iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

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

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby promethean75 » Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:02 pm

"The symbol, the word, refers to the concept in the brain....which is a interpretation of a presence in an interactive dynamic cosmos, with no end and no beginning and so no completion...no telos.
Just process."

good good, but now here it comes... the same problem kant struggled with. these categories of reason which structure our comprehension of the world (form, space, time, causality) can't be the ground of existence. That is to say the world which becomes structured by our 'mind', has to exist in a certain way independently of that structuring. now, instead of the world 'fitting' into the categories of reason, it is the categories of reason that fit into the world. Therefore, you could say that the ways we comprehend and interpret the world are grounded in the logical structure of world already, not vice versa.

But yeah sure. 'Process', if you wanna call it. But the concept of 'process' is grounded in the already necessarily existing relation of things it describes. Kinda like saying 'the only thing that isn't a process is the process itself'. Things undergoing processes are dynamic, but the sum total of all that's exists has nothing to relate to, itself, and therefore can't be dynamic. It exists simply in an unchangeable state for eternity.

I can't believe you got me back in this philosophy shit, man. I'll read my own post a week later and be like wtf wuz I talking about. If you dont do this yourself, something is terribly wrong with you.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4047
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:22 pm

promethean75 wrote:good good, but now here it comes... the same problem kant struggled with. these categories of reason which structure our comprehension of the world (form, space, time, causality) can't be the ground of existence. That is to say the world which becomes structured by our 'mind', has to exist in a certain way independently of that structuring. now, instead of the world 'fitting' into the categories of reason, it is the categories of reason that fit into the world. Therefore, you could say that the ways we comprehend and interpret the world are grounded in the logical structure of world already, not vice versa.
Yes, but only of what is ordered, because we are the product of order, and we depend on order and we propagate and want to maintain and create order.
The cosmos is also disordering, chaotic....energies that have no pattern to be perceived and integrated into abstractions.
Furthermore, existence is antagonistic to life, because it is dynamic and life needs stability, static states, completeness, wholeness, absolutes. Life experiences existence as need/suffering, as struggle.

Our reasoning is the product of cosmic ordering...which is never finalized, so our reasoning can never reach a finality, it can only continuously re-evalaute and readjust successfully interact.
The cosmos is not interested in life, nor does it inevitably create life.
We may find the source of life in chaotic factors...

But yeah sure. 'Process', if you wanna call it. But the concept of 'process' is grounded in the already necessarily existing relation of things it describes. Kinda like saying 'the only thing that isn't a process is the process itself'. Things undergoing processes are dynamic, but the sum total of all that's exists has nothing to relate to, itself, and therefore can't be dynamic. It exists simply in an unchangeable state for eternity.
this is like saying we are "made in the image of god".
I've told yo, you are an Abrahamic....though you have convinced yourself that you've gone beyond such superstitions. Your uni-verse is how you've replaced the one-god.

The cosmos is not entirely ordered...it is also chaotic...but man can only perceive and conceptualize order, believing this is the whole.

Furthermore...like I said...the mind simplifies/generalizes existence to a manageable level, so order we are a product of is forever incomprehensible to us, because it is fluctuating, constantly changing.
Cosmic order is not static. It is dynamic, and what made us possible in the past may deny us life in the future.

Natural Laws may become obsolete as chaos increases...because laws are human representations of human awareness of patterns in the perceived patterns we interpret as matter/energy.
Expansion of space/time implies dimensional fragmentation - dimensions are increasing, and our evolution is too slow and a product of a past, simpler, period in the cosmic cycle.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:29 pm

