New Discovery

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:48 pm

peacegirl wrote:
In the new world people will not desire to hurt anyone when there is no justification to do so. Right now people have justification. As long as they feel justified conscience WILL permit the act. The word immoral is not applicable because it is a judgment of good and bad. In actuality no one is good or bad just doing what
they do in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is incredible because the change in environment causes a change in human conduct rendering hurting others the
least preferable choice among meaningful options. That is the only thing that changes. People will be freer than ever to do whatever they find preferable with no one
telling them what to do or what is best for them. Big government will be a thing of the past

You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future ?
How do you know there will be no justification for it ? How do you know people will be more free than ever ? Can you prove these statements are true ?

Will there be any laws in this brave new world ? Presumably not if people are free to do as they please and accountable to no one but has this ever been tried ?
Maybe in small isolated tribes that are entirely self governing but not the entire world ? And without any historical precedence you cannot say what will happen

You can certainly wish for a better future but wishing and predicting are not the same and you have no more idea what the future holds than anyone else does
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:03 pm

peacegirl wrote:
I understand the skepticism but this discovery really can rid the world of most of the evil ( hurt ) plaguing mankind. It is inevitable because we cannot move against what is better for ourselves and this world ( which is absolutely possible ) is the better choice. The sad part is that this discovery hasnt been carefully investigated
The author died before he had a chance to prove his claims. I just hope this knowledge doesnt get thrown into a slush pile along with of a lot of bad claims that are
out there. The knowledge is here its just a matter of getting it brought to light. Mankind has been developing and could not have reached this turning point until now The author said this knowledge is part of the real world not something he invented so someone else could make the same discovery but it may take another thousand years and by that time we may destroy ourselves

Knowledge claims about the future cannot be accepted even if they turn out to be true and in that respect yours are no different to anyone elses
You have no more idea what the future will be like in a thousand years time no more than your ancestors of a thousand years ago had about today
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:04 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
In the new world people will not desire to hurt anyone when there is no justification to do so. Right now people have justification. As long as they feel justified conscience WILL permit the act. The word immoral is not applicable because it is a judgment of good and bad. In actuality no one is good or bad just doing what
they do in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is incredible because the change in environment causes a change in human conduct rendering hurting others the
least preferable choice among meaningful options. That is the only thing that changes. People will be freer than ever to do whatever they find preferable with no one
telling them what to do or what is best for them. Big government will be a thing of the past

surreptitious75 wrote:You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future ?
How do you know there will be no justification for it ? How do you know people will be more free than ever ? Can you prove these statements are true ?


But there IS evidence. Do you understand why man's will is not free? Do you understand that nothing can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do? That's the first step. If we can't beyond that, I can't get further. Furthermore, if you're looking for data from a hypothesis, you won't find it here, but that doesn't mean his observations and reasoning were flawed in any way.

surreptitious75 wrote:Will there be any laws in this brave new world ? Presumably not if people are free to do as they please and accountable to no one but has this ever been tried ?


No it hasn't been tried because we live in a world of blame and punishment and manmade laws to control behavior. But this is not the ultimate deterrent.
Surreptitious75 wrote:Maybe in small isolated tribes that are entirely self governing but not the entire world ? And without any historical precedence you cannot say what will happen.


Just like the equation to build a bridge, even if the bridge isn't built yet, we know we will get a sturdy bridge if the equation is correct, the same goes here with the two-sided equation. Even if the new world isn't here yet, if these principles are without flaw (which they are), then the new world will be built inevitably because people will want it and will do what it takes to make it happen through the Great Transition. He gave the blueprint, we just need to apply it once it's recognized by science.

surreptitious75 wrote:You can certainly wish for a better future but wishing and predicting are not the same and you have no more idea what the future holds than anyone else does.


I actually do. This is not wishful thinking.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:14 pm

I tend to agree with You now that I have a better grasp of where this ongoing, and coming from.

The attainment of the nuclear.age did not come about haphazardly by chance, it has had a 2000 year history of development. The development was predicated by no then knowledge of the future.

The philosophical swrivatiob is complex , but the general rationale can be primordially described. It is a fairly acceptable presumption to say, that a consensus of moral people in soxiwry5, may not wish to start a new world war, given that moat.probably every one on earth would be wiped out, in the event of large scale hostilities.

The containment of free will by the upper classes not a continuation of Greek Philosophy of intent, or a secret positing of am Oracle which foresaw the state of technological prowess, by which, supposedly, control down the line could be sustained.

If that above is fairly convincing, then the will, can to describe the superpositioning of objectives related to control. Control to sustain such an oracle , would need the intentionality below a transcendental unity for it's sustenance or so imply the Philosophers , arguably understood at least among themselves.

The just of it is, that technological development , did not come about in a manner of planning it, and developing it, with knowledge of objective criteria; in mind.

So, the only conclusion that could be supported , is, that Natural determination was at.play, in atomism, or, in superimposing the Aristotelian method unto Platonic ideas.

Atomism is an early form of reductionism, which bypasses progressively complex forms, however this could not have happened a-priori, and neither aposteriori; by using the will to choose among the two possible routes to development .

Therefore it is safe.to say, that the nuclear.age, the atomic and.hydrogen and neutron bombs.were determined by other then non determinate means.

Since the atom bomb represents an either use it peacefully or perish scenario, the promise of not using it destructively has been a built in determinedly.

If this argument is wrong, then an ultimate premise of it, may be defeated. And that premise has been around for thousands of years!



Incidentally , the argument can not be defeated by a list of terrible events signifying intervening variables , because they are merely only that, and can not connect the the two ultimate.of Crearion with Extinction, whereby the whole reason of human survival would be reduced to absurdity.

