Hegel’s dialectic is a method of knowledge, a process, a self-motion of thinking and reality, the tread of the spirit (Geist) to its self-knowledge.

Are you referring to my post?

Synthezise what? Believe in what? Make what believable?

Flatness means at least a spatial limit. A spatial limit is probably connected with a temporal limit. A temporal limit is not infinite.

Do you mean our galaxy, Socratus?

I know that the mainstream physicists say our universe would be flat, very flat. But it is probably not flat. Are the mainstream physicists flat?

I mean that crime is caused by both nature and nurture. Crime has its roots in nature. All living beings are criminal, but only human beings are capable of knowing what crime is. Also this human capability has its roots in nature but must be passed on by nurture. You need a brain in order to understand what crime is. If nurture can but does not let you know what crime is, then nurture causes crime. If nurture does let you know what crime is, then nurture does not cause crime, but if you nevertheless become criminal in that case, then nature, namely the nature in you, causes crime, and you yourself are responsible for it, since you can (know what crime is), and therefore you must (know what crime is). You can, so you must (cp. Kant).

... - ... (*giggles*).

One Line wrote:

„Is there such a thing as an authentic »I«?“ **

Naturally yes (we already talked about that), but culturally perhaps no or, if yes, merely few.

One Liner wrote:

„I think our culture perceives »I« as more important than others but that perception isn't necessarily an accurate representation of how the »I« is actually positioned in our culture. **

In the Mesopotamian or Sumerian culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Egyptian culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Chinese culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much, in the Indian culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much, in the Apollinian (Greek-Roman) culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Old-South-and-Middle-American culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Arabic/Islamic culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much. It was and is only the Faustian Occidental culture where the „I“ did and does matter much (at least relatively to all other cultures).

According to your own last one liner your last one liner is „a rationilzation and nothing more“.

Self-preservation is primarily and thus also meaningfully significant. Otherwise there would be no evolution.

There is natural environment, and there is cultural environment. The biochemical environment you (**) mentioned is part of the natural environment.

Do you believe in such an „inorganic perception, where the difference will take maybe another thousand years to unravel“ (**)?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Divine Realm --> Principles.
Mortal Realm --> Physical Universe.“ **

Are those principles inmortal like god(s) ore even like god(s), thus: divine realm = principles?

One Liner wrote:

„So you are telling me that self preservation is meaningful and evolution is meaningful and life is meaningful and you are also telling me that this is not rationalizing as it is a fact that this meaningfulness is impregnated in this meaningful universe.“ **

No, One Liner.

Read my post again, please, and then you will probably know what meaningful is and what rationalizing is.

If not, then read the following tab text:

[TAB]

I did NOT say that evolution was meaningful.
I did NOT say that life was meaningful.
I did NOT say that this was not rationalizing.
I did NOT say that it was a fact that this meaningfulness was impregnated in this meaningful universe.
I did NOT say that there was a meaningfulness.
I did NOT say that this universe was meaningful.
I merely said that self-preservation was meaningful. And I meant that it was meaningful for for each living being, because otherwise each living being would not defend the own life ... and so on. This does NOT automatically mean that life is meaningful, that evolution is meaningful, that there is meaningfulness, that the universe is meaningful. It means that self-preservation is meaningful.

[/TAB]

Or read the follwing thread: ** **

908) Arminius, 13.08.2016, 02:10, 02:13, 02:16, 02:19, 02:21, 02:23, 02:58, 03:07, 04:11, 04:32, 04:47, 04:52, 05:05, 15:54, 16:04, 19:51, 19:58, 20:18, 20:41, 21:04, 21:38, 21:49, 22:05, 22:15, 22:29, 22:38, 22:44, 22:49, 22:57, 23:50 (4995-5024)

One Liner wrote:

„So, self preservation preserves meaningless things and this action is meaningful.“ **

No, One Liner. You are always putting words into my mouth I never said.

I did NOT say that self-preservation preserved meaningless things. I merely said that self-preservation was meaningful. And I meant that it was meaningful for for each living being, because otherwise each living being would not defend the own life ... and so on. This does NOT automatically mean that life is meaningful, that evolution is meaningful, that there is meaningfulness, that the universe is meaningful. It means that self-preservation is meaningful.

One Liner wrote:

„It does not matter much in our current culture either but we just think it matters which then results in a mismatch between what we perceive and what is.“ **

It matters much more in our culture than it matters in all other cultures of the whole history.

One Liner wrote:

„What was this authentic »I« we talked about as I forgot (been hectic at work in the last couple of weeks).“ **

Just read the corresponding posts again and look at the following chart.

Other middle or large collective forms are - for example - „gangs“, churches, states, cooperations/companies (super-organisms / organisation-systems).

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„The Divine Realm is »physical« too ....“ **

? ... ....

