New Moon Ashes

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:28 pm

pezer wrote:[hr]
This is also known as the philosophyweb thread.

Basically, I'm looking for aphorisms. I will post the ones I find proper enough (wait, what's the opposite of enough?) in achievement and style on the blag. You can post in any language (I'm sure we've gathered enough internet allies by know to get discernible opinions on almost any language that's likely to come up) and edit your aphorisms at any time, here and on philosophyweb. As the website suggests, I might also post anything other than aphorisms. Just keep in mind that aphorisms are the norm.

The logic here is infallible, and it varies from the general nwo.org strategy only in the specificity of its intention: the logic of a forging mill, where all the bruteness of the first encounter with the craft sees a refining, followed by further refining, until the final result is an elegant object of intention with little semblance to its origins. I wonder if the first blacksmiths even knew where the forging would end up?

To start things off, and to show you the format I'm using, here's one of mine:


Coliseum - Public interaction can only happen in coliseum format. There must be rules indicating who can do what, where and how. This way, each person can betray the system in his or her own way and, eventually, surrender to it completely. It's because it establishes reference points which give hierarchical context (hierarchical here in the widest sense, including abstract hierarchies, even hierarchies of hierarchies) to the process.

Spectators as well as participants are clear about the elements that won't change, no matter what, usually with déjà established sub- and even semi-conscious presuppositions regarding the final result to be announced (regardless that it isn't the result that matters).

Timón Echurroneo







RE: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)

Three Varieties of Thinkers - There are streaming, flowing, trickling mineral springs, and three corresponding varieties of thinkers. The layman values them by the volume of the water, the expert by the contents of the water—in other words, by the elements in them that are not water.

Friedrich Nietzsche
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-24-2013, 06:44 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)
Futile - The idea of forever is futile, as it itself does not last forever. It is strange to think how much of all languages of European descent (I don't mention others out of ignorance) is based on this idea of forever.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 03:44 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)
Good Liars - If women had men's capacity for honesty, they would make movies maybe too beautiful to bare.

Pezer
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-01-2013, 03:54 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2013 03:55 AM by pezer.) Post: #5
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)
Love - In order to know yourself, you must accept your enemy's actions as intrinsically part of you. You must hate your enemies with love.

Gaspar




Bill Wiltrack wrote:.








...................................Image











.......................................................Image











.






RE: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)
That last pic was kind of funny.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message




E: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)
An Amendment - I propose we do away with the rest of the prayer, and just keep this modified bit: "Give us today our trespasses, and forgive our daily bread as we forgive others' daily bread against us."
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-21-2013, 08:57 AM (This post was last modified: 03-21-2013 08:58 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #10
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)
lol.


Eternal Vanity.- Man does not believe in death only because he does believe in it.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.




RE: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)
Praise and Worship - So far, we have praised and worshiped the nothing, the imaginary, kept it distant, and acted in the animal world. Let us rather give praise and thanks for the animal things, and tether the imaginary to that instead of vice-versa. Let us fill the nothing! It is right there waiting fur us: the animal will keep us safe and guide us true if we use it as a beacon in times of darkness... A lollipop is good, no matter who you are or where you're from, barring systemic interferences like allergies.

A piece of creamy, fluffy cake...

Oil.

Cumin,

Cuming,

Each of these Gods has their own attribute, treats us good in predictable ways, is powerful beyond our concrete comprehension (ain't all other just good lies?), and require very specific rituals in order to commune with them.

Or, you know we can worship... What was it again? Some destitutes and their crucified nihilist comforter?

I know many here may be tired of me harping on tyhe Iesus thing, but look within yourselves. I mention it for a reason.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 04:11 AM Post: #12
exzc Offline
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: He who says little, says much! (and other crimes against Nietzsche)
My dear Lou and Ree: - Please do not be too much disturbed about the eruptions of my "megalomania" or my "injured vanity." And even if I should, by chance, yielding to some impulse or other, take my life there would not be too much to be sad over. What concern have you with my whimsical ideas! (Even my "truths" have not concerned you till now.) Both of you please get together and ponder on this very carefully that, in the last analysis, I am touched in the head, half ready to be confined to the lunatic asylum, totally confused by my long loneliness.

I have arrived at what I call reasonable insight into how things stand after I took a tremendous dose of opium, out of despair. But instead of losing my mind, I seem to have at least come to my mind. By the way, I was sick for week,s and if I say that for 20 days we had Orta weather here, I need say no more.

Friend Ree, Please ask Lou to forgive me everything: she too is giving me an occasion to forgive her. Up to now I have not forgiven her.

It is more difficult to pardon your friends that it is to pardon your enemies.

There with Lou's defense...




pezer wrote:Interesting... It was the opium that unchained you. The mention of it, I mean, and I suppose I should have guessed it was that easy to catch.

Anyway, to say opium is another of those original sins of the philosopher. Better to mention the specific substances, all chaos is not the same.

A Deleuze quote comes to mind (and I paraphrase): "I would rather die than grant anything to oedipal psychoanalysis!"

[video=youtube][flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/IrZdOZzr4as[/flash][/video]

But you can already see the crimes against Nietzsche I enjoy, my violations of the Manu.


Nuclear "weapons"
Every single undetonated atomic bomb is Nuclear Reactor fodder that hasn't been used yet. Or spaceship launcher, but we might be a bit too far from that one yet.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 06:55 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 06:57 AM by pezer.) Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nuclear "weapons"
I am scouring Google and Google Scholar to no avail. If truly there be physicists/engineers among us, start working on this shit. Ask me for any help you may need outside of the science itself.

I'll keep looking for documentation for now.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 04:43 PM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nuclear "weapons"
Still nothing, but this site is an incredible resource for a muggle understanding of nuclear technology.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_9.htm




Reversal of Sacrifice
With all the Gods dying and scrambling for survival, it is time to officialy announce that it is now the Gods who must sacrifice to us.

Any God that cannot prove his or her power by some sacrifice to us will be considered dead, and die.





pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Submissions from Forum
Ehem... Alright, fuck it, here goes:
I am a Tyrant


I am a tyrant, born and raised as one. Socially and economically elevated, intellectually cultivated and isolated, politically motivated outside of politics.

I am Hitler, and I want it now! My child screams at me to grasp control of all I know. My child berates me for not forcing truth down liars' throats. It has a bunch of swords, and even wants me to hold them all at the same time. My child doesn't want blood, but it does want to see it. It doesn't want to hurt, but it wants to belong to the hurting.

Poor child... Oh, sweet child of mine, how many thousands of years now have you pursued and achieved this path? How many thorough disappointments at the wreckage that strips all your desire of truth? How many unwittingly dehumanized slaves, slobbering over your boots even after failure?

Is this where you gave birth to adult, kiddo? To accept and work with the unacceptable and unworkable, purely out of a prideful sense of responsibility and, yes, not wanting to look fully? Did you tattoo on your face in reverse "I have won, and will win again?"

Anarchy, childe ye Roland. Anti-tyranny, so that you may still enjoy tyranny for a little while longer... Follow Nietzsche, and throw all the rest of your lumber into the anarchist fire. It was impossible before, with no Gods, Masters and only darkness. Now science awaits for you before, during and after the trial. Now have you a beautiful maiden, stronger forever than you in potentia, always interested only and only in helping you, serving you, giving you Tools and Power and Silly Joy.

Pray, child, and then stop praying for good... In the middle of the prayer, if possible!

Keep your swords handy, too, and your forge. Science works great with that kind of thing, and it reminds you to be aware of enemies.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"


Jesus Was Not a Crackhead
Jesus was a man of overly developed sensitivity. Son of a carpenter? Must have been an abusive one.

In those days, one either had the societal privilege of natural endorfin, serotonin, etc. highs or just absolute fucking misery. Until Jesus came along, a strongest of hobos, and decided that yeah, fuck it, we'll be miserable and love it. Eat shit.

For a looong time, that meant going to church, doing magik thinking directed at enduring misery, etc.

Today, Jesus would never have happened.

To understand this, we must ask: is the crack user really a wretch?

It seems to moi that they were wretches before the crack. With it, they begin to experience living again, living beyond misery. They become active nihilists, believing in nothing with fire and lust, often rising above into believing in everything with calm expectation of the fire and lust, accepting the lacks of their existances as "well, that's just fucking life."

Today, I sold the little bit of weed I was able to buy to get crack for one such person. I did it because I wanted to see what a man so wise and beautiful could want to seek in crack. I watched him toke it, feel it, and instantly turn all the brainburst into the most unbelievable star-gazing and surfing of happiness. He brought joyus laughs to people, not just smiles.

Jesus wasn't a crackhead, and that is as good of an over-simplification of Nietzsche's "The Antichrist" Christ as I can come up with.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-13-2013, 06:10 AM Post: #2
Art3mis Offline
Student
Posts: 1
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: Jesus Was Not a Crackhead
I think that over time Jesus was a...man who attempted to give some sense of discipline and decency to a culture that was completely savage.

He gave dignity to women, lepers, severly sick people, so called 'possessed' people and so on which I suppsoe was also a great thing, considereing culture had a totally different ethics and moral code embedded within them.

Though let's fully admit it, if I were Jesus and had to look back , from then till now just to see the changes since when I would have actually tried to knock sense into those hypocrtes...I would be bashing my head against the wall ages ago in despair.

I suppose Jesus was one of those rare people who one could define as 'over-sensitve and too caring' which by the way, eventually led him to his own death.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-13-2013, 09:15 PM (This post was last modified: 05-13-2013 09:16 PM by pezer.) Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jesus Was Not a Crackhead
Indeed, I would argue that Jesus was the savage in a world descending fast. He was a descendnt, not an element of discipline! Do as you want! Just stay poor. This is what matters, god loves misery. Jesus is the prophet of the god of misery.

You are talking about the hight of the Roman empire, to talk about some kind of primitive system...
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-14-2013, 09:06 AM Post: #4
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Jesus Was Not a Crackhead
So I've come across something which explained that Jesus was a son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. After Caesar's death, the King of Kings was somehow given by Cleopatra to Mary and Joseph, who were kind of adoptive parents for the boy. The boy eventually grew up, visiting Egypt, India, etc, picking up what would become his teachings.

It resonated on some level. The sense of entitlement from being the son of the self proclaimed Gods, Caesar and Cleopatra, would have helped a good deal with his confidence in his stance against authority. So the strongest of hobos descended from the strongest of hobos of two rather large nations from their time.

History seems very different in the above vein. Different, but somehow more reasonable and logical... for the glory of Rome, Egypt? I don't know, but the Vatican made its way to Rome. Jesus posthumously conquered one of his ancestors' homelands through the Vatican, along with much of the world.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-14-2013, 08:37 PM Post: #5
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jesus Was Not a Crackhead
I don't buy it. First of all, Peter was the real conqueror. Jesus was just a model. Some suggest that there were many such personalities as Jesus, like you might imagine the future theorizing about end-of-the-world street yellers.

A priest's art is to shift attention to an imaginary something. There is a shift... Once it is done, calling it the son of the Kings of the time just seems logical.

The actual logic is realizing that the person Jesus might even be some fucked up, non-person composite.





[quote='pezer' pid='2919' dateline='1366998465']

Christianity is The Giant Worm
[video=youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

It is sometimes sold as an abyss.



[quote='pezer' pid='3199' dateline='1368952379']
This is home. I grew up on the other side of the walls that hold those barrios in, I went to school next to the towering hill slums of Petare, but like much the rest of the world, it's been a while now that culture and custom flows upward from there.

In any case, what stands out to me from this video (the first two parts really aren't as good) is the fact that crime is the opposite as in most places. Not a regimented balance of militias, but a bumch of crazy, unpredictable kids with guns, sorrounded by the kind of people that will stop a bus and reverse it, in the middle of the street, for an impromptu rap video. The Venezuelan way is "whatever the fuck happens, happens..." We are like a well trained drunk.

In fact, if you notice, the rapper in the video sucks at freestyle. It's because freestyle transmeates imagination and pours directly into material action.

Btw, I'm moving the fuck back there soon. Any help of any kind, namely ideas, will help my anarchist schemes. I mean, the anarchy is already half there. A policeman is just another businessman there, even the police force doesn't act like a gang... Our gangs are political parties, like in Bob Marley's Jamaica. Mostly the chavista one, btw, or only.

[video=youtube][/video]
[/quote]



[quote='pezer' pid='3200' dateline='1368953826']
In contrast, this is the Caracas I grew up with and know from the inside.

[video=youtube]U[/video]
[/quote]




The anarchist challenge in Caracas is: how do you introduce new kinds of alliance between the two worlds?






___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower


Posts : 1237
Join date : 2011-11-09


PostSubject: Re: Natural World Ashes Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Two Forms of Action
For humans, there are two forms of action, or two levels of freedom. If we understand freedom as not being held or manipulated by another human against your desires, as deciding upon the direction of one's own actions, then freedom can be:

The intuitive freedom, which includes the freedom from the self and soul, to do as one can figure one's self to do at any moment without input. This freedom is the physical freedom of bodily control in contrast to bodily surrender. This freedom is predictable, it does not go beyond the confines of what evolutionary pressures there be. In this way, one can do crime, do whatever, but one cannot escape sheepleness, it is within the Matrix through the Blue Pill. This I call freedom through approach.

The other is the distance freedom, which ChainOfBeing has elaborated on to all of our enlightenments. In short, it is the nihilist freedom, the freedom to say "no," to avoid the immediate relaities that allow one to be intuitively free. This freedom determines evolutionary pressures itself, it participates on higher levels of life processes and cycles, so to speak. All recognizable things become clearer and smaller, one is free from the very possibility of enslavement as long as one can suceed in one's "no's", one's freedom is not proactive action but retroactive recognition.

What you see is what you don't have, and what you have you don't see. If I see future only and no past, I must be avoiding the future and living in the past. If I see the past only and no future, I must be some kind of pioneer. I can also seem to be focusing on the future when teasing out the past, and the past also can be teased out by the future in this way. If all I can see and think about is my drug of choice, I must not have whatever I seek in it (in many cases, the actual physichal thing). When one is stoned, drugs are the last thing on one's mind.



Any clues? I remember in high school it was mostly about trying to make people just feel bad. Mostly among themselves!

In this sense, they really don't have much power...
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 01:41 AM Post: #2
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
...What?
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 01:48 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Well, it sucks to feel bad, yeah.

But it's very easy to overcome, especially from a girl you never met. Whereas a guy can do equal and lasting damage to strangers and close friends. Their vindictiveness is direct and continuous until the opponent breaks or he.

Psychology tricks... They only work on philosophers for limited amounts of time (though I would guess that they probably work on more occasions in general than normal).

I guess I should have elaborated more, though. My investigation here is this one: war is inevitable. Womyn inevitably have to participate.

How do womyn enjoy war? What is the romanticism in your bloodlust?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 01:52 AM Post: #4
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
I have to say, I think women are much more inclined to be vindictive than men are. In my experience, a man is more likely to punch a stranger in the face and buy him a drink ten minutes later, whereas a woman will just mess with your head and destroy your fucking life.

Romanticism in our bloodlust...

Pardon me for being such a girl, but I don't think there's anything romantic about bloodlust.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:01 AM Post: #5
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
It's like I thought then... Women have no real understanding for battle.

It makes me sad that you are so often dragged into it.

I say it because vindictiveness itself does not battle make. A man may buy you a beer after the punch, but he was relentless between moment of enmity and moment of victory or defeat.

For a woman, it's not about doing anything, exactly, I don't think. It's about carrying an active (in the physical sense) hate that only grows as it attacks, like a Buddhist tricked into getting angry.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:07 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 02:07 AM by Blurry.) Post: #6
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Women have no real understanding for battle because I don't see anything romantic about bloodlust?

Or am I missing something?

I can see romantic ideals behind war - the reasons for it. But the act of killing that soldiers engage in, in and of itself? Not "romantic bloodlust". Just bloody.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:09 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 02:10 AM by Blurry.) Post: #7
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
And don't be fooled into thinking that a woman will shy away from physically attacking you just because it's not her first choice of conflict resolution.

I've certainly punched a motherfucker in the face before. I've twisted a ballsack or two in my time, as well.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:24 AM Post: #8
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
I have been punched, kicked and slapped enough by girls myself growing up. I don't doubt that you will battle, you are still noble humans.

But the fact that you don't understand that battle is about much more than killing, that romanticism is felt and not theorized (or theorized in the moment, so to speak), speaks to your will for it to simply end A.S.A.P..
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:31 AM Post: #9
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Of course battle is about more than killing. It's about fulfilling the goals of whatever fucktard in charge made the decision to go to war in the first place. Human lives being thrown away at the whim of a jackass who just wants money and power, what's romantic about that? It's a waste.

I'm not saying there's never a noble, romantic reason for battle, but I'm afraid it's harder for women to see it that way when, for centuries, we've sent our men off to war and waited for the return that never came. It's poetic to think about, sure. Certainly some beautiful songs have been written about waiting for the soldier who never comes home, but when all you have to face is the rest of your life without that person, it sure doesn't seem very romantic.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:33 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 02:35 AM by Blurry.) Post: #10
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Historically, men and women experience war in very different ways. Women sit at home and wait, or they go into nursing and deal with the blood and missing limbs and gore and men dying all around them, all the time. Women and children are victims of rape and outright murder by invading forces, and even by their own soldiers. I mean, it's just a completely different perspective when you're not the one marching off to war, but the one left behind.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"




RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
That's actually a fantastic bit of insight. It never ocurred to me that womyn might have a harder time at war than men when thy're not allowed to participate (and when they are, as well, it seems).

Maybe some guys have realized this already, though. I would guess that if any of them had the inclination to swallow glue and stuff, they might also want to check out what it means to be stuck at home, with all sorts of anxieties, depending on others for food and sustenance when you feel superior to most people getting it.

I'm sure there are more womyn alcoholics than we imagine.

Now, about the romance, two things. First, I guess I was thinking more Samurai romance, the love of the sword and the moment of fighting itself. Second, I can't really imagine enjoying hurting anybody with anything other than my own body. Romantic love is decieved love always. But it's a healthy kind of deciet when the world around it is boring. It ain't coincidence that they made such a splash in the XVIII and XIX centuries.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 03:56 AM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
What is Evil in man is what is strong in him, but that's only after we had to distill aggressiveness from Jehovain't.

In any case, strength is not a point in itself. Men become obssessed with it sometimes, like Maslow describes when you are forced to fight way too hard for something and then become kind of dependent on fighting life like that.

Other times, philosophers steal all of those elements and rework them to their will. Of course, will is far from limitless.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:33 AM Post: #13
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
It was brought up on ILP one time that women have no sense of honor, basically because of their lack of 'battle' experience. I don't know if I agree, but I do think about it from time to time.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 07:00 AM Post: #14
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
So battle is the only thing that can bring honor to a person? I don't know about that...

What is "honor", do you think?
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 07:06 AM Post: #15
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
An old term for handling all things without shying away.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 07:51 AM Post: #16
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
In that case, I'd say women have and have always had more honor than men. If you compare the two, the woman has the more noble job, and does it with more honor - rather than take life, she gives it, and then she nurtures it.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 09:05 AM Post: #17
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
I agree with all that. I love women.

It was in the sense of women not really having that sense of military loyalty. Which is to say women are usually loyal to their men or themselves, and then maybe other women. Whereas men have the military, gangs, and in general the bros before hoes approach.

I think the point, if there even is one, has to do with basic environmental and sociological trends. Not so much any innate thing.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 09:30 AM by Blurry.) Post: #18
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Well I think you're correct, it's a rare woman who has a sense of military loyalty. I think part of this is because we have other things to worry about - the whole being a vessel for new life thing - and also because women in the military, though not completely nonexistent throughout history, is a fairly recent thing, and even now here in the States there's still debate over whether or not to allow women into active fighting. The way that women (in general) have developed throughout the history of the human race has, sadly, been influenced far too much by men. The fact of the matter is, we are physically weaker in the vast majority of cases, and that has allowed men to control us for centuries. You see it happen every day, men use physical intimidation to prevent women from seeking education, health care, they use to tell women what to wear, how and when to speak, where they can go and when, the list goes on and on. Men use and have used physical intimidation to control every aspect of women's lives right down to whether they have a right to their life or not.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 09:34 AM Post: #19
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
For argument's sake, forget I said military loyalty. Lets disregard it completely from the discussion, actually. Just looking at sports, and generally overall, do you agree that overall men are loyal to each other than women are to each other?

It is tempting to say yes, but women can be shown to be more loyal in some ways. For instance, women tend to band together if they see another women being abused. Men are a bit more likely to be indifferent. Or in the context of looking good - buying clothes, makeup, etc - women have this sort of 'we're all in it together' type of attitude when it comes to attracting men.

I wonder if loyalty/honor actually exists.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 09:57 AM Post: #20
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
I don't know if men are more loyal. I think the relationships between men and the relationships between women are vastly different, almost too much so to be comparable. Women tend to have complex relationships with one another, and there are varying levels of friendship. Of course this is probably also true for men, but I think it's radically more so for women, from what I've observed of people. Our loyalty is doled out more selectively, though the basis of selection isn't always rational, I'll admit.



RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Talking sports, though, women are absolutely loyal to their teams. LoL women are highly competitive creatures, so when success depends on banding together with a team to beat another team, we'll do that.

Also, and this has nothing to do with the conversation, I wish every man could experience one high school girl's gym class on floor hockey day. Men think they have the violent sport market cornered? HA! Teenage girls with hockey sticks and a gym floor make professional hockey players look like walking vagina's.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 10:07 AM Post: #22
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Quote:
I don't know if men are more loyal.

I don't think anyone is claiming to know. We're just talking about what ifs.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:32 pm

I think the relationships between men and the relationships between women are vastly different, almost too much so to be comparable.

How so?

Quote:
Women tend to have complex relationships with one another, and there are varying levels of friendship.

I find it interesting that women describe their behavior as complex. Men label it as contradictory. Regardless, we really going to say that women have more complex relationships? That sounds like feminist nonsense to me. How are we even defining complexity?

Quote:
Of course this is probably also true for men, but I think it's radically more so for women, from what I've observed of people.

That was just a big loop around back to you thinking women have more complex relationships than men.

Quote:
Our loyalty is doled out more selectively, though the basis of selection isn't always rational, I'll admit.

If I dole out cookies selectively, the end result is that people are getting less cookies. Anyway, are you saying that when women are loyal, it's stronger than the sort of blanket approach men have?
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 10:18 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 10:20 AM by Blurry.) Post: #23
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Contradictory behavior is human behavior. We all contradict ourselves, and if you say you don't you're either lying or you don't know yourself very well at all. The reason I say that women have more "complex" relationships is because women tend to over-think. This pretty much complicates every single decision we make, every relationship we have, everything about our lives. This would also be why women are more prone to contradictory behavior - we are far more likely to approach people and things in general on a situation-to-situation basis, over-analyzing the details, letting our emotions and prior experiences color our perception, and making decisions in the moment with little thought of our actual decision-making process in previous similar situations, rather than having a preconceived approach, or taking the "logical" path. Men are just more straightforward than women are, I believe.

In no way did I imply that a woman's loyalty is stronger than a man's, by the way.

(I edited this)
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 01:06 PM Post: #24
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
I guess the question is: does over thinking equate to complexity?

One of the criticisms I would wage against myself is generally that I am over thinking, but not really being that complex.

This raises an interesting point. I mean I feel like we have been content to say what you are saying, myself included. But as I get older and society continues to evolve in terms of gender, I find myself less satisfied.

Looking to the occult we find a certain sense if sexual positioning. This needs to be made more palpable to the masses. But then there is the sense in which that is the most ultimate guarded secret of all.

This is actually a crazy subject. I always forget how this goes until I remember that, for me at least, this thinking comes and goes.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:25 PM Post: #25
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Well complexity is really about how many parts make up the whole and how they interact with one another, yes? The more parts, the more complex. Over thinking is complexity.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:47 PM Post: #26
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
Over thinking.... over-....

Cloaked figuers in the darkness:

There to witness the flame of jezebel.

I like the womanly night. I think night is power of woman, and it is good we have begun to worship like that. The spaces between stars... They are just more and more stars! Stars as far as the imadjinery eye can see. We men can point them out, they can see without looking there.

Worship the end of worship, the night and the sky and the stars that are... so far. So very, very real.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:56 PM Post: #27
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: How do Womyn fight Men?
I am criptic because I am stoned that the builder refused.

Will always be, a heckuva stoned.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"




Bill Wiltrack wrote:.






.......................................................
Image







.




When advice is given, a person's thought process is brought to an end, and the end is lent to the advicee. Many times, the thought is "if I am to take this advice with honesty, I must publicly wear the (end) thought as my own." This is admirable, and as such false (as it is based on unscientific emotion). Indeed, as soon as you wear the end-thought as your own, other people might just take it as your own! And then suddenly you begin to realize that they will also begin to ascribe the preceding and necessary thought process to you as well. Horrified, rejecting it, you instantaneously make a fool of both yourself and the person who took you at your (honestly felt) word.

Advice... If you will not ascribe it to the advisor, at least don't wear it as an originator. Knowledge is historical.





Bill Willtrack, do you believe in souls?
Now we are in an appropriate thread. Tell us about what it is that is enslaved to addictions, if you were not indeed insinuating souls. You are an almost clever fuck, is that of your soul or of your addiction?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-28-2013, 11:12 AM Post: #2
Bill Wiltrack Offline
Probationer
Posts: 86
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Bill Willtrack, do you believe in souls?
.





................................................[Image: SlJ1NAn.gif]





.........................................................What do you mean when you use the word soul?






.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-28-2013, 01:01 PM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bill Willtrack, do you believe in souls?
(05-27-2013 07:48 AM)pezer Wrote:
Tell us about what it is that is enslaved to addictions
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"




Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Our body.

Our mind.

Our emotions.



Have you ever seen an obese person?


Have you ever seen an insane person?


Have you ever seen an alcoholic or drug addict?



We are all shadows. Living in the world of accident.





I've written thousands of posts upon many forums upon the internet. All relating to philosophy and the mystery of life. I've never used the word soul...so that is why I ask you. What do you mean by the word soul? That is why I am not sure what you want me to refer to.



You appear so anxious to attack whatever response I may have that you do not have time to even properly frame your question to me. The one you want to attack me on.


What if you just attack?



Upon anything...or everything?


Somehow I ruffled your feathers to the point that you had to create a thread addressed directly at me upon a subject that I have never approached and you have yet to define.



So let's be gone with the phoney subject and just have at it.



What did I say that has hurt you? Offended you?

Ultimately caused you to fear me?




Obviously it has nothing to do with the term you have shown no interest in defining.



Have at me.






.....................................................
Image



......................................................Come...come here to me.






.





pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bill Willtrack, do you believe in souls?
Fine.

It hurts me that you are a Christian, and are preaching in my forum; that you seek to retard human. It offends me that you will not recognize that you have been recognized. I fear that your preaching still holds sway among my brothers.

Defend your God, or begone. Defend the Soul given by your God, or accept your own cowardice.




Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



..................................................
Image

..................................................I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor







I post what I post. If that is preaching...then we are ALL preachers.


You seem extremely surrounded with fear.





I HAVE NO IDEA what you are asking me within this thread.

YOU used the word soul - not me. Define what you mean
or be gone.




We are all shadows. Living in the world of accident.





I've written thousands of posts upon many forums upon the internet. All relating to philosophy and the mystery of life. I've never used the word soul...so that is why I ask you. What do you mean by the word soul? That is why I am not sure what you want me to refer to.



You appear so anxious to attack whatever response I may have that you do not have time to even properly frame your question to me. The one you want to attack me on.


What if you just attack?



Upon anything...or everything?


Somehow I ruffled your feathers to the point that you had to create a thread addressed directly at me upon a subject that I have never approached and you have yet to define.



So let's be gone with the phoney subject and just have at it.



What did I say that has hurt you? Offended you?

Ultimately caused you to fear me?




Obviously it has nothing to do with the term you have shown no interest in defining.



Have at me.



RE: Bill Willtrack, do you believe in souls?
You are a coward.

At least now my brothers can see that, too.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-29-2013, 10:56 AM Unread post Post: #8
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bill Willtrack, do you believe in souls?
In case there was doubt in anybody's mind of my acute perception.

http://naturalworldorder.org/forum/showt...hp?tid=633




pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
In Defence of Socrates
Let us remember for a moment who Socrates was within the scope of philosophical tradition and practice. An intense questioner of the personally political. Revolutionary, because he did it with young people and for free.

What do we see in his discourses? A predetermined discourse? Controlled rhetoric? Perhaps to an extent. But Socrates was powerful enough to show where his real strength lay, even through his Saint Peter's words. It lay not in the conclusions, the morals of the story. Socrates was first and fore-most a question-master. He was a civilized inheritor of the properly Greek tradition of philosophy.

As I hinted, all the fascist propaganda was rather the work of his most voracious student, to who the death of Socrates was both the highest treason and greatest gift afterwards, as a kind of healing device. Plato was a true proto-fascist. Lost once again to his aristocratic bore of a reality, he decided to roll with some of the more over-reaching of the conclusions he witnessed and built on. There is a high element of honesty in Plato's manipulation. As an Aristocrat, he was Noble.

It is time we rescue Socrates back for ourselves, and remember how, even with the simple act of having some saucers of wine, his drive was to curiously question.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-30-2013, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 03:38 PM by ChainOfBeing.) Unread post Post: #2
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: In Defence of Socrates
“For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul.”
(The Apology of Socrates).




pezer wrote:Come one, come all! In honor of the Myth Busters, whose ballsy Hollywoodism took science to new frontiers!

Only posts with open source links to science will remain in this thread.
Smarter Every Day, indeed.





pezer wrote:By open source link, I mean a link to piece of science wherein the entire scientific rationale for the result offered is exposed as understood.

Like this.




pezer wrote:Stuck in the middle of nowhere?

Need to supply Internet to an entire community?

Look no further.





pezer wrote:Remember the Mythbusters? This is its child.





pezer wrote:Must language, too,be overcome?




pezer wrote:Are you the kind of person that likes to learn from practical examples?

This site provides an absolute beginner's guide to electrical circuitry through the technology of stun guns.





pezer wrote:Learn to code.




RE: Lern yer science!
learntoprogrammotherfucker is a good one too.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?


pezer wrote:This, too, is science.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:41 pm

RE: Look in the Mirror


RE: Look in the Mirror
Yes. Capitalism at its best.

Humans as diseased slaves beholden to their "benefactors" for the many "cures" to what ails them.

Capitalism has eviscerated the soul, carved it up and chucked the pulp into the waste basket. A few of us remain, surviving off the sustenance of the past. But the shoe has already dropped.

Now we see if the inherent force of the past is strong enough to produce counter-alternative pressure sufficient to move the system into a more circuitous position, into an orbit around the black hole. Such an orbit may, just may be capable of sustaining something profound, beautiful, and living. But that remains to be seen.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-27-2013, 07:34 AM (This post was last modified: 05-27-2013 07:35 AM by JSS.) Post: #3
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Look in the Mirror
Don't confuse Capitalism with Industrialism.
Capitalism is the right to pursue gains, but never presumed to be without governing limits placed on it.

There hasn't been any actual, real capitalism on any large scale since WW1. What you see today is governing bodies using capitalism as a mask and scape goat for their God wannabe manipulations and profiteering.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-27-2013, 07:43 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Look in the Mirror
No man. Capitalism is the process described in Das Kapital.

Namely: the production of shit through the process of the accumulation of the means of production in the hands of a few people.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-30-2013, 10:45 AM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 10:46 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #5
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Look in the Mirror
Yes. This mindset that wants to see capitalism without its natural detrimental effects, that wants to blame these consequences on a "corruption" of "real capitalism" by forces not fundamentally tied into capitalism itself, is a very dangerous ignorance.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 08:50 AM (This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 08:50 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Look in the Mirror
It is all too easy to hang it all up on that one name, capitalism, which only indicates the frame work of the timetable.
What of the people, the actual minds, who come up with the specific strategies which are now being employed?

Capitalism is a question of securing resources. Government might be a question of allocating resources.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 08:52 AM (This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 08:53 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #7
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Look in the Mirror
'supply and demand' is the causal context. 'profiteering and plundering' is not exclusive to capitalism. What, more difficult, questions can we ask?

Have we exhaustively defined the nature of 'value' within capitalism?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 09:52 AM by pezer.) Post: #8
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Look in the Mirror
Capitalism is a framework. Supply and demand are two things, and they can both exist without capitalism. Capital. Capital city. Capital importance. I lack the capital for that project. Where can we get capital? We need more capital. If we have enough capital, we won't have enough for tomorrow. Enough capital is not enough capital. There is not enough capital in the world for everybody. For many bodies. Every body that has capital has my capital.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 10:15 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #9
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Look in the Mirror
Capitalism is a philosophical concept that means to group a loose set of values and idea(l)s together under one flag. People define the term differently because a person's values/etc will be different from one another, also they have been raised/conditioned to think in some ways and to not think in some other ways. This is the problem with abstract categorical terms like capitalism/socialism.

So we move to the core- yes, supply and demand, product and producer, money and exchange, profit and loss, distribution and consumption, personal and collective property. Etc. Basically what economics needs to do is create an exhaustive list of concrete specific terms referring to actual entities and relations having to do with "economics" (this will include a lot more than just rote economics, for instance it will brush heavily into politics, philosophy, psychology and technology) and then subject this plane of meaning to a broader values-interpretation, to both derive the underlying implicit spectrums of values from within the plane as well as to set a higher moral-rational standard above it.

But it's not that easy. People would rather think within easy abstractions, simple categories and emotional responses. Even scientists, economists, politicians, industrialists, educators, they would almost always rather play on the surface than swim in the deeper waters.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 12:22 PM Post: #10
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Look in the Mirror
Fuck no.
Capitalism is not an abstract, un-attainable term.

Capital means something. Capital.

Capitalism means of capital.

Think about that.



RE: Look in the Mirror
(05-31-2013 12:22 PM)pezer Wrote:
Fuck no.
Capitalism is not an abstract, un-attainable term.

Capital means something. Capital.

Capitalism means of capital.

Think about that.

Know that my perspective here is highly informed by tectonics. I am not degrading or putting down anything "abstract" as un-attainable or anything like that. My point is in how people think about these things, what is going on at the psychological level and all that informs it, and all that flows directly from it.

Yes, capitalism means something, absolutely. Ideas mean something, they are very fucking real. But I want to avoid getting bogged down in categorical terms which tend to avoid any sort of realizable common ground, when it comes to different people holding their own definitions of the concepts.

Capitalism is real because it points to something real. I want to focus on this "something" toward which the term points, rather than the term itself.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 02:11 PM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Look in the Mirror
It points to capital. Capitalism as a political tendency is like Rat Jew Fuck as a political tendency. It isn't, it is just accepted propaganda.

Capitalism is the use of capital. Capital is historical. People can be wrong about how they use words. It matters because you can then have geniouses like Fixed Cross falling into the trap of equating supply and demand economics with capitalism.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-05-2013, 11:04 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 11:12 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Look in the Mirror
I do not equate Capitalism with supply and demand economy, but I choose to view it in that causal framework. I think that Capital is dependent on supply and demand, and supply and demand is not dependent on Capital.

Exploitation of (human) resources is of course historically very intimately related to supply and demand, and when the bridge is crossed from mere clever trade to forceful exploitation (and this is not a point but a bridge, a grey area) then we arrive at Capitalism as the disease that we know it to be now - where all sound powers of state (which to be would be human-individual based legislation) succumb to the 'rights' of corporations, which are purely the result of bribery and coercion, the antithesis of 'lawfulness' in the rational sense.

Since bribery and coercion far precede capitalism, so we can not blame the state of affairs in trade entirely on Capital. Disproportionate Capital is the problem, we should aim not for anarchy but for proportionalism.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-06-2013, 07:33 AM Post: #14
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Look in the Mirror
"Sustenance of the past." I like that one.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-06-2013, 10:32 AM Post: #15
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Look in the Mirror
Capital could work, perhaps, if respected in the Adam Smith sense of absolute non-legislation of economy. A. Smith was an anarchist, really. Capital adventurers need to be able to run the risk of getting whacked for overstepping.

You know what I heard on my taxi ride today? My driver had been a construction overseer, whatever you call those, and had quit because the government communist shenanigans were not allowing materials to flow, and there was not enough work.

More interestingly, he told me that he no longer could boss his employees around. He had to ask them "please" before doing anything.

How can this be? How can such respect for the worker come about?

They are all strapped. All of them.

http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t3 ... orld-ashes




[strike][/strike]
BigTom"
I'm going to put together a thread on some of the spy material I've most enjoyed in my various probings into this. In trying to spot the spooks running around today I've drawn on a lot of real life sources about agents throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, whenever an intelligence agent ends up in court as part of some limited hangout co-operation deal it leaves a trace, there's always a couple of comments that hint at bigger goings-on.

One such example is Mohammed Junaid Babar, a guy who ran a training camp in Pakistan in 2003-4. He provided explosives and weapons training, helped the recruits film jihadi videos, that sort of thing. Pretty much everyone who passed through the camp later ended up in court on terrorism charges, usually with Babar as the key prosecution witness. According to the official story this is because in March 2004 he returned to the US and a month later was approached by the FBI whereupon he instantly became the world's most co-operative terrorist. I say that 'pretty much everyone' he trained ended up in court with him testifying against them - there is a notable exception. Mohammed Sidique Khan, the alleged ringleader of the 7/7 bombers also attended Babar's camp in mid-2003. Though all of the others in that group were rounded up just as Babar was being 'turned' by the FBI, Khan and his friends weren't touched. A little over a year later they were dead, blamed for the worst terrorist attack in London's history.

So the natural suspicion I'd except any rational person to have is that this guy Babar wasn't just some international terrorist trainer who became a supergrass, but was in fact an agent provocateur/sting operator. His job was to provide the means for people to do things that could later be used to make them look like terrorists, either in court or the popular media, or both. There is some evidence for this. When a criminal is sentenced in the US the court receives a letter from the US government detailing their co-operation and recommendations for leniency where appropriate. Babar could have got between 30 and 70 years for his crimes. He actually served little over 4, then 2 more on supervised release before being set completely free. The 5K1 letter from the government requesting leniency set out Babar's extraordinary co-operation.
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/ ... TE=ABCNEWS

It also notes that Babar first came to the attention of the US authorities in the year 2000, even before 9/11, when he joined Al Mujahiroun in New York. Al Muhajiroun is riddled with spies so it's highly likely Babar was at least under some surveillance at this time. Then 9/11 happens. Babar's mother worked as a cleaner at the WTC and was there at the time but managed to escape. Babar then almost immediately sets out for Pakistan. When he gets there he links up with Al Muhajiroun again, and works for a year for the Pakistan government's Software Export Board. He then sets up his training camp, flies in and out of Britain liaising with various people who would later wind in court on terrorism charges (most prosecuted, some not). The Foreign Office refuse to release any records they have on Babar from this period on privacy grounds.

When Babar first got to Pakistan in late 2001 he gave interviews to international TV news saying 'I will kill every American that I see in Afghanistan, and every American I see in Pakistan.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011 ... rass-video

Even if he wasn't already on the intelligence services radar by that point, which he almost certainly was, his rather overt statements (strange for a bona fide radical, but about right for a provocateur) should have rung some alarm bells. In short, everything about this story says that he was working with the intelligence services while he was in Pakistan, and didn't just turn co-operator in April 2004. Even the mainstream media coverage of this story hinted at it, both the BBC and the Times drew attention to the obvious conclusion.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIC_QZJYGYw[/youtube]


This is a BBC documentary from 2007 that aired on the evening of the conviction of 5 men in Britain for the so called 'Fertiliser Bomb Plot'. Babar was the main witness against them, and they had also been subject to months of surveillance by the British security services. This surveillance had repeatedly led MI5 onto Mohammed Sidique Khan, who would later be blamed for 7/7, yet mysteriously MI5 repeatedly failed to follow up on leads, or collate information, or liaise with the Americans properly over the product of the co-operating Babar.

I've been working on the Babar case for years, and both of my 7/7 films (2010 and 2011) showed that his story is that of a likely intelligence agent. When he was finally sentenced in late 2010 even the relatives of 7/7 victims spoke of how it pointed to complicity with the US security services in what was going on in Pakistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/1 ... -questions

Finally, in 2012 the BBC aired a documentary called 'Modern Spies' that for the first time featured interviews with currently serving security services officers. All part of the slow, incremental lifting of the veils of secrecy. In the documentary the BBC essentially admitted that Babar had been a spy all along, labelling him 'a human source that intelligence services dream of’, and showing an interview with a senior FBI terrorism dude calling Babar ‘an individual who had both the access and the capability to get into groups that simply would not have existed without him’.

[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/0zAHW1MVTP4[/flash]

There are two other significant figures with similar profiles to Babar but I'll save that for another post. But what this shows is that is possible, through a bit of pro-active research, to spot the spooks not just in the past but in the present day, or at least in the very recent past. In my next post I'll outline some of the more flagrant use of FBI undercover agents/informers/provocateurs within the US, that provide useful background for understanding the Babar story.


[quote="Gobbo wrote:
That was an awesome post. This is SIATD's new song.

[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/XG-VChTYfOk[/flash]




Dannerz Offline
Student
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: A guide to spies
Taking out a country's government actually increases the amount of terrorism coming out of the occupied country. The US did things in afganistan and iraq which increased terrorism moreso than fighting it.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-17-2012, 02:02 AM Post: #4
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: A guide to spies
(12-16-2012 06:09 AM)Gobbo Wrote:
That was an awesome post. This is SIATD's new song.




Thanks, love the song and glad you enjoyed the post.

(12-16-2012 01:02 PM)Dannerz Wrote:
Taking out a country's government actually increases the amount of terrorism coming out of the occupied country. The US did things in afganistan and iraq which increased terrorism moreso than fighting it.

Naturally. One thing that interests me is that when the Soviet Union collapsed there was an upsurge in terrorist violence in the early 1990s. Some of this is the blowback and ricochets and continuations from Operation Cyclone and the Iran-Contra affair, the two largest covert operations in recent history. But some of it also suggests that the Soviet system actually suppressed (through terrible means, but successfully) quite a lot of violence.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-17-2012, 02:59 AM Post: #5
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: A guide to spies
As I keep saying, the British are very sneaky when it comes to the spying game. Babar, an apparent US intelligence asset for years before he 'turned' co-operator, ended up in court, being discussed in depth by the news media, at least in the US and UK.

Babar's story is similar to that of David Headley, the Mumbai mastermind who was most likely working for the CIA. He also ended up being a prosecution witness against his lifelong friend Tahawwur Rana. Both were due to be sentenced in December but that's been pushed back to next month. Rana was convicted, almost entirely on Headley's testimony and email records between the two, of providing support to Lashkar-e-Taiba and of conspiring with Headley to attack the Danish newspaper at the centre of the Mohammed cartoons controversy. The likelihood is that he'll get a lot more years than Headley will get.