Existence would really have no sense, and as life would seem to reduce to it's ultimate self prescribed destructive. Essence- nuclear destruction would become inevitable.

It is unlikely that Natural Selection of natural selection could have been begun to operate under that kind of premise, and not in the sense of.self valuing, either.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:10 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:17 pm

You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future?


these are reasonable inferences. so for instance, if we know that the vast majority of crimes, which are blue collar, are committed by those from the lower classes, we can draw a correlation between environment and behavior. once that correlation is made, we can go about trying to fix the problem in one of two ways. either we can continue to rely on hoping to make the criminal feel guilty to stop his behavior - we use religion to brainwash the dummies, and some variation of moral objectivism to brainwash the not-so-dummies - and keep the truth concealed by this centuries old, but extremely useful lie, or make a greater effort than ever before to modify the environment so we won't have to have criminals we'll have to lie to to make feel guilty (which is tasteless and rude) so we can better control them... or prevent what makes them, rather.

abolishing the doctrine of freewill is a big first step toward this, especially for those in power who rule over the criminal justice system. the system has to become strong enough not to need to continue lying in order to maintain justice. i mean it can keep lying, sure, but that's corny and anticlimactic. we would hope that the very institutions that rule over us are not so weak, ignoble and degenerate that they have to lie to keep their power and authority.

we don't need less authority, but more, better authority, by the people for the people. with the oncoming collapse of the present world order and all the ruling class philosophy underpinning the bullshit the world is under the spell of, maaaajor changes in intellectual infrastructure will occur. this won't be some utopia, and there will still be hierarchies necessarily... but the promulgators that previously held their power (the bourgeois) via these systemic philosophical lies, will become obsolete. with this comes not only the abolition of the lie of freewill, but also the great bulk of circumstances responsible for creating the crime that had to be controlled by telling the lie. double whammy, dude. bada bing, bada boom.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:53 pm

promethean75 wrote:
You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future?


these are reasonable inferences. so for instance, if we know that the vast majority of crimes, which are blue collar, are committed by those from the lower classes, we can draw a correlation between environment and behavior.
I realize you are making a sketch, but this wouldn't have prevented all the crimes and immoral behavior involved the 2008 crash, or the crimes involved in getting us to go to war in Iraq.
IOW crimes by the rich and powerful, crimes that are rarely punished or prevented. once that correlation is made, we can go about trying to fix the problem in one of two ways. either we can continue to rely on hoping to make the criminal feel guilty to stop his behavior - we use religion to brainwash the dummies, and some variation of moral objectivism to brainwash the not-so-dummies
Well, if we don't believe in objective morals, then one what basis do we decide criminals are criminals? And how do we come to agreement? Note: this is not an argument that there are objective morals. It just seems strange that you seem to presume that we all kinda agree what crimes are. As far as I can tell we don't. And yes, crimes are not the same as immoral acts, but in both cases we are trying to prevent things we think of as bad or simply that we do not want: iow things with negative value to people. And since people have a wide range of values....`?

- and keep the truth concealed by this centuries old, but extremely useful lie, or make a greater effort than ever before to modify the environment so we won't have to have criminals we'll have to lie to to make feel guilty (which is tasteless and rude)
Which are also value laden words which makes them implicitly objectivist, since you are not explaining to whom. And once you do, then there are those who do not think so.

we don't need less authority, but more, better authority, by the people for the people. with the oncoming collapse of the present world order and all the ruling class philosophy underpinning the bullshit the world is under the spell of, maaaajor changes in intellectual infrastructure will occur. this won't be some utopia, and there will still be hierarchies necessarily... but the promulgators that previously held their power (the bourgeois) via these systemic philosophical lies, will become obsolete.
I don't see the bourgeois as the ones in power. They have more power than some, but less then those with the real power.

with this comes not only the abolition of the lie of freewill, but also the great bulk of circumstances responsible for creating the crime that had to be controlled by telling the lie. double whammy, dude. bada bing, bada boom.
[/quote]So we prevent crimes but do not punish. What do we do with those who still commit crimes`? How do we make sure there are no crimes of jealousy and by the rich?
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:10 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future ?
How do you know there will be no justification for it ? How do you know people will be more free than ever ? Can you prove these statements are true ?

peacegirl wrote: But there IS evidence. Do you understand why man's will is not free? Do you understand that nothing can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do? That's the first step. If we can't beyond that, I can't get further. Furthermore, if you're looking for data from a hypothesis, you won't find it here, but that doesn't mean his observations and reasoning were flawed in any way.


I am compelled to suggest that you will not be able to move beyond this with her unless nature compels her to be moved beyond making these incredible statements predicated solely on the political prejudices that the author was compelled by nature to think are true "in his head".

Somehow not even the laws of nature themselves "can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do".

That some determinists are then compelled to speculate that the part where they make up their mind here is only another manifestation of what can only ever be given that brain matter itself is no less the embodiment of, well, what can only ever be, never sinks in here with her.

Either because "nature's way" simply hasn't allowed for this yet or, in an autonomous universe, she recognizes all that she has to lose if her own objectivist narrative begins to crumble. She has just not recognized this consciously yet. Indeed, she may well take her own prized and precious comfort and consolation all the way to the grave with her.

The author's "discovery" is, in my view, just another psychological manifestation of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

It has become but her very own font for anchoring "I". Without it, she may well become just another fractured and fragmented rendition of...me?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31536
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:50 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Artimas wrote:There’s a contradiction in what you state about the author of which you argue for his points/claims.

