The Philosophers

Pezer
builder
Location : deep caverns in caves

On Hope

The etymology of the word “hope” is unclear to me. Its Spanish counter-part, “esperanza,” comes from “esperar,” to wait, and “anza,” that which is, as in "crianza " (breeding), “lanza” (lance, i.e. that which is throw), etc. It is the subjective angle, if you will, of waiting. Hope is about the future, about the very act of the distance between now and some sought.

Hope is what drives life, because hope is the act of fate unfolding. What has no fate, has no future, has no hope.

A wink to Darwinists: where does this principle fall within the hierarchy of natural selection?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hehehe. I can’t sit here and allow that post go unresponded to.

You did enlighten me with the post though.

The saying: Don’t hold your breath (waiting for something wished for to happen).

Likewise: Don’t rely on hope (waiting for something wished for to happen).

Rather than sitting on one’s ass hoping and praying for something wished for to happen, I think it much better to get up off one’s ass and take action to cause whatever is wished for to become reality through good, honest, hard work. Then you have something you can say: “I did that.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hope is an instinctual gift that one must bestow on another. The ‘wish’ is for another to benefit from our care transcending our physical limitations thus becoming an improved shared fate. One who exercises hope benefits in generosity of spirit and many, many, more intangible ways.

There are Darwinists around here?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I rather see my investigation as a refinement of the term. Hope is often seen in this life-coachy way you say, but seen in the way I describe it rather paints a picture of a man looking at a microwave, or a great spinstress seeing all the pieces of her plan fall into place.

Try to think of it as a function of the inevitable discrepancy between eventuality and mise en place. This way of considering it rehabilitates the term, reclaiming it from the thus-no-less-formidable life coach industry.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Shouldn’t one ascribe to be the refinement? Reclaiming what becomes objectified seems tawdry as far as endeavors go. Suppose it’s another form of romantic pessimism; behold our reclamation industry.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Even as I see how other, more ephemereal endeavours of the different catharsis of the spirit can appear more gratifying, I am old-school Greek in that I have a fetish for the claims on words.

Hope you’ll understand!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Hope is an instinctual gift that one must bestow on another. The ‘wish’ is for another to benefit from our care transcending our physical limitations thus becoming an improved shared fate. One who exercises hope benefits in generosity of spirit and many, many, more intangible ways.

There are Darwinists around here?

I can’t recall hope ever being an instinct. We want a change - an effect. We create the cause. Simple.

Compassion
Conservativism
Humility

Those are tangible attributes. Why the need for the intangible?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
I rather see my investigation as a refinement of the term. Hope is often seen in this life-coachy way you say, but seen in the way I describe it rather paints a picture of a man looking at a microwave, or a great spinstress seeing all the pieces of her plan fall into place.

Try to think of it as a function of the inevitable discrepancy between eventuality and mise en place. This way of considering it rehabilitates the term, reclaiming it from the thus-no-less-formidable life coach industry.

If a man pushes the time on the microwave to 2:22 it will take 2:22 before it stops no matter how hard he looks at it, no matter how much he hopes it will hurry up and get done.

If the spinstress is paying attention to what she is doing her work will be without flaw based on her abilities.

Results (effects) depend on causes, not hope.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Even as I see how other, more ephemereal endeavours of the different catharsis of the spirit can appear more gratifying, I am old-school Greek in that I have a fetish for the claims on words.

Hope you’ll understand!

Ah! The Greeks and their many mythologies. Even they had a hard time dealing with reality. They placed man above nature.

The words are all wasted if one had not grasped the concept that was being spoken to.

And once the concept has been grasped the words can be forgotten.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: On Hope Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus

Quote :
I can’t recall hope ever being an instinct. We want a change - an effect. We create the cause. Simple.

I don’t think of hope as an instinct either. There was a time when I hoped for things. I think it’s human. Then there came a time when I went in the opposite direction and almost felt that it was such a negative feeling, a drawback of sort, which could keep us from determining our own life, making our own decisions. The very act of hoping to me almost seemed to make me feel weak and like a silly human. I felt that prayer and hope had something in common - too much delusion, too much waiting around for something or someone else to make something happen.

But I do now feel that there is a positive side to hope or hoping. It’s capable of giving someone the right kind of attitude, an optimistic one, which can allow a person to see “possibilities” and what can be achieved.
It’s all about achieving the right play, the right balance, between hope which is fertile hope and hope which is unhealthy and stagnant.

What’s the opposite of hope? Despair.
Again, I suppose what we really need is a healthy balance between hope and self-determination.

Hope is like being able to see that there just might be light at the end of the tunnel. Hope sees possibilities, not necessarily predictions.

Quote :
Why the need for the intangible?

Because without hope, life could become very bleak and dark. Without hope, those struggling with cancer would give up. Without hope, those wanting children might not have them. Pessimism, its polar opposite, dampens all areas of life. An optimistic attitude and mood can be self-healing sometimes.

I think that one could call “truth” intangible. Is there any need for that? Without the intangible, how mundane might philosophy be?
Why is God such an important concept in philosophy? Because the concept of a God is so intangible.

To wonder about things which are intangible enriches one’s life. Sometimes one’s dreams can be quite intangible. That’s what makes them so important and interesting.
Our very Selves are quite intangible, don’t you think? We search for answers and because we realize how difficult it is to find them, because so much is intangible, it only whets our appetites for more.

Perhaps we can say that hope is a kind of “unconscious” instinct - without it, could our species survive long? Without eventually giving up and going home.

Quote :
Results (effects) depend on causes, not hope.

Well, there are effects for each cause, some positive, some negative, so in a way what you’re saying is true but I rather think that they, both the causes and the effects are more dependent on action/responses.

Someone’s home is burning. It is not so much the fact that the home is burning that brings on the effect of the fire being put out. It is the firemen responding to that burning house and having the courage and struggling to put out the fire which actually becomes the effect.
Somewhere when all of that is happening, do you think that it’s possible, along with all of their determination and hard work, that hope might enter into their hearts and minds - strong hope that they will be able to put out that fire and save the day?

