The importance of knowledge about subjectivity

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Very obviously

- provide for better subjective opinions, by guidance with intellectual understanding of how subjectivity works

- decrease mental illness, with this efficient tool to deal with emotions.

- decrease weird ideology which is based on misconceptions of fact and opinion, like socialism, social darwinism, racism, woke

It is all very clear to me now, that people in education are basically extremely meanspirited to acknowledge any emotion. It is a fact that the intellectual validation of the idea of emotion, is completely absent. Emotion is assumed, but not validated intellectually.

What is validated intellectually is science, and most of that science runs counter to the intellectual idea of emotions. And this science is held on to with ruthlessness. And for the small part of it that science does actually validate the idea of emotions, that particular science is trashed as woo-woo.

Which makes educated folk currently, the most evil people in history, certainly if solely their intellectual persona is considered, and not their common persona.

So tired of the continuous rotten news about covid, war, global warming, against the backdrop of all these meanspirited highly educated losers, making everything worse.

[Harry Krishna]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:32:37 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Very obviously
>
>- provide for better subjective opinions, by guidance with intellectual understanding of how subjectivity works
>
>- decrease mental illness,

This clearly has not worked for you at all.

> with this efficient tool to deal with emotions.
>
>- decrease weird ideology

That hasn't worked for you at all either. You swallow every right-wing
conspiracy theory that you run across.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The creationist conceptual scheme is no cure for being a total asshole like you are. But it is the cure for weird ideology.

You are obviously full of the marxist, woke, leftist etc. nonsense. That could have been prevented with creationism.

It is a fact that while creationism has gone down, mental illness has gone up.

And it is fact that you don't now what the underlying logic in a subjective statement is.

Right wing conspiracy such as, gain of function research causing covid, covid vaccines being unhealthy, and vaccination leading to immune escape. Election fraud in the USA and Brazil. Widescale suppression of conservative speech on big tech social networks, in collusion with the governments / secret services.

Right wing conspiracy is just the real news. Msm on the other hand have been shown to consistently lie about the russian collusion hoax, covid, and generally everything




p woensdag 8 februari 2023 om 19:50:17 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 02:17:53 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The creationist conceptual scheme is no cure for being a total asshole like you are. But it is the cure for weird ideology.

The "Creationist conceptual scheme", as described by you, is
incoherent. It's literally just a collection of words that don't
communicate anything as you have them arranged.

>You are obviously full of the marxist, woke, leftist etc. nonsense. That could have been prevented with creationism.
>
>It is a fact that while creationism has gone down, mental illness has gone up.
>
>And it is fact that you don't now what the underlying logic in a subjective statement is.

That would depend on the statement. You're trying to apply your own
weird universal principles to subjectivity, which is absurd.

>Right wing conspiracy such as, gain of function research causing covid, covid vaccines being unhealthy, and vaccination leading to immune escape. Election fraud in the USA and Brazil. Widescale suppression of conservative speech on big tech social networks, in collusion with the governments / secret services.

Yes, that's exactly what I just said. You uncritically swallow it,
hook, line, and sinker.

>Right wing conspiracy is just the real news. Msm on the other hand have been shown to consistently lie about the russian collusion hoax, covid, and generally everything

Or so those from the Tin Foil Hat brigade would have us believe.

[Nando Ronteltap]

That's so dumb that you trust the mainstream media. You must be a complete retard then. And the msm follows the views of the nutty professors at universities. The completely crazy racist-antiracist, transgenderist folks. I mean, it's a total clownshow.

With all your lying about the concept of subjectivity, your personal judgment has become crap.

Op zaterdag 11 februari 2023 om 21:30:20 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 02:28:33 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>That's so dumb that you trust the mainstream media.

No one said anything about trusting the mainstream media. What I did
say is that *you* believe every right-wing conspiracy theory that
floats past you. And you then went on to demonstrate just that, in
response. Well done!

> You must be a complete retard then. And the msm follows the views of the nutty professors at universities. The completely crazy racist-antiracist, transgenderist folks. I mean, it's a total clownshow.

Wow. Way to make my point for me again.

>With all your lying about the concept of subjectivity, your personal judgment has become crap.

With all of your confusion over what words mean in English, you fail
to notice that you just made my point for me twice. Congratulation

[Nando Ronteltap]

I don't know what you're talking about. That CRT and transgenderism, are not real and big things?

If you don't follow the gateway pundit, infowars, breitbart, and to an extent, foxnews, then you don't know what is happening in the world. I mean the rest are just proven liars, like you are. Straight lying to your face, every day, on any issue. Lying about covid, playing with your life, and the life of your family. It's totally ridiculous.





Op zondag 12 februari 2023 om 20:00:21 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 14:22:40 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>I don't know what you're talking about.

That's obvious. It's never clear that you know what you're talking
about either, for that matter.

> That CRT and transgenderism, are not real and big things?

I'm sure they're real. May I ask what you think your point is, since
neither of them have the slightest relevance to anything being
discussed?

>If you don't follow the gateway pundit, infowars, breitbart, and to an extent, foxnews, then you don't know what is happening in the world.

ROTFLMFAO! You do realize that all of those are pure right-wing
propaganda, don't you? You may as well get your news from Pravda.

> I mean the rest are just proven liars, like you are. Straight lying to your face, every day, on any issue. Lying about covid, playing with your life, and the life of your family. It's totally ridiculous.

It's totally ridiculous that you actually believe that, and once
again, you're busy making my point for me. Well done!

[Nando Ronteltap]

That is ridiculous. The pravda style, is everyone says the same thing, there is no debate, and the government silences people who say otherwise. That is not what these right wing organizations are doing. You know very well who is doing that. You know very well who does the censorship. Who uses the government to silence people.

So that is another one of your ridiculous lies. It is so disgusting, that you always lie about everything. You are one of the most revolting people I have ever seen online. Not the most revolting. But you're up there.


Op maandag 13 februari 2023 om 21:55:22 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:55:41 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>That is ridiculous. The pravda style, is everyone says the same thing, there is no debate, and the government silences people who say otherwise. That is not what these right wing organizations are doing.

What they are doing is pushing pure propaganda down your throat, and
you swallow it uncritically. It's hilarious that you keep making my
point for me.

[jillery]

Nando conveniently forgets about Liz Cheney and the other Republican
politicians who dared to stand up to Trump and his toadies.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Nando Ronteltap]

It is obviously not the point of these rightwing sites, to swallow anything uncritically, also not what they themselves put out.

The endless loop with dishonest people, that I always expect them to be honest. And I always expect people to have a rational interest in how subjectivity works, but they never do. I can loop a hundred times in a row, expecting people to have a rational interest in subjectivity, but they don't have. A hundred questionmarks in a row, every time, what the fuck is going on in their mind?

You have your satisfaction set up with your "hilarious" bullshit, and you have no satisfaction set up for having a rational argument, and being honest.

Op dinsdag 14 februari 2023 om 19:05:23 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Nando Ronteltap]

I know about the American politics, and liz cheney with her jan 6 commission. Putting political opponents in prison over nothing. Using secret police to instigate violence, and entrap political opponents. Not allowing opposing viewpoints, or evidence. That is all just banana republicanism. A total disgrace. Who the hell likes that sort of thing?



Op dinsdag 14 februari 2023 om 21:00:23 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:29:32 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>I know about the American politics, and liz cheney with her jan 6 commission. Putting political opponents in prison over nothing. Using secret police to instigate violence, and entrap political opponents. Not allowing opposing viewpoints, or evidence. That is all just banana republicanism. A total disgrace. Who the hell likes that sort of thing?

Since you asked, you just described Trump and his toadies. You're
welcome.

[Nando Ronteltap]

What I read on the gateway pundit today, for example.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/meet-samuel-armes-groomed-cia-fbi-author-original-1776-returns-fed-surrection-document-told-friend-send-proud-boys/

Liz Cheney is a banana republic corrupt politician, a crook, with her nonsense political showtrial.

And the gateway pundit is a very honest website.

And you are actually in the middle of the current total evil, which is to undermine the concept of subjectivity. You maybe think you can get away with it that you do not intend to undermine the concept of subjectivity, but actually this kind of thing that evolutionists pull, it basically adds up to intent. And that is a lot of your actual life, doing your part in undermining the concept of subjectivity, and what you think your life online is about, you are wrong about it.


Op woensdag 15 februari 2023 om 02:35:24 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:00:25 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>What I read on the gateway pundit today, for example.

More right-wing propaganda. You seem determined to make my point for
me, repeatedly.

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:00:39 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>It is obviously not the point of these rightwing sites, to swallow anything uncritically,

Then why do you do it?

> also not what they themselves put out.
>
>The endless loop with dishonest people, that I always expect them to be honest.

Yes, that's why they keep fooling you.

> And I always expect people to have a rational interest in how subjectivity works,

Why? Have you ever met anyone else who shares that rather weird
obsession of yours? I haven't.

> but they never do. I can loop a hundred times in a row, expecting people to have a rational interest in subjectivity,

Again, Why? Have you ever met anyone else who shares that rather weird
obsession of yours? Given that the answer to that is almost certainly
"no", you might want to ask yourself why you keep expecting to find
such a person.

> but they don't have. A hundred questionmarks in a row, every time, what the fuck is going on in their mind?

Maybe they can't figure out what you're on about, or why they should
be interested in it.

>You have your satisfaction set up with your "hilarious" bullshit, and you have no satisfaction set up for having a rational argument, and being honest.

In order for you to engage in a rational argument, you would first
need to possess some modicum of rationality. You have yet to
demonstrate that this is the case.

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:00:25 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>What I read on the gateway pundit today, for example.
>
>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/meet-samuel-armes-groomed-cia-fbi-author-original-1776-returns-fed-surrection-document-told-friend-send-proud-boys/
>
>Liz Cheney is a banana republic corrupt politician, a crook, with her nonsense political showtrial.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Cheney>

Until she supported the second impeachment of Donald Trump for his
role in the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol, Liz Cheney was regarded
as a leading ideological conservative, in the spirit of her father.
She is just one example among several Republicans who were voted out
of office because they could no longer support Trump's dangerous
delusions.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Again, the fact that many Trump supporters are also anti vaccine, while Trump is pro vaccine, shows that the story of toadies mindlessly following the great leader Trump, is a lie. Liz Cheny is just correctly identified as a rino, the jan 6 show trial proved that.

And again, the actual underlying truth of the culture war, is the mind of the increasingly educated people being conditioned towards objectivity and fact, and subjectivity becoming marginalized and forgotten about.

Nazism with it's ideology centered around objectified personal character, proves that marginalization of subjectivity can be a big deal in world politics, and this is just another case of that.

The identity problems, the lbgtq, the craziness, the mental illness, they are to be expected if subjectivity becomes marginalized. This is not anymore about some people having an opinion, and other people having a different opinion. This is about some people having an opinion, and some people being clueless about how to make an opinion.


Op woensdag 15 februari 2023 om 19:10:24 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:36:37 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Again, the fact that many Trump supporters are also anti vaccine, while Trump is pro vaccine, shows that the story of toadies mindlessly following the great leader Trump, is a lie
>. Liz Cheny is just correctly identified as a rino, the jan 6 show trial proved that.

You still seem determined to prove my point for me, by regurgitating
right-wing talking points after I've observed that you uncritically
swallow right-wing propaganda. Apparently you still don't grasp that
when you find yourself in a hole, you might want to stop digging.

>And again, the actual underlying truth of the culture war, is the mind of the increasingly educated people being conditioned towards objectivity and fact, and subjectivity becoming marginalized and forgotten about.

This is a problem that exists entirely in your imagination.

>Nazism with it's ideology centered around objectified personal character, proves that marginalization of subjectivity can be a big deal in world politics, and this is just another case of that.

As I have noted before, this is a nonsensical claim on your part.

>The identity problems, the lbgtq, the craziness, the mental illness, they are to be expected if subjectivity becomes marginalized.

There are several problems with that: What on Earth does "subjectivity
becomes marginalized" even mean in English? How would one do such a
thing? And how on Earth would "The identity problems, the lbgtq, the
craziness, the mental illness" follow from it? You're making no sense
whatsoever.

> This is not anymore about some people having an opinion, and other people having a different opinion. This is about some people having an opinion, and some people being clueless about how to make an opinion.

That's a deeply silly opinion.

[Nando Ronteltap]

You have the feelings associated to doing your best, as your emotional basis, I have spontaneously expressing my subjective spirit as my emotional basis.

That is the difference between us. You are caught up in your calculations of what is best, and have lost the direct connection to your basic emotions, and are completely clueless about the reality of the entire subjective part of reality, the spiritual domain, doing the choosing.

That explains all your bullshit.


Op woensdag 15 februari 2023 om 20:00:24 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:11:37 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>You have the feelings associated to doing your best, as your emotional basis, I have spontaneously expressing my subjective spirit as my emotional basis.

Emotional basis of what? You're certainly spontaneously expressing
yourself, but not in a way that communicates anything as phrased.

>That is the difference between us.

There are many others that come readily to mind. Prominent among them
is that I don't post incoherent nonsense in a language I don't read or
write well enough to express my thoughts in it. And you?

> You are caught up in your calculations of what is best, and have lost the direct connection to your basic emotions, and are completely clueless about the reality of the entire subjective part of reality, the spiritual domain, doing the choosing.

You're making several objective claims about subjectivity here, it
should be noted. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? (It would
strike most people as being extremely weird, but you do you...)

>That explains all your bullshit.

There's no explanation for yours that doesn't involve the DSM-5.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Your emotional basis, in your life. You will go to hell, you will feel pain that you cannot believe. You set yourself up for it, it is very straightforward. And certainly, God did not then send you to hell, it is just a straightfoward consequence of the way you deal with subjectivity.

Op donderdag 16 februari 2023 om 00:55:24 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 17:12:39 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Your emotional basis, in your life.

Emotional basis of what in my life?

> You will go to hell, you will feel pain that you cannot believe.

*Yawn*. Got any reason I should believe *that*?

> You set yourself up for it, it is very straightforward.

You've never met "straightforward", but please go on...

>And certainly, God did not then send you to hell, it is just a straightfoward consequence of the way you deal with subjectivity.

Have you ever met anyone, ever, who has agreed with your weird notions
about subjectivity? Or who can figure out why you're obsessed with
applying objective guidelines for it? (Spoiler: we both already know
that the answers to those questions are "no".)

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:45:25 PM UTC, Harry Krishna wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 17:12:39 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
> <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>
> >Your emotional basis, in your life.
> Emotional basis of what in my life?
> > You will go to hell, you will feel pain that you cannot believe.
> *Yawn*. Got any reason I should believe *that*?
> > You set yourself up for it, it is very straightforward.
> You've never met "straightforward", but please go on...
> >And certainly, God did not then send you to hell, it is just a straightfoward consequence of the way you deal with subjectivity.
> Have you ever met anyone, ever, who has agreed with your weird notions
> about subjectivity? Or who can figure out why you're obsessed with
> applying objective guidelines for it? (Spoiler: we both already know
> that the answers to those questions are "no".)

which all reminds me of this:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/emotion-3

[Nando Ronteltap]

The spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.

