info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Speech to WEF by Javier Milei, President of Argentina
59 views
Skip to first unread message
tooly
Jan 23, 2024, 12:24:43 PMJan 23
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcd0gWNIog&list=TLPQMjMwMTIwMjQLDl4KvhI4fA&index=9
Hope this link works ok.
This might be one of the most important speeches of our times. It hits most points of why socialism does not work, cannot work, and how today's social movements are leading us essentially to ruin [as impoverishment].
It is most amazing that Claus Schwab and the WEF pundits would allow Milie to speak to their forum, but by whatever 'hook or crook', he/they did.
The TRUTH surely is very tough pill for the modern LEFTIST [ie the marxist in post modernist clothing so to say], to swallow, as it flies in the face of almost their entire argument and impetus for change. Like any fish that has swallowed a thing 'hook, line, and sinker', it will be almost impossible for the modern leftist to 'unhook' themselves from the lies that are sweeping us all into a new oblivion. But perhaps hearing a thing, spoken so clearly and eloqueint [and simply really]...backed by real world FACT that cannot be be turned away from [like the rise from impoverishment that capitalism has overwhelmingly shown to promote, while collectivism has only shown decline, and even the murder of 100+ millions of people]...with no track record of success EVER]...perhaps, if spoken enough, we can at least loosen that grip of clear EVIL that has now groped the neck of western civilization that we may, just perhaps, save ourselves.
Time will tell. We are so far into the muck now, especially with the allowance of millions of clearly disparate peoples into our borders [who often have almost the OPPOSITE values of our heritage]... it will be almost a miracle if we do, somehow, pull ourselves back from this oncoming destruction. Some will just call it 'change'. But when one's foundations are 'changed' so drastically as to be unrecognizable from the former, that is, in and of itself, a death of the former.
Something wicked this way comes. DO many of us see it?
Hope this link works ok.
This might be one of the most important speeches of our times. It hits most points of why socialism does not work, cannot work, and how today's social movements are leading us essentially to ruin [as impoverishment].
It is most amazing that Claus Schwab and the WEF pundits would allow Milie to speak to their forum, but by whatever 'hook or crook', he/they did.
The TRUTH surely is very tough pill for the modern LEFTIST [ie the marxist in post modernist clothing so to say], to swallow, as it flies in the face of almost their entire argument and impetus for change. Like any fish that has swallowed a thing 'hook, line, and sinker', it will be almost impossible for the modern leftist to 'unhook' themselves from the lies that are sweeping us all into a new oblivion. But perhaps hearing a thing, spoken so clearly and eloqueint [and simply really]...backed by real world FACT that cannot be be turned away from [like the rise from impoverishment that capitalism has overwhelmingly shown to promote, while collectivism has only shown decline, and even the murder of 100+ millions of people]...with no track record of success EVER]...perhaps, if spoken enough, we can at least loosen that grip of clear EVIL that has now groped the neck of western civilization that we may, just perhaps, save ourselves.
Time will tell. We are so far into the muck now, especially with the allowance of millions of clearly disparate peoples into our borders [who often have almost the OPPOSITE values of our heritage]... it will be almost a miracle if we do, somehow, pull ourselves back from this oncoming destruction. Some will just call it 'change'. But when one's foundations are 'changed' so drastically as to be unrecognizable from the former, that is, in and of itself, a death of the former.
Something wicked this way comes. DO many of us see it?
D
Jan 24, 2024, 4:28:21 AMJan 24
to
This is nothing new and it will be killed by silence and polite applause.
The politicians are the main benefactors of socialism, since they have the
power and can take what they want. They would lose enormously on free
markets and capitalism. Therefore politicians never change unless there's
a crisis (massive amounts of people out of jobs), and even then, there is
a big chance that the successor will be an extreme national socialist or
communist who promises that the government will fix everything and the
population at large, cannot see that it was the government that cause the
trouble in the first time.
I believe that free markets and capitalism can only succeed if:
* There is a massive overhaul of the education system. Only educated
people can understand why capitalism and freedom is the only way. Sadly,
public education is controlled by politicians, so what happens is that
only the intellectually curious who actually read books learn this fact,
by themselves, and they are too few to make a difference.
* It can succeed on an individual level. Incorporate, hire lawyers and live
an internationa lifestyle and you can push your taxes down to the 5%-15%
range. Of course not free but I think as low as it gets.
Best regards,
Daniel
The politicians are the main benefactors of socialism, since they have the
power and can take what they want. They would lose enormously on free
markets and capitalism. Therefore politicians never change unless there's
a crisis (massive amounts of people out of jobs), and even then, there is
a big chance that the successor will be an extreme national socialist or
communist who promises that the government will fix everything and the
population at large, cannot see that it was the government that cause the
trouble in the first time.
I believe that free markets and capitalism can only succeed if:
* There is a massive overhaul of the education system. Only educated
people can understand why capitalism and freedom is the only way. Sadly,
public education is controlled by politicians, so what happens is that
only the intellectually curious who actually read books learn this fact,
by themselves, and they are too few to make a difference.
* It can succeed on an individual level. Incorporate, hire lawyers and live
an internationa lifestyle and you can push your taxes down to the 5%-15%
range. Of course not free but I think as low as it gets.
Best regards,
Daniel
oldernow
Jan 31, 2024, 1:53:45 PMJan 31
to
On 2024-01-23, tooly <rdh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This might be one of the most important speeches of our times.
> It hits most points of why socialism does not work, cannot work,
> and how today's social movements are leading us essentially to ruin
> [as impoverishment].
In fact, no social systems "work". There are no "socialism" force,
> This might be one of the most important speeches of our times.
> It hits most points of why socialism does not work, cannot work,
> and how today's social movements are leading us essentially to ruin
> [as impoverishment].
"communism" force, or "capitalism" forces in the universe. Those
are all *appearances* emergent within the context of observation of
multitudes of people behaving as they are. When a preponderance of
people are convinced - aka believe - there's an overall, collective
behavior, they call it something, because objectification -
i.e. considering phenomena name-able objects - is what subjects
(psychology sense) do.
What never has, and absolutely cannot work is personhood, i.e. the
belief that one is a limited ball of free-will in opposition to all
not-personhood. That's the basis of mental illness, because it's
purely a mental - i.e. "mind only" (in Lankavatara Sutra speak)
- phenomena.
It is, in fact, why people (haha) used to speak of people being
"mental", "mental cases", etc. That reference/lingo reflected what
was once genuine understanding of the situation.
The mental illness also known as personhood is what generates
behavior also known as "selfish", which is *always* at odds with
a working society.
Doesn't matter what "system" you call the overall effect at a
meta level, when people are behaving primarily with self-interest,
shit *will* happen....
--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com
D
Feb 1, 2024, 4:57:21 AMFeb 1
to
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, oldernow wrote:
> On 2024-01-23, tooly <rdh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This might be one of the most important speeches of our times.
>> It hits most points of why socialism does not work, cannot work,
>> and how today's social movements are leading us essentially to ruin
>> [as impoverishment].