I think that hope is a strong imperative in certain important life moments - it’s the wings which give rise to determination and action.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNd1s5kLwG0[/youtube]

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: The 0th Dimension Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A pretty simple axiom:

self-valuing is the 0th dimension.

i.e. the point, the center of any given system of axes.

it doesnt matter how many dimensions will be wrapped around it, it remains the center. Of whatever system, context, or world it is … identified.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The 0th Dimension Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Well, I know that I am still the center of my universe.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: The 0th Dimension Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You couldn’t have confirmed it more eloquently my friend.

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: New idea about gravity Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarka … -was-wrong

Damn this is interesting.

If I understand this correctly, this guy is attempting to derive gravity from quantum-level distributions of information and how “volume” really just means, at the fundamental level, a kind of surface-area which can be most basically described qua area or “3D area (volume)” as the plank length ^2 (to get the most basic unit of area) * the total number of informational bits or qbits (quantum bit of info, a little stabilization or polarization). This would actually seem to break down 3D into 2D, or rather just unite them together, because the planck length ^2 is the smallest possible physical area, and would have no real dimensionality to speak of in so far as it can build up into larger conglomerate structures as either 2D or 3D geometries, but ultimately either a 2D or 3D geometry can always be reduced down to the exact same model of little planck lengths ^2 as total number of qbits.

2img.net/h/s30.postimg.cc/3tkri … _25_AM.png

Look at how he relates all these equations to each other, to finally reach a derivation of Newton’s equation of gravity. Working backwards, force is related to mass * acceleration, and then this is related through temperature to average energy in the equipartition theorem, which is then related back to the total number of qbits with regard to surface area over planck length ^2, to arrive at the holographic principle whereby a 2D geometry produces what appears as or acts like a volumed 3D space, again because of how a 3D space can be broken down into “1D” qbits that combine to create 2D geometries. This makes me think of the classic logical problem of how do you ever actually move from 1D to 2D, and from 2D to 3D, when you can’t even imagine 1D without also imagining a 2D reference frame or context (try thinking about a 1D (pure line) that doesnt exist in 2D, it isnt possible), likewise how do you take a 2D plane and think about it without 3D (if you try to do so, the “plane” shrinks out of existence as its third dimension is impossibilized). Likewise, a mathematical point (something with no dimensions) is equally logically impossible to clearly conceive.

So instead of that mathematical abstraction, which is really just a language of approximation, we have planck lengths ^2 that form the basic unit of “space”, the smallest unit of area into which a single qbit of information falls. This qbit already includes two aspects, length and width, namely a planck length on either side, and therefore is binary or polarized (because these two dimensions cannot be reduced to each other any further; or rather, they are “reduced” to each other only in so far as they are integrated upwardly into a single unit or value which includes both of them at once): now we can think of space itself as basically just an infinite stretch of these little planck lengths ^2 each of which can contain one binary qbit of information, and then that information relates to information in other little qbit-areas. This means that information stacks upward into larger configurations, these new larger ones are derived from the smaller out of which they are assembled, and therefore implicitly indicate these smaller ones; eventually you have informational geometries that prescribe a kind of “boundary” around themselves, where the boundary or edge is distinct from what is inside that area, and this is what creates a “surface area”; the surface area, once created, is therefore what gives rise holographically to the notion of volume or 3D space.

This also reminds me of an idea of gravity at Parodites wrote about a couple of years ago, where gravity is the result of quantum pressure whereby larger aggregate objects are pressurized toward those other objects to which they are statistically more likely to collide, because when such objects are larger they have less degrees of freedom relative to smaller such objects and therefore smaller objects tend to escape the quantum cloud while larger objects tend to pressurize toward the center of that cloud (if I am understanding his idea). This is basically describing the same thing as this physicist is describing, I think: “volume” is created holographically when qbit-level geometries “stack” or integrate-combine in sufficient number and complexity to produce derivative quantum objects that are capable of prescribing a boundary around themselves, namely a “surface area”, and therefore for other objects of their own scale and beyond are therefore encountered as if they were “volumed” or 3D; for all such objects, they are always interacting with each other stochastically and as a result and within a given cloud of such objects (a quantum geometrical space) larger objects will end up being pressurized toward the center due to the fact these objects have less degrees of freedom relative to the smaller objects within the cloud, therefore larger objects will tend to collide with (“be attracted to”) each other more than smaller objects will tend to collide with each other (but note that if you varied the number of smaller and/or larger objects enough, you could potentially reverse this situation, at least in theory). This statistical emergent effect of larger objects pressurizing toward the center of informational-geometric clouds is what we experience as the gravitational attraction of massed objects, and it must also be what holds matter together at the sub-atomic level (at the level before electromagnetic forces take over to molecularly bind things).


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Gravity sucks.

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

quebecorgone.com/image/data/ … plants.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/image/data/ … garden.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/image/data/ … gonite.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/docs/image/effe … urvegs.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/docs/image/effe … zh4odg.jpg[/img]

quebecorgone.com/en/visible- … -of-orgone[/img]

quebecorgone.com/en/visible- … -of-orgone


" 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
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wow. How do you recommend I learn how to make my own orgon generator?


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Here’s a classical method of basic orgonite I think
youtube.com/watch?v=12LC8S8pAWA
The lady that makes my stuff is riduculously sophisticated and generous he orders all kinds of metals and minerals and crystals to enhance the things, they look like artworks beyond postmodernism

What my friend always uses is a (double) coil, which she turns out of copper wire.
She in turn is in awe of these people
ethericwarriors.com/gifting-compendium
this site has a forum I think, or at least links to it, where people who make this and gift it write about it - I havent been there but I have seen her write after a mission.
They’re very serious and yet light hearted. You hav eto do with such overwhelming odds against you and such a great deal of mockery - or it is just that the orgone uplifts - or all of that is tied in.

Anyway it’s remarakbly simple to make this stuff, but to get it right, to make it powerful and specific, this comes down to will and skill.