More on that when it happens, today I want to tell you about a very sneaky bit of British spying back in the late 19th century. Like today, mass immigration was a bone of serious contention in Western Europe, in particular Jews fleeing the horrors of Russia at the time. London and Paris became centres for anarchist and related working-class movements made up of immigrants, radicals and those angry at the industrial capitalist exploitation.

In Britain they still hadn't founded MI5 so the spooks of the day were mostly to be found in the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch. They were largely run by William Melville, the man who would go on to found MI5 and the origin of the 'M' designation as the head of that agency. Note: 'M' is the head of MI5, not MI6 as portrayed in the Bond movies. The head of MI5 is codenamed 'C', as recorded in one of the Downing Street memos referring to Bilderberger Sir Richard Dearlove.

Melville needed a big success to consolidate political opinion against the anarchists and their brethren. What he and others within Special Branch came up with was the Walsall anarchists - a group of men accused, and mostly convicted of planning a bombing campaign. The evidence against them included bomb casings that had actually been mocked up by the police. Other evidence were letters between some of the men and another guy called Auguste Coulon. Coulon was never arrested, nor did he testify at the trial and when Melville refused to answer questions about Coulon the judge backed him up.

After the convictions in 1892 an anarchist writer and editor of the Commonweal newspaper David Nicholl wrote articles and pamphlets accusing Coulon of being a police spy, and saying that the Walsall anarchists had been set up. Also in the 1890s a sergeant under Melville named Patrick McIntyre fell out with his superiors and was forced out, so he published his memoirs in a newspaper. They were serialised over several weeks in 1895, and I have a full copy of them. They are the earliest whistleblowing book on the British security services that I know of, and are utterly fascinating.

McIntyre outlined how the anarchist movement was riddled with informers, in particular the Autonomie club in London, the hub for radicals. He explained that 'Most prominent amongst the crowd was the mouchard or agent-provocateur. Had you been able to take away from the club those gentlemen who were thriving on the foolishness of other people, you would have reduced the number of habitués by a third.'

He explicitly accused Melville of conspiring through Coulon to provoke and set up the Walsall Anarchists. This was all but confirmed in the newspaper the following week when they published a letter from Coulon in response to McIntyre's article about him. Coulon admitted to working for the police, but denied any wrongdoing.

Around a century later several British researchers were trying to get more information on this, and make FOIA requests for the Special Branch ledgers from the period, detailing payments made to informers. These requests were denied using every excuse in the book - they'd lost the files, they'd been destroyed in the war or in a flood or when departments moved around. This went on for some time until in 2002 a Special Ops detective at Scotland Yard named Lindsay Clutterbuck completed his PhD thesis. He studied counter-terrorism methodology from 1829 to 1901 and among the sources cited were the Special Branch ledgers that supposedly didn't exist anymore.
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=6...hos.247489

Clutterbuck is now working for the RAND corporation:
http://www.rand.org/about/people/c/clutt...ndsay.html

Armed with this evidence an author named Alex Butterworth appealed against the rejections of his FOIA requests and obtained copies of the ledgers, using them for his book The World that Never Was. That isn't available online, but Clutterbuck's thesis can be downloaded for free via the ETHOS link above. It includes a case study of Coulon that says:
Quote:
Case Study Two - Auguste Coulon aka "Pyatt"
Many of the entries concerning the payment of money to an informant use a pseudonym to identify that informant. This time honoured method of preserving their identity can be seen where the two names are given together, usually (but not exclusively) when the initial payment was recorded.

An entry on July 18th, 1890 introduces for the first time a new informant, using the words "Speciagl ratuityt o Coulon- £2". There is no further indication of the reason for this. The next entry relating to Coulon is on September 6th of that year when he was paid £1. Evidently his services were appreciated to the extent that his position needed to be regularised and on December 27th, the entry reads "Coulon first regular payment £1". In recognition of his new responsibilities, the entry for January 9th, 1891 reads "Pyatt(name given Coulon)- £1" and from
then on he is referred to as "Pyatt" in all subsequent entries (1).

Coulon now began to receive regular payments of £1 a week until April 10th. He was then paid the additional sum of eleven shillings and eleven pence halfpenny "for quarterly bill". This payment of regular bills and expenses is seen in other cases but by no means all of them,
even amongst the medium and long term informants. From January 1891 to January 1892 Coulon was paid a total of £49 in regular wages, a £2 bonus and expenses of £1-3-11. However, the Special Branch investment in Coulon was now about to produce an impressive
result.

The month of January 1892 shows four entries in the ledger: -

January 15th Pyatt £1

January 16th Extra added for Pyatt in connection
with the Walsall bomb case £4

January 22nd Pyatt £1

January 29th Pyatt £1

Whilst January was a lucrative month for Coulon in the short term, the trial mentioned above gave Coulon even greater rewards in the longer term. The months of February, March and April saw his weekly payment raised to £2-10/-. This dropped back to £2 a week from May 6th, 1892 and it remained at this level until October 20th, 1893 when it was reduced to £1 a week. With the exception of two weeks in April 1894 when he was awarded 10/- a week extra, he continued to be paid £1 a week until March 30th, 1904. On that date the entry states "Gratuity to Pyatt by direction of Commissioner. Services dispensed with - £10".
Coulon worked for MPSB for thirteen years three months. In that time he had been a directed, inside, single event informant and probably, a semi-inside continuous event informant. He received a total of £801 in "wages" and a further relatively small amount in expenses. Whilst the bones of Coulon's activities have, until now, remained unseen, the flesh,
in the form of information already in the public domain, has been widely speculated upon.

This is typically British - even though a newspaper published a credible whistleblower account in 1895 it was over a century before this information was formally admitted. David Nicholl, the editor and writer who had accused Coulon way back in 1892, was totally vindicated in his allegations. At the time he was arrested and convicted and sentenced to 18 months hard labour. His replacement at the Commonweal was a guy called HB Samuels, who was another police informer. More on him and his brother-in-law in a later post.

What I find particularly interesting about all this is that even back then there was a degree of predictive programming about the actions of the security services. In 1892, just as the Walsall anarchists were being set up, diplomat and author William Le Queux published Strange Tales of a Nihilist, which is a rip-roaring tale of international intrigue in the Victorian anarchist movement. It is chock full of betrayal, double-crossing, second-guessing and quite a lot of shagging. Half a century before Ian Fleming and John Le Carre, this guy had it nailed. Le Queux went on to write The Great War in England and The Invasion of 1910, both German invasion fantasy stories which I admit to not having read (yet). The latter in particular was a huge success, and was part of the reason the government actually started taking the possibility of a German naval invasion seriously. Of course, that never actually happened.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-03-2013, 06:22 AM Post: #6
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: A guide to spies
Junaid Babar was a particular type of spy, a deep-cover provocateur/entrapment agent who then masqueraded as a regretful and co-operating former terrorist. The nature of his mission, the length of time it took and the need for him to be comfortable operating in Pakistan for a prolonged period, meant that he had to have certain qualities. Having looked at quite a few of these cases three recurring themes stand out:

1) Being multi-racial or a multi-national. This is crucial in the contemporary war on terror and was important with the international anarchist movement a century ago. It was less important in Gladio and the Irish thing (a sort of localised Gladio just for Britain). If you can speak more than one language, look natural in more than one context, obviously that's very useful for a spy.

2) Having military experience or, failing that, having been educated at a military school. Ali Mohamed, David Headley and Mohammed Junaid Babar all went to military schools. Ali Mohamed served in the Egyptian army until he was thrown out, supposedly because he was an extremist but much more likely because the Egyptians found out he had been recruited by the CIA. Someone having shown they are capable of following orders is important when you're sending them deep undercover without close monitoring.

3) Consistently behaving in a manner that should attract the attention of the intelligence agencies. Real terrorists are extremely paranoid people, on the whole, and certainly don't tend to noisily express extreme views in public and/or on camera. They generally try to avoid doing anything that is likely to arouse suspicion, because the time necessary to plan and carry out a terrorist attack in most parts of the world is quite long. Terrorist spies, on the contrary, are often rather obvious and overt in establishing their extremist credentials, and show no apparent fear of being caught.

When someone ticks all three of these boxes, they are almost always a deep cover agent. However, in the domestic war on terror within the US the use of undercovers and informers and the like is openly admitted. Indeed, the prosecution cases are largely built on the testimony of informants. I will again emphasise that it is very different here in the UK, where secrecy is paramount and so the existence of informers is almost never admitted. The Coulon case, where official confirmation was denied for over a century, is absolutely typical of how the British system operates.

In the US it is different. A large proportion (though not all) of the terrorist plots 'broken up' by the FBI in the last decade or so have involved the use of informants. This isn't a complete list but:
The Virginia Jihad Network - two of the convicted men, Yong Ki Kwon and Khwaja Hasan were informants for the FBI prior to their arrests.
The Brooklyn Bridge Plot - Iyman Faris, who plead guilty to a conspiracy to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches, was an FBI double agent.
Dhiren Barot - ultimately found guilty of a range of ludicrous terrorist plots, including an idea about buying tens of thousands of smoke alarms and extracting the radioactive material for use in a crude dirty bomb. The laptop containing the plans was provided by a double agent working for both the ISI and the CIA called Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan.
The Penn Station Plot - James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj were convicted after an undercover agent infiltrated their 'cell'.
The Pakistani Diplomat Plot - Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain were convicted after an FBI informant named Shahed Hussein entrapped him into a deal to loan money for the purpose of buying missiles supposedly for the purpose of assassinating the Pakistani ambassador to the UN. The same informant was used several years later in the New York City Synagogues/ U.S. Military Aircraft plot (James Cromitie et al), which also involved plans to purchase missiles. That was the first 'foiled plot' of the Obama administration.
Amine El Khalifi - the dude who tried to attack the Capitol with a suicide jacket was surrounded by informants and undercover agents.
The Maryland Army Recruitment Center plot - Antonio Martinez plead guilty after trying to detonate a fake bomb provided to him by the FBI.
The Seattle Army Recruitment Center plot - Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and Walli Mujahidh both pleaded guilty after extensive interactions with an FBI informant led to their arrests.
NY Fed bomb plot - Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis has been charged after attempting to set off a fake bomb outside the NY Fed that had been provided to him by the FBI. He was accompanied by an FBI agent.
The Cleveland Bridge Plot - a bunch of unemployed, homeless dudes who were part of Occupy Cleveland plead guilty to trying to bomb a bridge in Ohio using a fake bomb provided to them by the FBI in exchange for money given to them by FBI informant Shaquille Azar.




Image
Image
- Separated at birth? Shaquille Azar and Forest Whitaker

There are other examples, but you get the idea. I'll finish up this post with the words of yet another counter-terrorism FBI informant, Farouk al-Aziz a.k.a. Craig Monteilh:
The way the FBI conducts their operations, It is all about entrapment … I know the game, I know the dynamics of it. It's such a joke, a real joke. There is no real hunt. It's fixed.

[video=youtube][/video]

In the next post I'll outline what I think went on in the WTC93 bombing, and why in that case the FBI informant Emad Salem is a red herring.
[/quote]



Pope on a Rope
The Pope has announced he is to resign at the end of the month. Supposedly it's because he is too old - he's 85 - but it is the first papal resignation in centuries.

[Image: popeboxb.jpg]
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-11-2013, 11:45 PM Post: #2
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Pope on a Rope
Interesting. I have no idea why such a thing would happen.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-12-2013, 09:19 PM Post: #3
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Pope on a Rope
Well, with the Vatican being perverted and infiltrated, and with its K2 group, nothing would surprise me. The thing with the Vatican, and many such groups I suppose, is that you'll more than likely never know.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-13-2013, 04:14 AM Post: #4
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Pope on a Rope
I did hear an amusing radio snippet at work today, where some religious mouthpiece was praising the previous pope for hanging on until he kicked the bucket, and praising the current one for not doing the same.

It seems this is a huge news story but no one seems to actually know what's going on.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-13-2013, 10:58 AM Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Pope on a Rope
Haha.. I just heard that just after he announced his retirement, lightening struck his domicile... hahaha...


[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/hrm-k6x3_vk[/flash]




Bank of Dave
You can keep your Ron Pauls and your Austrian school economists making money by spreading fantasies about a 'free market', and all your other fake icons promising economic apocalypse or nirvana (or both at the same time). One man from Burnley has done more than all of them put together.

Dave Fishwick is a successful local businessman, a proper Northerner, who founded his own tiny savings and loan in Burnley, a Northern town without much money but with a 'fuck em' attitude towards the City, and in general a very kind and friendly nature. Dave's bank offers savers 5% AER, which is basically unheard of for ordinary savers in this country right now, and he loans out to local businesses who he knows and trusts. The profits go to charity.

In short, he's probably the best bank manager in the country, and he's also a very amusing and likeable fellow, if this TV show I watched last night is anything to go by:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bank-of-dave

In 30 years people are going to look back and say that the revolution started in Burnley. For those of you who want to know why I'm so dogmatically pro-Northern and anti-Southern, and why I have a lot more time for people like this than for asshole politicians who've never created anything in their entire lives, watch this show. If you have trouble getting the Channel4 link to work let me know, I'm sure this will be up on youtube at some point today. It's only an hour long, and you won't regret a moment of it. A great story, of a man who is indisputably doing the right thing.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-01-2013, 11:48 PM Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bank of Dave
This service is not available in my area.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-02-2013, 05:00 AM Post: #3
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Bank of Dave
I can't find last night's broadcast anywhere else yet but you can watch the two episodes of the original show he did last year which tells the story of him setting up the bank and figuring out how to make it work here:
http://www.watchseries-online.eu/2013/01...01e01.html
Or:
http://watchtvseries.ch/serie/Bank_of_Dave



Argo
I watched this for the first time last night and I'll dispense with a few basic criticisms before moving onto the more interesting material.

1) It's a very mediocre film, for an oscar-winner.
2) The traditional Hollywood portrait of angry, shouty Arabs vs civilised white Westerners was not just maintained, but enhanced through the addition of several scenes (the bazaar and most of the airport stuff) that never actually happened.
3) The help provided by the British and in particular the Canadians was minimised or just written out of the story in a shamefully display of pro-US revisionism.
4) This film has been censured by the NZ parliament for its inaccuracy.

What I find most interesting about this film is its progeny. While we know, for example, that Zero Dark Thirty was effectively sponsored by the DOD and CIA, less is known about where Argo came from. However, its star and director Ben Affleck, who received his oscar from Mrs Obama, is a curious guy. Aside from a few Pentagon-associated Michael Bay movies his credits are rather light for the last 10 years or so.

He did star in The Sum of All Fears, an adaptation of a Tom Clancy novel that was aided by the CIA through their agent Chase Brandon. Brandon came from a covert ops background in Latin America and was appointed the Agency's Entertainment Industry Liaison in the mid-90s. He served until 2006/7, when he was replaced by a guy called Paul Barry, who I don't know much about.

Brandon served as a consultant on numerous TV shows and films portraying the CIA including Sum of All Fears and Alias, the immediate post-9/11 show starring Jennifer Garner. Brandon then convinced Garner to appear in a 2004 CIA recruitment ad. The following year she married Ben Affleck.

Curiously, in a recent Guardian interview he talked about how Hollywood is probably full of secret CIA agents. His reaction when the interviewer asked him if he was CIA has to be seen to be believed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/video/201...-interview

So, have any of you seen Argo and if so, what did you make of it?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-22-2013, 12:52 PM Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Argo
I went to watch it in a sort of 'Oh, I should check this movie out," way but then I realized that it seemed to be about some zany attempt to make a fake movie or something and I got less interested.

Is it worth watching just for the sake of it?
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-22-2013, 06:22 PM Post: #3
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argo
Probably not, unless you like two hours of arabs shouting and Ben Affleck looking slightly confused and morose. It is much easier to watch than Zero Dark Thirty, which is a horrible movie.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-22-2013, 09:52 PM (This post was last modified: 03-22-2013 10:01 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #4
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argo
I thought the most unlikely thing about the whole movie was it winning the Oscar. I was disturbed by the three seconds I caught of Afflects acceptance "speech". The film was mediocre and okay, would have been nothing at all if it wasn't for that old producer guy and his "it means Argo fuck yourself", which was funny to me.

I disagree with the whole it's anti-Iranian propaganda criticism strongly actually. Given the opening of the film which made a point of showing how much the Iranians suffered at the hands of Brits and Americans and their puppet Shah. Down the line you hear a bunch of characters commenting along the lines of "these Iranians hate us and they should, for what we've done".

A side note, Persians aren't Arabs but indo-European, "Aryan". That makes the bazaar cliche not racist but culturalist, and I don't think it was all that damning. The only reason I identified with Affleck and his people is because he was set up as the protagonist in the narrative, not because he held superior values. He didn't, he was an flake, and John Goodman was boring, which is the real crime.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 04:26 AM Post: #5
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Argo
Do you think it's fair to say that our woes are largely an on-going war between the Aryan and Semite religious spirits?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 04:46 AM Post: #6
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argo
No one said anything about Iran, or it being anti-Iranian propaganda. As you note, the film's portrayal of Iranians as Arabs is yet another of its inaccuracies.

The fact that the film opened with a relatively truthful summary of the coup of 53 and its impact, which then got lost amid the shouty Arab scenes and all the film company shenanigans, only makes it all the more worrying to me. Normalising the unthinkable.

The 'Argo fuck yourself' was apparently a real joke and is one of the reasons the pseudo-film was called Argo, according to the CIA internal history of the operation. It was the best thing about an otherwise weak movie.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 05:10 AM (This post was last modified: 03-23-2013 05:11 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #7
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argo
Oh really? That was the best thing, funny it was real. As I said though, I don't think the film itself was of any (negative or positive) political significance. Though I'll readily admit that it winning the award says otherwise.

P - No , as Iranian (thus a type of Aryan) ideology is Islamic and thus Semitic. But by all means give your (contemporary) arguments for that thesis.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 07:20 AM (This post was last modified: 03-23-2013 07:24 AM by pezer.) Post: #8
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Argo
It occurred to me as you pointed out the truly vast difference between Aryan and Semitic (another of those little hidden facts of modern day white man / black man / brown man paradigms) roots, and thus religious spirits. The Semitics; Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arab, etc; had that moment of religious fervor, perhaps also philosophical fervor as Contra-Nietzsche once pointed out to me with this poem. They were powerful imperial peoples. From there comes that very specific kind of patriarchal, red clay, cryptic and somewhat prostrated flavour of societal power. Their Gods like to keep things meek, unilateral, pastoralry. In short, very anti-pagan.

On the other hand, you have the Aryans, further North, in tune with changing seasons and multiplicity in life, intrinsically pagan and polytheistic. When they say "civilized," they mean a balance of inmence forces in sophisticated webs of unities, as opposed to a single sophisticated unit that seeks to replace all other forces.

Two Great Imperial peoples, two massively shifted propulsive forces. The Semitic are obviously more warry in that genocidal sense, but the Aryans enjoy battle and are prepared for it in a different way. So both survived, both still fight.

Yet "Imperial" means "only 1," and the battling forces have merged in political unities that have spawned their own paradigms. Despite common belief, however, those forces are way stronger than the Empires have you believe and no new imperial paradigms have been able to outcry the battle.

Most of us, I would guess, have blood-lines from both sides of that coin. Our ideologies show it.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 08:19 PM Post: #9
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argo
(03-23-2013 05:10 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Oh really? That was the best thing, funny it was real. As I said though, I don't think the film itself was of any (negative or positive) political significance. Though I'll readily admit that it winning the award says otherwise.

http://www.spyculture.com/cia-history-argo/
Quote:
Argo
Jerome and I then set about picking a
name for our movie. We needed
something catchy from Eastern
culture or mythology. After several
tries, we hit on it! During our 10year
association, he had proven to be
a great Story and joke teller. He once
-told a group of us a profane "knockknock"
joke, with the word "Argo" in
the punch line.

This word became an in-house disguise-
team recognition signal and
battle cry. We used it to break the
tension that often built up when we
were working long hours under difficult
circumstances preparing for an
important operation. Jerome remembered
this. He also recalled that the
name stemmed from mythology. He
looked up the definition of Argo and
confirmed it as the name of the ship
on which Jason and the Argonauts
sailed to rescue the Golden Fleece
from the many-headed dragon holding
it captive in the sacred garden.
Perfect! This precisely described the
situation in Iran.

I agree that the film was not particularly political in the sense of being distinctly or overly anti-Iranian. It was shamelessly pro-US in that it left out the British and NZ roles and reduced the importance of the Canadians to about half a dozen lines of script.

All in all, I felt that the film was more a celebration of the CIA's cushy relationship with Hollywood than anything else, particularly given that the star/director is married to someone who is in effect a CIA asset, and he himself could be considered to be the same. It is very much in keeping with spook humour, to get a modern day CIA asset in Hollywood to make a film recounting a largely untrue story about the CIA collaborating with some Hollywood dudes as part of a covert op.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:44 pm

Q wrote:Remember 2001: A Space Odyssey? That film that no one really figured out, yet cleaned up at the box office? In Jay Weidner's Kubrick's Odyssey, which looks at 2001 in the alchemical tradition, he makes an interesting observation.

The story is about not humanity, but the enigmatic Monolith.

And he backs this up fairly well I think. Let's take a look at the first scene of the movie: there are two groups of monkeys that are hanging out, competing for the same watering hole. Weidner correctly points out that Kubrick places emphasis on the bleak, cold nature of this world. The monkeys fall asleep under the stars alone. There is no magic in this place.

The Monolith arrives.

The monkeys are amazed by this thing. Magic is in this place. And on the next encounter, the lead monkey from the Monolith camp decides to use a bone from an animal to club one of the other monkeys over the head. The rest of the monkeys take turns pummeling the representative from the other camp, and with the death of their alpha the other camp retreats. Humanity is born.

Weidner also emphasizes how Kubrick emphasizes that first use of technology is laden with a cowardly gang beating. The reason for this is because that is the nature of the universe, presumably. That is, you have to break some egg shells to make an omelette.

The next occurrence with the Monolith is at the apex of technological advancement. All the wars, and everything else that occurs in human history is dismissed and we enter back into the story at the next time that humanity meets the Monolith. Basically the rest of the movie has to do with the AI showing more human characteristics than the humans, until finally the showdown where that one guy kills HAL and proceed to become the Starchild.



his view really lightens the load. What Kubrick seems to be saying is that this is all out of our hands. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but for me it resolves somewhat the question of 'why does violence happen?'

Or religiously, why God has to allow death and certain things that we don't like to occur.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 03-30-2013 05:02 PM by pezer.) Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Starchild
But before you can understand that this is all our of our hands,

you have to go through 20 minutes of the best goddamn trippyness ever imagined into strips of light-sensitive paper.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-02-2013, 05:11 PM Post: #4
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: The Starchild
The point I am trying to make here is this: Without killing animals/nature and in many cases humans, we wouldn't have civilization.

And it seems like we're supposed to have civilization.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-02-2013, 09:08 PM Post: #5
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: The Starchild
(03-30-2013 03:17 PM)Q Wrote:
Basically the rest of the movie has to do with the AI showing more human characteristics than the humans, until finally the showdown where that one guy kills HAL and proceed to become the Starchild.
If the monolith is alien tech and it raises intelligence, it seems too much of a coincidence that right after a homo sapien kills something that was smarter than him that humans made, somethign like a spiritual transformation is set in motion by the alien tech. Time to make them good little smart creatures. I mean this on a symbolic level not on a literal level, that the aliens saw him kill Hal.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-03-2013, 08:16 AM Post: #6
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: The Starchild
I didn't quite follow that. The Monolith doesn't make the monkey smarter for killing the other monkey. It kills it -because- it's smarter. The one leader ape actually touches the monolith and undergoes the transformation.

The whole point of this thread is that violence exits as a part of humanity. It's woven into the wonder of creation.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 01:14 AM Unread post Post: #7
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: The Starchild
I didn't mean that the Monolith had that motive. I assume the monolith made the monkey smarter, so the next skirmish it had a tool. The violence was already there. But I realized that the monolith intervenes with a human not long after he kills what may very well have been a greater intelligence than his own and one that he created.

As far as violence being a permanent part of the wonder of creation, I disagree, but that's a whole nothing thing.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 04:36 AM Unread post Post: #8
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: The Starchild
That is what Kubrick is saying. Without the death of that monkey the human race doesn't exist.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 10:12 AM Unread post Post: #9
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: The Starchild
Sure, the monolith speeded up evolution, or caused a specific line.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 10:27 AM Unread post Post: #10
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Starchild
What exactly does the Monolith represent?

The author of the original novels said aliens. Me, I always thought it represented that moment when our ancestors began to extract patterns of characteristics from instinct and memory, creating abstract realities like unnatural looking rectangles in the middle of a cave.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"






You know, I find it amazing that people across the 'truth' movement see this guy as a hero. He's basically an unreconstructed fascist, presented as anti-establishment when he is so pro-establishment he wants a return to the 18th century.

Just to give an example, yesterday there was a by-election here in Britain that saw the Liberals (3rd party, junior party in govt. coalition) hold on to the seat and the Conservatives (senior party in govt. coalition) beaten into third place by UKIP, Nigel Farage fringe party that in the last few years has moved more and more towards the mainstream.

UKIP are particularly good at stealing voters from the Tories, because they are so classically right-wing. Their entire platform is about scapegoating and complaining, and so all those whinging pessimistic assholes who just want to blame someone else for the fact that getting drunk in front of the TV hasn't magically led to fame and fortune. Since the by-election result Farage was in good cheer, saying that the reason UKIP were gaining Tory voters is because PM David Cameron 'isn't a proper conservative'. He said:
Quote:
Whilst our effect on the Conservatives is psychological – and that is huge and that is undeniable – the arithmetic does not say the Conservatives failed because of Ukip. The Conservatives failed here because traditional Tory voters look at Cameron and ask themselves: is he a Conservative? And they conclude, no, he is not. He is talking about gay marriage, wind turbines, unlimited immigration from India, he wants Turkey to join the EU.

Now, ask yourself, what kind of a man lumps in gay marriage with wind turbines and Turkey joining the EU? This is a party for bigoted pessimists, for people who harken back to some golden era when Britain was a great empire nation, everyone in the country was rich and there weren't so many damn brown-skinned people about the place. Of course, that time never really existed, just like every nostalgic politics it is a delusion designed to make people unhappy and think that voting for regressive, fascistic politicians is somehow the answer.

It dismays me that
a) People vote for this absolute cunt
b) People can so easily be made to feel resentful so that they vote for this absolute cunt
c) The 'truth movement' and 'radical politics' of the present day heroises Farage and UKIP because they pay lip service to being anti-EU when in fact their only electoral success came in getting Farage elected as an MEP. He has his snout in the trough while making political hay out of slagging off the system that supports him, provides him with a job and a platform and therefore makes it possible for such a disgusting party to enter the mainstream.

Bit of a rant, I know, and I'm not expecting much in the way of responses. Just felt it needed to be said.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-01-2013, 10:38 PM Post: #2
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Nigel Farage
Its nice they're not voting mainstream. I mean, in comparison, what can he do, really? Why does it dismay you people vote for him considering the general alternative? So he's big now... Comes and goes. The votes that should count, don't generally count. Locally though, I see how it could be an issue to those opposed, but whatever a cunt he may be, the UKIP policies seem a good alternative to the present ones.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-02-2013, 04:29 AM Post: #3
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Nigel Farage
(03-01-2013 10:38 PM)W.C. Wrote:
Its nice they're not voting mainstream.

[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/mN1VG1TmQAw[/flash]


1) Tell me, if they were voting Communist then would you be saying the same? I'm genuinely asking here.
2) Bearing in mind I think voting and political parties are a waste of time, I disagree that it is nice.
3) UKIP are mainstream - they are pro-monarchy, pro-Bank of England, pro- all the other things that all mainstream parties share.

Quote:
I mean, in comparison, what can he do, really?

He could do something along the lines of the Bank of Dave, maybe set up a business or charity or something that actually did something other than took money and votes from idiots by telling them what they want to hear.

Basically, anything but be a professional politician. I am struggling to think of a more vacuous, ego-driven occupation.

Quote:
Why does it dismay you people vote for him considering the general alternative?

Because if people must vote I'd rather they didn't vote for closeted fascists. I'd rather they voted because they believed in something, rather than voted because someone appeared to express their anger at the state of affairs.

Quote:
So he's big now... Comes and goes.

UKIP are in with a shot of being the 3rd most popular party at the next election. Given that a few years ago they didn't even exist that's not a simple political cycle, that's the rise of a new phenomenon.

Quote:
The votes that should count, don't generally count.

Dunno what you mean by this.

Quote:
Locally though, I see how it could be an issue to those opposed, but whatever a cunt he may be, the UKIP policies seem a good alternative to the present ones.

You see, I hear that a lot from people from within the sorts of circles we move, and I don't understand it at all. UKIP are very nationalistic and authoritarian - for example they want to double the number of prisons in the UK and long up more people for longer periods of time. That's not usually the sort of thing those with respect for individual rights (or at least those who pay lip service to the notion of individual rights) are usually in favour of, yet they are pretty much all at least superficially pro-UKIP.

What usually emerges is that the only thing these people know about UKIP is that they are anti-EU and anti-mass immigration. That this is part of an extremely authoritarian, pro-police, pro-monarchy, pro-military, pro-NATO political philosophy can be found by simply reading their website but it turns out none of the people I speak to who are pro-UKIP have ever done even that much. They've relied entirely on the alt media's presentation of UKIP, which like this RT piece is exceptionally biased and one-dimensional in its coverage:




So you tell me, did you know UKIP were extremely pro-NATO and in favour of doubling the number of prisons in the UK to enable locking up more people for longer periods of time? Have you read their website? Are you in fact in favour of these policies?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-03-2013, 09:14 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 09:18 AM by W.C..) Post: #4
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Nigel Farage
I did know, and of course I'm not in favour of these policies -- but these policies do seem to be typical mainstream, outside of say, the rejection of the EU, the general push for individual rights, and the strange focus on increasing incarceration time considering the state of the UK's prisons at present. I understand Cameron is very anti-EU as well, so in me saying mainstream I suppose I should clarify I mean more globally.

The Bank of Dave thing -- I think politicians generally aren't that smart business-wise or aware as people regarding ingenuity unless its thrust in their faces to the point they cannot ignore it. I do tend to have a soft-spot for the rare few though, like the Doctor-Politician in that small European country I forgot the name of at this second, who has steered the country to legalizing pot and pot-research in his country, and being a Doctor, he researches it.

As I've seen a few Farage videos in the past, I did venture to the website for more information, and I must say that outside of what you listed and a bit more, I do tend to agree with their general aim. To me they seem like a good 'gateway' party towards a more individual-focused and less mainstream-based one, but I also supported Ron Paul in a similar regard, and I know you seem to generally dislike him as well, so it probably doesn't mean much me saying that.

Thanks for starting this thread though. I had wondered about Farage in his home country, considering I had mainly only seen his stints at the EU. I understand he survived a plane crash in ambiguous circumstances. That made made me curious too. But with the state of things in Australia right now, and with global focus now turning to the Asia-Pacific, I've not really been looking into things more globally as much as I'd like.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-03-2013, 08:44 PM Post: #5
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Nigel Farage
(03-03-2013 09:14 AM)W.C. Wrote:
I did know, and of course I'm not in favour of these policies -- but these policies do seem to be typical mainstream, outside of say, the rejection of the EU, the general push for individual rights, and the strange focus on increasing incarceration time considering the state of the UK's prisons at present. I understand Cameron is very anti-EU as well, so in me saying mainstream I suppose I should clarify I mean more globally.

In what ways are UKIP pushing for individual rights? I just don't see it, I see closet fascism.

Quote:
The Bank of Dave thing -- I think politicians generally aren't that smart business-wise or aware as people regarding ingenuity unless its thrust in their faces to the point they cannot ignore it. I do tend to have a soft-spot for the rare few though, like the Doctor-Politician in that small European country I forgot the name of at this second, who has steered the country to legalizing pot and pot-research in his country, and being a Doctor, he researches it.

It doesn't have to be a Bank of Nigel, it just has to be something that isn't encourage people to be angry and fearful as a means of gaining their support. All that does is drag this country backwards, regardless of any global political spectrum you might allude to.

Quote:
As I've seen a few Farage videos in the past, I did venture to the website for more information, and I must say that outside of what you listed and a bit more, I do tend to agree with their general aim. To me they seem like a good 'gateway' party towards a more individual-focused and less mainstream-based one, but I also supported Ron Paul in a similar regard, and I know you seem to generally dislike him as well, so it probably doesn't mean much me saying that.

Ron Paul is another closet fascist, extremely pro-military but largely based around people scapegoating a particular designated group within society and turning the government against them as a means to produce change (and supposedly, an improved society). With Hitler it was the Jews, with UKIP it is basically all immigrants, with Ron Paul it is the working class poor.

I don't see how any of them can sincerely be claimed to be champions of individual rights, no matter how much lip service they might pay to such ideas in speeches. It isn't about you saying it, it's about it just not being true in any demonstrable fashion. When I challenged you over this in the Ron Paul thread you just told me to ignore his policies and budgets and listen to his speeches. People said the same about Hitler, and say the same about Farage.

Can you see the parallels, and why they worry me given that I actually live in the same country as this man?

Quote:
Thanks for starting this thread though. I had wondered about Farage in his home country, considering I had mainly only seen his stints at the EU. I understand he survived a plane crash in ambiguous circumstances. That made made me curious too. But with the state of things in Australia right now, and with global focus now turning to the Asia-Pacific, I've not really been looking into things more globally as much as I'd like.

Are you familiar with APPerspective?
http://ap-perspective.blogspot.co.uk/

I like this guy a lot, and he's recently started doing a monthly video series with Corbett. You see, to my mind even this dude, who has no money to put into what he's doing because he spreads no hate and fear and therefore people don't just give him their money because he says he will take the fear away, is doing a lot more good than Farage ever has or will.

The plane crash was just a plane crash. I know a lot of crashes aren't just crashes, and I know certain fear and hate-based 'alt' media types got a lot of mileage out of this one (while continuing to overlook Farage's policies and real agenda) but there's really nothing to it. If anything, it was the best thing that ever happened to Farage because it helped cement his fake status as a threat to the establishment.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-15-2013, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 05-15-2013 08:45 AM by Lars.) Post: #6
Lars Offline
Student
Posts: 5
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Nigel Farage
(03-01-2013 09:32 PM)BigTom Wrote:
You know, I find it amazing that people across the 'truth' movement see this guy as a hero. He's basically an unreconstructed fascist, presented as anti-establishment when he is so pro-establishment he wants a return to the 18th century.

Hey BigTom!

It is very interesting you bring this up, with your acute vision. I have a French FB contact who is typically dissing out on Libertarians, notably Farage and Paul. She used to be involved in French politics, and as teacher has a lot to say on so-called "Libertarian" and "Atlantist" educational policies, like lifelong learning, in view of transforming the French education and corporate systems.

The Libertarians are basically those invovlved in the Freedom movements. You might get a whif of what she is on about on her blog (even if in French).

http://orianeborja.hautetfort.com/archiv...-cras.html
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:48 pm

What You feel in Your Heart
I tend to follow my heart, and my gut.

So far it has left me alone and abandoned, and in some cases exploited.

Starting to question whether or not this will ever pay off.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-10-2013, 04:22 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 04:23 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #2
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: What You feel in Your Heart
I know how that is.
In fact the only times where I made lasting progress that I still feel, solid as rock, is when I let my mind play around with what my gut and heart were driving towards, and create something higher from it.

It's not either the heart or the mind, it's the mind designing to secure what the heart wants, by applying it in intelligent and creative ways.

This is also the key to tantra. Let the energies rise, and then as they are in full force, begin to shape them in sophisticated, functional patterns.
The only problem is that this requires patience and concentration. And that's not always easy when there are gut-energies at stake.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-10-2013, 04:28 AM Post: #3
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: What You feel in Your Heart
No, it's not always easy, but what you said helped.

Thanks.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?



Q wrote:Loved his work on House of Cards.

I just started checking this out. I'll update as I go along.


[youtube]ZedLgAF9aEg&list=PL21C609B71E82B243[/youtube]




Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
It's looking like these will end up being gold/silver/copper/whatever


Currently Bitcoin is trading at ~150 USD
Litecoin and NMC/PPS are yet to really stabalize, but are around 3.5 and 0.01 respectively.


I have heard rumors that it's being intentionally popularized and bloated by the government so they can crash it and destroy any momentum is has going.

It crashed in 2011 and came back, though. So I am wanting to say that the cryptocurrency is here to stay.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-06-2013, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2013 08:40 PM by Q.) Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
We could start a NWO fund and ride this wave if anyone has any extra cash. I plan to jump into Lite and NMC as soon as I can figure out to get my Canadian dollars into this thing. It's... hard. Lately all the banks are cutting ties to any money exchangers that you could use to buy up CryptoCoins.

The war has started.

Q"
[video=youtube/video]



I fucking sat and watched this way back when, and didn't think so myself, "I should throw $300 into this thing."

Literally 2 years before that I had my computer ready to actually mine but then I sort of was like "fuck this."

Things could been different, boys and girls. But then again, ain't nobody got time for the shoulda coulda wouldas.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-06-2013, 08:12 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2013 09:30 PM by BigTom.) Post: #4
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
I've gotta be honest, I only know about bitcoin and I am deeply, deeply suspicious. For one thing, no one has been able to give me a simple answer to how it works. It seems they've invented a whole load of terms that mean something in the bitcoin world but are meaningless to anyone who isn't using them. This smacks of a tree house kind of mentality, to me.

Second, how is it that there is a limited supply of them? I appreciate that having a limited supply creates a kind of built in deflation so as an investment they may (just may) make sense. But it means they are rubbish as an everyday transactional tool. Who limits the supply, and what happens if someone goes over the total designated number? How is forgery combated and thus the limit enforced? Given that most of the people using bitcoins don't even understand it well enough to explain it to a non-user that's a worry.

Third, it seems the only way you can use a bitcoin in the real world to buy something is either off another bitcoin user (which the limited supply means is very limited in number) or by cashing them out into dollars or pounds or Euros or whatnot. Thus, they haven't really subverted anything, they are just a kind of digital tag along to real money.

Fourth, given that one of the obvious aims of the centralised banking and financial structure is a cashless society, this all strikes me as pre-conditioning.

Fifth, the recent spike in bitcoin prices has made the mainstream news. That doesn't happen unless it has been done deliberately. You think the mainstream news talks about an alternative currency in a positive light without it having been co-opted? I remember just before the spike that several of my online friends who previously didn't seem to know about Bitcoin were suddenly embracing it like it was the new sliced bread. Do you think that happens without a buzz (and thus a bubble) being deliberately generated? Now that the prices has gone up that makes bitcoin owners feel like they are smart, part of an elite who gets what's going on, when of course they aren't any fucking richer than they were yesterday. They can't use those bitcoins to buy food or pay their electricity bill. They are being put in the exact same position as all those traders in the City and on Wall Street who thought at the top of the bubble that they were the kings of the world. If a big crash does happen (rather than a gradual managed decline) then those bits of encrypted code aren't going to be worth anything.


All that said, I am not opposed to investing in a different digital currency if you wanted to pool a few bucks and take a punt. If nothing else it would be an interesting experiment.



Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
Quote:
I have heard rumors that it's being intentionally popularized and bloated by the government so they can crash it and destroy any momentum is has going.

I'm definitely suspicious too. I mean... it was on the Good Wife.

However, the answers to your questions as to how cryptocurrency works are out there. It's basically just an algorithm that releases bits in relation to the number of people solving the problems. So if more people mine, the "difficulty" goes up.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-06-2013, 09:29 PM Post: #6
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
That seems to me like a reckless faith in what's basically a made-up bunch of symbols with no inherent value.

And they are asking me to trade real things for this? In relative terms, I can see how the paper money that's accepted everywhere for everything even with its built-in inflation is more attractive to a lot of people. But I suppose it's about exploring what's possible.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-06-2013, 11:20 PM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
Well, an algorithm is hardly a bunch of made-up symbols to any extent beyond any other linguistic or logistic formation.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 01:33 AM Post: #8
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
And if I were backing my entire currency with syllogisms then I'd expect the same resistance.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 06:14 AM Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
BigTom, is paper money really any more made up? Using your criteria for calling the bitcoins made up bs, what saves paper moneyz?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 06:24 AM Post: #10
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
The physical backbone is the mining structures. It scales with technology as it advances.

Where this differs from what I would expect TPTB would want in a world currency, is everyone can mine if they want to and feel like it.

The Russians have these big rigs. So do hacking groups. There is a certain open lawlessness here that many people, myself included, seem to like in comparison to the current alternative.

They might have seeded it; we might have thought it up.

Apparently the head crypto is very mysterious. Often/sometimes people get into that field to avoid b&, but also the people in that field are sometimes the ones comiting the acts that the viewers need to encrypt. That is, that dark ritual stuff overlap between the government, corporation, and elite occult - the sex slavery ring I'm not saying this guy is anything other than the inventor, just that the whole encryption field is ostensibly a little bit shady so that is something to consider.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?


RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
Of course, obviously he would want to hide his identity, so I might be over thinking this.

The question is this: now that it is out in the open, can it be made viable by -us-? I mean, even if they gave it to us that doesn't mean we can guerrilla warfare this thing.

When I go on these boards it's like the Wild West, as I said. Shit is happening right now. This is a moment of flux. We should pay attention. I have to go to my parent's house today, I plan to do some more research into investing. Stay tuned.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 06:59 PM Post: #12
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
(04-07-2013 06:14 AM)pezer Wrote:
BigTom, is paper money really any more made up? Using your criteria for calling the bitcoins made up bs, what saves paper moneyz?

The fact that everyone, everywhere, accepts it in exchange for things. That's what gives it value.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 07:32 PM Post: #13
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
That wasn't the criteria you used to dismiss bitcoins.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 08:05 PM Post: #14
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
Quote:
Bitcoin will be the biggest transfer of wealth in human history and it's all going to the most technologically advanced, visionary thinking and intelligent demographic. Just think of what they will do. It wasn't about connections, nepotism or being born to the right family, it was about seeing what others couldn't and being technologically advanced enough to participate. This is history in the making.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 08:09 PM Post: #15
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
Quote:
>No advantages over dollars.
You mean besides the fact that you can send money to anyone in the world, immediately, without an intermediary that stipulates whether you may or may not do so? One of the reasons people have problems exchanging Dollars for Bitcoins highlights this fact: Payment processors like Paypal and Google Checkout have terms of service dictating what you're allowed to buy. Bitcoins are not on the list. If anything you should be pushing for a currency that cuts out a middleman like that for your own sake, since those same payment processors present you with restrictions that are unneeded.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 08:11 PM Post: #16
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
Quote:
I've been trading currencies of all kinds as a hobby for over seven years. You want some free advice, /g/? Stay FAR away from BTC right now, either as accepted payment or a currency to hold. I'm actually trying to weigh some short options on this. When the currency implodes, and it will very soon, the fallout is going to be EPIC. If you haven't sold your holdings, now is the time if you haven't done so already. The first leg down is going to move very fast.