>
> In fact, no social systems "work". There are no "socialism" force,
> "communism" force, or "capitalism" forces in the universe. Those
> are all *appearances* emergent within the context of observation of
> multitudes of people behaving as they are. When a preponderance of
operate a society with limited resources. So I agree, there is of course
no "force" as in a physical force, unless you would argue that the force
is a pattern of electrons in the brain.
As for capitalism, it is an odd bird. Ludvig von Mises argued that it is
not a political ideology but only a science that says that by using this
"system" we get the highest possible physical standard of living over
time.
This gives us more time and more options to fulfill our wishes, but
capitalism says nothing about what we should do with this time or what to
wish for.
Interesting perspective.
> What never has, and absolutely cannot work is personhood, i.e. the
> belief that one is a limited ball of free-will in opposition to all
> not-personhood. That's the basis of mental illness, because it's
> purely a mental - i.e. "mind only" (in Lankavatara Sutra speak)
> - phenomena.
meaning here.
> The mental illness also known as personhood is what generates
> behavior also known as "selfish", which is *always* at odds with
> a working society.
products and services which benefit others? My opinion is that this is one
of the great virtues of capitalism. It turns something bad, which resides
inside all of us (our selfishness and greed) into something beneficial for
mankind at large through the alchemy of markets.
Best regards,
Daniel
oldernow
Feb 1, 2024, 10:41:45 AMFeb 1
to
On 2024-02-01, D <nos...@example.net> wrote:
> In fact, no social systems "work". There are no "socialism" force,
> "communism" force, or "capitalism" forces in the universe. Those
> are all *appearances* emergent within the context of observation of
> multitudes of people behaving as they are. When a preponderance of
> I would argue that the "ism" is a program loaded into the
> mind for how to operate a society with limited resources.
I like that model.
> In fact, no social systems "work". There are no "socialism" force,
> "communism" force, or "capitalism" forces in the universe. Those
> are all *appearances* emergent within the context of observation of
> multitudes of people behaving as they are. When a preponderance of
> I would argue that the "ism" is a program loaded into the
> mind for how to operate a society with limited resources.
FWIW, I quickly wind up in self-referential quagmires when modeling
includes the notion of "mind". We'll see if I have time to, um,
"wax psychotic" on that theme this time around. :-)
> As for capitalism, it is an odd bird. Ludvig von Mises
> argued that it is not a political ideology but only a
> science that says that by using this "system" we get the
> highest possible physical standard of living over time.
overriding/meta way of doing things collectively that magically
appears (like a circle floating in mid-air when the hot tip of a
firebrand is moved quickly in a circular motion in the dark) when
enough people act with respect to their objective needs/wants with
self interest.
> This gives us more time and more options to fulfill our
> wishes, but capitalism says nothing about what we should
> do with this time or what to wish for.
generated under the assumption it's more than that? ;-)
> > What never has, and absolutely cannot work is personhood,
> > i.e. the belief that one is a limited ball of free-will
> > in opposition to all not-personhood. That's the basis of
> > mental illness, because it's purely a mental - i.e. "mind
> > only" (in Lankavatara Sutra speak) - phenomena.
>
> Could you please expand and rephrase? I'm not sure I
> understand your meaning here.
"person" is merely an idea/notion/concept? If it's more than that,
where is it? Can you should me yours? Because I've been having a
heck of a time finding mine. :-)
Nevertheless, most of our behavior seems guided by that somewhat
fluid idea/notion/concept. "I" do things "Because it's who I
*am*, dammit!" Nevermind the fact said "who" and/or "I" cannot
be located, shown, or even at all described save in immediately
circular verbiage.
Right?
Hence the "mind only" phrase (perhaps a phrase like "purely
notional/conceptual" resonates better?). I (haha) just happen to
like that phrase, but for me (haha) it derives from the so-called
"Lankavatara Sutra", which employs it incessantly.
I think a lot of difficulty in discussing such is due to language
"begging the question", i.e. containing assumptions about reality
that bias thinking along such lines. Maybe we ought be employing
akin to "e-prime" in times likes these.... ;-)
> > The mental illness also known as personhood is what
> > generates behavior also known as "selfish", which is
> > *always* at odds with a working society.
>
> So you don't believe that capitalism transforms selfish
> desires into products and services which benefit
> others? My opinion is that this is one of the great
> virtues of capitalism. It turns something bad, which
> resides inside all of us (our selfishness and greed)
> into something beneficial for mankind at large through
> the alchemy of markets.
to ponder, and I tend to see nervous-system-self-centric-tendencies
as more cause than effect. But considering each different aspects of
each other - e.g. ying/yang - is probably a more reasonable approach.
D
Feb 2, 2024, 11:02:03 AMFeb 2
to
Hello oldernow,
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:
>> In fact, no social systems "work". There are no "socialism" force,
>> "communism" force, or "capitalism" forces in the universe. Those
>> are all *appearances* emergent within the context of observation of
>> multitudes of people behaving as they are. When a preponderance of
>
>> I would argue that the "ism" is a program loaded into the
>> mind for how to operate a society with limited resources.
>
> I like that model.
>
> FWIW, I quickly wind up in self-referential quagmires when modeling
> includes the notion of "mind". We'll see if I have time to, um,
> "wax psychotic" on that theme this time around. :-)
Who doesn't? The mind has boggled philosophers for millennia. You have
the subject/object distinction, you have collapse into solipsism and the
general dissatisfaction with the fact that everything, perhaps even
existence, is based on some assumption and degree of uncertainty.
I'm a materialist, and my point of view is that physical reality exists.
I do admit that it does rest on assumptions, but I shift the burden of
proof on people who propose other models of the world than materialism
with science as the main method of gaining knowledge. Hmm, maybe that
position is called scientism? I think materialism in professional
philosophy has plenty of sub-isms.
>> As for capitalism, it is an odd bird. Ludvig von Mises
>> argued that it is not a political ideology but only a
>> science that says that by using this "system" we get the
>> highest possible physical standard of living over time.
>
> I still can't see capitalism as a thing, but a *seeming*
> overriding/meta way of doing things collectively that magically
> appears (like a circle floating in mid-air when the hot tip of a
> firebrand is moved quickly in a circular motion in the dark) when
> enough people act with respect to their objective needs/wants with
> self interest.
Well, I guess markets are emergent phenomena. And economics is a young
science in that uncomfortable place in between social sciences and
natural sciences. I think your impression of indistinctness or fuzzyness
is probably right apart from made up definitions.
>> This gives us more time and more options to fulfill our
>> wishes, but capitalism says nothing about what we should
>> do with this time or what to wish for.
>
> How could it, being merely a model for self-interested behavior
> generated under the assumption it's more than that? ;-)
True. An interesting question is if we can read any normative or
descriptive ethical value out of markets. Do you think we can?
I'm not a fan of is/ought, and capitalism I think does dovetail nicely
with some kind of rational egoism or perhaps, biology dovetails nicely
with some kind of epicureanism.
As you can tell, I'm just trying to plant seeds for new threads here. ;)
>>> What never has, and absolutely cannot work is personhood,
>>> i.e. the belief that one is a limited ball of free-will
>>> in opposition to all not-personhood. That's the basis of
>>> mental illness, because it's purely a mental - i.e. "mind
>>> only" (in Lankavatara Sutra speak) - phenomena.