Therefore, you could say that the ways we comprehend and interpret the world are grounded in the logical structure of world already, not vice versa.
This is why the ancients conceptualized natural order as gods, or titanic forces.
Not as complete, perfect beings but as fallible forces on the side of human beings, sometimes, and at other times against the interests of human beings.
Kazantzakis conceptualized god as a being struggling alongside man, not as an omnipotent, omniscient, complete whole final Being - i.e., singularity.
The forces, the patterns, the energies that made life possible are not immutable, indivisible, eternal...either.
The four known forces, e.g., Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic and Gravity are also fragmenting ...and were once two, ergo Yin/Yang duality.
Space/Time, i.e., dimensional fragmentation, multiplication, implies that the present 4 forces will become 8 - in trillions of years from now...and then 16...and then...32....
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby promethean75 » Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:45 pm

Ohp there he goes. The abrahamonihilistilesbo stuff. No the word 'universe' is like any other word, a simplification. But the statements I've made about the nature of the phenomena simplified with the word 'universe', are true despite the degree of simplicity or complexity it exhibits, see. These are logically necessary troofs, not psychological phenomena in the way you seem to believe. the relationship between this logic and religious thinking is multifarious, and the reasoning isnt derived from a belief in 'god', but vice versa. 'god' becomes this logic personified and anthropomorphized, the 'natural law maker', and then he runs into Russell's natural law argument and becomes spinoza's god once again... having run the entire gamut of criticism.

The essential problem is as sil described it.... which was really quite sharp. The mundane features of the reality we are able to experience with our particular sensory apparatuses, delegates any possible conceivable 'thing' to having to possess mundane features itself... or else we'd be unable to conceive of it.

It is only because the mundane is so incredibly complex, that we want to attribute some transcendent thing to account for its existence. But the thing is necessary, it necessarily exists, in all its eternal mundanity. There is nothing extra-mundane outside of it or around it. A giant, pulsating amorphous blob of mundane stuff. I'ont even know why it exists and I don't ax those questions anymore.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4047
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:07 pm

What is resentiment, to use your mentor's metaphors...it is to be a product of what is also the source of your demise.

The cosmic circumstances that made us possible, in a particular cosmological period, do not persist and continue indefinitely.
That which the mind was made to conceptualize, so as to survive, slowly becomes incomprehensible.
We evolve the abilities we require to survive, no more than that. Nature is frugal. but environmental circumstances change....and that which sufficed no longer does.
Cosmological cycles are incomprehensible to human lifespans.
This universe where life emerges could be followed by myriads of others where no life emerges.
Life is not its intent, nor is the preservation of life its motive...it has neither.

But you are Abrahamic...to the core.
You've only replaced the terminology.
Like your Marxism, which is entirely self-serving, assumes that exploitation is "bad"...when life itself is dependent on various degrees of exploitation.
A cow spends hours processing energies from plants - solar energies - and then a wolf appropriates and exploits all those hours of work in condensed forms....

This is the funny thing about all you self-descibed Nietzscheans: you never went beyond good and evil. You changed the wording.
Last edited by Lorikeet on Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:18 pm

See, there's a new movement out there...usually found among the by-products of miscegenation.
An attempt to harmonize Nietzsche with a new and improved Abrahamic version.
A new Christianity, though it will not be called that.
A new Abrahamic version that will be more resistant to his kind of critique.
Memetic adaptation. A renamed, repackaged and recycled update - sold to the same kinds of psyches.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby promethean75 » Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:23 pm

This is the part where you unload all your strange ideas and conclusions so fast I'm unable to keep up. Here's one though.

"Like your Marxism, which is entirely self-serving, assumes that exploitation is "bad"...when life itself is dependent on various degrees of exploitation."

1. All human behavior is self serving.
2. Exploitation is neither 'good' or 'bad' in itself, and is only thought of as such by those whom it does not serve (see 1.)
2.a those whom do not benefit from this instance of exploitation might aspire to eliminate its possibility by restructuring society.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4047
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:30 pm

promethean75 wrote:1. All human behavior is self serving.