" 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
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Then you have the electrically powered ones, these are fucking insane. But you have to ask them, Ive never even built a circuit. To my shame…


" 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
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Visible effects of orgone generators Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh, you dont have to believe the things these people believe.
Ive learned to not dismiss some of these things either -
but it is irrelevant.
The orgonite formula is atomic - a simple acknowledgement of the division between metals and non metals. And then the coil to set it in motion.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Big Bangism Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Big Bang is the greatest chunk of horseshit ever devised.
Atheists believe in it. They believe in an even more irrational notion than God.
God is simply not built of reason, you arrive at it through a more complete psychic process. It is a stage of mind, a humanity. And the poems about gods creating the world, are all about elements and logics, not about bearded old men.
The Big Bang however, this is fully and actively contrarational. I is onsensical to posit a beginning of time including a state before that, which was supposedly singular and yet gave birth to something that is not - so, you mean, god exists, we just call him “science” now, and destroy science, but dont mind because we’re morons anyway not to be trusted with it… the belief of the Last Man: a seismic event in time space occurred, thus this was the god that died and we are now ashamed to believe in, because ae sin and do nothing but sin and waste out lives. Fuck Big Bangers -

The error: tto push causal logic through a state defined as negative of the causalitylogics you are working with, so as to arrive at the conclusion that everything was created in an instance out of a timeless all-being.


" 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
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course whatever exists came into being gradually, as we very well know it does, as we can see how stars are formed. No doubt, atoms are formed in the same way - gradually the sheer possibility of existence assimilates by attraction, possibility enhancing possibility, collapsing into near-certainties on the atomic scale, remaining in the realm of pure potential on the electrical scale, the uncertainty principle is the veil that has possibility-as-such recede beyond the horizon of the urge for certainty that life, and consciousness is. “God” is merely the acknowledgement that there is an abyss where that veil is. Psychosis is merely that abyss.


" 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
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, the Big Bang is stupidity. The truth lies with those who imagine how the universe was created. I mean, really, God created the entire universe in six days and rested on the seventh. God created everything exactly as it is, the universe is static.

Only those who believe in religions know the truth. Science knows nothing.

But then, over one hundred creation myths exist and every one says that theirs is the only truth. No room for questions. Mythical facts are the Truth!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Yes, the Big Bang is stupidity. The truth lies with those who imagine how the universe was created. I mean, really, God created the entire universe in six days and rested on the seventh. God created everything exactly as it is, the universe is static.

Only those who believe in religions know the truth. Science knows nothing.

But then, over one hundred creation myths exist and every one says that theirs is the only truth. No room for questions. Mythical facts are the Truth!

Well now my friend, you are having a bit of a religious conversion late in age? Haha. But no, you are wrong.
I realize youre not much interested in physics, you dont need to respond to posts you dont understand. That is like the media responding to Trump. Youre making a bit of a show based on smallish beliefs, and you ignored my actual words.

Dont worry, it is no big deal but please, keep to the standards of the forum and address reality.


" 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
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Yes, the Big Bang is stupidity. The truth lies with those who imagine how the universe was created. I mean, really, God created the entire universe in six days and rested on the seventh. God created everything exactly as it is, the universe is static.

Only those who believe in religions know the truth. Science knows nothing.

But then, over one hundred creation myths exist and every one says that theirs is the only truth. No room for questions. Mythical facts are the Truth!

Well now my friend, you are having a bit of a religious conversion late in age? Haha. But no, you are wrong.
I realize youre not much interested in physics, you dont need to respond to posts you dont understand. That is like the media responding to Trump. Youre making a bit of a show based on smallish beliefs, and you ignored my actual words.

Dont worry, it is no big deal but please, keep to the standards of the forum and address reality.

But the problem is not your total knowledge of everything but rather the fact that I am not wrong.

Religious conversion I am having is it? You have lost it as you are suggesting something that doesn’t exist. Of course, you do that all the time with your various gods so it’s nothing new.

And BTW, when a discussion sinks to the level of attacking the individual instead of the topic one has already lost the argument.

You negated the theory of a Big Bang. Therefore you are saying that Einstein and Georges Lemaître are wrong any only you are correct. How vain!!!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let it out.

Einstein is a god to you, an unquestionable authority who created your truth, which you are not allowed to think about critically.

This is precisely what I mean.

How arrogant I am to the religious, for thinking for myself…
haha.


" 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
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was so right, again…
I need only to mention a criticism of the Big Bang theory, and we have an uprising with passion and without argument.
It is sort of special to so easily provoke the normally levelheaded Sisyphus to a dogmatic rant by just stating a fact about logic.

This is why I called the OP “Big Bangism” - I know it is a religious anti-logical doctrine defended only by the passion of faith.


" 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
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am generally ok with the idea of the Big Bang, namely that it could have taken place, although I do not accept the ontological implication that this was “the beginning of reality”. Reality has no beginning, that’s what’s makes it real-ity.

The observation that the universe around us appears to be expanding gives some evidence for the notion of Big Bang. I also like the idea that there were various stages of production of the various elements over time as the universe expanded and cooled. I think it’s an interesting theory, and I don’t yet have any reason to think the Big Bang never took place, but of course I’m not religious about it either.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Let it out.

Einstein is a god to you, an unquestionable authority who created your truth, which you are not allowed to think about critically.

This is precisely what I mean.

How arrogant I am to the religious, for thinking for myself…
haha.

Great. I’m glad we aren’t taking our disagreements personal.

Actually, I know very little about Einstein or his work.

He did say that invoking god into his hypothesis of the Big Bang was his biggest blunder. And I agree with him.

And I don’t agree with Hawking that the universe was create from nothing. It was created out of Singularity.

And believe me, I question what I do not understand but feel a need to understand or new information that is contradictory to my present understanding.

And yes, if we are living our life according to someone else’s standards then all we are doing is living another life for that or those other people. The key to living is to self-actualize.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I was so right, again…
I need only to mention a criticism of the Big Bang theory, and we have an uprising with passion and without argument.
It is sort of special to so easily provoke the normally levelheaded Sisyphus to a dogmatic rant by just stating a fact about logic.