Socratus wrote:

„Flatness as a spatial limit is connected with geometrical forms: triangle, square, ... circle, ....
Flatness as an infinite continuum is connected with negative Pseudo-Euclidian space (Minkowski - SRT).“ **

I know. But what do you think about the following?

According to pantheism God is in everything resp. everything is in God, because God is nature resp. nature is God, or there is no God but only nature and humans just call nature „God“ resp. there is no nature but only God (the existence of the world is repealed - so to say).

Yes (**). It is aesthetically beautiful, ethically good, logically true.

By logical thought(s), yes (**).

It is certainly no coincidence that two similar beliefs occured and became dogmas at the same time: (1) the belief that the big bank can create the money out of nothing; (2) the bielef that the big bang can create the universe out of nothing.

James S. Saint wrote:

„

When the Big Bank goes Bust, does that create a new universe/economy?“ **

According to those who beleive in that: ... yes.

Maybe an eternal re-occurrence of something from nothing, but always created by the respective bb.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Divine Realm --> Principles.
Mortal Realm --> Physical Universe.‹ **

Are those principles inmortal like god(s) ore even like god(s), thus: divine realm = principles?« ** **

The »gods« are the principles. The »God« is the one underlying (or over-arching) Principle from which all others are formed. As Moses put it [paraphrased], »The only true God: It is what it is. Worship nothing else«.

And only false principles »die«.“ **

So they have to „die“ in the mortal realm, thus as thoughts in the brain?

Jerkey wrote:

„Arminius: only 0.0000000000000000000000000000-000000000001 percent of reality is logical. Therefore existence can never be thought of even conceptually.
Reality cannot be captured.“ **

You are a subjectivist, I know.

One Liner wrote:

„We think it matters but our thinking is wrong.“ **

No. Your thinking is wrong. Sorry.

What you think is that everything is equal. You are an egalitarianist who has forgotten that egalitarianism is also a phenomenon that is based on individualism, thus on Occidental developments like the Lutheran reformation (protestantism) as a revolution of the „I“. There has always been more „I“ in the culture of the Occident than in all other cultures. Even the current „human rights“ are based on this typical Occidental issue, and note: I am not judging here - I am talking about facts.

One Liner wrote:

„Arminius, to put it simply, self preservation preserves self just like self propulsion propels self (they don't by default have an attribute of »meaningful«).“ **

No, One Liner, you are wrong again.

If somebody (a strong „I“ for example) threatens you with a gun, what are you going to do then? Wait. Let me guess: You are going to do nothing.

Self-preservation occurs with the first living being.

The Lutheran reformation was a revolution of both (1) about the „I“ itself and (2) how we think about the „I“.

Yes (**), to repeated „bangs“ and to the belief in them (compare: bang, bank, ... bust ... => new bang, new bank, ... new bust ... and so on).

One Liner wrote:

„Weak and strong molecular bonds also occurs with the first living being (along with countless other phenomena that collectively sustain life).“ **

That does not contradict the self-preservation. On the contrary: It emphasizes it.

One Liner wrote:

„For it to be a revolution of the »I« itself then there cannot be a biological basis for »I« or, if there is a biological basis of »I«, the Lutheran reformation changed human biology by power of collective thought.“ **

Again: You are putting words into my mouth I never said.
I was talking about a revolution about the »I«“, you misunderstood it as a revolution „of the »I«“.

Sources: ** (**) and ** .

So all your further conclusions must become false too. In other words: there was no „change“ of the „human biology by power of collective thought“, and nobody was talking about it - except you. Even if there had been one, then it would have been a more right one. But that is not what I was talking about. Try to read and understand the texts of other ILP members correctly.

I used the preposition „about“, you, One Liner, read it falsely or/and just made it the preposition „of“. That led to a completely different meaning of the whole original sentence and the whole original subject.

Sources: ** (**) and ** .

This changing of the preopsitions and thus of the content and meaning of the sentence they belong to as well as the whole subject was only one of many other examples of the fact that you are almost always changing content and meaning of texts.

I wanted to talk about a certain subject and not to change the subject whenever you want to change the subject.

You are a faker (although not as much as the trolling super fakers).

NOBODY said that (except you [**]).

I said: „it emphasizes it“ (**|**), and that does NOT mean that it (itself !) preserves it.

Again: Try to read correctly, One Liner.

One Liner (**).

I did NOT say that you changed the content of the opening post. Why are you always changing the subject of somebody's post? Do you know how such a behavior is called?

You have changed the prepositions of my texts, and by doing this you have changed the content and meaning of my whole text (post).

Sources: ** (**) and ** .

Copied post.

Copied post.

One Liner wrote:

„So you are inferring that the words used in this context (»emphasising« and »meaningful«) are not deceptive rationalizations.“ **

Where did I say that?