This time next year, you'll be able to buy BTC for pennies on the dollar. Those of you who know how markets work probably know what I'm talking about already.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 08:12 PM Post: #17
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
Quote:
That's what people have been saying for YEARS. It has only appreciated in value since then. There have been a few crashes, but if you didn't panic you would have gotten your money back with massive interest every single time.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 08:15 PM Post: #18
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK TO DO
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 08:24 PM Post: #19
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NWA
Other than build a fucking time machine so I can go back and put some money on the cubbies.

Some of these stories are making me sick to my stomach.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 12:06 AM Post: #20
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
(04-07-2013 07:32 PM)pezer Wrote:
That wasn't the criteria you used to dismiss bitcoins.

I didn't dismiss them. I expressed suspicion.

(04-06-2013 09:29 PM)BigTom Wrote:
That seems to me like a reckless faith in what's basically a made-up bunch of symbols with no inherent value.

And they are asking me to trade real things for this? In relative terms, I can see how the paper money that's accepted everywhere for everything even with its built-in inflation is more attractive to a lot of people. But I suppose it's about exploring what's possible.

See, when it's a choice between a currency backed by symbols with no inherent value, and a currency backed by nothing but accepted everywhere, the fact of it being accepted gives it a provisional value that is worth more than the provisional value of bitcoin. If you don't believe me then feel free to trade all your 'worthless' paper money for bitcoins, see how far you get.

If you make it work and prove me wrong then I'll be the first to admit it.





[quote="BigTom"
[quote="Q"
Other than build a fucking time machine so I can go back and put some money on the cubbies.

Some of these stories are making me sick to my stomach.
[/quote]

You won't like this then:

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bem-MNh5g_c[/video]
[/quote]




RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
You're turning I to a bit of a Corbet zealot.

This same thing happened in 2011 and Bitcoin bounced back. One of the wallets being hacked at this point is an inevitability that has now transpired. Moving forward the right amount of security will be present.

Bitcoins have many flaws that Litecoins don't. It may not prevail as the leader.

Anyway, none of this has to do with goin back and putting some money on the cubbies. Whether or not this is a viable longterm currency is irrelevant to making money.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 03:05 AM Post: #23
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ADXs2C4Vm...DXs2C4Vmho

Look at all that syntactical garbage. Fuckin mobile. And I can't embed on my phone. Blep.

Anyway, this the cubbies thing I keep referencing. Great movie. Probably seen it like 50 times with my sister.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 03:07 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2013 03:09 AM by Q.) Post: #24
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
Remember the dot.com bubble? How money was simply up for grabs? It's like that. I need to throw $50 into this just in case before Wednesday. If I lose it I at least won't be kicking myself for not trying.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 03:20 AM Post: #25
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
K I've watched the Corbet thing twice:

All he really says is two sites have been hacked. It's been more than two, but in a Wild West scenario that is going to happen. Without question. And like I said it will drive security to the levels it should be at.

Instead of suggesting caution but interest, Corbet is just taking the same old conspiracy stance of not really saying anything and injecting fear of 'the master plan' into the dialogue.

I'm kinda tired of it. For a guy who has been 'following this since 2011' he seems to have little to no knowledge of the technical side of it.

You could be right that this will not last, but seriously. What a completely useless report.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 03:57 AM Post: #26
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
(04-08-2013 02:18 AM)Q Wrote:
You're turning I to a bit of a Corbet zealot.

This same thing happened in 2011 and Bitcoin bounced back. One of the wallets being hacked at this point is an inevitability that has now transpired. Moving forward the right amount of security will be present.

Bitcoins have many flaws that Litecoins don't. It may not prevail as the leader.

Anyway, none of this has to do with goin back and putting some money on the cubbies. Whether or not this is a viable longterm currency is irrelevant to making money.
(04-08-2013 03:20 AM)Q Wrote:
K I've watched the Corbet thing twice:

All he really says is two sites have been hacked. It's been more than two, but in a Wild West scenario that is going to happen. Without question. And like I said it will drive security to the levels it should be at.

Instead of suggesting caution but interest, Corbet is just taking the same old conspiracy stance of not really saying anything and injecting fear of 'the master plan' into the dialogue.

I'm kinda tired of it. For a guy who has been 'following this since 2011' he seems to have little to no knowledge of the technical side of it.

You could be right that this will not last, but seriously. What a completely useless report.

I hate to break this to you but that isn't Corbett, it's some guy on youtube who buys and sells silver.

Nonetheless, I accept that the report is extremely biased, I wasn't posting it because I found it particularly credible, more because it kinda fitted with one of your comments. Clearly the guy's agenda is to shit on bitcoin, but he does raise the perfectly fair point that bitcoin has no real answer to this. It's like watching a brand new anarchistic society realise that getting rid of government doesn't mean people won't get raped.

That said, I am not opposed to people buying bitcoins or similar, I'm just saying that there's a long way to go from bitcoin to a proper monetary revolution.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2013 06:15 AM by Q.) Post: #27
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
The thing about the order from chaos thing is that once the chaos stage begins, anything can happen. We'll have to watch this carefully this week.

Lol that is funny I totally thought that was Corbet. My bad.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 08:32 AM Post: #28
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
Damn dude, I am getting infected with your bitcoin desire. I'll see what I can do.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 07:16 PM Post: #29
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
THE CUBBIES!




[quote="Q"
[video=youtube][/video]

Mining either LTC or NMC starting tomorrow. Gonna try to buy some if I can sort out this bank shit in Canada.
[/quote]



[quote="Q wrote:
#thecubbies


[video=vimeo]
http://vimeo.com/63502573
[/video]






RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
Right, it's almost perfect. What we need is an algorithm that can produce an unlimited amount of bitcoins, yet which complexity would regulate the flow by the same peer-to-peer logic.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-09-2013, 11:50 AM Post: #33
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
Bitcoin is one part of this thread.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-09-2013, 12:16 PM Post: #34
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
Interesting, yes.... It's much more than a currency, it's a system of currency.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-09-2013, 12:17 PM Post: #35
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
You nailed it.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-09-2013, 12:17 PM Post: #36
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
And, to finally answer BigTom's question, the final unit of value is hardware.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-09-2013, 01:06 PM Post: #37
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
Money is weird.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-11-2013, 05:18 AM Post: #38
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
A friend of mine who invests in bitcoin showed me that bitcoin's own data indicates that there were periods of extremely high buying and selling immediately prior to the major fluctuations in recent days.

Naked short selling isn't really possible with bitcoin so they are having to do it the old-fashioned way. I say don't put any money on the Cubbies that you can't afford to lose. But then, I don't bet on sports even when I know I'm going to get the result right. That's because I'm sometimes horribly wrong, like when I predicted Alonso would win this year's Malaysian Grand Prix.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-11-2013, 08:01 AM Post: #39
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
Gambling is only for those that can be masochistic if needed, true enough. Anyway, don-t bet more than you can afford to loose is good advice for this and any new gambling enterprise.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-11-2013, 08:11 AM Post: #40
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
Thanks guys.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?


RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
So how are you getting along? Has your algorithmic prospecting resulted in a stack of digital coins that are worth more in fiat currency than they were this morning?

I don't mean that question anywhere near as cynically and sarcastically as it probably comes across. I'm genuinely interested.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-13-2013, 04:16 AM Post: #42
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Bitcoins/Litecoins/NMC/PPA
No. It's like impossible to get any money online in Canada. There is one bank that allows it, and the friend I have with that bank is in Vegas.

The bitcoin stuff is likely done. It might go a bit higher. I am just watching Litecoins. It'll prob go from 5 where it's at now to 25-50. I'm gonna throw some money on there when I can.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:53 pm

I consider the psychedelic experience one of the most occult subjects that exists. Basically what the West has in the way of well-known shamanism even remotely broaching the academic/intellectual sphere is Carlos Castaneda, and Terrence McKenna.

Somewhere, many of the Egyptian Mystery School occult 'sciences' are written down, and can be used (imo) to shape reality to the will of the user. I mean that's really what most of that stuff seems to be about. When you read seminal people like Crowley, Regardie, it's clear it's all about intention. Even people who diverge from classical occult systems - like Gurdieff - still stress the immense importance of intention and willpower. ... and then transformation occurs.

When it comes to the dealing of and dialogue with the 'entities' found in the mushroom and DMT experience, it is entirely different. As someone who has gone deep enough into this world, and someone who has read and listened to a lot of Mckenna, I can confidently state that intention has less to do with what is going on. It is a primarily a process of gnosis. A 'download' if you will, from a consciousness that is old, powerful, and not really of this reality. In fact, the intention part of all this is basically just an initial offering. "Hey, I would like to experience [this]." Then away you go. ... and then the transformation occurs.

Just to put the above into perspective: psilocybin is one molecule from being DMT. In high doses, it effectively is DMT, and as most of us (should know at this point), DMT is released in large doses when we dream, meditate, and when we die. In fact, it's the catalyst for dreaming. Put in my own words, it's the master key for the dimensional doorway.

This is one of those areas where we know, publically, next to nothing. I know the government has played around with joint dreaming and basically Inception type stuff. So obviously that would include (oral) DMT, shrooms, and I would imagine every other drug as well. That DMT is a schedule 1 drug that could land you in federal prison - something found in the human body and almost all plants - then it might give an indication as to what they found, and why they don't want us playing around with it.

Have you ever had a hardcore hallucinogenic experience? What is your take on it?

/OP






[hr]

MCKENNA's Evolution

[hr]

McKenna proposes an interesting theory:

[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/LFQh4jhQFWc[/flash]

Basically he cites a study where infants are successfully taught sign language before they are successfully taught to talk. For him, this points to language being much more ingrained in our DNA at the level of body movements and basic grunts - not unlike apes and chimps.

In actuality, 'speech' is only about 35,000-45,000 years old. Fucking fire is 6x as old as talking is. McKenna makes a very Wittgensteinian distinction between the syntactical representation of nature itself - after all, DNA is basically a language - and 'speech.' For him it's a technology. An invention. But who developed this tool? Or more importantly, how did we move from pointing to symbols and and emoting through gestures to using phonetics to do the same thing through representation.

The answer is drugs obviously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

He thinks that mushroom imparted the ability in someone to basically spasm out a sound for a gesture while tripping. Synesthesia of language.

Now, this sounds pretty out there, and McKenna himself admitted freely they a lot of them were simply entertainments. However, let's continue. It gets better.

[hr]

EVIDENCE

[hr]


All right so time for some evidence.

[vyoutube]KsZbxRzWYLc[/youtube]

What he's saying here is simple: the great embarrassment for evolutionary theory is the human neocortex. It is the most dramatic transformation of an organ of a mammal in the entire fossil record, so since the human neocortex is the organ that thought up the theory of evolution, it has to account for this its own rapid emergence in the human evolution. In about 2 million we went from being higher primates.... to humans. That is a very short window of time in the evolutionary context - what the hell happened? At this point the earth was already extremely old. Life was everywhere, but the fire of intelligence had not found the conditions to spark - what the hell happened?

He thinks it's shrooms. A group of humans wandered into a pack of shrooms, started using them, and basically profited from it.

Shrooms in low doses actually greatly enhance, for example, eyesight, and could theoretically cause a pack to become much better hunters. More in tune with the land. etc. The type of dose you might get just nibbling on forage. Chemical binoculars.

Shrooms in higher doses causes arousal. Chemical outbreeding of non-shroom users in the same area.

Shrooms in the highest doses nail you to the ground in hallucinagenic ecstasy. As we explored above, this can lead to spontaneous bursts of vocalized 'internal' syntax. Chemical Glossolalia

And boom.... the neocortex, and humanity as we know it, is born.

This seems like a longer version.

[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/bjxkgseWeyo[/flash]


A bit of background. Sheldrake is the guy who philosophized about morphogenic fields. I don't feel like explaining that again, so just google him and that. Not sure who Ralph Abraham is.


[hr]

HEFTER.ORG

http://www.heffter.org/
[/quote]



Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Psychdelic Drugs
What McKenna says about DNA is extremely interesting...
Symbolic representation is perhaps a requirement for reproduction -
in other words, life = language...

I can see that. It explains the rapid nature of evolution quite well -
as all mutations would already carry 'meaning' on a symbolic level, even if randomly arranged, the arranging-tools are not random

That in turn explains why art, as the use of an instrument, is so quickly more real, more alive, than 'prosaic' life.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-16-2012, 11:53 AM Post: #3
Dannerz Offline
Student
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Psychdelic Drugs
I want to try shrooms someday but I don't know any drug dealers. Not a single one.

The main reason why I want to try it is to see one of my spiritual specie. They come in many forms, but I wish I could fully physically see one.

I think if we could fully disable the filter that is on our mind, temporarily, it would expand our consciousness so much.
I wish psychadelics were all legal.



Gobbo wrote:I'm not sure how I want to proceed with Hermeticism. It's not really my forte.

This 4 hour video from McKenna seems like a good start.


[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/-YNdBpYh1eA[/flash]

His Brother wrote:"He never took a note, I never saw him rehearse or practice anything."




Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Hermeticism
I hadn't listened to this video before. It's really good. It's just T-Ken talking at some... talk he gave. I don't know many people I've listened to who are more well-read. It's like any book or subject is a breeze for him. Oh T-Ken. He's missed.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-14-2012, 12:09 PM Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Hermeticism
30 minutes... that's a great talk so far.
The book he talks about where I was just at.

" Modern science is an incredibly demonic enterprise. "
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-14-2012, 12:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-14-2012 12:49 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #4
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Hermeticism
"He could cast the best Horoscope of Europe." -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dee

An angel dictates political advice in reversed latin.
ROMA
AMOR
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-14-2012, 12:33 PM (This post was last modified: 12-14-2012 12:47 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #5
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Hermeticism
" Alcibiades was arrested for possession and distribution of the Eleusinian mysteries. "
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-15-2012, 11:22 AM Post: #6
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Hermeticism
Yeah I listened to the whole thing, as I assume you did.

Fuck I wish he was still alive. He's such a treasure trove of knowledge. It's just him droning on - only audio - and I was just sitting there staring at the screen captivated.

That reversed latin thing was a nice tidbit of information. I want a Whey Stone....
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-16-2012, 12:49 PM Post: #7
Dannerz Offline
Student
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Hermeticism
I understand hermeticism as a mix of many old forms of knowledge and magic.
I am not as well versed as I'd like to be. I'm mainly focused on the mental and astral plane, and on my inner reality. I have limited download amounts on my present internet plan, so I can't check out a 4 hour video. One of my old friends spent allot of time reading about magic and occult things. But I lost contact with him.


Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
Proximity Ethics
I am looking for theories of proximity ethics for a new article I'm writing.

I remember in one of my ethics classes there was a scenario:

Quote:
A person is walking by a river, late for some important thing, and they see a stranger drowning in a river. Do they save them? If they could simply pay a couple dollars to save them, would they do it right then and there?

I figure, like in my ethics class, we could at least look at different approaches to this issue. It seems pretty straightforward, but the issue becomes expansive.

This is one that is pertinent in today's interconnected, but still starving world. Part of the reason why more people don't give in strategic ways is because the ethical problem is mostly undefined, and only through illumination of the issue, can a strategy be formed.

But if anyone knows of any specific academic resources for proximity ethics that is what I am looking for primarily.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-11-2012, 02:22 AM Post: #2
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Proximity Ethics
(12-06-2012 01:32 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
A person is walking by a river, late for some important thing, and they see a stranger drowning in a river. Do they save them? If they could simply pay a couple dollars to save them, would they do it right then and there?

I was hoping someone else would start a discussion on this, because I found it interesting, but to me it seems mostly straight-forward. If I'm supposed to be the "a person" when considering this, then yes. I'd try to save someone if I saw them drowning. I'd pay a couple of dollars to save them as well. If someone was standing there saying, "Well, you can go save them yourself or pay me a couple of dollars to do it for you" I'd probably pay a couple of dollars.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-11-2012, 05:29 AM Post: #3
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Proximity Ethics
I probably would to, and I think most people, because you're close to another human being and it's just an instinctual thing.

However, say you were walking by a television set that showed you a person that would otherwise die in some other country.

I guess basically what I'm trying to explore is the disconnect between an interconnected global culture, but a lack of interconnected global ethics.

Or do we want that?
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-11-2012, 06:46 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2012 06:57 AM by Blurry.) Post: #4
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Proximity Ethics
Well along with the disconnect is a matter of trust.

Of course it's easier to walk away from a situation that you see on television than it is to walk away from something that is happening before your very eyes. I'm sure we could have an entire conversation about that, but anyway yeah, that's the basic disconnect - it's not reality if it's not happening in front of me. In my opinion, this is mostly a comfort/survival thing. I'm sure you've experienced what happens when you spend too much time thinking about all of the horrible stuff going on in the world. I kind of talked about that over on ILP, when talking about politics and the recent election, and the hopeless feeling I get when I think about how screwed we really are. I can't be productive in my daily life with that kind of mindset. I have to block it out the majority of the time, otherwise I'd end up feeling hopeless about everything and I'd probably become a nihilist and end up committing suicide. It's a matter of practicality - turning a blind eye to horrors in the world allows them to continue, but there's still the matter of having our own day-to-day lives, our own little dramas and troubles that we have to deal with.


But about the trust thing, I don't know if this happens to you, but when I see those commercials for organizations that are trying to get people to donate money to help put some starving child in Africa into clothes, feed them, and get them an education, I'm always wary. How much of my money is actually going to help these children? My mom and I once decided to sponsor a little boy in Africa. We were at what basically amounted to a teen-oriented revival for our church, and there was some organization that had an entire set-up there and they were roping people in left and right. We gave a bunch of money, and were supposed to get further information, along with pictures of the child we were sponsoring and letters from him, but we never heard anything again. I think that's probably an issue for more people than just myself. I mean, how much proof do we actually have that the money we give is doing what we intend it to do?

In your scenario the expectation is that you would see the result of your money immediately, at least that's how I read it, so I don't know if "drowning" is the best example, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.
btw ^^ all of that makes me feel stupid.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-11-2012, 02:12 PM Post: #5
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Proximity Ethics
Well I'm just trying to get at, fundamentally, the nature in which we decide that a stranger we don't know needs help over a stranger we don't know, who lives further away.

You're right: a lot of those supposed charities are scams, but I'm just talking hypothetically. If it was guaranteed, many people still wouldn't do it.

I'm kind of perturbed over the responses my Slave Labor App article received at ILP (and hence why I left for good). I kind of just assumed that people had reached the point where they were looking for ways to actively help the world, but many pages later all that's been revealed is that people are largely looking for excuses not to. Are these excuses justified?

I guess I just want to explore the issue. Am I being overly idealistic here? Is Kristwest right that we should leave these people to govern themselves? Does that stand at odds with the globalizing nature of the world?

Quote:
I'm sure you've experienced what happens when you spend too much time thinking about all of the horrible stuff going on in the world.

I am one of the most sensitive people I know. For a while this used to weigh on me and threatened to drive me insane. I don't really have an answer, but the one I do have is found in instances just like the above.

Whenever I get depressed I tell myself that I'm still pretty much one of the luckiest people to live in the upper 5% of wealth on the planet. I worked in a factory type environment once. It was fucking INSANE. I cannot even put into words how much I hated it. Always working. No breaks ever. All this illegal stuff that you can't complain about because you never stop working. I was only there for like 5 or 6 months or something and It's almost like it's scarred me for life. When I think about it now I like... shudder. And that was nothing compared to this.

Waxing philosophical on a forum is super easy. We really should try and have thicker skin. Me, you, everyone here. There are people in the world who deserve it.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-12-2012, 02:55 AM Post: #6
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Proximity Ethics
I didn't read the thread on ILP, and maybe I should do that.

What was Kris talking about, leaving people to govern themselves?

I have more thoughts on this, but I want to get them in order, and maybe also check out that thread on ILP. I'll get back.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-14-2012, 01:20 AM Post: #7
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Proximity Ethics
Her view was basically just excuses as to why she shouldn't have to act differently.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-14-2012, 01:22 AM Post: #8
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Proximity Ethics
I've read part of that thread. It turned into a bunch of bickering fairly early on, so I lost interest.

I do have some things to say, though. I just don't have time while I'm at work, but I'll get on it tonight.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-14-2012, 01:51 PM Post: #9
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Proximity Ethics
Okay so I read more of the ILP thread, I read your article, and I read the links in your article.

I remember once getting into an argument with you because you were trying to spread awareness about some issue or another, and I demanded that you come up with some kind of working plan, or stfu. I do still see the value in that, but I think I have a more clear idea now of just how ignorant people really are, and that educating them is a battle in and of itself. Then, of course, you have to keep their attention, which I think is what "proximity ethics" is really all about. How do you stop people from turning the channel mentally, how do you motivate them to do something about the issue.

In your article, you brought up social media and how this can be used to both spread awareness and effect change. I thought it was an excellent point. We see examples of what the internet can do every day, how it can bring us together, on a large scale, to focus on a common goal. Computers are changing the world, and I feel that, if the internet can remain in the hands of the people, there is a chance that more good will be done than bad, in the long run.

As for Kriswest's argument that people need to stand up for themselves and we would somehow be doing them a disservice to speak out and try to change things, I'm a little bit conflicted. I agree with her, but I don't think everything is quite that cut and dried. There are times when it is appropriate to...well, to ditch someone. To let them suffer with the consequences of their actions, to let them learn a lesson from their circumstances. However, I don't think it's quite right to let a downtrodden and desperate person drown in the shit while you kindly step over them. I also saw a lot of clouding the issue by pointing to the "bigger picture" in the responses in the ILP thread, and that bothers me. I tend to look at the world fairly practically, which is why the argument I mentioned before happened between you and I. If there's a problem, the practical thing to do is find a solution, not sit around waxing philosophical about whether or not the self-sufficient tribes in the Amazon are more or less disadvantaged than the exploited Cambodian garment workers.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-15-2012, 11:20 AM Post: #10
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Proximity Ethics
See, I liked my slave labor app solution more: if you don't want to do it for the justice of the people in the world getting slave fucked, then do it for future society's perception of you. But ultimately I came up with 2 solutions/reasons. I think that is not bad.

Did you read all the links? Because these people -are- trying to make their voices heard. They formed a union and the police came and skull kicked everyone into the hospital, presumably because they were paid off. Keep in mind they're going up against one of the biggest corporations in the world.

So... are you suggesting that they need to 'do it on their own?' These people obviously need outside help. Kriswest thinks these people just need to 'work really hard,' when they're working harder than any of us ever have in our lives....


RE: Proximity Ethics
I don't think they need to "do it on their own," no. I think they need help. A lot of the things that Kris probably thinks can be accomplished through hard work are possible because she's had advantages in her life because of where she was born.

The Cambodian garment workers would be who I was referring to when I said what I said about stepping over people who are in the shit. While I do firmly believe that many things in life need to be learned on one's own, I don't think this situation applies. Everyone needs a hand sometimes.

My brain is not all here right now (long day) and I'm afraid I'm not making sense, and I know I'm not able to say all the things I really want to say right now, but I will say this -- the attitude that Kris displayed in that thread is a very American one, and I'm not proud of that.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-19-2012, 11:53 AM Post: #12
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Proximity Ethics
(12-15-2012 11:20 AM)Gobbo Wrote:
See, I liked my slave labor app solution more: if you don't want to do it for the justice of the people in the world getting slave fucked, then do it for future society's perception of you. But ultimately I came up with 2 solutions/reasons. I think that is not bad.

Did you read all the links? Because these people -are- trying to make their voices heard. They formed a union and the police came and skull kicked everyone into the hospital, presumably because they were paid off. Keep in mind they're going up against one of the biggest corporations in the world.

So... are you suggesting that they need to 'do it on their own?' These people obviously need outside help. Kriswest thinks these people just need to 'work really hard,' when they're working harder than any of us ever have in our lives....

Okay, my mind is a bit more calm now, but I thought about this again and got kind of pissed off...

Fuck me, Kris' point is really short-sighted. I did read all the links, and I'm saying...like, obviously, these people are working hard. As you said, they're working harder than any of us ever have. Clearly, hard work isn't the answer. They're trying to stand up for themselves using the means the people in my country employ every day, that isn't working either, so....what are they supposed to do? I'm wondering if the next step shouldn't be rioting, so they can all lose their jobs and some of them, probably, their lives. That would be a lot easier on this end, you know?
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

- Dr. Seuss
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:57 pm

William Blake and his Red Dragon Pictures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_..._Paintings

I need to know once and for all what the triple 6 trinity means, and why, like Francis Dolarhyde, I have become obsessed with these paintings.

More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Every example I've looked at categorically states this is the case.

What does everyone think about guns?
http://naturalworldorder.org/gazing-into...andy-hook/
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-25-2012, 09:27 PM Unread post Post: #2
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-25-2012 07:44 AM)Gobbo Wrote:
Every example I've looked at categorically states this is the case.

What does everyone think about guns?
http://naturalworldorder.org/gazing-into...andy-hook/

As I said on ILP at great length, I think the US fascination with guns is driven by pop culture and that the constitution is meaningless. I think the idea of resisting government tyranny through owning guns is ludicrous, both in principle and in practice, and that this myth about 'every despot disarms the population' is the sort of lie you could only get away with spreading in a country like the US where 99% of people are completely idiotic.

Furthermore, I think the US government wants the population to own guns rather than the opposite. After all, they do sod all to enforce gun laws and massively subsidise the companies that make the guns, no to mention overtly encourage black markets like drugs which provide a means, motive and opportunity for a huge black market in guns.

I think your claim of 'every example' is disingenuous because look at the US compared to the UK - far more guns in the US, far more deaths, far less guns in the UK, no greater government tyranny.

In short, I think the kneejerk conspiracy theorist attitude of some on the 'Right' towards mass shootings is just as exploitative and just as moronic and just as massively untrue as the kneejerk 'ban the guns' attitude of some on the 'Left'. I think it's an utterly stupid discussion in its present format that has nothing to do with facts, nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with encouraging Americans to ultimately destroy themselves and each other.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-26-2012, 05:52 AM Unread post Post: #3
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Yeah but government aside, there is something sort of mutually assured about guns. I don't use them. I use my mind, but still - people don't act like stupid fuckers when they have some fear of the other person.

I kind of look at the Wild West as an example of what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure what I'm saying, exactly. 'Guns' is pretty new to me. I didn't really think about them before, but now I am. So that alone is noteworthy. Clearly all this propaganda is working to some degree.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-26-2012, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 12-26-2012 03:04 PM by W.C..) Unread post Post: #4
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Anyone saying I'll take your guns to ensure your security is well and good, but when they simply can't ensure it, what are they working towards? The question of whether we should have guns or not isn't a question of guns or disarmament for the time being, it's a question of power.

If you have the power to defend yourself, you are thus empowered. With great power comes great responsibility -- through responsibility you are likely to learn a greater level of respect. If only cars were held to the same account guns are, we'd have had them banned a while ago. But what does this achieve? We can respect cars and not even think of banning them, but guns! If there is a 100 car pile up with 60 child deaths, we don't talk about cars... because why, the motive isn't as discernible?

So are we to have select groups have select tools in order to ensure we supposedly harm ourselves as little as possible?

At a time when Police kill us more than the overblown terrorists, why aren't we at war against the police as opposed to the terrorists?

You have these psychos, these sane men, taking cars, trucks, and god knows, killing God knows how many everyday, and we have to worry about guns, because they don't get us to work like cars do, to let us feed the animals that cause most of our problems with the fruits of our labour.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-28-2012, 02:52 AM Unread post Post: #5
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-26-2012 05:52 AM)Gobbo Wrote:
Yeah but government aside, there is something sort of mutually assured about guns. I don't use them. I use my mind, but still - people don't act like stupid fuckers when they have some fear of the other person.

I kind of look at the Wild West as an example of what I'm talking about.

Most people in the Wild West weren't armed all the time. But I know what you mean about the rationale, and I'm not fundamentally opposed to that, I just think the notion that today's Americans, with today's attitudes, being allowed even more guns will only result in more mutual destruction.

Quote:
I'm not sure what I'm saying, exactly. 'Guns' is pretty new to me. I didn't really think about them before, but now I am. So that alone is noteworthy. Clearly all this propaganda is working to some degree.

Which propaganda are we talking about? I see in the US gun debate the same polarisation, the same strategy of tension, as in so many domestic counter-insurgency programs. Over here in the UK, I've heard both the pro-gun and anti-gun celebrity-endorsed propaganda, I've heard both sides seeking to exploit this event to advance seemingly contradictory policies and values.

Because ultimately what's it a choice between? Either banning guns in some way, thus affirming the notion that the state has a righteous monopoly on the use of violence, or giving Americans the means to kill each other at even higher rates. Either extreme plays into the same people's hands, just like in pretty much every mainstream political debate.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-28-2012, 03:03 AM Unread post Post: #6
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-26-2012 02:59 PM)W.C. Wrote:
Anyone saying I'll take your guns to ensure your security is well and good, but when they simply can't ensure it, what are they working towards? The question of whether we should have guns or not isn't a question of guns or disarmament for the time being, it's a question of power.

If you have the power to defend yourself, you are thus empowered. With great power comes great responsibility -- through responsibility you are likely to learn a greater level of respect. If only cars were held to the same account guns are, we'd have had them banned a while ago. But what does this achieve? We can respect cars and not even think of banning them, but guns! If there is a 100 car pile up with 60 child deaths, we don't talk about cars... because why, the motive isn't as discernible?

Because most cars, most of the time, are used peacefully to accomplish useful things. Guns are solely designed to kill things in an efficient manner.

It's a ludicrous, and massively over-used analogy. In fact, it isn't an analogy, it's just gun-loving bullshit.

Quote:
So are we to have select groups have select tools in order to ensure we supposedly harm ourselves as little as possible?

I'm against the general population being armed on a continuous basis, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of the police shooting people and getting away with it. It isn't an either/or choice, however much they (the mainstream) try to make it into one.

Quote:
At a time when Police kill us more than the overblown terrorists, why aren't we at war against the police as opposed to the terrorists?

A good question, that has little to do with the gun debate. Fight the police all you like, they're a shower of bastards. In fact, to borrow a phrase from my brother, they are a power shower of bastards.

Quote:
You have these psychos, these sane men, taking cars, trucks, and god knows, killing God knows how many everyday, and we have to worry about guns, because they don't get us to work like cars do, to let us feed the animals that cause most of our problems with the fruits of our labour.

We have invested HUGE amounts of time, money and effort in making vehicles harder to steal and safer when they do crash. No amount of time, money or effort will turn a gun into a tool of peace.

Seriously, it's an absolutely ridiculous analogy if you stop and think about it for a moment - the sort of thing hick gun-lovers will lap up, but the sort of thing intelligent people should view with the same scepticism as those who say that the government should be the only people who are allowed to use violence to accomplish things.

Did someone say the age of Horus was coming?

Image

By the way I think Gobbo's article on the main page does well to explain that the guns issue is not the main issue. The main issue is the psychology of the killer, and this is linked convincingly to antidepressant-type drugs. I do not think that more guns means more violence - look indeed at Switzerland and Russia - but I will believe in a second that more antidepressants means more violence, more chaos, less judgments by acting agents.

But then unfortunately any strong motive is capable of sending people over the edge - only three or four generations ago, a nation would gladly send its whole male population to a near certain death. Perhaps it is only that we do not any longer have any motives left that the killing is happening inside rather than outside.

Nihilism.... Image



W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-28-2012 03:03 AM)BigTom Wrote:
Because most cars, most of the time, are used peacefully to accomplish useful things. Guns are solely designed to kill things in an efficient manner.

It's a ludicrous, and massively over-used analogy. In fact, it isn't an analogy, it's just gun-loving bullshit.

At the same time, most guns in public, most of the time, are not used to kill as much as bows and arrows are not used to kill (if say bows and arrows had equal ownership rates). The highest uses for public guns are target practice, private collections or self defence.

Quote:
I'm against the general population being armed on a continuous basis, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of the police shooting people and getting away with it. It isn't an either/or choice, however much they (the mainstream) try to make it into one.

I agree. I mean, this whole thing has arisen again as a result of the Newtown affair -- in which an assault rifle was used in a state where assault rifles already have tougher laws. It appears they're now pushing for other states to adopt similar measures, apparently because it worked so well in Newtown.

Why they do not look to education and training as the Swiss do becomes apparent in the fact that they simply don't want the people armed.

An old thing I like to do is to watch what isn't being and hasn't really been reported on, which is related to events like this. What I found is that in instances where armed citizens have stopped a potential massacre or crime, it is almost seldom reported.

Quote:
A good question, that has little to do with the gun debate. Fight the police all you like, they're a shower of bastards. In fact, to borrow a phrase from my brother, they are a power shower of bastards.

True enough, but they're a difficult bunch to go to war with. Not all are bad, but all have a vast array of protection against law, etc.

Quote:
We have invested HUGE amounts of time, money and effort in making vehicles harder to steal and safer when they do crash. No amount of time, money or effort will turn a gun into a tool of peace.

No amount of time, money or effort will turn cars into safety machines either. We're not going to live in a totally safe society. Ever. As this is the case, I would prefer to be able to defend myself and my property rather than having to rely solely on those Police.

I agree with some regulations, and I agree with education. I disagree with banning practically anything wholely, as any ban simply sends the object of the ban to the black markets and creates gangs, etc, to maintain the same. I understand higher availability will inevitably place some guns in the hands of those that otherwise wouldn't have them. Thats life.

I do wonder why we don't invest more time, money and effort into education in general -- Why we don't stop disecting human emotions and labeling them psychological conditions to be sold as worthy of drugging oneself up for. But I don't wonder why this is the case for long.

In Australia, we had the Port Arthur Massacre as the flase flag justification to take away our guns. The UN is actively pursuing gun bans worldwide. I think I'm with the 'gun nuts' on this one. You disarm the world and only Governments will really be able to use violence to accomplish things -- more things against disarmed populations.

That said, I don't think you can ever really ban something like a gun, so long as you have people who can make or smuggle guns -- you can only reduce a quantity and a chance of any real backlash from those public groups/militias, who are being painted as terrorists because they're not government owned.

You know, and you probably can do this too, I can walk down the street today and buy a gun if I so desired. It is not safer. But I would say the time of guns as we know them, is coming to a close soon enough anyway -- to be replaced and enhanced over time with technological advancement. But again, this isn't about guns and never has been, it's about power. They want to have it, and they don't want us to because, in my understanding of what they're selling, 'we're a danger to them and to ourselves.'
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-28-2012, 02:01 PM Unread post Post: #9
sorege
Unregistered

RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Guns are an equalizer. You take a human with some potentially negative physical traits - specifically size and strength - and give that human a gun, those traits become poisonous. An intelligent human understands that a society which permits the relatively weak to carry guns is not one in which physical superiority or mental agility is a means to a positive end, since even mental overpowerment can reisult in the death of the non-aggresive mentally fit person. Guns bring us all down to the same level. The level of a reptile with venomous spray.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the reptile. And we can live with it. We may prefer not to, but we do need to learn how.

Sometimes we stick them in prison. Or a mental health hospital. Or shove them in an orphanage. Or kill them outright. The human and its reptile equivalent. It doesn't matter how we attempt to rid the world of dangers, they will continue to exist. I believe it is incumbent upon us as individuals to prevent the venemous from harming us by eliminating the need for the attack.
Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-28-2012, 07:15 PM Unread post Post: #10
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Quote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with the reptile. And we can live with it. We may prefer not to, but we do need to learn how.

Well said.

Something I feel is kind of pertinent here is the concept of that person who can talk their way out of anything. This doesn't apply to all gun cases, but it shows the power of the mind, and how it could potentially be applied to the social case in question here.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."


RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-28-2012 09:43 AM)W.C. Wrote:
(12-28-2012 03:03 AM)BigTom Wrote:
Because most cars, most of the time, are used peacefully to accomplish useful things. Guns are solely designed to kill things in an efficient manner.

It's a ludicrous, and massively over-used analogy. In fact, it isn't an analogy, it's just gun-loving bullshit.

At the same time, most guns in public, most of the time, are not used to kill as much as bows and arrows are not used to kill (if say bows and arrows had equal ownership rates). The highest uses for public guns are target practice, private collections or self defence.

This is irrelevant. They are designed to kill. Cars aren't. Very few people are deliberately killed with a car. Loads of people are deliberately killed with guns.

It's a bullshit analogy.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm against the general population being armed on a continuous basis, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of the police shooting people and getting away with it. It isn't an either/or choice, however much they (the mainstream) try to make it into one.

I agree. I mean, this whole thing has arisen again as a result of the Newtown affair -- in which an assault rifle was used in a state where assault rifles already have tougher laws. It appears they're now pushing for other states to adopt similar measures, apparently because it worked so well in Newtown.

Had the restrictions been properly enforced then the Newtown massacre would not have happened. The argument that different legislation or improved enforcement might be the solution is perfectly reasonable. Yet it's this sort of mocking 'because regulation worked so well in Newtown' that we here from the gun-lovers, and which for some reason you're repeating word for word without considering whether or not it is bollocks. Because it's obviously bollocks - one drunk driver killing a group of children is not a reason to get rid of all laws governing cars, or driving, or drink driving, or to get everyone drink driving so that they are all equally dangerous to one another.

Quote:
Why they do not look to education and training as the Swiss do becomes apparent in the fact that they simply don't want the people armed.

They clearly do want the people armed - they subsidise the weapons manufacturers who make the weapons, they pass crappy regulations which help create a black market and then systemically fail to enforce those regulations, in particular failing to enforce them against the black market they helped to create. They also subsidise the film and TV industries who glamourise guns, gun violence and gun ownership, while also portraying the world as horrible and scary, thus giving people the ready made 'it's just for self-defence' excuse for buying a gun.

Set against all that evidence that they do, in fact, want US citizens to have guns and invest huge amounts of time, money and effort in encouraging them to buy guns, your argument is that they don't 'look to education and training like the Swiss do'. As someone else pointed out in this same debate on ILP - the Swiss have state-mandated, conscripted military service. Can you see how quickly the 'everyone owns a gun' becomes 'everyone is part of the state military', i.e. how quickly the Libertarianism becomes Fascism?

Seriously, the 'they want our guns' position is just as ridiculous as the 'they take our jobs' position regarding immigration. It's just a tabloid-style rallying cry for the mob. I cannot express to you in strong enough terms (without being very rude) how dimwitted the whole guns debate is, and the extent to which it is a waste of your time believing in either of the two apparently polar-opposite positions we are offered by the mainstream media. The gun nuts love pointing out that Switzerland has lots of guns but little violence.

Quote:
An old thing I like to do is to watch what isn't being and hasn't really been reported on, which is related to events like this. What I found is that in instances where armed citizens have stopped a potential massacre or crime, it is almost seldom reported.

Give me some examples, because I can think of literally dozens of mass shootings in countries where gun ownership is quite widespread but none of the supposedly self-defending population lifted a finger to stop the person or persons perpetrating the mass murder. Look at the Breivik attack in Norway - Norwegians are gun owners, they like to hunt and like shooting-based sports and despite being a socialist country with a massive public sector they don't have particularly strict gun control regulations. Certainly it's a lot easier to get a gun in Norway than it is here in the UK. Funny how you never hear the gun-lovers using Norway as an example, possibly because it doesn't fit their tobacco-chewing right-winged worldview whereby 'socialism' is equivalent to Satanism.

Anyway, Breivik was tramping about on that island, shooting people and phoning the police to tell them he was on the island shooting people, and all around the lake were people who owned guns and had boats who could have tried to stop him. They did nothing. Now, that's partly due to the national character of the Norwegians, somewhat applicable to Scandinavians in general, that they are an essentially peaceful bunch who weren't prepared for something like this. Norway has no history of mass-casualty terrorism, even though guns are quite widely available. But even in the US, where this kind of thing happens on a regular basis, and where they have a supposedly gung-ho national character, it is almost never a member of the public who stops the mass-killer. If they are shot, they usually shoot themselves or are killed by the police. If you've got counter-examples then lay them on me.

Quote:
Quote:
A good question, that has little to do with the gun debate. Fight the police all you like, they're a shower of bastards. In fact, to borrow a phrase from my brother, they are a power shower of bastards.

True enough, but they're a difficult bunch to go to war with. Not all are bad, but all have a vast array of protection against law, etc.

I don't really mean going to war with them, I mean holding them to account as a means of persuading them to change. Having police of some sort isn't necessarily a bad idea, in fact they are sometimes useful and competent. That can be encouraged.

Quote:
Quote:
We have invested HUGE amounts of time, money and effort in making vehicles harder to steal and safer when they do crash. No amount of time, money or effort will turn a gun into a tool of peace.

No amount of time, money or effort will turn cars into safety machines either.

And yet, they are used safely most of the time. Guns are not.

Quote:
We're not going to live in a totally safe society. Ever. As this is the case, I would prefer to be able to defend myself and my property rather than having to rely solely on those Police.

Again, it isn't a choice between one or the other.

Quote:
I agree with some regulations, and I agree with education. I disagree with banning practically anything wholely, as any ban simply sends the object of the ban to the black markets and creates gangs, etc, to maintain the same. I understand higher availability will inevitably place some guns in the hands of those that otherwise wouldn't have them. Thats life.

That isn't my argument against gun ownership.

Quote:
I do wonder why we don't invest more time, money and effort into education in general -- Why we don't stop disecting human emotions and labeling them psychological conditions to be sold as worthy of drugging oneself up for. But I don't wonder why this is the case for long.

In Australia, we had the Port Arthur Massacre as the flase flag justification to take away our guns. The UN is actively pursuing gun bans worldwide. I think I'm with the 'gun nuts' on this one. You disarm the world and only Governments will really be able to use violence to accomplish things -- more things against disarmed populations.

All over the world we see the covert agencies of Western governments arming insurgent populations. Methinks they are quite happy for people to run around on the ground with guns killing each other while they fly about in their spy satellites and supersonic bomber jets. As above, I'm looking at their actual behaviour rather than their rhetoric.

Quote:
That said, I don't think you can ever really ban something like a gun, so long as you have people who can make or smuggle guns -- you can only reduce a quantity and a chance of any real backlash from those public groups/militias, who are being painted as terrorists because they're not government owned.

You know, and you probably can do this too, I can walk down the street today and buy a gun if I so desired. It is not safer. But I would say the time of guns as we know them, is coming to a close soon enough anyway -- to be replaced and enhanced over time with technological advancement. But again, this isn't about guns and never has been, it's about power. They want to have it, and they don't want us to because, in my understanding of what they're selling, 'we're a danger to them and to ourselves.'