This is why I called the OP “Big Bangism” - I know it is a religious anti-logical doctrine defended only by the passion of faith.

No, Fixed Cross, you are wrong again. Sorry.

Passion? I am without passion but I have a very healthy ego.

So your alternative to the Big Bang is magic. Yeah, very logical

So you are seeing yourself in what you are presenting me to be. Isn’t that some type of psychological disorder?

At some point you might consider presenting a definition of the word “religion”. I think you might have it confused with the term “belief system”.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And we should be careful connecting the Big Bang to atheism, because many religious people also believe the Big Bang. They think it was God’s way of setting things in motion.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I am generally ok with the idea of the Big Bang, namely that it could have taken place, although I do not accept the ontological implication that this was “the beginning of reality”. Reality has no beginning, that’s what’s makes it real-ity.

The observation that the universe around us appears to be expanding gives some evidence for the notion of Big Bang. I also like the idea that there were various stages of production of the various elements over time as the universe expanded and cooled. I think it’s an interesting theory, and I don’t yet have any reason to think the Big Bang never took place, but of course I’m not religious about it either.

Well pointed out. And science still has many unanswered questions, some of which will never be answered.

But it is none-the-less the best theory available without the magic of creation by some god.

Everything that presently exists was at some point within the boundaries of Singularity. That’s a bunch of stuff. How did all that stuff get into the boundaries of Singularity? Blame it on Black Holes.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
And we should be careful connecting the Big Bang to atheism, because many religious people also believe the Big Bang. They think it was God’s way of setting things in motion.

Totally agree. The same is true regarding the fact of evolution.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have met religious atheists for whom the Big Bang is a sort of creation myth, thus I very much get Fixed’s point here. But I prefer to ignore such people and focus on the sane ones, of which admittedly there seem to be few.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I have met religious atheists for whom the Big Bang is a sort of creation myth, thus I very much get Fixed’s point here. But I prefer to ignore such people and focus on the sane ones, of which admittedly there seem to be few.

Yes, I too understand Fixed’s point of view but I feel he has been using an incorrect word when he refers to the Big Bang Theory as a religion. (And more importantly, as Tao being the same thing as a god.)

Yes, there are many pissed off Atheists who are really pissed off at the Church but still hold to creation myths and actually still believe in the gods. And yes, these are confused people. Their anger is more powerful than is there logic in determining why they are pissed off.

I enjoy arguing with Fixed because I know he has a log of knowledge he can share with me.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Big Bangism really makes me laugh out loud now. It is constructed of ingenious stupidities.
For example - the singularity, in which all potential time space is enclosed, explodes (contradicting it being a singularity)… into space ( contradicting its having enclosed space time)…

Just, wow. My compliments to anyone who can believe it. True religion.


" 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
    Defenders of the Earth
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5478
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes it is making a more philosophical (logical) claim than what most people/scientists seem to understand. Obviously if something is expanding into something else, there existed the “other outside” into which that something is expanding. Defining the something as “reality” or “everything” is a contradiction to then claim this something is then “expanding”.

I tend to think of it tectonically: there are two categories of ontological space, for this example anyway, with the first category being a maximally-collapsed potentiation grid with near-zero substance, and the second category being actual substance that occupies or sits atop the first categorical grid. I think of the first category as as close to a pure mathematical space as could possibly exist, wherein nothing is really “there” except the minimum energy distribution to sustain that grid-space; what we think of as energy, space and time, the quantum foam and everything scaled up from that foam (quarks, atoms etc.) is part of the second category.

Given this framework, we can then imagine that within an infinitely extended category one pure mathematical/maximally collapsed grid there existed a singularity-point in which was contained all the energy/substance that would eventually come to constitute our universe. For some reason that point existed as a point, approaching zero-dimensionality and containing all energy we see around us in the universe today… it would be interesting to speculate as to why this point existed at all, but for our present purposes we hypothesize its existence. So then this point suddenly reaches a critical threshold and can no longer remain point-like (perhaps because it had previously been collapsing further and further but hit a point where further collapse was impossible, as total energy caused a chain reaction that reversed the collapse into a sudden expansion). The expansion took over and fed on itself, exponentially increasing into the Big Bang.

This caused energy-substance to differentiate and occupy more volume per unit energy, leading to cooling and eventually enough space per unit energy to where sub-atomic particles could form out of the quantum foam.

So naturally there are a few questions necessitated by this hypothesis: 1) if the first category mathematical grid is infinite in all directions (and logically I think it must be) then there must also be more, even infinite, number of singularity-points in various stages of contraction or expansion? Yes I think that is the case. 2) When a universe reaches its end and (hypothetically) dissolves into the maximum expansion whereby even atoms are stretched apart and dissolve, what then happens? How does that situation reset back into another singularity-point?

I don’t have a good theory on that second question.


“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man… flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Big Bangism really makes me laugh out loud now. It is constructed of ingenious stupidities.
For example - the singularity, in which all potential time space is enclosed, explodes (contradicting it being a singularity)… into space ( contradicting its having enclosed space time)…

Just, wow. My compliments to anyone who can believe it. True religion.

Einstein felt that way too until he was shown to have fucked up. It was his theory, you know. I just can’t find it in my mind to think that you hold yourself more knowledgeable than Einstein and all the other astronomers who hold firmly to the theory.

So you hold to magic over scientific investigation. That’s okay Fixed. There are billions of people who believe similar to you. It is your right to believe whatever you wish regarding the creation of the universe. But you have to ignore many scientific facts in order to do so.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Yes it is making a more philosophical (logical) claim than what most people/scientists seem to understand. Obviously if something is expanding into something else, there existed the “other outside” into which that something is expanding. Defining the something as “reality” or “everything” is a contradiction to then claim this something is then “expanding”.

