Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Yeah, I imagine keeping track of your twisted lies and dementia is a bit of work.

I have to ask, exactly what profit do you expect to gain from these attacks on me? They don’t even come close to diminishing me. They are in fact revealing your own lack of integrity. So you have a definite negative from them, but where is the positive?

Perhaps you were not merely conned into attacking me, but also conned into defeating yourself.

A little bit pissy and petty, James? :sunglasses:

I think that James is extremely patient with Jakob. It’s somehow tragic to watch Jakobs state of mind becoming gradually worse over the years. Not that I am particularly interested in it, but when you want to learn something about RM:AO and try to follow James’ posting history, you permanently stumble over Jakobs posts, wherein he frequently asked James for advice.

I think, that, while Jakob is a bit hard to follow, for it being a different tract of mind, that James is far more aggravating in both the short term and long term. James is far less the true philosopher for all of his philosophizing and theorizing, he is ever far from the point at hand, and ever not on purpose.

It’s somehow tragic to see how Jakob at least gets the point, but is seemingly; in the eyes of the blind; stupid and losing mental consistency and slipping.

I think, Mithus, that you look at how ‘good’ James looks by having a seeming flow and cadence to his words, while Jakob seems to slip in grace, and yet, if you actually read any of James’ work, you will not find, ever, a single shred of actual meat or material, just roundabout wording to make himself look good without actually knowing anything at all. An attentionwhore, while Jakob sticks to actuality and is closer to being a true philosopher and theorizer, no matter how misunderstood or misperceived.

LOL. Actually all you wrote is correct, but you confused the two of them. What you said about James applies to Jakob and vice versa.
And btw., I read a lot of RM:AO, but I doubt that you did.

You went from saying “logic is consistency in language” to saying “logic is consistency in thought AND language”. I don’t see how that’s any better. In the first case, you are saying that language evolved long before the senses. In the second case, you are saying that thought evolved long before the senses. Either way, it is not good. Now you’re leaving out both thinking and language and simply saying that consistency existed (and certainly not evolved) long before the senses. All of this indicates to me, and it does so very strongly, that your way of thinking is backwards. You are explaining what is lower-level, primary or fundamental (e.g. senses) in terms of what is higher-level, secondary or superficial (e.g. language, thought, consistency, etc.)

I said that CONSISTENCY EXISTED before senses. And that logic is the consistency in language and thought in order to track reality (language and thought being almost the same thing).

What I said about James applies to James and what I said of Jakob is to be applied to Jakob. I am guessing that in RM:AO, Jakob was made to APPEAR to be lesser in stature; obviously a feat not too hard to attain if Jakob is easily misconstrued or misperceived, which is obviously the case. I don’t need to read the thread in its entirety to know what James is like, and I have seen Jakob in many other places other than that thread in these same boards where I have agreed with more of what Jakob has said, understanding him better than perhaps most do and have very little to agree with that comes through James.

Jakob remains a little harder to understand because of his unique entrance from his train of thought, his tract, and where most others remain and are. Thus, it is easier to stymie him, easier to frustrate him, easier to wrap him up in the false reason and logic that James is famous for across these boards, not just in RM:AO.

That is accumulative evidence. Anyone can be made to look foolish and I remind you that appearances aren’t as damning as so many deceivers would like us all to think and believe that they are.

I used to have a great bond with James, in 2010 especially. We worked together quite efficiently and have often agreed on issues. My falling out with him came in an unfortunate time for ILP in general.

It is quite wonderful to read your analysis, or judgment, it appears you have been paying quite close attention to my process, which is, rather than flattering, encouraging. You don’t need to feel sorry for me (if you happen to) for being misunderstood and attacked by goons - I have a good number of very good friends who now all work with my theory in some form, and beyond my friends, my work is being appreciated quite wide and far by now. I am very proud of my accomplishments. ILP is a snakepit, but it is my snakepit. Without its trolls and goons, I would not have been forced to make so much sense so aggressively. Ive cultivated enormous pride in being able to emotionally withstand the often truly subhuman “criticisms” and slip from grace less and less.