You have no awareness of the entire spiritual domain, doing the choosing, in the universe. Including especially, the human spirit, people choosing.

You cannot point to any authority on subjectivity, the way it would work otherwise. You never actually mention how it works.

The societal catastrophy caused by marginalizing and forgetting about subjectivity, is already ongoing. With covid, with the war with russia, with the woke culture war. But it also causes catastrophy on an individual level, of people becoming severely mentally ill, which is obviously where you are going. You go out of your way not to acknowledge the spirit, because of the spirit not being objective. It is obviously going to result in individual catastrophy, severe mental illness.




Op donderdag 16 februari 2023 om 18:45:25 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:48:27 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>The spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion.

Oh good grief, this word salad again? What is "the spirit"? What does
"the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion" mean? It doesn't
communicate anything as phrased.

>You have no awareness of the entire spiritual domain,

What is "the spiritual domain"?

> doing the choosing, in the universe. Including especially, the human spirit, people choosing.

Yes, people make choices. Why you feel the need to throw in some vague
reference to "spirit" is unclear.

>You cannot point to any authority on subjectivity

I can't even guess what an "authority on subjectivity" is supposed to
mean in English.

>, the way it would work otherwise. You never actually mention how it works.

You never actually mention why you think that all people make their
decisions in one particular, objective way. That's a generalization
fallacy at the very least, not to mention a confused one.

>The societal catastrophy caused by marginalizing and forgetting about subjectivity, is already ongoing.

Complete and utter nonsense. Again, you're railing against a problem
that doesn't exist outside of your imagination.

> With covid, with the war with russia, with the woke culture war.

May I ask for what daft reason you would associate any of these with
"marginalizing and forgetting about subjectivity"? There isn't a cliff
face on Earth large enough to contain the text "NON SEQUITUR FALLACY"
that should be written in stone in reply.

>But it also causes catastrophy on an individual level, of people becoming severely mentally ill

It is true that many forms of mental illness involve a difficulty in
distinguishing reality. But that's a symptom of it, not the cause.

>which is obviously where you are going.

> You go out of your way not to acknowledge the spirit, because of the spirit not being objective.

I don't acknowledge "the spirit" because you can't express coherently
what you mean by it.

> It is obviously going to result in individual catastrophy, severe mental illness.

Again, you're confusing symptom with cause.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Someone can go left or right, chooses left, meaning the alternative possible future of going left, becomes to be the present.

Then there is the question, what made the decision turn out to go left instead of right?

Then the answer must be a chosen opinion, a choice between socalled subjective words, which are words denoting the identity of a decisionmaker, like words denoting emotions and personal character.

So then a choice is made between the subjective words courage and recklessness, and the opinion is chosen that going left was chosen out of recklessness.

And obviously if the question is asked, what made the decision turn out to the word recklessness instead of the word courage, then the procedure is repeated, choosing another opinion.

Left was chosen out of a spirit of recklessness, the word spirit denoting the substance of a decisionmaker.

To say that the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion, it means the substance of a decisionmaker is identified with a chosen opinion.

I have evidenced elsewhere how ignorance of how subjectivity functions, leads to catastrophy like the covid catastrophy, the holocaust.

And it is perfectly obvious that it would lead to total catastrophy


Op vrijdag 17 februari 2023 om 02:50:25 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:22:58 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Someone can go left or right, chooses left, meaning the alternative possible future of going left, becomes to be the present.
>Then there is the question, what made the decision turn out to go left instead of right?

If a person makes a decision to go left rather than right, a non-crazy
person observing that would normally conclude that the choice was made
because that's which way their destination lies. No one would bother
speculating as to what emotions or "chosen opinions" were involved (at
least no one in their right mind would waste their time on something
so silly and pointless...)

>Then the answer must be a chosen opinion,

That doesn't follow at all, and opinions aren't normally chosen.

>a choice between socalled subjective words, which are words denoting the identity of a decisionmaker, like words denoting emotions and personal character.

PEOPLE make decisions. Emotions don't. You're still spouting confused
nonsense. Emotions can *influence* people's decisions, but to think
that emotions *make* decisions is a fairly large category error on
your part.

>So then a choice is made between the subjective words courage and recklessness, and the opinion is chosen that going left was chosen out of recklessness.

Normal people don't spend all their time wondering what motivated
someone else to turn left. Why do you?

>And obviously if the question is asked, what made the decision turn out to the word recklessness instead of the word courage, then the procedure is repeated, choosing another opinion.

Nothing after "obviously" seems to have any clear meaning in that
sentence. Again, why would anyone waste their time wondering why
someone else turned left?

>Left was chosen out of a spirit of recklessness,

So you conclude, but on what basis? It sounds like you're just
guessing. And again, why would you why would you waste your time on
something so silly and pointless?

> the word spirit denoting the substance of a decisionmaker.

That doesn't explain anything, because I have no idea what "the
substance of a decisionmaker" is supposed to mean.

>To say that the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion, it means the substance of a decisionmaker is identified with a chosen opinion.

That's word salad. What does "identified with a chosen opinion" mean,
and why do you think opinions are chosen? And "the substance of a
decisionmaker" still doesn't mean anything as phrased.

>I have evidenced elsewhere how ignorance of how subjectivity functions, leads to catastrophy like the covid catastrophy, the holocaust.

No, you've asserted that. But you can't give a coherent explanation of
why you think something so weird.

>And it is perfectly obvious that it would lead to total catastrophy

No, that's not obvious at all. If it was, then we wouldn't be having
this discussion.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It is proven that ignorance about subjectivity can dominate the events in the world.

Because the nazis mistakenly identified personal character as a matter of fact of biology, they therefore had an emotionless personal judgment on people, because emotions are irrellevant for factual issues. Which emotionless pseudoscientific judgment, provided the atitudes for warmongering and genocide.

THE NAZI PRIMER
Official Handbook for
Schooling the Hitler Youth
Translated from the Original German 1938, original german published in 1937
FACTUAL OUTLOOK ON LIFE

the National Socialist outlook on life is not something ingeniously devised. It
is no theory, but adapts itself strictly to existing reality.The ideal of National
Socialism is born of experience. It is a factual and realistic outlook on life.

The foundation of the National Socialist outlook on life is the perception of the
unlikeness of men.

distinctions among men with respect to mental and
spiritual traits.

The Christians, above all the Roman Church, reject the race idea with the citation
'before God all men are equal."

Now why do we find in Free Masonry, Marxism, and the Christian church this
mistaken teaching of the equality of all men? All three are striving more or less
for power over the whole earth. Therefore, they must necessarily be
"international." They can never acknowledge the human ties of race, community,
or nation if they do not wish to give up their own aims.

These changes which
are called mutations (after the Latin word: mutatio = change), are not always a
good thing for living beings. They often lead to damaging transformations. Above
all sexual power is often lost. Also, externally stunted forms are frequent. In this
case, the process of selection sets in. Only that which is of value in the struggle
for life remains permanent.

The conclusion has been drawn that the types today have developed
gradually out of the older forms. This assumption is in fact generally accepted
today after experiments have demonstrated that race and consequently species
transformation occur on the earth. The study, which has to do with this question,
is called the study of evolution. Closely associated with it is the name of the
Englishman Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

A real
socialistic process of selection leads those who have the requisite capacity, and
are called for the purpose to the highest positions of the party and the state.

Wiping out of the less worthy and selection of the best, are the means for raising
and maintaining the racial values of our people.


Op vrijdag 17 februari 2023 om 21:25:06 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 12:38:41 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is proven that ignorance about subjectivity can dominate the events in the world.

It is asserted by you that this is the case.

>Because the nazis mistakenly identified personal character as a matter of fact of biology,

That was racist propaganda, not "ignorance about subjectivity". You've
had that pointed out dozens of times, yet you continue to repeat the
same confused nonsense.

> they therefore had an emotionless personal judgment on people,

That doesn't follow, since your premise is wrong from the beginning.
And hate, which was the prime mover of Nazism, is most definitely an
emotion, so you're wrong about that as well.

> because emotions are irrellevant for factual issues.

Many factual issues involve a great deal of emotion. You're spouting
nonsense again. You also haven't addressed the many mistakes I pointed
out in your previous post.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Your response to the holocaust, is to attack emotions, specifically hate, which is a normal human emotion.

While the nazis rejected emotions, in identifying someone's personal character.

Obviously, you are doing the same thing as nazis, throwing out emotions. You say you only throw out hate, but, really we cannot actually measure emotions. So what you say is hate, can also be said to be love, or any other emotion. Which means, you throw out all emotions.

And the people that say to throw out hate, by any reasonable judgment, they are extremely hateful people. The same people are always extremely viscious on twitter, by any reasonable judgment. They are also fanatically against free speech, and fanatics about wordusage. As if they think that the word love is the emotion love.




Op vrijdag 17 februari 2023 om 21:55:04 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:06:07 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Your response to the holocaust, is to attack emotions,

That's seriously what you took from what I wrote? Then you're either
completely deranged, completely incapable of reading sentences in
English for any comprehension whatsoever, or both.

>specifically hate, which is a normal human emotion.

Were the Nazis motivated by hatred of Jews (among other groups)? Yes,
they most certainly were, and they made no secret of it, but stated it
outright.

>While the nazis rejected emotions, in identifying someone's personal character.

You are, once again, completely (and stupidly), wrong. The Nazis
claimed that personal character was inherent to members of groups that
they wanted to eliminate.. This was, as I have pointed out, not
because they were confused about subjectivity, but because they were
engaging in propaganda. The only one confused here is you, and you are
as confused as it is possible to be.

>Obviously, you are doing the same thing as nazis, throwing out emotions.

I have done no such thing.

>You say you only throw out hate,

I have said no such thing at any time. You're just making things up
now.

>but, really we cannot actually measure emotions.

No one suggested that we could.

>So what you say is hate, can also be said to be love, or any other emotion.

Really? So you think love is an equally valid explanation for the
Holocaust as hate is? That's beyond idiotic.

>Which means, you throw out all emotions.

Or that you are completely incapable of reading even the simplest
sentences in English for comprehension.

>And the people that say to throw out hate,

You mean like the clergy of pretty much every religion on the planet,
for a start?

> by any reasonable judgment, they are extremely hateful people.

How so?

>The same people are always extremely viscious on twitter,

Who are the people you're referring to? Be specific.

>by any reasonable judgment. They are also fanatically against free speech, and fanatics about wordusage. As if they think that the word love is the emotion love.

Again, I haven't the faintest clue to whom you're referring, and it's
not clear that you do either.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Sure, the nazis were just pretending that they believed that personal character was objective.

Were basically all the scientists at the time, and other race theorists, also just pretending to believe that personal character is objective? Are evolutionary psychologists presently pretending that personal character is alike objective software programs?

Are all those atheists on facebook pretending to believe that emotions can be measured in the brain? Are all those atheists just lying when they argue against acknowledging anything that is both subjective and real? Are they all just playing a debatinggame, and not really believing that there exists nothing inherently subjective?

Is Daniel Dennett just lying when he says that free will has the logic of cause and effect? Which neccessarily makes the decisionmaker to be objective. The compatibilist view, which is the most popular view amongst philosophers.

The criticism of nazi ideology from scientists was not that they objectified personal character, but that the variation was more widespread throughout populations, than the nazis said it was. They do not actually mention the reality of anything inherently subjective, like personal character.

How it works with nazism, or woke ideology, or covid policy, lbgtq+ ideology. It is fact obsessed people, arguing in a sophisticated way, to make the facts be anything they want them to be.

Clearly you have no idea what your own emotions are up to, because you are not at the level of spontaneity, the actual moment of decision, because you have no comprehensiion of it. You are at the level of figuring out the best option. That is where the attention of your mind is at.

All that sciency covid propaganda shit, that is how you argue. Same as the nazi sciency bullshit. Same as the lbgtq+ sciency bullshit. There is no attention paid at the spontaneous level, for lack of comprehension, so the emotions run rampant with values. It could be money that the emotions are running with, it could be sex, it could be power, it could be anything. So the emotions produce nonsense, and then this nonsense is delivered at the level where the best option is figured out, which is where your mind is at. That is how you operate, and the all rest of you evolutionists.

Because there is no doubt that evolutionists happen to be in the center of evil. While it is perfectly innocent to observe some generational differences, nevertheless, the way things worked out, the evolutionists are at the center of this rejection of all of what is subjective.

It was no coincedence that Darwin is referenced in the nazi schoolbook, and that nazi ideology embraced selection theory, and extended it to socialistic selection. It is because evolution theory presents a double blow to the concept of subjectivity, of denying creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, and appropiating all subjective terminology, and re-assigning an objective meaning to the words.



Op zaterdag 18 februari 2023 om 19:05:03 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 12:10:31 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Sure, the nazis were just pretending that they believed that personal character was objective.

You really can't stop spinning in circles, can you? Everything has to
be shoehorned into your weird obsession with people not understanding
your particular weird views on subjectivity. Why?

>Were basically all the scientists at the time, and other race theorists, also just pretending to believe that personal character is objective?

Oh good grief. Again, what the Nazis (and other racist scientists at
the time) were actually claiming was that people from the same racial
or ethnic background all possess the same character, as if it were a
genetic characteristic.This is, of course, pseudoscientific nonsense.

> Are evolutionary psychologists presently pretending that personal character is alike objective software programs?

I have no idea what you think you mean by that.

>Are all those atheists on facebook pretending to believe that emotions can be measured in the brain?

How would one "measure" emotions? What metric is used? I suspect that
once again, you're deeply confused about what is actually being
claimed: that different emotional states can be seen to correlate to
activity in different areas of the brain. That's not "measurement" in
any normal sense of the word.

> Are all those atheists just lying when they argue against acknowledging anything that is both subjective and real?

Can you give a few specific examples of this? I suspect that this is
another topic on which you are deeply confused.

> Are they all just playing a debatinggame, and not really believing that there exists nothing inherently subjective?

Such as?

>Is Daniel Dennett just lying when he says that free will has the logic of cause and effect?

What was the exact quote?

>Which neccessarily makes the decisionmaker to be objective. The compatibilist view, which is the most popular view amongst philosophers.

What do you think "the compatibilist view" is?

>The criticism of nazi ideology from scientists was not that they objectified personal character,

Then why is it yours?

>but that the variation was more widespread throughout populations, than the nazis said it was.

Or, perhaps, that as I noted, they correctly recognized that character
is *not* genetically determined.

> They do not actually mention the reality of anything inherently subjective, like personal character.

I don't know anyone who denies that personal character exists. Do you?

>How it works with nazism, or woke ideology, or covid policy, lbgtq+ ideology. It is fact obsessed people, arguing in a sophisticated way, to make the facts be anything they want them to be.