The theory of “Absolute Nothingness” speaks very well to this. This suggests that the universe is expanding into an area, at a rate faster than the speed of light, that was previously void. So it is not actually expanding into something else.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:

Given this framework, we can then imagine that within an infinitely extended category one pure mathematical/maximally collapsed grid there existed a singularity-point in which was contained all the energy/substance that would eventually come to constitute our universe. For some reason that point existed as a point, approaching zero-dimensionality and containing all energy we see around us in the universe today… it would be interesting to speculate as to why this point existed at all, but for our present purposes we hypothesize its existence. So then this point suddenly reaches a critical threshold and can no longer remain point-like (perhaps because it had previously been collapsing further and further but hit a point where further collapse was impossible, as total energy caused a chain reaction that reversed the collapse into a sudden expansion). The expansion took over and fed on itself, exponentially increasing into the Big Bang.

If you ask any type of physicist what Singularity is they will say something like, “We don’t know.”

But it is consistent with the concept of reversion and cycles. That is, Singularity - Big Bang - maximum potential of the expansion of the universe - the shrinking of the universe as a result of gravity - new Singularity - new universe.

However, the most accepted theory of the universe is that of a cold death. That is, expansion continues so that gravity no longer has an effect on anything in the universe.

I prefer the theory of reversion and cycles.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:

So naturally there are a few questions necessitated by this hypothesis: 1) if the first category mathematical grid is infinite in all directions (and logically I think it must be) then there must also be more, even infinite, number of singularity-points in various stages of contraction or expansion? Yes I think that is the case. 2) When a universe reaches its end and (hypothetically) dissolves into the maximum expansion whereby even atoms are stretched apart and dissolve, what then happens? How does that situation reset back into another singularity-point?

I don’t have a good theory on that second question.

Yes, there are a few hypotheses suggesting multiple universes. I even have one: there are six more universes, they exist in different dimensions and they account for what science calls Dark Matter.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I just don’t take that step, I don’t grant the notion of singularity if it isn’t also mono-tectonic.
I understand any quantum field however thin just as manifest as a star or an organism. From such a field, anything can be formed. Anything will be formed, simply because it is possible.
What we know is that there was a seismic event in the cosmos that basically shaped the way it is now. That could have been any collision of axes of gravity, such as black holes, which when they would ‘spill their guts’ might also cause some kind of big bang and paradigmatic, law-setting causation.
There are lots of things that may very well have other sides, that may be veils to other systems - we can perceive so little and the math of the superelliptical galaxies shows it.


" 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
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I honestly think the Big Bang is purely the reinvention of God in secular terms - but with an even less rational ground.


" 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
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There can simply not be a The Whole.

Its a dense contradiction.
There are wholes, many different ones, that is the case.
But to posit a single whole is to contradict the notion of a whole.

It’s hard to put in language, just imagine a whole that is not part of something else, and notice how the lines of logic and even cognition blur at the ‘edge of the whole’ which is obviously an illogical notion. The Whole must be infinite, because if it has borders, it borders on something else. But infinity didnt come out of the Big Bang.


" 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
    Doric basterd
    Doric basterd
    avatar

Posts : 6666
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Big Bangism Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When I was 12 or so I figured oh cool, they scientifically proved that science can not explain the origin of what it explains. I took that for something very freedom loving.
Only later on I realized people actually tried to pretend that this singularity actually makes sense.

I piss on singularity. It’s bullshit, it can take it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXGXTzjWPak[/youtube]

One hero talking about another.

why would anyone who happened to be the first to bring into reality something that was the next logical step anyway, be revered as a genius? think about the situation; the idea of electric cars has been in the minds of human beings for a century or more… then somebody comes along who has the money to invest in such a technology, and is all of a sudden a genius and a hero. moreover, the guy who has the money is probably not the real brain behind the actual creation of the technology. the actual production of the idea would belong to those who specialize in the fields necessary to create it (engineers, mathematicians, mechanics, software designers, etc.)

so what is going on here with this peculiar kind of mythologizing? ah, it’s the cult of the personality of capitalism; a gross exaggeration of the actual role and presence of the capitalist for the celebratory purposes of western culture fantasy. the idolization and emulation of the entrepreneurial spirit… which, when examined more closely, reveals nothing close to the wonderful depth and dynamism first thought to be representative of the glorious heroics of the noble capitalist.

some guy has a shit ton of money and hires a bunch of people to develop an electric car. now he’s on the cover of popular mechanics and booked for seventeen talk show interviews. but what exactly are we celebrating here if not a myth, a transparent hoax concealing (denying credit to) the real source of the progress about to be made in mankind’s next logical step in technology. who brings this idea into reality? the guy with the shit ton of money? no, but that’s what the cult of the western persona of capitalism would have everyone believe. one does not need capitalism to make the logical next step (e.g., soviet union was the first in space)… but if these steps are made in a capitalistic system, everyone mistakenly believes such steps couldn’t have been made elsewhere and/or otherwise.

none of this is for the purposes of dissing this guy musk. i’m sure he’s a somewhat interesting fellow. all i wish to show is the irony surrounding the image that capitalism has engendered for itself as it promotes itself in the mythologies of modern western culture. like everything else shallow and transparent in the cult of celebrity culture, the same empty bluster is found in the reverence of the capitalist icons western society so much admires.

always remember this; a john galt is nothing without the proletariat… but the proletariat is everything with or without a john galt.

oh and i am aware of musk’s credentials and education, so i’m not saying he’s useless or can’t be productive. i’m only saying if he is to receive credit for anything, it certainly would not be ‘financing’ a project that is fully organized and produced by other people who, because they happen to work for him, are thought to be totally dependent on the necessity of musk’s ‘genius’ in order to be realized. this, of course, in nonsense.

please don’t interpret this as ‘hating on musk.’ i am quite serious when i say i am unable to ‘hate’ anything here, because the context of the situation surrounding him and his popularity is so transparent it is incapable of warranting anything as serious as hate. there is simply the irony of the joke and the utter lack of substance in the reverence guys like this receive.

what the world admires about his guy… what they see when they look at him and his story, is not some genius or pioneer… but the dollar signs. like pavlonian dogs, western culture comes running whenever they hear the ‘cha-ching’, and drops to its knees in grotesque idol worship of a completely farcical image of prosperity.

you want musk to impress me… tell him to give 90% of his profits to his engineers, scientists, mechanics, software designers, and everyone else on his payroll who develop the ideas which are by no means original to him, and be happy they let him keep that 10%.

p.s. that most recent joint you did was by far the best i’ve heard. you weren’t trying to sound cool in that one, and as a result, you sounded cool. cool how that works, eh?