Because his clam is independent of religious symbolism, predetermination, teleology, self-consciousness, or even pleasure. The variables you are bringing in have nothing to do with the veracity of his claim. The only thing that would prove him wrong is if you can prove to me that we don't move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

If you claim the authors claim is independent of greater satisfaction or pleasure, then that is a contradiction and you have proven yourself wrong there. By yourself.


I never said that Artimas! I said that we don't always move toward something pleasurable but we do move in the direction of greater satisfaction. For example, I may choose to give up my life for my child if only one of us had a chance of surviving. This would have given me greater satisfaction, but certainly not pleasure.


sat·is·fac·tion
/ˌsadəsˈfakSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: satisfaction; plural noun: satisfactions
fulfillment of one's wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure derived from this.
"he smiled with satisfaction"
synonyms: contentment, contentedness, content, pleasure, gratification, fulfillment, happiness, sense of well-being, pride, sense of achievement, delight, joy, enjoyment, relish, triumph;

More

self-satisfaction, smugness, complacency;
archaicself-content
"he smiled with satisfaction"
antonyms: dissatisfaction, displeasure, discontent

LAW
the payment of a debt or fulfillment of an obligation or claim.
"in full and final satisfaction of the claim"
synonyms: compensation, recompense, reparation, restitution, repayment, payment, settlement, reimbursement, indemnification, indemnity, damages; More
redress, amends, atonement;
justice;
requital, retribution;
quid pro quo
"investors may have to turn to the courts for satisfaction"


You did say that, according to definitions of satisfaction. Necessity does not have to involve satisfaction or pleasure. What if one hates drinking water but they need to drink it? It’s value attribution, making a conscious choice to value other things over that continually present dissatisfaction, which is a will that is free in contextual valuing.

My sacrifice for a child is not for my satisfaction, it’s for the child’s. Which is necessary, not tied to any pleasure for me. Which is why it would be my ‘sacrifice’. There is no satisfaction in death, remember, satisfaction comes -after- the choice or action is made or happens during, so if death happens during, how am I to have that greater satisfaction at all? I wouldn’t because it was never for ‘my own’ greater satisfaction to begin with

ne·ces·si·ty
/nəˈsesədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: necessity; plural noun: necessities
1.
the fact of being required or indispensable.
"the necessity of providing parental guidance should be apparent"
synonyms: essential requirement, prerequisite, indispensable thing/item, essential, requisite, necessary, fundamental, basic; More
sine qua non, desideratum
"health should not be considered a privilege or even a luxury, but as a necessity and a right"
indispensability, need, needfulness
"the necessity of taking expert advice"
unavoidability.
"the necessity of growing old"
synonyms: inevitability, unavoidability, certainty, inescapability, inexorability, ineluctability
"the necessity of growing old"
a state of things or circumstances enforcing a certain course.
"created more by necessity than design"
synonyms: force/pressure of circumstance, need, obligation, call, exigency; More
crisis, emergency, urgency;
force majeure
"political necessity forced him to consider it"
2.
an indispensable thing.
"a good book is a necessity when traveling"
synonyms: essential requirement, prerequisite, indispensable thing/item, essential, requisite, necessary, fundamental, basic; More
sine qua non, desideratum
"health should not be considered a privilege or even a luxury, but as a necessity and a right"


Doesn’t say pleasure or satisfaction linked to need Or necessity/necessary.
Last edited by Artimas on Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:22 pm

peacegirl wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
In the new world people will not desire to hurt anyone when there is no justification to do so. Right now people have justification. As long as they feel justified conscience WILL permit the act. The word immoral is not applicable because it is a judgment of good and bad. In actuality no one is good or bad just doing what
they do in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is incredible because the change in environment causes a change in human conduct rendering hurting others the
least preferable choice among meaningful options. That is the only thing that changes. People will be freer than ever to do whatever they find preferable with no one
telling them what to do or what is best for them. Big government will be a thing of the past

surreptitious75 wrote:You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future ?
How do you know there will be no justification for it ? How do you know people will be more free than ever ? Can you prove these statements are true ?


But there IS evidence. Do you understand why man's will is not free? Do you understand that nothing can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do? That's the first step. If we can't beyond that, I can't get further. Furthermore, if you're looking for data from a hypothesis, you won't find it here, but that doesn't mean his observations and reasoning were flawed in any way.

surreptitious75 wrote:Will there be any laws in this brave new world ? Presumably not if people are free to do as they please and accountable to no one but has this ever been tried ?


No it hasn't been tried because we live in a world of blame and punishment and manmade laws to control behavior. But this is not the ultimate deterrent.
Surreptitious75 wrote:Maybe in small isolated tribes that are entirely self governing but not the entire world ? And without any historical precedence you cannot say what will happen.


Just like the equation to build a bridge, even if the bridge isn't built yet, we know we will get a sturdy bridge if the equation is correct, the same goes here with the two-sided equation. Even if the new world isn't here yet, if these principles are without flaw (which they are), then the new world will be built inevitably because people will want it and will do what it takes to make it happen through the Great Transition. He gave the blueprint, we just need to apply it once it's recognized by science.

surreptitious75 wrote:You can certainly wish for a better future but wishing and predicting are not the same and you have no more idea what the future holds than anyone else does.


I actually do. This is not wishful thinking.


You aren’t superior to anyone in terms of prediction. You can’t predict a system without understanding it and you can’t understand that there is a system without some form of a free will, which you argue against, and claim there being no such thing.