I can only respond with the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "you're
entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts".

>Clearly you have no idea what your own emotions are up to,

Clearly you are talking out of your ass, as usual. My current
emotional state is a mix of amusement and puzzlement at how you can be
so consistently wrong. And you?

> because you are not at the level of spontaneity, the actual moment of decision, because you have no comprehensiion of it.

Of what?

>You are at the level of figuring out the best option.

The best option for what, exactly?

> That is where the attention of your mind is at.

You do know that you can't actually read minds, don't you?

>All that sciency covid propaganda shit, that is how you argue. Same as the nazi sciency bullshit. Same as the lbgtq+ sciency bullshit. There is no attention paid at the spontaneous level, for lack of comprehension, so the emotions run rampant with values.

I'm sorry, but what the fuck is that word salad supposed to mean?

> It could be money that the emotions are running with, it could be sex, it could be power, it could be anything. So the emotions produce nonsense, and then this nonsense is delivered at the level where the best option is figured out, which is where your mind is at. That is how you operate, and the all rest of you evolutionists.

I'm sorry again, but what is *that* word salad supposed to mean?

>Because there is no doubt that evolutionists happen to be in the center of evil. While it is perfectly innocent to observe some generational differences, nevertheless, the way things worked out, the evolutionists are at the center of this rejection of all of what is subjective.

SUCH AS? Again, some specific examples, please, not just vague
accusations.

>It was no coincedence that Darwin is referenced in the nazi schoolbook, and that nazi ideology embraced selection theory, and extended it to socialistic selection. It is because evolution theory presents a double blow to the concept of subjectivity, of denying creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, and appropiating all subjective terminology, and re-assigning an objective meaning to the words.

The only person here reassigning meanings to words is you, and as I
have pointed out to you many, many times, your insistence on using
your own definitions for words makes it much more difficult to figure
out what the hell you're trying to say.

[Nando Ronteltap]

It stands to reason, that knowing how subjectivity works, would be important for producing subjective opinions. Your idea that how subjectivity works, is a subjective issue, is a nonsense. I just have a critical understanding of it, throwing out what is wrong.

And generally I can see all sorts of objectifying of the spirit, like with Dennett, and the evolutionary psychologists, and the nazis. That the human being is entirely objective, and then subjectivity is accounted for in terms of variation, or uniqueness of human beings. The many possible configurations of the brain. All objective things are pointed to as what produces subjectivity. And then the variation produced by choice in terms of spontaneity, looks superficially similar to the variation produced by forced chaos. So that they can keep some kind of credibility going for this objectified personal character and emotion. Because they have to keep somewhat close to the logic used in common discourse, in order to maintain credibility.

The way you argue, it is just optimized to win the argument, regardless of anything. It is just a chesscomputer searching the optimal solution. You do not have any honesty, because that is at the level of spontaneity, of which you do not have any comprehension. You do not comprehend, spontaneously going either left, or right. Making one of alternative possible futures the present, instantaneously. You have to have a process of figuring out the best option, in choosing.

It is obviously the same as how these covid vaccination propagandists argue. And then people say, you are being dishonest, and they say, oh, I was just doing my best.

Besides that literally everything you say is a lie, what you say is also totally moronic. Your talk isn't geared towards more understanding of subjectivity, because then you would lose the argument, and that is not optimal in your calculation of what is best. So everything you say about subjectivity is also totally moronic.

But as I say, is how it works, which is very interesting, and very important understanding.



Op zaterdag 18 februari 2023 om 22:25:04 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[*Hemidactylus*]

It’s amazing to top post. I love it so fucking much. I don’t have to give a
flying fuck what Nando says. But subjectivty inportans sow fuk spelin. Fuck
you Nando subjectinity id great lobe it do mych. You suck nazing? Shit
fickers douche backers. I sont cares about shit no mmrez. Than u nandro
fuck stick becuz subjectdickdivety makes life easiers for incelz with no
womenz and thatz impotent. You are a douche right. No fiuck nuanomdos
rondesrap. Subjective sit fuck you dingbat fuckers shot stain miron crap
geads. I don’t?eben carez about spelling hecuz subjective stufz you fucking
dignbat shitfucking azzmuncher. Mandoz suls azz.

[Harry Krishna]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 15:52:06 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>It stands to reason, that knowing how subjectivity works, would be important for producing subjective opinions.

"How subjectivity works" is another of your favorite phrases that
doesn't actually communicate anything, because you can't apply a
methodology to an abstract concept. Your whole approach is
fundamentally flawed.

> Your idea that how subjectivity works, is a subjective issue, is a nonsense. I just have a critical understanding of it, throwing out what is wrong.

The first thing that is wrong is that you're trying to objectively
explain how an abstract concept "works". That in itself is a huge red
flag that you have major problems with your understanding of the words
"abstract", "concept", "works", "subjectivity" and "objectivity".
(There's also the problem that your explanations not only don't
actually explain anything, they obfuscate things, but that's just the
flip side of the same worthless coin.)

>And generally I can see all sorts of objectifying of the spirit,

Like the way you're objectifying subjectivity? Do you even hear
yourself? And stop with the "spirit" nonsense: you mean your own
personal definition of the word that literally no one else uses.

> like with Dennett, and the evolutionary psychologists, and the nazis. That the human being is entirely objective,

I have literally no idea what "the human being is entirely objective"
can possibly mean. Do you? I doubt it, but prove me wrong by defining
your terms in coherent English.

> and then subjectivity is accounted for in terms of variation, or uniqueness of human beings.

I'm absolutely baffled at what the hell you think you're trying to say
here. Can you provide any quotes from "Dennett, and the evolutionary
psychologists, and the nazis" that might possibly illustrate what that
confused mess is supposed to mean?.

> The many possible configurations of the brain. All objective things are pointed to as what produces subjectivity.

Sigh. What dressing would Monsieur Nando like for his word salad?

>And then the variation produced by choice in terms of spontaneity, looks superficially similar to the variation produced by forced chaos.

Huh? What the fuck are you babbling about?

> So they can keep some kind of credibility going for this objectified personal character and emotion.

Again, what the fuck are you babbling about?

> Because they have to keep somewhat close to the logic used in common discourse, in order to maintain credibility.

Have you ever considered trying that yourself?

>The way you argue, it is just optimized to win the argument,

That's inevitable when my opponent can't even offer a coherent
explanation of what his side of the argument is. A tree could win an
argument against you on those terms.

> regardless of anything. It is just a chesscomputer searching the optimal solution. You do not have any honesty, because that is at the level of spontaneity,

I have no idea what the fuck honesty being at the level of spontaneity
is supposed to mean, but there's no point in my asking, because you
couldn't offer a coherent explanation if your existence depended upon
it.

> of which you do not have any comprehension.

Absolutely. That's what I've been telling you from the get-go: most of
what you write is incomprehensible. It's almost never clear what you
think you mean, and it's often not clear that you even know what you
think you mean.

> You do not comprehend, spontaneously going either left, or right. Making one of alternative possible futures the present, instantaneously. You have to have a process of figuring out the best option, in choosing.

LOL! You don't drive, do you? (Fuck, I certainly hope not!)

>It is obviously the same as how these covid vaccination propagandists argue. And then people say, you are being dishonest, and they say, oh, I was just doing my best.

I'll pay $10 to your favorite charity for every quote you can provide
that actually says such a thing.

>Besides that literally everything you say is a lie,

Cite one lie on my part. Right here. Put up or shut up.

>what you say is also totally moronic. Your talk isn't geared towards more understanding of subjectivity,

Why the fuck would it be? You're absolutely obsessed with a problem
that doesn't actually exist outside your own head.

> because then you would lose the argument, and that is not optimal in your calculation of what is best. So everything you say about subjectivity is also totally moronic.

Non Sequitur.

>But as I say, is how it works,

Again, trying to explain how an abstract concept works indicates a
fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what the words
"abstract", "concept", "works", "objectivity", and "subjectivity" mean
in standard English.

>which is very interesting,

To literally no one but you in the history of the planet.

>and very important understanding.

Let me know if you ever figure out a way to express your ideas so that
anyone who isn't you can understand them. We can talk about their
importance after that.

[Nando Ronteltap]

I just made the perfect description of how you operate. You are really just obeying my description of how you operate, on cue.

We can see the people saying stuff like that a painting is beautiful. That is called subjectivity. And like with anything else, there is a way in which it works. And that way is that subjective opinions are chosen, and subjective opinions express something about someone who chooses.

And objectivity, facts, are obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. That's how objectivity works.

Your talk about abstract concepts not having a way in which it works, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Maybe that has something to do with that you don't acknowledge things in the mind, to be real. Distinguishing fantasy from reality, which means there is no reality to objects in the mind, because they are fantasy.

But we can just state rules for abstract theoretical games, how they work, like tic tac toe, or 4 in a row. But in the case of subjectivity and objectivity, it is integrated into the human being much from birth. Observation is integrated, which is the large part of how objectivity works. And subjectivity as well, I guess the system is integrated into the human being, and not made up.

It is not actually normal to rubbish the entire concept of subjectivity, in a topic about subjectivity. To end up with a total of zero understanding about it. None of the things you do here in this topic are normal. What you argue here in this topic, can only be explained in terms of what I said previously.



Op zondag 19 februari 2023 om 05:00:05 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 03:45:47 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>I just made the perfect description of how you operate.

No, you posted a lunatic's idea of how other people think.

> You are really just obeying my description of how you operate, on cue.

How so? Be specific.

>We can see the people saying stuff like that a painting is beautiful. That is called subjectivity. And like with anything else, there is a way in which it works.

And once again you're trying to objectify subjectivity.

> And that way is that subjective opinions are chosen, and subjective opinions express something about someone who chooses.

"Subjective opinion" is a redundant phrase, like "wet water". And
again, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE CHOOSE THEIR OPINIONS?

>And objectivity, facts, are obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. That's how objectivity works.

That is word salad.

>Your talk about abstract concepts not having a way in which it works, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

It would if you understood what "abstract", "concept", and "works"
meant in English.

> Maybe that has something to do with that you don't acknowledge things in the mind, to be real.

I'd need to know what you think you mean by "real" here. Because it
sounds once again like you're objectifying subjectivity.

> Distinguishing fantasy from reality, which means there is no reality to objects in the mind, because they are fantasy.

Fine. I'm thinking right now of a purple dragon named Melvin, who
speaks fluent French, and enjoys watching jai alai. Is he "real"?

>But we can just state rules for abstract theoretical games, how they work, like tic tac toe, or 4 in a row.

Those rules are objective.

> But in the case of subjectivity and objectivity, it is integrated into the human being much from birth. Observation is integrated, which is the large part of how objectivity works. And subjectivity as well, I guess the system is integrated into the human being, and not made up.

IOW, no one heeds an explanation of "how subjectivity works".

>It is not actually normal to rubbish the entire concept of subjectivity, in a topic about subjectivity.

As always, you miss the point entirely. I'm not "rubbishing"
subjectivity, I'm rubbishing your weird abuses of the English
language.

> To end up with a total of zero understanding about it. None of the things you do here in this topic are normal. What you argue here in this topic, can only be explained in terms of what I said previously.

What I argue here is that you're as confused as it's possible to be,
you're obsessed with a problem that doesn't exist outside of your own
head, and you can't express yourself coherently in English most of the
time.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Actually the word opinion is also used a lot for factual issues, when there is a lack of evidence, and there are several guesses. So you keep on having a perfect score of being a liar.

It was already explained previously how you operate, so then to ask it again, that is another sort of lie.

Yes the word beautiful for instance is part of how subjectivity works, and the word is objective, we can see the word. So that was you being a total and utter moron, complaining about objectifying subjectivity.

Then you ask the retard question again, why would opinions be chosen? That's just the way it works. Why are facts 1 to 1 corresponding models of a creation, in the mind? That's just the way it works. And science of quantum mechanics proves you cannot get any fact whatsoever, about what made an event turn out A instead of B, so that is why we can only choose an opinion on the issue.

Then you are a total retard again, who doesn't understand correspondence theory, which is basically just copying. To say there is a glass on the table, the statement presents a 1 to 1 corresponding model in the mind, of the glass that is supposedly on the table. And then correspondence theory is correctly limited to creations, because science shows, you cannot get any fact whatsoever about what made an event turn out A instead of B.

Then you have your totally moronic idiocy again that abstract concepts have no way in which they work. I mean, that is having zero understanding of any concepts, being a total moron.

Then you argue that nobody needs an explanation for how subjectivity works, because the system is integrated into the human being from birth. It is shown, that on the intellectual level, the understanding of it is a total mess, especially your understanding of it.

Then you lie that you are not rubbishing the concept of subjectivity altogether.

Then you lie that the creationist conceptual scheme is incoherent. A neat scheme, with all concepts defined, and perfectly integrated, without any logical error, and consistent with the logic used in common discourse. There simply doesn't exist anywhere in philosophy such a neat, perfect, conceptual scheme. The rest is all just wordy nonsense, and no integrated functional logic.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

Choosing is the mechanism of creation, it is how a creation comes to be. To choose, means to make one of alternative possible futures the present. A creator is subjective, meaning the creator is identified with a chosen opinion. The substance of a creator is spiritual. So then we can say something was chosen out of a spirit of love, or a spirit of fear.

A creation is objective. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. The substance of a creation is called material. So then we can say the material of this creation consists of stone, or wood, or whatever.

The spiritual domain, and the material domain. The subjective part of reality, and the objective part of reality. These are obviously the minimum required terminology, in order to facillitate an efficient understanding.

This is by any reasonable judgment, the best thing in all history of philosophy. Because humanity is prone to error a lot on this issue, confusing subjectivity with objectivity. And this neat scheme clears up those errors. This is of the level of importance, that it should be part of basic education, for everyone. Which by reasonable judgment, is the highest level of importance.

And without people learning this scheme, then things like the holocaust, and the covid catastrophy, will be repeated indefinitely.

You cannot prevent something like the holocaust with dumb laws against hatespeech.

We can see now in China, that they have genocidal policies against the Uygur and Tibetans. The intellectuals in China now curiously follow the work of a dead nazi intellectual named Schmidt. Which goes to show that nazism is just right wing socialism. China moved from left wing socialism, to right wing socialism. If China invades Taiwan, which is likely to occur, then in that war situation, the Uygur and Tibetan situation may be accellerated to a fullblown mass murder genocide.

So something like the holocaust, in the current climate of opinion, it can easily happen again. It is unintelligent to make laws about citizens being good, nice people who don't hate anybody. History shows that a constitution of free speech leads to peace. And then people in education, learning how subjectivity works, and how objectivity works, reinforces the constitution of free speech. That is the intelligent solution to preventing societal catastrophy like the holocaust.



Op zondag 19 februari 2023 om 20:25:05 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 12:56:03 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Actually the word opinion is also used a lot for factual issues, when there is a lack of evidence, and there are several guesses. So you keep on having a perfect score of being a liar.