>>
>> Could you please expand and rephrase? I'm not sure I
>> understand your meaning here.
>
> Well... is it not the case that what we refer to as our "self" or
> "person" is merely an idea/notion/concept? If it's more than that,
> where is it? Can you should me yours? Because I've been having a
> heck of a time finding mine. :-)
Ok, I think I understand now where you are coming from and where you are
going.
> Nevertheless, most of our behavior seems guided by that somewhat
> fluid idea/notion/concept. "I" do things "Because it's who I
> *am*, dammit!" Nevermind the fact said "who" and/or "I" cannot
> be located, shown, or even at all described save in immediately
> circular verbiage.
>
> Right?
Have you read about open individualism and any other theories of
personal identity?
I'll leave you this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
and also this: https://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2024-January/118652.html
I think you might find people with similar ideas in that mailinglist
archive.
> Hence the "mind only" phrase (perhaps a phrase like "purely
> notional/conceptual" resonates better?). I (haha) just happen to
> like that phrase, but for me (haha) it derives from the so-called
> "Lankavatara Sutra", which employs it incessantly.
>
> I think a lot of difficulty in discussing such is due to language
> "begging the question", i.e. containing assumptions about reality
> that bias thinking along such lines. Maybe we ought be employing
> akin to "e-prime" in times likes these.... ;-)
Another point of view is the Wittgensteinian that perhaps, upon closer
inspection, you are not asking anything at all? ;)
>>> The mental illness also known as personhood is what
>>> generates behavior also known as "selfish", which is
>>> *always* at odds with a working society.
>>
>> So you don't believe that capitalism transforms selfish
>> desires into products and services which benefit
>> others? My opinion is that this is one of the great
>> virtues of capitalism. It turns something bad, which
>> resides inside all of us (our selfishness and greed)
>> into something beneficial for mankind at large through
>> the alchemy of markets.
>
> I honestly can't say. It seems a rather "chicken and egg"-ish thing
> to ponder, and I tend to see nervous-system-self-centric-tendencies
> as more cause than effect. But considering each different aspects of
> each other - e.g. ying/yang - is probably a more reasonable approach.
Food for thought. =) Maybe alt.philosophy will live again? ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:
>> In fact, no social systems "work". There are no "socialism" force,
>> "communism" force, or "capitalism" forces in the universe. Those
>> are all *appearances* emergent within the context of observation of
>> multitudes of people behaving as they are. When a preponderance of
>
>> I would argue that the "ism" is a program loaded into the
>> mind for how to operate a society with limited resources.
>
> I like that model.
>
> FWIW, I quickly wind up in self-referential quagmires when modeling
> includes the notion of "mind". We'll see if I have time to, um,
> "wax psychotic" on that theme this time around. :-)
the subject/object distinction, you have collapse into solipsism and the
general dissatisfaction with the fact that everything, perhaps even
existence, is based on some assumption and degree of uncertainty.
I'm a materialist, and my point of view is that physical reality exists.
I do admit that it does rest on assumptions, but I shift the burden of
proof on people who propose other models of the world than materialism
with science as the main method of gaining knowledge. Hmm, maybe that
position is called scientism? I think materialism in professional
philosophy has plenty of sub-isms.
>> As for capitalism, it is an odd bird. Ludvig von Mises
>> argued that it is not a political ideology but only a
>> science that says that by using this "system" we get the
>> highest possible physical standard of living over time.
>
> I still can't see capitalism as a thing, but a *seeming*
> overriding/meta way of doing things collectively that magically
> appears (like a circle floating in mid-air when the hot tip of a
> firebrand is moved quickly in a circular motion in the dark) when
> enough people act with respect to their objective needs/wants with
> self interest.
science in that uncomfortable place in between social sciences and
natural sciences. I think your impression of indistinctness or fuzzyness
is probably right apart from made up definitions.
>> This gives us more time and more options to fulfill our
>> wishes, but capitalism says nothing about what we should
>> do with this time or what to wish for.
>
> How could it, being merely a model for self-interested behavior
> generated under the assumption it's more than that? ;-)
descriptive ethical value out of markets. Do you think we can?
I'm not a fan of is/ought, and capitalism I think does dovetail nicely
with some kind of rational egoism or perhaps, biology dovetails nicely
with some kind of epicureanism.
As you can tell, I'm just trying to plant seeds for new threads here. ;)
>>> What never has, and absolutely cannot work is personhood,
>>> i.e. the belief that one is a limited ball of free-will
>>> in opposition to all not-personhood. That's the basis of
>>> mental illness, because it's purely a mental - i.e. "mind
>>> only" (in Lankavatara Sutra speak) - phenomena.
>>
>> Could you please expand and rephrase? I'm not sure I
>> understand your meaning here.
>
> Well... is it not the case that what we refer to as our "self" or
> "person" is merely an idea/notion/concept? If it's more than that,
> where is it? Can you should me yours? Because I've been having a
> heck of a time finding mine. :-)
going.
> Nevertheless, most of our behavior seems guided by that somewhat
> fluid idea/notion/concept. "I" do things "Because it's who I
> *am*, dammit!" Nevermind the fact said "who" and/or "I" cannot
> be located, shown, or even at all described save in immediately
> circular verbiage.
>
> Right?
personal identity?
I'll leave you this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
and also this: https://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2024-January/118652.html
I think you might find people with similar ideas in that mailinglist
archive.
> Hence the "mind only" phrase (perhaps a phrase like "purely
> notional/conceptual" resonates better?). I (haha) just happen to
> like that phrase, but for me (haha) it derives from the so-called
> "Lankavatara Sutra", which employs it incessantly.
>
> I think a lot of difficulty in discussing such is due to language
> "begging the question", i.e. containing assumptions about reality
> that bias thinking along such lines. Maybe we ought be employing
> akin to "e-prime" in times likes these.... ;-)
inspection, you are not asking anything at all? ;)
>>> The mental illness also known as personhood is what
>>> generates behavior also known as "selfish", which is
>>> *always* at odds with a working society.
>>
>> So you don't believe that capitalism transforms selfish
>> desires into products and services which benefit
>> others? My opinion is that this is one of the great
>> virtues of capitalism. It turns something bad, which
>> resides inside all of us (our selfishness and greed)
>> into something beneficial for mankind at large through
>> the alchemy of markets.
>
> I honestly can't say. It seems a rather "chicken and egg"-ish thing
> to ponder, and I tend to see nervous-system-self-centric-tendencies
> as more cause than effect. But considering each different aspects of
> each other - e.g. ying/yang - is probably a more reasonable approach.
Best regards,
Daniel
oldernow
Feb 2, 2024, 2:58:23 PMFeb 2
to
On 2024-02-02, D <nos...@example.net> wrote:
Hi Daniel,
> Food for thought. =) Maybe alt.philosophy will live again? ;)
It's funny you should mention that, because I honestly came to
the newsgroup today intending to post some form of "goodbye" that
highlighted that (I don't remember exactly how I put it) "I'm the
one that kills newsgroups" I whined elsewhere. It got so quiet here
compared to how it appeared before I arrived that sneaking suspicions
others were "holding their fingers", as it were, were blossoming
into a whole lot of "self" pity.... So I can't tell you how much
I appreciated seeing your three new replies to me. Thank you.