I will allow myself the slack to believe that you really believe this, but there could be very few statements in which I find less truth. Remember, I always go by experience. Never by theory. I fucking hate theory. It always fails to predict or describe the human.

The proletariat, in my experience, is just as much as a whiny parasitic bitch as is any old Owner.

I am not a Nietzschean without reason. My overwhelming experience from since I can remember, and I have a damn good memory, is that only the exception is worth the trouble of humanizing.

Most people, when you start to humanize them, i.e. idealize, think they are great cause they’re human, they’ll fucking suck your guts out.

That said theres no way I revere Musk or any industrialist. I didn’t even read any Ayn Rand novels. I cant stand that conceptual idealist art from any direction. Cant read Tokstoy either. Give me Dostoyevski, thats real, that tells you what the proletariat is. Daughter-selling drunks whose stinking sweat is their best feature. Fuckups. Just as useless cunts as your run of the mill millionaire.

The people I have learned to trust are farmers. They can be considered both owners and workers, they escape the silly cosmopolitan Londonese dichotomy that Marx hallucinated.

then you’re not clear about the difference between the capitalist and proletarian class. the proletariat sells his labor as a commodity. he receives a wage for his labor. the capitalist buys the proletariat’s labor, and then sells what that labor produced. the critical difference here is that the capitalist cannot profit without buying labor and selling commodities/services, because he doesn’t sell his own labor. so, without the wage worker to offer his labor in exchange for a wage, and without the product of the wage worker’s labor being sold, the capitalist would have no way to generate wealth. hence, the capitalist is nothing without the proletariat. like literally, this is not a figure of speech… he’s as helpless as he is useless.

this is why i prefer the analogy of the host and parasite. it’s quite fitting to describe the relationship between these two classes. the parasite cannot survive without the host, and the host is significantly weakened by the presence of the parasite.

i can’t stand them either… at least nine out of ten of em. but, i understand why they’re like that… and nearly every factor and/or cause responsible for such a condition is traceable to both democracy and capitalism/consumerism. it isn’t just that most workers are aware that they’re being exploited that causes them to have that shitty attitude… but several other things contribute to their overall character as well. lack of strong work ethic due to a generally easy and privileged lifestyle. the sense of entitlement their indirectly conditioned to feel because of all the media they consume; ‘you’re unique… be an individual… express yourself… get dat money… yada, yada, yada.’ this instills in everyone the expectation that they should be able to be successful and wealthy without having to work for it. essentially, western democracy makes everyone believe they’re super special and that ‘work’ is something only the lowly do, something everyone should avoid if they can help it. now out of this mess emerges only a couple types; a minority of career oriented people who have pride in their talents and productivity, and the stragglers… those who end up on the lower tier of the working class. these are the one’s with the shitty attitude… and every bit of it is the result of the state’s failing to exercise its authority in preventing these perverse forces from making such people happen.

when i see some white trash alcoholic piece of shit on the job, i don’t blame him for becoming what he has. i blame the environment and those who have the power, but lack the incentive and ambition, to control that environment so that he doesn’t become what he has.

but to call out this piece of shit and then say ‘fuck the concept of the proletariat’, is misinformed. this trash is your creation… you’re the one who endorses the system that allows them to happen. of course you can despise such trash, but you can’t complain about it and be taken seriously.

we’ve got to assume that radical changes in society in the direction of socialism could very well eliminate everything that is responsible for creating this image you, and most, have of the lower working classes. and we’re pretty fucking sure that if things stay the way they are, we’ll see plenty more of em.

but no. you can’t point at such an abomination and say ‘that’s why socialism sucks’. that abomination has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with western capitalist democracy.

Ah, but I caught you in a fallacy. One that does not necessarily have a name.

For if you can see what made the proletarian such a scumbag and use that reason as your argumentative substance, then you should also be able to identify what makes the owner one, to juxtapose it and see how the proletarian, when derived from his circumstances, is better than the capitalist, as derived from his circumstances.

Because until youve done so Im free to state that a proletarian is a scumbag simply because he is human, because look, an Ivy League breeze of a life in the absence of shitty circumstances doesn’t un-scumbag people.

Im satisfied that I managed to make raps that sound cool to you, Zoot - that is a definite step. This is not an easy business. To win over a sharp critic is a victory.
Its not actually the case that I tried to sound cool before and now I didn’t. Its more that I decided I have an ego and I need to stand somewhere, wherever. My previous raps were more beyond the ego, as I certainly didn’t find it easy to understand myself as a rapper.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194947&p=2728176#p2728175. :text-link:

:flags-usa: :techie-computer:

Gotta have my last posts here.

Shit, Ive spent three years helping people understand why they shouldnt oppose the one who has ended all the US immorality abroad. But Americans here are SCUMBAGS, by and large, murderous thugs, filthy fucking maggots feasting on the deaths of children.

Leftists will all go mad in the end, I can’t see this shit any other way, they have it coming, the savages made out of weakness.

The American empire is coming to end end, isn’t it.

It has been overtaken by women, and it is becoming a living hell. People now want to escape it.

It turns out that Trump simply prevented our destruction and killed the mass murderers abroad, but can’t save the USA. It has shown that it really doesn’t have the female substance to merit saviour.

Who, abroad, would want to be with an American woman? Unheard of. By and large the ugliest, stupidest, most banally selfish women in the world.

Women who unflinchingly stab to death the breathing, feeling child in their womb and scoff at heroic saving of millions of children in he Middle East - there havent walked any eviler demons on the planet. Nazi wives were reasonably cool in comparison to the American left.

I give up on trying.

The closest friend I have here constantly turns his back on himself, and among the people I am cool to there are mostly supporters of the most murderous, sickest politicians that ever were.