2013 and '14 were difficult years for me. It was sometimes actually the case that James was right, and I was wrong. Now, that doesn’t happen, Im no longer wrong at anything significant, Ive honed my position to a diamond. I have the impression James also needs another positive phase, as I find he has been less prolific in developing his logic in recent years.

So let me just bless James, thank him for the relentless work he has done here, and pronounce the hope that he will continue to be of value to independent minds.

Except for your lies.

I have never had objection to anyone following you. I have never instigated attack upon you. I have never lied about you. You are not so innocent. And until you correct the many lies that you have pronounced, you will remain a liar. And take care, liars have no actual following, merely the blind and the pretending.

To return to the topic,albeit lately, the question posed depends on the logical assumption of cyclicality bearing on two states of differance: ;immknence and transcendence.the logical and if the cosmological states, are consistent, then the psychological use of the will to power is proof positive of an overcoming of chaos.

In case of the transcendent, no such need arises and duplicity defeats the logical basis of the sense for coherence.

Could it be raised that the question of the entropic progression toward decay is merely the effect of the difference between the cosmologic and structural cohesion, whereby the difference becomes evidence of effects of fear, toward change and consequent need for repetition?

If such and the quantum changes do increasingly effect the
consistency between them, even as similarity - is shown structurally in language, in the positive sense of it.

Could this effect be the increasing revelation of the primary significance of the sense of the need for consistency and consequently imminent state of cosmological equivalency?

Then, the only function of repetition could be the fear behind the demolition of Man, as a creation resembling god.

As the mathematics turns out, even given an infinite eternity of time, the 3D universe could never, ever exactly duplicate itself. Every single instant of time, throughout eternal time, is and will always be unique. The universe has no opportunity to repeat or cycle.

mathematics and logic is an approximation of reality, it is not reality.
reality is found in the waters of imagination and watery thought.

Logic works like this.

If I do A, X will happen.
2+2=4.

Now, this works 99% of the time in almost every scenario, but it starts to fail when used for complex systems.

Because logic works as a tree system, it only presents binary options. It often fails to predict outcomes of complex systems.
If I drop a leaf, where will it fall?

Logic doesn’t tell you where it will fall, only that it will fall. And not even that.
For all you know, a random volcano could explode and incinerate the leaf before it even falls.

Goddamn, I’m smart. #feeling like a narcissist

In order to analyze and predict complex systems, we use logic, mathematics, and statistics.
Unfortunately, there are no statistics telling us what will happens to the universe every universal cycle, or if there even has been a universal cycle.

What is the point of this quest? What fruits will you yield from this journey?
…It seems to me that the journey is the fruit of this quest. A quest of vanity.
…What truth, what emotions are to be found? Will you ever live long enough to verify the end of the universe, and it’s new beginning (if any?)
…It seems like you are all on a quest of vanity, to temporarily satisfy your egos with solutions to puzzles that will never be confirmed, never verified.
…Is it not more logical to instead, focus on your own immortality, before focusing on the end of the universe?
…Perhaps what compels you is this feeling of hope in darkness, hope that someone will understand, solve the puzzle for you, and save you.
…Save you by helping you to find out where you came from, what you are, and your ultimate fate.
…But how can they save you when they cannot even save themselves?

It is time for little boys and little girls to move on, and stop playing endlessly with little toys in the attic.

VO has the same outcome.

Of all past philosophers known to me, Henri Bergson did the work most pertinent to this issue. His idea is roughly that the present is always an accumulation of all moments of the past, so reality is effectively growing in content, so that no moment is never reducible to its previous instance. There is no reverse-engineering time. A simple image he uses is the snowball rolling from a snow-covered slope, which in its downward motion (as a metaphor for the direction of time) grows ever larger.

Of course this is not an actual logical explanation. But any logic that has a securely established a minimal unit rather than a presumed Whole as its ground, would defy the idea of existence being so passive as to simply move obediently in circles, as such minimal-ontologies all show how any instance of existence necessarily has outward consequences only a small part of which directly arrive back at the source - the universe thus comprises enormous and increasing amounts of excess.