Excellent...and every self-serving idea has unforeseeable self-destructive collateral effects.
For every gain there's a loss.
For example, your imagined Marxist Utopia will reduce all to mediocrity. If not, then it is impossible and will never come about, but will remain in your mind in an absolutely perfect state.

promethean75 wrote:2. Exploitation is neither 'good' or 'bad' in itself, and is only thought of as such by those whom it does not serve (see 1.)
Excellent, so your expressions of passionate hatred for those who exploit you, indicates a hatred for the wolf and your identification with the cow. Victim, herd psychology.
Like your denial of free-will, to any degree..a desire to remain "innocent" of the negative consequences of your life choices.

promethean75 wrote:2.a those whom do not benefit from this instance of exploitation might aspire to eliminate its possibility by restructuring society.
True...and they must conceal their self-serving motives to those they wish to exploit to their own benefit...because no "restructuring" will be final, complete, absolutely perfect, and those who fight alongside you become the future's exploited by you.

Marxism in many countries morphed into opportunism...
Egoism concealed in altruism. Very Abrahamic.
Populism.

My own grandfather was executed by the right because he was a "Bolshevik" - stoned to death.
I'd like to believe that he was fighting for his own self-interest and was not governed by naïve idealism.
My father was persecuted because he was the son of a Bolshevik, denied a passport to leave, until he pulled some strings and a individual's kindness helped him.
I, myself, was sent to a military unit of "undesirables", e.g., Communists, criminals etc., on the frontier...
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Gloominary » Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:21 pm

Lorikeet

Those that contribute are the ones that enjoy the privileges of citizenry and are those that must defend the state they are invested in.
In ancient times only those that produced tangible goods, and not those that produced intangible goods, were included.
So artists and philosophers were out, if they did not also produce tangible things all could appreciate and enjoy and benefit from.

The system was so successful that it created the circumstances of its own demise.
Is this not also the case with Europeans? Have they not created the ideological conditions of their own destruction?

Would this exclude the capitalist class from citizenship, since they don't produce tangible goods?
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:27 pm

Gloominary wrote:Lorikeet

Those that contribute are the ones that enjoy the privileges of citizenry and are those that must defend the state they are invested in.
In ancient times only those that produced tangible goods, and not those that produced intangible goods, were included.
So artists and philosophers were out, if they did not also produce tangible things all could appreciate and enjoy and benefit from.

The system was so successful that it created the circumstances of its own demise.
Is this not also the case with Europeans? Have they not created the ideological conditions of their own destruction?

Would this exclude the capitalist class from citizenship, since they don't produce tangible goods?
The owner of the resources gains citizenry.
I have a caveat...to prevent pooling power, introducing a leftist cap.
In my ideal version of Timocracy there would be a cap on wealth, and what exceeds it would be redistributed into society through the State.
This would force a producer to have children because then he could split his wealth so as to remain below the cap - making monopolies impossible.

But, yes, the same rules of capitalism would apply.
the owner producing goods would gain citizenry and he could employ workers who may not have citizenship.
Creating a tiered system. Cast system.
Those without citizenship would not be denied any services other than the vote, and holding political power.

A "capitalist" can only be a producer of tangible goods. Not one who sells ideas, spirituality, art or services etc.
Those are not tangible goods.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:33 pm

I would deny the kind of Capitalist that exist today...like a Bezos.
In original timocracy it was the farmers who produced tangible goods and who became hoplites...citizen warriors, but we can update this and include other tangible goods.
The capitalist is a producer of tangible goods, not his workers. They are his means of production.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Gloominary » Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:50 pm

Lorikeet wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Lorikeet

Those that contribute are the ones that enjoy the privileges of citizenry and are those that must defend the state they are invested in.
In ancient times only those that produced tangible goods, and not those that produced intangible goods, were included.
So artists and philosophers were out, if they did not also produce tangible things all could appreciate and enjoy and benefit from.

The system was so successful that it created the circumstances of its own demise.
Is this not also the case with Europeans? Have they not created the ideological conditions of their own destruction?