Ok well then if you do, then I do too. And I am telling you from the current events and current placement of where we are in terms of evolutionary path, you’re wrong. It will do no good to convince people they only move toward greater satisfaction when it is not the case all of the time and maybe for some, a lot of the time it may not be at all. The people in this world need to be more responsible for and with their free will and self/identity, not convinced that nothing is their fault because they “chdo”. How do you think we got to this position in the first place? Really? How do you think we got here to this position on our evolutionary path where we’re destroying ourselves effectively?
Last edited by Artimas on Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:10 pm

The thing about making statements about the future beyond your existence is that they cannot be falsified within your lifetime
So anyone can make predictions about what will happen in a thousand years and not be shown to be wrong for this very reason
But it doesnt advance the debate so deal with the present and leave future generations to deal with their time when it comes
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:41 pm

This is to Artemis:

Contradiction works for the thesis not against it , for the reasons described.
Can sense be made out of that claim?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:56 pm

Meno_ wrote:I tend to agree with You now that I have a better grasp of where this ongoing, and coming from.

The attainment of the nuclear.age did not come about haphazardly by chance, it has had a 2000 year history of development. The development was predicated by no then knowledge of the future.

The philosophical swrivatiob is complex , but the general rationale can be primordially described. It is a fairly acceptable presumption to say, that a consensus of moral people in soxiwry5, may not wish to start a new world war, given that moat.probably every one on earth would be wiped out, in the event of large scale hostilities.

The containment of free will by the upper classes not a continuation of Greek Philosophy of intent, or a secret positing of am Oracle which foresaw the state of technological prowess, by which, supposedly, control down the line could be sustained.

If that above is fairly convincing, then the will, can to describe the superpositioning of objectives related to control. Control to sustain such an oracle , would need the intentionality below a transcendental unity for it's sustenance or so imply the Philosophers , arguably understood at least among themselves.

The just of it is, that technological development , did not come about in a manner of planning it, and developing it, with knowledge of objective criteria; in mind.

So, the only conclusion that could be supported , is, that Natural determination was at.play, in atomism, or, in superimposing the Aristotelian method unto Platonic ideas.

Atomism is an early form of reductionism, which bypasses progressively complex forms, however this could not have happened a-priori, and neither aposteriori; by using the will to choose among the two possible routes to development .

Therefore it is safe.to say, that the nuclear.age, the atomic and.hydrogen and neutron bombs.were determined by other then non determinate means.

Since the atom bomb represents an either use it peacefully or perish scenario, the promise of not using it destructively has been a built in determinedly.

If this argument is wrong, then an ultimate premise of it, may be defeated. And that premise has been around for thousands of years!



Incidentally , the argument can not be defeated by a list of terrible events signifying intervening variables , because they are merely only that, and can not connect the the two ultimate.of Crearion with Extinction, whereby the whole reason of human survival would be reduced to absurdity.

Existence would really have no sense, and as life would seem to reduce to it's ultimate self prescribed destructive. Essence- nuclear destruction would become inevitable.

It is unlikely that Natural Selection of natural selection could have been begun to operate under that kind of premise, and not in the sense of.self valuing, either.


Meno, I can't compete with your knowledge of philosophy. You're amazing! I don't know though whether your conclusions (please forgive me for not being an expert in the philosophers of time past) is correct. I hope you keep listening to what I have learned. If it's wrong, then I will be the first to admit the error. If it's right, we will achieve a new world of peace and harmony. I hope I'm right! :)
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:03 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:The thing about making statements about the future beyond your existence is that they cannot be falsified within your lifetime
So anyone can make predictions about what will happen in a thousand years and not be shown to be wrong for this very reason
But it doesnt advance the debate so deal with the present and leave future generations to deal with their time when it comes


The prediction is based on the knowledge behind determinism. Yes, we can predict the future if the formula (for lack of a better word) is correct.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:04 pm

Meno_ wrote:This is to Artemis:

Contradiction works for the thesis not against it , for the reasons described.
Can sense be made out of that claim?


Huh? There is no contradiction Meno. I don't know what you're referring to. Sorry if this was to Artimas but I must (of my own free will, of my own volition) correct a flaw in your comment because there is a danger of people throwing this knowledge out due to one person's comment, especially if the person is looked up to. Unfortunately, many people will join the bandwagon of dissension without a clue to what they joining.
Last edited by peacegirl on Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:06 pm

Meno_ wrote:This is to Artemis:

Contradiction works for the thesis not against it , for the reasons described.
Can sense be made out of that claim?


Which post? The one for satisfaction?

Sometimes some of us or sometimes some people do what is necessary, not for or out of any sort of satisfaction.

In my experience, whenever contradiction is experienced or presented it means there’s a missing step or a missing contrast, which in this case, it’s the will that is free in a contextual method of using it.,

Sometimes the what and the why may not be free, in some situations, but the where, when, how, who, is and we have a choice in regards to that and certain aspects of context.. which i would argue we have more freedom in terms of context than not, 4 > 2.

Why do I have to take a shit? Because it’s biologically necessary to function. My freedom of will is in choosing the rest of the context regarding that function, which is the cause effect scenario in infinite cases of different contexts, which is where responsibility derives.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:13 pm

Artimas wrote:
Meno_ wrote:This is to Artemis:

Contradiction works for the thesis not against it , for the reasons described.
Can sense be made out of that claim?


Which post? The one for satisfaction?

Sometimes some of us or sometimes some people do what is necessary, not for or out of any sort of satisfaction.

In my experience, whenever contradiction is experienced or presented it means there’s a missing step or a missing contrast, which in this case, it’s the will that is free in a contextual method of using it.,

Sometimes the what and the why may not be free, in some situations, but the where, when, how, who, is and we have a choice in regards to that and certain aspects of context.. which i would argue we have more freedom in terms of context than not, 4 > 2.