But, then, I'm also fresh off a disappointing stint in "Gemini"
(protocol) realms. People therein like to harp on loving "smolnet",
and finding some kind of satisfaction in a combination of not
interacting with each other, and also writing at a frequency that
feels closer to "never" than to "incessantly" to me... so I'm
somewhat smarting from that experience. To me there's no point
in blah blah'ing my life experiences onto others' screens if it
doesn't lead to interaction.
Anyway, thanks again for replying!
Hi Daniel,
> Food for thought. =) Maybe alt.philosophy will live again? ;)
the newsgroup today intending to post some form of "goodbye" that
highlighted that (I don't remember exactly how I put it) "I'm the
one that kills newsgroups" I whined elsewhere. It got so quiet here
compared to how it appeared before I arrived that sneaking suspicions
others were "holding their fingers", as it were, were blossoming
into a whole lot of "self" pity.... So I can't tell you how much
I appreciated seeing your three new replies to me. Thank you.
But, then, I'm also fresh off a disappointing stint in "Gemini"
(protocol) realms. People therein like to harp on loving "smolnet",
and finding some kind of satisfaction in a combination of not
interacting with each other, and also writing at a frequency that
feels closer to "never" than to "incessantly" to me... so I'm
somewhat smarting from that experience. To me there's no point
in blah blah'ing my life experiences onto others' screens if it
doesn't lead to interaction.
Anyway, thanks again for replying!
oldernow
Feb 3, 2024, 5:44:54 AMFeb 3
to
> > FWIW, I quickly wind up in self-referential quagmires
> > when modeling includes the notion of "mind". We'll see
> > if I have time to, um, "wax psychotic" on that theme this
> > time around. :-)
>
> Who doesn't? The mind has boggled philosophers for
> millennia. You have the subject/object distinction,
> you have collapse into solipsism and the general
> dissatisfaction with the fact that everything, perhaps
> even existence, is based on some assumption and degree
> of uncertainty.
Okay, you're starting to scare me, here, as *I'm* supposed to be the
> > when modeling includes the notion of "mind". We'll see
> > if I have time to, um, "wax psychotic" on that theme this
> > time around. :-)
>
> Who doesn't? The mind has boggled philosophers for
> millennia. You have the subject/object distinction,
> you have collapse into solipsism and the general
> dissatisfaction with the fact that everything, perhaps
> even existence, is based on some assumption and degree
> of uncertainty.
only psychopath on the planet. ;-)
> I'm a materialist, and my point of view is that
> physical reality exists. I do admit that it does rest on
> assumptions, but I shift the burden of proof on people who
> propose other models of the world than materialism with
> science as the main method of gaining knowledge. Hmm, maybe
> that position is called scientism? I think materialism in
> professional philosophy has plenty of sub-isms.
reality, and various investigations/studies introduced me to the
possibility that what we call reality could be thoughts that I want
to say mind blesses by setting their "reality bit" to one/true.
Religions call that ability to set the bit thusly "faith". And when
it's set, we're convinced that whose bit is set thusly is real.
I also started seeing - i.e. believing (haha!) - that re-ality
seems linked to re-petition, or "againness". Going back to the
firebrand tip analogy, the sense there's a levitating circle
of light doesn't occur until the rotation hits a certain speed,
i.e. "consists" of a certain about re-petition (and thing about
what "petition" means... as though petitioning... what?... mind
to.. maybe.. make.. it.. re-al?
The aforementioned "reality bit" might just be "fast enough
repetition", i.e. faith occurs when a given thought is repeated
quickly enough, and voila....
Other words that suggest "againness of mind":
- re-cognize
- re-member
- re-present
- re-ason
- re-ssurect (weak, but think about it)
What I'm about to say it going to sound like a real (haha) "stretch",
but one day I was pondering the word 'real', and though, "huh... that
almost sounds like "re-el", and "el" the beginning of one of the Old
Testament names of God, "Elohim"... so... againness of God... re-peat
God fast enough and whoosh here's the seeming world/reality....?
I dunno. All that seems interesting to me.
<next morning>
Another analog came to mind just before bed last night, namely how
a succession of nearly the same images ordered on a "film reel",
and displayed/projected quickly enough in succession leads to the
emergence of something arguably more real in a certain sense.
> >> This gives us more time and more options to fulfill our
> >> wishes, but capitalism says nothing about what we should
> >> do with this time or what to wish for.
> >
> > How could it, being merely a model for self-interested behavior
> > generated under the assumption it's more than that? ;-)
>
> True. An interesting question is if we can read any normative or
> descriptive ethical value out of markets. Do you think we can?
"free-willed being/self/person".
> As you can tell, I'm just trying to plant seeds for new
> threads here. ;)
> Have you read about open individualism and any other
> theories of personal identity?
>
> I'll leave you this link:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
>
> and also this:
> https://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2024-January/118652.html
>
> I think you might find people with similar ideas in that
> mailinglist archive.
reading material roughly in the vicinity, usually under the banner
of "non-duality".
> Another point of view is the Wittgensteinian that perhaps,
> upon closer inspection, you are not asking anything at
> all? ;)
> Food for thought. =) Maybe alt.philosophy will live again? ;)
what I've on and off called "typing practice". We'll see!
D
Feb 3, 2024, 12:49:21 PMFeb 3
to
Good evening oldernew,
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:
>> Food for thought. =) Maybe alt.philosophy will live again? ;)
>
> It's funny you should mention that, because I honestly came to
> the newsgroup today intending to post some form of "goodbye" that
> highlighted that (I don't remember exactly how I put it) "I'm the
> one that kills newsgroups" I whined elsewhere. It got so quiet here
> compared to how it appeared before I arrived that sneaking suspicions
> others were "holding their fingers", as it were, were blossoming
> into a whole lot of "self" pity.... So I can't tell you how much
> I appreciated seeing your three new replies to me. Thank you.
You're welcome!
But let me also add that I think a certain amount of patience is needed
on the usenet. Dead groups blossoms suddenly, and then die and lie
dormant for a long time, only to blossom again after months (or years?).
This, in my opinion, is not the adrenaline loaded minute by minute
interaction of social media and other modern platform. I see this space
as a mix of the worst and the best the new has to offer in a form of
gentlemans cocktail of slow communication. ;)
> But, then, I'm also fresh off a disappointing stint in "Gemini"
> (protocol) realms. People therein like to harp on loving "smolnet",
> and finding some kind of satisfaction in a combination of not
> interacting with each other, and also writing at a frequency that
Ahh... I did spend some time on gopher, and I found it charming. Not so
much for interaction, but for the psychology of the people it tends to
attract. I got a feeling of world weariness and I enjoyed the slow paced
writing of some of the people I found there.
The gemini project I do not understand at all. It seems like they want
to have their cake and eat it too, which never works.
> feels closer to "never" than to "incessantly" to me... so I'm
> somewhat smarting from that experience. To me there's no point
> in blah blah'ing my life experiences onto others' screens if it
> doesn't lead to interaction.
