a new understanding of today, time and space.

I think you missed my point which is nihilism is the creation of the system.
Because the system only value profits and ignores, crushes, punishes, all other
values, human values like love, honor, sadness, and this is the real creation of
nihilism in our world. Human being no matter how much they proclaim they
are nihilist and anti-whatever, they still cling to human values even if the value
is negative. Hate is a negative value and yet the system still treats hate like all the other
human values, ignores, crushes and punishes that value and hate is a human value, no different
than love or sadness or honor. To remove the nihilism of our lives doesn’t take a revaluation of
values that Nietzsche wrote of, no, it is simply the removal of the system which is the creator
of Nihilism. The placing of humans into cogs in the machine is just another example of the systems
nihilism. A cog has no function other than being a cog and no need of human values which makes
human life possible. A cog just does it, cog thing. As a cog myself, I just do my thing which is
scan items across a bar code and remember produce codes. I don’t need any human values
to do my cog thing and I will be punished if I exhibit any human values like love, hate, shame,
despair, while doing my cog thing. At one point in time, checkers were required under penalty of
a written notice to smile at all times, no matter what was happening. If you failed to smile, you were
written up. The company dumped this when it was discovered that all that fake smiling freaked customers
out. It was like the stepford workers and it was just that scary. As a cog, I am to demonstrate whatever
the company demands of me, so if it be smiling that is what I do. If it is anger or hate or whatever,
that is my job as a checker to do. Exhibit any other human value other than what is mandated by the company
is punishable up and including loss of job. That is nihilism. the punishment of human values because
they interfered with the prime directive which is profits. Everything is done in the name of profits and
all values that don’t increase profits are eliminated, human values. this is not new by the way.
the middle ages with its emphasis on god also created a system of nihilism because human values
had no value in regards to the ultimate goal which is entering heaven. Denial of human values such
as sex, anger, beauty were at the center of the church during the middle ages. So which ages didn’t have
nihilism at their core? I would say we have had just two and only two ages that was positive and not
nihilists. One was the Greek age of Athens from 490 BC to 400 BC and the second age was the Renaissance.
by the way, both ages loved by the one major critic of nihilism, Nietzsche. Coincidink? I think not.

Kropotkin

I’m not sure about that … this at least seems to represent a redefining of the concept.

Admittedly, very few self-proclaimed nihilists behave consistent with their nihilism (myself included), nonetheless, nihilism has a specific definition.

For instance, it involves a rejection of religious principles, a belief that life is meaningless, etc.

Also keep in mind, Nietzsche worked past his nihilism by creating his own imaginary (to emerge sometime in the future) character, his superman. How much different was this than imagining the second coming of a Jesus like figure (who upon his return, will be a graceful warrior instead of a sage who commits the ultimate act of vicarious sacrifice)?

Also, for Nietzsche, as you point out … our animal is not something to hate, but rather embrace and celebrate (the part of his philosophy I love). Part of our animal is a will to live, and in that vein, the pursuit of science is what helps me find purpose (and science has been pursued under virtually all circumstances, irrespective of the contemporary socioeconomic system). So IMO it’s not enough just to realize that the only thing we can find purpose in is our nature, it’s also important to find ways to exert our nature (this is how IMHO we reach, as Maslow termed it, self-actualization). Whether it’s something like science, or studying a Sartre or Foucault to explore how society and power relationships suppresses our human nature, or whatever, it should be something that puts us on a path towards self-actualization (and I don’t think this is necessarily “system dependent” … at least not for all people).

“We holds these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.”

Words from a minor document to be sure but words we act upon. We have expanded
what the words meant to them which is White, property owning men to each and every one of us
(you cannot backdate prejudice. this means we cannot accuse men of being prejudice or homophobic
in an earlier time because it is a thing for us, certainly not for them.)