Why do I have to take a shit? Because it’s biologically necessary to function. My freedom of will is in choosing the rest of the context regarding that function, which is the cause effect scenario in infinite cases of different contexts, which is where responsibility derives.


I know this wasn't direct to me, but this is my thread so I feel obligated to answer when I see a problem. Actually, we are in agreement about different contexts. Please try to learn how your take on "the freedom to choose which encompasses moral responsibility" and the fact that man's will is not free, is cohesive and not contradictory at all.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:19 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Artimas wrote:
Meno_ wrote:This is to Artemis:

Contradiction works for the thesis not against it , for the reasons described.
Can sense be made out of that claim?


Which post? The one for satisfaction?

Sometimes some of us or sometimes some people do what is necessary, not for or out of any sort of satisfaction.

In my experience, whenever contradiction is experienced or presented it means there’s a missing step or a missing contrast, which in this case, it’s the will that is free in a contextual method of using it.,

Sometimes the what and the why may not be free, in some situations, but the where, when, how, who, is and we have a choice in regards to that and certain aspects of context.. which i would argue we have more freedom in terms of context than not, 4 > 2.

Why do I have to take a shit? Because it’s biologically necessary to function. My freedom of will is in choosing the rest of the context regarding that function, which is the cause effect scenario in infinite cases of different contexts, which is where responsibility derives.


I know this wasn't direct to me, but this is my thread so I feel obligated to answer when I see a problem. Actually, we are in agreement about different contexts. Please try to learn how your take on "the freedom to choose which encompasses moral responsibility" and the fact that man's will is not free, is cohesive and not contradictory at all.


Some situations or contexts are less restrictive than others, so instead of saying more free, we should just change semantics and say less restricted? Or what?

Sometimes we don’t get to choose why, what or who, which is less contextual freedom. Depending on context and what’s going on, those change, The Who, why, etc, they swap between each other.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:31 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Artimas wrote:
Meno_ wrote:This is to Artemis:

Contradiction works for the thesis not against it , for the reasons described.
Can sense be made out of that claim?


Artimas wrote:Which post? The one for satisfaction?

Sometimes some of us or sometimes some people do what is necessary, not for or out of any sort of satisfaction.

In my experience, whenever contradiction is experienced or presented it means there’s a missing step or a missing contrast, which in this case, it’s the will that is free in a contextual method of using it.,

Sometimes the what and the why may not be free, in some situations, but the where, when, how, who, is and we have a choice in regards to that and certain aspects of context.. which i would argue we have more freedom in terms of context than not, 4 > 2.

Why do I have to take a shit? Because it’s biologically necessary to function. My freedom of will is in choosing the rest of the context regarding that function, which is the cause effect scenario in infinite cases of different contexts, which is where responsibility derives.


I know this wasn't direct to me, but this is my thread so I feel obligated to answer when I see a problem. Actually, we are in agreement about different contexts. Please try to learn how your take on "the freedom to choose which encompasses moral responsibility" and the fact that man's will is not free, is cohesive and not contradictory at all.


Some situations or contexts are less restrictive than others, so instead of saying more free, we should just change semantics and say less restricted? Or what?

Sometimes we don’t get to choose why, what or who, which is less contextual freedom. Depending on context and what’s going on, those change, The Who, why, etc, they swap between each other.


OMG, I don't know how to make more clear than what I already have expressed, that context is everything since that's how we make decisions, but there is no context that offers freedom of the will. You've been ingrained with the conventional definition of determinism, which causes you to fight back against the idea that we have no choice. This has to be undone for this knowledge to be understood. I don't know if it's possible given the responses here. Maybe in 100 years. :(
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:13 pm

I should be the one to apologise my plate is so full I can merely scribble here and there even without the time to edit, as this is appearent. But I honestly want to reply in a way that it is understandable, and I am compelled to stay with it for it's a source of personal relevance as well.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:31 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:peacegirl,

This post was meant for either Karpel Tunnel or Phyllo but...


This is what you are failing to understand. Responsibility increases with the knowledge that man's will is not free, not decreases. In fact, responsibility and conscience go up to a much higher degree. Aren't you interested in learning how that's possible or are you just so skeptical that you have closed your ears?


But I would say that that depends on the individual. So much depends on the individual and how he sees and responds to the world.

I may be wrong in how I see what you are saying above. I can imagine that the more self-conscious (not ego), self-aware, caring human being might, after coming to realize/discover that will, his will, is not so free and self-determined as he thought, might then be very careful with his decisions, strive to hone his sense of response ability and "to do no harm" to a greater degree.

But what of the other kind of individual? The psychopath, the sociopath, the rapist, the pedophile, et cetera?
Your "truth" might give them "just cause" within their own minds to do what they wanted - after all, they cannot be held responsible for their actions. This is what I meant before by a "slippery slope". Even the more balanced individual might begin to feel that way afterwards - we often come to convince ourselves of something which is more alluring and likable to us. Remember, one size does not fit all.

Feel free to take your time with the other post if you get swamped and do not forget to smell the flowers.