. The more uncertainty, the more referentiality, The vital is pretty much in line with the will to power and the question is the residual of excess, its exhaustive llimitation to sense.

At that point the difference becomes irresolute. Then the question of preference of either can change the assumptions of probability or the question of limits can change the assumptions over which the function can best describe that state.

That is an interesting thought exercise, however untrue it may be, and I appreciate that, because it’s interesting to think in new ways about things.

In actuality, there is always a limited amount of memory available, and contents flux. Memories are replaced, purged, and refilled with similar things. There is not an infinite buildup of excess.

Well, that is hard to prove one way or the other.
Excess within the human cognitive realm, such as the ocean of semi coherent memories, is accessible to consciousness on very limited terms. Plus memory gets rewritten all the time, probably less than half of our memories actually happened, the rest was intimated to us in other ways. We may actually attain the memory of something a lady next to us in the bus as we were dozing off was telling her kid. Theres a bunch of proof on this.

What is limited however is the order in which things can be perceived and interpreted and “known”, as “existent”.

The buildup of excess may be seen as infinite without this even having the slightest implication about infinity of contents.
One could see excess as the medium.

Language and thought are not almost the same. They are very different.
The purpose of language is to communicate. The purpose of thought is to predict. Very very different.
You can express one and the same thought in any language you want.
You can think without talking. See for example animals.
You can talk without thinking. See for example humans.
Thinking has to do with how your actions relate to what happened in the past.
You can easily tell whether someone thinks or not just by observing how they act in relation to what happened in the past.
You don’t need someone to speak in order to tell that they are thinking.
You don’t have to open someone’s skull, check if there is an adequate neurophysical process, in order to tell that they are thinking.
In fact, there might be nothing within one’s skull other than darkness.
You try to look into one’s skull deeper and deeper and you just keep seeing nothing but sheer darkness.
And yet, they would still be a thinking organism provided that their actions are sufficiently related to what happened in the past.
The extent to which one’s actions are related to what happened in the past is the extent to which one thinks.
No need for language.
You can be completely incapable of communicating your thoughts and still be great at thinking.
In fact, you can be terrible at language, frequently misunderstood by others, and still be great at thinking.
The other problem is that . . . your emphasis is on language.
You say that language and thought are almost the same, yet, when you define logic, you almost always do it in terms of language.
You rarely say that logic is consistency in thought.
No, what you say is that logic is consistency in language.
What this suggests to me is that you think that language is more important than thought.
Which is backwards.
In fact, most of the time, when you criticize others, you criticize their language and not their thoughts.
You pay too much attention to superficial things.
You value what is superficial (words) more than what is fundamental (thought.)
That’s my problem with you.
You are horribly superficial.
That’s very annoying when people try to communicate with you philosophically.
Because instead of paying attention to what matters, which is thoughts, you pay attention to how they express their thoughts, which is language.
People who are interested in other people’s thoughts – basically, people who are interested in philosophy – try to understand what other people are saying to the best of their ability.
Sometimes, they go to great lengths to understand what others are saying.
Sometimes, they use quite a bit of lateral thinking.
Of course, if it’s too difficult they give up. But they don’t accuse others of being bad thinkers merely because they are not good at communication.
I am not saying that it’s not better to be good at communication.
I am saying that what matters on philosophy boards are thoughts.
And if someone has great thoughts lying beneath obscure words then . . . that’s a gem right there although covered by shit.
Is a gem covered by shit of lesser worth than a gem that is not covered by shit?
I don’t think so.
Some gem is better than no gem.
But this isn’t merely because of your unwillingness to tolerate obscure language.
This is about your lack of understanding of what logic is.
That’s the problem.
You put WORDS before REALITY.

Ha!

Nothing is as simple to prove as to say that it exists, therefore is something because it has the label of nothing. Have you tried viewing nothing? You look and see ‘nothingness’, but are looking at something, so how inadequate is the label of nothing other than as a label?