Or, you keep your perfect score at being unable to read a simple
sentence in English for comprehension.

>It was already explained previously how you operate, so then to ask it again, that is another sort of lie.

I see that your definition of "lie" is as unique to you as your other
word definitions. I've asked before, and I'll ask it again: why do you
insist on using your own personal definitions for words? Do you still
not understand that this makes it impossible for anyone else to figure
out what the hell you're talking about most of the time?

>Yes the word beautiful for instance is part of how subjectivity works,

You're still stuck on the idea of objectifying how subjectivity
"works". Do you still not see the rather obvious problem with that?

>and the word is objective, we can see the word.

"Beautiful" is a subjective term. You're really having problems with
your own ideas at this point.

> So that was you being a total and utter moron, complaining about objectifying subjectivity.

No, it was me pointing out that once again, you're spinning in circles
trying to do just that.

>Then you ask the retard question again, why would opinions be chosen?

No, I asked you why YOU think that opinions are chosen.

>That's just the way it works.

According to you, and literally no one else, ever.

> Why are facts 1 to 1 corresponding models of a creation, in the mind?

I have no idea why you think that either.

> That's just the way it works.

So you don't actually have a reason to think that, you just think it.
That's really not helpful if you're seriously trying to convince
anyone of anything.

>And science of quantum mechanics proves you cannot get any fact whatsoever, about what made an event turn out A instead of B, so that is why we can only choose an opinion on the issue.

I'm certain that your grasp of quantum mechanics is about as steady
and reliable as your grasp of English, so I'm not even going to bother
to respond.

>Then you are a total retard again, who doesn't understand correspondence theory, which is basically just copying.

Theories explain observations. Your "correspondence theory" doesn't
explain anything, it's just another notion you came up with.

> To say there is a glass on the table, the statement presents a 1 to 1 corresponding model in the mind, of the glass that is supposedly on the table. And then correspondence theory is correctly limited to creations, because science shows, you cannot get any fact whatsoever about what made an event turn out A instead of B.

No, science doesn't say that at all. On the macroscopic level,
causality is still very much the paradigm. You literally have no idea
what you're talking about.

>Then you have your totally moronic idiocy again that abstract concepts have no way in which they work. I mean, that is having zero understanding of any concepts, being a total moron

Or it could be that again, I'm pointing out that you're using your own
personal definitions for words.

>Then you argue that nobody needs an explanation for how subjectivity works, because the system is integrated into the human being from birth

No, I'm pointing out that subjectivity doesn't actually *do* anything.
It's a concept. To talk about "how it works" is a category error.

>. It is shown, that on the intellectual level, the understanding of it is a total mess, especially your understanding of it.

You have shown nothing of the kind.

>Then you lie that you are not rubbishing the concept of subjectivity altogether.

No, I'm not: again, I'm rubbishing the nonsense you're spouting

>Then you lie that the creationist conceptual scheme is incoherent.

And you're about to demonstrate that I'm right, which is very kind of
you, really.

>A neat scheme, with all concepts defined, and perfectly integrated, without any logical error, and consistent with the logic used in common discourse.

Literally none of that is true.

>There simply doesn't exist anywhere in philosophy such a neat, perfect, conceptual scheme. The rest is all just wordy nonsense, and no integrated functional logic.

Let's see if that's true or not. Please go on...

>1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion

That doesn't mean anything. It's word salad.

>2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

That doesn't mean anything either. It's also word salad.

>Choosing is the mechanism of creation, it is how a creation comes to be. To choose, means to make one of alternative possible futures the present. A creator is subjective, meaning the creator is identified with a chosen opinion. The substance of a creator is spiritual. So then we can say something was chosen out of a spirit of love, or a spirit of fear.

We can "say" all of that. We can also say that literally every part of
it is nonsensical. As always, you're using your own personal
definitions for words, and as usual, the result is an incoherent mess
that doesn't actually communicate anything to anyone who isn't you.

>A creation is objective. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. The substance of a creation is called material. So then we can say the material of this creation consists of stone, or wood, or whatever.

That's just as confused as the previous paragraph.

>The spiritual domain, and the material domain. The subjective part of reality, and the objective part of reality. These are obviously the minimum required terminology, in order to facillitate an efficient understanding.

What is it that you think requires understanding?

>This is by any reasonable judgment, the best thing in all history of philosophy.

That's hilarious. How about curing cancer next?

> Because humanity is prone to error a lot on this issue, confusing subjectivity with objectivity.

Even if this were the case, your attempt at explaining the difference
makes it even more confusing.

> And this neat scheme clears up those errors.

So does Daniel Patrick Moynihan's dictum that you're entitled to your
own opinions, not your own facts, which doesn't wander off into the
fever swamp of your weird notions and word salads.

> This is of the level of importance, that it should be part of basic education, for everyone. Which by reasonable judgment, is the highest level of importance.
>
>And without people learning this scheme, then things like the holocaust, and the covid catastrophy, will be repeated indefinitely.

That does not follow.

>You cannot prevent something like the holocaust with dumb laws against hatespeech.

Who claimed that you can?

>We can see now in China, that they have genocidal policies against the Uygur and Tibetans. The intellectuals in China now curiously follow the work of a dead nazi intellectual named Schmidt. Which goes to show that nazism is just right wing socialism. China moved from left wing socialism, to right wing socialism. If China invades Taiwan, which is likely to occur, then in that war situation, the Uygur and Tibetan situation may be accellerated to a fullblown mass murder genocide.

Right-wing socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism is part of the left by
definition.

>So something like the holocaust, in the current climate of opinion, it can easily happen again.

Yes, but literally nothing you have to offer would affect that in any
way.

> It is unintelligent to make laws about citizens being good, nice people who don't hate anybody.

No one has ever proposed such a ridiculous law.

> History shows that a constitution of free speech leads to peace.

The US Constitution enshrines free speech in the First Amendment. Less
than 75 years after it was ratified, we were fighting a civil war. So
much for that notion.

> And then people in education, learning how subjectivity works, and how objectivity works, reinforces the constitution of free speech.

How so?

>That is the intelligent solution to preventing societal catastrophy like the holocaust.

In order for a solution to be intelligent, it is a prerequisite that
it be intelligible. That rules yours out.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
> Actually the word opinion is
>

Salad. I prefer word salad with vinaigrette. And some feta. Snippety do
dah, snippety day. Oh what a wonderful day.

>
> Then you ask the retard question again, why would opinions be chosen?
>

Left this in for echo.

>
> Then you are a total retard again, who doesn't understand correspondence
> theory, which is basically just copying.
>

What was it Richard Rorty said about mirroring. Or was it Althusser
conjuring Lacan. Mirror mirror on the wall. Is my reflection me. Am I an
interpellation?

Why does Zizek always interrupt perfectly lucid and cogent prose with some
arcane Lacanian aside that looks like English but reads more like a acid
induced mad lib? Just a wonder…that…and so on.

>
> Then you lie that you are not rubbishing the concept of subjectivity altogether.
>

Oh there’s some rubbishing about to go on here because I do declare myself
the unrivaled king of subjectivity. You cannot win because you do not count
for squat in my world. You have no recourse to a common discourse.
Subjectivity negates all even itself.

>
> Then you lie that the creationist conceptual scheme is incoherent. A neat
> scheme, with all concepts defined, and perfectly integrated, without any
> logical error, and consistent with the logic used in common discourse.
>

There can be no discourse ethics if subjectivity reigns supreme over itself
selfsame selfishness selfy in the mirror, but Rorty (or Lacan/Althusser).

>
> Choosing is the mechanism of creation, it is how a creation comes to be.
>

I am creating right now. Isn’t it grandiose?

[jillery]

It would be grandiose to expect Nando to understand that choosing not
to create is also a choice, which shows there's more to creation than
choosing. "Let there be dark" illustrates not-creation.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

What, do abstract concepts belong in the moron category? You are talking about nothing with your category error.Abstract concepts are functional, as can be demonstrated by if you would program it into a computer. The creationist conceptual scheme is a superpowerful strategic tool for processing information, efficiently categorizing between subjective issues and objective issues, it does a lot of work.

So you rubbished the entirety of all abstract concepts. And then you are a complete and utter retard who will not acknowledge that the word beautiful can be objectively seen.

The entire creationist conceptual scheme hinges on the concept of choosing. Choosing creates new information, the information which way the decision turns out. The origin is the start, there cannot be any process underlying the origin, or before the start. Because if there was some underlying process found to what is called the origin, then that process would be the actual origin, and what was first called the origin, was wrongly called the origin.

So the new information which way the decision turned out, is the start. And there cannot be any process underlying it.If one of alternative possible futures is made the present, then it is defacto a decision. Choosing must be essentially spontaneous, it must be anticipatory in regards to a future of possibilities, it must directly, instantaneously, in the moment of decision, make one of alternative possible futures the present.

The entire creationist conceptual scheme basically logically folllows, in a forced way, from the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneity.

Which can only mean that those who deny creationism, also deny the reality of choosing in terms of spontaneity, as a matter of physics.

And that is the real reason people protest creationism, because you are all fucking dweebs who fundamentally conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, and not in terms of spontaneity.




Op maandag 20 februari 2023 om 00:50:05 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

What you do is not rational argumentation.

I guess what you do is some kind of authoritarian elitism. Based on your selfsuperiority that comes from conceiving of choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.

As has already been mentioned several times.

You keep on producing total crap.




maandag 20 februari 2023 om 02:45:05 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

As discussed previously, choosing can be explained in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present, or it can be explained in terms of making a possible future the present, or not.

But this distinction is not much relevant for the issues creationism deals with, the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.

To have an infinite regress of choosing to choose to choose etc., does not solve anything.



p maandag 20 februari 2023 om 07:30:07 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[*Hemidactylus*]

mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you do is not rational argumentation.
>

Just competing with your solipsist subjective bafflegab. You have no
recourse to objectivity so your argument flounders.

>
> I guess what you do is some kind of authoritarian elitism. Based on your
> selfsuperiority that comes from conceiving of choosing in terms of
> figuring out the best option.
>

Yours is the crappiest IMO subjectively. You can’t touch this. “You'll
probably get hyped, boy, 'cause you know you can't
You can't touch this
Ring the bell, school's back in
Break it down!”- Hammer

>
> As has already been mentioned several times.
>

Repetition of BS does not get you out of the performative contradiction of
your own subjectivity.

>
> You keep on producing total crap.
>

Who are you to judge?

[Nando Ronteltap]

There is nothing sollipisist about the creationist conceptual scheme.

You are a moron to use words like sollipisist, without argument.

Op maandag 20 februari 2023 om 15:45:05 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
> There is nothing sollipisist about the creationist conceptual scheme.
>
> You are a moron to use words like sollipisist, without argument.
>

What’s the point of “argument” in a subjectivist framing? I won before we
even start since that’s how things work in my world.

Your creationist conceptual scheme with an adherent count of one gives
idiosyncratic a bad name. It is a poster child for abortion. Reminds me of
the It’s Alive baby.

Here’s you refusing to put an end to your demon creation:

https://youtu.be/aTSa6E4_Zgs

[Nando Ronteltap]

As before, not only am I the greatest for discovering the creationist conceptual scheme, I am also the greatest, for simply making an argument.

One moron after another with an attitude problem, and no argumentation.

Op maandag 20 februari 2023 om 17:20:05 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[Harry Krishna]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 02:39:47 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>As discussed previously, choosing can be explained in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present, or it can be explained in terms of making a possible future the present, or not.
>
>But this distinction is not much relevant for the issues creationism deals with, the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.

I'm curious as to why Creationism deals with the concepts of
subjectivity and objectivity in your scheme. Every other Creationist
on the planet seems to think it's about Creation.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
> As before, not only am I the greatest for discovering the creationist
> conceptual scheme, I am also the greatest, for simply making an argument.
>
> One moron after another with an attitude problem, and no argumentation.
>

You have no concerns with the aboutness of others, their qualia, their
concerns. Just cold shallow objects to you. Yet you feign an appreciation
of subjectivity. Instead you are a remorseless narcissist with delusions of
grandeur.

[Nando Ronteltap]

A logical fallacy of argument from a majority. That the majority of creationists don't see creationism as validating the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, doesn't mean they are right. Perfect scoring.

Op maandag 20 februari 2023 om 18:30:05 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Nando Ronteltap]

That you say the word narcissism, means you are smartalecky about emotions. Next you might be talking about empathy, good grief.

Reality is, solely creationism provide straighforward acknowledgment of what is subjecitve. And qualia is just more smart alecky bullshit, that is about acknowledging what is objective first, and then in a very meanspirited way, give very little acknowledgment of what is subjective.

Creationism provides the straightforward acknowledgment, and, properly acknowledges that what is subjective is in charge, that only what is subjective can choose.

All those complete fuckers in science and other intellectual circles, the big name atheist assholes, on the intellectual level, they are all totally meanspirited to acknowledge any of what is subjective. Total fucking turds, and I demand the straightforward acknowledgment of emotions, which is in creationism.

And the the creationist conceptual scheme is the greatest thing, that is just reasonable judgment. Which means I am the greatest for discovering it.

People growing up, learning fact and opinion in school, with creationism, to have straightforward acceptance of the subjective part of reality, as well as the objective part of reality, then they generally would all believe in God. And they would be emancipated to choose their own opinions.

Instead of this bullshit about qualia, which is giving the kids nothing. You know you are giving them totally meanspirited bullshit. Not at all like the generous, and straighforward acknowledgement of the subjective part of reality, in creationism.




Op maandag 20 februari 2023 om 18:40:05 UTC+1 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[jillery]

Nando be Trump's doppleganger.

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 02:39:47 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>As discussed previously, choosing can be explained in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present, or it can be explained in terms of making a possible future the present, or not.
>
>But this distinction is not much relevant for the issues creationism deals with, the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.
>
>To have an infinite regress of choosing to choose to choose etc., does not solve anything.

Here's a clue for you: Don't post claims that presume infinite
regress.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-02-21 03:18:58 +0000, jillery said:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 02:39:47 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As discussed previously, choosing can be explained in terms of making
>> one of alternative possible futures the present, or it can be explained
>> in terms of making a possible future the present, or not.>
>> But this distinction is not much relevant for the issues creationism
>> deals with, the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.>
>> To have an infinite regress of choosing to choose to choose etc., does
>> not solve anything.
>
> Here's a clue for you: Don't post claims that presume infinite
> regress.

Better still: don't post at all.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[jillery]

[Nando Ronteltap]

You asserted infinite regress, by presuming choosing not to choose, is part of the fundamental definition of choosing, instead of just a complex way of choosing.


Op dinsdag 21 februari 2023 om 06:45:06 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Nando Ronteltap]

I think we can all agree that if the creationist conceptual scheme is true, that generally all scientists and intellectuals presently, are utterly clueless about the way things work in the universe. Because missing the subjective spirit choosing everything in the universe, would be a very big thing to miss, both scientifically and morally.