Thanks for the reminder to smell the flowers! :)

This is the problem sharing a discovery in a forum like this because so much is being left out. Do you think a discovery of this magnitude can be determined to be genuine without a thorough investigation which has never happened? You are making a distinction between individuals who could not do harm, and those who could. As I said earlier, the individuals you are alluding to may have a severed conscience. In that case, they may need to be institutionalized just like a mad dog would. But these individuals are a small percentage of the population. Most run of the mill criminals are not psychopaths or sociopaths but are willing to take advantage of others, or even kill, in order to get what they want. Under the changed conditions they would not find it alluring to do anything that could hurt others, that's just the point. This IS a one size fits all in the sense that under the changed environment, no one (barring the extremely mentally ill; the mad dogs) would desire to strike a first blow (an unprovoked hurt to others) as a preferable choice. This is not a slippery slope although he was not suggesting to suddenly stop blaming which could cause more harm than good.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:06 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Hi Meno, :evilfun:



But: no one knows what has been predetermined, until its determination becomes manifest.


Personally speaking, I just do not see it - that we have been pre-determined, like we have been written in the stars, fated or destined for this life or that life. the chosen one. I think it is ego and fatalism.

Even when something supposedly becomes manifest, does that necessarily spell the end of its journey?
Your words reminded me of this little poignant story. We never, never know, do we?

Who Knows? The Farmer's Son:
Fortune or Misfortune?


I love the moral of the story. We really don't know whether something bad will turn out good in unexpected ways, or something good will turn out bad. Unfortunately, most bad situations end up staying bad (with very little redeeming value) and good situations end up staying good (with lots of redeeming value). Most people, given the chance, would choose a good situation as seen from their perspective (obviously these terms are relative), with the hope that nothing bad will occur as a result. When I speak of "bad" I am speaking of the kind of things people call evil such as mass murder. There is always good that comes out of these situations, like betters laws, etc. but wouldn't it be a better world if mass murder did not occur at all? (good).

Arcturus Descending wrote:- and -

Commentary:What More Can Be Said?

http://www.rainbowbody.com/newarticles/farmerson.htm

:happy-smileyinthebox:


The commentary is interesting (still reading) because we rarely have enough information to see the whole picture, and it is the wise person who is not attached to the outcome.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:39 pm

Hi Arc, nice to hear You !(of)

Hope to see You more but unsurprisingly, the ships passing at night is better then nothing, specially when most on board think telepathy is used. But again can't be ruled out.


Peacegirl:


Time uncooperative, only focus now can be the contradiction .

The sense You are using makes it (sense) , in terms of , well the best analogy I can come up with is a differential gear. And please don't assume that I'm a philosophical wunderkind of some kind, - sorry duty call a will resume at the earliest. Sorry.
but having having second thoughts about this analogy ....



Try again: at the level of contrariness, contra meaning against, which is inclusive within a level of formative logic: reflective of ontological valuation like this:

When comparing two objects, separated by dis similarity ( based on the principle that no similar objects are absolutely identical) one says to another: this is this but not that
They are contrarily indicative toward each other. They presuppose a third, an object (objective) which cam describe both, on basis of their characteristics. The third object is am ideal object which more generally defines them, such as the ansolute spherical figure , that both contradictory figures resemble , albeit imperfectly.

Naxk in the early days of philosophy, talk was compelling to visualize in terms of such ideal object, as if, for instance, the more a polygon slides or partial sides become shorter and shorter, the more they will approximate an ideal circle or sphere.

This language implied the contra indicative image as imperfect up to the ideal . the language subordinated similar objects as dissimilar absolutely up until the partially differented sides loose their measure of extension. Ideally this never cam happen, and contrariness excluded the ideal.

So if the solution is by asserting the non existence of the ideal, the ontological representation of objects, including the self, become entangled with other partial representations, forming a language of variable meaning per representation of based on similarity, and the degree of similarity can not be assumed, except by a feed.back system between represented objects reflecting a cohesive recognition, most.particularly self representation via the other object.

The most general characteristics subordinate the least, therefore the system is reductive toward the most inclusive characteristic

The way I am using the way Peace girl is using it, is not by aumptive theoretical efforts, for that way the method will result in a circularity, the way it has been classocally, as.two closest image of similarity, where the two spheres cam not be distinguished from one another.

The contradiction. can be avoided by accepting the language of contradiction both literally and figuratively, both by assessing the intended meaning utilizing the objective, or the hypothetical ,meaning of the figure of speech which uses models of the closest latitides to escertain that meaning of the objective can correspond most exactly what is meant.

Reductionism into absolute value does not work this way, at a certain critical point, the way the object is apprehended splits from how it is described.

An example in Sartre's Nausea, shows a.waiter in a role of acting in bad.faith, since he is merely acting like a waiter waiter, and not really being one.

The contradiction is appearent in roles or people in jobs for which they were.not properly trained, and as a.consequence they can not faithfully term the job as.one which they like to do, noatter how painfully try to act as if the.contrary was.true.

If a.person tries.to negate this assumption, he will show an inauthentic performance . He can not appreciate this, because it never was his objective to act in that role, he is unprepared and unhappy in trying to cover this left of clarity toward the implicit object of his attempt at self convincing.

If he.could be retrained because of his own volition. because he really would like to appreciate the work on itself it'self and not become a.clock watcher reduced into partial unfocused performances, them he.could.refocus unto the objective which ceases to be merely a wish to find some meaning along the way, becaisemall his time will be.consumed by repeated validations of.self validation. , lime self hypnosis


The fact that majority of.working people live for the paycheck , 11, they need to reconcile the two ways of trying to understand how to change their reasoning as.to accommodate to changing contexts within which they understand the meaning, the objective and upper level evaluations thereof their performance.
As most of evaliations are based on upper level authoritarian criteria, the level of transparency may be contingent upon more general assessment related to used standards (some of which are near disfuntional utilization ); and appear more as outer sourced determinancy , where the minimum use of self ontological valuing has less transparent motivational value.