>
> Anyway, thanks again for replying!
You're welcome!
Best regards,
Daniel
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:
>> Food for thought. =) Maybe alt.philosophy will live again? ;)
>
> It's funny you should mention that, because I honestly came to
> the newsgroup today intending to post some form of "goodbye" that
> highlighted that (I don't remember exactly how I put it) "I'm the
> one that kills newsgroups" I whined elsewhere. It got so quiet here
> compared to how it appeared before I arrived that sneaking suspicions
> others were "holding their fingers", as it were, were blossoming
> into a whole lot of "self" pity.... So I can't tell you how much
> I appreciated seeing your three new replies to me. Thank you.
But let me also add that I think a certain amount of patience is needed
on the usenet. Dead groups blossoms suddenly, and then die and lie
dormant for a long time, only to blossom again after months (or years?).
This, in my opinion, is not the adrenaline loaded minute by minute
interaction of social media and other modern platform. I see this space
as a mix of the worst and the best the new has to offer in a form of
gentlemans cocktail of slow communication. ;)
> But, then, I'm also fresh off a disappointing stint in "Gemini"
> (protocol) realms. People therein like to harp on loving "smolnet",
> and finding some kind of satisfaction in a combination of not
> interacting with each other, and also writing at a frequency that
much for interaction, but for the psychology of the people it tends to
attract. I got a feeling of world weariness and I enjoyed the slow paced
writing of some of the people I found there.
The gemini project I do not understand at all. It seems like they want
to have their cake and eat it too, which never works.
> feels closer to "never" than to "incessantly" to me... so I'm
> somewhat smarting from that experience. To me there's no point
> in blah blah'ing my life experiences onto others' screens if it
> doesn't lead to interaction.
>
> Anyway, thanks again for replying!
Best regards,
Daniel
D
Feb 3, 2024, 1:09:10 PMFeb 3
to
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:
>>> FWIW, I quickly wind up in self-referential quagmires
>>> when modeling includes the notion of "mind". We'll see
>>> if I have time to, um, "wax psychotic" on that theme this
>>> time around. :-)
>>
>> Who doesn't? The mind has boggled philosophers for
>> millennia. You have the subject/object distinction,
>> you have collapse into solipsism and the general
>> dissatisfaction with the fact that everything, perhaps
>> even existence, is based on some assumption and degree
>> of uncertainty.
>
> Okay, you're starting to scare me, here, as *I'm* supposed to be the
> only psychopath on the planet. ;-)
casual reader to show that you are definitely not alone thinking along
those lines. =)
I myself, believe the mind is just a function of matter and electrons
moving around in our brains. Very reductionist and materialist. And
also, let me hasten to add, science does not yet know what
mind/self-awareness is or how it comes to be.
And no, I do _not_ believe that ChatGPT is anywhere close to being
sentient even though I've seen that on many places online.
So I apologize if I disappointed you with a very plain, scientific view
of the world. ;) I usually also do the "atheist shift" and say that the
one who proposes an alternative world view to the materialist/scientific
one has the burden of proof, since our materialist/scientific world view
does have the common sense high ground (See G.E. Moores "here's a hand" proof
which I think is brilliant in its simplicity).
> Somewhere along the line I started wondering about the nature of
> reality, and various investigations/studies introduced me to the
> possibility that what we call reality could be thoughts that I want
> to say mind blesses by setting their "reality bit" to one/true.
nature of reality. My path led me to physics and science and I have not
found a better way. I have read about the idealists and the buddhists
but I'm not convinced by their arguments.
> Religions call that ability to set the bit thusly "faith". And when
> it's set, we're convinced that whose bit is set thusly is real.
>
> I also started seeing - i.e. believing (haha!) - that re-ality
> seems linked to re-petition, or "againness". Going back to the
> almost sounds like "re-el", and "el" the beginning of one of the Old
> Testament names of God, "Elohim"... so... againness of God... re-peat
> God fast enough and whoosh here's the seeming world/reality....?
I think you lost me there. =(
> Testament names of God, "Elohim"... so... againness of God... re-peat
> God fast enough and whoosh here's the seeming world/reality....?
>> True. An interesting question is if we can read any normative or
>> descriptive ethical value out of markets. Do you think we can?
>
> To me "ethical" doesn't make sense apart from a context of a
> "free-willed being/self/person".
will. For a fun spin on this theme, I recommend the TV-series Devs.
There is also, assuming there is no free will, illusory free will. It
might not exist, but for all intents and purposes, we cannot tell, and
should act as if it does.
>> Have you read about open individualism and any other
>> theories of personal identity?
>>
>> I'll leave you this link:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
>>
>> and also this:
>> https://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2024-January/118652.html
>>
>> I think you might find people with similar ideas in that
>> mailinglist archive.
>
> I wasn't aware of that specific label, but definitely have perused
> reading material roughly in the vicinity, usually under the banner
> of "non-duality".
links.
>> Another point of view is the Wittgensteinian that perhaps,
>> upon closer inspection, you are not asking anything at
>> all? ;)
>
> My wife accuses me of that all that time. :-)
Best regards,
Daniel
oldernow
Feb 4, 2024, 6:57:45 AMFeb 4
to
On 2024-02-03, D <nos...@example.net> wrote:
> But let me also add that I think a certain amount of
> patience is needed on the usenet. Dead groups blossoms
> suddenly, and then die and lie dormant for a long time,
> only to blossom again after months (or years?).
<nods>
> But let me also add that I think a certain amount of
> patience is needed on the usenet. Dead groups blossoms
> suddenly, and then die and lie dormant for a long time,
> only to blossom again after months (or years?).
> This, in my opinion, is not the adrenaline loaded minute
> by minute interaction of social media and other modern
> platform. I see this space as a mix of the worst and the
> best the new has to offer in a form of gentlemans cocktail
> of slow communication. ;)
word 'moderation'. What feels right these days are replies several
paragraphs long every couple days. Something like that.
That's in contrast to writing much longer tomes in another newsgroup
back in the earlier 1993s. Indeed, I was in USENET before the
dreaded September. :-)
But I never got into social media. I had a Facebook account for a
couple months, but just didn't like it... nor did I like Twitter.
> But, then, I'm also fresh off a disappointing stint in "Gemini"
> (protocol) realms. People therein like to harp on loving "smolnet",
> and finding some kind of satisfaction in a combination of not
> interacting with each other, and also writing at a frequency that
> Ahh... I did spend some time on gopher, and I found
> it charming. Not so much for interaction, but for the
> psychology of the people it tends to attract. I got a
> feeling of world weariness and I enjoyed the slow paced
> writing of some of the people I found there.
because although I could automate posting to both based on so-called
"Gemtext" (I think I created/uploaded html as well for a while...),
that started feeling ridiculous for someone not content with simply
throwing content over a wall.
> The gemini project I do not understand at all. It seems
> like they want to have their cake and eat it too, which
> never works.
format. For me posting is either going to feel worth the effort,
or not. And for me that implies a certain degree of exchange. And I
always so loved the inline quoting style of my earlier USENET days,
so... here I am again.