Humanity… what a joke.

What kind of absolute MONSTER would it take to carry a child for 7 or 8 months and THEN decide to kill it?

Such people should never have existed. It is clear where it will all end for them.

I guess nature now needs there to be something terrible, for such creatures to learn to know themselves, to learn something about what they ve been doing to others.

Its always been the case that the American woman was the ugly, bloated miscreant of the world. That used to only go for the white ones, but it has become universal. Overprivileged and completely ignorant of human realities, somehow this does not make for aristocracy. It only makes for utterly unweddable trash.

It has been a war that splits families for some years now, Ive lived things Id been raised to think of as of the distant past, of the days of Christian civil wars, but my grandmother did see it coming.

People insisting that late stage abortions are a human right are an undeniable symptom of the end of their line. It is worse than suicide, it is the style of suicide that is there for people too scared to hurt themselves. The suicide of a decadent line,

The women who perform such late stage abortions are the abominations of the earth. The very vilest beings ever to appear.

Poor women.
They’ve been left unguided.

Given that my posts have gotten quite a few views I have hope that even through the idiots who respond have insisted on remaining murdering scumbags, there are those who have been struck in their hearts and changed their minds.

It is also clear why there is this huge obsession in leftist girls for using big dicks to fuck themselves in the throat, or why they love “having their sinuses cleaned” as one once put it to me afterwards. It is because they know very well that they talk too much. They know they’re immoral whores who need to be shut up. But since they are illiterates and certainly not versed in logic, the dick is the only thing that will shut them up, and they love it for it. It is more than love, it is obsession.

Going down, down down…

fucking America.

Im gonna enjoy the rest of the goddamn show.

Lucis Trust

Lucis Trust

Posts : 1
Join date : 2011-11-11
Age : 34
Location : Within

Slavery Empty
PostSubject: Slavery Slavery Icon_minitimeMon Nov 28, 2011 7:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Should individuals, races, sexes, classes and cultures choose to dominate, to submit, or to be free?

Civilization requires more than just intelligence, it requires domestication, slavery of people, places and things. Ants and bees domesticate their environment, in addition to specializing and collaborating, but they do so instinctively, we do so intelligently.

The Master/slave dialectic, in addition to interdependence (large tribes) is more efficient and has replaced the predator/prey, the hunter/hunted dialectic, in addition to independence (small tribes). A surplus of goods can now be extracted. How much surplus does one require? How much is healthy? Some choose to maximize consumption, some choose to minimize.

Slavery can manifest in subtler ways than mere brute force, when dealing with members of our own species e.g. capitalism, religion, etc.

How much should we domesticate people, places and things, and how much should we allow ourselves to be domesticated?

Civilization has advantages and disadvantages, there’s been times when I’ve contemplated living more simply.

This is what I meant by the dilemma of civilization-

Intelligence + dexterity trumps all, or nearly all other qualities- speed, strength, endurance, agility, stamina (actually, humans have superior stamina as well).

This current, relative monopoly on intelligence has offset the balance, the equilibrium of nature. Like playing a game of rock paper scissors where rock can crush paper and scissors.

The ancients comprehended the supreme dilemma even better than we do today. The fall of Aryan Atlantis (assuming it happened) was more fresh in their minds. Where as Nietzsche tells the more left brain tale of master/slave morality, the ancients tell more right brain tales.

It is Prometheus’ fire, Pandora’s box and Eve’s apple. With knowledge comes the power to destroy nature and create artifice, to convert more and more nature into artifice.

It has to do with our natural needs- physical, emotional and mental. Primitive man is closer to deprivation, Civilized man is closer to decadence. At the dawn of the French revolution, it was said 90% of the people died of starvation, and 10% of the people died of gluttony. Who was better off? I suppose I’d rather die of gluttony, but…

The advantage of civilization is- it gives 1 access to more resources. 1 is more able to satisfy their basic needs. The disadvantage is- it gives 1 access to more resources. 1 is more able to satisfy their basic needs… and more, much, much more, way beyond what is required. In addition to the depletion and the destruction of that which we’re dependent on, our environment, abundance and affluence can be detrimental to our own health.

Should the victors (rich, white men) share their spoils with the unfortunate, the vanquished, give back the surplus they’ve took from nature (after all, they don’t need it, right?), or should they hoard it, and take even more, take as much as the earth can bare, increase their wealth and power at the expense of all who live under the sun… and beyond?

Now, socialism is not necessarily slave morality (you could call it challenger morality), if the slaves take by force and unhypocritically, rather, it becomes slave morality when they attempt to convince the rich/powerful to share with them, or when they deceive (unless of course it is genuine) themselves into thinking they’d share if they were in their place.

The rich/powerful can also be hypocritical, and seek to justify their reign beyond will to power, beyond survival of the fittest, monarchs and capitalists have been known to do this… or is it genuine?

Is slave morality a hoax, a scam? Or do rich men have nothing to lose by being charitable, and their souls to gain? Western civilization, 500 years of raping, pillaging, plundering and swindling, was it all for not? Should we have never set sail for America?

Europeans freed themselves from bondage, but then we proceeded to enslave the whole earth. Now the greens and liberals want to give it back. Who’s right, who’s wrong and… why?

Perhaps the European, being the superior man, is more capable of love and hate, ferocity and tenderness. Nothing can stop the European, perhaps, except himself, or extraterrestrial intervention. High civilization may weaken, atrophy man, his body and his spirit. Perhaps atrophy, in addition to slave morality, is natures way of correcting herself, and reestablishing equilibrium. However, equilibrium may not be desirable. Is there a way to keep European man strong, healthy, in spite of circumstances that make him girlish and contented?

Should the white race specifically, or the human race in general, go on exploiting nature and other humans… or should we power down our economy?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 6711
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Midgard

Slavery Empty
PostSubject: Re: Slavery Slavery Icon_minitimeMon Nov 28, 2011 10:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Should individuals, races, sexes, classes and cultures choose to dominate, to submit, or to be free?