Us having guns gives them a lot of excuses for a lot of things. They want us to have guns, 95% of their behaviour shows this. I think that adopting anything from either side of this poisoned and poisonous debate is extremely foolhardy. I'm not trying to insult you here, but as I say I can't express this in strong enough terms. It's an utterly stupid debate, and no basis for arguing about degrees of regulatory control vs. the relevance of individual rights. The debate as it currently stands misconstrues EVERYTHING it discusses.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-28-2012, 11:55 PM Post: #12
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Quote:
I cannot express to you in strong enough terms (without being very rude) how dimwitted the whole guns debate is, and the extent to which it is a waste of your time believing in either of the two apparently polar-opposite positions we are offered by the mainstream media.

To be fair, though, you are presenting this argument where you're envisioning fighter pilots nuking civilians mobs of people with their 'guns.'

It's not so much about how a literal war would play out. It's about the symbolism behind this. If the Americans give up their guns, then it's basically admitting defeat.

This is all in the context of obliterating the constitution, which is a cleverly genius piece of literature I might add.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-29-2012, 02:26 AM (This post was last modified: 12-29-2012 02:35 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
I agree with Gobbo here. It's the symbolism, the constitution, the 'spirit' of the US that is at stake. We are talking about a country where the violent nature of man is relatively un-repressed, accepted. This has disadvantages and advantages. The disadvantages are obvious, the advantage is that it makes for a very dynamic environment, the American psyche is exceptionally powerful. The second amendment creates the idea (whether it's illusory or not is of no practical significance) that people are truly free, that they have the right to resist government. This is unheard of in other nations, and I think that it is a massive improvement over the past ten millennia or so.

My sentiment is equal to what Gobbo expressed: if Americans hand over their guns, they're admitting defeat, failure of their project. The project was based on trust in the self-regulating power of the human being, and for this reason it is important to focus on this anti-depressant issue. Antidepressants are a direct attack on mans capacity to self-regulate - they eliminate mans responsibility for his own state of mind, thus for his acts. Antidepressants form a direct attack on mans 'soul', his self-governing capacity. Guns only form a danger when this capacity has been overruled.

Essentially the 2nd amendment speaks of a tremendous optimism, an unprecedented faith in mankind. Whether this faith is justified or not, to scrap the right would be a huge step backward, leading Americans to submit to the ancient and still wide spread idea of Faraoic rulership which they had successfully challenged for a while.

Government prescribing the right to resist government is enlightened, even if the right is only symbolic.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-29-2012, 06:02 AM Post: #14
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-28-2012 11:55 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
Quote:
I cannot express to you in strong enough terms (without being very rude) how dimwitted the whole guns debate is, and the extent to which it is a waste of your time believing in either of the two apparently polar-opposite positions we are offered by the mainstream media.

To be fair, though, you are presenting this argument where you're envisioning fighter pilots nuking civilians mobs of people with their 'guns.'

That is the military model of the future I'm working with, derived largely from US military counterinsurgency manuals, CIA trends reports and the Command and Conquer computer game series, yes, you'd be right about that.

Quote:
It's not so much about how a literal war would play out. It's about the symbolism behind this. If the Americans give up their guns, then it's basically admitting defeat.

Sure, which is one of the main reasons I'm not in favour of banning guns. I think people should voluntarily choose not to own guns.

Quote:
This is all in the context of obliterating the constitution, which is a cleverly genius piece of literature I might add.

An awful lot depends on whether the rights and freedoms outlined in the constitution are supposed to apply to everyone, or to a select few. The select few who wrote it appear to have been mainly concerned with according themselves such rights (to bear arms or own property or whatever) rather than people at large. After all, they didn't want their slaves bearing arms, did they?

There is a lot of stuff in the constitution which is outmoded gibberish, though of course it isn't those bits that are being dissolved, it's the bits about not kidnapping and imprisoning people because you feel like it.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-29-2012, 10:52 PM (This post was last modified: 12-29-2012 11:09 PM by BigTom.) Post: #15
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-29-2012 02:26 AM)Bran Wrote:
I agree with Gobbo here. It's the symbolism, the constitution, the 'spirit' of the US that is at stake. We are talking about a country where the violent nature of man is relatively un-repressed, accepted. This has disadvantages and advantages. The disadvantages are obvious, the advantage is that it makes for a very dynamic environment, the American psyche is exceptionally powerful.

I think this is extremely one-sided and simplistic. There's no such thing as 'the American psyche'. Almost all of the Americans I've met have been weak-minded, lazy, nasty idiots. That's nothing to be proud of or for the rest of the world to emulate.

Quote:
The second amendment creates the idea (whether it's illusory or not is of no practical significance) that people are truly free, that they have the right to resist government. This is unheard of in other nations, and I think that it is a massive improvement over the past ten millennia or so.

Yeah, because no other nation has any history of resisting their government. Only Americans, and look how well they've done at it! It's not like the US government is the largest, most destructive institution the world has ever seen.

Oh, wait a second...

Quote:
My sentiment is equal to what Gobbo expressed: if Americans hand over their guns, they're admitting defeat, failure of their project. The project was based on trust in the self-regulating power of the human being, and for this reason it is important to focus on this anti-depressant issue. Antidepressants are a direct attack on mans capacity to self-regulate - they eliminate mans responsibility for his own state of mind, thus for his acts. Antidepressants form a direct attack on mans 'soul', his self-governing capacity. Guns only form a danger when this capacity has been overruled.

Or when they get into the hands of kids who've been bred on a diet of poverty and glamourisation of gun violence.

Leaving aside this myth of the American project being something other than the same old story of white colonisation, I do agree with you - there is a logic to a large number of people owning and carrying guns that breeds a certain mutual respect. You would see a lot less of the glib cynicism that has come to dominate American youth culture because that passive-aggressive, put everything else down and then pretend you don't care about it attitude is hard to maintain towards someone carrying a gun.

Quote:
Essentially the 2nd amendment speaks of a tremendous optimism, an unprecedented faith in mankind. Whether this faith is justified or not, to scrap the right would be a huge step backward, leading Americans to submit to the ancient and still wide spread idea of Faraoic rulership which they had successfully challenged for a while.

Government prescribing the right to resist government is enlightened, even if the right is only symbolic.

Government prescribing the right to resist government is absurd because it means the government can simply take that right away as and when it pleases. A people trying to form a government from a starting point that includes the right to resist government is enlightened. And I'm sure that some of the people who went to America way back when weren't doing it with colonisation in mind, but had more enlightened ideals. Praise those people and those ideals all you want, but that alone does not to my mind defend the Constitution as a whole, let alone the American Project as a whole. If it fails, I think it will fail because those ideals weren't applied to everyone, and were never intended to be applied to everyone. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise on that.

To be clear, I'm not in favour of banning guns, and I agree it would be a huge symbolic step in the US that would not be positive for them. But likewise I'm not in favour of this 'everyone should be armed to the teeth' idea. I think the existing gun debate in the US is exceptionally stupid, but then every political debate in the US is the same way. The notion that there is anything in that debate that the rest of the world should admire and emulate appalls me. I think that there are far better arguments for gun ownership (without descending into gun fetishism) and I am glad to see some of those arguments on this thread.

Indeed, both yours and Gobbos posts remind me of this:

[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/r38-yj8wqiw[/flash]

Had the shopkeeper not owned a rifle then his subsequent act of kindness would not have been possible. This is an example of the threat of force being used for good which both entertained me and I think embodies the kinds of values you're talking about. I'm not going to labour the point that the man in question was a Muslim American, a curious mixture to consider when picking apart this tiny but symbolically important event.

I'm kind of with you, I just have utter contempt for mainstream US political discussion, and see no reason to revise that regarding the gun debate. All this roundabout bollocks about 'every dictator in history has disarmed the population' is the sort of thing you could only get away with in a country where people know no history, where they genuinely don't realise that there have been dictators, Faraoic rulership, the divine right of Kings etc. for millenia before their country, as they conceive of it, ever existed. Not all of those dictators, kings, Pharaohs sought to disarm their populations - plenty of them either didn't give a toss because they had other things to worry about or actively sought to arm the population for various reasons. The principle of resisting government is very important, and American gun ownership is a symbol of that, I do get it, but that doesn't excuse the sheer crap spouted in defence of that gun ownership. Having the right conclusion for a hundred wrong reasons is not something that the rest of the world should be admiring or emulating.
[/quote]

Had the shopkeeper not owned a rifle then his subsequent act of kindness would not have been possible. This is an example of the threat of force being used for good which both entertained me and I think embodies the kinds of values you're talking about. I'm not going to labour the point that the man in question was a Muslim American, a curious mixture to consider when picking apart this tiny but symbolically important event.

I'm kind of with you, I just have utter contempt for mainstream US political discussion, and see no reason to revise that regarding the gun debate. All this roundabout bollocks about 'every dictator in history has disarmed the population' is the sort of thing you could only get away with in a country where people know no history, where they genuinely don't realise that there have been dictators, Faraoic rulership, the divine right of Kings etc. for millenia before their country, as they conceive of it, ever existed. Not all of those dictators, kings, Pharaohs sought to disarm their populations - plenty of them either didn't give a toss because they had other things to worry about or actively sought to arm the population for various reasons. The principle of resisting government is very important, and American gun ownership is a symbol of that, I do get it, but that doesn't excuse the sheer crap spouted in defence of that gun ownership. Having the right conclusion for a hundred wrong reasons is not something that the rest of the world should be admiring or emulating.


Dannerz Offline
Student
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Things like knives and base ball bats can be deadly too. A gun is more deadly, but still, people always have the means to a killing or a violent act. Do you want to ban knives and base ball bats?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-30-2012, 01:00 AM Post: #17
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-30-2012 12:37 AM)Dannerz Wrote:
Things like knives and base ball bats can be deadly too. A gun is more deadly, but still, people always have the means to a killing or a violent act. Do you want to ban knives and base ball bats?

That's it, try to drag the discussion back to the most basic, moronic level you can...
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-30-2012, 08:11 PM Post: #18
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
He has a point.

Quote:
I think this is extremely one-sided and simplistic. There's no such thing as 'the American psyche'. Almost all of the Americans I've met have been weak-minded, lazy, nasty idiots. That's nothing to be proud of or for the rest of the world to emulate.

You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with whether all of this is 'smart' or not.

Britain is the brain, the US is the arm. Before the bankers co-opted the US it was probably the best structure the world has ever seen for realizing the human potential. Britain is completely conquered. No one there could revolt even if they wanted to.

People look to the US because once the guns are handed in there, the arm is free to fist the body into a new world order, but we're not completely there yet.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-30-2012, 09:00 PM Post: #19
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-30-2012 08:11 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
He has a point.

No, he doesn't, because that has NOTHING to do with what I said. In particular, I never said guns should be banned, so responding 'other things are dangerous, why don't you ban them too?' is completely stupid. Seriously, if the quality of discussion here is no better than on ILP then I want nothing to do with it, and that post was just like ILP.

Quote:
Quote:
I think this is extremely one-sided and simplistic. There's no such thing as 'the American psyche'. Almost all of the Americans I've met have been weak-minded, lazy, nasty idiots. That's nothing to be proud of or for the rest of the world to emulate.

You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with whether all of this is 'smart' or not.

Britain is the brain, the US is the arm. Before the bankers co-opted the US it was probably the best structure the world has ever seen for realizing the human potential. Britain is completely conquered. No one there could revolt even if they wanted to.

Says a person who has never been to Britain and has no idea what's going on over here. Britain has had plenty of revolts, far more than the US.

Quote:
People look to the US because once the guns are handed in there, the arm is free to fist the body into a new world order, but we're not completely there yet.

If I truly believed that my future freedom was dependent on Americans owning guns then I'd kill myself. This is a great example of what I mean about simplistic conspiratorial views of the world leading to despair.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
12-30-2012, 11:05 PM (This post was last modified: 12-30-2012 11:09 PM by Gobbo.) Post: #20
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Why are you so mad? This issue clearly has some other element to it I'm not seeing. Did you ban him for the comment a couple posts up? That seems excessive.

I'm going to try and explain this fully, and give it the attention it deserves.

Quote:
I'm kind of with you, I just have utter contempt for mainstream US political discussion, and see no reason to revise that regarding the gun debate.

We're not asking you to revise your position. We're asking you to phrase this in the context of the World Stage. You're right (and I didn't mean to sound insulting) I'm sure people could revolt in Britain, but in the sense of the World Stage that would be kind of coming from left field. By all means, do that. I hope that happens.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:09 pm

But the spotlight is on the US. Or perhaps it just seems that way living next to it in Canada.

I don't like it anyone more than you do. Perhaps even less.... But the reality is that everyone kind of looks to the United States because they have made a lot of noise. And as I alluded to with the constitution, a lot of that noise has blossomed from the type of intellectual spirit that is shared by Britain, but as someone who lives in a British colony myself, I would say more unchained. Maybe you don't agree with that, but I just think it is. Or at least has been more so in the past 200 years where such a thing could even be possible.

If that country can somehow.... as I said, not fist us the world, then it's a story that the world can jump on board with. They can't advance the plan without that arm of theirs. And in the hands of the people, it's game over. It's the easiest place for the tipping point to occur. It's the top of the iceberg. I truly think it matters if the US gives their guns in.

So in that way arguments like Dan's are somewhat valid. This site is think tank, is it not? It is more kind of a transparent (hopefully fun) steering the masses where we try to provide a clear and concrete solution. When people ask me about these shootings I say: "Don't give in guns." I think our work is basically coming up with a coherent answer and saying, 'Here you go." to anyone who wants to read. History has shown it's something like 6-9% of society is what is needed to basically turn public opinion and change everything entirely.

Addressing Your Response to the OP

Quote:
As I said on ILP at great length, I think the US fascination with guns is driven by pop culture and that the constitution is meaningless.

Sure, but you don't live there, and the people that are going to supposedly bomb everyone in your scenario are people who do, and who believe in those things so... well let's move on.

Quote:
I think the idea of resisting government tyranny through owning guns is ludicrous, both in principle and in practice

Sure, but everything in society is ludicrous. Every war call, at first glance, is logically absurd. It's about the social reaction. Us talking about this is kind of weirdly both very dumbed down and simplified, but also very complex.

Quote:
and that this myth about 'every despot disarms the population' is the sort of lie you could only get away with spreading in a country like the US where 99% of people are completely idiotic.

If I was a dictator I would do this. The basic logic behind it makes sense, even if 'every one' didn't do it.

Quote:
Furthermore, I think the US government wants the population to own guns rather than the opposite. After all, they do sod all to enforce gun laws and massively subsidise the companies that make the guns, no to mention overtly encourage black markets like drugs which provide a means, motive and opportunity for a huge black market in guns.

This is a fair point. But in the wake of Sandy Hook, if you say to someone 'Yea man, Let's hand in our guns and watch some SNL," then, really nothing is accomplished other than in one more instance someone learns to just acquiesce to the government's demands. Once again, this is about digging our heals in. Finding key instances to do that.

Quote:
I think your claim of 'every example' is disingenuous because look at the US compared to the UK - far more guns in the US, far more deaths, far less guns in the UK, no greater government tyranny.

This is kind of another discussion. We can talk about if you want. I'm getting tired of typing and I feel like this will be long.

Quote:
In short, I think the kneejerk conspiracy theorist attitude of some on the 'Right' towards mass shootings is just as exploitative and just as moronic and just as massively untrue as the kneejerk 'ban the guns' attitude of some on the 'Left'. I think it's an utterly stupid discussion in its present format that has nothing to do with facts, nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with encouraging Americans to ultimately destroy themselves and each other.

It's all kneejerk. We're down to the final chess moves here. People always say that people who always say the world is going to end are just some part of society that is always there -- and maybe so -- but we're approaching the point where revolt will be impossible for a long time, until some like.... Harry Potter or something is born 1000 years from now and upsets the system.

What would you say, ultimately, in the face of all this to the public?

"Meh... this discussion is pointless."
All right I'll turn my guns in then. Thanks tinfoil.

or

"Well, you shouldn't but more to the point, you should look at gun ownership and gun violence in this way..."
Oh, interesting... maybe I'll check out that article you mentioned.

We need to get over seeing the public discussion as intellectually insulting or whatever. You gotta get up in that shit and just roll with it. Have a couple drinks. Get a buzz on and just grin and bear it. We need the public. We also need you.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."


RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
The plot seems to be going like this:

Take the guns - I don't think we can disagree they want to do this. They keep throwing shooting after shooting at us. They really want it.

So why? - I think it's so skyrocket the crime rate with riots and Battlefield Los Angeles type stuff so they can bring in Martial Law.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-02-2013, 12:12 AM Post: #22
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-30-2012 11:05 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
I'm going to try and explain this fully, and give it the attention it deserves.

Quote:
I'm kind of with you, I just have utter contempt for mainstream US political discussion, and see no reason to revise that regarding the gun debate.

We're not asking you to revise your position. We're asking you to phrase this in the context of the World Stage. You're right (and I didn't mean to sound insulting) I'm sure people could revolt in Britain, but in the sense of the World Stage that would be kind of coming from left field. By all means, do that. I hope that happens.

But the spotlight is on the US. Or perhaps it just seems that way living next to it in Canada.

Of course, a shooting or a presidential election or a new gun law in the US gets reported the world over.

Quote:
I don't like it anyone more than you do. Perhaps even less.... But the reality is that everyone kind of looks to the United States because they have made a lot of noise. And as I alluded to with the constitution, a lot of that noise has blossomed from the type of intellectual spirit that is shared by Britain, but as someone who lives in a British colony myself, I would say more unchained. Maybe you don't agree with that, but I just think it is. Or at least has been more so in the past 200 years where such a thing could even be possible.

If that country can somehow.... as I said, not fist us the world, then it's a story that the world can jump on board with. They can't advance the plan without that arm of theirs. And in the hands of the people, it's game over. It's the easiest place for the tipping point to occur. It's the top of the iceberg. I truly think it matters if the US gives their guns in.

I'm not denying it matters, but I don't see the US as being the place where a tipping point can be encouraged or created. The people are just too stupid and too vain. Look at how the American truth movement has responded to the economic crisis - it just blames 'the government' or 'the elite' or thinks that sitting in a park or voting for Ron Paul is somehow going to solve things. The simple fact of Americans consuming far more than they produce is never discussed. The simple fact of there being physical limitations on growth and consumption is never discussed. Far easier to just blame 'the government' and pretend that if they weren't keeping us down we'd all be millionaires because we're Americans and we're just that damn good.

Quote:
So in that way arguments like Dan's are somewhat valid. This site is think tank, is it not? It is more kind of a transparent (hopefully fun) steering the masses where we try to provide a clear and concrete solution. When people ask me about these shootings I say: "Don't give in guns." I think our work is basically coming up with a coherent answer and saying, 'Here you go." to anyone who wants to read. History has shown it's something like 6-9% of society is what is needed to basically turn public opinion and change everything entirely.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that except for that arguments like 'Dan's' (by which you mean the same tired old gun-fetishists who say the same thing no matter what happens and which Dan lazily and crudely and uncritically repeated for no apparent reason) are even remotely valid. They may be useful in persuading stupid people of true conclusions because they sound like they are valid and encourage an emotive, tabloid response. Rhetorically, they have force. Logically, they are bullshit.

Call me idealistic if you must, but I think we can find ways to be both logical and rhetorically forceful at the same time.

Quote:
Addressing Your Response to the OP

Quote:
As I said on ILP at great length, I think the US fascination with guns is driven by pop culture and that the constitution is meaningless.

Sure, but you don't live there, and the people that are going to supposedly bomb everyone in your scenario are people who do, and who believe in those things so... well let's move on.

Quote:
I think the idea of resisting government tyranny through owning guns is ludicrous, both in principle and in practice

Sure, but everything in society is ludicrous. Every war call, at first glance, is logically absurd. It's about the social reaction. Us talking about this is kind of weirdly both very dumbed down and simplified, but also very complex.

The social reaction has been 'they wanna tek ma gurns', from what I can see. Pretty dim, and not something I feel I can work with.

Quote:
Quote:
and that this myth about 'every despot disarms the population' is the sort of lie you could only get away with spreading in a country like the US where 99% of people are completely idiotic.

If I was a dictator I would do this. The basic logic behind it makes sense, even if 'every one' didn't do it.

Whether the logic behind it makes sense or not is irrelevant, only whether dictators actually do this. Look at Saudi Arabia - clearly a dictatorship, yet they have pretty lax gun laws that aren't really enforced and lots of private gun ownership. That's the opposite to Britain, an elective democracy. In Russia there's more private gun ownership than in Britain, but in North Korea there's far, far less private gun ownership, indeed it is among the lowest in the world.

There's no simple correlation between dictatorship and banning gun ownership. There just isn't. Rather than making a judgment on the basis of something sounding right, I actually bothered to look:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/

All kinds of information from all over the world on, for example, private gun ownership vs. government gun ownership. There is no simple pattern that would sustain even your moderated position, let alone the 'every dictatorship in history...' crap that I objected to.

Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, I think the US government wants the population to own guns rather than the opposite. After all, they do sod all to enforce gun laws and massively subsidise the companies that make the guns, no to mention overtly encourage black markets like drugs which provide a means, motive and opportunity for a huge black market in guns.

This is a fair point. But in the wake of Sandy Hook, if you say to someone 'Yea man, Let's hand in our guns and watch some SNL," then, really nothing is accomplished other than in one more instance someone learns to just acquiesce to the government's demands. Once again, this is about digging our heals in. Finding key instances to do that.

Your argument makes no sense. If the government isn't trying to disarm people then giving up your guns is not acquiescing to their demands.

Quote:
Quote:
I think your claim of 'every example' is disingenuous because look at the US compared to the UK - far more guns in the US, far more deaths, far less guns in the UK, no greater government tyranny.

This is kind of another discussion. We can talk about if you want. I'm getting tired of typing and I feel like this will be long.

I'm not particularly interested in that conversation, save to say the real world does not conform to the fantasies of American conspiracy theorist gun-fetishists. It's only because they are really fucking stupid and have no history that they believe it. What's your excuse?

Quote:
Quote:
In short, I think the kneejerk conspiracy theorist attitude of some on the 'Right' towards mass shootings is just as exploitative and just as moronic and just as massively untrue as the kneejerk 'ban the guns' attitude of some on the 'Left'. I think it's an utterly stupid discussion in its present format that has nothing to do with facts, nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with encouraging Americans to ultimately destroy themselves and each other.

It's all kneejerk. We're down to the final chess moves here. People always say that people who always say the world is going to end are just some part of society that is always there -- and maybe so -- but we're approaching the point where revolt will be impossible for a long time, until some like.... Harry Potter or something is born 1000 years from now and upsets the system.

I don't accept this.

Quote:
What would you say, ultimately, in the face of all this to the public?

"Meh... this discussion is pointless."
All right I'll turn my guns in then. Thanks tinfoil.

or

"Well, you shouldn't but more to the point, you should look at gun ownership and gun violence in this way..."
Oh, interesting... maybe I'll check out that article you mentioned.

I'd tell them what I've told people here - that the mainstream arguments around gun ownership are bullshit and a waste of everyone's time, but that I'm not in favour of banning guns because of other reasons (some articulated by yourself and others on this thread). Simple enough, and doesn't involve lying, making up stuff, glorifying guesswork about history and the present day, or acquiescing to stupidity in the name of reaching out to people.

Quote:
We need to get over seeing the public discussion as intellectually insulting or whatever. You gotta get up in that shit and just roll with it. Have a couple drinks. Get a buzz on and just grin and bear it. We need the public. We also need you.

I'm not interested in dumbing down what I have to say in order to reach more people. If you make that compromise then you just end up using the same means as the people you're fighting against when they have much more money and infrastructure and are much more practiced and established. I'm happy to have a discussion about gun ownership and why it is important and what Americans should do, but I'm not willing to put up with arguments that I know to be untrue just because I agree with their conclusions.

Otherwise, what's the point of even talking about it?

(12-31-2012 01:42 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
The plot seems to be going like this:

Take the guns - I don't think we can disagree they want to do this. They keep throwing shooting after shooting at us. They really want it.

So why? - I think it's so skyrocket the crime rate with riots and Battlefield Los Angeles type stuff so they can bring in Martial Law.

I disagree that they want to do this, for the reasons I have outlined in detail that no one has countered. Perhaps you should watch less movies and read more factual information.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-02-2013, 05:05 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2013 05:08 PM by Gobbo.) Post: #23
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Quote:
The social reaction has been 'they wanna tek ma gurns', from what I can see. Pretty dim, and not something I feel I can work with.

I think we have to try, though. That is to say: it is the reaction. And they do want to take the guns. I'll come back to this when I address where or not America is being beyond saving.

Quote:
Whether the logic behind it makes sense or not is irrelevant,

Is it? Why? Because factually not every dictator has banned guns? I don't really care about that. As long as some dictators have, then the story works. Now that I know the truth I'm obviously not going to lie on purpose but... I guess my point is this:

Do we need to be 100% factual about everything we say to a populace that clearly doesn't give a fuck about facts? I'm comfortable with the high 90's.

Quote:
I'm not disagreeing with any of that except for that arguments like 'Dan's' (by which you mean the same tired old gun-fetishists who say the same thing no matter what happens and which Dan lazily and crudely and uncritically repeated for no apparent reason) are even remotely valid.

Those types of arguments needs to be injected into this discussions for the public to hear. Again. And Again. That is to say, the whole gun law issue is fucking absurd in the first place and it can be reduced to that one argument.

Quote:
Rhetorically, they have force. Logically, they are bullshit.
Quote:
Call me idealistic if you must, but I think we can find ways to be both logical and rhetorically forceful at the same time.


This will be the main issue with forming our identity here. Probably the smartest thing XZC ever said to me before he became boring was that I/we need to make all of this entertaining because no one will care otherwise. Alex Jones uses fear and craziness to be successful, we need to find our niche. I don't claim to know what it is. I would like logic to be heavily involved. When I wrote my article I thought it was fairly indicative of what we were trying to achieve. Kind a creative refusal to dumb ourselves down.

Quote:
All kinds of information from all over the world on, for example, private gun ownership vs. government gun ownership. There is no simple pattern that would sustain even your moderated position, let alone the 'every dictatorship in history...' crap that I objected to.

What I'm striving for is to be strategic. It's not persuasive saying to people in a rhetorical war 'Well, um, technically there is no pattern...' If I'm basically trying to mess with their plans, I'm trying to educate people - yes - but with facts that will bring them to my side of the debate.

Quote:
If the government isn't trying to disarm people then giving up your guns is not acquiescing to their demands.

The government is trying to disarm people. I know you think they can just nuke everyone and like I said, that is certainly true...but they want all the guns. The society they want will have no private gun ownership. I'll explain this more in a second.

Quote:
I'm not particularly interested in that conversation, save to say the real world does not conform to the fantasies of American conspiracy theorist gun-fetishists.

I feel like you think it's these hicks who can't use Google. I've seen the stats to back all these arguments. Well it's basically the same stat anyway: the UK has more violent crime than any other nation except Australia. Also, the UK has more cameras pointed at people than (I think) any other nation on earth. And a culture that revolves around subservience to a family.

Quote:
It's only because they are really fucking stupid and have no history that they believe it. What's your excuse?

Like I said... the UK is a fountain of violence. I don't know what you want me to say, every example I looked at reflected what I wrote. Everything I've seen about the UK is 'worst in Europe' 'top 5 most violent nations in the world' etc. I am wrong here, or... is it the case that there are no guns in the UK, and it's also really violent?

Quote:
I don't accept this.

Well, it might not be 1000. And I'm thinking more of an Aeon Flux type thing now.

Quote:
I'm not interested in dumbing down what I have to say in order to reach more people.

There is a difference between dumbing a statement down, and making it universally palpable. Actually... I don't know if there is.

Quote:
I disagree that they want to do this, for the reasons I have outlined in detail that no one has countered. Perhaps you should watch less movies and read more factual information.


This is maybe something for a new thread, but the gun represents the phallus, and the NWO is all about emasculating males. It's not something they want anyone to have in the new world. What I'm referring to is a form of power beyond the level of a war playing out, and the logistics of how you could drop a nuke on the public. I've said that several times now. This is about the symbolism behind owning a gun, and that is especially true in the US, where it's even more a part of the culture. That culture has to be destroyed.

You disagree because you cited a few historic examples where dictators haven't taken guns? Please keep going... I require more. Before we continue you should explain, in full detail, why you believe that this envisioned society they have will be one where people are cruising around with conceal and carry.

I'm actually quite surprised you think this.

Quote:
I think this is extremely one-sided and simplistic. There's no such thing as 'the American psyche'. Almost all of the Americans I've met have been weak-minded, lazy, nasty idiots. That's nothing to be proud of or for the rest of the world to emulate.

And your reaction here makes me think you're going about this the wrong way. There is America, the literal place, where you go there and it's dirty. But then there is the idea of America. Just here in this couple sentences you're conflating the idea of the society found in the constitution with what has transpired after 100 years (exactly this 2013) of Britain taking over the fed and co-opting the society into a shitty one.

Logistically, America is already dead, and yes, they could just nuke everyone. Taking over the world is more than that. In a way, the people have to accept it, and be somewhat aware that they are themselves fucking themselves over. It cannot be some military takeover. It has to be through crushing the USA into the physical and social chaos that will give rise to the New World.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-07-2013, 01:43 AM Post: #24
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(01-02-2013 05:05 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
Quote:
Whether the logic behind it makes sense or not is irrelevant,

Is it? Why? Because factually not every dictator has banned guns? I don't really care about that. As long as some dictators have, then the story works. Now that I know the truth I'm obviously not going to lie on purpose but... I guess my point is this:

Do we need to be 100% factual about everything we say to a populace that clearly doesn't give a fuck about facts? I'm comfortable with the high 90's.

Sadly, you don't have facts in the high 90s. Students in the US are taught in civics class that Hitler banned guns. He actually liberalised the existing laws, with the notable exception of gun ownership for Jews (who most of these same gun-loving, civics-class-quoting Americans think were secretly running Nazi Germany).

While we may not need to be 100% factual, repeating inaccurate bullshit will make us look very, very, very stupid. By all means make the argument that in the US, here and now, the effort to reduce or eliminate private gun ownership is a move towards dictatorship, but don't extrapolate backwards from that and re-invent history.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not disagreeing with any of that except for that arguments like 'Dan's' (by which you mean the same tired old gun-fetishists who say the same thing no matter what happens and which Dan lazily and crudely and uncritically repeated for no apparent reason) are even remotely valid.

Those types of arguments needs to be injected into this discussions for the public to hear. Again. And Again. That is to say, the whole gun law issue is fucking absurd in the first place and it can be reduced to that one argument.

This trivialises what you are claiming is an issue of fundamental, if symbolic, importance.

Quote:
Quote:
Call me idealistic if you must, but I think we can find ways to be both logical and rhetorically forceful at the same time.


This will be the main issue with forming our identity here. Probably the smartest thing XZC ever said to me before he became boring was that I/we need to make all of this entertaining because no one will care otherwise. Alex Jones uses fear and craziness to be successful, we need to find our niche. I don't claim to know what it is. I would like logic to be heavily involved. When I wrote my article I thought it was fairly indicative of what we were trying to achieve. Kind a creative refusal to dumb ourselves down.

And it is a strong article. I am coming round to the feeling that drama, the narrative form, is the best way for me. I am good at coming up with stories and writing them. I do keep coming back to the fact that, despite the modest success of my films, I could do so much more with the material at my disposal. What these disagreements do help with is us coming to terms with that particular problem and try to figure out how to solve it.

Quote:
Quote:
All kinds of information from all over the world on, for example, private gun ownership vs. government gun ownership. There is no simple pattern that would sustain even your moderated position, let alone the 'every dictatorship in history...' crap that I objected to.

What I'm striving for is to be strategic. It's not persuasive saying to people in a rhetorical war 'Well, um, technically there is no pattern...' If I'm basically trying to mess with their plans, I'm trying to educate people - yes - but with facts that will bring them to my side of the debate.

And I think that if you're intentionally going to deploy facts that you know do not tell the whole story that you have to be very careful in what you logically deduce from those facts, lest you accidentally contribute to achieving the opposite to your desired effect.

Quote:
Quote:
If the government isn't trying to disarm people then giving up your guns is not acquiescing to their demands.

The government is trying to disarm people. I know you think they can just nuke everyone and like I said, that is certainly true...but they want all the guns. The society they want will have no private gun ownership. I'll explain this more in a second.

I'm not really disputing that their ideal society would be one where the state enjoys a total monopoly over the just use of violence. But I'm also aware that if they do want to destroy the US as a superpower, to sacrifice it as a means of bringing out an even more international framework of government than exists already, then letting the people have their guns and shoot each other en masse with them is a very convenient way of doing it. Reminiscent of the French Revolution, in fact.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not particularly interested in that conversation, save to say the real world does not conform to the fantasies of American conspiracy theorist gun-fetishists.

I feel like you think it's these hicks who can't use Google. I've seen the stats to back all these arguments. Well it's basically the same stat anyway: the UK has more violent crime than any other nation except Australia. Also, the UK has more cameras pointed at people than (I think) any other nation on earth. And a culture that revolves around subservience to a family.

It depends on what you mean by violent crime, and how you interpret the statistics. Curiously, when I looked up that thing about being second only to Australia what first came up was a Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail is basically written to agitate people in useful directions. Their fundamental story is 'it's all going to hell in a hand basket', both in the specific article and in general across their coverage of everything. That is the position they occupy with regards to everything.

The Daily Mail is also the chief newspaper devoted to flattering coverage of the Royal Family. Now, why do you think those two things - massive obsession with portraying Britain as falling apart and relentless promotion of the Royals - would go together? I'm sure you already know without me having to articulate it.

Now, the statistics are a decade out of date but the article says:
Quote:
According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery.

There is no nuance in these stats, it's simply a percentage of the population who suffered from a specific group of crimes. If, for example, the assaults in Scotland were more savage than those in England then these stats wouldn't reflect that. Nor would your repeating of them.

Now, there is a problem in this country with young people getting very drunk and getting into fights. It happens in every reasonable sized town and city on every weekend. There are many shows devoted to glamourising this, and in particular glamourising the police response to this whereby the offending parties are treated with total contempt. Obviously they pick the dumbest, drunkest, most noisy examples to put in the broadcast shows. Basically the same thing as the Daily Mail coverage.

As to the CCTV - the study that gets most widely quoted in the sources of news that I know you read is immensely flawed. It took a sample from a busy street in London (where there is fuckloads of CCTV) and assumed the rest of the country was the same, when it really isn't. My normal day does not include being captured by CCTV, with the possible exception of the privately-owned CCTV in certain shops which I don't find at all unreasonable. It's their shop, their stock, if they want to point a camera at it then they can, just as if I want to wear a hat and deliberately take a route through the shop that means I won't be recognisable then I can.

Quote:
Quote:
It's only because they are really fucking stupid and have no history that they believe it. What's your excuse?

Like I said... the UK is a fountain of violence. I don't know what you want me to say, every example I looked at reflected what I wrote. Everything I've seen about the UK is 'worst in Europe' 'top 5 most violent nations in the world' etc. I am wrong here, or... is it the case that there are no guns in the UK, and it's also really violent?

It isn't really violent. Seriously violent crimes are relatively uncommon, though the Daily Mail makes sure to report on as many as possible in as lurid detail as possible. There is a lot of petty drunken fighting. It has nothing to do with banning guns. This is what I mean about having to be careful about what you deduce from partial readings of statistics.

Quote:
Quote:
I disagree that they want to do this, for the reasons I have outlined in detail that no one has countered. Perhaps you should watch less movies and read more factual information.


This is maybe something for a new thread, but the gun represents the phallus, and the NWO is all about emasculating males. It's not something they want anyone to have in the new world. What I'm referring to is a form of power beyond the level of a war playing out, and the logistics of how you could drop a nuke on the public. I've said that several times now. This is about the symbolism behind owning a gun, and that is especially true in the US, where it's even more a part of the culture. That culture has to be destroyed.

You disagree because you cited a few historic examples where dictators haven't taken guns? Please keep going... I require more. Before we continue you should explain, in full detail, why you believe that this envisioned society they have will be one where people are cruising around with conceal and carry.

Look at the European monarchies. Every one a dictatorship in the modern sense of the word, and hardly any of them banned guns. It may be a big symbolic issue in the here and now in the US, but that doesn't mean it was always the same everywhere else, or even most of the time in most other places. I've given you examples. Now you give me some examples of how governments have banned gun ownership as a means of promoting, establishing or enhancing dictatorship.

There's a big distinction to make between their ideal society and their method for getting there. In looking at what they are trying to do in the here and now I look at their actual behaviour, and that tells me they want US citizens to have guns. My guess is that their aim is to induce some kind of violent anarchy that will reduce the population, and thus excuse a massive rearrangement of America's place in the order of things.

Quote:
Quote:
I think this is extremely one-sided and simplistic. There's no such thing as 'the American psyche'. Almost all of the Americans I've met have been weak-minded, lazy, nasty idiots. That's nothing to be proud of or for the rest of the world to emulate.

And your reaction here makes me think you're going about this the wrong way. There is America, the literal place, where you go there and it's dirty. But then there is the idea of America. Just here in this couple sentences you're conflating the idea of the society found in the constitution with what has transpired after 100 years (exactly this 2013) of Britain taking over the fed and co-opting the society into a shitty one.

Britain didn't take over the Fed. That's just another simplified myth of the lazy 'alternative media'.

Quote:
Logistically, America is already dead, and yes, they could just nuke everyone. Taking over the world is more than that. In a way, the people have to accept it, and be somewhat aware that they are themselves fucking themselves over. It cannot be some military takeover. It has to be through crushing the USA into the physical and social chaos that will give rise to the New World.

And people owning guns is a vital part of that chaos. If they didn't, then how do you get the blood in front of the cameras that shocks people in accepting a more formal dictatorship? What better excuse to ban guns in one fell swoop than widespread shootings? That's the revolutionary method. The incremental method would be loads of small shootings and steady passing of legislation to limit gun ownership. Indeed, Bush II passed legislation making it easier to get guns, but increasing the profiling of those who were buying them. That could be used as part of either the incremental or the revolutionary strategy.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-13-2013, 07:30 AM Post: #25
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Quote:
This trivialities what you are claiming is an issue of fundamental, if symbolic, importance.

Yes. Fair enough. I agree that for our purposes we should be as intellectually rigorous as possible, but I'm saying part of our purpose is dissecting what needs to be said to the general population of our friends, and family, etc. I don't come at them with the complex stuff. Sometimes in simplification obviously there is some minor distortion that occurs.

Quote:
The Daily Mail
Cameras

Look I get your point about sourcing, most of the info I'm basing my opinions on come from the Harvard article I cited in the article. We don't need to focus on the UK specifically.

Quote:
Now you give me some examples of how governments have banned gun ownership as a means of promoting, establishing or enhancing dictatorship.

That isn't my point though. My point is that they are clearly trying to do that now. If you do not see that trend in the media then I find that kind of crazy.

Either that, or something else is going on. I think I'm going to start a new thread.




Gobbo wrote:So I'm currently studying Python.

This is week one's project. Currently it's Wednesday of week two, and classes are on Fridays so I'm going to send it in soon. Either today or tomorrow early sometime. I can send it in like a second before class but there are only like 7 of us so I would like him to have time to look at mine.

It's done. It all works, but if anyone here happens to know Python, and can help me optimize it, that would be sweet. Obviously that title_space variable is fucked.

In the first class I was like 'Yeah, I am a copywriter getting into programming,' and he was like, 'Oh, well this course assumes some programming knowledge...so...'

Bitch please. I am Gobbo. I'm sure this took me like 6 hours longer than everyone else, but I'm passed the threshold point. I wrote a fucking program wuahha. So what does it do? It parses an XML file for specific tags and extracts the information between them and puts it into a dictionary. Then the extra credits involve displaying that information to the user.



Code: Select all
#!/usr/bin/env python27 
import re
import sys

#-> Here are the variables we need.
database = {}
my_list = []
title_space = ' ' * 47 # I feel like this part could be done better.
xml_file = open('Northwind.xml')

#-> Here we loop through the file using re.search, grouping the section
#-> we're after into three different groups. Extract the second/middle group.
for line in xml_file:
 match_one = re.search('(<unitprice>)(.*)(</unitprice>)', line)
 if match_one:
 prices = match_one.group(2)
#-> Here we append prices to the list, and carry on to products.
 my_list.append(prices)
#-> Rinse, repeat, for the duration of the loop.
 match_two = re.search('(<productname>)(.*)(</productname>)', line)
 if match_two:
 products = match_two.group(2)
 my_list.append(products)

#-> With the list [product, price, product, price, etc] now complete,
#-> we use the pattern to our advantage and map it into a dictionary.
for x in range (0, len(my_list)/2):
 database[my_list[2*x]] = my_list[2*x+1]

#-> Challenge One: Print Data in Uniform Columns
print ''
print '---Challenge One:'
print ''
print 'Products %s Prices' % (title_space)
for x in database:
    print '%-40s : %20s' % (x, database[x])
print ''

#-> Challenge Two: Interactive dictionary lookup.
print '---Challenge Two:'
print ''
print 'Welcome to the Northwind file product search!'
print '(Please be aware this search is case sensitive)'
print ''
usr_input = raw_input("Enter Product Name for its Price: ")
usr_output = database.get(usr_input)
if usr_output != None:
 print 'Price of %s: $%s (We\'re assuming dollars at least...)' % (usr_input, usr_output)
else:
    print 'Can\'t find the product. Remember, this search is case sensitive.'

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:08 am

The Sun is in the house of death, the moon is the house of life


Supplements
We should definitely have a thread about supplements.

I'll start with a couple.


http://www.beyondtangy.com/

This is a supplement mix that has all of the 91 nutrients you're supposed to get a day. I heard about through Alex Jones and that Dr. Joel Wallach guy that comes on his show. It's really good. You eat less, feel better. I got my family to try it and then seem to like it as well.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-19-2013, 09:11 AM (This post was last modified: 01-19-2013 09:14 AM by Gobbo.) Post: #2
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Supplements
Tongkat Ali

Probably my fav supplement that exists behind maybe Vitamin B12. Here is why:

For guys it enhances you sexually in pretty much every way
Same thing for women
It's great for bodybuilding - strength, endurance, etc
Decent for overall mood/concentration/energy
Linked to prevention and treatment of numerous cancers
Thoroughly researched and scientifically documented
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-19-2013, 09:13 AM Post: #3
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Supplements
Vitamin B-12

I put this on here because it's something the body requires, and is (especially if you are a vegetarian) harder to get through natural sources. It's like seafood, beef, and eggs. So, yeah, maybe pick this one up.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-19-2013, 09:16 AM Post: #4
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Supplements
I don't advocate using supplements if you can otherwise get it from food, (as it is superior) but like I said, the body needs 91 a day. Most people prob get like 17.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-19-2013, 11:25 AM (This post was last modified: 01-19-2013 02:39 PM by W.C..) Post: #5
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Supplements
Vitamin B1 - Thiamine

This baby helps restore brain/nervous system function, and at high dosages, gives alcoholics or drug addicts the control to quit. I also heard it aids in de-calcifying the brain, which is probably why most the world is deficient in this one (you'll get it from grass fed beef, and other foods that aren't too common, etc, but the world feeds cattle grain, etc).