"Geminauts" seemed mostly people half my age or more. I don't
have a problem with that. In fact, having a finger on the pulse of
youth fascinates me. But I got the feeling they couldn't deal with
people too much older. But maybe I simply misread their "smolnet"
culture...?
oldernow
Feb 4, 2024, 7:00:51 AMFeb 4
to
Before going any further.. I popped my copy of Idiocracy in the DVD
player during dinner last night... sadly *prophetic* of our times,
methinks. The "reasoning" about why there were electrolytes in the
Brawndo energy drink sounded straight out of a Kamala Harris speech
if you ask me....
Actually, I didn't find the movie nearly as good as I thought I
found it back when it came out. I suspect that's due to just how
much of what they were hyperbole-izing has come to not merely *pass*
in the time sense, but pass as "what seemingly most consider how
things ought to be".
Let me say that I'm not a fan of Donald Trump "as a person" and
the seeming cult that's developed around him. And yet I find the
"other side" even more horrifying. It seems like a stupidity contest
to me. "OH YEAH?!?! YOU HAMMER WIT JAR COVER? WELL.. I HAMMER WIT
BOOGER!!! TAKE *DAT*, DUMBASS!!!"
I'd not want to live in a society that was either. And yet I've wound
up in one that's *both*. Hence my aforementioned (I think...) telling
my wife "we're going to be getting the hell out of here (i.e. die)
just in time".
But while I don't care for Trump's personality, I liked gasoline
being half the current price, and my investments being worth 50%
more than what they after the seeming Dem gutting of the economy.
But to me, the current state of general idiocy implies hopelessness
in political realms, because whether it's "rigged" or the consequence
of morons casting ballots, I can't see a positive result.
Heh... maybe I'm so drawn to kooky "philosophy"/mysticism because
what used to seem a tolerable "nothing's perfect" reality has become
a brain/tooth-less theme park. See also: the great inner escape.
> I myself, believe the mind is just a function of matter and
> electrons moving around in our brains. Very reductionist
> and materialist. And also, let me hasten to add, science
> does not yet know what mind/self-awareness is or how it
> comes to be.
Your guess is as good as yours. I mean mine. :-)
> And no, I do _not_ believe that ChatGPT is anywhere close
> to being sentient even though I've seen that on many
> places online.
I'm actually closer to the opinion that most humans aren't as
sentient as ChatGPT. :-)
> So I apologize if I disappointed you with a very plain,
> scientific view of the world. ;) I usually also do the
> "atheist shift" and say that the one who proposes an
> alternative world view to the materialist/scientific one
> has the burden of proof, since our materialist/scientific
> world view does have the common sense high ground (See
> G.E. Moores "here's a hand" proof which I think is
> brilliant in its simplicity).
Don't worry about disappointing me. I enjoy all opinions that don't
sound as though they came from a cabinet meeting of the current
administration. ;-)
> I think everyone intelligent creature sooner or later
> wonders about the nature of reality. My path led me to
> physics and science and I have not found a better way. I
> have read about the idealists and the buddhists but I'm
> not convinced by their arguments.
It probably sounds like punting or throwing in the towel, but as
I think I've blathered elsewhere, I've become convinced a better
way begins with letting go of reason, as reason to me fundamentally
starts with the assumption that endless pairs of conceptual opposites
accurately represents the situation, which I've come to see as just
so much circular hand waving.
> > Religions call that ability to set the bit thusly "faith". And when
> > it's set, we're convinced that whose bit is set thusly is real.
> >
> > I also started seeing - i.e. believing (haha!) - that
> > re-ality seems linked to re-petition, or "againness". Going
> > back to the ... almost sounds like "re-el", and "el"
> > the beginning of one of the Old Testament names of God,
> > "Elohim"... so... againness of God... re-peat God fast
> > enough and whoosh here's the seeming world/reality....?
>
> I think you lost me there. =(
Perhaps another way of saying what I attempted to is that there's
a suspicious connection between being convinced of seeing patterns
and being convinced one is seeing "reality"? Except I'd add that
we can't say for sure whether the patterns are "out there", or
"business as usual" for "mind".
Perhaps calling it "pattern re-cognition" drives the point home
better? Doesn't the word "re-cognition" at least imply "againness
of cognizing"?
> There is also, assuming there is no free will, illusory
> free will. It might not exist, but for all intents and
> purposes, we cannot tell, and should act as if it does.
"Should"? Why?
> > My wife accuses me of that all that time. :-)
>
> Aha, so I'm not alone! ;)
All threads lead to that admission. :-)
player during dinner last night... sadly *prophetic* of our times,
methinks. The "reasoning" about why there were electrolytes in the
Brawndo energy drink sounded straight out of a Kamala Harris speech
if you ask me....
Actually, I didn't find the movie nearly as good as I thought I
found it back when it came out. I suspect that's due to just how
much of what they were hyperbole-izing has come to not merely *pass*
in the time sense, but pass as "what seemingly most consider how
things ought to be".
Let me say that I'm not a fan of Donald Trump "as a person" and
the seeming cult that's developed around him. And yet I find the
"other side" even more horrifying. It seems like a stupidity contest
to me. "OH YEAH?!?! YOU HAMMER WIT JAR COVER? WELL.. I HAMMER WIT
BOOGER!!! TAKE *DAT*, DUMBASS!!!"
I'd not want to live in a society that was either. And yet I've wound
up in one that's *both*. Hence my aforementioned (I think...) telling
my wife "we're going to be getting the hell out of here (i.e. die)
just in time".
But while I don't care for Trump's personality, I liked gasoline
being half the current price, and my investments being worth 50%
more than what they after the seeming Dem gutting of the economy.
But to me, the current state of general idiocy implies hopelessness
in political realms, because whether it's "rigged" or the consequence
of morons casting ballots, I can't see a positive result.
Heh... maybe I'm so drawn to kooky "philosophy"/mysticism because
what used to seem a tolerable "nothing's perfect" reality has become
a brain/tooth-less theme park. See also: the great inner escape.
> I myself, believe the mind is just a function of matter and
> electrons moving around in our brains. Very reductionist
> and materialist. And also, let me hasten to add, science
> does not yet know what mind/self-awareness is or how it
> comes to be.
> And no, I do _not_ believe that ChatGPT is anywhere close
> to being sentient even though I've seen that on many
> places online.
sentient as ChatGPT. :-)
> So I apologize if I disappointed you with a very plain,
> scientific view of the world. ;) I usually also do the
> "atheist shift" and say that the one who proposes an
> alternative world view to the materialist/scientific one
> has the burden of proof, since our materialist/scientific
> world view does have the common sense high ground (See
> G.E. Moores "here's a hand" proof which I think is
> brilliant in its simplicity).
sound as though they came from a cabinet meeting of the current
administration. ;-)
> I think everyone intelligent creature sooner or later
> wonders about the nature of reality. My path led me to
> physics and science and I have not found a better way. I
> have read about the idealists and the buddhists but I'm
> not convinced by their arguments.
I think I've blathered elsewhere, I've become convinced a better
way begins with letting go of reason, as reason to me fundamentally
starts with the assumption that endless pairs of conceptual opposites
accurately represents the situation, which I've come to see as just
so much circular hand waving.