The above effect may indicate a use of collusive effect of internal efforts to control ongoing operational suppression of employee insight into over the top modeling of employee productive capabilities.


I suggest, utilization of both systems, albeit conflicting, may pave the way toward not only better employee-employee relations, but may result in superior production and work morale.
Last edited by Meno_ on Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:54 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:58 pm

promethean75 wrote:
You are making so many assumptions here based on absolutely no evidence at all - how do you know people will not desire to hurt anyone in the future?


promethean75 wrote:these are reasonable inferences. so for instance, if we know that the vast majority of crimes, which are blue collar, are committed by those from the lower classes, we can draw a correlation between environment and behavior. once that correlation is made, we can go about trying to fix the problem in one of two ways. either we can continue to rely on hoping to make the criminal feel guilty to stop his behavior - we use religion to brainwash the dummies, and some variation of moral objectivism to brainwash the not-so-dummies - and keep the truth concealed by this centuries old, but extremely useful lie, or make a greater effort than ever before to modify the environment so we won't have to have criminals we'll have to lie to to make feel guilty (which is tasteless and rude) so we can better control them... or prevent what makes them, rather.


Feelings of conscience will be stronger than ever. Not wanting to feel remorse over something done without justification --- knowing there will be no consequences --- becomes a powerful preventive (Note: being aware there will be no consequence is a worse consequence), not threats of punishment. IOW, it's not that there won't be a consequence. It's just that the consequence of no blame (knowing that there would be no justification for what one is contemplating) would be worse than any type of punishment society could offer. As far as moral objectivism...

There is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope with a hostile environment that will no longer be.


promethean75 wrote:we don't need less authority, but more, better authority, by the people for the people. with the oncoming collapse of the present world order and all the ruling class philosophy underpinning the bullshit the world is under the spell of, maaaajor changes in intellectual infrastructure will occur; this won't be some utopia, and there will still be hierarchies necessarily... but the promulgators that previously held their power (the bourgeois) via these systemic philosophical lies, will become obsolete. with this comes not only the abolition of the lie of freewill, but also the great bulk of circumstances responsible for creating the crime that had to be controlled by telling the lie. double whammy, dude. bada bing, bada boom.


Glad someone here has a little understanding. It gives me renewed hope. No one else is even close to getting it. This discovery will bring on such major changes to the environment that these systemic lies will become obsolete, and the circumstances that created criminality will be prevented. But this will be done without one ounce of authority over others which means no more ruling class, no more government as we know it, and no more criminal justice system. These institutions will be replaced by something far far better.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:03 pm

Meno_ wrote:Hi Arc, nice to hear You !(of)

Hope to see You more but unsurprisingly, the ships passing at night is better then nothing, specially when most on board think telepathy is used. But again can't be ruled out.


Peacegirl:


Time uncooperative, only focus now can be the contradiction .

The sense You are using makes it (sense) , in terms of , well the best analogy I can come up with is a differential gear. And please don't assume that I'm a philosophical wunderkind of some kind, - sorry duty call a will resume at the earliest. Sorry.
but having having second thoughts about this analogy ....



Try again: at the level of contrariness, contra meaning against, which is inclusive within a level of formative logic: reflective of ontological valuation like this:

When comparing two objects, separated by dis similarity ( based on the principle that no similar objects are absolutely identical) one says to another: this is this but not that
They are contrarily indicative toward each other. They presuppose a third, an object (objective) which cam describe both, on basis of their characteristics. The third object is am ideal object which more generally defines them, such as the ansolute spherical figure , that both contradictory figures resemble , albeit imperfectly.

Naxk in the early days of philosophy, talk was compelling to visualize in terms of such ideal object, as if, for instance, the more a polygon slides or partial sides become shorter and shorter, the more they will approximate an ideal circle or sphere.

This language implied the contra indicative image as imperfect up to the ideal . the language subordinated similar objects as dissimilar absolutely up until the partially differented sides loose their measure of extension. Ideally this never cam happen, and contrariness excluded the ideal.

So if the solution is by asserting the non existence of the ideal, the ontological representation of objects, including the self, become entangled with other partial representations, forming a language of variable meaning per representation of based on similarity, and the degree of similarity can not be assumed, except by a feed.back system between represented objects reflecting a cohesive recognition, most.particularly self representation via the other object.

The most general characteristics subordinate the least, therefore the system is reductive toward the most inclusive characteristic

The way I am using the way Peace girl is using it, is not by aumptive theoretical efforts, for that way the method will result in a circularity, the way it has been classocally, as.two closest image of similarity, where the two spheres cam not be distinguished from one another.

The contradiction. can be avoided by accepting the language of contradiction both literally and figuratively, both by assessing the intended meaning utilizing the objective, or the hypothetical ,meaning of the figure of speech which uses models of the closest latitides to escertain that meaning of the objective can correspond most exactly what is meant.

Reductionism into absolute value does not work this way, at a certain critical point, the way the object is apprehended splits from how it is described.

An example in Sartre's Nausea, shows a.waiter in a role of acting in bad.faith, since he is merely acting like a waiter waiter, and not really being one.

The contradiction is appearent in roles or people in jobs for which they were.not properly trained, and as a.consequence they can not faithfully term the job as.one which they like to do, noatter how painfully try to act as if the.contrary was.true.

If a.person tries.to negate this assumption, he will show an inauthentic performance . He can not appreciate this, because it never was his objective to act in that role, he is unprepared and unhappy in trying to cover this left of clarity toward the implicit object of his attempt at self convincing.