I generally take a multi-B 150mg vitamin, which includes all the b-vitamins at 150mg a pop (as I drink a lot).
Chlorella

Superfood, a green algae which helps alkalise the system and remove heavy metals and toxins. Anyone who has had a vaccine with mercury, etc, or anyone who drinks flouride, anyone who just wants to rebalance their acidity/alkaline levels, and anyone with a bit too much radiation even, this stuff is just great, and I can't recommend it enough.
Astaxanthin

...65 times more powerful than vitamin C, 54 times more powerful than beta-carotene, and 14 times more powerful than vitamin E. 550 times more powerful than vitamin E and 11 times more powerful than beta-carotene at neutralizing singlet oxygen. It aids against radiation and sunburn. It stabilises blood sugars, it increases sperm count.

It crosses the blood-brain barrier AND the blood-retinal barrier (beta carotene and lycopene do not), which has huge implications for the health of your eyes (third eye health!). It reduces DNA damage, and is a very powerful natural anti-inflammatory with no adverse reactions thus far found.

Also: It is virtually impossible to obtain the recommended daily amount of astaxanthin from diet alone because there are only a few prime sources: microalgae and sea creatures that consume the algae (salmon, shellfish, and krill). The list of this things benefits go on and on, I recommend looking into it for those interested.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-19-2013, 01:59 PM Post: #6
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Supplements
Shit son!

That last one is crazy. Or sounds like it
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-19-2013, 04:37 PM Post: #7
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Supplements
Quote:
...65 times more powerful than vitamin C, 54 times more powerful than beta-carotene, and 14 times more powerful than vitamin E. 550 times more powerful than vitamin E and 11 times more powerful than beta-carotene at neutralizing singlet oxygen.

Yea I guess I mean, what does that mean exactly?
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-19-2013, 04:43 PM (This post was last modified: 01-19-2013 04:45 PM by W.C..) Post: #8
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Supplements
Sorry, I missed a bit of what it was supposed to say in copying some info, as I knew there was more than I could explain:

'When it comes to free radical scavenging: it is 65 times more powerful than vitamin C, 54 times more powerful than beta-carotene, and 14 times more powerful than vitamin E.'

'Astaxanthin is far more effective than other carotenoids at "singlet oxygen quenching," which is a particular type of oxidation. The damaging effects of sunlight and various organic materials are caused by this less-stable form of oxygen. Astaxanthin is 550 times more powerful than vitamin E and 11 times more powerful than beta-carotene at neutralizing this singlet oxygen.'

Check out the articles I got it from here or here if interested further, and I'm sure there are other sites and sources which will explain it without the whole sales pitch at the end. I like Mercola though, as he provides his sources and updates regularly.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-19-2013, 06:41 PM Post: #9
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Supplements
Cha ching. Buying some.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-20-2013, 10:27 AM Post: #10
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Supplements
Natural Happy


L-Dopa/Mucan Puriens

This some kind of precursor to dopamine. You just put some in a smoothy or a tea or something and you start to feel happier. Things are brighter. Seems to be fairly harmless. I recommend it to anyone. I use it all the time if I haven't been to the gym in a while and I just am feeling sort of blah.

5-HTP

A little bit different. Generally it's used after you do E or something to refresh your serotonin levels, but you can also use it for sleep scheduling. Usually you take like 1 pill for the former and two for the latter. I don't recommend it as much because it can be somewhat hardcore if you overdose. Serotonin poisoning is actually pretty serious. I have this one but I don't use it as much, but it's also way easier to get. I had to order the mucana puriens.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."



Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
Me: I'm against masonry because it is destroying the world, and it will lead to a situation where I'm either dead, or in some shitty society that I don't want to be in.

FX: Yeah you can't believe that because you eat meat.

Me: Excuse me?

FX: You're treated like cattle because you treat actual cattle like cattle. So you would be a hypocrite.

Me: I don't care.

FX: There is no morality. Your conception of 'right' and 'wrong' doesn't apply to them because they're operating outside of right and wrong.

Me: So?



If there is no morality, then I'm free to invent my own where I view them however I want. That's what they did to me. Same thing. If there is no morality then everything is arbitrary. If they arbitrarily see me as 'evil' then I can arbitrarily see them as evil.

JSS Wrote:
Gobbo, you seem to want them to behave toward a particular aim. You want them to attend to what you see as important. They want people to behave toward a particular aim. They want people to attend to what they see as important.

You seem to want to blindly follow some leader whose plans you are not privy to. So who is making more of a mistake? I would much rather be a meat eat hypocrite than some cultist zealot who just goes along with something because of some childish allure to power.

As I said in another thread, there is a difference between a group saying, 'There is no morality' and, and you saying in response, "Oh, really? Well then my death is justified. Here is a gun."

Anyway to sum this up, the ol' 'Do What Thou Wilt' idea doesn't only apply to Masons. Both of you need to think on that.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 12:23 AM Post: #2
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
For the record, this is not a dialogue that actually took place.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 03:50 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 03:58 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
"There is no morality" makes no sense, clearly there is a lot of morality going around, everyone has his morality. You may mean "there is no objective morality". So then what you said can be understood as follows:

" If there is no [objective] morality, then I'm free to invent my own where I view them however I want. That's what they did to me. Same thing. If there is no [objective] morality then everything is [subjective]. If they [subjectively] see me as 'evil' then I can [subjectively] see them as evil. "

And yes, of course you can. Not only are you free but you are compelled by your nature as an individual to shape your own values. Only when you give in to mob-culture will you not shape your own values. This is not the problem. I don't object to you viewing Masons the way you view them. I think it's perfectly valid that you despise them given what you tell me you know about them.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 04:39 AM Post: #4
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
We all came from a philosophy site. I think we can fill in the subjectives and objectives.

If you want to dance around your beliefs without explaining them, fine.

But I'm probably going to continue calling you out in different ways until you do.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 04:43 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 04:44 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
(01-07-2013 08:57 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
You seem to want to blindly follow some leader whose plans you are not privy to.... some cultist zealot who just goes along with something because of some childish allure to power.
It's kind of humorous that someone would accuse Me of that. But I guess that would complete the circle of accusations.

(01-08-2013 03:50 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
"There is no morality" makes no sense, clearly there is a lot of morality going around, everyone has his morality. You may mean "there is no objective morality". So then what you said can be understood as follows:

" If there is no [objective] morality, then I'm free to invent my own where I view them however I want. That's what they did to me. Same thing. If there is no [objective] morality then everything is [subjective]. If they [subjectively] see me as 'evil' then I can [subjectively] see them as evil. "

And yes, of course you can. Not only are you free but you are compelled by your nature as an individual to shape your own values. Only when you give in to mob-culture will you not shape your own values. This is not the problem. I don't object to you viewing Masons the way you view them. I think it's perfectly valid that you despise them given what you tell me you know about them.
Yeah, that ----^^^

Although technically and philosophically, it should be "universal" and "personal" rather than "objective" and "subjective", but just a technical distinction.

Generally I see a degree of good in a werewolf, but when they begin to howl at the Sun, thinking it is merely a brighter full Moon, there is a problem. {{and no, I am not referring to the Masons as "the Sun"}}
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 06:50 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 07:24 AM by Gobbo.) Post: #6
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
I'm sorry I was an asshole.

Especially if you are a part of some secret order whose plans you are entirely privy to.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 07:28 AM Post: #7
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
For the record, I am still incredibly confused. I'm not disagreeing with the above - I stated it, just in a shorthand I thought that everyone here would understand because this topic has bean discussed thoroughly.

That's why I am so confused. Perhaps you guys are content to allow that (which is why I'm pissed off) but perhaps that is all in my head. If so then, like I said, I apologize. If it is intentional, though, then I think that is not fair. Or rather, if you do not recognize fairness, know that if you are going to play games with me then I will probably get angry.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 08:15 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 08:16 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
Your representation of our dialogue is simply wrong. I have never said these things and I never would. I should be the one who is pissed off at you for falsifying, lying about me. And actually I am, but I can get over that.

Second, the burden is on you, my friend. You are the one throwing around accusations, and with my endless request to back them up, you just seem to amuse yourself, as you have bluntly ignored and ridiculed those request.

Finally, what those beliefs are that you think I have but do not explain is also a mystery. I and James are the only ones here giving some clarity about what we believe in. Read my articles on the front page for godssake.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 08:43 AM Post: #9
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
You didn't say that exactly, but that is more or less what I am getting from you. I'm writing it from my perspective of confusion. You're right. I will re-read your articles.

As for me backing statement up, I wish I could put it into words. I wish I had a link to show you. Believe me, I really do. Sometimes - most times - what I think is incredibly obvious is not to everyone else.

I hope I am wrong here. I hope that it's all good in the upper echelons of the G hood.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 08:57 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 04:37 PM by JSS.) Post: #10
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
No one on THIS site is trying to "play games" if not you.
If anything we are the exact opposite, trying to clarify something that has been intentionally confused, a "played game".

But clarifying anything that has gotten confused takes a lot of humble patience and learning seemingly irrelevant things until the "light" can come on. That is true on any subject matter.

Both FX and I have pointed out what we believe on "the top level". In my case it is simply that "it is ALL merely NOISE".

Does that mean that it is all for the taking?
From humble soul-searching to hijacking the universe

ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
Quote:
Everything is permitted to today’s hedonistic Last Man – you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. This is why Lacan was right to turn around Dostoyevski’s well-known motto: “If God doesn’t exist, everything is prohibited!” God is dead, we live in a permissive universe, you should strive for pleasures and happiness — but, in order to have a life full of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, be fit, live a healthy life, not harass others… so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance, and you end up leading a totally regulated life. And the opposite also holds: if there is God, then everything is permitted — to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will.
--Slavoj Žižek


Without "god", nothing is permitted.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-20-2013, 08:57 AM Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
Excellent. God represent(ed)(s) the ultimate value, and as the intensity of value-holding determines ones willpower and thus freedom/executive power, when God falls away the will is chained. Man falls back to the animal values of survival and procreation.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-05-2013, 04:50 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2013 04:51 AM by pezer.) Post: #14
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
Perhaps now we can reconvene with worthier deities.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-05-2013, 05:14 AM Post: #15
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
Perhaps. I proposed a God once, as you will remember. So did you.
I have not been tending to my God recently.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-05-2013, 07:38 PM Post: #16
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
I have, and I've been flirting with some heavily marginalized areas. The dark side, that is, how mismanaged it has been thus far. My God has given me a task; or, rather, I have given myself a task in relationship with my god, and I am preparing heavily for it. As I am, a capitalist slave, my direction is one suggested by Badiou: to create an impossible space within the possible. I seek allies, and you would not believe how few people I have come across capable of and willing to looking at this god, this task.

Maybe I'll be posthumous too, but the night is young.

I think we are doing slow but good work in the philosophy forum. If I may suggest something, a gift from my god, it's to stop seeking permanence. You had a massive idea: to do alchemy with philosophers. Oh, we have our a prioris, but even those are part of the fluxes if we do the chemistry right.

That's why I'm loving the idea of a debate. We have brought good lumber here, good paint; let's make some fires and paint some paintings. You could feature it on the front page if you set the proper writing standards.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-05-2013, 09:51 PM Post: #17
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
What topic?

It has to pull in the masses with it's universal gravitas.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-05-2013, 10:57 PM Post: #18
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
I obviously vote philosophy, ie epistemology/ontology.

There's no need for clumsy wording though, we can bring this to the masses. How about: is there a difference between what you already know and what is fundamentally true?

Though, in those plain terms, it may prove a challenge.

Maybe drugs? We could do some good work with drugs, and there's an ocean of things to say.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-06-2013, 12:01 AM Post: #19
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
I think we need something more polemic. That's kind of my thing.

I was thinking of some kind of 'what if' ideas.

Like one time someone explained to me why free energy tech would actually destroy society. At the time it sounded like some excuse, but looking back maybe it wasn't. It was something to do with how we need some sort of deficiency for the market to work. Anyway it doesn't matter, but something like this:

A device is made know to the public by the government about technology that can provide free energy [under these stipulations]: Will this be a detriment to society? ILP argues yes, we argue no. Or reverse. Something like that.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-17-2013, 08:14 AM Post: #20
Dannerz Offline
Student
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Fixed Cross's Meat Eater Morality
There is more than one type of meat eating. Scavengers can eat meat without having to kill the animal. Then there is the type where you have to kill the animal. But you see, death is natural. From a spiritual perspective, meat and plants are quite similar, because they both contain life force. A bit of bad stuff, quite a bit of good stuff. The act of killing doesn't directly equate to the act of eating. There is also a difference between truly destroying life, and recycling life. I don't happen to believe that wolves get bad karma from eating rabbits, for example. When we take in the energy of another life, it is both destructive and creative. It contributes to a faster way to gaining a heightened state of energy and also existence. Some specie, I believe, are soul eaters too. This isn't 100% evil, even though it does lead to pain for others and some feed back loops which are hard to benefit from or detrimental.

I plan to study this more, but I had made a type of tea where the live plants were left in water. As they live and die, and then the bacteria and yeast live and die, they release spare life force and a bit of consciousness too. Now, if you can have enough life and death cycles inside of a fluid, the particles are stored, and it is actually a spiritually strengthening substance later. I think there is something deeply important about decomposition and life-death cycles. Normally when we eat, we capture only one cycle, but if you can get lots of cycles inside water to store it, then it has a special spirit consintration.

The reason why I mention this is because I think it is relative to the process with meat and plants. Food is all about absorbing value which has been generated through these cycles.



[quote='JSS' pid='1221' dateline='1361457460']
[quote='ChainOfBeing' pid='908' dateline='1358616921']Without "god", nothing is permitted.
[/quote]

Nothing is possible until something is impossible.
A "God" is the determiner of what can or cannot be.
"God" is the impossibility that permits the possibility to emerge.
[/quote]
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:09 pm

JSS wrote:Rational Metaphysics offers Affectance Ontology as a general foundation for the behavior of all things utilizing positive and negative potential to affect, “PtA”, and its changing, “Affectance”. A part of that same ontological construct is an analogous ontology involving specifically psychological behavior, Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT.

In the PHT analogous ontology, the "potential" refers specifically to the perception of hope within a mind as the affecter. This potential has a range from the positive perception of hope to the negative more commonly called “threat” or danger. Perception affects perception. As such happens as well as affecting the situation offering the perception, mental constructs are created that determine the psychological perspective and emotions within a mind and the subject behaves accordingly.

All of the same principles discovered in Affectance Ontology apply to PHT. There is a propagation of perception that combines with other such propagations that filters and slows reactions such as to cause mental “particles” to form. Mental particles have positive, negative, or neutral charge to them. They have specific sizes proportional to their type and ambient surroundings. They combine to form larger constructs, “mental molecules”. They create migratory shifting and even induction reaction in associated mental objects.

In subatomic affectance, an ambient field is very largely random and thus behaviors of particles can be expected to be very similar in each portion of space and with each particle. But the ambient field of perceived hope for a mind is generally much less randomized. This causes oddly shaped mental/emotional particles often unique to an individual.

Mental Particles
Mental particles have even more complex nature than physical particles. They come in the form of concepts, words, names, shapes, motions, colors, textures, smells, and everything associated with the senses including all of their possible combinations and constructs, “mental molecules”. They are the memories and are referred to as "what matters".

Those mental molecules are often called “ideas”. A common confusion often caused by language is the notion that an idea is “stored in memory”. In reality the idea actually is a particular physical arrangement of memory. The idea is not merely stored in memory, but is the memory arrangement itself. If that particular arrangement of memory were transferred to another brain, the mind of the second brain would immediately contain the same idea, such as the idea of a perfect circle.

By what perceptive evaluation such particles have formed determines their associated charge concerning their perceived hope value. Such charges are remembered and thus establish a hysteresis barrier against change.

If a child perceives an object that is roughly spherical, a few inches in diameter, has a smooth surface, appears inanimate, is red in color, and seems organic, his mind will immediately filter this perception through a battery of hysteresis filters in order to assess its potential hope value.

If that child, never having seen such an item, has spent a good while heavily focused on playing a video game wherein every object of similar appearance was a ticking bomb, he would develop an immediate presumptive reaction against the perceived particle (idea) as a negative hope, a threat. It might take him a while to learn to not react in a negative manner regardless of the true nature of the object being perceived. His practice at reacting negatively toward such a sight creates a hysteresis in his presumption.

If such a child is then introduced to his first sight of an apple, one could expect a negative reaction. The child might refuse to even taste the apple adding to the hysteresis effect. And even if tasted, the mind might be so intent on the threat of the apple to associate the taste with negativity and remember it as such, possibly for the rest of his life. He might also develop a dislike for anything that tastes or feels close to anything like an apple.

In such a case, a “charged mental particle” was created. Being charged, just as all charged particles, everything associated with it is filtered according to such charge. In common language, this is merely what is called “prejudice” or “pre-judgment”, a perceived positive or negative idea.

Although usually not associated with simple objects such as apples, this is a very common and unavoidable behavior in sentient species. All racism, political and religious fanaticism, and sexist prejudices are formed by this manner. Each represents a charged mental particle. Sometimes such prejudices are accurately assessed, sometimes not.

So what if one chooses to alter one of these prejudices or reverse its “charge”? Despite the media’s chosen obligation to establish proper government prejudices within all people, often accidents generate inappropriate charged mental particles. So what could be done?

Mental Matter and Antimatter
As stated earlier, Affectance ontology reveals the principles involved in all behavior and thus such principles apply to PHT as well. In physics, it is very uncommon to alter a negative particle into a positive particle (“antimatter”), but that is merely due to the sizes and inability to manipulate the objects involved. Mental particles are more easily manipulated. So if one looks at exactly why and how subatomic particles function, one can deduce the principles involved in altering charged mental particles. The exact same principles apply.

In the case of the child who has assessed an apple as a negative and reversed the charge concerning that assessment, they would have created a particle of antimatter. Of course whether something is considered matter or antimatter is subjective. But then again, for which homosapian is an apple a negative thing? Perhaps if the person has an allergy or are in a very unusual circumstance wherein apples are probably poisoned, it would be appropriate to regard/value apples as negative. But what we call “matter” is merely what is normal, assessed by the typical.

Thus an apple should normally be considered a positive mental particle. And that means that the antimatter equivalent would be a negative charge mental particle having a negative assessment/charge/association. So the child in the example would have been imbued with an antiparticle that should be changed to a normal positively assessed matter if there are no actual negative concerns.

So how does one convert a negative particle to a positive particle?
That is the essence of Behavior Modification - Psychology.



JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: Psychology – Introduction
.
There are three fundamental means to convert a particle;

1) Attrition and replacement
2) Saturation
3) Corruption and implantation



JSS wrote:In Rational Metaphysics, Physiology, like Psychology, is a “subtology” (meaning a particular subset within an ontology) of Affectance Ontology and distinguished from other affectance related understandings merely due to it being the point wherein structured affectance, such as chemistry, becomes a foundation for organic life and to use the same terms as in chemistry or physics would remove the ability to maintain a simple order of thought and understanding of the principles involved.

Physiology is the study of organic bodies and is mediated by what is typically referred to as “medicine” (literally meaning “the mediation of the health of a body”) and biochemistry. Medicine can be either good-medicine or bad-medicine depending on whether it mediates toward or away from healthy, stronger structure from the perspective of the body. Bad-medicine is also more commonly known as “diseases”, “toxification”, and “maladies” and in RM denoted collectively as “denutrition”.

In Rational Metaphysics, Physiological Ontology is constructed with the following concepts and entities paralleling Affectance Ontology;

Particle = Body
Affectance = Nutrition / “Denutrition”
Positive = Body compatible
Principles of concern;
    1) Ambience of sufficient nutrients2) Assimilation of nutrients 3) Rejection of denutrients4) Isolation from denutrients5) Internal distribution of affectance

The issues of concern are either how to protect and maintain a body or how to destroy one. The principles involved are conceptually identical to more fundamental affectance ontologies with the added concern of internal affectance distribution.

Less complex structures do not require special concern for the systemized distribution of affectance. Subatomic particles and simpler chemical structures are always surrounded by the affectance of concern. There is no need to be concerned with the distribution of positive or negative affectance as each component can absorb or reject as required without relying on other system wide distribution processes.

A body has a serious challenge of having to be able to acquire positive affectance and distributed to only where it will have positive affect as well as the ability to remove negative affectance from the body entirely without damaging anything along that path. Thus bodies are inherently constructed with “circulatory systems” that are of critical importance to the health of the body. Anything and everyone obstructing such circulation is committing murder, no different than starving a person to death or poisoning them. Of course the trick is exposing the guilty so that proper and necessary filtering can be done so as to maintain a positive state of health as with any and all particles.

Fortunately for a body, the added challenge also presents an added opportunity in that just as nutrients are not immediately available at all times to all sub-components of the body, isolation from denutrients can often be arranged.

Health Morality
Each of the principles involved in maintaining positive health offers a universal behavioral morality to any body. The inherent penalty for violation of such morality is merely death along with whatever suffering that might occur along the way and whatever continued social spiritual effect that comes from such actions. Although a devotion to a higher cause perhaps relating to socially related concerns might require the acceptance of the consequences. But realize that the society as a whole is merely another body with the same required principles an morality.

Morality, unknown to common Man, comes in two fundamental levels; General Morality and Particular Morality. General morality involves a more fundamental and abstract concern whereas particular morality involves details for the individual. Let’s discuss the Particular moralities first merely to present the foundation for the more abstract concerns.

1) Ambience of sufficient nutrients
“Thou shalt not starve thyself to death by remaining in an environment void of sufficient nutrients nor refusing to assimilate them.”

That is pretty easy to understand. It merely states that by not being willing to relocate or imbibe such as to acquire sufficient nutrients, one should expect to suffer and die. The same holds for societies as a whole. But due to a body being a structured particle, it can take advantage of the opportunity to store nutrients for short periods and thus allowing the body to go without external nutrient supply for a while.

2) Assimilation of nutrients
“Thou shalt optimally incorporate any and all nutrients such as to restore, maintain, or protect the body.”

Of course this is one that is not really a choice that a conscious mind usually has. Very many diseases are no more than the prevention of a body from being able to assimilate readily available nutrients. The obligation to the conscious mind is merely to avoid getting into such a situation and pursue its remedy if not successful in doing so.

3) Rejection of denutrients
“Thou shalt optimally refuse and reject denutrients.”

Again, this is one that isn’t usually up to the consciousness to choose for the body other than to avoid or remedy the situation through mobility, filtering, or any of the other self-defense principles.


4) Isolation from denutrients
“Thou shalt optimally avoid and expel denutrients.”

Again, merely stating to not eat the poisoned apple and exercise the self-defense principles such as to prevent the denutrients from having affect upon the body.

5) Internal distribution of affectance
“Thou shalt maintain optimal circulation of nutrients and denutrients such as to sustain positive health.”

This is the one that is added to the more fundamental concerns of sub-physiological entities. In order for a body to maintain itself, it must distribute nutrients throughout the body as well as expel denutrients. Failure to do so brings corruption to the body to the point of death.

The affectance flow within a body provides the ambient affectance field (nutrient field) for each subcomponent of the body. Each cell respirates its nutrients and waste denutrients in the same manner as every subatomic particle aggregates new affectance toward its center to replace the prior affectance that eventually heads away from its center.

And also as with subatomic particles, timing, “impedance matching”, is a critical concern. A structured particle is relatively slow to decay and thus requires a much slower rate of nutrient exchange. Thus the circulation flow rate must match this need so as to not be too slow nor too fast. Fortunately for most bodies, there is a large range of safe flow rate.

But unlike many of the other concerns, circulation is something more easily affected by conscious choice. A body has 4 fundamental mechanisms for the distribution of nutrients;

    1) Affectance (blood) pumping and pathways2) Internal Immunity filters and pathways3) Viscosity of fluids4) Neurology

Each of these is susceptible to corruption and often without the awareness of the conscious mind. Without going into the numerous details involved, the morality is merely to keep them functioning as optimally as possible. Anything and anyone disrupting any of these system components to the point of dysfunction is guilty of murder. Hindrance of them is an accomplice to murder.

Neurology is usually not considered a circulatory system and some physiological bodies do not have one. The bodies that do utilize neurology are actually "circulating" sense and control responses (information) that are a critical part of the bodies survival.

The general morality that can be abstracted from the particulars mostly involves the concept of optimization. Optimization refers to the careful balance of how much bad is to be accepted so as to accomplish an overall good and is the very foundation of the taxing of the homosapian mind into emotionalism and pathos. Such required optimization being beyond the limits of the mind is what demands the morality of cooperation among individuals such that a greater assessment and accomplishment of such optimization can be achieved. Thus social morality stems merely from the situation of an individual being incapable of optimal assessments and achievements and is understood in RM’s Sociology Ontology.

    A) Obtain and maintain knowledge of one’s affectance requirements – Know thyselfB) Optimally Monitor the state of one’s structural state – Attend to thyselfC) Pursue options for increasing optimization of behavior and situation – Pursue eternal living, Anentropy.

Biology and biochemistry should be of higher significance than mathematics even in elementary schools. An elementary school graduate should already have a fundamental understanding of these fields of concern. Without these, they are each endangered and entrapped to become merely an appendage of a higher social structured body that might arbitrary decide that they are superfluous. Extortion and enslavement from higher ordained social dictates is the inevitable destinies for those unknowledgeable of their own physiological make and needs. And even in the case of an altruistic social dictatorial regime, the ability of such an overseer to monitor every detail of every individual within a responsible time frame over taxes the efficiency of the overseer resulting in the decision to simply reduce the number of individuals involved as is about to happen throughout the world.

Thus learning and teaching physiology and its principles is critically important, not merely to the individual, but for sake of the entire society as a whole.






JSS wrote:Rational Metaphysics explains a great deal of the universe and people's behavior. A part of that is something called "Induction". I won't bore you with the physics of it on this forum, but the psychological and sociological aspect seems appropriate for the theme of this site.

From a recent discussion at ILP;
James S Saint wrote:But you guys seriously need to learn of induction and reverse psychology.

If I want to hide what I am doing from a lot of suspicious people, I can't just do it behind closed doors. They will find the doors and insist on finding out what is behind them. I have to be more clever than that.

Once I see that I can no longer simply not tell anyone about something and the secret might soon get out, what I need to do is allow the idea that there is something being hidden, "x". And I will of course deny that there is any such "x". I will slyly provide ample evidence that there is in fact an "x" being hidden. But I will also, at the same time, imply and spread the suspicion that "x = P", while always denying that "x" exists at all.

At that point a great many people will have been induced into focusing on and fighting passionately to promote that not only am I hiding x, but that unquestionably x=P.

For those who get close enough or have enough intelligence, I can easily prove that P doesn't exist, I am really hiding "Q" for innocent and obvious reasons, and thus they can freely accept that all of those "conspiracy theorists" are just mindless fools, "crazies". And at that point, I will have an army of defenders to fight the army of investigators and "conspiracy theorist crazies".

In the midst of all of the confusion, very few will even think to suspect what I was really hiding.
In reality, x = N

This is basically the same method used to "turn nations against nations" and create wars to ones own benefit and great profit.

James S Saint wrote:
statiktech wrote:That's nice and all but what does it have to do with what's being discussed here?

Gees.. I thought you were brighter than that.

A) There is something being hidden
B) What is being hidden is being hidden in a clever way
C) That clever way is by inducing people into false flag arguments totally unrelated to what is being actually hidden.

Proof of conspiracy to hide strange extremely advanced technology does NOT translate into "Aliens from space are invading the planet". Although if I were the one conspiring, I would certainly give ample evidence that it was true just to keep you distracted.

James S Saint wrote:
statiktech wrote:I was basically asking what you think is being hidden, which might somehow make your statements relevant. Advanced technology doesn't have anything to do with the discussion unless you are positing that said technology came from aliens, in which case I'd ask for evidence.

Did you watch the video [concerning space aliens]? The evidence being supplied was almost entirely in the form of "look how mystically advanced this technology is". The effort was to prove that they really did "see the technology". I have no doubt that they saw such things.

The reality is that if you begin developing technology behind a one-way mirror where you can see what others are doing, but they cannot see you, then your technology will advance exponentially compared the theirs (the public).

Thus after "50 years of public advances" (from WW2), "250-500 years of advances" will be realized behind the mirror. Where do you think Science/technology will be in 500 years? That is where it already is behind closed doors and one-way mirrors.

Do you really think that everyone simply stopped experimenting to develop every possible form of life merely because someone said it was illegal? In the video, they pondered why it was that all of the "aliens" seemed to be so similar to humans. Just maybe it had something to do with their original DNA, before modifications.


If you choose to compete with these guys, you might want to be aware of how much you don't know about them and their technology in both mechanical form and biological form... not to mention their psychological and sociological wisdoms and ploys.




RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
Interesting. I will comment more later.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-28-2013, 10:28 PM Post: #3
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
I keep trying to respond to this, but I don't know.

I feel like this (to me) best exemplifies the whole aliens thing. I think there are aliens, but I think for the most part the whole 'alien' part of the troofer movement is a fabrication to distract people. Likewise the whole illusion that there is something else besides aliens we should be searching for fits into the scenario you presented as well.

I know that, for example, the ADL puts out hate propaganda against Jewish people because they have some sort of strategy to always be persecuted. It's clearly a strategy that works. There could be a similar thing going on with the masons, leading people to believe that there is some sort of demonic inner core when really that is a distraction as well.

This is something I think about often, because of course where does it end? It can go on forever. People getting tricked who think they are tricking.

...this is why humans need to be psychic. How can you wade through it all otherwise? Personally I think hummus makes you psychic.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 07:36 AM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2013 07:36 AM by JSS.) Post: #4
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
The Truth-seeker is an investigator with the endless task of seeking hidden gems too hot to sell.
.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 08:25 AM Post: #5
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
(01-29-2013 07:36 AM)JSS Wrote:
The Truth-seeker is an investigator with the endless task of seeking hidden gems too hot to sell.
.

Likewise, the hummus maker.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2013 08:29 AM by JSS.) Post: #6
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
(01-29-2013 08:25 AM)Gobbo Wrote:
(01-29-2013 07:36 AM)JSS Wrote:
The Truth-seeker is an investigator with the endless task of seeking hidden gems too hot to sell.
.

Likewise, the hummus maker.

My first temptation would be to roll my eyes at the notion that hummus could have such a property. But due to being aware of the make of "psychic powers" and their dependencies, I have to suspect that to a degree, you might actually be right.

The more essential concern would be the reduction and simplification of denutrients within the body (as mentioned in the RM: Physiology thread).
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 08:58 AM Post: #7
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
I heard you ask FX if he had ever directly experienced something definitively supernatural.

I have directly witnessed someone remote view (across hundreds of miles) to within 95%-98% accuracy. And then they demonstrated they could do this again, and again, and then again to my skeptic girlfriend when she refused to believe me.

Obviously you'll just think both me and her are mistaken somehow. That is to be expected. She had the same attitude before she experienced it first hand.

Hummus cannot make you psychic, as there is a definitive logistic to how that type of thing works. It is great for fibre, though.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 09:48 AM Post: #8
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
As to your presumption of my skepticism, realize that I have done the whole "remote viewing" and more myself. I don't think you can get more direct witnessing than that. The distinction is that I also watched the mechanism as well.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 10:37 AM Post: #9
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
Right. Cool man.

This isn't a bragging contest. Err not for me, at least, I'm just talking with you. I'm not (that) psychic. I freely admit this. In fact, what I said originally I said under the impression that you didn't think these things were 'really' possible. That is, that you wanted to explain it 'down.' I see that isn't the case.

For a while I would meditate and actively try and hone that sense, but then my interests moved onto other things. I'm kind of psychic enough. My intuition has only steered me wrong a couple of times in my life.

Anyway, if your point is that you know the mechanism, and that I don't, you're right. I was born into it so I don't care so much. Plus, really there are multiple ways to achieve psychic vision, some of them even involving technology. It would be cool to know the actual mechanism behind it all, but I assume, by nature of the fact that you said you were in some 'order' or another, you have some reason why you are prohibited fro sharing that type of information.

I have the supposed ritual to attain etheric sight saved from the days when CBSWORK was actually putting out information. It involves being vegetarian for a year, and I got to like 8 months before I started to get all weak and stuff and I switched back to meat. From my one correspondence with him, I think that persona might be disinfo, still, it would be cool to try the ritual.

I actually read one post on a forum where this woman did it, and then wanted to turn it off. She was going insane. He was kind of like, 'Eh, it's permanent.' Might be more disinfo, but obviously etheric sight exists, so the story is a powerful one.

It might seem like I don't take this stuff seriously because I joke around so much, but it's serious.




(01-29-2013 09:48 AM)JSS Wrote:
As to your presumption of my skepticism, realize that I have done the whole "remote viewing" and more myself. I don't think you can get more direct witnessing than that. The distinction is that I also watched the mechanism as well.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 07:53 PM Post: #10
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
Gobbo, would you be able to tell me what it takes (remote viewing)?

Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
I don't know specifically. I was telling about how I know someone who can do it.

But anyone can learn if they practice enough. Just keep at it, and eventually you will develop your sensitivity. There are different exercises.

Also get some orgonite, as that destroys the energetic blockages that Reich talks about, which is key to unlocking the hidden potential in the human body. Also, being a vegetarian helps as animal blood is magnetized, and it interferes with the magnetism of the human body which, when working properly, acts as an antennae of sorts.

Dan~ would be a good person to talk to.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 08:58 PM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
I'll ask, but I don't know if he would help a chaotic satanist.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 05:33 PM Post: #13
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: An Occult Strategy that You Might Want to Know
I don't think he will care about that distinction you've made.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:54 am

9ccu8

well
I


    yeah
    ;)

Ok also this

Image<br /><br />This is not only an issue for Science to realize, but all of society. Positive Potential-to-Affect, PtA, is a higher ability (“potential”) to affect or produce effect. Negative PtA is a lower ability to affect. Thus if anything is to be produced, it is easier to do with positive potential.<br /><br />If something is to grow, it requires the potential to cause that effect, or Potential-to-Affect. Due to this, a positive endeavor has a greater potential to grow than a negative endeavor. But also because of entropy, it requires more potential to grow more positive than it does to grow more negative.<br /><br />A positive endeavor uses its higher potential to produce more affect and also to hold onto it. A negative endeavor uses what potential it has to give away its potential and thus has less to hold onto. Then having less potential disallows the negative endeavor to affect as much change as before. But the positive endeavor has more potential with which to affect more change than before.<br /><br />You can think of it in terms of a conservative bank and a liberal bank. The purpose of the conservative bank is to gain more money (influence, wealth, and/or potential). The liberal bank serves the purpose of giving away money or reducing potential.<br /><br />The conservative bank has a greater task to face than the liberal bank and thus requires more people to handle more transactions. But because it is keeping money rather than giving it away, it has the money with which to pay its employees. The conservative bank not only requires more, but also can afford more, thus it grows to its maximum potential by acquiring more “mass”.<br /><br />The liberal bank has the opposite concern. It takes very little to give away money and thus needs very few employees. But also because it is giving away money rather than holding onto it, it can only afford very few employees. The liberal bank accomplishes its maximum negative potential by maintaining low “mass”.<br /><br />If the conservative bank grows too large in it mass, it will begin to have the entropy problem involving size but it can stabilize and still pay everyone, thus be anentropic at a large size.<br /><br />If the liberal bank grows too large, it simply runs out of funds with which to keep its employees, its “mass”. And thus due to the lack of potential being maintained, the liberal bank stabilizes and becomes anentropic at a small size.<br /><br /><u>Potential has a bottom. But it doesn’t have a top.</u><br /><br /><img src=[/img]

Physical subatomic particles do that exact same thing on their own terms. A positive potential particle becomes anentropic at a larger size than a negative particle. The negative particle, in order to achieve lower potential, must give away its affectance. And the positive particle so as to achieve its higher potential, must hold onto its affectance.

Thus in the universe, one should expect to find small negative particles and large positive particles. And they do. Of course by altering the ambient environment sufficiently, either type of particle can be caused to become similar to its anti-particle. The differences in potential that cause this effect are minuscule. But within the same environment, a positive particle will always be stable and anentropic at a larger size than a negative particle because the positive particle is maintaining it potential-to-affect in the positive direction.


In society when it comes to positive and negative issues, the rules, morals, and ethics and the consequences they bring, are formed by these same principles. Stability is the issue for the society as a whole. When it comes to emotions and the mind, these same concerns hold true.

The universe provides structure automatically. One need not create artificial designs such as to compete against it. Let negative things be small and fleeting. And let positive things slowly accumulate. And learning to discern the difference in those is a positive.


The tools, thoughts, people, and methods that help to discern positive from negative are what a positive society accumulates and is what "positive" means.[/quote]





" />
Fixed Cross wrote:Actually I do have a further observation: Regarding "harmony with ones environment" - it seems that this harmony would be created out of that momentum - that one in fact harmonizes ones environment to oneself, rather than oneself to ones environment.

[img]<br%20/>As%20you%20can%20see%20from%20the%20above,%20every%20particle%20in%20the%20universe%20adjusts%20itself%20to%20what%20its%20environment%20provides.%20But%20at%20the%20same%20time,%20it%20also%20alters%20its%20environment%20to%20reflect%20more%20of%20what%20the%20particle%20is.<br%20/>[/quote]<br%20/><br%20/><br%20/><br%20/><br%20/>Fixed%20Cross%20%20Offline%20<br%20/>Neophyte<br%20/>Posts:%20466<br%20/>Joined:%20Dec%202012%20<br%20/>Reputation:%208%20<br%20/>Warning%20Level:%200%<br%20/>RE:%20Rational%20Metaphysics:%20An%20Introduction%20and%20a%20Beginning<br%20/>I'm%20sure%20there%20aren't%20a%20l%20lot%20of%20people%20at%20this%20point%20who%20see%20this%20for%20what%20it%20is.%20But%20I%20believe%20that%20it%20is%20precisely%20this%20what%20should%20be%20cultivated%20here%20on%20this%20site.%20This%20here%20is%20a%20realistic%20means%20to%20what%20I%20consider%20good%20power.%20It%20holds%20to%20my%20standards%20of%20good%20ethics%20(liberty,%20growth,%20realism,%20vitality,%20sound%20strategy,%20loyalty,%20trust,%20honesty,%20etc)%20and%20it%20provides%20very%20clear%20guidelines%20of%20application.%20In%20fact%20in%20many%20cases%20the%20implications%20are%20already%20applications.%20I%20estimate%20that%20when%20one%20is%20using%20this%20on%20a%20scale%20of%20between%201000%20and%2010000%20people,%20then%20no%20matter%20the%20enemy,%20he%20shall%20not%20prevail%20against%20or%20among%20these%20laws,%20unless%20he%20adapts%20to%20these%20laws.<br%20/><br%20/>As%20per%20my%20signature,%20the%20different%20things%20it%20says%20about%20religion%20and%20philosophy,%20may%20both%20be%20said%20about%20RM,%20if%20it%20is%20what%20it%20claims,%20and%20convincingly%20shows,%20to%20be.%20The%20logic%20is,%20as%20far%20as%20language%20permits,%20objective%20(self-contained,%20axiomatic)%20and%20its%20application%20appears%20to%20be%20universal%20(omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent).<br%20/><br%20/>It%20is%20good%20that%20we%20have%20this%20here,%20on%20a%20site%20where%20it%20is%20relatively%20calm.%20It%20will%20not%20drown%20in%20a%20sea%20of%20lesser%20topics.%20<br%20/><br%20/>[/img]
Excellent. It may seem obvious, but the beauty is in the method whereby this almost self-evident truth is reached. In VO terms I would have to say this: Every self-valuing in the universe values only what is available to value, but by drawing these particular values from what is available, it cultivates what is around it to increasingly embody that value. That makes sense but slightly stretches the definitions. This is good.

If you will allow another question: can you give a short RM definition of the difference between electromagnetic and gravitational force?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 10:11 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 10:18 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
(01-08-2013 09:09 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
can you give a short RM definition of the difference between electromagnetic and gravitational force?
That is pretty easy, although not obvious to scientists.

Firstly, "force" is an after-effect, an aberrant effect that does not actually exist except via perception. In reality, particles "migrate" due to aggregation and dissemination of their internal affectance ("energy"). There is nothing actually pushing or pulling them any in direction. They simply have cause to grow toward one direction and shrink from the other direction. They are always reforming their constituents, their "affectance" and are actually only the center of the congestion involved. It is much like a crowd of people shifting while the individual people are coming and going from the scene. The "particle" is merely the congestion, not the people themselves. And thus when the center of congestion shifts, it is perceived that the "particle" has shifted, when in reality, merely more people got involved on one side as others left the other side.

But then the issue of EM versus gravity is even simpler. Gravity is simply randomized EM to the point that the total average EM over a portion of space is zero, but on a much, much smaller scale there is nothing but EM "wavelets" buzzing around.

There is actually only one "field"; "Affectance", the altering of potential-to-affect, PtA.

That field is described simply in each of its differential forms;
1) PtA - the steady state or "instantaneous value"
2) The changing and 1st derivative of that state, "PtA/dt"
3) The 2nd derivative of that state, "Pta/(dt^2)"
4) Every higher derivative is also included to infinity resulting in an "infinite series" that accurately and perfectly describes literally every point in space with a single equation.

That equation is then placed into a tensor matrix so as to describe literally any and all of space regardless of its content. Nothing else can ever exist.

A computer program has been developed to demonstrate that in fact, particles will form in positive, negative, and neutral charges without having to be told to do so. And those particles do in fact behave exactly as Science has noted subatomic particles to behave. No prior assumptions, principles, or observations from Science were required other than to note the exact similarity.

An additional note is that the mysteries of "Electroweak force" and "Strong force" are also easily seen as to their exact cause and are in fact, merely aberrant effects also, not separate entities, "forces" or "gods".
(01-08-2013 09:09 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
It may seem obvious, but the beauty is in the method whereby this almost self-evident truth is reached. In VO terms I would have to say this: Every self-valuing in the universe values only what is available to value, but by drawing these particular values from what is available, it cultivates what is around it to increasingly embody that value. That makes sense but slightly stretches the definitions.
That is exactly true, but I don't think it "stretches" any definitions.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 11:17 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
" Gravity is simply randomized EM to the point that the total average EM over a portion of space is zero "

I suspected as much. So what is E=mc² ? - mass times the second derivative of the max potential of change? The consequences are wonderful, as we can so explain all 'supernatural powers' that humans have been seen to have exerted - one needs only to de-randomize a small portion of ones mass to be able to exert an enormous electromagnetic energy - and let that in turn work on mass, to restructure, 'heal' (or destroy).