Would this exclude the capitalist class from citizenship, since they don't produce tangible goods?
The owner of the resources gains citizenry.
I have a caveat...to prevent pooling power, introducing a leftist cap.
In my ideal version of Timocracy there would be a cap on wealth, and what exceeds it would be redistributed into society through the State.
This would force a producer to have children because then he could split his wealth so as to remain below the cap - making monopolies impossible.

But, yes, the same rules of capitalism would apply.
the owner producing goods would gain citizenry and he could employ workers who may not have citizenship.
Creating a tiered system. Cast system.
Those without citizenship would not be denied any services other than the vote, and holding political power.

A "capitalist" can only be a producer of tangible goods. Not one who sells ideas, spirituality, art or services etc.
Those are not tangible goods.

I see, so owners of/shareholders in businesses that produce tangible goods would become citizens/maintain citizenship, the rest would be excluded, interesting.

Why do you think there should be a cap on wealth, wouldn't that excessively restrain the productive?
Wouldn't a flat income and/or sales tax be better or enough?
What goods and services do you think should be public?
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Gloominary » Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:54 pm

Lorikeet wrote:I would deny the kind of Capitalist that exist today...like a Bezos.
In original timocracy it was the farmers who produced tangible goods and who became hoplites...citizen warriors, but we can update this and include other tangible goods.
The capitalist is a producer of tangible goods, not his workers. They are his means of production.

Because Bezos owns a company that facilitates trade, it doesn't produce anything.
But what if Bezos owned a company that produces tangible goods on the side, in addition to amazon?
Or shares in that company?
Would he still be excluded from citizenry?
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:57 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Lorikeet wrote:I would deny the kind of Capitalist that exist today...like a Bezos.
In original timocracy it was the farmers who produced tangible goods and who became hoplites...citizen warriors, but we can update this and include other tangible goods.
The capitalist is a producer of tangible goods, not his workers. They are his means of production.

Because Bezos owns a company that facilitates trade, it doesn't produce anything.
But what if Bezos owned a company that produces tangible goods on the side, in addition to amazon?
Or shares in that company?
Would he still be excluded from citizenry?
then he could be a citizen.
Like an artist who also produces some kind of tangible good.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:57 pm

Lorikeet wrote:I would deny the kind of Capitalist that exist today...like a Bezos.
In original timocracy it was the farmers who produced tangible goods and who became hoplites...citizen warriors, but we can update this and include other tangible goods.
The capitalist is a producer of tangible goods, not his workers. They are his means of production.
And presumably playing the stock market would not be confused with being a producer of tangible goods. Hedge fund owners would not be citizens.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:01 pm

Exactly.
The goal is to make individuals investors in the systems they participate in, so that the state's welfare is tied with their own.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Gloominary » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:08 pm

What about tangible services, like a self-employed plumber or janitor?
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:14 pm

Gloominary wrote:What about tangible services, like a self-employed plumber or janitor?
No.
If them then why not whores?
They provide a service as well.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Gloominary » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:18 pm

Perhaps because sexual services are arguably purely hedonic.
Whereas plumbing and janitorial services are for your health, if your toilet doesn't flush or your apartment or workplace gets full of crap, that's not healthy.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:19 pm

Lorikeet wrote:
Gloominary wrote:What about tangible services, like a self-employed plumber or janitor?
No.
If them then why not whores?
They provide a service as well.

So, you have to produce a free-standing object of some kind?
Leaving out programmers.

And it seemed from the case of Bezos, also not transporters.

Scientists?

Inventors?
They might develop a prototype, but unless they can manage to manufacture the product themselves, they would not be citizens, or?
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:20 pm

It is possible to be a member of a society, earning a living by providing services and not having a vote, just as it is possible for a producer of goods to have a side company of services.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:20 pm

Another prerequisite would be military or some kind of alternate service.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Gloominary » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:38 pm

What about dildos, do they count as tangible goods?
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Gloominary » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:39 pm

I think you may have one up your ass right now. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:39 pm

It's for sale.
Lorikeet
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users