One Liner wrote:

„Arminius, I stuck to the OP and didn't change the OP ....“ **

Who said that you did? NOBODY.

One Liner wrote:

„The OP continues to be the current topic of discusion.“ **

That does not allow you to change the content of other posts. They are not your posts. And this posts stuck to the opening post and did never change the opening post.

Copied post (copied post, copied post).

Again: Where did I say that (**)?

Only perhaps (**). But one fact is that you faked the content and meaning of other posts.

Yes, you said that (**), and you were wrong.

Rationalizing has another meaning too, and that is very different from your „interpretation“ of it.

One Liner wrote:

„I think your reactions have provided at least some evidence that rationalisations (positive or negative) are deceptive.“ **

It is just the other way around. Think, for example, of your reactions.

One Liner wrote:

„I have Arminius and I don't dispute that rationalisations (positive or negative) are deceptive and, in this way, I don't feel or think that I am superior to you.“ **

Some rationalisations are not deceptive, other rationalisations are deceptive. It depends on how they are used.

Rationalisations are deceptive for those who are deceptive, especially self-deceptive. You are a self-decptive „I“, so you have to think that others are deceptive and use rationalisation only for deception. But people are not equal. So there are people who are more deceptive than others. And there are some people who use rationalisation for deception and others who do not or at least seldom. But the main point is that rationalisation has a positive character as well, and this positive character is in conflict with the negative one - there is and will never be a „winner“. The current zeitgeist has influenced certain people (including you) so much, that this people think rationalisation would only be deceptive, but that is not true.

909) Arminius, 16.08.2016, 01:09, 01:13, 01:16, 01:27, 01:31, 01:59, 18:42, 19:05, 20:04, 22:03, 22:06, 22:10, 22:25, 22:33, 22:48, 23:30, 23:33, 23:55 (5025-5042)

TO ALL.

What do you think about the following?

Copied part of a post in another thread

Johann Sebastian Bach or Ludwig v. Beethoven. (I am not absoluetly sure which of the two I should prefer.)

One Liner wrote:

„Arminius (spell-check autocorrected) ....“ **

Be honest. You are not capable of spelling. Or is spelling also a negative rationalization for you? And - by the way - you used more than a one liner, One Liner, although you used one sentence (although one faked sentence - but do not worry, because you are not the super-faker in this forum).

One Liner wrote:

„At the moment you have not providided me with anything inspirational to suggest that you are correct on this matter and the self preservation is »meaningful« discussion only frustrated you (which implies deceptive rationilzations to me).“ **

That is nonsense.

You are the one who is frustrated - namely almost always, because rationalization is always negative to you. Always being frustrated is a very bad and very sad situation, One Liner. I am very sorry for you.

Unfortunately, you are just not capable of rationalizing in a positive way. I often said to you that you should try to understand that rationalizing is not always negative, because it is often positive. But you did not want to learn. That is sad too. So again: I am very sorry for you.

You are what is called a nihilist. I know that it is difficult today to not be a nihilist, but that does not automatically mean that nihilists are right. What makes this even more difficult for you is the fact that you are a pessimist in addition, thus a pessimistic nihilist. Not all nihilists are pessimists, but you are a pessimistic nihilist.

As I said: Copied post.

Ad Cinnatum.

Tuam malam fortunam doleo.

Nonne meministi?

Velim scribas!

Quid facis?

Scio, hic locus est ubi trolli imperat.

And think of helices too.

But what I meant was more like this: Do you believe in the inorganic perception as a perception of God?

The Sun (Solar System) is orbiting the center of the galaxy. It is said that it takes the Sun about 250 million years and that it touches the electromagnetic field of the galaxy four times during this 250 million years.

So you do not mean „inorganic perception“ in the sense of a man-made (anthropogenic) perception of machines?

I know that we already had this discussion in another thread, but my question is again: How can we currently know for sure that they are already conscious to a small degree?

I know that we already had this discussion in this thread, but my question is again: How can we currently know for sure that they are already conscious to a small degree?

Rotating and orbiting do not mean the same.

And think of helices, for example.

What do you mean by „»geocentricity«“ in this case of a galaxy?

Being aware or conscious of thoughts or knowledge is already a tautological description, because if you know that there are thoughts or knowledge, then you also know that there is a consciousness.

Our galaxy does not rotate to the same degree in any part of it, and it is oddly that its edges rotates slower than other parts. Therefore the mainstream physicists invented the „dark energy“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Being aware or conscious of thoughts or knowledge is already a tautological description ....« ** **

True, thus would make a poor definition. Get an exacting unambiguous, informative, meaningful definition.

As you know, I define it as:
Consciousness == The property of remote recognition.“ **

Yes, I know.