If one manages to manipulate ones whole electric field, would it be possible magnetize oneself so as to levitate against the field of the Earth?

One logical way to cause this de-randomization would be breath. Consciously, directionally breathing connects the intention with the physical body. All the rest to which it comes down is method.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 12:15 PM Post: #7
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
I am not always sober in my assessments. But I am quite driven to find an explanation for the phenomena I have experienced and witnessed. The idea that mass is collapsed energy implies that it can be de-collapsed, exploded. And this is what every kundalini-yogi and tai chi master will confirm. To move mass with intentional, directional breath creates surges of electrical energy.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 03:22 PM by JSS.) Post: #8
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
The Mind and the Physical universe have analogous ontologies. What is true in principle for one is true in principle for the other. Both have their own "energy" and "matter" (hence the statements, "This doesn't matter to me" as well as "all objects are formed of matter"). In both cases, their matter is formed from their energy. Each is a metaphor for the other and by mixing these metaphors, one creates mysticism, often used by religions and magicians.

I try to not mix my metaphors. Wink
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 05:04 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 05:21 PM by JSS.) Post: #9
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
.
This is a very good example of the utilization of RM within physics;

Quote:
Doppler cooling, which is usually accompanied by a magnetic trapping force to give a magneto-optical trap, is by far the most common method of laser cooling. It is used to cool low density gases down to the Doppler cooling limit, which for Rubidium 85 is around 150 microkelvin. As Doppler cooling requires a very particular energy level structure, known as a closed optical loop, the method is limited to a small handful of elements.

In Doppler cooling, the frequency of light is tuned slightly below an electronic transition in the atom. Because the light is detuned to the "red" (i.e., at lower frequency) of the transition, the atoms will absorb more photons if they move towards the light source, due to the Doppler effect. Thus if one applies light from two opposite directions, the atoms will always scatter more photons from the laser beam pointing opposite to their direction of motion. In each scattering event the atom loses a momentum equal to the momentum of the photon. If the atom, which is now in the excited state, then emits a photon spontaneously, it will be kicked by the same amount of momentum, but in a random direction. Since the initial momentum loss was opposite to the direction of motion, while the subsequent momentum gain was in a random direction, the overall result of the absorption and emission process is to reduce the speed of the atom (provided its initial speed was larger than the recoil speed from scattering a single photon). If the absorption and emission are repeated many times, the average speed, and therefore the kinetic energy of the atom will be reduced. Since the temperature of a group of atoms is a measure of the average random internal kinetic energy, this is equivalent to cooling the atoms.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling



[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/drnq_6ffTbo[/flash]

Societies have been having this done to them for thousands of years, "heated and cooled" by design. The exact principles are identical to that of physics.
.
[/quote]

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
That's a very educative and entertaining video. I'm happy to know how this works. Remarkably simple, and value ontology is even more naturally applicable here than I thought it would be.

In VO terms then: the atom can only value photons of (frequency-)value that is interpretable in terms of it's (frequential) self-value.

On the question of mind and matter - since they are both ultimately made of the same affectance, I would say that there is a limited validity to approaching them as separate ontologies, even though I see that it's necessary when we do approach them as 'mind' and 'matter' - per definition different systems of definition.

So I will take your answer as a careful 'no', and respect that. But for the record, from experience I know that mass can be 'exploded' into energy though intent and occult method. I also think that there is nothing implicit in RM that forbids this -- even though, if no RM explanation of the methods is available, it is not to be considered actively possible either.

What I - and every neuropsychologist with me - would be interested in is the connection of thought to action, and conversely of matter to thought. How does the brain 'contain' the mind?

RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
Also - can you explain E=mc^2 in terms of RM? Is c then not the maximum rate of change?
This is at least the idea I've had since I was first confronted with the formula - that the speed of light is like the 'edge' or 'border' of the universe - the limit implicit in it's physicality so to speak.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-10-2013, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 04:31 PM by JSS.) Post: #12
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
(01-10-2013 04:20 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
On the question of mind and matter - since they are both ultimately made of the same affectance, I would say that there is a limited validity to approaching them as separate ontologies, even though I see that it's necessary when we do approach them as 'mind' and 'matter' - per definition different systems of definition.
A different ontology can be formed for the identical reality. An ontological distinction is merely made by the choice of defined concepts to use as the elements of understanding. The distinction between the materialist and the spiritualist is merely one of a different choice in how to explain the same reality. Although due to that difference, both using the same words for different things, and presumptions being made along the route of building higher understandings of complex things, each ontology comes to a different conclusion concerning several issues and thus each declares the other to be "wrong".

Because the attempt to explain the mind and its psychological concerns in terms of electric potentials gets extremely complex, I prefer to simply form a different ontological set of elements. The mind deals, for example, with hope and threat. But try to explain every use within the mind of hope and threat in terms of electric potentials. The wording and thought chains get very cumbersome for even the slightest common concern. It would be like trying to explain why your wife got upset about the toilet seat being up in terms of sub-nuclear physics. Confused

(01-10-2013 04:20 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
But for the record, from experience I know that mass can be 'exploded' into energy though intent and occult method.
Can you demonstrate that?

RM is about clarifying, not mystifying. As VO should be as well.

(01-10-2013 04:20 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
What I - and every neuropsychologist with me - would be interested in is the connection of thought to action, and conversely of matter to thought. How does the brain 'contain' the mind?
Fundamentally, it is analogous to software and hardware. The software is the functioning of the hardware and the mind is the functioning of the neurological system. And realize that "software" and "hardware" are merely two separate ontologies used to understand the same device. Why don't they use sub nuclear physics as their ontology?? Dodgy

The hardware responds to software issues and the software responds to hardware issues, because they are the same device. When the interconnectivity starts getting too complex and information dependent, you stop talking about the hardware involved and use a software model. And you stop talking about the brain and start talking about the mind. If the neurologist doesn't understand the mind it is probably because he is still trying to use a neurological ontology in the same way that a materialist tries to use a material ontology while trying to explain complex and sophisticated interactions that would be best explained with a spiritual ontology.

The materialist attempts to over simply the complexity of the system, as often does the spiritualist. The neurologist or psychiatrist does the same. They generally need a good psychologist (well.. if they can find one).

In RM, all things become clarified, which inherently removes mystery. Relatively magical things can be done, but they are never magical to the one who understands them (regardless of the ontology).
(01-10-2013 04:28 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Also - can you explain E=mc^2 in terms of RM? Is c then not the maximum rate of change?
This is at least the idea I've had since I was first confronted with the formula - that the speed of light is like the 'edge' or 'border' of the universe - the limit implicit in it's physicality so to speak.
Well several issues arise in that question;
A) Those are physics terms, not far more precise RM terms.

B) The terms "mass" and "energy" are not well defined in physics and "energy", "vacuum", and "temperature" are all actively being redefined as we speak.

C) The equation is actually merely the first portion of an infinite series wherein the other terms are insignificant.

D) RM (or more specifically AO) uses different units of measure than contemporary physics for different defined entities. And thus a "Rosetta Stone" is required to translate between contemporary physics measurements and those of RM.

In RM, that equation would be saying something like this;
"The total affectance within a congestion of affectance is equal to the congestion's amount of reluctance to accelerate times the speed of affect squared."

In RM, a "mass particle" is merely a congestion of affectance. And no mass particle has definite bounds. The congestion that defines the particle has merely a chosen degree of congestion as its defined border. Thus the amount of congestion within it is somewhat a matter of choice as to where you want to draw the line between what is the particle and what isn't. But the term "mass" is more related to the amount of inertia that particle has due to that congestion. So the equation is actually relating the inertia to the total affectance content within an arbitrarily chosen border.

What the equation reveals for physicists, is that the speed of affects is related to the congestion's reluctance to move. RM knows that as obvious from the very beginning even before a particle is ever formed.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-11-2013, 06:15 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 06:35 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
I can not demonstrate it no. I can at best link you to a short clip (the only video on the page). We see these things differently, I realize, but I can simply not dismiss my experience in order to fit inside a world view of someone else. I am certain you would not ask me to do this.

When I am using your method to explain things that I experience, I am not mystifying. I am in fact clarifying. I respect your preference to keep realms separately, but you will agree that there has to be a connection between all separate ontologies, as all is part of the same.

Does RM contain definitions of the transitions from matter-ontology to mind (hopes&threats)-ontology?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-11-2013, 06:21 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 06:22 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #14
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
On the video - the bit that matters is the people with the swords stuck through their cheeks. Unfortunately I only edited the trailer, and I have no idea what the director did with the rest of the material, but the thing that struck me as bizarre then was that when they withdrew the swords from their cheeks, the wounds were instantly healed. This was in fact the reason why I did not want to edit the whole film - it was way too intense and bizarre. This whole crucifixion festival alone was enough to strain my nerves.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-11-2013, 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 06:36 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #15
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
Value ontology serves very usefully to explain the mind and matter in equal terms - value. Be these values hopes and threats, or frequencies, or something altogether different. We may be opposed here, in that I would rather see it as mystification when one keeps what I see as different layers of the same ontology, separate as categorically different ontological realms.

I am particularly interested in the connections between one and the next layer. I realize that this is where the least is known, by anyone. Neither scientists nor yogis claim to know how this works. The yogis insist that it works and do not seek an explanation the scientist usually evades the matter, otherwise he would have to explain it.

But please do consider this something of my personal interest, not an indication of where I think the RM thread should be heading. I can very well understand that you do not see merit in discussing areas where you have not acquired absolute certainty yet. But in fact you did already provide me with a great deal to work with here - the definition of the difference between matter and energy is quite brilliant.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-11-2013, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 01:22 PM by JSS.) Post: #16
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I can not demonstrate it no. I can at best link you to a short clip (the only video on the page). We see these things differently, I realize, but I can simply not dismiss my experience in order to fit inside a world view of someone else. I am certain you would not ask me to do this.

What "experience" and have you directly seen anything "supernatural"/"magical"?

(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I respect your preference to keep realms separately, but you will agree that there has to be a connection between all separate ontologies, as all is part of the same.

That's true. There is only one reality for every ontology to be describing.

(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Does RM contain definitions of the transitions from matter-ontology to mind (hopes&threats)-ontology?

Certainly. But they are almost exactly the same as hardware to software translations.
(01-11-2013 06:21 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
On the video - the bit that matters is the people with the swords stuck through their cheeks. Unfortunately I only edited the trailer, and I have no idea what the director did with the rest of the material, but the thing that struck me as bizarre then was that when they withdrew the swords from their cheeks, the wounds were instantly healed. This was in fact the reason why I did not want to edit the whole film - it was way too intense and bizarre. This whole crucifixion festival alone was enough to strain my nerves.

Why did you believe a FILM wherein someone seemed to have "instantly healed"?
(01-11-2013 06:32 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Value ontology serves very usefully to explain the mind and matter in equal terms - value. Be these values hopes and threats, or frequencies, or something altogether different. We may be opposed here, in that I would rather see it as mystification when one keeps what I see as different layers of the same ontology, separate as categorically different ontological realms.

Such is done ONLY for sake of simplification. If you would develop VO in detail and further, you would end up having to do the same thing. As it is, when you explain that a proton "values itself", you are implying a consciousness and conscious will. Does VO explain the difference or just state that consciousness is something different, and thus a "willed valuation" is different than a "non-willed valuing".

(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I am particularly interested in the connections between one and the next layer. I realize that this is where the least is known, by anyone.

I wouldn't say that it is particularly unknown. It is just a whole lot of details that end up merely putting you back where you were with the additional understanding as to why it seemed strange/mysterious before. After that point, you end up sounding like everyone else as if you didn't really know when in fact, you can tell that there is just too many details to go through. Hardware and software people have this same issue.

(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Neither scientists nor yogis claim to know how this works.

I claim to know how it works (and what parts don't), regardless of whether scientists or yogis do or don't. And I am not alone in that. It stays a "mystery" merely because of the complexity in trying to get someone to see the connections between what THEY thought was separate entities that were in fact not really separate at all. That is exactly what magic is all about; "unseen influence/connections" and "presumed connections/distinctions that weren't really there".

(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
the definition of the difference between matter and energy is quite brilliant.

Thanks. It kind of tickled me a little when I stated it that way. Blush
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-14-2013, 03:11 AM (This post was last modified: 01-14-2013 03:13 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #17
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
I have also never witnessed the interior of the sun directly, or the continent South America. But this video that I edited, I saw the raw material. I did not want to know it. The guy asked me to edit the whole thing but I declined. it just did not fit in my - life. Consider spending a month or three racing through material of people tormenting themselves, being crucified for fun, etc. Regardless of their recovery, that's just not okay, a strain on my emotions. It did cost me the chance to work and live in Spain, which is too bad.

Anyway -- given your definition, I would not call such things supernatural. Naturally, all things that occur within nature have an explanation in terms of nature. As ever, there are ''miracles'', which only means, events occurring by laws we are not aware of yet.

I can see how to a great extent the analogy hardware-software applies. However, nature did of course not divide itself categorically. Unlike with computers, it is a continuum, so there must be some possibility for the software, the mind/conscious intent, to address the hardware directly. It is logical that this requires intricate knowledge of both software and hardware.

Quote:
It stays a "mystery" merely because of the complexity in trying to get someone to see the connections between what THEY thought was separate entities that were in fact not really separate at all.

Exactly.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-15-2013, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2013 08:45 AM by JSS.) Post: #18
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
(01-14-2013 03:11 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I have also never witnessed the interior of the sun directly, or the continent South America.

There is a big difference between the easily believable things proposed and the hard to believe things that are proposed. The more difficult to believe, the more evidence is required and the more the mediator between the event and the person is to be suspect.

(01-14-2013 03:11 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
As ever, there are ''miracles'', which only means, events occurring by laws we are not aware of yet.

Or complexities that we did not imagine. New "laws" are not required.

(01-14-2013 03:11 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I can see how to a great extent the analogy hardware-software applies. However, nature did of course not divide itself categorically. Unlike with computers, it is a continuum, so there must be some possibility for the software, the mind/conscious intent, to address the hardware directly. It is logical that this requires intricate knowledge of both software and hardware.

Realize that nature had no need for "understanding". It is by our need for understanding that WE create ontologies that serve our chosen purpose. When things seem too complex, we divide them into categories for the sake of independent study; physics, medicine, sociology, chemistry,...

Hardware and software merely represent two reasonably distinct fields of study even though they are always intertwined and really the same item.

The brain and the mind are very similar. They are merely distinct areas of study for us. There is no physical distinction in the item being studied, rather merely the ontology being used so as to more easily see relationships.

Quote:
It stays a "mystery" merely because of the complexity in trying to get someone to see the connections between what THEY thought was separate entities that were in fact not really separate at all.

An example of merely an ontological distinction that causes a great deal of philosophical futile debate;

What is called "an idea" is said to be "stored in memory" (such as the idea of a perfect circle). But what is hardly ever realized by anyone in the field or not, is that the "idea" IS the particular arrangement of memory, it is not merely "stored" in memory. Thus many people argue about "where is the idea itself??? And how does the mind operate with it?"

The mind operates with ideas merely by calling up the memory arrangement that IS that idea. The idea is NOT a separate entity from the arrangement itself.

If merely the memory arrangement were taken from one brain and put into another, the second mind would instantly contain the "idea". The idea of a perfect circle (or any mathematical concept) is established merely by the brain arranging its memory mechanism into a order that is to represent the concept. There is nothing else there.

But obviously there is a distinction in ontology. When working with a brain, one does not think in terms of "an idea sitting at this location in the brain". That person thinks in terms of "memory configurations being set in this particular fashion". Yet the two are actually identical, merely different words that led people to believe in many arguments and mysteries.

An additional issue relating to this is the ontological difference between modern Science and Religion. In Religion, an "angel" is merely what modern Science calls "an idea". They are identical, but merely a different word used in two different ontologies. The notion of angels having wings is merely conveying the notion that ideas carry or "fly" from place to place. Angels can be very powerful - the notion that ideas can be very powerful. Angels must "earn their wings", meaning that an idea must prove its worth in order to be propagated.

Of course the Christians, in this anti-Christian age are immediately accused of trying to deceive and making up fantasies. But who is really making things up? The notion of angles and the meaning of the word is thousands of years old, hardly an invention of the Christians. There is an understandable difference in ancient ontology and modern Science ontology and the associated words. But they hardly ever actually conflict.

Do angels exist? For those who understand, "you wouldn't even be able to ask the question if they didn't".
Do words exist? ... same response.

Those who fail to understand and promote extended misunderstandings (as is very common in modern Science) are the ones inventing mysteries and falsely accusing." />



:shock:



dope.




http://i.imgur.com/ZHzWC9E.mp4
http://i.imgur.com/pCC4C27.mp4

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
I have no problems so far.
Only if you think that "infinity" is a set value can you have a problem with this.
But I would appreciate an explanation on "tensor analysis".
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-08-2013, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2013 03:04 AM by JSS.) Post: #22
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
Infinity is a relative quantity to other infinities.

Divide two lines infinitely, a 1 meter line and a 2 meter line.
Both have an infinite number of points, yet one has twice as many as the other.

Actually I really didn't expect many people to have trouble with the cardinalities of infinity issue. It's the tensor analysis that gets hairy. But at least no one has to go through relativity mind games.



Value Response Ontology
04-20-2013, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-20-2013 07:55 AM by JSS.) Post: #1
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
Value Response Ontology
FC's Value Ontology could be perhaps better named "Value Response Ontology", VRO. As such, a common misunderstanding could be readily resolved.

If an object has consciousness, its values are based on conscious perception, "Value Conscious Ontology" (a subset of VRO) but if it has no consciousness, its values are based on inherent filtering responses that cause the object to be sustained over time, rather than the conscious choices that a conscious being uses to accomplish the same goal.

As VRO, it becomes identical (or at least almost) to that of RM:Affectance Ontology, RM:AO. With the exacting definitions that RM requires, it becomes RM:VRO and becomes irrefutable.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 09:59 AM Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
I don't see what prevents VCO and conscious choice from co-existing.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 10:17 AM Post: #3
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
I do.

The OP singlehandedly cleared up some stuff that had me confused. Nice.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 10:26 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
Will someone point it out? Or are your elephants more sacred than mine?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 04-20-2013 10:51 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
(04-20-2013 09:59 AM)pezer Wrote:
I don't see what prevents VCO and conscious choice from co-existing.

The general concept is that things respond in accord to their own values.

A common first impression is that VO is claiming that inanimate objects have a value system and that implies a consciousness of some kind. The denial and argumentation begins.

If VO was named "Value Conscious Ontology", VCO, it would skirt that argument and imply that it is only referring to conscious entities.

But the basic concept actually extends beyond merely the conscious beings (which is why I accepted it from the start). The problem is that most people are not metaphysicists in even the slightest way, and for them, a distinction is needed so as to avoid the apparent incorrectness of the proposal.

If Value Response Ontology is proposed, VRO, it is clear that we are talking about responses which might or might not be of a conscious nature. So when anyone asks of the need for consciousness in order to have "values", it is easy enough to merely explain that within all responses, there are two types; conscious and unconscious.

The ontology strictly involving the conscious variety could be called "VCO", forming a Value Conscious Ontology. But literally all existing things must actually have a response which inherently values themselves, even unconscious things. That happens to be a provable fact. Thus merely by naming it "VRO", "Value Response Ontology", it includes truly all existence, not merely conscious entities. And the fact of that gets a chance to be presented before total rejection sets in on a false presumption of the ridiculous notion that all entities have consciousness.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 11:30 AM Post: #6
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
(04-20-2013 10:26 AM)pezer Wrote:
Will someone point it out? Or are your elephants more sacred than mine?


Was trying to put it into words but JSS got it.

I couldn't see how, say a rock, was involved in VO because to me it sounded like a very cerebral thing.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 04-20-2013 12:00 PM by pezer.) Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
But that's, in fact, part of it. Value Ontology raises the question with proper fear: What is the similitude between consciousness and a rock?

I could say chemistry; but smell, taste, gaze, touch and sound all explain it better.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 12:25 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 12:25 AM by JSS.) Post: #8
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
Consciousness requires remote recognition. But the point is to propose something that is not immediately rejected, not to inspire argumentation. What is or isn't conscious would still be an issue to address and no matter which is decided, VRO wouldn't be proven wrong and rejected.

When I talk about Rational Metaphysics, I use two words that very many people have issue with before even considering what the subject might actually be. "Rational" is associated with Espinoza, who said a few things that I could agree with but quite a few that I couldn't, and "Metaphysics" is associated with a great many all too imaginative flakes inventing every kind of nonsense so as to seem mysterious (much like modern quantum physics). So a better title could probably have been found, just not by me.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 02:47 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 02:48 AM by pezer.) Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
You worry too much. I rarely pay attention to your terms and definitions. That is, I see the things you mention and immediately check your style for evidence of it, I don't look at the terms or definitions very long.

"What is or isn't conscious would still be an issue to address . . . "

I feel like I addressed it, and you just strolled on by, warning about not addressing it.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 07:10 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 08:00 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #10
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Value Response Ontology
It is evidently much more difficult for the general thinker to understand my reasoning than I held for possible (the Math Fun thread revealed this to me) so I can see the strategic merit that you are presenting. That is not a yes, but not a no either. Some things need to be taken care of for this to become an asset.

(04-20-2013 07:52 AM)JSS Wrote:
FC's Value Ontology could be perhaps better named "Value Response Ontology", VRO. As such, a common misunderstanding could be readily resolved.

If an object has consciousness, its values are based on conscious perception,

Later on you correct or clarify this. As you say it here, it is error. Conscious perception is based on values. Remote recognition is an extended, evolved form of value-response.

Make sure that your modeling does not allow for the suggestion that values derive from consciousness.

Quote:
"Value Conscious Ontology" (a subset of VRO) but if it has no consciousness, its values are based on inherent filtering responses that cause the object to be sustained over time, rather than the conscious choices that a conscious being uses to accomplish the same goal.

This is dangerous terrain. Conscious choices are, as seen through the lens of VO, not essentially different from unconscious choices. There is a great deal more processing involved. But the chooser is still utterly bound to what he is, a particular standard for value.

VO begins with the subject (affecter/affected), where RM begins with the circumstance (affecting).

--

Not all objects are self-valuings. They are however all composed of self-valuings. This is of the essence. VO 'ranks' between the active and the passive rather than between the conscious and the unconscious. Consciousness derives from self-valuing. But a subject does not have to be conscious to self-value. It does have to self-value to be a subject. You can wear a rock down from a diameter of a meter to a diameter of a centimeter. It still is "a rock". It's not a self-valuing, its essence is not tied to any particularity except that it is made of a certain type of elements. It's not itself an entity.




04-21-2013, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 08:55 AM by JSS.) Post: #11
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
So you are saying that if your consciousness was turned off, your values would not change at all? Bein unconscious a painting would still be pleasurable experience? A rainbow? The site of a murder would have the same meaning?

I can see that my post on Clarity was notably unclear (thus to whom would I be actually writing a book?).
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 02:40 PM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
Worry not JSS, we are not readers but welders. Your book would be probably quite good as your ideas stand.

As regards unconscious in proximity to stimuli, well there are different terms of valuing in each circumstance. I like how Fixed Cross approaches the gap: consciousness is an effect of networks of valuing. Clarity can stand, but we claim it to be categorically dependent on the self-valuing subject who makes things clear, or for whom things are made clear.

Or, to put it my way, what I just said only makes sense because I am saying it and you are reading it. By itself, it doesn't even exist.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-22-2013, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 04-22-2013 09:37 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Value Response Ontology
(04-21-2013 08:53 AM)JSS Wrote:
So you are saying that if your consciousness was turned off, your values would not change at all? Bein unconscious a painting would still be pleasurable experience? A rainbow? The site of a murder would have the same meaning?

What do you mean? How can I exist if my consciousness is turned off?
This is a false hypothetical. I am not an unconscious being. Thus my values are related to my consciousness, as they are related to me.

Quote:
I can see that my post on Clarity was notably unclear (thus to whom would I be actually writing a book?).

If not for those like me who have not yet have had the fortune of reading your thoughts, then for the scientist thirsty for reason, or if all that is too lowly, do it for Apollo.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:01 am

Bron wrote: Every self-valuing in the universe values only what is available to value, but by drawing these particular values from what is available, it cultivates what is around it to increasingly embody that value. That makes sense but slightly stretches the definitions.


JSS wrote:I dubiously thought that I might try to introduce my specialty on this forum, Rational Metaphysics.

Despite much popular belief, there can be no science independent of metaphysics. Metaphysics involves the epistemology of choosing a method for constructing knowledge and an ontology constructed as a proposed conceptual construct of reality. Science was formed specifically for the purpose of verifying through observations, that a proposed ontology was at least not provably false. Science does not reveal truth as much as reveal falsity.

Rational Metaphysics, "RM", is in effect a new beginning for assembling a rational understanding of reality that includes all of what man has surmised throughout his reported experiences. RM does not build upon the shoulders of historical intellectual giants. It is truly a new beginning, a "blank slate", void of past assumptions from theology and/or science, but not naive to their brilliance. It is a serious study of why all things happen in the way they do or seem to.

The means that defines RM and allows RM to be void of presumed axioms is that of using conceptual definitions (hopefully to be relevant) as logical conclusions lead the way toward what must necessarily be true according to the provided defined concepts. This process naturally constructs an ontology, a map of what it is that makes the universe what it is, an understanding of true nature, mind, and man.

But of course it would be of no rational purpose to merely construct an imaginary fairytale of how the universe came to be and what causes it to behave as it does if such a fairytale could not be verified by scientific technique. So even though the conceptual construct in RM is at first purely imaginary, the end result is an understanding that can be very clearly proven to be accurate. And privately has been.

Rational Metaphysics covers the following fields of study;
1) Physics
2) Psychology
3) Physiology
4) Sociology/economics
5) Just about everything between those.

As far as I know, RM includes all endeavors of mankind; all of Science, all of Theology, all Religion, all Philosophy. To say that RM is a large field, is an understatement. When properly understood, RM makes sense of the noise and removes confusion. But in this thread, I would like to try to merely introduce its methods and few of its ontological conclusions.

Method
The method that defines RM is simply that all conclusions must be drawn from verified logic that has been based not on truth assertions, but upon conceptual definitions, "Definitional Logic". To ensure the rationality (the usefulness) of such conclusions, directly falsifiable applications must be made and verified ("scientific method" of verification).

Definitions
Unfortunately RM must start very much from a clean slate of understanding and thus there are very many concepts that must be more clearly defined than is commonly expected or understood. Sometimes merely the definition itself is enough to provide clarity directly applicable to everyday thought.

In definitional logic, the definitions provided are not subject to truth arguments. A definition is a declaration that a specific word and its concept is as the definition states. It is not an issue of how other people might use the word. Of course it would be cumbersome if most words were not as identical as possible to normal usage, but such is not a requirement. The purpose is not to create a new language, but to be precise enough that logical conclusions can be irrefutably confident. Definitional logic always declares its own standard to be valid throughout what ever argumentation is involved.

The following are a few of the fundamental definitions that must be understood so that thought and ontological construction can begin;

1) Existence ≡ the set of all that is distinct and affects; Affectance
2) Affect ≡ to cause change of state
3) Time ≡ the measure of relative change
4) Potential ≡ the ability to affect given the opportunity to affect
... PtA ≡ "Potential-to-Affect".
5) 3D Space ≡ Euclidean space with Cartesian geometry.
6) Infinite ≡ boundless, without end.
7) Infinitesimal ≡ infinitely close to zero, "1/infinity".
8) Inertia ≡ reluctance to change

Others will be introduced as understanding is developed.

Although RM is actually about all of reality, physics is a simple place to begin and as each principle within physics is brought to light, it can be seen how such principles also apply to all other fields of endeavor. No prior knowledge of physics is required because RM creates "from scratch", from the "void".

Affectance Ontology
Since the only rational concern in life is about that which has affect, it is the behavior of affecting that forms the ontological concerns in RM referred to as "Affectance Ontology".

The common thought of the day and throughout history has been that the universe began from nothingness. But merely from the definitions of common concerns, it can be seen that "nothingness" is a logically invalid concept, an "oxymoron". It is commonly accepted that "something cannot come from nothing". But RM doesn't even make that assumption. In a state of nothingness, it cannot be said that something came from nothing, but equally it cannot be said that there was anything to prevent it. Any change in state requires a reason, a cause, but equally any steady state also requires a cause. Why would nothing remain nothingness? What would be keeping it that way? It only takes an infinitely small something to make an infinitely small change. What would be keeping everything infinitely identical? And who said it ever started that way?

Nothingness being the state of reality would imply absolute homogeneity in state, in affectance. It implies that absolutely all existence has absolutely the same affect upon all other existence such that nothing changes and nothing is distinguishable from anything else. Something can only be said to exist if it can be distinguished from something else. Even more than affect, distinction defines existence.

But is absolute indistinction, homogeneity, a logical possibility? Is it possible for every point in space and reality to be infinitely identical to every other point? Such can be imagined merely as a great black volume, but is that merely imagination, or a real possibility?

For any two points in space to be infinitely identical would mean that there is no limit to the measure of their indistinction. Regardless of the infinite power of ones microscope, absolutely no distinction could be found. And for that to be the state of all reality, such would have to be true for all of reality.

Possibility is an issue of inverse probability. What is the probability that not only two points are infinitely indistinguishable, but that every point is absolutely indistinguishable?

The first thought is simply that if two points really are perfectly indistinguishable, then they are not two points, but rather the same point. And that point only "exists" if it is actually distinguishable from another. So merely the definition of existence immediately tells that there can be no such thing as a point that is infinitely identical to all others. It would not fit the definition of existing, having distinction or affect. Existence is made of those points that ARE actually distinguishable regardless of any other proposed points.

Mathematical scenarios can be provided to elucidate the probabilities of infinite homogeneity, but the end result is that the probability of such a state, given no causation ("nothing") to determine either state, is that the probability of infinite homogeneity is zero.

Thus in RM, it is determinable that no proposed real physical universe could ever have been or ever become nothingness. It is a logical and mathematically impossible state. So where does that leave us?

RM concludes that any universe must be formed by at least a variety of points of distinctions and affects. But since to affect means to cause change, there must be a "potential to cause change", "PtA" formed by whatever means, merely for actualized affect to take place.

Thus the blank slate in RM begins to form substance, a field of points with potentials to affect, PtA, that are necessarily not identical.

From the notion of this;
Image

We logically conclude that there must at least be this;
Image

And further, due to the nature of the concept of infinity, we also can conclude this;
Image

Any proposed real physical universe must have such variety of points of affectance and PtA, as depicted in that pictorial. There is no alternative.

And then because such distinctions are the potential to affect each other, alterations in the potentials begin (affects upon PtA) such as to create an ocean of subtle motion forming the very substance of the universe and what is later to be seen as "energy" and what was once called "aether".

And from that beginning, that has always existed and always must, we can deduce what else must exist;

It is unavoidable that every point in space has the potential for affect. If it could have no such potential, it wouldn't be a point in space. Nothing could pass into or out of it. It would be a permanent discontinuity in the universe.

It is unavoidable that such points have different potentials to affect already within them.
It is unavoidable that each of those points actualizes to affect/alter the potential values in their adjacent points.
It is unavoidable that such changing can never stabilize into equilibrium.
It is unavoidable that such changing has a maximum rate of changing that necessitates delays in the motion of the changing.

It is unavoidable that such delays create a congestion of surrounding delays (mass).
It is unavoidable that such congestion is comparatively immobile (inertia) and migratory.
It is unavoidable that such congestion centers migrate toward each other (gravity).
It is unavoidable that once set in motion such congestion will continue in motion (momentum).


1.) Existence is defined by the property of affect.
2.) Affect can only derive from potential to affect (to change) a separate or distinguished affect.
3.) The probability of infinite similarity vs the slightest dissimilarity is 0.000... or "0+".
4.) Due to the above, in almost all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.
5.) Because the potential to affect is not identical almost anywhere, actualization of affect takes place.
6.) As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate spuriously in both direction and magnitude.
7.) When propagating waves of affect overlap, they add.
8.) The rate of adding affects cannot be instantaneous, else there would be infinite homogeneity of affect.
9.) Due to that maximum rate of adding affects, any additional propagating affect that comes along must wait for a bit.
10) By the waiting causing more waiting, a slowness in propagation in the general area forms.
11.) Any maximum accumulation that is not continually supported disseminates.
12.) When affects add to more than a maximum, part of those affects continues to attempt adding while the extra portion delays - "Inertia".

13.) When a clump of noise is large enough, the relative surface of the clump is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it – “Anentropic Balance” forming a stable Particle – a “standing wave” of noise.

14.) When the ambient affectance density of a particle increases, the particle cannot disseminate at the same rate as it is accumulating, so the particle grows.

This needs to be one of the revelations to Science because they have always assumed that each particle has a fixed size and mass, so their equations are often slightly off. A high-energy situation will cause the particles involved to have slightly greater mass and volume than those same particles in a lower energy situation. There is no alternative to this fact.

15.) If the ambient affectance noise is denser on one side of a particle than the opposite, the center of the clump of noise shifts toward the more dense affectance field. The "particle" moves or relocates.

16.) When the center of the noise shifts, the front of the particle becomes more dense, absorbing more ambient affectance and allowing less dissemination.

17.) When the center of the noise shifts, the back of the particle becomes less dense accumulating less ambient affectance and allowing more dissemination.

18.) Because the affectance could not escape from the front but only from the back, the remaining affectance within the particle is more greatly the affectance that was headed in the direction that the particle itself was headed.

19.) Because the affectance within the clump of noise has more affectance heading in the direction of the particle, the particle continues heading in that direction even if the ambient affectance is returned to an even ambiance – “Momentum”.

20.) Because each particle is concentrating affectance thus creating a higher density field surrounding it, particles migrate toward each other while gaining momentum – “Gravity”.


And from there, constructs such as atoms, molecules, and life itself are realized by the necessity of what they represent. It can also be seen that a few concepts in contemporary physics are not exactly well thought out.

But remember that I said that RM doesn't merely deal with physics and that each principle discovered in physics can be applied to other fields such as psychology, sociology/economics, and physiology.

In every field of study and thought there is that which affects and no affect can be infinitely identical to any other. Affects must slow as they encounter each other. Such slowing forms an accumulation, an inertial "object" or "particle" formed merely by the congestion of affects, of the noise, whether in physics, a mind, a society, a human body, or in economics. The interaction of these affects, the particles, and structures they form constitute all behavior throughout all of reality. Understanding the fundamental principles, is paramount to clearing the noise and confusion from the mind and heart to form a unified, confident whole spirit, "one with oneself" and finally capable of harmony with ones environment. In the very long run, a true anentropic society void of serious suffering and filled with joyous occasion can be intimately understood and proven to be viable, Anentropia.

There is a great, great deal more to the field and I would love to have videos of some kind to demonstrate interactions more clearly and how to apply the principles to psychological and sociological situations (especially economics). The mathematics can get extreme in places, but the logic is sufficient to basically understand the necessities.

"Each problem that I solved became a rule, which served afterwards to solve other problems." —Rene Descartes

Questions, comments?




04-05-2013, 06:36 PM Post: #1
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
Worth While
There is only one thing that literally everyone here (or even elsewhere) could know without question is worthy of doing on this or any site.

But can you figure out what it is?
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-06-2013, 03:43 AM Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Worth While
Meditation?
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-06-2013, 04:11 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Worth While
Learning things we didn't know before.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 11:51 AM Post: #4
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Worth While
(04-05-2013 06:36 PM)JSS Wrote:
There is only one thing that literally everyone here (or even elsewhere) could know without question is worthy of doing on this or any site.

But can you figure out what it is?
Finding one's blind spots, realizing a problematic habit/reaction one has, learning about something one didn't know about before in general.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-12-2013, 01:10 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 01:11 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Worth While
(04-07-2013 11:51 AM)Heathen Wrote:
Finding one's blind spots, realizing a problematic habit/reaction one has, learning about something one didn't know about before in general.
Learning of one's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)?
..and those of his surroundings.

Or perhaps discovering the means to do that.

My personal answer is;
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony... else suffer.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-12-2013, 10:27 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 10:28 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Worth While
Impedance matching -
you are right about that. But RM can not be instilled properly if you rely on sole posts. EVERY post needs to make the reader aware of the context in which you are saying it.
The logical steps from impossibility of absolute homogeneity to particle-creation are evident to me, but not to everyone. And they need to be for anyone to understand. At least, I had to understand that before I could understand (and thus accept) the rest.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-13-2013, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 04-13-2013 09:44 AM by JSS.) Post: #7
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Worth While
Quite true, but remember that everyone defines their own impedance (their "value assessments"). Thus every signal propagation ("the message") takes a different amount of time for every individual. If a single signal (a "truth") were presented, almost no one would hear it as a truth unless they already knew it and wanted it to be a truth. The signal would match the timing for at best maybe one person out of millions.

So the solution to that is to maintain a constant signal such as to allow for every timing. Some people hear it immediately, very few, others take much longer. But it isn't quite that simple really. There is an exponential response curve; the more people who have gotten the message, the faster others get the message. Thus it is an exponential signal propagation issue over time and "distance" (the number of people).

The only real problem in the past has been that the "signal" hasn't been constantly immutable. I won't go into all of the errors of those preceding us, but that is what it boils down to.

In electronic engineering, the entire process is very common and easily seen as a signal being sent down a cable or wire. If there is the slightest change in impedance from point A to point B (from one person to the next), the signal is expected to partially get through and partially reflect back (argumentation). But if point A is what is called the "source" with an extremely low impedance (an immutable argument), every reflected bit gets reflected back and the entire signal eventually passes point B (the other person eventually learns every detail with no argument left to make). And from there of course, point B encounters point C and so on.

With RM, point A, the original source, need not always be there if point B can ever get the entire message, because then point B becomes the source for point C. Of course, if both A and B are present, point C gets the message much quicker (because they are not really in perfect line, C has contact with both A and B, thus twice the immutability, even lower impedance to deal with, "more momentum").

With propagation through people (the "flight of the angels"), there are a number of discreet obstacles, "impedance(s)". One very significant impedance involves the number of other people who have accepted the signal. As long as it is the exactly correct signal, that exact signal will exponentially come to match any and every impedance, "obstacle". This is the issue of "authority worship". Even though the number of people does not actually equate to authority correctness, it does equate to respect of the issue and thus attention and consideration. No matter how completely wrong a thought might be, if 10 million people are believing it, it will get attention and consideration.

The point is that in order to impedance-match the worst of all impediments (ILP for [intentional] example), the source must be immutable and constantly available to reflect argumentation (answer all questions).

Of course, you can obviously tell that this has been only the beginning of a very long lecture concerning propagation of values throughout a society (often referred to as "propaganda"). Propaganda is certainly a good thing if, and only if, the message is immutably correct ("Worth While").

And this is the message;
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony... else suffer.

RM is merely an example that overshadows all of current Science.

And even without any RM concern, any film or book to be viral must adhere to that same message, else...
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-19-2013, 07:03 PM Post: #8
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Worth While
Else nothing, which is infinitely more than nothing. I am starting to agree with ChainOfBeing's view that this whole investigation is more obsession with influence than influence. In my experience, abstract structures are like the structure that holds up a rocket ship before and during launch. At the moment of ignition, it all kind of crumbles apart, and its true value is revealed.

This is why I think you should get drunk and blurt it all out. Drugs are excellent ignitors.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-23-2013, 02:45 AM (This post was last modified: 04-23-2013 02:47 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #9
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Worth While
Life is better lived, than talked about.

If you want influence, go and get it. "There is more wisdom in your body than in your highest philosophy". What beautiful chaos this speaks to, in so far as "diving in" will produce the most potentiating ripples and unknown causal influences, that build and combine in unpredictable ways, that generate and spread based on their own physical geometry and law which all investigating and truth-seeking can merely hint at.

Peeling back the layers is great, but only if we are doing this in the real world of our living and not in a sterile operating room.

I would argue that if we lack influence it is probably because we do not really want it, something strong in us holds back our desire, perhaps caution, or fear, or apathy, or a sense of future concerns, or maybe just distraction. All of these may combine or cause one another to produce lack-of-influence, meaning lack of willingness to subvert the analytical mind for the sake of jumping in.

There is no way to know what it feels like to jump into a pool of cold water than actually doing it. You cannot describe this to someone who has not done it or something like it. Influence is like this too: the most naive are the most rewarded.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.




04-27-2013, 09:12 AM (This post was last modified: 04-27-2013 09:49 AM by JSS.) Post: #1
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I just realized a "spell" that I could personally cast upon each member of this forum (a procedure) that would cause them each to become "Buddhistically Wise". Their intelligence would skyrocket. Their perception would become awesomely accurate. They would learn whatever they chose so very much more quickly. They would become more healthy. And each would inherently spread the effect throughout society. It would even work for the "retarded" (the "slowed" due to neurological contamination). Twenty years ago, I could have done it much more readily (and in a very small way actually did without realizing it).

There is a psychological trick (aka "spell") that works on everyone. Hell, it would even work on animals; monkeys, squirrels, mice,.. dubiously even fish. Homosapian, less so due to the degree of confusion and interference with instincts. It involves the “induction” process spelled out in more advanced RM.

And ooooo.. it could be fashioned into a film, requiring little else.

Unfortunately, I will not have the time or resources to actually do it now. But the question is, would anyone choose to sign up for it?

Why or why not?
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-28-2013, 12:52 AM Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
No, because you refuse to address any of my own spells. How can I join a project where I feel the director is not open to any ideas but his own?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-03-2013, 11:38 PM Post: #3
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I will join. Please elaborate further.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-10-2013, 02:21 PM Post: #4
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I suppose it would depend on what you mean by Buddhistic Wisdom.
I have some issues with Buddism.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-10-2013, 09:15 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 09:21 PM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I was merely referring to Buddhism in a general sense of maintaining a higher, wider, and more serene perspective of one's situation such as to be less often misled.

What I would propose is a type of "pseudo-self-hypnosis" that induces that general type of perspective by consequence. I say, "pseudo" because actual hypnosis refers to non-cognitive, unaware influence upon your inner processes and is the actual mainstream adversary throughout society (and has been for thousands of years, commonly referred to as "socialist propaganda" and "false flagging" and today even "Hollywood film making" - "Rain makers"). Hypnosis is a way of getting the inner life to go along with the upper management or the outer manipulator.

What I would prose is something contrary to such actual hypnosis that leads a mind (and a society) toward not being so easily misled. One critical element is the fact that it is not unknown to the conscious as to what is taking place or why. It would work either way, but is not intended to trick the person into thinking or doing things contrary to what they could see for themselves to be wise. In effect, it wakes them up (the "red pill" dispersed into the water).