Op dinsdag 21 februari 2023 om 09:15:06 UTC+1 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:

[Harry Krishna]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 02:23:04 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What, do abstract concepts belong in the moron category? You are talking about nothing with your category error.

I am talking about you committing a basic logical fallacy.

>Abstract concepts are functional,

How so? For what definition of "functional"?

>as can be demonstrated by if you would program it into a computer.

If I would program what into a computer? An abstract concept?

> The creationist conceptual scheme is a superpowerful strategic tool for processing information, efficiently categorizing between subjective issues and objective issues, it does a lot of work.

It is a word salad that says nothing and does nothing.

>So you rubbished the entirety of all abstract concepts.

No, I rubbished the nonsense you're spewing about them.

>And then you are a complete and utter retard who will not acknowledge that the word beautiful can be objectively seen.

Of course the word "beautiful" can be objectively seen. I can see it
right above, where you typed it, and right here, where I typed it. But
it is an entirely subjective term. Do you really not grasp the
distinction?

>The entire creationist conceptual scheme hinges on the concept of choosing.

Why?

>Choosing creates new information, the information which way the decision turns out.

Sounds about as important and fascinating as "water is wet", but go
on...

> The origin is the start, there cannot be any process underlying the origin, or before the start. Because if there was some underlying process found to what is called the origin, then that process would be the actual origin, and what was first called the origin, was wrongly called the origin.

This is word salad.

>So the new information which way the decision turned out, is the start. And there cannot be any process underlying it.If one of alternative possible futures is made the present, then it is defacto a decision. Choosing must be essentially spontaneous, it must be anticipatory in regards to a future of possibilities, it must directly, instantaneously, in the moment of decision, make one of alternative possible futures the present.

That is also word salad.

>The entire creationist conceptual scheme basically logically folllows, in a forced way, from the concept of choosing in terms of spontaneity.
>
>Which can only mean that those who deny creationism, also deny the reality of choosing in terms of spontaneity, as a matter of physics.

Are you back to your confused notion of inanimate objects making
choices? Sure sounds like it.

>And that is the real reason people protest creationism, because you are all fucking dweebs who fundamentally conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out the best option, and not in terms of spontaneity.

My protest is that your "Creationist conceptual scheme" is a confused
mess that you can't even describe coherently.

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:08:11 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>I think we can all agree that if the creationist conceptual scheme is true

Which is about as likely as pigs flying.

>, that generally all scientists and intellectuals presently, are utterly clueless about the way things work in the universe. Because missing the subjective spirit choosing everything in the universe, would be a very big thing to miss, both scientifically and morally.

Whatever the hell "the subjective spirit choosing everything in the
universe" is supposed to mean...

[Nando Ronteltap]

It is likely true, considering on your side are the people that deny free will altogether, or make choosing use the logic of being forced. That is not likely true, given the logic used in common discourse, and the science about events that can turn out A instead of B in the moment.

According to your argumentation, this science about events turning out A instead of B in the moment, is unrelated to common dicourse about events in people's daily life that can turn out A or B in the moment. How fucking likely is that true?

It is also likely true, because you have no argumentation whatsoever, you cannot point out any error in it. And then you tried to say it was incomprehensible, but you have also accepted that the rules work without error. And then you questioned why it is that opinions are chosen. Demonstrating that you comprehend the logic of choosing an opinion.

Also, obviously, you have no alternative theory on how things work. And there is no authority for you to fall back on, because the majority authorities are lunatics like Dennett who conceive of choosing having the logic of cause and effect, compatiblism.

In the news it said, 41 percent of college graduates have anxiety, and 31 percent depression. That's high numbers, which indicate, that college screwed up their emotional life, because of the meanspirited climate of opinion at college, not to acknowledge the entire subjective part of reality.

So you just keep on being a fucking asshole, while sure you must have family members with anxiety or depression. Or possibly yourself. And you do not acknowledge the entire subjective part of reality, people's emotions, the spirit choosing. So this can only lead to total catastrophy in your personal life. It is just not possible to shove the entire subjective part of reality under the carpet, and still have a good emotional life.

It is likely true, because you have never, not even theoretically, asserted a single fact about what made some decision turn out A instead of B. Thus showing that decisionmakers are inherently subjective, meaning that they are identified with a chosen opinion.




Op dinsdag 21 februari 2023 om 21:00:07 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Nando Ronteltap]

Asswipe, your argumentation was, that we cannot say how subjectivity works, because it is subjective. Which is obviously wrong, because we can objectively see the word beautiful, which is part of how subjectivity works.

But you know you are a liar. And you know that I know that you are a liar. etc. ad infinite. Which means you are engaging in some kind of mindfuckery, screwing around with your mind, for some kind of perverse pleasure.


Op dinsdag 21 februari 2023 om 20:55:07 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 13:32:21 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Asswipe, your argumentation was, that we cannot say how subjectivity works, because it is subjective.

You are as confused as it is possible to be. What I said was that
attempting to explain how a concept "works" shows a fundamental
misunderstanding as to what the word "concept" means, what the word
"works" means, or both.
..
>Which is obviously wrong,

And which I never said or implied.

> because we can objectively see the word beautiful,

As I pointed out to you.

>which is part of how subjectivity works.

How so? Be specific.

>But you know you are a liar. And you know that I know that you are a liar. etc. ad infinite.

I observe that you have never pointed out a single lie on my part, you
simply claim, without any supporting evidence, that I am a liar. If
you really believe that's the case, then provide a few examples. And I
mean things that I actually wrote, not things that you imagine I've
said.

>Which means you are engaging in some kind of mindfuckery, screwing around with your mind, for some kind of perverse pleasure.

Why would I screw around with my own mind? Where's the pleasure in
that? What color is the sky on your home planet?

[Nando Ronteltap]

So now because you have your bullshit argument that subjectivity doesn't have a way in which it works, then you cannot answer the question of how subjective words such as the word "beautiful" are produced.

You are lying here, that you did not say that subjectivity is subjective. You complained several times of, "objectifying subjectivity".


Op dinsdag 21 februari 2023 om 23:20:07 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:03:06 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>You asserted infinite regress, by presuming choosing not to choose, is part of the fundamental definition of choosing, instead of just a complex way of choosing.

Either way, infinite regress is YOUR presumption.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Nonsense, it is your presumption, because you want to define the word choose, into the definition of the word choose.

To choose means to make of of alternative possible futures the present. I can go left or right, I choose left, meaning the alternative possible future of going left becomes to be the present.

See, no mention of the word choose, in the definition of the word choose. That's how to make a defintion.


Op woensdag 22 februari 2023 om 08:40:07 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:08:40 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>So now because you have your bullshit argument that subjectivity doesn't have a way in which it works,

Again, you seem to be missing the point rather badly: subjectivity is
a concept. It doesn't *do* anything, so trying to explain how it
"works" is a category error. You seem incapable of grasping this no
matter how it is explained to you.

> then you cannot answer the question of how subjective words such as the word "beautiful" are produced.

I have no idea what you mean by "produced" in this context.

>You are lying here, that you did not say that subjectivity is subjective. You complained several times of, "objectifying subjectivity".

I observed several times that you are attempting to objectify
subjectivity, yes.

[Nando Ronteltap]

There is no category error, and you have explained nothing about what the categories are.

You on the other hand make category errors all the time, confusing what is subjective, with what is objective. You confuse the objectively seen word, beautiful, for being inherently subjective.

And obviously, you cannot make anything but errors on this topic, because you do not acknowledge the entire subjective part of reality. You need to actually first acknowledge the 2 categories of the spiritual - and material domain, to avoid that category error.

The logic of subjectivity in principle describes the real world decisionmaking that goes into expressing a word like "beautiful". The logic of subjectivity says that an opinion is chosen, and that an opinion expresses something about someone who chooses. So there are the real world decisions, as a matter of physics, in forming the opinion, and the decisions of the decisionmaker, to which the opinion is in reference to.

In the case of expressing a word like beautiful, the opinion is in reference to the one choosing the opinion. To say something is beautiful, expresses a love for the way it looks, on the part of the person who chose the opinion. But one can obviously also choose opinions in reference to someone else as being a decisionmaker, like to say that someone is courageous.

But any knowledge about how subjectivity works, you consider wordsalad. Which is because you are a totally meanspirited motherfucker, who doesn't acknowledge the entire subjective part of reality.



Op woensdag 22 februari 2023 om 17:20:07 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 09:32:56 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>There is no category error, and you have explained nothing about what the categories are.

Oh for fuck's sake: look up what a category error is. I can assure you
that it does not mean what you think it means. (Which seems to be true
of at least half of the English language for you.)

>You on the other hand make category errors all the time, confusing what is subjective, with what is objective.
>You confuse the objectively seen word, beautiful, for being inherently subjective.

Oh good grief. Do you even bother to read what you're responding to?
The word "beautiful" can be objectively seen, yes. But what it refers
to, "beauty", is subjective. You are, as always, as confused as it is
possible to be.

>And obviously, you cannot make anything but errors on this topic, because you do not acknowledge the entire subjective part of reality.

For what has to be the hundredth time, I fully acknowledge
subjectivity. What I reject is your confused rantings that not only
don't communicate anything, they tend to indicate that you don't even
grasp what it is you're trying to say.

> You need to actually first acknowledge the 2 categories of the spiritual - and material domain, to avoid that category error.

I reject your notion of "the spiritual domain" as being
quasi-religious woo-woo that has no bearing on reality.

>The logic of subjectivity in principle describes the real world decisionmaking that goes into expressing a word like "beautiful".

According to you.

> The logic of subjectivity says that an opinion is chosen,

Again, for at least the hundredth time, no, opinions are not normally
"chosen" in any sense of the word. You're spouting nonsense.

>and that an opinion expresses something about someone who chooses.

And that's still word salad.

> So there are the real world decisions, as a matter of physics,

Completely and utterly wrong.

>in forming the opinion, and the decisions of the decisionmaker, to which the opinion is in reference to.

And you're back to word salad.

>In the case of expressing a word like beautiful, the opinion is in reference to the one choosing the opinion.

More word salad.

> To say something is beautiful, expresses a love for the way it looks,

OK so far...

>on the part of the person who chose the opinion.

Again, opinions are not normally "chosen". You're spouting nonsense.

> But one can obviously also choose opinions

Nope.

> in reference to someone else as being a decisionmaker, like to say that someone is courageous.
>But any knowledge about how subjectivity works, you consider wordsalad

No, I consider much of your writing to be word salad. I pointed out a
few examples above. You're welcome.

>. Which is because you are a totally meanspirited motherfucker, who doesn't acknowledge the entire subjective part of reality.

I fully acknowledge subjectivity. What I don't accept are your
incoherent ideas about it.

[Nando Ronteltap]

You can just track backwards from the objectively seen, or heard, word beautiful, to how it was produced. And the evidence will show that the word is chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, and that the word is in reference to someone who chooses. That means actual events in the brain that can turn out A or B in the moment, which are part of how subjectivity functions.

So your retarded idea that there is no how it works, to subjectivity, is a nonsense.

And again, the reason why you are a total fucking asshole, is because you fundamentally define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, or most appropiate. You use the vainglorious definition of choosing, in terms of what is best, instead of the correct fundamental definition of it, in terms of spontaneity.

Throughout your diatribes, you express this haughty vainglorious attitude, that is associated to your corrupted understanding of what it means to choose. A very obvious conflation of the moral advise to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.

And I know that you previously asserted it does not have to neccessarily be about what is best or most appropiate, but you have some selective process in there, that amounts to basically the same thing. You do not comprehend the logic of choosing in terms of spotnaneity. This would be impossible, because it is perfectly obvious that if choosing is essentially spontaneous, that then you can only point to what is subjective as doing the deciding.


Op woensdag 22 februari 2023 om 20:10:07 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 11:35:05 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>You can just track backwards from the objectively seen, or heard, word beautiful, to how it was produced.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

> And the evidence will show that the word is chosen

Yes, the words one speaks are, in fact, chosen by the person who
speaks them. Thanks for clearing that up, Captain Obvious. But that
has fuck-all to do with *opinions* being chosen.

>, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will,

This means what, exactly?

>and that the word is in reference to someone who chooses.

Word salad. You stayed on the rails longer than usual, but ran your
train of thought off them into the swamp at the end, as always.

> That means actual events in the brain that can turn out A or B in the moment, which are part of how subjectivity functions.

Nothing in that sentence gives the reader any idea of what the hell
you think you mean by it.

>So your retarded idea that there is no how it works, to subjectivity, is a nonsense.

Again, concepts don't do anything. They simply exist. "How it works"
doesn't mean anything in that context.

>And again, the reason why you are a total fucking asshole, is because you fundamentally define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, or most appropiate. You use the vainglorious definition of choosing, in terms of what is best, instead of the correct fundamental definition of it, in terms of spontaneity.

By "correct fundamental definition of it", you mean your own weird
definition of it that literally no one else accepts.

>Throughout your diatribes, you express this haughty vainglorious attitude,

I imagine that's how you might see it. Which prompts the question: did
you arrive at that opinion by "choosing" it spontaneously, or are you
basing it on reading what I wrote? Think carefully, or you'll wind up
blowing up your own position again.

> that is associated to your corrupted understanding of what it means to choose.

Or is prompted by your misunderstandings of the English language.

> A very obvious conflation of the moral advise to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing.

I'm still waiting to see any kind of logic from you...

>And I know that you previously asserted it does not have to neccessarily be about what is best or most appropiate, but you have some selective process in there, that amounts to basically the same thing.

If you mean that I have said you're free to make stupid or bad choices
if you really want to, yes, I have said that any number of times. I
have also noted that it would be almost incredibly daft of anyone to
*want* to make stupid or bad choices. Do you disagree with that
observation? If so, for fuck's sake, why?

> You do not comprehend the logic of choosing in terms of spotnaneity.

I reject your incoherent ideas about it utterly.

> This would be impossible, because it is perfectly obvious that if choosing is essentially spontaneous,

That's a big "if" there, but go on...

> that then you can only point to what is subjective as doing the deciding.

....and we're back to word salad, That literally doesn't communicate
anything as written.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Your errors are too numerous:

- logical fallacy of arguing I am not right, because nobody else says the same. Especially considering that there is no authoritive settled point of view, and instead there are totally insane nutters denying free will as the present authority, this is a total nonsense fallacy.

- your blatant error that subjectivity is not a real thing in the world, while we can obviously see it happening.

- that you confuse understanding of what the barebone logic of choosing is, with how to choose the right way. That is your most important error. You just keep on insisting on this category error, even when it is pointed out to you again, and again. You clearly conflate the issue of how does choosing work, with the issue of what is the best way to choose. You begin to talk about what is a stupid way of choosing, when the issue is the logic of choosing.