“so we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal”
all men are created equal which in our language would say “All people are created equal”

Now the second idea which will spot is a simple one which is “one man one vote” which is
just carrying out the first idea that “all men are people created equal” so this means
political we consider all men to be equal, one man, one vote. that is political equality.

We have a third idea and that is justice is equal and we represent that by showing
a statue of justice blindfolded with a scale. So that means justice is about equality.
All men are created equal and thus we hold that politically men are equal and in the eyes of the law
we hold that men are equal.

We hold in voting a majority vote elects. It is rare that in the presidency that the president
who has the lessor amount of votes wins the presidency, (but it happens and another reason to eliminate
the electoral collage as being undemocratic) and we hold that a majority votes holds true in all other elections
in the US from the president down. We hold ourselves as a democracy in which the majority
rules in our own name and elects representatives who speak in our name. (at this point we must hold
to the theory of the practice and not the reality)

So we have equality being practice in the political sphere and in the judicial sphere
but suggest that we have equality in the economics and all hell breaks loose.
But I ask you, why not? Why not have equality in the economic area? in
40 years of studying I have never heard a good reason against equality in the economic sphere
and there are many, many reasons for equality in the economic sphere.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal…except economically?
How do you justify equality in political matters and judicial matters and voting matters,
but not economically? We are still clearly held unequal in economic matters. The massive
income inequality in this country proves this. If we are not equal in economics, then
how can we say “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal”?

Kropotkin

You have all kinds of theories. These theories try to explain or understand some
aspect of our lives for example you have Darwin’s theory of Evolution. It explains
the process of evolution in terms that if thought about makes sense. If you combine
the elements of evolution which are time, chance, environment and birth ( the random elements
of birth which create traits which are useful in adaptation for the survival of the individual which
then are passed on) These factors are considered important factors in this process of evolution
however are they the only factors, no, are they the complete factors, no, is the theory whole and
complete, no. One thing to understand is no matter how much stuff we throw into a theory, it
will never be complete, it will never describe all factors, it will not be accurate. Because all theories
are by their nature incomplete. You cannot at any point in time, ever create a theory which covers
all determining aspects or factors that influence that theory. So evolution is incomplete as a theory,
there are points missing which we sense on some level and it gnaws at us. What does this mean for us?

It means we cannot create a theory which covers all aspects needed to explain that theory. all theories
are incomplete which makes every theory easy to attack, “but you missed this point” can be said
about every theory. Does this mean we cannot even begin to construct theories for no matter how hard
we try, the theory will be incomplete and for lack of a better word, damaged. Well I think we need
to understand how and why we use theories.

I live in a universe which for the most part is understandable to you. I work, I eat lunch, I watch sports
on TV especially the San Francisco Giants. I am sitting down right now in my kitchen drinking a Dr. Pepper,
all these acts are understandable and most likely repeated by you. At no point do we even need a theory
to explain my actions. My work schedule decides when I am there and my days off like today lets
me sit at my kitchen table and post. I can easily go without a theory at this time. I work, I live, I eat and
sleep. Nothing complicated here. so when would I need to have a theory? WHY I go to work. that thought
might create a theory. I work because…For me work takes me away from what I consider important and
valuable. Writing, thinking, reading and yet for some (crazies) work is what is important and valuable.
I work to put food on my table and in the process, I maintain the system of Capitalism which says
by my mundane actions, I am a part of the system which allows everyone who works access to put
food on their table. (is this a complete and accurate description of capitalism, no of course, that isn’t
even possible which is my point) At no point (so far) have we made a moral judgment about people who
work in or believe in this system. However we can use words which are moral judgments about people,
So I use the word Liberal. Now you create the connotation of what a “liberal” means to capitalism.
I use the word “deadbeat”. You would create the connection between the word capitalism and
the word deadbeat. At no point are we, you and me, ever actually have a complete and accurate
description of the words, liberal, deadbeat, capitalism or even moral. Now one might say,
accurately ( however that that is not possible) that it is a sematic, definition, word language issue
and all of it will be cleared up with an use language theories which will make understanding
easier. However we now hit the problem of, no theory is complete or accurate. Even using language
game theory will not allow us to get any closer to understanding of our issue. How do we escape
this problem of our needing theories to explain the universe and yet theories by their incompleteness
and inaccurate descriptions cannot explain the universe.