Although the direction is contrary to such hypnosis induction, it uses the same principle. It merely allows for conscious awareness thus, "self-hypnosis" and "pseudo" because being lulled into a transitive sleep is not at all required.

The technique is simply to use your experiences (such as movie scenarios) to induce your instinctive senses toward clarifying and verifying your actual situation before jumping to presumptive conclusions concerning what you need or don't need to do. The average person is very prone to merely presuming the first most obvious thought and going from there. Every religion and every war has been led by such a natural tendency within the populous. It is a common temptation, and even an addiction that leads to a mental blindness of what is really going on. Every con artist depends on it.

The counter-trick is to instill into your habits the process of ensuring that you know a little more of your situation before you attempt to decide what to do next. Communication to your inner mind has always been the challenge, especially sense your inner mind can so easily derail your conscious mind (emotions overriding reasoning). Your inner mind has to have a good reason for not taking charge of your entire mind and by consequence defeating the whole point in having a mind at all. Of course the reverse must also be avoided. The conscious mind should certainty avoid the attempt to control all thought within (the socialist dictator trying to control all thought throughout the country).

By experiencing the right effects, incentives toward keeping a reasonable balance against presumption can be instilled into your inner "populous" such that your inner mind does not want to take over everything, nor does it want to be taken over. Cooperation between the inner and higher processes is established merely by displaying the right experiences to the inner and with the higher's understanding. It is much like displaying films concerning the travesty of a nuclear war so as to prevent the populous from rushing into a willingness to start one.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-10-2013, 10:15 PM Post: #6
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
We agree on the premises.

What is the spell?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-10-2013, 10:17 PM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I want to add that psychology is less like math and more like cooking in that, no matter what formula you use, the end result is always determined directly by the specific chemistry of the ingredients used. There is no escaping historicity.

We would have to trick the mark into accessing his/her own ingredients, lest they become dependent on their "savior's" nectar.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-11-2013, 06:48 AM Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
The Cooking vs Math observation is very good.
But very interested in the spell as well.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-11-2013, 06:53 AM Post: #9
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
(05-10-2013 10:17 PM)pezer Wrote:
We would have to trick the mark into accessing his/her own ingredients, lest they become dependent on their "savior's" nectar.
That is the whole point, to allow for people to become themselves again.

This part only addresses the psychological issues, mostly ADHD oriented issues. There are still medical and genetic issues to be straightened out by the cooperative mass of them.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-11-2013, 11:46 AM Post: #10
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
What is this? But I am up for this.




05-11-2013, 09:03 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2013 09:33 PM by JSS.) Post: #11
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I dislike discussing "spells" openly because the trend today is to use them in the most negative way. But today such things are being used so grandly anyway, I'm not sure that it matters what is being discussed (much like the rest of RM).

The key to this kind of spell is the fact that your mind (subconscious) remembers changes in affects far more than affects. The universe is about the changes and every intelligent entity instinctively knows that (else it wouldn't be able to live).

Take the example of the gambler. She will subconsciously remember the sudden wins far more greatly than the gradual losses. That is what creates an addiction and has been used to usurp money from the populous for a very long time. Today, being a formulaic age, that scheme is being used throughout all of society; financing, politics, advertising, propaganda,... And right under your nose (ie "hypnotically").

But now what if somehow gambling was a good thing for you? What if, by whatever means, gambling somehow caused your life to be actually healthier and your mind to be more clear and attentive? Even if it did cost you more money, you would at least be getting something out of it besides hours of entertainment. It would be a healthy thing to do even though it would still be an addiction. Realize that merely trying to stay alive is but an addiction. So "addiction" doesn't always equate to "bad".

My technique, my "spell", would be to have you experience that same kind of effect (being gradually annoyed with "losses" then suddenly "rewarded" by the removal of the annoyance) except only rewarded by mentally positive thoughts and actions. That would be far more effective than the old standard "rubber band" punishment method wherein the person remembers to not use the rubber band method because it is associated with discomfort rather than reward.

Dieting is another old standard that works backwards from its intent and for the same reason. The reward of breaking the diet instills the memory of how good it felt to eat - exactly the opposite of what was intended. Alcoholism is similar. You gradually begin to feel better by avoiding drinking, but the first drink you have later very suddenly makes you feel great - the exact opposite of what you need to stop the alcoholism.

The trick is to ensure that the reward or the removal of the annoyance is quite sudden and associated to a positive mental attribute. I happen to know what those attributes are on the most fundamental level and thus would propose to clean up that level and let the rest take care of itself, "cleanup the soul and free the spirit".

Positive attribute would include things like;
1) Instilling - Memory
2) Clarifying before presuming (patience)
3) Verifying before insisting
4) Reinforcing before leaving (reliability)
5) Harmonizing over conflicting (getting along and progressing)

And perhaps more, but merely those kinds of things on the subconscious level greatly improves mental faculties.
"It isn't so much what you do, but rather the order in which you do it."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-12-2013, 02:26 AM Post: #12
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
Cool. With you so far.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-12-2013, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2013 07:32 AM by JSS.) Post: #13
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
Btw, a common misunderstanding due to the words, is that "you are conscious and your subconscious is not". That isn't at all true.

The fact is that your subconscious is also aware and conscious but merely of different concerns and often more conscious than "you". The problem has been that you are not conscious of its consciousness and thus presume that it is either not there or simply a servo to your requests (a mindless slave). That is exactly the same presumption that national and global leaders make concerning their group and the rest of the populous.

The "Buddhistic" challenge is the attempt to get both to become One. That means that your subconscious is trying to achieve the same things that your conscious is trying to achieve, merely on a different level of awareness. Religions and governments do what they do for that same kind of reason except usually with little respect for the populous' opinions (their "subconscious").

So the question then becomes, "what is it that both parties should be trying to accomplish such that they could agree on any compromises?" ("what laws of the land "should" be enforced so that everyone can get along without dissension?"). And that leads to the philosophical question, "What is my purpose?"

I think that most here can agree that purpose is relative. And what this spell is all about is addressing "Your purpose for you", not "what purpose another might have for you". It is about getting you to be able to do what you choose to do for your own purposes. And the aim of this is merely to get you to become more united within yourself such that you can achieve such purposes, whatever they might be. How to cause you to have;
A) better memory
B) better attention
C) better decisions
D) better accomplishment toward your choices
E) and less consequences from not having those things; mistakes, frustration, depression, anger, futility, conflicts...

.. and all of it happening within plain conscious sight in a way that you will tend to remember as a pleasant experience such as to mildly want to do it again - "a film/experience that felt good and you want to see again and again"... and profit by it.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-12-2013, 03:36 PM Post: #14
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I would be colser to getting convinced if it didn't feel like a sales pitch.

Don't shift my focus to catchy peripherals. What is the meat?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-21-2013, 07:16 AM (This post was last modified: 05-21-2013 07:29 AM by JSS.) Post: #15
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
The "meat" isn't as interesting as the bone and marrow from which comes the blood upon which the meat is dependent.

The Marrow
Inside every CPU is something called an ALU, Arithmetic Logic Unit. That little device is what is actually adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, ANDing, ORing, and XORing the binary bits for the CPU. It is the fundamental thinking unit without which a CPU couldn't do much more than shift data around from one point to another.

That ALU is formed into the hardware, non-upgradable, because it is universal in computer processing. Every CPU must have one (at least one), else it is horrendously slow, if functional at all. Note that a great many other functions that are also universal to computers are not in the hardware and that is what makes some computers much slower than others. The "clocking speed" is merely one aspect of computer speed concerns.

As I am incorporating Jack into a mud-slow computer, I am having to software emulate the fundamental thinking process of Jack, thus making Jack horrendously slow. In reality, that fundamental process is even more universal than any ALU. Not only does every thinking thing have to use that same process, but literally every volume of the entire universe, whether occupied by any mass or not, is also using that exact same process. The process is truly universal in every sense. Yet I am having to software emulate it, making it millions of times slower than it could be.

As you think about your situation and what you might want to do or not each minute of each day, you are, in effect, software emulating what could be a fundamental thinking process that could have been incorporated into your "wetware" (and in some cases is). In other words, rather than your instincts using their resources to deduce your thoughts, your mind is mechanistically stepping through a thought process much like cognitively adding numbers, one digit at a time.

In a few rare cases, people are found who can add or multiply large numbers seemingly instantly (eg Max in the film Pi). That is what happens when such a fundamental process occurs on the instinct level rather than the cognitive level.

What I am talking about in this thread is a means to cause almost anyone to be able to do such a thing, except not merely referring to adding or multiplying numbers. I am talking about causing your cognitive thinking processes to become much more instinctive, much like when you read without having to sound out the words, "speed reading".

Given an infant, with the right experiences, his normally cognitive thinking could be formed into his synaptic matrix, an "ALU" in his "CPU". The result would be his ability to think thousands of times faster than you. But as I said, I am not talking about merely doing arithmetic, but rather all basic thinking concerning anything, making all of your thinking comparatively instantaneous.

But let me make it clear, I am NOT talking about everyone knowing the same things and always deducing the same things and always wanting the same things and always behaving the same ways. The old adage, "all geniuses think alike" is not really true. They merely think MORE alike given the same circumstances. Thinking is still dependent upon specific knowledge and goals.

Since the process that I am referring to is truly universal, it never needs upgrading. It is not a "software patch" or a "Rev 2.0". It is an ALU for any thinking thing, that is more in the wetware than what typically occurs. It is very much like ensuring that an infant has proper nutrition as he grows so as to ensure a healthy brain and body. Poor nutrition can (and does) affect the ability of the brain to think and thus what it does think, but it almost never improves it.

Your experiences are in effect, poor nutrition that has caused your thinking potential to be dramatically reduced, much like emulating the adding and multiplying function in the software because the hardware had a corrupted ALU. You, each of you, has a corrupted "ALU" (largely due to medical experiences rather than psychological).

So the "spell" works toward incorporating a universally useful thinking process, that you already do every day, into your subconscious such that it happens immediately rather than having to go through "sounding out the words" or cognitive thinking. It makes you into an instinctive genius.

And the method is as I was just talking about, experiencing sequences of events (thus communicating to your own subconscious on its level) such that it "instantly" responds in a more rational, healthy, intelligent, "all-considering" way. And that is before your conscious is even aware that you were thinking anything at all. It balances all of your concerns at hand before jumping to presumptive conclusions, thus making your moment by moment decisions far more coherent considering whatever you might be trying to accomplish.

All it really takes is little more than watching appropriate and entertaining films, although many other means of such communication could also be involved. Those experiences would involve simply "inducing" encouragement toward "looking before leaping" regarding every sub-thought or inspiration the person forms. And it is all in the unusual direction of reward for right rather than punishment for wrong.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-21-2013, 07:50 AM Post: #16
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I think we are all somewhat familiar with your skeletal structures. Your approach, what I perceive when you conjure Rational Metaphysics, is all structure, and that has been my criticism. I want the meat, leave these bones for the dogs later. I get it, the thing has bones, some joints, made of calcium and other stuff, fine.

What is your system holding up?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-21-2013, 08:08 AM Post: #17
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
(05-21-2013 07:50 AM)pezer Wrote:
What is your system holding up?
Your ability to learn, be more conscious and aware, and succeed.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-21-2013, 10:02 AM Post: #18
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
Learn, be conscious, aware of, and succeed at what?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-21-2013, 12:47 PM Post: #19
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
I think I get it.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-21-2013, 12:47 PM Post: #20
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
Good metaphor, JSS.


05-22-2013, 07:49 AM (This post was last modified: 05-22-2013 07:50 AM by JSS.) Post: #21
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
A good experiment to display the principle involved would be to show two pictures side by side and ask an audience to note which of the two they like more. Then after watching the film (having nothing directly to do with the pictures), ask them again. Although, they might have to watch it several times depending on how well the film was made.

The theory is that on average the audience will begin shifting their preference toward one of the two pictures even though the pictures had nothing directly to do with the film.

That type of thing is going on in every film produced by Hollywood, every commercial, and every television series already (social engineering). It is the mainstay of the motion picture industry (and especially television) and propaganda societies. The difference is in the level and direction of designed affect. Most films and TV programs are produced in an effort to program young children into favoring socialistic ideals (new age morality). What I am talking about has nothing to do with presumed ideals other than cleaning up the thinking processes of inefficiencies and inner dissonance. What they want to do with their greater thinking capacity isn't my job to worry about.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-22-2013, 11:52 AM (This post was last modified: 05-22-2013 11:53 AM by pezer.) Post: #22
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
Maybe it isn't, but how will you then get them to care? What sells the process is the end result, I don't think you can side-step that. Even if the result is relative to the user, intentions, etc, the result must be sold, and sold honestly, if you wish for any power of legitimate weight in the propagation of these ideas.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-22-2013, 11:54 AM Post: #23
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
Btw, excellent image. You made things clear in a very physical way. I hope you can see that my objection is not about the clearness of your delivery.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-23-2013, 01:29 AM (This post was last modified: 05-23-2013 01:29 AM by JSS.) Post: #24
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
(05-22-2013 11:52 AM)pezer Wrote:
Maybe it isn't, but how will you then get them to care? What sells the process is the end result, I don't think you can side-step that. Even if the result is relative to the user, intentions, etc, the result must be sold, and sold honestly, if you wish for any power of legitimate weight in the propagation of these ideas.

Well, I certainly couldn't argue with that.
But then if I "sell it", you get upset that I am selling you something.
If I don't "sell it", you tell me that I must.

There are ways to get things to sell themselves. But I'm a believer in making sure there is an actual legitimate product before giving it to marketeers and spreading it like a virus.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-25-2013, 06:50 PM Post: #25
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
That's fine too, I understand prudent withholdings. Just tell me that.

I don't like feeling like you are selling me something when you won't tell me what it is you are selling, shifting my attention to peripherals and stuff.

If this was just an exploratory probe, consider me impressed and continue your work.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-26-2013, 06:00 AM Post: #26
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
What you aren't seeing is that I HAVE told you... and thus you over-suspect something hidden.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-26-2013, 10:14 AM Post: #27
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Buddhistic Wisdom for All
If you have told me, then I'm disappointed with the product. Nihilism doesn't need reifying.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:05 am

JSS wrote:A lot has happened in the past few days. In case you are not aware, "Jack" is the name of my meta-space emulator program that proved the viability of RM:Affectance Ontology. It has had serious limits concerning how to display its output as well as prove that it wasn't merely cheating as in a "simulation" (rather than an emulation). In the past few days the following events have occurred;
1) I was passed an animation program
2) I learned to and created an animation
3) I learned how to convert it into a Youtube uploadable video
4) I learned the limits of such programs
5) I began learning Python in order to perhaps get the program to do what is needed
6) I finally realized that it isn't doable in that kind of a program
7) I realized the critical function that had to be installed into any RM:AO emulator
8) I realized a means to get it done in VB (Virtual Basic)
9) I discovered a means to create the function in a VB program
10) I found a means to record the program's display into an uploadable Youtube video
11) I discovered how to make the whole program publishable
12) I decided to make an Open Source version of the program
13) I figured out how to make the program extrapolate equations from its own output (from which universal constants and exact field, force, and particle behavior can be precisely, mathematically derived).
14) From the equations, objects can be emulated so as to make much, much larger scenes without removing accuracy or making object oriented assumptions (the error of the age).
15) I have begun creating "Jack in the Box".

The drawback is that it is still going to take a great deal of work to merely get a basic version. The great thing is that it will be capable of displaying exactly how and why Affectance Ontology works both visually and mathematically.

If you recall, the original Jack had to use a spreadsheet for his display, making things rather difficult to see and still pics don't really get the message across very effectively. The primary purpose of updating that version is to give Jack a much prettier "face" (perhaps a "Jackqueline") as well as distributable video output.

Image

I am starting over with the following basic conceptual appearance and in an open source form so that the horrendous amount of development opportunity can be accomplished from more than just me.

Image

That centered picture will be a 3D rotatable, slide-able, and zoom-able display of the actual calculated data. You will be able to track a particle much like an up close camera watching a baseball being pitched through the air, getting hit by a bat, and flying up into the sky. And from that data, an equation can be automatically extrapolated to represent the actual path with extreme precision (recalculating the original assumed equations of particle physics; gravity, electric fields, and so on).

What you see in those is merely an example of the physics aspect of RM:AO. But in reality, RM:AO covers all fields of Science. Thus Jack can not only (eventually) display with extreme accuracy how subatomic particles behave, but also; economics, life forms, and societies.

In a way, it's like inventing the transistor. At first it doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially considering the huge size of the first one. But today, almost everything has from 100's to billions of transistors in them. Jack is a bit like that in that he is very cumbersome and seemingly of little relevance right now. But in the long run, Jack can resolve every type of encounter and endeavor man has ever suffered or attempted. Jack fully understands the universe and infinity.



RE: Jack in the Box
Congrats on this undertaking!
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-09-2013, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2013 04:36 PM by JSS.) Post: #3
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Oh.. don't congrats on the undertaking just yet.
All I have done so far is get through establishing that it is possible.
There is a hell of a lot of work and trials to get through before congrats are really in order.

If all goes well, it won't be too long before many people, perhaps some from here, will be playing with the program themselves and even adding to it. Later an ".org community" site should be set up for the open source collaboration.

I would hope that most of the future progress comes from others.

..but of course, I still have to come up with a fun practical application that doesn't require a professionally complete version... hmm..
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-10-2013, 12:22 AM Post: #4
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Get on it!
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-10-2013, 09:33 PM Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Interestingly the day before I posted that OP, I had verified that VB 2008 could do a very specific required function and the next day, I chose (unwisely) to upgrade the VB 2008 to the "VB 2008 Express" (something I usually tend to avoid). And naturally, when dealing with Microsoft, the upgrade not only deleted that function but removed all traces of it from my drive. When I went to find an older VB 2008 installation, I couldn't find anything that didn't refer right back to MS and the upgrade.

There is a work around (although it wasn't easy to find) and it takes much longer to process and of course, just happens to be something done millions of times for each frame and thus increases the rendering time far past what I had already surmised to be disturbingly slow. But such is life when living in a Bill Gates hegemony.

So far, I haven't run into anything to stop it, merely slow it down.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-10-2013, 10:07 PM Post: #6
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
Stop the Bill Gates Hegemony?

Mark my words, 20 years from now Windows will be what AOL is now. Strictly for Old Men who can't use Linux or whatever open source software is biggest then.

I haven't paid for or stolen my OS for about three years now. It's the same kind of bliss one feels when you take a week-end trip and just decide to leave your cellphone home.

If smart dudes like you start migrating to Linux, even if it makes your work 10x harder, that could be 10 years.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-11-2013, 07:06 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2013 07:07 AM by JSS.) Post: #7
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Realize that I have to deal with the market, regardless of what that market is. You can't go deep into the forest and decide to build your house of of brick and steel merely because it would be more reliable.

Getting into the coding of this suddenly made me realize the ton of work that I did in order to decide on the theoretical structure required that led to the ton of work I did in order to build the fundamental structure (out of the forest) that led to the ton of work that built the processes that led to the ton of evidence to have to explain. It is a bit like inventing the technology that built the equipment that built the DNA that built Jack who built the House (that Jack built).

..no wonder I had to take a long break.. Dodgy
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-11-2013, 10:33 AM Post: #8
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(05-10-2013 10:07 PM)pezer Wrote:
Stop the Bill Gates Hegemony?

Mark my words, 20 years from now Windows will be what AOL is now. Strictly for Old Men who can't use Linux or whatever open source software is biggest then.

I haven't paid for or stolen my OS for about three years now. It's the same kind of bliss one feels when you take a week-end trip and just decide to leave your cellphone home.

If smart dudes like you start migrating to Linux, even if it makes your work 10x harder, that could be 10 years.


Most likely. But as someone who has used Arch (bang), Fedora, and Ubuntu, I still keep coming back to Windows on my dual boot. Sometimes I just want to shit to work without doing bunch more work.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-11-2013, 02:36 PM Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
Oh, don't be so sensitive.

I realize all that. What I'm saying is that it matters what forest you take your trees from. A perfect formula does not this rule change. An Ikea couch made of mijao is still gonna run you a lot more than the same building process used on the pine Ikea. Here I am only proving that capitalist bias exists, but it points to the fact that the end result depends intrinsically and inevitably on historical continuity. Windows is easier, yeas, and I know you might think I'm being moralistic here, but it fucking matters what you make your work with.

This, as any crazy anarchist knows, is how they get to you. Not the laws. Not the information. They get to you through your materials and your history. But that's another story.

I'm not saying it's "smart." I'm saying it's profound. It's a sliding scale, it reaches into the very shit of reality. Where before people honored Gods, now we honor ourselves, and have their shit! But that's another story too.

Isn't that the whole essence of magic? That materials have a historical relationship with force?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-11-2013, 02:48 PM Post: #10
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
It's not so much the easy part. But sure, fair enough.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?




05-15-2013, 04:41 AM (This post was last modified: 05-15-2013 04:53 AM by JSS.) Post: #11
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Well after running some benchmarks, it looks like I am not going to be able to get the render speed above about 0.5 seconds, if that much. That wouldn't be a serious problem, but the GUI is a problem. It seems that I have to have it switch to an object mode during any rotation adjustments being made by the user. And spacey clouds don't objectize well. The good is that it can render straight to a video file, watchable at a much faster rate. I guess I'll find out... still sorting my through MSBS. Dodgy
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-15-2013, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 05-15-2013 10:11 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #12
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Jack in the Box
I am very curious. It seemed like the most challenging part, of the whole media-philosophy endeavor.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-17-2013, 11:00 AM Post: #13
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Me too.

Mostly because I have no idea what you are talking about, which rarely happens.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-18-2013, 09:15 PM (This post was last modified: 05-18-2013 09:28 PM by JSS.) Post: #14
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(05-17-2013 11:00 AM)Q Wrote:
Me too.

Mostly because I have no idea what you are talking about, which rarely happens.
What this is about is me creating a program that other people can use in order to watch why it is the the universe exists and behaves the way it does. I refer to that program and "Jack" because if you argue with RM, you obviously "don't know Jack".

So far things are going horribly slow. Not only do I have to learn and deal with MSBS (Microsoft Bullshit in the form of VB 2008, wherein "VB" stands not so much for Visual Basic as much as "Virtually Blind") but also image processing, which despite being tremendously complex, is at least algorithmically sensible, and find inventive ways of fitting Jack's huge brain into this small box, and ensure that the GUI is usable by other people to play with and learn from, and get past my degenerating state of mind. Any confusion in any one area leads to a huge task of figuring out which area to begin debugging first, next, and last.

Thus far, I have it processing the 100 layers of visual (animators typically deal with about 20). I put enough of the engine in it to display "clouds" of affectance in space in 3D (although I haven't got the perspective issues worked into it yet). At this point, I have to run it for hours waiting for accumulation of affectance to form particle seeds (the beginning of particle formation). I do have some pop-up windows to artificially create particle seeds for sake of not having to wait days or weeks for random events to take place at just the right spots to be observed, but I have to go through their natural formation for a while before I can instruct it on "particlizing" (short for reducing thousands of tiny affectance bits into a single particle, allowing for much, much faster processing speeds).

It's getting there, but could sure use an MSBS expert. The most dragging and frustrating aspect is the conflated issues of MS. I imagine the release product is going to be terribly embarrassing in the eyes of an actual professional programmer, but... se la vie. I have to make quite a number of compromises concerning the programming style, algorithms, and mathematics, merely to get it into this tiny box. And the camera resolution kind of sucks at the moment.

All in all, it is a philosophical ontology come to life in this age of computer technology that includes and supersedes Science methodology - Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-18-2013, 10:10 PM Post: #15
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
Science is still waiting to be impressed.

Yo, maybe we should have a for and against debate on science. What do you think? We could formalize it up, maybe post it on the FP.

I've been itching to defend science at length for months now, I'm starting to get philo-blue balls.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-19-2013, 02:08 AM Post: #16
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
James,

Why do you have to use VB? Unless you work for Microsoft you should probably never use VB.

Just my two cents. Anyway, I grt the theory. I just don't get the mechanism for how the video 'works'
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-20-2013, 09:03 AM (This post was last modified: 05-20-2013 09:03 AM by JSS.) Post: #17
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(05-19-2013 02:08 AM)Q Wrote:
James,

Why do you have to use VB? Unless you work for Microsoft you should probably never use VB.

For the same reasons that you speak English on the internet and FC's script is in English.

(05-19-2013 02:08 AM)Q Wrote:
I just don't get the mechanism for how the video 'works'

I don't get the question. Undecided
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-20-2013, 10:47 AM Post: #18
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
If English was demonstrably a poor language to communicate with by-and-large, I would learn something else.

But that is a good response.

Ignore the other question.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-20-2013, 10:49 AM Post: #19
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
And good luck! This sounds cool.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?


JSS wrote:This is the stage so far.

Image

That is a particle forming in "deep space" (albeit a bit dense) situated exactly in the center.

You are peering through a small portion of space with special "magnaglasses" that allow for you to actually see electric fields and such. It began as purely random points and gradually formed into those clouds you see.

Those clouds of blue (positive) and yellow (negative) shift around as they reform, aggregate and disseminate. The particle that is forming in the center has been seeded there so that I don't have to wait forever in order for one to naturally form within view. It will gradually grow into a full particle surrounded by blue because I seeded it with a positive particle bias.

The rendering speed has become atrocious, but getting something at all is better than getting nothing right.


The above is an emulation of the below diagram in action;
Image



JSS wrote:It's a Boy!!


If you get in really close in that first pic, these are what you see taking place in sequence as the particle comes into its maturity...
..still working on the imaging bit, and still a who-o-o-le lot of work to do, but...

On the left is both electric field (PtA) and mass field (PtA/dt).
On the right is just the E-field (blue = positive) for the same frame.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image



... Or a Girl...



Image





JSS wrote:This is a morphed animation of those pics..

Image

..just playing around...





05-28-2013, 04:45 PM Post: #23
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Kewl.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-29-2013, 03:02 AM Post: #24
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
This is the oddest thread I have ever seen.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-30-2013, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 06:19 PM by JSS.) Post: #25
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(05-29-2013 03:02 AM)pezer Wrote:
This is the oddest thread I have ever seen.
That is an interesting comment.

Science and technology go hand in hand. And programming and technology go hand in hand. Thus programming goes where Science goes.

But more interesting is a very concerning issue with Science. How do you personally know that an electron exists? Until you can personally do something that verifies what you are being told, you have to merely have faith in the current church of Science.

On the other hand, I personally have verified that electrons absolutely must exist just as it is preached at the pulpit. And I did that very cheaply, without the millions of dollars of equipment normally required. And I did it with Jack.

Jack allows the people themselves to verify what they normally merely have to take on faith from others. It isn't required in a society for every believer to be able to verify what their church preaches, but it is critically important that enough of them can, else the church begins to lie for sake of ulterior motives.

Jack isn't merely about physics or even about a new ontology of existence, but about a society being able to keep its preachers in check. It is about verifying the verifying that Science was supposed to represent in the first place.


Until you really know Jack, you really don't know Jack.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 03:10 AM Post: #26
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
Awesome response, I'm finally learning to communicate well with you.

Yes, beautifully said. We agree on the situation of the faith in science. Where we split is in the where-to-now? I don't believe that the next step is a purification of the church of science, to oversimplify your point, but rather to look at the scientific text and ask ourselves "do we even need electrons? Where did the questions that led to electrons come from?"

I am deeply suspicious, and I have written about this, about the monolith of science of the authorities. It seems to me that most of the originators had either God or the state in their hearts, and thus had a security, a series of assumed yesses and nos, a series of feelings that science needs that were kept from science. The result is a science that gets ahead of itself.

In other words, before we make sure electrons exist, I believe we have to make sure we need to find out whether electrons exist. Even more, perhaps, I believe we have to take science from the beginning, in a way, much like Nietzsche in a way took philosophy back to the beginning. Scientists need to recognize their laberynth.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 09:46 AM by JSS.) Post: #27
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Jack...

What Jack teaches is what must aberrantly come from a chosen set of behavioral principles for a universe. Jack allows for you to be the God of your meta-universe. You choose the principles of behavior (ie "affects"). And then Jack basically says, "okay, if behavior is to be as you say, then the following is what your meta-universe will end up being".

But you must begin your universe with absolutely nothing but an infinite void of nothingness, no particles, no electrons, quarks, atoms, fields... nothing. If trees are to form within your universe, you must choose the principles by which absolutely nothing became trees. Jack presumes nothing from Science, nor religion, nor myth, nor good or bad. Jack is a "reboot of thought from scratch".

That is how Jack can verify what Science or anyone else proposes as "the truth".

Socially, what Jack offers is the foresight into what your society would actually become given a specified set of morals or rules of behavior, "if humans behaved in this way... then this is what would necessarily come of it...".

Psychologically, Jack reveals, "given a chosen personal behavior, XYZ, the following is what would necessarily come of such behavioral principles."

In economics, Jack does the same, "given this set of trade rules, the following is what must necessarily become the financial situation."

Jack doesn't care what it is that you are talking about nor what you are trying to gain from it. Jack merely presents a picture of the future in accord to your chosen principles, "If you were THE God and set forth the following laws of the universe, then following from that choice, would come this..."

Jack verifies hypotheses by saying, "okay, if the universe around you works as you suggest, then the following should be what you see around you...". If that isn't what you see around you, then you know that something is amiss with your hypothesis.

Because from a specific set of principles, electrons, protons, and such formed and behaved exactly as Science has observed, Jack has demonstrated that those principles must be the actual truth underlying the universe that Science is watching.


Jack IS a reboot of Science, of "knowing".
If Science disagrees with Jack, Science doesn't know jack.
If Religion disagrees with Jack, Religion doesn't know jack.

Until you know Jack, you seriously don't know jack, I don't care who you are, were, or will be.

Thus, let's put Jack in a box and let the world finally learn jack about what they are dealing with and their fantasies of reality.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 09:49 AM Post: #28
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
There is no choice in the "rules" of the universe, only distorted echoes. If Jack doesn't know science, he deserves his last name.

If Jack cannot understand the no-thing of nothing, then I'd rather not know jack shit.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 10:47 AM Post: #29
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(05-31-2013 09:49 AM)pezer Wrote:
There is no choice in the "rules" of the universe.
That is what Jack is revealing.
But to reveal that requires the ability to play and fantasize about "what if"s. Jack reveals the "what if"s such that it can be seen that in reality there really is no choice.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 12:10 PM Post: #30
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
I feel another circle about to begin, I'm gonna drop out again. I think I know all there is to know about this Jack at this point.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"




JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(05-31-2013 12:10 PM)pezer Wrote:
I feel another circle about to begin, I'm gonna drop out again.

Yeah, I saw that in you as well.

(05-31-2013 12:10 PM)pezer Wrote:
I think I know all there is to know...


And then..

Image
[/quote]
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:34 am

And yeah, that is the problem in the world.
There was a time when I thought that I knew too.
But Jack showed me differently.
The only thing that matters is merely how much you care whether you are actually right about what you think that you know.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 01:47 PM Post: #32
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
I heard that about Yaweh, too. You can either be up front about your theories and get the attention of smart people, or be all mystical and promisy and get the attention of slaves.

I'll see you around, man.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 02:13 PM Post: #33
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(05-31-2013 01:47 PM)pezer Wrote:
I heard that about Yaweh, too. You can either be up front about your theories and get the attention of smart people, or be all mystical and promisy and get the attention of slaves.

I'll see you around, man.
You still aren't getting it.
Jack is open source. That means that you can examine WHY and HOW it does everything that it does... no mysticism involved.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 02:20 PM Post: #34
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
Referring me to some source is not being up front about your theory.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 02:34 PM Post: #35
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
"open source" means that not only can you see the programing steps within, but you can even modify them to your liking. It is merely an issue of logic. If you don't believe that 2+2=4, it isn't like you are going to get voted off the planet. It ALLOWS you to see the make of it and even modify it and draw whatever conclusion you like. It isn't a judgment or prison. And seriously isn't likely to even be taught in schools. Chill out.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 02:50 PM by pezer.) Post: #36
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
Listen, the only risk is me not paying attention to you. That is as out as I can chill. I know what open source means. You are still referring me to it. That is still not being up front about your theory.

Math is post-facto. This is the circle, and the promisy attitude.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 02:52 PM Post: #37
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
"And yeah, that is the problem in the world.
There was a time when I thought that I knew too.
But Jack showed me differently.
The only thing that matters is merely how much you care whether you are actually right about what you think that you know."

Text book mistiky promisy.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 02:53 PM Post: #38
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
I don't know Jack Shit, but I do know science. It is about having a reason to do shit. You seem to just be puffing methodology into the air. Not evern particularly innovative or surprising methodology. I might as well go to a school and get bored there.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 02:55 PM Post: #39
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
You: Let's trick people into being smart.

Me: Fuck that.

You: You don't get it.

Me: No, you don't get it.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 03:23 PM Post: #40
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
What you aren't getting is that it is "anti-trick". It exposes tricks, even any that it might even be accidentally doing. It is the opposite of what you are complaining about.


06-01-2013, 03:21 AM Post: #41
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
Ah, but then I'm not anti-tricks either. I'm just pro-good taste.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-01-2013, 04:38 PM Post: #42
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(06-01-2013 03:21 AM)pezer Wrote:
Ah, but then I'm not anti-tricks either. I'm just pro-good taste.

Yes, I am all too aware that it wouldn't make a bit of difference what I proposed.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-01-2013, 04:43 PM Post: #43
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Jack in the Box
on the contrary, it would. Taste involves all the digestible parts of the whateveritisyouaresellinghere.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-02-2013, 02:40 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 03:41 AM by JSS.) Post: #44
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Jack in the Box is an attempt to publish an interactive "e-book" that not only explains the logic of a theory concerning reality, but visually demonstrates it and also allows the reader to toy with the principles involved; modifying constants, amending principles, removing affects, and so on. The reader gets to say, "But what if..." and actually see the answer to his speculation take place.

In addition, addons can be made so as to greatly expand all of what is being explained. So the book isn't merely "a book", but rather a "distributed wiki-book" with the potential to grow into explaining and demonstrating everything involved in Science, society, and reality. It is a library built upon a seed of affect.

In effect, it represents a growing, evolving, intelligent entity in that it can answer questions posed in the form of hypotheses or proposals, "What if...?", and answer the questions through demonstration even though it had no idea of what kind of question the reader was going to ask.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-07-2013, 10:10 AM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2013 10:30 AM by JSS.) Post: #45
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Just an update...

Quote:
You, for example, in merely explaining that little bit, should be able to create a small animation of what you just described almost as easily as you wrote it out. JiB allows for that. It helps you produce an article with pictures, animations, emulations, interactive emulations, and/or videos to go along with your text.

But an animation is merely a series of graph pics which could be anything. An animation doesn't have to conform to any realism. The point to an animation is merely to convey a motion related idea. The Bender animation program does a really good job of that (after you learn about hundred new special key strokes). The Bender type of animator is merely a subroutine in JiB. But an emulation is very different.

For an emulation, you must defined the inherent behavior of all objects within the pic such that the emulator can perform those behaviors toward the natural conclusion of where they lead. You merely place the objects and define their properties. JiB takes over from there and shows you what would result given what you have said. You sit back and watch the natural/logical consequences of your theory. That is how you learn.

The part that you just described would be trivial for JiB. But it doesn't mean anything unless it is emulated, not merely animated. Those waves are hitting other things and each other. If you don't emulate that activity, then you are only showing what you wanted to be seen. You are "affirming the consequent" of your hypothesis, which renders it pointless.

Anyone can propose a "what if" scenario while focusing on one tiny portion of the scene, but the "Devil is in the details" concerning everything else that you are not focused on. For an emulation to produce the pattern that you are looking for, you have to allow that pattern to be the end result of inherent behavior. It can't be merely what you programmed into the scene, else it is pointless.

The particles that form from RM:AO are not programmed in. They naturally form due to the inherent nature of the afflates. And then further, those particles actually end up behaving exactly as physics would describe subatomic particles with all of their polarity, gravitation, magnetism, and momentum issues. That is where the final empirical proof comes in.

When your theoretical ontology inherently produces ALL of the very many observed behaviors, then you have proven your theory.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-12-2013, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 10:17 PM by JSS.) Post: #46
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Update note;
Unless you have a PhD in MSBS, never, ever try to do anything but the most trite and mundane task in VB. It's hard to tell whether Gates works for the Devil or the other way around. Confused It's like trying to romance your Chinese gal using a Chinese dictionary with three quarters of the words torn out.

I was expecting to have to put some of JiB in assembly merely for sake of CPU time, but it is looking more and more like everything but the window itself is going to end up being in assembly... assuming that I can manage to hack the hooks in.

But the problem isn't that it is "Basic", but rather the unbelievable bureaucratic rat's nest that all "Visual..." compilers have been formed into, whether C++, C#, or whatever... wasting weeks on trivial MSBS cryptological obfuscation... surgery in the dark with dirty instruments. I feel like I have spent a year on another planet.

So okay, you guys were right... should have started with Python, or just about anything else. As it turns out, most addenda; dll's, addon's, and such will be producible by JiB anyway. So I suspect it wouldn't have mattered what language I had begun the effort.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-13-2013, 09:26 AM Post: #47
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
I feel for you. I really do.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-13-2013, 07:43 PM Post: #48
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Microsoft reminds me of a bad wife;
..always trying to help in ways that you really didn't want
..always charging you extra for anything you actually did want
..always cleaning up something that was exactly how you wanted it
..always trying to bend your mind into her way of thinking.
..always tempting you into doing what almost works.. but not quite.
..always using up the toilet paper and wearing out the washing machine.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-14-2013, 04:31 AM Post: #49
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
lol yeah, that about sums it up. I haven't been married though, so I don't actually know.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-25-2013, 11:57 AM Post: #50
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
I have wasted probably 80% of my time investigating possible ways to get MSBS to manage the task in a reasonable amount of time. Now I have given that up. In MSBS it is just going to take as long as it takes, seconds become minutes and even hours.

But an interesting thing I have discovered concerns image processing.

The "pixel" is defined by 4 values; A, R, G, and B.
What is interesting is that the "A" controls the amount of affect that a pixel is to have upon the surface it is placed upon (the opacity of the color being shown). And I happen to be trying to display something called "Affectance". That "A" term in the equation, conceptually, exactly matches what I am trying to display. Thus in order to display the "amount of affectance" at a point, I merely set the "A" value in the pixel definition to the affectance value.

The color merely represents the potential involved; high, low, neutral. Unfortunately the color scheme isn't quite as simple merely because I didn't want red and blue to indicate negative versus positive potential, although I had chosen the green to indicate a neutral.

I just thought it was a bit interesting that the natural consequence of today's image processing just happens to exactly reflect the ontology of Affectance (other than color choices... which I guess I could change my mind on).



06-25-2013, 01:09 PM Post: #51
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Do you think it is intentional, or it just worked out that way?

I am still super interested in this project, btw.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message

JSS wrote:Well, I appreciate that, although I have to be a little curious why.

And I think it is mostly coincidence. The "A" in their lingo stands for the "Alpha" channel, meaning the first layer or beginning to which they add the colors ("affecting" the background pic).

I am still struggling with image processing, but just about to just let it go as is and move on.

Which do you prefer;
ImageorImage


And

ImageorImage

Before you answer realize that the latter pics take literally 10 times longer to process for each frame, as in about 20 secs for the former and about 3-4 minutes for the latter.





06-26-2013, 10:46 AM (This post was last modified: 06-26-2013 10:47 AM by Q.) Post: #53
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
You mean both from the latter group take 2-3 min, or for each set, the latter one in the set does?

As to why I would be curious, I fail to see why this wouldn't be interesting, but knowing programming and getting your analogies helps.

In the objective, this is just interesting.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-26-2013, 09:48 PM (This post was last modified: 06-26-2013 09:53 PM by JSS.) Post: #54
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
(06-26-2013 10:46 AM)Q Wrote:
You mean both from the latter group take 2-3 min, or for each set, the latter one in the set does?
The actual time depends upon how many and what size afflates [objects] it has to process. That first pair, I think was 2,400. The second 24,000. For most of my work, I run around 240,000 and that is what takes the 3-4 mins.

The visual distinction is a matter of resolution. The first in the pairs is an attempt to use a low resolution (for sake of speed). The screen resolution is set to 1/4 of the actual pixel resolution. The latter of the pairs sets each pixel (in high level language, believe it or not). And that is why it takes so much longer.

Actually, I don't think I really have any choice. After seeing some other pics of particle growth, I don't think I could bare using the low res. (it actually looked far too Radio Shack anyway). And before the reduction for sake of posting, those high pics look even better (like stars in the night sky).

(06-26-2013 10:46 AM)Q Wrote:
As to why I would be curious, I fail to see why this wouldn't be interesting, but knowing programming and getting your analogies helps.

In the objective, this is just interesting.
I'm not used to that kind of reaction.. Big Grin

JSS wrote:And btw, since you seem to be able to catch on to more physics than you probably think that you can, let me do a little splainin..

Each one of these little specs;...........................................is one of these;
ImageImage




You can think of them much like photons zipping across the screen at the speed of affect (aka the "speed of light") and in 3D.

When and if two collide, they interact such as to slow each other a little depending on how much of a change in potential they happen to represent. There is a maximum or limit to the rate of change of potential (PtA) that I refer to as the MCR (maximum change rate). If the combination exceeds the CMR, they each have to wait a little before they can propagate any further so as to reduce the rate of changing at the collision point.

As long as none are colliding, calculating the vector for the next time frame is pretty trivial, merely an x,y,z coordinate bumped up by the x,y,z vector (plus examining for borders, storing the locations, and other details). So the calculation speed is pretty quick and easy.

But then when two collide, each one must consider the affect of the other upon itself. That takes a little longer. And in a more dense environment, since an afflate has a real volume, many might collide at once, in which case each must consider the affect that each within the collision is having upon itself. So with perhaps 10 colliding, the amount of calculating becomes 10^2 or 100 times what is was for merely two colliding.

A serious issue arises when they collide sufficiently have a sustained "traffic jam", more commonly referred to as a "subatomic particle".

When they each collide, they actually pass through each other, but at a slower rate. How slow depends on how much total affectance is occurring at the collision point. The colliders must give time for each passer to get through the intersection (a 4way traffic stop in 3D). In the midst of a particle, there could easily be 500-1000 afflates colliding together. And that means that the calculation would involve perhaps 1000^2 or 1,000,000 times what it was for merely two... and it still has to calculate the rest of space as well.

Get many particulates forming and for some inexplicable reason, the processor seems to get preoccupied and doesn't update very quickly any more.