> > Religions call that ability to set the bit thusly "faith". And when
> > it's set, we're convinced that whose bit is set thusly is real.
> >
> > I also started seeing - i.e. believing (haha!) - that
> > re-ality seems linked to re-petition, or "againness". Going
> > back to the ... almost sounds like "re-el", and "el"
> > the beginning of one of the Old Testament names of God,
> > "Elohim"... so... againness of God... re-peat God fast
> > enough and whoosh here's the seeming world/reality....?
>
> I think you lost me there. =(
a suspicious connection between being convinced of seeing patterns
and being convinced one is seeing "reality"? Except I'd add that
we can't say for sure whether the patterns are "out there", or
"business as usual" for "mind".
Perhaps calling it "pattern re-cognition" drives the point home
better? Doesn't the word "re-cognition" at least imply "againness
of cognizing"?
> There is also, assuming there is no free will, illusory
> free will. It might not exist, but for all intents and
> purposes, we cannot tell, and should act as if it does.
> > My wife accuses me of that all that time. :-)
>
> Aha, so I'm not alone! ;)
D
Feb 4, 2024, 1:51:12 PMFeb 4
to
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:
>> This, in my opinion, is not the adrenaline loaded minute
>> by minute interaction of social media and other modern
>> platform. I see this space as a mix of the worst and the
>> best the new has to offer in a form of gentlemans cocktail
>> of slow communication. ;)
>
> I can dig it. Another of my posts this go around mentioned the
> word 'moderation'. What feels right these days are replies several
> paragraphs long every couple days. Something like that.
>
> That's in contrast to writing much longer tomes in another newsgroup
> back in the earlier 1993s. Indeed, I was in USENET before the
> dreaded September. :-)
only got back into the game recently. My great hope is that since google
is about to abandon usenet for good, the quality will increase and the
spam decrease. Let's see what happens!
> But I never got into social media. I had a Facebook account for a
> couple months, but just didn't like it... nor did I like Twitter.
time to time but it's mostly for light entertainment and memes, and
nothing serious. I find the GUI there absolutely horrible for serious
discussion.
So my long form is mostly on mailinglists. I think my record together
with another guy was probably 100 pages or so if accumulated discussion.
My semi-longform is usenet (let's see if it sticks or if I leave after a
while, but so far I've been enjoying it and the spam is not that bad)
and the short-form is mastodon.
>> The gemini project I do not understand at all. It seems
>> like they want to have their cake and eat it too, which
>> never works.
>
> "Geminauts" seemed mostly people half my age or more. I don't
> have a problem with that. In fact, having a finger on the pulse of
> youth fascinates me. But I got the feeling they couldn't deal with
> people too much older. But maybe I simply misread their "smolnet"
> culture...?
Well, I discovered that the older you get, the more common it becomes to
> have a problem with that. In fact, having a finger on the pulse of
> youth fascinates me. But I got the feeling they couldn't deal with
> people too much older. But maybe I simply misread their "smolnet"
> culture...?
have to interact with the young ones. ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
D
Feb 4, 2024, 4:01:05 PMFeb 4
to
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:
> Actually, I didn't find the movie nearly as good as I thought I
> found it back when it came out. I suspect that's due to just how
> much of what they were hyperbole-izing has come to not merely *pass*
> in the time sense, but pass as "what seemingly most consider how
> things ought to be".
That's sad. =(
> found it back when it came out. I suspect that's due to just how
> much of what they were hyperbole-izing has come to not merely *pass*
> in the time sense, but pass as "what seemingly most consider how
> things ought to be".
> Let me say that I'm not a fan of Donald Trump "as a person" and
> the seeming cult that's developed around him. And yet I find the
tolerate it, because I have a provocative streak in me. ;)
But given a free choice, I think Ron Paul is probably the best that the
US has to offer. But given how the US system is designed, I'm
reluctantly Trump if Biden is the only other option.
I also like Trumps sense of humour (I think...) which the rest of the
world doesn't get, since they are used to dealing with one, and only one
kind of politician who is as boring and dry and anti-plain-speaking as
humanly possible.
When someone comes along and calls a monkey a monkey, the press doesn't
know how to react.
> "other side" even more horrifying. It seems like a stupidity contest
> to me. "OH YEAH?!?! YOU HAMMER WIT JAR COVER? WELL.. I HAMMER WIT
> BOOGER!!! TAKE *DAT*, DUMBASS!!!"
However, I wouldn't say that the debates where I'm from are much better
so that doesn't mean much.
> I'd not want to live in a society that was either. And yet I've wound
> up in one that's *both*. Hence my aforementioned (I think...) telling
> my wife "we're going to be getting the hell out of here (i.e. die)
> just in time".
> But while I don't care for Trump's personality, I liked gasoline
> being half the current price, and my investments being worth 50%
> more than what they after the seeming Dem gutting of the economy.
public TV-channels, 2 kinds of beer and horrible food. Over the decades
my native country opened up and moved away _slightly_ from socialism,
and things improved.
That is why I can never vote for any politician who suggests that "the
government" is the solution and wants a bigger and more powerful state
and I do tend to go for the low tax guys.
I imagine, most people who experienced socialism and the USSR, tend to
reason the same way. And most people I know who never experienced this,
tend to think that the government is the solution or _a_ solution.
> But to me, the current state of general idiocy implies hopelessness
> in political realms, because whether it's "rigged" or the consequence
> of morons casting ballots, I can't see a positive result.
> Heh... maybe I'm so drawn to kooky "philosophy"/mysticism because
> what used to seem a tolerable "nothing's perfect" reality has become
> a brain/tooth-less theme park. See also: the great inner escape.
drawn to other goals and to "belief" since the world itself seems
threatening.
>> And no, I do _not_ believe that ChatGPT is anywhere close
>> to being sentient even though I've seen that on many
>> places online.
>
> I'm actually closer to the opinion that most humans aren't as
> sentient as ChatGPT. :-)
>> So I apologize if I disappointed you with a very plain,
>> scientific view of the world. ;) I usually also do the
>> "atheist shift" and say that the one who proposes an
>> alternative world view to the materialist/scientific one
>> has the burden of proof, since our materialist/scientific
>> world view does have the common sense high ground (See
>> G.E. Moores "here's a hand" proof which I think is
>> brilliant in its simplicity).
>
> Don't worry about disappointing me. I enjoy all opinions that don't
> sound as though they came from a cabinet meeting of the current
> administration. ;-)
>> I think everyone intelligent creature sooner or later
>> wonders about the nature of reality. My path led me to
>> physics and science and I have not found a better way. I
>> have read about the idealists and the buddhists but I'm
>> not convinced by their arguments.
>
> It probably sounds like punting or throwing in the towel, but as
> I think I've blathered elsewhere, I've become convinced a better
> way begins with letting go of reason, as reason to me fundamentally
> starts with the assumption that endless pairs of conceptual opposites
> accurately represents the situation, which I've come to see as just
> so much circular hand waving.
job (politics aside) to help us survive the here and now, and improve
the future. But the more I read the good old existentialists, and the
more I think about it, the more I believe that reason is not a good tool
for meaning and values. We need meaning and values to direct reason, and
deep meaning and values, seem to me, to lie beyond the horizon of
reason.