Civilization requires more than just intelligence, it requires domestication, slavery of people, places and things. Ants and bees domesticate their environment, in addition to specializing and collaborating, but they do so instinctively, we do so intelligently.

The Master/slave dialectic, in addition to interdependence (large tribes) is more efficient and has replaced the predator/prey, the hunter/hunted dialectic, in addition to independence (small tribes). A surplus of goods can now be extracted. How much surplus does one require? How much is healthy? Some choose to maximize consumption, some choose to minimize.
Do you mean that the master/slave dialectic produces an offspring of surplus? Interesting. Is that Hegel?

Quote :
Slavery can manifest in subtler ways than mere brute force, when dealing with members of our own species e.g. capitalism, religion, etc.

How much should we domesticate people, places and things, and how much should we allow ourselves to be domesticated?

We are operating from a paradigm of thirst, we are consuming everything that is at hand. There is no metaphysical meaning – no relation direct of the physiology to the psyche – so there is no sense for what is real, and what is not. We need to establish it, “scientifically”. which means artificially, through coercion of consciousness by means of the senses.

This urge is entirely compulsive and has nothing of calculation in it. The calculations following from it are therefore not at all strictly to our benefit, but simply of a great effect. It is this urge that we should cultivate, because we are already cultivating all the rest because of this urge.

Quote :
Civilization has advantages and disadvantages, there’s been times when I’ve contemplated living more simply.
What would that entail?
It is also a challenge to live by more simple principles, but to allow oneself all the complexities of living.

Quote :
This is what I meant by the dilemma of civilization-

Intelligence + dexterity trumps all, or nearly all other qualities- speed, strength, endurance, agility, stamina (actually, humans have superior stamina as well).

This current, relative monopoly on intelligence has offset the balance, the equilibrium of nature. Like playing a game of rock paper scissors where rock can crush paper and scissors.

The ancients comprehended the supreme dilemma even better than we do today. The fall of Aryan Atlantis (assuming it happened) was more fresh in their minds. Where as Nietzsche tells the more left brain tale of master/slave morality, the ancients tell more right brain tales.

It is Prometheus’ fire, Pandora’s box and Eve’s apple. With knowledge comes the power to destroy nature and create artifice, to convert more and more nature into artifice.
But the concept “nature” is an artifice.
There is no one nature, there are natures.
There is never a totality of it, there is always only an amount of interactions of them, forming “webs of meaning” what one may call value-systems, in which interaction is useful to the end of existing-as-such.

Quote :
It has to do with our natural needs- physical, emotional and mental. Primitive man is closer to deprivation, Civilized man is closer to decadence. At the dawn of the French revolution, it was said 90% of the people died of starvation, and 10% of the people died of gluttony. Who was better off? I suppose I’d rather die of gluttony, but…

The advantage of civilization is- it gives 1 access to more resources. 1 is more able to satisfy their basic needs. The disadvantage is- it gives 1 access to more resources. 1 is more able to satisfy their basic needs… and more, much, much more, way beyond what is required. In addition to the depletion and the destruction of that which we’re dependent on, our environment, abundance and affluence can be detrimental to our own health.

Should the victors (rich, white men) share their spoils with the unfortunate, the vanquished, give back the surplus they’ve took from nature (after all, they don’t need it, right?), or should they hoard it, and take even more, take as much as the earth can bare, increase their wealth and power at the expense of all who live under the sun… and beyond?
To a great extent western man has exhausted its (moral, energetic) resources and needs the east now, to find there a ground of meaning, to include the other in a more meaningful, fertile and productive discourse.

Given that Europe has been the cradle of much of what we now value as culture, what is the state of affairs at this point? By which valuing system is the European man still to be valued superior? Is this valuing system still operative? If so, can we define the standard value to it? Other question; Is European man still capable of valung himself as superior?

Quote :
Now, socialism is not necessarily slave morality (you could call it challenger morality), if the slaves take by force and unhypocritically, rather, it becomes slave morality when they attempt to convince the rich/powerful to share with them, or when they deceive (unless of course it is genuine) themselves into thinking they’d share if they were in their place.

The rich/powerful can also be hypocritical, and seek to justify their reign beyond will to power, beyond survival of the fittest, monarchs and capitalists have been known to do this… or is it genuine?

Is slave morality a hoax, a scam? Or do rich men have nothing to lose by being charitable, and their souls to gain? Western civilization, 500 years of raping, pillaging, plundering and swindling, was it all for not? Should we have never set sail for America?
All active morality is a hoax, a trick played on the self, like belief in God. Socialism gave the poor the idea that they were not the downtrodden, but the mighty, the conquerers of history. This alone explains the power of the movement, the will to power, emerging from a stronger self-valuation. The key word was “historical necessity”. This is what replaced God, and gave the simple man a road to necessity.

Quote :
Europeans freed themselves from bondage, but then we proceeded to enslave the whole earth. Now the greens and liberals want to give it back. Who’s right, who’s wrong and… why?

Perhaps the European, being the superior man, is more capable of love and hate, ferocity and tenderness. Nothing can stop the European, perhaps, except himself, or extraterrestrial intervention. High civilization may weaken, atrophy man, his body and his spirit. Perhaps atrophy, in addition to slave morality, is natures way of correcting herself, and reestablishing equilibrium. However, equilibrium may not be desirable. Is there a way to keep European man strong, healthy, in spite of circumstances that make him girlish and contented?

Should the white race specifically, or the human race in general, go on exploiting nature and other humans… or should we power down our economy?
If it is up to me, the Europeans turn their attention back to their regional geography and the values that spring forth from the real world there. Europe has never been a unity, except in competition and armed conflict. Its riches lie entirely in difference, diversity. The EU is a choke-hold. I think that there can never be unity of culture or economical trust when there is no unity of language.

Can Europe devise a different meta-structure to convey its meaning to itself as an entity? Can Europe effectively value itself, as America has done? I doubt it. There is too little understanding and sympathy back and forth, from Sweden tot Italy, from Spain to Germany - unless a great project of art is envisioned, a new classicism so to speak, an Great Style.