Kropotkin

If systems are as I suggest, incomplete and inaccurate, then that means the great system builders
such as Hegel are incomplete and inaccurate. So perhaps this explains Nietzsche turn toward
aphorisms and short paragraphs as a means of philosophy.

Kropotkin

Life is a struggle. It is a series of ordering against the natural stream of entropy.

Humans were miserable in the old days with scarcity and no sheltering.

Humans are miserable in the new days with excessive sheltering.

The average modern man is miserable when he works, and miserable if he does not work.

At this time there is a possibility for a new development, to change the human DNA, creating a superspecies, which doesnt need to be miserable as a survival mechanism. In short, saving the world

As always, the solution is not to dismantle the system, or replace it with another broken system, or endlessly argue every day. You work bottom up, you rewrite the core nature of the organisms of the system, and the system will follow

my current project was conceived as a means, an attempt to move philosophy beyond
its current state which is static and basically dead in the water. Philosophy is no longer
relevant in people lives and I wanted to change that, by reinventing if you will, philosophy.
My investigations has discovered why philosophy is DOA and that is because of problem
I have discovered which is, no system is ever complete. All systems, ALL SYSTEMS are incomplete
and incorrect/inaccurate. No matter how much information you try to stuff into a system, it
will never complete it, never accurately describe it. this is the modern problem with philosophy,
no matter what, you cannot have a system that is complete and accurate. this dooms modern philosophy
and leaves us with a major problem. You can discuss aspects of philosophy ( and still be incomplete and
inaccurate) but you can never be able to discuss or encompass the whole of philosophy. Nietzsche realized
this and thus wrote what he did and HOW he did because of it. So how do you discuss philosophy when
you can only cover small portions of it? You can never really cover the whole of what is really needed
to discuss when talking about philosophy. So what aspect is the most important aspect? A system
of philosophy is impossible because it can never be complete or accurate. So now what?

Kropotkin

I already told you. To increase the human potential by modifying their DNA.

So they can learn and understand philosophy on their own. Not by reading and parroting, but by discovering things, all on their own merit. True understanding must be from within. Words cannot convey the full depth

They will understand the universe, science, philosophy, by personal discovery. There will be no need for long courses about Neitzche, because they would have discovered the Neitzche inside of them on their own, becoming the Neitzche, becoming every philosopher, becoming the superphilosopher, surpassing all philosophers and adding more, truly understanding the universe itself

Trying to create a superphilosophy to modern humans…its like trying to run software on bad hardware…first you must upgrade the hardware, anode to cathode…father to son

Which DNA is being modified and what are you “programming” into said DNA?
Be very specific.

Kropotkin

For starters Neanderthals had larger brain capacity than Sapiens so that’s a freebie code to boost start on the right track.

Provided there is fresh bone marrow with some DNA left in it. Well there are some dino bones with fresh marrow so it shouldnt be too hard to find a Neanderthal sample.

If not, well then just find Tesla’s corpse and start there.

Honestly, I think that the neandrathals had more capacity because their brains werent filled with all of our societal crap. If we were to prune that away within our own minds and speak to the cells and atoms we’re comprised of, pretend that they are sentient and aware and knowing, we might find that such genetic manipulation is unnecessary. All that we need to know is a mix of whats inside AND outside our own bodies and each body may hold different secrets so that the analysis of just one would never yield the full truth, thus forcing us to learn how to work together. Not to say we shouldnt genetically enhance our selves through science- Id like to be more fleshed out and have a slightly thicker dick, lol.

Brain and body. Body must be strong and healthy to feed the mind.