But meaning and values are also not binary, they are a continuum, so I
guess up to a certain point, reason can help us, but some people are
perhaps wired in such a way that that is not enough, and then I guess
perhaps Kierkegaards "leap of faith" is needed or Jaspers
"transcendence". Who knows... my thinking is still not done when it
comes to this question.
>> I think you lost me there. =(
>
> Perhaps another way of saying what I attempted to is that there's
> a suspicious connection between being convinced of seeing patterns
> and being convinced one is seeing "reality"? Except I'd add that
> we can't say for sure whether the patterns are "out there", or
> "business as usual" for "mind".
talking about when it comes to materialism. Ultimately, you have to
assume, otherwise you get stuck in your mind and perhaps even not that
depending on the skills of the illusionist. Even your existence might be
fake, so ultimately there are hidden assumptions somewhere or else
everything collapses.
>> There is also, assuming there is no free will, illusory
>> free will. It might not exist, but for all intents and
>> purposes, we cannot tell, and should act as if it does.
>
> "Should"? Why?
even if there is no free will, but we do feel as if there is, acting as
if there is a free will brings the most good to the most people.
You could argue that this has been more successful from the level of our
society as well, even though if you're the is/ought guy that might not
be too convincing.
>
>>> My wife accuses me of that all that time. :-)
>>
>> Aha, so I'm not alone! ;)
>
> All threads lead to that admission. :-)
Best regards,
Daniel
Arindam Banerjee
Feb 5, 2024, 12:19:27 PMFeb 5
to
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 4:24:43 AM UTC+11, tooly wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcd0gWNIog&list=TLPQMjMwMTIwMjQLDl4KvhI4fA&index=9
>
> Hope this link works ok.
> This might be one of the most important speeches of our times. It hits most points of why socialism does not work, cannot work, and how today's social movements are leading us essentially to ruin [as impoverishment].
>
> It is most amazing that Claus Schwab and the WEF pundits would allow Milie to speak to their forum, but by whatever 'hook or crook', he/they did.
>
> The TRUTH surely is very tough pill for the modern LEFTIST [ie the marxist in post modernist clothing so to say], to swallow, as it flies in the face of almost their entire argument and impetus for change. Like any fish that has swallowed a thing 'hook, line, and sinker', it will be almost impossible for the modern leftist to 'unhook' themselves from the lies that are sweeping us all into a new oblivion. But perhaps hearing a thing, spoken so clearly and eloqueint [and simply really]...backed by real world FACT that cannot be be turned away from [like the rise from impoverishment that capitalism has overwhelmingly shown to promote, while collectivism has only shown decline, and even the murder of 100+ millions of people]...with no track record of success EVER]...perhaps, if spoken enough, we can at least loosen that grip of clear EVIL that has now groped the neck of western civilization that we may, just perhaps, save ourselves.
Gandhi said that western civilisation would be a good idea. I normally do not quote Gandhi but this one seems appropriate.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcd0gWNIog&list=TLPQMjMwMTIwMjQLDl4KvhI4fA&index=9
>
> Hope this link works ok.
> This might be one of the most important speeches of our times. It hits most points of why socialism does not work, cannot work, and how today's social movements are leading us essentially to ruin [as impoverishment].
>
> It is most amazing that Claus Schwab and the WEF pundits would allow Milie to speak to their forum, but by whatever 'hook or crook', he/they did.
>
> The TRUTH surely is very tough pill for the modern LEFTIST [ie the marxist in post modernist clothing so to say], to swallow, as it flies in the face of almost their entire argument and impetus for change. Like any fish that has swallowed a thing 'hook, line, and sinker', it will be almost impossible for the modern leftist to 'unhook' themselves from the lies that are sweeping us all into a new oblivion. But perhaps hearing a thing, spoken so clearly and eloqueint [and simply really]...backed by real world FACT that cannot be be turned away from [like the rise from impoverishment that capitalism has overwhelmingly shown to promote, while collectivism has only shown decline, and even the murder of 100+ millions of people]...with no track record of success EVER]...perhaps, if spoken enough, we can at least loosen that grip of clear EVIL that has now groped the neck of western civilization that we may, just perhaps, save ourselves.
Capitalism is the way of the selfish-greedy-fearful-unethical-inhuman all-polluting all-gobbling cannibal swine, that must grow in order to exist. It is in capitalist countries we find the most oppression of children, persecution of minorities, wars, diseases, sleaze, divorces, bad songs and manners, horrendous inequalities and total lack of compassion; along with superstition galore in the name of religion; opportunities only for a few; and total plunder of the environment. Socialist measures help to alleviate some of the negative aspects of capitalism. Marxsm is a Jewish capitalist invention to crush the genuine socialism to retain overall Jewish ascendancy, by covering al bases. Fortunately, it is now out of fashion.
Truthslave
Feb 6, 2024, 8:15:29 PMFeb 6
to
On 23/01/2024 17:24, tooly wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcd0gWNIog&list=TLPQMjMwMTIwMjQLDl4KvhI4fA&index=9
>
> Hope this link works ok.
Of course you realize in the years to come when the source of that link
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcd0gWNIog&list=TLPQMjMwMTIwMjQLDl4KvhI4fA&index=9
>
> Hope this link works ok.
is no more, much of these threads without their context will look like
nonsense.
Unless you add a transcript of that source link, those who follow will
be left to guess at the rest.
'What were these ghostly practitioners rattling on about?'
D
Feb 7, 2024, 5:19:36 AMFeb 7
to
but for the people who engage with me in the here and now.
I consider this a spare time hobby and not academic philosophy. So thank
you for very thoughtfully commenting on this, but I will not add
transcripts or permanent links, but please do feel free to do so if you
think it would add value. ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
oldernow
Feb 7, 2024, 8:03:04 AMFeb 7
to
On 2024-02-07, D <nos...@example.net> wrote:
> I consider this a spare time hobby and not academic philosophy.
OMG, HOW *COULD* YOU?!???!?! :-)
> I consider this a spare time hobby and not academic philosophy.
D
Feb 7, 2024, 11:00:51 AMFeb 7
to
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:
> On 2024-02-07, D <nos...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> I consider this a spare time hobby and not academic philosophy.
>
> OMG, HOW *COULD* YOU?!???!?! :-)
Best regards,
Daniel
oldernow
Feb 7, 2024, 2:09:17 PMFeb 7
to
On 2024-02-07, D <nos...@example.net> wrote:
> > > I consider this a spare time hobby and not academic
> > > philosophy.
> >
> > OMG, HOW *COULD* YOU?!???!?! :-)
>
> I'm sorry older, I do realize I just did cause you a lot
> of pain! ;)
Ack, no biggie. It's not like you forced un-transcripted links on
> > > I consider this a spare time hobby and not academic
> > > philosophy.
> >
> > OMG, HOW *COULD* YOU?!???!?! :-)
>
> I'm sorry older, I do realize I just did cause you a lot
> of pain! ;)
me, or something.... ;-)
0 new messages