James S. Saint wrote:

„As I said, it very gradually changes. The outer regions orbit a little slower because it is traveling in a field of affectance that is swirling around and inward toward the black hole center (or possibly spiraling gradually outward from center).“ **

Yes, and the mainstream physicists say it is because of the „dark energy“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The »dark energy« is the affectance throughout, and no doubt, more dense toward the center of the galaxy.

The point is that the major objects and regions do not collide.“ **

Because they are too dense?

910) Arminius, 19.08.2016, 01:05, 01:07, 01:09, 01:48, 02:34, 02:50, 03:07, 03:59, 15:21, 15:49, 16:19, 17:10, 17:21, 17:41, 19:38, 19:45, 23:28, 23:47 (5043-5060)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›The point is that the major objects and regions do not collide.« **

Because they are too dense?« ** **

Because they are moving together at roughly the same speed and direction.“ **

You mean, they have - precisely said - two parallel directions.

The shape of movement could be a spiral.

Onyl Humean wrote:

„Does that not move the discussion to the definition of recognition?“ **

Only Humean wrote:

„Is a television conscious? A radio-controlled car? A heat-seeking missile?“ **

A televison is not conscious, a radio-controlled car is not conscious, a heat-seeking missile is not conscious; but what about certain machines with an artificial intelligence?

First of all there has to be the question: Is there an „infinite void - the vaccuum“ (**)?

I also guess that it is spiraling inward, contracting into the speculated black-hole center. But what if our galaxy itself is also spiraling and finally contracting into the speculated black hole center of another galaxy (the Andromeda galaxy for example)?

If I may answer (**):

Hearing a voice is already a remote recognition because of the relatively remote distance between the perceiving one and the perceived one. If that distance is relatively near(by / close), then it is not a remote recognition. The question is just what „relatively“ means in this case.

All living beings take and give (and it is mostly because of the fact that they have to take in order to give), but there is one living being called the „human being“ that does not only take in order to give but also - and especially (!) - take in order to take more and more and give less and less.

Yes (**), a spiraling nebula, because Andromeda is not big enough to be the center of that large a nebula. Maybe the whole Local Group (thus: including Milky Way and Andromeda) is contracting into (the speculated black hole center of) the Virgo Supercluster.

I guess that the Virgo Supercluster is supposed to be spinning. The Virgo Cluster is supposed to be the central cluster of the Virgo Supercluster, and according to that the black hole as the center of the Virgo Cluster would be the center of the Virgo Supercluster too. Nevertheless, there is a lot of speculation about it.

What do you (**) think about that limits? Where (in which realm) can they be found?

Harbal wrote:

„The next ... person to speak to me will die.

I'm splitting with my wife.
We're selling our house.
She's taken all her stuff away and left me to dispose of nearly 40 years ....“ **

I am very sorry to get to know about your situation. It is a typical modern Occidental situation, a situation that is based on decadence, on the practice of nihilistic ideolgies, jurisdiction, pollitics, ... and so on.

I wish you all the best and good luck. I am pretty sure that you are going to manage it in a good way, your way.

Now you can kill me, gentleman.

Two things are required: (1) something like a sense for perceiving, (2) something like a nerve system for interpreting what is perceived.

And if it reacted in merely one way, thus always in the same way, in the manner of a simple stimulus-response model?

It (**) is about music, precisely said: about mucic history (**). Right?

Jerkey wrote:

„Kill me?“ **

Kill you?

Jerkey wrote:

„I am already dead ....“ **

Are you sure?

Jerkey wrote:

„For that has happened to me as well. As a matter of fact, it has become a continuous situation, therefore, I have been living on painkillers ever since. And it started a long long time ago.

Really? If yes: I am very sorry for you too.

Jerkey wrote:

„Sorry for Your present situation ....“ **

My current situation is a very good one.

Jerkey wrote:

„But it will either resolve, or You will get accustomed to it, and treat it as business as usual.“ **

Is there another way?

Harbal wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»A situation that is based on decadence ....« ** **

I can assure you I'm not feeling decadent at the moment.“ **

Yes, I know. I was talking about the causes.

Harbal wrote:

„Now you can kill me, gentleman.“ **

That's passed now, you're probably safe.

Thank you, gentleman.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Two things are required: (1) something like a sense for perceiving, (2) something like a nerve system for interpreting what is perceived.« ** **

Correct.

„Arminius wrote:

»And if it reacted in merely one way, thus always in the same way, in the manner of a simple stimulus-response model?« ** **

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but how a conscious being responds is a different issue than whether it is conscious of what to respond to. If the being responds in the exact same manner, one wouldn't be able to tell from the outside whether the being was conscious or not. It would not be displaying any consciousness that it might have.“ **

Yes. Then there is no chance of getting a sure enough information about it.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:

„I for one cannot wait for an inferior machine to replace me!“ **

And why?

==>