- your total ignorance about anything to do with emotions and subjectivity, always just saying what I say is incomprehensible, but never saying what is right

- That you have only 1 "category", refuse to acknowledge the subjective part of reality, which obviously means you will continuously make category errors. It is obviously absolutely impossible for you to not make category errors, if you do not acknowledge the 2 fundamental categories in the first place.

It is perfectly simple that I feel the spirit in which you make your decisions, choosing to write what you do, is this haughty vainglorious attitude. Correctly understood, all decisions are spontaneous, because all decisions can turn out A or B in the moment. So then even a considered opinion, in my considerations, there is still spontaneity. So my opinion is a considered opinion.


Op donderdag 23 februari 2023 om 00:40:08 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 07:32:05 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Nonsense, it is your presumption, because you want to define the word choose, into the definition of the word choose.
>
>To choose means to make of of alternative possible futures the present. I can go left or right, I choose left, meaning the alternative possible future of going left becomes to be the present.

Once again you conveniently don't mention to stay in place, meaning
the alternative possible future of staying in place becomes the

present.


>See, no mention of the word choose, in the definition of the word choose. That's how to make a defintion.

However you choose to define definitions, your definition of "choose"
presumes infinite regress.

[Nando Ronteltap]

A total lie, as explained before.

Op donderdag 23 februari 2023 om 02:40:08 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 16:46:49 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Your errors are too numerous:

And you're back to projecting,..

>- logical fallacy of arguing I am not right, because nobody else says the same

No, I am arguing that you are insisting on applying your own personal
definitions to words and concepts that no one else shares. That is an
entirely separate issue than whether your ideas are right or wrong.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you that you are completely
incapable of reading ANYTHING for comprehension?

>. Especially considering that there is no authoritive settled point of view, and instead there are totally insane nutters denying free will as the present authority,

I'll donate $100 to any charity of your choice, and post the receipt
here for all to see, if you can explain coherently what the hell
"denying free will as the present authority" is supposed to mean.

> this is a total nonsense fallacy.

What is?

>- your blatant error that subjectivity is not a real thing in the world, while we can obviously see it happening.

I have never argued that subjectivity is not a real thing in this
world. Again, what the fuck is wrong with you that you can't
comprehend anything that you read in English?

>- that you confuse understanding of what the barebone logic of choosing is,

Which is incoherent in your presentation thereof.

>with how to choose the right way.

I haven't said a word about that, you fucking idiot,. You're the one
who is insisting on a particular way for people to make choices. I'm
simply telling you that while you are correct that you're free to make
whatever choices you like, on whatever criteria you wish, it's pretty
stupid to want to make bad choices.

>That is your most important error.

No, it's just another of your own endless reading comprehension
errors.

> You just keep on insisting on this category error, even when it is pointed out to you again, and again.

I haven't made any category errors. You won't stop making them. Nor
could you correctly define what a category error is even if I upped my
offer to pay $500 to the charity of your choice if you manage to do
so.

> You clearly conflate the issue of how does choosing work, with the issue of what is the best way to choose.

I am not conflating them at all, you fucking idiot. I'm saying that a
prudent person wouldn't *want* to make stupid choices. Whereas making
stupid choices is just fine with you, as long as those choices are
spontaneous. Seriously, what is your mental malfunction?

>You begin to talk about what is a stupid way of choosing,
> when the issue is the logic of choosing.

No, I observe that a person who isn't completely batshit crazy
wouldn't WANT to make stupid choices. That is entirely separate from
HOW people make choices. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with your
brain that you can't grasp that rather huge distinction?

>- your total ignorance about anything to do with emotions and subjectivity, always just saying what I say is incomprehensible, but never saying what is right

I have pointed out quite a few things that you've gotten right in the
past few posts we've exchanged. Shall I list them for you? That said,
yes, a lot of what you post is word salad that doesn't communicate
anything.

>- That you have only 1 "category"

I have no idea what you mean by that, and I am certain that you don't
either.

> refuse to acknowledge the subjective part of reality,

Complete and utter nonsense. I have stated repeatedly and definitively
that I absolutely acknowledge subjectivity.

> which obviously means you will continuously make category errors.

Such as?

Cite one. Right here.

> It is obviously absolutely impossible for you to not make category errors, if you do not acknowledge the 2 fundamental categories in the first place.

I acknowledge both subjectivity and objectivity. Where, specifically,
do you think I'm falling into a category error? (What, in your own
words, do you think a category error is, BTW? I am quite sure that as
with pretty much everything else in English, you have your own weird
definition for it.)

>It is perfectly simple that I feel the spirit in which you make your decisions,

And once again, we're back with Crazy Nando, who thinks he can read
minds.

You can't.

Get competent psychiatric help.

> choosing to write what you do, is this haughty vainglorious attitude. Correctly understood, all decisions are spontaneous,

Sure, it you're a toddler, a teenager, or a habitual felon. For most
rational people, not so much. And let's stop with the "correctly
understood" bullshit: it's as ridiculous as your "common discourse"
nonsense. By "correctly understood" you mean according to your own
personal definition of words that no one else shares, and by "common
discourse" you mean the same.

> because all decisions can turn out A or B in the moment.

Are all decisions binary? You certainly imply it. Is that what you
mean to say?

> So then even a considered opinion, in my considerations, there is still spontaneity.

In what way?

> So my opinion is a considered opinion.

I know what non-crazy people mean by "considered opinion". What do you
mean by it here? Please consider your answer very carefully, because
you're going to detonate another grenade inside your own position if
you don't...

[Nando Ronteltap]

How does choosing work, and how does subjectivity work?

You can see the people saying the word beautiful, which is subjectivity, how does it work?

Oh you cannot answer the question of how it works, because in your screwed up ideas of things, there isn't any how it works to it. And also with choosing, you just address how people ought to choose, and do not address how choosing actually works.

And obviously I can feel when someone is sad, or angry, or vainglorious. That is not about mindreading, that is about relating as a decisionmaker, to another decisionmaker. You have no clue about anything.

So you are arguing towards ignorance, your argument is about validating ignorance of subjectivity and choosing.


Op donderdag 23 februari 2023 om 17:15:08 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 09:44:30 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>How does choosing work, and how does subjectivity work?

Again, subjectivity is a concept. Concepts don't do anything, so
asking how it works is meaningless.

>You can see the people saying the word beautiful, which is subjectivity,

"Subjective" is the word you want there.

> how does it work?

How does what work?

>Oh you cannot answer the question of how it works,

Because, again, subjectivity is a CONCEPT. It doesn't DO anything, so
asking "how it works" is meaningless.

> because in your screwed up ideas of things, there isn't any how it works to it.

That's true, because again, it's a fucking CONCEPT.

> And also with choosing, you just address how people ought to choose
>, and do not address how choosing actually works.

Normally, people consider their options and pick out what they think
is the best alternative of those available. Your insistence that all
choices must be spontaneous is just another of your odd ideas that you
can't let go of.

>And obviously I can feel when someone is sad, or angry, or vainglorious.

No, obviously you *believe* that you can do so, but your track record
here speaks for itself that you can't.

>That is not about mindreading, that is about relating as a decisionmaker, to another decisionmaker.

That is a distinction without a difference.

> You have no clue about anything.
>
>So you are arguing towards ignorance, your argument is about validating ignorance of subjectivity and choosing.

No, it's about pointing out your ignorance of what words mean in
English.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I think your $500 (or even your $100) are safe for the moment. No need
to ask your bank for a loan.

[Nando Ronteltap]

There are rules for how to use subjective words, and rules for how to use objective words. There is a how it works to it, regardless of whether it is abstract, or in the physical universe. And obviously subjectivity is a part of the behaviour of people, expressing words such as the word beautiful.

There is also a concept "planet". I can still ask, what is a planet, and the answer won't be, it's a concept. And ask, how the solar system works, regardless, that "solar system" is a concept.

Subjectivity refers to those decisionmaking processes, by which subjective words are chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, which words express something about someone who chooses. And then it is debatable whether subjectivity is only words, or if it includes utterances like aaah, and oooh, and all sorts of bodily expression, like facial expression.

And then you blatantly keep conflating the issue of how how best to choose, with the issue of how choosing works. Objectively decisions can turn out A or B in the moment. Objectively a decision makes one of alternative possible futures the present. Objectively, there is organization to decisionmaking processes. What is best, is subjective.

Op donderdag 23 februari 2023 om 19:05:09 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:59:57 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>There are rules for how to use subjective words, and rules for how to use objective words.

"Rules" that you made up yourself, it should be noted.

> There is a how it works to it, regardless of whether it is abstract, or in the physical universe.
> And obviously subjectivity is a part of the behaviour of people, expressing words such as the word beautiful.
>There is also a concept "planet". I can still ask, what is a planet, and the answer won't be, it's a concept.

Apples and oranges."Planet" can refer to both a concept and an object.
"Subjectivity" is just a concept. Specifically, it's an abstract

concept.

> And ask, how the solar system works, regardless, that "solar system" is a concept.

Apples and oranges again. "Solar system" is both a concept, and a
collection of physical objects. "Subjectivity" is still just a
concept. Specifically, an abstract one.

>Subjectivity refers to those decisionmaking processes, by which subjective words are chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, which words express something about someone who chooses. And then it is debatable whether subjectivity is only words, or if it includes utterances like aaah, and oooh, and all sorts of bodily expression, like facial expression.

Translation into English, please.

>And then you blatantly keep conflating the issue of how how best to choose, with the issue of how choosing works

I have done no such thing. I have, in fact, made it very clear that I
do NOT conflate the two. But expecting you to read for comprehension
now, when you've never done so before, I have to admit, is probably an
exercise in futility.

>. Objectively decisions can turn out A or B in the moment. Objectively a decision makes one of alternative possible futures the present. Objectively, there is organization to decisionmaking processes. What is best, is subjective.

Objectively, you're still spinning in circles, unable to process
anything you've read for comprehension.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Basically you are just another total moron like all the rest. Falling into the trap of defining choosing in terms of figuring out the best result, instead of defining it in terms of spontaneity.

And then you are a total nazi about hanging on to your total mess, no matter the consequences. You have already been completely out argued, you just keep holding on to positions, that are obviously crazy.

Cue the craziness of confusing the logic of choosing, with how best to choose. And the craziness of there being no rules, no how it works, to subjectivity. It is all very predictable.

How rational debate would proceed is, trying to figure out what logic is used with the word choose, in common discourse. Which leads to discovering the distinction between the word choose being used metaphorically, like for a chesscomputer calculating a move, and the proper use of it, of making one of alternative possible futures the present, in the moment. And then the dictionary definitions would be criticized, as an obvious conflation of the moral advice to do what is best, with the logic of choosing.

And then obviously it would be further discussed if there is any science about it. Which is obviously the quantum mechanics of events that can turn out A or B in the moment. With reference to the paper that proves possibilities exist, by searching a database without running the search algorithm, exploiting the possiblity that the search algorithm could have run.

And then the logic of subjectivity is investigated in common discourse. And it is quite apparent that subjectivity is always in respect to a decisionmaker. And that emotions and personal character are an attribute of a decisionmaker, and therefore subjective.

Which leads to the connection with quantum mechanics, that there is never any fact about what made the event turn out A or B in the moment.

etc. etc. and then put it all together, there is the creationist conceptual scheme, which is consistent with common discourse, as well as science. Although the creationist conceptual scheme also points out many errors in common discourse, of confusing fact with opinion, and certainly points out opposition within science to creationism in the generic sense of it, as an error.

All perfectly rational. What you do is not rational, it is crazy.

Op donderdag 23 februari 2023 om 21:25:09 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:07:50 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Basically you are just another total moron like all the rest.

Sure, everyone who disagrees with you is a moron, a Nazi, or whatever
insult pops first into your head.

> Falling into the trap of defining choosing in terms of figuring out the best result,

No one is defining it in that way. As I have said many times, and I
will tell you again, you are free to choose whatever options you like,
even a stupid one. But it would be pretty fucking stupid to want to
make a stupid decision.

> instead of defining it in terms of spontaneity.

You mean like a toddler, a teenager, or a habitual felon? You might
want to look up the notion of impulse control: spontaneity is NOT
always a good idea.

>And then you are a total nazi about hanging on to your total mess, no matter the consequences.

What "consequences" would those be? You going on an unhinged rant?
That's hardly a deterrent.

>You have already been completely out argued,

You are completely delusional.

> you just keep holding on to positions, that are obviously crazy.

That's funny, it's what everyone has been telling you for years.

>Cue the craziness of confusing the logic of choosing, with how best to choose.

By "the logic of choosing", you mean your own incomprehensible ideas
about the topic.

>And the craziness of there being no rules, no how it works, to subjectivity. It is all very predictable.

It's very predictable that you can't recognize the complete inanity of
trying to apply rules to an abstract concept.

>How rational debate would proceed is, trying to figure out what logic is used with the word choose, in common discourse.

Then I suggest you do that: nothing of what you have to say on the
topic is on the same planet as "common discourse".

> Which leads to discovering the distinction between the word choose being used metaphorically, like for a chesscomputer calculating a move, and the proper use of it, of making one of alternative possible futures the present, in the moment. And then the dictionary definitions would be criticized, as an obvious conflation of the moral advice to do what is best, with the logic of choosing.

In other words, we should all use words the way you define them.
That's idiotic.

>And then obviously it would be further discussed if there is any science about it.

The answer to that is a pretty obvious and resounding "no".

> Which is obviously the quantum mechanics of events that can turn out A or B in the moment. With reference to the paper that proves possibilities exist, by searching a database without running the search algorithm, exploiting the possiblity that the search algorithm could have run.

I see that you're back to your bizarre notion of inanimate objects
making choices.

>And then the logic of subjectivity is investigated in common discourse.

Again, nothing you have to say is in the realm of common discourse,
because you keep insisting on using your own definitions for words.

> And it is quite apparent that subjectivity is always in respect to a decisionmaker. And that emotions and personal character are an attribute of a decisionmaker, and therefore subjective.

That doesn't follow.

>Which leads to the connection with quantum mechanics

That emphatically does not follow either.

>that there is never any fact about what made the event turn out A or B in the moment.
>etc. etc. and then put it all together, there is the creationist conceptual scheme, which is consistent with common discourse, as well as science.

It is neither.

> Although the creationist conceptual scheme also points out many errors in common discourse,

It does no such thing.

>of confusing fact with opinion, and certainly points out opposition within science to creationism in the generic sense of it, as an error.

It does no such thing.

>All perfectly rational.

In no way whatsoever.

> What you do is not rational, it is crazy.

Pointing out that your ideas are nonsensical may be futile, but crazy
is too strong a word for it.


I

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 6:10:09 PM UTC-5, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:

Never mind a chess playing computer. What about you? When you play chess do you choose the best move you can think of, or do you spontaneously pick a move without regard to whether it is a good move or a bad one?