And yet here Ive been, consistently showing people up with my malnourished body by honing my mind to teach my self the basics of all life and there you sit using my work to bolster your own. Do you think you mind control me to make me do this to have opposition? I once wrote a poem in jest about drawing God with two titts and a dick because we were supposedly crafted in its image, but what of the rest of the animal kingdom? What of celestial entities? What of cell division? You think in banal terminology and forget the nature that spawned us all. Even what goes bump in the night, even the supernatural, must belong to such nature. I had a name known only to my self but even I didnt know it. I am Nothing. I am the void that laments not creation but finds beauty in it for having never been able to find my self in it until now and I will not lament returning to it. My names are worthless, something always takes credit for my work and those elusive ‘they’ are afraid of returning to me. Im happy.

God is not nothing, and structure is needed for regulation and intelligent design. Starving people have measurable empirically observable deteriment of intellectual capacity.

Then I defy statistics. The proof has been in our 'fight against each other and you refuse to accept the findings and the results of the test. Your hypothesis has already fallen flat before we ever got to this point in our discourse. But, please, tell me more about how you know enough to shape the future of our world with your half-formed, inchoate philosophies that I pushed you to develop further. Youd still be stuck where you were if not for me and don’t you ever forget it.

That’s the beauty of it. I give everyone Tesla DNA, and they can build anything they want. The Tesla specimens build the DNA Machine 2.0, demigod DNA, I give that DNA upgrade to myself and I will know the solution once I get it. That’s the beauty, I don’t need to know the solution now, all I need to know is that in order to find a solution, we upgrade the DNA.

Your mind hasnt fallen because the body has primary mechanisms, such as fat conversion to make sure the brain gets optimal nutrients in time of need. How many times have you been in the hospital from starvation? How severe is your famine?

Have you considered that money may be a subset of free speech? Or that one could draw a venn diagram with money in one circle, free speech in the other, and that people could conceive of notions that belong in each part?

I remind everyone that money is not a requirement for life (it is just damn hard to live without it). The individual gives power to both speech and money, as does the collective.

i agree with the central theme(s), i just disagree with some of the supporting points

As I have been on vacation for the last week, I haven’t posted, but I am back and here
is the latest installment of thoughts I’ve had.

I have been gone and so I decided to catch up some on various threads.
I (however distastefully) read the thread about the banning of lys and I had
some ideas. In reading this thread I see where certain people, carleas for example
have drawn a line in the sand. They don’t even understand what their position actually means.
They say that the site must have rules to function properly and lys violated those rules.
On a first look, it sounds reasonable, but if you think about it further you get somewhere
else and that somewhere else is an understanding of who we are.

They, mods, have a shall we say, a mental idea of what this site looks like.
They believe that it contains X, Y, and Z. If the post don’t match X, Y and Z, it is banned.
But they are unable to rationally explain X, Y and Z because it don’t exist. It is a mental picture
of what something is supposed to look like and that is all this place is, a mental picture of what
a philosophy web site is suppose to look like. The important aspect of this is the mental picture.
The fact is we take this mental picture and then we either make reality look like the mental picture or
we change our mental reality to fit reality. The problem with the mods (and everyone else for that matter)
we often mistake the mental picture for reality. The web site must look like X, Y and Z, regardless of
any other fact on the ground. In other words, we must have our mental reality,
conforms to the mods mental picture of the web site if we are to stay here. We must conform
our mental picture of this web site to whatever the mods say it is, which is nothing more than their
mental picture of this web site. So to extend this idea, we have a mental picture of what our government
is suppose to look like and then we try to force reality to fit this mental picture. The government is supposed to
of the people, for the people, by the people. That is a mental thought and then we try to get government to
fit that mental image. Of the people, which people, for the people, to what end, by the people, does this mean
me? We have a mental picture and often the reality doesn’t match our mental picture. This disconnect is
is THE PROBLEM in the world today. How do we fix it?

Kropotkin