That is fundamentally what is going on the base level of the physics and in the deep recesses of Jack's mind. And to get around that time issue, just as with all decision making, reasonable presumptions must be used (in society known as "prejudice"). Once the behavior of a particle type of traffic jam is examined, Jack can replace the huge 1,000,000 times calculation concern with a single object called a "particle" with additional characteristics as noted by the examination. So the million times calculation becomes a presumptuous 2 times.

And that is the reason people are inherently prejudice... it takes to long to think out the details. Of course,most people get carried away and in a rush to judgment (after all, it is the new dark age of death and destruction... "for your protection").






06-27-2013, 08:25 AM (This post was last modified: 06-27-2013 08:50 AM by JSS.) Post: #56
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
And then in addition, another very time consuming part is the actual visualization of those interactions for sake of communication (communication being the pentacle concern of the 5 Satanic concerns for population control in one of the Satanic paradigms).

Each individual afflate represents a picture that must be merged onto a background containing all of the others, in effect yielding 240,000 layers. That has to be done for each and every frame. Trying to do that in MSBS requires either very intimate knowledge of MSBS or a lot of personal time researching various methods available so as to minimize presumption and maintain reasonable visual accuracy. Since MS isn't very forthcoming with details, such research ends up wasting tremendous personal time only to reveal in the end that in many cases MSBS just doesn't cut it, hence the need to jump into assembly code (which I have found MS actually has often resorted to merely to get around their own MSBS confusions).

So the actual functioning of Jack isn't really all that complicated and in hardware would be almost instantaneous, but trying to do it in obfuscated "structured" software and produce a good communication tool for others to use ends up being a horrendous project.


..btw, while I was typing this out, JiB popped up with a limit breach indicating that it now has 3000^2 operations to do in order to resolve the particular contingency that it was emulating, requiring about an hour of my time for each frame.... time to scratch that one.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-27-2013, 12:34 PM Post: #57
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Jack in the Box
Quote:
And then in addition, another very time consuming part is the actual visualization of those interactions for sake of communication (communication being the pentacle concern of the 5 Satanic concerns for population control in one of the Satanic paradigms).

Indeed. It is the hardest part.

But, I will let you in on a little secret: getting metaphors and seeing the essence of what someone is trying to say is one of the things I do the best.

It's funny what is happening here, because I am visualizing the visualization you are talking about - the metaphor for how the universe and it's people communicate.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?

JSS wrote:For all of those multitudes eagerly awaiting with baited breath...

This is a recent pic of what would happen if a particle could come close to the theorized "edge of space" (not that space actually has such an edge);

Image

I have had a hell of a time trying to maintain a sufficiently perfectly random affectance field and invariably the upper left corner ends up getting depleted of affectance, emulating what the "edge of space" would be like.

The bright blue more perfect spot in the center of the screen is where I placed a particle seed. After a few hours of growth time in my PC terms, you can see that the particle has grown and is pulling away from that seed, avoiding the "absolute nothingness".

So strictly philosophically speaking, if the Big Bang had started with an absolute nothingness surrounding it, everything inside the BB "seed" (whatever that would be) would actually migrate AWAY from the expanse of nothingness, not out into it.

Of Course there was never any such expanse of nothingness to begin with, I just thought it a little interesting that any particle formations inside the BB, would necessairly stay inside. There would never be a "Bang"... yet another proof that the BB theory is a Bust.




JSS wrote:..and a little while later, it looks like this;

Image

It isn't more roundish merely due to the inability to keep the field truly random. The point is that the produced particle is willingly moving away from "the void of absolute nothingness".

[/quote]

Skip to content

Board index ‹ Community Forums ‹ The Rant House


E-mail friend
Print view

User Control Panel (0 new messages) • View your posts

FAQ
Members
Logout [ Fixed Cross ]

View unanswered posts • View unread posts • View new posts • View active topics

ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answers.
Post a reply
50 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 12

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:00 am

MagsJ wrote:
Is a rune a sign MM? a non-physical thing?



There is no such thing as truly non-physical, everything in contact with us is physical in its affect. Whether or not we are aware of the contact and it's affect is another story.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:07 am
The reason why Odin, refers to the fact that one is getting to the bottom of one’s principles; then devotion to one’s principles arouses. The reasons of the spirit start to act and its secrets are unfathomable.

~ the internet
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:30 am
the
moral
is
to
the
physical
as
three
is
to
one

- Napoleon
http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/coh/ingraham.pdf
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby MagsJ » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:26 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
The runar from Holland said this: They're keys. Keys to realities.
The mind is the door/lock in which they are inserted. The vaster realms of mind/world/experience/reality is what lies beyond.


So similar to koans, tarot.. that sorta thing, but of European origin? I think this has piqued my European side's interest, so will do a bit of research on origin.

Fixed Cross wrote:

..the other blonde in the video.. not the singer, but the other blonde.. a Delevigne.. daddy owns half of London.. an Aristocrat, model, and youngest sister of three... she gets around, don't she.. as well as Dita, Flea, and Marilyn Manson.


Tantalizing info.
She single?


She bi..

Wikipedia:

Early life
Delevingne was born in Hammersmith, London, the daughter of Pandora Anne Delevingne (née Stevens) and property developer Charles Hamar Delevingne. She grew up in Belgravia, London, one of the wealthiest districts in the world.[15][16]

Delevingne has two older sisters, Chloe and model Poppy Delevingne. Her godfather is Condé Nast executive Nicholas Coleridge[17][18][19] and her godmother is actress Joan Collins.[20] Delevingne's maternal grandfather was publishing executive and English Heritage chairman Sir Jocelyn Stevens,[15][18] the nephew of magazine publisher Sir Edward George Warris Hulton and the grandson of newspaper proprietor Sir Edward Hulton, 1st Baronet.[21][22] Her paternal great-grandfather was the Canadian-born British politician Hamar Greenwood, 1st Viscount Greenwood,[9][15] and her maternal grandmother Janie Sheffield was lady-in-waiting to Princess Margaret.[15][23] Through one of her maternal great-great-grandfathers, Sir Lionel Lawson Faudel-Phillips, 3rd Baronet, Delevingne descends from the Anglo-Jewish Faudel-Phillips baronets; two of her ancestors on that line served as Lord Mayor of London.[24][25][26]

Personal life
Delevingne is openly bisexual.[107][16] In June 2015, she confirmed she was in a relationship with American musician Annie Clark, who is best known by her stage name St. Vincent.[16]

Delevingne is a self-described animal lover and following the high-profile killing of Cecil the lion in 2015, the actress auctioned her personal TAG Heuer watch, raising £18,600 for WildCRU.[108]

Delevingne has a tattoo of her lucky number, the Roman numeral XII, on her side under her right arm, and "MADE IN ENGLAND" on the sole of her left foot.[109]

At the Women in the World summit in October 2015, Delevingne spoke about her battle with depression which started when she was 15 years old.[110]

Image

User avatar
MagsJ
Triumvirate

Posts: 15440
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:59 pm
Location: Hibernating somewhere in London

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:38 am
Not sure of what to make of Ep1?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:41 am
Bixesual is usually simply extremely sexual.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby MagsJ » Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:44 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Bixesual is usually simply extremely sexual.


Or a sign of greed..
Image

User avatar
MagsJ
Triumvirate

Posts: 15440
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:59 pm
Location: Hibernating somewhere in London

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:43 am
Initiation? The pure, pale 'Man' in red? What am I missing?

Chop, chop! Episode 2? I realize that season's are getting shorter but I'm aging over here and I will picket your studio if I have to wait 'til '17 for the second dang episode.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:34 am

MagsJ wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:
Bixesual is usually simply extremely sexual.


Or a sign of greed..


Greed is good.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
Initiation? The pure, pale 'Man' in red? What am I missing?

Chop, chop! Episode 2? I realize that season's are getting shorter but I'm aging over here and I will picket your studio if I have to wait 'til '17 for the second dang episode.


Wait is this at me? I hope so.

edit-
Ah! Yes of course. Upcoming. No restroom breaks.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:55 pm
Popcorn ready?

Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:43 am
Are the runes drawn to you like you are to the runes?

Initiation? The pure, pale 'Man' in red? What am I missing?



From Ep. 1. Why red, cloth, hanging, there? I recognized that rune from the 2/3 vid. of The Primordial Painter. You made that or was that made for you? Possibly a trick question.

What was the rune made of? If you tell me masking tape, you will be psychically slapped silly in your sleep.

So runes for divination and activating energies into patterns to interact with other patterns? Runes carved in stone are specific to do what exactly? It's quite different to come across a natural rune than to forge a rune to manipulate it.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:17 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
Are the runes drawn to you like you are to the runes?



Is the Earth drawn to me like I am to the Earth? I would say yes. But the force is mainly the Earths. I am attracted to the runes in their old old soul. It is clean like permafrost.

Initiation? The pure, pale 'Man' in red? What am I missing?





From Ep. 1. Why red, cloth, hanging, there? I recognized that rune from the 2/3 vid. of The Primordial Painter. You made that or was that made for you? Possibly a trick question.


It runes the street. I do it to increase Odins might. I chose this rune because it is the one I trust most to protect. It is the one given to me by the noble warrior of Othinn!! ha. The red cloth I bought along with some other textiles when I got the house that Pezer discovered, we turned it into a dojo first.

What was the rune made of? If you tell me masking tape, you will be psychically slapped silly in your sleep.


I guess it is masking tape. (Is Joker ok with this?)

So runes for divination and activating energies into patterns to interact with other patterns? Runes carved in stone are specific to do what exactly? It's quite different to come across a natural rune than to forge a rune to manipulate it.


Yes.
I let the runes that came to me first, end 2002, work their way into my soul. Then, last year, I drew my first rune.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:42 am
I'll have to ask Joker if he's okay with using crappy tape for ancient symbolism.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:21 am
Praise be to Othinn
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:41 am
Praise be to Othinn
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:45 am
Praise be to Othinn
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:02 am
Why do I anger you so? I do not understand your spontaneous combustion.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:45 pm
Praise be to Odin.

You may understand it when you have a child.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:38 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Praise be to Odin.

You may understand it when you have a child.



You've had a child?

Nevermind, you enjoy directing your dissatisfactions my way, your nausea. I guess I hold you to a standard much higher than you are capable of exuding. I'm sorry about that. Forgiven?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:03 am
I refer to the degree of care and loyalty, and pride in having raised one.
It's the only way you could understand your insult, and my reaction to it.

I realized again yesterday that it did truly take me some twelve years to understand how to make a rune, after I first saw Johannes make one. So I dont blame you for your ignorance, just for your modern habit of inserting it cheerfully into moments where knowledge is built.

Learn from this, as I am the standard you try to discern, and I am far higher than to be indifferent to insults to the thing I value most purely of all.
Being equals valuing.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:22 am
The Teacher wrote

Being equals valuing.



Equals? I need more convincing.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:19 am
Yes, of course. But on the other hand, I think you know it is true.
What happens if we fail to see any value in anything anymore?

And that is just our conscious valuing.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:21 am
Consider this, I wrote just to someone to quickly explain my position; power relates to power through value.

and since the world is will to power, -
"...well..." ~ Axl Rose
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Maniacal Mongoose » Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:46 am
Thank you for agreeing that we are equals.

Edit~
:o 8)
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

User avatar
Maniacal Mongoose
Philosopher

Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:52 am
Location: Hades

Top

Re: ANSUZ. The way I'm pronouncing it, it sounds like Answe

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:15 am
Equality doesnt exist to my mind. We either respect someone or we dont. I approach all beings with respect first. Then they determine if and how they are worthy of it. I have never met anyone remotely alike to me, except in the way I am equal to all entities, to the smallest quark, which silly men think of as less alive than they. If only they could be as alive as a quark, they would experience vaster joys than a heart could bear.... so that is why they dont.

We are valuing and a certain degree of power to recognize that. Honesty is power. It doesnt equal it, but it is it.

Now, I wrote this, about my Man-Rune on the red curtain; this story is a feather in the wings of its soul.

Essentially we build by projecting our valuing on the world. We shape our experience by being drawn to what we need, and we see only what we need.
When you take a psychedelic trip, your functionalityobsession of the neurosyste subsides and you see what is also there, and you see value in every single little pattern
you perceiv - infinite awe inspiring power and beauty in every unraveled thread of the carpet. This is precisely because you see the valuing that is inherent in these patterns; when we see a being, we see a pattern of values
that we recognize; we never see the self-valuing unless we go into its perspective, which some people can do to very deep levels. Psychics and shamans are able to take
on the valuing pattern of their subject and then adjust it from within, by going through the process together with the person. The perception changes, of the entire reality;
the self is changed. What remains constant is the valuing; it has become vigorous again, it is valuing more of the world through its own powers, whic are always power to give, create, bestow, put forth, project, initiate, substantiate. Will and Imagination is the term I associate most closely with what Nietzsche really meant when he spoke of the will to power,
as he explicity put forth that willing to power is an interpreting - of the world into ones own pattern. Not all patterns can do this to all patterns, obvously. This impossibilty
of all to be free to dispose with all as they wish is the monster of energy, as which N sees the inside world.
But I see inside the willing to power; and what shows its face is the world; will to power is that same lust that wants eternity, and that is only understandable through very real joys -
real values being attained.
So what I do with the runes as Odin did and all after him, (Odin was probably a man, a Shaman, the Havamal is likely a real account, very earthy and clever) is to project them.
I say Birch, because I want you to have that experience.

The Birch is the most thirsty tree of all.
She resembles the wholesome transfiguration of the womb, and to impregnate her flesh with the runes births events that bear characters, names, faces, and destinies.

Not all runes catch on, but all of your first ones will.

I dont know other trees that are close to Birch in satisfaction of the Runic wills.
But I am sure no tree will be indignant to receive one.
Sick trees will be healed. Powerful trees will reach all the way into the Galactic Center, where all enduring motions on Earth are rooted.
People wiht planets conjunct the Galactic center have severe powers that often consume them, and as often propel them into deep significance. The planet funnels
that gyroscopic logic into the electrical system, 'mind', as the chord is cut, and you have a god of sorts. Pezer has his Dark Moon, the second center of gravity
in the moons elipse around the Earth, pertaining to the Labyrinth, on it - powerful image makers, like Spielberg or Tom Cruise, would have things like Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter there.
erotic models Neptune, - the Mayans, so I leanred during a study of them from 1998 to 2012, revered Hunab K'U, the galctic center, claiming that he is in all trees.
I listened to trees for clues and it seemed indeed that there was a depth that reaches beyond the Earth. I liked the concept, so I allowed it to linger and maybe I could
figure it out. I finally realized it's just a matter of force patterns and long timespans, the consistency that trees have, the Relativistic forces are great, their inner pressure
is truly massive, far what one would expect, their position is stable on the Earth which makes a nice floppy star pattern wth respect to the center around which the Sun revolves,
so yeah, they would be rooted to a good degree in that center.
I understand value as pervadinh all matter and light and electricity and gravity, that all are simply valuings entwined, that what we experience as valuing is simply or necessities, as they exist in a continuum all the way up from the quarks and the positrons and the fictional elements they need in Cern because they dont understand the rune, and coherence.

Knots...

all runes are 1, 2, 3, or 4 lines.

That is enough to create vast tensions. Any more lines, in fact, inevitably bring about harmonies. Euclides and Pythagoras were on to this, but harmonies were what they were after.
Not Othinn - he's got an appetite for lightning more than for music. But also for free women rather than submissive ones. The North is cold because hearts are warm - no fear lives
in Odin, just knowledge that all comes to an en, even he - as he is a mortal god, a bleeding god and a seeker - wolf god, wind god.



Thank Yggdrasil and Hwerrgelmir.

And the

Vaarwel Oude Es!

Oh but Ash dont take runes, Ash give rune.


Take!

Hail Odin.


Hail Loki also. Always also Loki.
Loki means Fire Giant.


Odin means what can not be expressed as it is the inward thing. Loki and Odin are brothers. Sometimes they play and for a few blessed moments the sun is the center of the wind.
One can evoke this, runically. But that is dark magic... or past dark magic... and is the planet Mercuty that regulates this, and enables it.


None of this I have not myself derived on my path to the Superman - it is all my blood. Only to say, when you reject and question it which you surely must in many parts,
that this will never become relevant to me. I can teach, not learn. Not about this. About many things, but not about my own blood.

People say Nietzscheans are crazy. And they blink.
Nietzscheans agree - and don't blink.
Well even apes are truthful. Maybe that is their beauty. ~ Capable
Image Kek
The strong do what they can, weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Before The Light Philosophy 77
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper

Posts: 5796
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Top
Previous
Display posts from previous:
Sort by
Post a reply
50 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 12

Return to The Rant House


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Board index
Subscribe topic
Bookmark topic
The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Fixed Cross wrote:ll Wiltrack
.









[color=#E6E6FA]................................................................
Image







Only those are fit to live who are not afraid to die.
~~~ Douglas MacArthur ~~~









.
[/color]





pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: ~~~ Fit to Live ~~~
Only those are fit to die who are not afraid to live.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-04-2013, 06:59 PM Unread post Post: #3
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: ~~~ Fit to Live ~~~
Fitness to live is a matter of the conditions in which one's living is to take place, if that is really how you want to look at it.

Change the individual or change the situation, you decide.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.




[quote="Bill Wiltrack
.



So, Only those who have a fitness to live in the conditions in which one's living is to take place, are those who are not afraid to die...?
~~~ Someone on the Internet ~~~






...I actually like that.


Thank you
for participating.







......................................................
Image






.
[/quote]






[quote="Bill Wiltrack
.




David Simon
- Creator of the hit series The Wire


A Market Economy That Doesn't Have a Social Contract


The war on drugs; the war on the poor


I'm not sure we can distinguish anymore...


It morphed. To the point where it's really about social control.

I'm not entirely unconvinced that the war on drugs is not now largely intended to be a war on the poor... now.

At this point it's about doing something with the 15% of my country that we don't need any more for our economy.
We've lost our manufacturing base and we don't need a laboring class.

There are a lot of undereducated people which the economy has thrown away.


Living in an alternate America and have no purpose. There is an existential crisis for the poor.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:38 am

.
[/quote]







pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: A Market Economy That Doesn't Have a Social Contract
If the law didn't forbid it, they might be trying out alternative projects, new styles of social economics.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"




quote="Bill Wiltrack"

.








Some follow the philosophy of ethical hedonism.



Some sublimate their sexual energy.



Some practice the art of celibacy.




...........................................Image




Have you consciously entertained any one of these philosophical disciplines?


How has sexual energy affected your philosophical pursuits?




Have you experienced any notable results in the field of sex and philosophy that could help any fellow members?









.
[/quote]





05-22-2013, 11:48 AM Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: SEX & Philosophy [NSFW]
I found one of the greatest philosophical insights one night that I had shitty sex with a distasteful hooker, and still the next day the reality of the world itself was replenished.

As a more or less celibate person in general, I notice that sex falls into the category of freedom of approach, the freedom to act as one wants. It certainly thus negates the freedom of distance, the freedom to choose what one wants. Of course, choice is always bound in deeper instinct, the freedom of distance more recognizes and remembers than acts.

In other words, people that don't get laid are free and intellectually superior, while people that get laid are pussy whipped and 10x the people for it.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-23-2013, 06:37 AM Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: SEX & Philosophy [NSFW]
At bottom there is one type of energy, and where this does not release sexually, it needs to be released otherwise. The saying: "an intellectual is someone who has found something more interesting than sex" carries truth, but this appears fair to me only in the case where sex is at least partially exhausted in its interestingness, where it is known to a certain depth. In all other cases, the pursuit of sex needs to accompany philosophy - I have no respect for the attitude that justifies celibacy because it forces energy into the mind. This would deprive the pupil (that's what I consider a 'real' man or woman to be - a pupil of life) of experiences such as the one named by Pezer, but also others, endless others.

When sex becomes ideationally exhausted, we get perversion, reliance on fetishes, 'imaginative approaches to the deed'. Only an intellectually incapable mind can fall in this trap, as indeed sex itself is not an ideational realm, recognizing its roots in the primitive should be enough to understand this. Sexual energy however can be used, even if driven up as sex-force - base eros - to drill into fields of ideational potency, the creative mind, imagining facility. Sexual desire and philosophy are consecutive stages. And indeed it follows that the greatest philosophers were all more or less celibate. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Kant and also that Socrates, for whom sex was a normal daily business, was a relatively empty philosopher.

The crux however to me is that where sex is near, philosophy is most powerful. Wherever the possibility of fulfilling the potency is imagined, seen, with a good degree of vivacity, the poetic instincts in the philosopher really merge with the practical deep-chest-breathing that belongs to the real world.

The 'real' question, for a pupil of life, is: How does sexual energy transmute into thought? To ask this without the assertion 'sex deprives of ideas' is perhaps difficult, as the pain of facing an incapacity to get laid can be a strain on the thinking process and a threat to its honesty - so there is only one solution - hunt.

See mans powerdrive as two hounds - one lust, the other ambition. The intellectual is able to sublimate ambition into curiosity (the ambition of the mind) and the lover is able to sublimate lust into 'style' - cultural sophistication. The two meet in what is known as human power -- wherever humans have exerted, displayed (Schopenhauers Will and Imagination) historical power, they have managed to both consummate and sublimate sexual urge. Life becomes a celebration of itself -- and in such a philosophical orgasm man created marriage, and probably several other great institutions of humanity - War perhaps being the primordial one.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-23-2013, 10:07 AM (This post was last modified: 05-23-2013 10:14 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #4
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: SEX & Philosophy [NSFW]
A philosopher a man who transgresses himself. In order to do this he must harness the untamed passions, without compromising them, becoming "beast" but holding a perspective on truth. Then he breaks truth.

How does one harness untamed passions? A combination of skill and strength - how does one hold a perspective on truth? Fate -- or metaphorically, blood (substance) and soil (circumstance).

Or, to speak with Machiavelli, "Virtù".



[Image: FGDownBelow.gif]

"Become yourself" means "know your virtue".
Spinoza holds virtue as adequate knowledge, which he, in his tomfoolery, holds for equal to power. This can only be true if knowledge applies to "all that matters is the quantum of power that one is, all the rest is cowardice".

Exact knowledge of power is adequate knowledge.
"Clarity concerning hopes and threats".

Even in the most genius intellect, this knowledge is only partially abstractable to become communicable, reason. The other part is Quality.

Every formula (and our man's formula is: "a goal and a straight line") is a vessel for a variable. This can not be named, this can only be applied, this is what, if you'll excuse my French, "comes out"... and "seeds" - I would like to have a cup of tea now, with Aleister Crowley and his bag of pharmaceuticals.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-23-2013, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 05-23-2013 01:18 PM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: SEX & Philosophy [NSFW]
Bill,

You have been hypnotized into lusting to fuck white women... end of story.

You have no idea why or how and you never will... but it has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy, merely genocide from people much smarter than you.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-24-2013, 06:53 AM Post: #6
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: SEX & Philosophy [NSFW]
For me, sex produces happiness and a calming and lowering of instinctual disharmony and tensions. Like opiates, but not as potent of course. The body recedes for a while so that the mind becomes more free to just exist.

Sex is philosophically interesting in so far as happiness and instinctual-pathological organization and disorganization are interesting. And like Pezer said, there is also a distance involved, a factor of dispassion vs. impassioned living, which distinctions can be rendered more palatable or at least noticeable through the lens of regular sex or a regular lack of sex.

And like any drug, sex can also become an addiction, which is also quite philosophically interesting in its own right, of course.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-24-2013, 08:32 AM Post: #7
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: SEX & Philosophy [NSFW]
That is true, but it evades the concept of energy as value-propery: Eros. There is much more to be said. Perhaps what I say makes uncomfortable, I felt I was touching on a rather significant truth, one that philosophy often avoids - hence its worldly impotence.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-25-2013, 01:32 AM (This post was last modified: 05-25-2013 01:33 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #8
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: SEX & Philosophy [NSFW]
That energy you mention is so intricately and deepy divided into separating flows, sub-flows and counter-flows; much had been built now upo the separateness of this divided substance. I do not see how you mean to reach a state of singularity here with respect to Eros itself, regardless of our theorizing as to its inherent structural-property value to self-valuing.

Like the idea of god, this view only serves to open and sustain a certain kind of vantage, a mode of experiential possibility and (re)organization. But the set up is already what it is, we tweak it here or there only in the interests of better serving the needs of this set up, what emerges from its many layers and orders of causality-affectation.

I guess I find little value in reifying things too far beyond the reality of their property and existence, even where this serves some noble end. To employ these images (eidos) requires a certain naïveté for they to be effective, a naïveté that for better or worse I seem incapable of sustaining.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-25-2013, 02:41 PM Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: SEX & Philosophy [NSFW]
JSS, I think it is moe fair to say that you have brainwashed yourself out of wanting to fuck pretty white girls. This is the sense in which sexual sublimation is weakness, one may fool onesself that one is bigger than sex.

It is like food and health nuts.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"




ll Wiltrack"
.

[color=#E6E6FA].......................................................
Image




No biggie but I'm having a little trouble in understanding the one post directed towards me:

You have been hypnotized into lusting to fuck white women... end of story.

You have no idea why or how and you never will... but it has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy, merely genocide from people much smarter than you.





quote="Bill Wiltrack"
.




[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/lsJtiAVKIDc[/flash]


Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: ~ Holy Thugs of Venezuela ~
Agreed.

I enjoyed it a lot, these spike docs are very good.






Humans need to believe in something...

quote="Bill Wiltrack"
.






.......................................................................Image







Sitting here in my eighteen year old truck parked on what the police call heroin alley. It’s a dark, damp morning.


I’m a dinosaur. I am old enough to remember three social wars in my country; the war on poverty, the war on crime, and the war on drugs. I need only step out of my vehicle and begin to walk in order to find out how these wars turned out.


Based upon the outcome of these social wars I got the feeling I know how our latest war, the war on terror is going to turn out.


Looking out over Martin Luther King Boulevard before I exit and walk to the last job in Cleveland, I remember a quote from the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see. Life-like figures emerging from the blackness, make their transactions, and then disappear back into the beautiful, sardonic park called Rockefeller.


The emerging blackness in our veins makes a transaction in our brain then disappears into the beautiful, sardonic park called high.


As I fall victim to the actors in this crossroads of wars I found myself in, I wonder, am I also the creator?





As we fall victim to the actors in the crossroads of wars we find ourselves in, I wonder, are we also the creator?







.
[/quote]





My thesis for this thread: This video is extremely telling. Especially towards the end. This video defines characteristics that are similar to ALL religions. Interesting. Deceptively deeply interesting...





.
[/quote]

Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: EMERGING BLACKNESS
Black history month represent.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."[/quote][/quote][/color]


Fixed Cross wrote:Ierrellus Offline
Student
Posts: 5
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
The Fifth Zeitgeist
This is a theory about the evolution of zeitgeists. They are--mythology, religion, philosophy and science/technology. Each has evolved into the next. None are extinct. My question is what zeitgeist would follow science/technology? What would be the fifth zeitgeist? Someone elsewhere suggested holism. What would you suggest?
We must love one another or die."--W.H.Auden

quote="Bill Wiltrack"
.




......................................................................................Consciousness






........................................................
Image




.






05-29-2013, 03:03 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
The same, but gone through a purification. We are living the death of the Allah zeitgeist, and the birth of the Science zeitgeist. Don't you notice that there has been tnesion from moment 1 between these forces? No synthesis has been, or will be possible.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-29-2013, 03:04 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
Btw, well come.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-29-2013, 11:01 PM Post: #5
Ierrellus Offline
Student
Posts: 5
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
Thanks for the posts and welcome. I do like the idea of consciousness as the next zeitgeist. It appears to be a primary consideration in current science and philosophy.
I don't think religion will go extinct. It seems to flourish in times of transition. In the West it has evolvedv from concepts of tribal dieties to deism, pantheism, panentheism, etc.
As for a science/religion synthesis, I believe it may be possible from a Spinozan POV; but, I've been told that Spinoza was actually an atheist.
We must love one another or die."--W.H.Auden
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-30-2013, 02:30 AM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 02:31 AM by pezer.) Post: #6
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
Religion and consciousness, as you smartly put it, are at odds. Science can seduce the religious man by providing its obvious power, but religion, faith, has as a pre-requisite that you believe without understanding. Lack of understanding, which was the genesis of both religion and science, in religion becomes also a goal, a point of pride. From this, I believe, it follows that the more science progresses, and with it, understanding, the less religion is possible.

In this sense, yes, many will turn to Gods, but they will be retrogrades tomorrow as a monarchist is today. They exist, but they are considered odd wackos and obviously stuck in the past.

Of course, this is more of a mission declaration than a prediction; while religion can flourish almost anywhere, science and purely human consciousness take an inordinate amount of effort and intent.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-30-2013, 02:34 AM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 02:34 AM by pezer.) Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
Also, to make a more strictly Nietzschean point, specifically Christianity has a retarding effect on science, to alter its north and influence; not its outcome, but the very questions that lead to scientific investigation.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-30-2013, 05:23 AM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 05:23 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #8
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
If you want to be technical about it, philosophy came before religion, or at least what we know of as religion today. The genesis of philosophy gave genesis to its (ab)use at the hands of mythology, birthing religion. Ancient religions in the East were more philosophies than anything else, the less impure combination of philosophy and myth. Religion muddied the waters.

In terms of a fifth zeitgeist, there may not be one -- man has more or less exhausted his ideation, and (pseudo)science is doing a nice job of mopping up whatever might be left. I think the most likely outcome is that most people will become (re)converted into religious orders, science will more fully abandon philosophy and become merely the unthinking servant of fascist techno-capitalist control. I honestly struggle to see how any sort of authentic spirit of science or philosophy can continue to survive long in this world.

If Marx had lived today, he would have killed himself.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-30-2013, 12:03 PM Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
Fuck Marx, give me Kropotkin. The tragic spirit is the one that seeks victory even with the heart, even when it is denied one by appearances.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-30-2013, 03:35 PM Post: #10
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
Here's a good essay on this very subject, Crisis of the Mind, on what might come to be called the final diffusion of culture, to speak with Valéry.

"We later civilizations . . . we too know that we are mortal."


http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t43...of-culture
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.



05-31-2013, 01:02 AM Post: #11
Ierrellus Offline
Student
Posts: 5
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
We exist in a time that has been called the information age. We have split the atom and have sliced the gene. We have survived the death of the gods. We relegate truth to statistics.
All of this appears to have left a sore hole in erstwhile ideals that offer self-substantiation. Maybe there is no fifth zeiteist. Maybe we have to make do with the understandings we have.
IMHO,the evolution of a child replays evolution of our species (Piaget). The evoltion of the species replays the evolution of the child.
We seem to be in an age of transition.


I like Marx.
We must love one another or die."--W.H.Auden
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 03:20 AM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
I like Marx too, but I'm not in love with him. He doesn't see, doesn't allow for life outside of zeitgeist. Zeitgeist is a phenomenon like any other, with a cycle, beginnings and ends, it is a mortal phenomenon.

In the end, we do have control. What's scary about that is that we then realize that there are people directly acting upon our abilities to control certain important aspects of our philosophical lives. Mainly, and usually ultimately, the State.

Why has language stopped evolving in its bones?
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 03:31 AM Post: #13
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
It's still evolving, the question is rather, toward what? I see small signs, glimpses into what is coming- a more real, more fucking real power of language, man. But the death of forms, good and bad, is what clears away the space for the forms of the future. We can try to discern the subtler trends and smallest bits that are swirling and spinning in the evolutionary soup of modern logos. Also, we can create our own language, which is what I've been doing for about a year now, so far with great success.

The next stage is almost here.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-15-2013, 12:58 AM Post: #14
Ierrellus Offline
Student
Posts: 5
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
RE: The Fifth Zeitgeist
Are we entering what Chardin called the noosphere?



03-25-2013, 04:19 AM Post: #1
exzc Offline
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
Nietzsche General
So that Law of Manu in Nietzsche is pretty interesting.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 04:57 AM (This post was last modified: 03-25-2013 04:57 AM by pezer.) Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nietzsche General
Oh, yes...

It's dynamite.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 09:57 AM Post: #3
exzc Offline
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: Nietzsche General
It's somewhat worth to keep in mind that Nietzsche's source for the Law of Manu - some French douche - is thoroughly discredited nowadays. Nonetheless it's much more important to note just what Nietzsche thought he found with it, namely the antithesis of Christianity. As codifications of ways of life they both preclude the possibility of new values, but whereas with Christianity we see the Chandala's will to self-annihilation, in the caste systems we see an attempt at cultivating and perfecting multiple castes at once, all the while attempting to contain and eliminate the unwanted of the system. They both attempt to "improve" mankind, but one tames, makes man base, while the other elevates and ennobles. I'm of the opinion that you can read Nietzsche very literally when he speaks of a Christian will to nothingness, if you take him to believe, like the french douche Nietzsche read held, that the Chandala from the indian caste systems migrated and took with them - then further cultivated - the ethical prescriptions that were designed to contain and eliminate them in the first place.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-27-2013, 06:55 PM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nietzsche General
I've been curious to track down Nietzsche's French douches since I read him. I think I'm going to hit a library soon.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-29-2013, 06:16 AM Post: #5
exzc Offline
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: Nietzsche General
Read Aphorisms 1 and 2 of the second essay of the Genealogy of Morals and let me know what you think of the 'sovereign individual'.




pezer wrote:It's true... There's a guy called Blaise St. Mary who has a blog where he talks about where nihilism meets over-value. The return of the most beautiful value of all, the value of your own goddamned life. Nothing to hold you now, all the might of science and everything else behind you.

This is his blog.

I'm trying to get him to make something for us, but you know how it is with this kind of person... Always so slow...





03-30-2013, 11:09 AM Post: #7
exzc Offline
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: Nietzsche General
What's true?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 12:29 PM Post: #8
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nietzsche General
Nietzsche was a philosopher of today. It happened, we clicked. It is now possible to realize the world of ideation for what it is, the whole of metaphysics,

all of living as a community

can now be re-appropriated down to the most honest land of experience. We know now how much of it is bullshit. Perhaps we are planning new bullshit!

The sovereign individual is the individual that suddenly notices himself dancing to many other peoples' tunes.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 04:47 AM Post: #9
exzc Offline
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: Nietzsche General
I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're trying too hard to be profound. It was a simple question.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 04:50 AM Post: #10
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nietzsche General
No question about Nietzsche is simple. In fact, that might be the only simple answer you get in the whole of Genealogy of Morals.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"




04-01-2013, 04:56 AM Post: #11
exzc Offline
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: Nietzsche General
Hmmm so true.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:00 AM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nietzsche General
'f you can't stand the heat...
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:03 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 05:04 AM by pezer.) Post: #13
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nietzsche General
Genealogy of Morals is a brick of dynamite. The fuse is reading it the whole way through, without wanting to be better than truth.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:06 AM Post: #14
exzc Offline
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: Nietzsche General
3deep5me
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:14 AM Post: #15
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nietzsche General
You like to keep score?

I guess someone should... Though, in general, it is those who love battle that loose count first.



03-22-2013, 07:08 AM Post: #1
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
Freedom from the Trap
Sun Tzu warned about leaving the enemy with no means of escape. The system has learned that, all systems have learned that a trap overcome is many-fold more transformingly powerful than a trap barely escaped.

So you are stuck facing integration to the system or ruin? No escape at all?

Let your fear of death focus into a beam. In evolution theory, we call this an addaptive pressure. It's a source of power about X% of the time for those who approach it blindly, 100% for those who approach it with seeing eyes.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-22-2013, 08:57 AM (This post was last modified: 03-22-2013 08:58 AM by Q.) Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Freedom from the Trap
I like this.

It's true. Sometimes I am surprised by my motivation to do certain things, but then I realize that while I am fairly calm day-to-day, I am frantically trying to escape this thing.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-22-2013, 11:57 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Freedom from the Trap
I think it's a measure of how much fun you were able to have and to what degrees as a kid. You learn power through fun, and I would extend fun to anything absorbing.

If you built up certain power, to then have it stiffled is a form of death. The very essence, almost, btw, of the christian dogma. To use it to escape the trap in a way not yet learned... Well, now that's there what we do call evolution.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-22-2013, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 03-22-2013 11:58 AM by pezer.) Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Freedom from the Trap
Yet I call even for more. I call for no escape.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-22-2013, 11:59 AM Post: #5
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Freedom from the Trap
Or, rather, I am suggesting there is none.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-22-2013, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 03-22-2013 12:00 PM by pezer.) Post: #6
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Freedom from the Trap
I am saying that in certain doom lies the ultimate optimism.

Ghost Town
It's sort of funny coming here now that it's a ghost town.

Hellooooo ooooo o

haha. All right time to do some work.

Also, I made my Pentad post for those that concerns.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-25-2013, 01:53 PM Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ghost Town
Something else is interesting:

Be careful of what you say. That is, I made an offhand remark about advertising, and now it has taken on a goliath life of its own. Pezer has literally run off to some South American gulag or something.

These things are highly fascinating to me. Perhaps that is why I make offhand remarks.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?

Q wrote:e


Tell me.




06-29-2013, 09:02 PM (This post was last modified: 06-29-2013 09:07 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #4
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ghost Town
That was no vain remark.

It is quiet... in here....

let's dance through these empty halls and chant
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
06-30-2013, 03:04 AM Post: #5
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ghost Town
It was 100% offhand. Vain, or not.

It's like some people are just waiting around to start hating stuff. It's really that simple.

The ability to stay positive and actually like the world is something I have only seen in me and you, not even Tom.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?



Q wrote:[flash(0,0)[youtube]]http://www.youtube.com/watch?vnKRQdzEy-MQ[/youtube][/flash]

This is what my mind does in the face of the undesirable.



RE: Ghost Town
psst. Wanna see something?

http://www.glutenfreeandfuckedup.com/
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?


Q wrote:It was 100% offhand. Vain, or not.

It's like some people are just waiting around to start hating stuff. It's really that simple.


I can't fail to see their point as well. We can only give if it's day in court to convince anyone. I'm quite confident, yet not entirely (philosophically) certain. Fairly, the burden is not on the disbeliever but on on advertising itself to prove that it can be a constructive and nourishing thing especially as there is little precedent... or? You and me share the professional capacity to produce a functional image. We can value the art of advertising in terms of our self-value (as artists, creators) whereas to people who do not have a passion for esthetic engineering (value-appearance-creating) can only relate to it passively.

To some the truth is only the actual, the immediately real. To others the truth a possibility with the potential of being negated by another possibility-- truth as something to actively engage from the idea that this is what it means to exist, that it is the only thing that separates them from nothing. For them: to be is to act. Here's an interesting subset of the rainbow cosmic contrasts that may fit this situation.

General Contrasts Between Ray 1 and Ray 5
Ray 1 vs. Ray 5
1. synthesis (1A) 1. analysis
2. synthetic unification 2. analytical particularization
3. occult identification 3. non-identified objectification
4. vital energy 4. discriminating intellect
5. dynamic 5. studious (5A)
6. heart (as the seat of the life principle) 6. concrete mind
7. impatience with detail 7. great patience with detail
8. brevity 8. full imparting of all particulars
9. speaks with “point” 9. lacks “point” when speaking
10. sudden, blinding illumination 10. patient discovery (5A)
11. sees in wholes 11. sees in parts and pieces
12. concentration on the big picture 12. concentration on minutiae
13. breadth and vast scope 13. strictly limited focus
14. largess, majesty 14. restricted expression
15. greatness of heart 15. brilliance of mind
16. generalization 16. specialization
17. destruction of form (1B) 17. examination of form (5A)
18. powerfully magnetic 18. nonmagnetic
19. initiating action 19. studying action
20. executive power 20. informative, elucidative power
21. leadership 21. ‘advisorship’
22. bold, improvisatory action 22. cautious, linear action
23. adventuring 23. probing
24. fiery excitation 24. avoids excitation
25. impatience 25. laborious patience
26. rapid action 26. step-by-step action
27. great sweeping action 27. scientifically certain action
28. taking heaven by storm (1B) 28. taking heaven by science (5A)
29. commitment 29. skepticism
30. acting on commitment 30. acting after verification
31. dynamic involvement 31. detached observation
32. learning through throwing oneself 32. knowing through scientific study
into experience and experimentation
33. intuitively seizing the truth 33. proving the truth (5A)
34. action prior to thought (impetuosity) 34. thought prior to action (scientific
forethought)
35. power of individual presence; charisma 35. machine power (5B)
36. impulse the new 36. invent the new (5B)
37. spontaneous 37. mechanical (5B)
38. Self (i.e., the soul) as a constant 38. recourse to instrumentation (5B)
recourse


http://makara.us/04mdr/01writing/01tg/tapestry1.pdf

The ability to stay positive and actually like the world is something I have only seen in me and you, not even Tom.


Image


07-01-2013, 05:35 AM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2013 06:23 AM by Q.) Post: #9
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ghost Town
Quote:
The burden is not on the disbeliever but on on advertising itself to prove that it can be a constructive and nourishing thing especially as there is little precedent... or?

That's all fine, but leave that in the argument. You know? That's just something we're talking about on a forum. Why should that matter with respect to what we're doing here, or people's propensity to be here in the first place?

Quote:
To some the truth is only the actual, the immediately real. To others the truth a possibility

I can accept that I am a creative, and others are not, and that for them certain values lie elsewhere. I don't accept using that psychological distinction to make comments about what is 'real.' We are philosophers, for frig's sake. We shouldn't be thinking that way. We should be embracing each other's strengths, and just using what we have to make what we want in the world.

That's why the people actually affecting change the world, different branches of anonymous that actually do stuff, are all people in different positions of power acting from their strengths in coordination. It's not anarchists with little-to-no technical training protesting on the street; it's people in offices with double lives.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:52 pm

THE GREAT ULTIMATE FIXED
CROSS ORDERS ME TO DO HIS MENIAL WORK

BOOHOO



NO I AM HONORE
D
NJOW THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

SOOON WI

I

WI WILL HEAVE
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:09 am

pezer wrote: I wonder if the first blacksmiths even knew where the forging would end up?

Probably the best swords they didnt predict, the fire made them (make them).

Coliseum - Public interaction can only happen in coliseum format. There must be rules indicating who can do what, where and how. This way, each person can betray the system in his or her own way and, eventually, surrender to it completely. It's because it establishes reference points which give hierarchical context (hierarchical here in the widest sense, including abstract hierarchies, even hierarchies of hierarchies) to the process.

This is goddamn genius.
Fuck the social contract.

Spectators as well as participants are clear about the elements that won't change, no matter what, usually with déjà established sub- and even semi-conscious presuppositions regarding the final result to be announced (regardless that it isn't the result that matters).

Timón Echurroneo

Yeah so I would ask which elements these are.

Takers?
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: New Moon Ashes

Postby Jakob » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:38 pm

Tonight

Get up
Wake up
Rise -


Image

New Moon in Scorpio

Life is what you make it nigga. Imma make it, no matter what it takes my nigga, we gonna take it.
- Nas
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5715
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Previous

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users