<snip>

[Nando Ronteltap]

It is obviously totally crazy, that there would be no rules to concepts, also abstract concepts. I can define latomir, as 2 steps forward, 3 to the side, and 1 step back. Anything can be defined with any rules whatsoever. So you have said there are no rules to subjectivity, and by extension objectivity as well, no rules, because they are abstract concepts. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. If the model in the mind does not correspond with what is being modelled, then the statement of fact is inaccurate. If it does correspond, the fact is accurate. Those are the rules for objectivity. That is how objectivity works. You cannot do any science when you do not apply these rules.

You have really made ignorance into a moral value, by insisting that there are no rules for abstract concepts. You have basically equivocated between all abstract concepts, that they are all meaningless.

You saying that it is bizarre that things in the inanimate world are chosen, meaning that there are alternative possible futures which way it can turn out, and one of the possiblities is made the present, is a logical fallacy. What you find bizarre or not, has nothing to do with how things actually work. You see, I say you are fucking crazy, and then explain what errors you are making. You just say something is bizarre, and then do not explain any error in it.

I just searched on google the keywords, subjectivity philosophy. If you want to see a totally garbled fucking mess, then google those words. It's all total and utter crap what you get to see there, including the big idea crap of people like Descartes, and postmodernism. It is all very obviously about, what do we like subjectivity to be, what definition of it gives us some satisfaction. And it is not about, how does subjectivity actually work, what is the underlying logic in a subjective statement?

Asshole, liar, is it not true that in common discourse we always talk in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present, when we talk about choosing things? You previously said, that you are not a liar. But very obviously you are lying about this, that I would have just made it up, how choosing works, and not accurately conveyed the logic used in common discourse. And ofcourse, I have already mentioned this about a dozen times, which means, you are a total liar throughout your posting. You mistake your feelies that you find something bizarre, for the objective truth of how things work. Because you are totally clueless about feelings.

And as before, you cause people to objectify personal character, as a matter of biology. This is what you do, there is no doubt about it. What can you say to a nazi, or an evolutionary psychologist, who has their sophisticated ideas about personal character? With exacting measurements of skulls, and behavior patterns, and whatever else. You can say, personal character is subjective. Then the nazi asks, what does that mean when you say subjective, we have all these measurements? And then you say, there are no rules to subjectivity, because, it is an abstract concept. So then the nazi shrugs, ok, so no meaning then.

It is all very obvious that you are a liar, and that you never engage in rational discourse. You have your dumb subjective opinions about what is bizarre, and that you cannot comprehend. In the meantime, you same as a nazi, are hellbent to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. Because obviously if you address the issue of how choosing works, by saying that spontaneity is a bad way of choosing, then you are arguing in terms of good, better, best.

Op vrijdag 24 februari 2023 om 19:30:10 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Nando Ronteltap]

There are chessplayers who play much on feeling, and there are chessplayers who play much on calculation. I guess to play chess based on emotions has the most potential, especially considering playing against powerfull computercalculators, because it means you have automated the calculations, and then you are at a higher strategic level. Much as like when you have learned to drive a car, and learned to drive a particular route, then it is much automated. And then you govern driving much with feeling over those largely automated processes.

And obviously, you are just another asshole for not considering how choosing actually works, which is obviously spontaneity. Very obviously, to choose in terms of what is best, is a complex way of choosing, based on spontaneity. It means you first choose some value as what your goal is. Then you do some calculations which is the most efficient way to reach the goal. Then if there is any freedom left in it after the calculations, then you may consider the judgment on the spirit in which you make your decision. So you can try out choosing it, in your mind, and then choose a judgment on the spirit in which you made the decision. And then you can choose between the judgments that you have formed, etc. etc. etc. obviously to choose in terms of what is best, is a complicated way of choosing, and not the fundamental definition of choosing.


Op vrijdag 24 februari 2023 om 20:10:10 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-5, Nando Ronteltap wrote:

This is interesting. You are suggesting that a great chess player has a better chance of finding the best move by intuition rather than by conscious calculation. And that is not crazy. One way of saying what you might be aiming at is that trying to choose the best option, by consciously weighing options and thinking it through in detail might be a less effective way of reaching the best result than by trusting your gut. And I do think it is true that when people make difficult decisions they sometimes deceive themselves by coming up with careful chains of reasoning and rationales for what they wanted to choose anyway. You might argue that they could sometimes trick themselves into a sub-optimal choice by focusing too much on rationales for their choices. So a spontaneous, intuitive choice might be better than one made by meticulously considering how to make the best choice - that would be true, as in the case of the great chess player, if one had so thoroughly internalized the reasoning that it was subconscious.

> There are chessplayers who play much on feeling, and there are chessplayers who play much on calculation. I guess to play chess based on emotions has the most potential, especially considering playing against powerfull computercalculators, because it means you have automated the calculations, and then you are at a higher strategic level. Much as like when you have learned to drive a car, and learned to drive a particular route, then it is much automated. And then you govern driving much with feeling over those largely automated processes.
>
> And obviously, you are just another asshole for not considering how choosing actually works, which is obviously spontaneity.

Well, I can think of a way in which you might be correct here, too. It might be the case that *every* rationale for a choice (thinking of what is the best option) is really an after the fact justification for a decision that has already really been made, subconsciously. I do think that that is often true, but I do think that sometimes, for complex decisions about which you need to acquire additional information, thinking it through and trying to figure out what the best option is may, sometimes, work better than your initial gut reaction. That would be the case, too, for less killed chess players who really do need to work through a lot of options step by step and try to choose the best, since they have not had enough practice and skill to make their immediate intuition reliable.

[Nando Ronteltap]

That also goes back to that experiment with searching a database without running the search algorithm. It seems to me that you can put any kind of supercomplex automated task in place of searching a database, and find out the result, without doing it. So then it becomes more about organizing decisionmaking processes, instead of about calculation.

And I am sure the human mind has all sorts of complex things, similar to that, or at least the potential for it.

Op vrijdag 24 februari 2023 om 21:20:09 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:41:08 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>There are chessplayers who play much on feeling,

Yes. The chess term for them is "potzer". Look it up.

>and there are chessplayers who play much on calculation

Which would include every player who wants to actually win a game of
chess, and applies to every player who's actually any good at the
game.

>. I guess to play chess based on emotions has the most potential,

It has the most potential to lose the game very quickly for you. You
don't actually play chess, do you?

> especially considering playing against powerfull computercalculators, because it means you have automated the calculations,

It's not clear what "automated the calculations" means here, and whom
it applies to: the player, or the computer.

> and then you are at a higher strategic level.

LOL! You don't actually play chess, do you?

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:26:04 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>It is obviously totally crazy, that there would be no rules to concepts, also abstract concepts.

Please look up the phrase "abstract concept". Asking how it works, or
what its rules are, is an indication that as usual you have no idea
what you're talking about.

> I can define latomir, as 2 steps forward, 3 to the side, and 1 step back

Of course you can. Making up your own definitions for words is your
specialty.

>. Anything can be defined with any rules whatsoever.

You seem determined to do that with every other word you use.

> So you have said there are no rules to subjectivity,

What I have said is that subjectivity is an abstract concept. Asking
what "rules" it has indicates a fundamental confusion on your part.

> and by extension objectivity as well, no rules, because they are abstract concepts. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation

A fact is a statement that comports with reality. "George Washington
was the first President of the US" is a fact." Water boils at 100
degrees centigrade at sea level on Earth" is a fact. "Obtained by
evidence of a creation" is word salad.

>forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind

That's nonsense What is it even supposed to mean? "The Declaration of
Independence was signed in 1776" is a fact. What does a "1 to 1
corresponding model of it" look like?

>. If the model in the mind does not correspond with what is being modelled, then the statement of fact is inaccurate.

If by that, you mean that, say, if you think the Declaration of
Independence was first signed in 1456, then you're wrong, then yes, we
agree. But your way of phrasing it is bizarre. English clearly isn't
your first language.

> If it does correspond, the fact is accurate.

Those aren't rules, they're trivial observations that border on the
tautological. (Go look it up, we both know that you have no idea what
"tautological" means...)

>Those are the rules for objectivity. That is how objectivity works. You cannot do any science when you do not apply these rules.

Again, they aren't "rules".

>You have really made ignorance into a moral value, by insisting that there are no rules for abstract concepts.

No, I'm telling you that the question is meaningless in the context of
an abstract concept.

> You have basically equivocated between all abstract concepts, that they are all meaningless.

No, I said that your QUESTION regarding abstract concepts is
meaningless, because you clearly don't grasp that you're making a
category error on the level of asking what the quarterback does in a
baseball game.

>You saying that it is bizarre that things in the inanimate world are chosen, meaning that there are alternative possible futures which way it can turn out, and one of the possiblities is made the present, is a logical fallacy.

This seems like two separate sentences that you jammed together. What
is it that you're trying to say?

> What you find bizarre or not, has nothing to do with how things actually work

I find your use of the English language bizarre. What's more, it
makes it exceedingly difficult to figure out whatever the fuck it is
you think you're trying to say.

>. You see, I say you are fucking crazy, and then explain what errors you are making.

And I point out that you have managed, as usual, to have failed to
read a simple sentence In English for comprehension, and that,
inevitably, you're criticizing a made-up position that I never claimed
or implied. Serious question: English clearly isn't your first
language, but is there another one that you actually understand? Maybe
you should try posting in it instead.

>You just say something is bizarre, and then do not explain any error in it.

Your usage of the English language is bizarre even when you're
correct. Your phrasing and grammar are deeply weird, for a start, and
your insistence on using your own definitions for words, and that
everyone else should use them too, is tilting at windmills. (It's a
Don Quixote reference. Look it up.)

>I just searched on google the keywords, subjectivity philosophy. If you want to see a totally garbled fucking mess, then google those words.

If I want to see a garbled mess, I can just read your posts.

> It's all total and utter crap what you get to see there,

So you don't agree with the results? I suggest you complain to Google,
rather than bitching at me about it.

> including the big idea crap of people like Descartes, and postmodernism.

Who have next to nothing in common other than philosophy in the
general sense, but do go on...

> It is all very obviously about, what do we like subjectivity to be, what definition of it gives us some satisfaction.

You mean they disagree with your ideas about subjectivity.

> And it is not about, how does subjectivity actually work, what is the underlying logic in a subjective statement?

What *is* it about, then? I'd be fascinated in hearing it...

>Asshole, liar, is it not true that in common discourse we always talk in terms of making one of alternative possible futures the present, when we talk about choosing things?

No, it isn't, You are literally the only person who says this.

> You previously said, that you are not a liar. But very obviously you are lying about this, that I would have just made it up, how choosing works,

It's difficult to come to any other conclusion based on your writing.

> and not accurately conveyed the logic used in common discourse.

If you say "logic" or "common discourse" again, I may die laughing.
You are completely unfamiliar with either.

> And ofcourse, I have already mentioned this about a dozen times, which means, you are a total liar throughout your posting

Do you really think that repeating a wrong claim on your part makes it
true?

>. You mistake your feelies that you find something bizarre,

I find your use of the English language bizarre, yes. Because it is.
Any native speaker of the language would find your grammar and syntax
weird at best.

> for the objective truth of how things work.

That's a totally different issue. On that, you swing between
"obviously wrong" and "incoherent". You really don't have much of a
middle ground there.

> Because you are totally clueless about feelings.

Non Sequitur.

>And as before, you cause people to objectify personal character, as a matter of biology.

No, I have said outright that this model is completely false, and
pointed out that the Nazis used this pseudoscientific nonsense as
propaganda. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you that you insist
that I hold a position that I have said is false all along?

> This is what you do, there is no doubt about it.

Again, I DO NOT HOLD THAT POSITION. I have stated unequivocally every
time you bring it up that it is pernicious pseudo-scientific nonsense
that the Nazis employed as propaganda. Seriously, what the fuck is
wrong with your brain that you can't grasp what I stated in plain
English, and insist that I believe in ideas that I REJECT COMPLETELY
AND STATE SO OPENLY.

> What can you say to a nazi

"Fuck you, Nazi" would be a good start.

>, or an evolutionary psychologist, who has their sophisticated ideas about personal character?

Which you completely fail to understand. You can't even get basic
ideas right when they're repeated to you ad nauseam: sophistication is
WAY over your head.

>With exacting measurements of skulls, and behavior patterns, and whatever else.

Physiognomy was discredited as science well before the Nazis even
existed. Behavior patterns, on the other hand, can be observed. For
example, it is trivial to note that when someone criticizes your
ideas, that you will inevitably call them a Nazi sooner or later.
That's from observing your behavior: you wind up there eventually 100%
of the time.

> You can say, personal character is subjective. Then the nazi asks, what does that mean when you say subjective, we have all these measurements?

And I say the same thing to them as I say to you: they're spouting
nonsense that has no relevance to anything. Again, physiognomy was
recognized as pseudo-science before the Nazis came along: their skull
measurements have no bearing on anything.

> And then you say, there are no rules to subjectivity, because, it is an abstract concept. So then the nazi shrugs, ok, so no meaning then.

I don't give a flying fuck how a Nazi reacts to anything I say, and
that reaction is a Non Sequitur fallacy in any case.

>It is all very obvious that you are a liar,

This is getting very tedious. Point to any statements that I have made
that qualify as that.

>and that you never engage in rational discourse.

How would you know?

>You have your dumb subjective opinions about what is bizarre,

"Subjective opinion", again, is as redundant as saying "wet water".

> and that you cannot comprehend.

I can assure you that when I can't comprehend what you're saying,
there's a chance of around 99.9999999999999999999% that the problem is
on your end.

> In the meantime, you same as a nazi, are hellbent to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.

No, again, you are free to choose in whatever way you like. But why
would you WANT to choose something stupid?

> Because obviously if you address the issue of how choosing works, by saying that spontaneity is a bad way of choosing,
>then you are arguing in terms of good, better, best.

Please quote my exact words: it's getting very tedious looking over
everything that came before to figure out what the fuck you're
referring to, and even then it's often not clear. That's because you
insist on top-posting like a fucking lunatic, even though it makes it
difficult to impossible to figure out what you're on about a lot of
the time. For someone who is so convinced of the importance of his own
ideas, why do you make it as difficult as possible for yourself to
communicate them to others?

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 12:15:59 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 2:45:09?PM UTC-5, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
>This is interesting. You are suggesting that a great chess player has a better chance of finding the best move by intuition rather than by conscious calculation.

I doubt very much that's what he means. On a Grandmaster level,
intuition like that is formed by seeing thousands of similar positions
over years of study and play, analyzing the outcomes and possible
alternative lines to what occurred over the board, and applying the
principles learned from it. I'm close to 100% sure that Nando means
just playing impulsively, analysis or knowledge of the game be damned.