If he.could be retrained because of his own volition. because he really would like to appreciate the work on itself it'self and not become a.clock watcher reduced into partial unfocused performances, them he.could.refocus unto the objective which ceases to be merely a wish to find some meaning along the way, becaisemall his time will be.consumed by repeated validations of.self validation. , lime self hypnosis


The fact that majority of.working people live for the paycheck , 11, they need to reconcile the two ways of trying to understand how to change their reasoning as.to accommodate to changing contexts within which they understand the meaning, the objective and upper level evaluations thereof their performance.
As most of evaliations are based on upper level authoritarian criteria, the level of transparency may be contingent upon more general assessment related to used standards (some of which are near disfuntional utilization ); and appear more as outer sourced determinancy , where the minimum use of self ontological valuing has less transparent motivational value.

The above effect may indicate a use of collusive effect of internal efforts to control ongoing operational suppression of employee insight into over the top modeling of employee productive capabilities.


I suggest, utilization of both systems, albeit conflicting, may pave the way toward not only better employee-employee relations, but may result in superior production and work morale.


This was very interesting but I'm not sure where it fits in to the discussion. Could you break it down? I know you're talking about motivation and language limitations, but I need further clarification. :-?
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:24 am

peacegirl wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Hi Arc, nice to hear You !(of)

Hope to see You more but unsurprisingly, the ships passing at night is better then nothing, specially when most on board think telepathy is used. But again can't be ruled out.


Peacegirl:


Time uncooperative, only focus now can be the contradiction .

The sense You are using makes it (sense) , in terms of , well the best analogy I can come up with is a differential gear. And please don't assume that I'm a philosophical wunderkind of some kind, - sorry duty call a will resume at the earliest. Sorry.
but having having second thoughts about this analogy ....



Try again: at the level of contrariness, contra meaning against, which is inclusive within a level of formative logic: reflective of ontological valuation like this:

When comparing two objects, separated by dis similarity ( based on the principle that no similar objects are absolutely identical) one says to another: this is this but not that
They are contrarily indicative toward each other. They presuppose a third, an object (objective) which cam describe both, on basis of their characteristics. The third object is am ideal object which more generally defines them, such as the ansolute spherical figure , that both contradictory figures resemble , albeit imperfectly.

Naxk in the early days of philosophy, talk was compelling to visualize in terms of such ideal object, as if, for instance, the more a polygon slides or partial sides become shorter and shorter, the more they will approximate an ideal circle or sphere.

This language implied the contra indicative image as imperfect up to the ideal . the language subordinated similar objects as dissimilar absolutely up until the partially differented sides loose their measure of extension. Ideally this never cam happen, and contrariness excluded the ideal.

So if the solution is by asserting the non existence of the ideal, the ontological representation of objects, including the self, become entangled with other partial representations, forming a language of variable meaning per representation of based on similarity, and the degree of similarity can not be assumed, except by a feed.back system between represented objects reflecting a cohesive recognition, most.particularly self representation via the other object.

The most general characteristics subordinate the least, therefore the system is reductive toward the most inclusive characteristic

The way I am using the way Peace girl is using it, is not by aumptive theoretical efforts, for that way the method will result in a circularity, the way it has been classocally, as.two closest image of similarity, where the two spheres cam not be distinguished from one another.

The contradiction. can be avoided by accepting the language of contradiction both literally and figuratively, both by assessing the intended meaning utilizing the objective, or the hypothetical ,meaning of the figure of speech which uses models of the closest latitides to escertain that meaning of the objective can correspond most exactly what is meant.

Reductionism into absolute value does not work this way, at a certain critical point, the way the object is apprehended splits from how it is described.

An example in Sartre's Nausea, shows a.waiter in a role of acting in bad.faith, since he is merely acting like a waiter waiter, and not really being one.

The contradiction is appearent in roles or people in jobs for which they were.not properly trained, and as a.consequence they can not faithfully term the job as.one which they like to do, noatter how painfully try to act as if the.contrary was.true.

If a.person tries.to negate this assumption, he will show an inauthentic performance . He can not appreciate this, because it never was his objective to act in that role, he is unprepared and unhappy in trying to cover this left of clarity toward the implicit object of his attempt at self convincing.

If he.could be retrained because of his own volition. because he really would like to appreciate the work on itself it'self and not become a.clock watcher reduced into partial unfocused performances, them he.could.refocus unto the objective which ceases to be merely a wish to find some meaning along the way, becaisemall his time will be.consumed by repeated validations of.self validation. , lime self hypnosis


The fact that majority of.working people live for the paycheck , 11, they need to reconcile the two ways of trying to understand how to change their reasoning as.to accommodate to changing contexts within which they understand the meaning, the objective and upper level evaluations thereof their performance.
As most of evaliations are based on upper level authoritarian criteria, the level of transparency may be contingent upon more general assessment related to used standards (some of which are near disfuntional utilization ); and appear more as outer sourced determinancy , where the minimum use of self ontological valuing has less transparent motivational value.

The above effect may indicate a use of collusive effect of internal efforts to control ongoing operational suppression of employee insight into over the top modeling of employee productive capabilities.


I suggest, utilization of both systems, albeit conflicting, may pave the way toward not only better employee-employee relations, but may result in superior production and work morale.


This was very interesting but I'm not sure where it fits in to the discussion. Could you break it down? I know you're talking about motivation and language limitations, but I need further clarification. :-?



Happy to oblige , and again time is my enemy, although I owe You some kind of preface, the elaboration of which is the meat around the skeletal essence around , which it tries to fill in the missing pieces You mention, that of re-integrating the partial differentiations of images playing a part.

I will really try to fill at least some of these , time permitted, hopefully very soon.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]