> And that is not crazy. One way of saying what you might be aiming at is that trying to choose the best option, by consciously weighing options and thinking it through in detail might be a less effective way of reaching the best result than by trusting your gut. And I do think it is true that when people make difficult decisions they sometimes deceive themselves by coming up with careful chains of reasoning and rationales for what they wanted to choose anyway. You might argue that they could sometimes trick themselves into a sub-optimal choice by focusing too much on rationales for their choices. So a spontaneous, intuitive choice might be better than one made by meticulously considering how to make the best choice - that would be true, as in the case of the great chess player, if one had so thoroughly internalized the
>reasoning that it was subconscious.
>
>
>> There are chessplayers who play much on feeling, and there are chessplayers who play much on calculation. I guess to play chess based on emotions has the most potential, especially considering playing against powerfull computercalculators, because it means you have automated the calculations, and then you are at a higher strategic level. Much as like when you have learned to drive a car, and learned to drive a particular route, then it is much automated. And then you govern driving much with feeling over those largely automated processes.
>>
>> And obviously, you are just another asshole for not considering how choosing actually works, which is obviously spontaneity.
>
>Well, I can think of a way in which you might be correct here, too. It might be the case that *every* rationale for a choice (thinking of what is the best option) is really an after the fact justification for a decision that has already really been made, subconsciously. I do think that that is often true, but I do think that sometimes, for complex decisions about which you need to acquire additional information, thinking it through and trying to figure out what the best option is may, sometimes, work better than your initial gut reaction. That would be the case, too, for less killed chess players who really do need to work through a lot of options step by step and try to choose the best, since they have not had enough practice and skill to make their immediate intuition reliable.
>
> >Very obviously, to choose in terms of what is best, is a complex way of choosing, based on spontaneity. It means you first choose some value as what your goal is. Then you do some calculations which is the most efficient way to reach the goal. Then if there is any freedom left in it after the calculations, then you may consider the judgment on the spirit in which you make your decision. So you can try out choosing it, in your mind, and then choose a judgment on the spirit in which you made the decision. And then you can choose between the judgments that you have formed, etc. etc. etc. obviously to choose in terms of what is best, is a complicated way of choosing, and not the fundamental definition of choosing.
>>
>>
>> Op vrijdag 24 februari 2023 om 20:10:10 UTC+1 schreef broger...@gmail.com:

[Nando Ronteltap]

Asswipe, reference any decision then, which is not accurately described by making one of alternative possible futures the present. You say I just made it up, then obviously my fantasy would not apply.

You seem to be backtracking on your total craziness that abstract concepts have no rules, no way in which they work. Because obviously you cannot do science without any rules.

I forgot that you are also totally clueless about objectivity, besides being clueless about subjectivity. That you have no idea about facts being a 1 to1 corresponding model of a creation, and deny it.

You do not actually have any argumentation against objectifying personal character. Which is because you don't really have any meaning for either objectivity or subjectivity, because you don't use rules. Instead of rules, you have your judgment about what is weird and bizarre, and bad, based on your feelies.

You rely on the holocaust to have occurred, to say that nazi ideology is bad, instead of pointing out the error in it. At the time ofcourse nazi ideology, and eugenics, was a popular way to improve humanity. So when the holocaust had not occurred yet, you wouldn't have reached the conclusion it is bad.

While objectifying personal character, is very obviously bad, because it makes for an emotionless judgment on people. Solely creationism points out the error.

You have no clue why phrenology and physiognomie would be wrong. You use the fact that they are denounced as wrong for convience now. And actually you previously insisted on physiognomie, which is face measuring, to come to a conclusion about personal character. You insisted that your judgment on personal character is based on objective facts, and that to choose an opinion on personal character, spontaneously, is arbitrary, and therefore wrong. Which is basically the same as your present complaints about impulsiveness.

The difference between impulse, and spontaneity, is that an impulse breaks through the ordering of decisionmaking processes, while spontaneity doesn't. But you pretend that spontaneity breaks through the ordering of cause and effect, an automated system, so then you equate spontaneity with impulsiveness.

Any precise formulation of anything will sound weird to you, because that is not a conversational style, which you insist on. And you insist on it, in order to make your dumb pronouncement by which you exert control, because you don't do rules.



Op zaterdag 25 februari 2023 om 05:52:04 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>
[me casting pearls before swine]

>
> You rely on the holocaust to have occurred, to say that nazi ideology is
> bad, instead of pointing out the error in it. At the time ofcourse nazi
> ideology, and eugenics, was a popular way to improve humanity. So when
> the holocaust had not occurred yet, you wouldn't have reached the conclusion it is bad.
>

Encouraging the propagation of so-called “fitter families” is wrong in a
different way than outlawing those perceived unfit from procreating,
incarcerating them, sterilizing them, or euthanizing them. And at some
point during the lead up to the Holocaust racial hygiene went from negative
eugenics to misapplication of germ theory metaphors, people compared to
bacteria or viruses.

>
> While objectifying personal character, is very obviously bad, because it
> makes for an emotionless judgment on people. Solely creationism points out the error.
>
> You have no clue why phrenology and physiognomie would be wrong. You use
> the fact that they are denounced as wrong for convience now. And actually
> you previously insisted on physiognomie, which is face measuring, to come
> to a conclusion about personal character. You insisted that your judgment
> on personal character is based on objective facts, and that to choose an
> opinion on personal character, spontaneously, is arbitrary, and therefore
> wrong. Which is basically the same as your present complaints about impulsiveness.
>

Well phrenology took a reasonable idea of localized function and misapplied
it as head bumps. Brain scans now are far more sophisticated, but can fall
into the same sort of trap.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:52:48 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>A total lie, as explained before.

So you subjectively choose to refuse to recognize the alternative
possible future of staying in place. I suppose that's one way to
ignore the forest for the trees.

[Harry Krishna]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 06:26:45 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Asswipe, reference any decision then, which is not accurately described by making one of alternative possible futures the present.

Deciding to do something in the future. As I have brought up before.
You're just being silly now.

>You say I just made it up, then obviously my fantasy would not apply.

No, I'm saying that you are the only person who defines choosing in
those terms. Which is probably because it's trivially wrong.

>You seem to be backtracking on your total craziness that abstract concepts have no rules, no way in which they work.

I'm saying that the idea of "rules" for an abstract concept is
meaningless.

> Because obviously you cannot do science without any rules.

No one suggested otherwise. What's your point?

>I forgot that you are also totally clueless about objectivity, besides being clueless about subjectivity. That you have no idea about facts being a 1 to1 corresponding model of a creation, and deny it.

I just told you what facts are, and gave examples, in the post you're
replying to. Of course, since you insist on top-posting like a
lunatic, one would have to scroll down to the bottom of the post to
see that.

>You do not actually have any argumentation against objectifying personal character. Which is because you don't really have any meaning for either objectivity or subjectivity, because you don't use rules. Instead of rules, you have your judgment about what is weird and bizarre, and bad, based on your feelies.

No, I base my judgment about your use of English being weird and
bizarre based on my knowledge of the English language.

>You rely on the holocaust to have occurred, to say that nazi ideology is bad,

Nazi ideology would be bad with or without the Holocaust..

>instead of pointing out the error in it.

I did, you fucking idiot. They were using pseudoscientific nonsense as
propaganda, for wicked reasons. That's also in the post you're
replying to.

> At the time ofcourse nazi ideology, and eugenics, was a popular way to improve humanity. So when the holocaust had not occurred yet, you wouldn't have reached the conclusion it is bad.

Wrong again, anyone would reach that conclusion rather easily from
reading Mein Kampf, or any other Nazi writings

>While objectifying personal character,

The Nazis claimed that personal character was a racial characteristic.
That, not "objectifying personal character", is the problematical
issue.

> is very obviously bad, because it makes for an emotionless judgment on people.

That doesn't follow.

> Solely creationism points out the error.

I just pointed out the error without recourse to Creationism. You are
a very silly person.

>You have no clue why phrenology and physiognomie would be wrong

Yes, I do: they have no basis in fact, and the "predictions" they make
are about as reliable as astrology, meaning not at all.

>You use the fact that they are denounced as wrong for convience now.

No, they're quite self-evidently wrong.

> And actually you previously insisted on physiognomie, which is face measuring, to come to a conclusion about personal character.

You mean "physiognomy", and I have said explicitly that it's
pseudoscientific nonsense. Have you ever considered addressing what I
say, rather than uttering the first thing that comes into your head?

> You insisted that your judgment on personal character is based on objective facts,

The dimension of their face decidedly NOT being one of those facts,
you fucking idiot. But a person's words and actions, yes, those are
objective criteria on which to judge someone's character.

> and that to choose an opinion on personal character, spontaneously, is arbitrary, and therefore wrong.

Yes, that's correct. You may as well flip a coin, it would be just as
accurate.

> Which is basically the same as your present complaints about impulsivenss.

>The difference between impulse, and spontaneity, is that an impulse breaks through the ordering of decisionmaking processes, while spontaneity doesn't

In Nando-land, but nowhere else.

>But you pretend that spontaneity breaks through the ordering of cause and effect, an automated system, so then you equate spontaneity with impulsiveness.

Spontaneity and impulsiveness are synonymous in English. You're
tilting at windmills again.

>Any precise formulation of anything will sound weird to you, because that is not a conversational style, which you insist on.

I have no idea what you think you mean by this, or what it refers to.

> And you insist on it,

On what?

> in order to make your dumb pronouncement by which you exert control, because you don't do rules.

"Exert control"? You mean like when you make up your own word
definitions, and insist that everyone else use them?

[Nando Ronteltap]

Asswipe, if you decide now, to do something in the future, then you are making one of alternative possible futures the present, in your mind. You have the alternative possible futures available in your mind to make the determination to do it, and you have the alternative possible future available not to make the determination.

It is just a fact that the word choose, is always accompanied with the logic of making one of alternative possible futures the present. You keep on denying it, which is a lie, and you keep on saying I do not follow the logic used in common discourse, that I juste make it up, which is another lie.

Basically you have no logic of choosing, no logic of subjectivity, no logic of objectivity. And your whole argument is geared towards remaining ignorant about it.

And again, it is a logical fallacy to say something is wrong, because all the other people say otherwise.

And that you have no rules for abstract concepts, then really this whole discussion of what the correct definition of choosing is, subjectivity, and objectivity is pointless.

I don't see how you can make any statement about any abstract concept without attributing it some function. Subjectivity, objectivity, choosing, you literally have no meaning for it, other than to say that they are abstract concepts.

But then you say objectivity is about statements comporting with reality, which is just another, and less accurate way of saying correspondence. Although you also say objectivity is an abstract concept, so then a statement comporting with reality, is not how objectivity works, because objectivity doesn't work. So then you say objectivity in terms of correspondence is wrong, because it says how objectivity works, and abstract concepts don't work, and then you use your idea of comports, which supposedly does not say how objectivity works, so that is okay.

So basically all what you say is total gibberish, and you are just back to making pronouncements about things, pronouncements about objectivity, facts, which are just so, because you pronounce it to be so, and it cannot be criticized. Critical understanding does require to throw out what is wrong.

It is automatic that if personal character would be objective, and heritable, that you get a lot of people with the same personal character through reproduction. So then you get races defined by some personal character.

So now you are saying nazis objectifying personal character, is not the essential evil of nazism. So then you have some personal character, which can be measured some way, and then it can be stated as scientific fact that you are lazy, a liar, and whatnot. And obviously your children and parents would be as well. But then you draw the line at race, a group of people, which you think is inaccurate, for no reason whatsoever.


Op zaterdag 25 februari 2023 om 19:30:10 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 11:35:43 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:

>Asswipe, if you decide now, to do something in the future, then you are making one of alternative possible futures the present, in your mind.

That's nice, but unless it actually occurs in the real world as well,
the technical term for that is "daydreaming", not "choosing".

> You have the alternative possible futures available in your mind to make the determination to do it, and you have the alternative possible future available not to make the determination.

How does that equate with making one of those possible futures the
present?

>It is just a fact that the word choose, is always accompanied with the logic of making one of alternative possible futures the present.

According to you.

> You keep on denying it, which is a lie, and you keep on saying I do not follow the logic used in common discourse, that I juste make it up, which is another lie.

No, you did make that up. No one uses your definition in common usage
or otherwise.

>Basically you have no logic of choosing, no logic of subjectivity, no logic of objectivity.

You have no logic, period.

> And your whole argument is geared towards remaining ignorant about it.

About what?

>And again, it is a logical fallacy to say something is wrong, because all the other people say otherwise.

I have never done such a thing. What I have said is that you can't
claim that your ideas and expressions are part of "common discourse"
if no one else uses them.

>And that you have no rules for abstract concepts,

You really don't grasp what that means, do you?

>then really this whole discussion of what the correct definition of choosing is, subjectivity, and objectivity is pointless.

YES! I HAVE BEEN SHOUTING THIS AT YOU FROM THE BEGINNING! You're
addressing a problem that doesn't exist outside of your own
imagination, and you're doing so by making up your own definitions for
words that no one else uses either. There is literally nothing more
pointless than that, with the possible exception of arguing with you
about it any further. Good Day, Sir.

[Nando Ronteltap]

It is obviously a lie. I say that choosing is to make one of alternative possible futures the present, because that is the logic used with the word in common discourse. It's not made up. But you have just thrown out the whole idea of making correct definitions for words, so that there would be no point whether it is accurate or not, because it is all arbitrary nonsense to you anyway, no matter what definition is used. Which is obviously total insanity.

You are confused by deciding things in imagination, and decding things in the physical world. Obviously people first try out deciding things in their imagination, before deciding them in the physical world.

I guess your total insanity of not having correct definitions, perfectly connects to the present insanity of redefining man and woman into arbitrary oblivion. I guess words aren't real enough for you to care about. Although on the other hand you are also complaining that I don't define things the way others do. Which is to say that your position consists of incomprehensible gibberish contradictions. You have some arbitrary sense that words don't matter, physical actions matter.

Rational discourse would proceed by finding the correct definitions that work without error.

As I explained, because of psychological pressure to do their best, people conceive of making a decision in terms of figuring out the best result. While obviously the correct fundamental definition of choosing is in terms of spontaneity. Which then corrupts the meaning of subjectivity as well, because subjectivity is based on decisionmaking.

Which then leads to all sorts of problems, generic bad personal judgment like with the covid catastrophy, mental illness, ideology in which what is properly subjective is objectified.

So I would say lack of comprehension of subjectivity, is the biggest problem in the world today. And if people were taught how subjectivity works, then generally all would believe in God. And then mostly people would talk to God in prayer, in deciding about what to do in life. Which would lead to generally better personal judgments. Generally everything that is highly emotive would get a boost, like marriage, familiy, friendship, culture. Politics would be less ideological, socialism would be gone. Mental illness would be much less.

And now ofcourse subjectivity is being marginalized, through education conditioning the mind of people towards objectivity and fact. Now things are getting very much worse.

So this is a real issue, and it's the biggest issue in the world. Ofcourse normal would be that everyone just basically understood fact and opinion, learning it in school, and then the whole significance of understanding fact and opinion could just be forgotten about.




Op zaterdag 25 februari 2023 om 21:10:10 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna: