01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [521][522][523][524][525][526][527][528][529][530] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
521) Arminius, 24.07.2014, 00:01, 00:43, 01:13, 01:49, 02:05, 02:22, 02:38, 03:43, 03:59, 04:30, 04:31, 04:52, 15:31, 15:38, 15:56, 16:04, 16:51 (1632-1648)
The first award goes to Fuse again (**|**). Congratulations.The first award:F.U.S.E. - Substance Abuse, 1991.Congratulations, Fuse.
Flannel Jesus wrote:
That was not a satire, but an excuse to not be unnecessarily accused of incitement of the people / sedition.The answer of the question of the other article (Did a Professor Instruct White Male Students to Commit Suicide for the Benefit of Society?) is: YES.
Moreno wrote:
Both machines that make other machines or themselves and machines made by humans..I estimate that the reproduction rate of the machines is about 10.
Topic: Talking about the END OF STATES.There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. And also in my thread titled Talking about the END OF HISTORY (**|**) I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials (**|**). Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.
Topic: Suggestions to the question: What is »psyche«?.One of the least understood concepts is that of the psyche. Formerly the word psyche was used mythological and religiously and actually relatively well understood, since modernism it has been going through the propaganda mills, and no one can really say what it could be or even is. Misunderstood words or concepts are especially well suited for the propaganda and the establishment of new religions. Funny, isn't it? No, that's not funny, that's fateful, isn't it?
James S. Saint wrote:
It is well known that the Glozis want to abolish the nations and have already abolished the nations for the most part; but it is not so well known that they also want to abolish the states.Please note: nation and state are not identical.
By the way: Shall I name the user names of the avatars in that 2nd brainteaser (**|**) ?
James S. Saint wrote:
But a cluster may consist of several particles.
Obe wrote:
I say that they had to do it because they were merely the puppets of those who wanted them to do it.Sovereign or at least semi-sovereign states are in a position to better solve. But that should not be solved by states, because for the rulers the control of the people is easier to do without states - according the motto DIVIDE ET IMPERA.
James S. Saint wrote:
The real (!) upper class wants the other two classes (middle and lower class) to fight each other - according to the motto: DIVIDE ET IMPERA.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, or even more.
James S. Saint wrote:
Obe wrote:
Shouldn't we start with the meaning of the Ancient Greek word psyche and the definition of the Ancient Greek concept psyche?
Moreno wrote:
To a degree. The West has partly done away with states or nations. So the states or nations have not disappeared to 100%, but approximately to 50, 60, 70 or even 80%.Moreno wrote:
Yes. That's funny, isn't it? The West as the founder of the nations has merely 50-80%-nations, demolished nations, but the Non-West has nations.Moreno wrote:
Yes. But Russia and China are more empires than nations.But note (again): Nations and states do not mean the same. Talking about the END OF STATES (**|**) is the topic of this thread.
Obe wrote:
Which factors do you mean?
Originally - in Ancient Greek - psyche had the meaning of breath, breeze, soul, than it had remained as soul for about 2000 years. Since modern times it has been changing to everything you want, and that is very much different from the older meaning.Our current (modern Western) understanding of psyche is entirely wrong. Psyche has changed from a mythological, religious, and idealistic word and concept to a purely (idealistic) ideological, propagandistic word and concept.
James S. Saint wrote:
In order to be an upper class the upper class does not have to be noble, but an upper class.
James S. Saint wrote:
The rulers (Glozis) can forbid the access to the technology! |
522) Arminius, 25.07.2014, 01:47 (1649)
From another thread:Arminius wrote:
In German, it is a little bit different:.... |
|
On the right side you see four layers as levels. Aristoteles thought of a fifth one, which he called Hyle. However. Except the Anorganic Things, each of that levels is relatively free and supported by the level / levels below - according to the positions. The more a level is up the more it is free, but no level is generally free, but relatively free. And the more a level is up the more it depends on the level / levels below. So Anorganic Things stem Biological Body, Psyche, and Geist (mind etc.). The Biological Body is more relatively free than the Anorganic Things, the Psyche is more relatively free than the Biological Body, and the Geist is more relatively free than the Psyche. When it comes to what the levels are by themselves, they do not depend on on any other level - exception: Anorganic Things, which depend on no level anyway.
So for example the Geist, which means the most relatively free level, does not depend on the other levels when it comes to that what the Geist is by itself. ** **
523) Arminius, 26.07.2014, 01:52, 02:11, 02:19, 02:41, 03:22, 16:43 20;35, 22:58, 23:11, 23:40, 23:46 (1650-1660)
In any case, the meaning of psyche has changed because the zeitgeist and especially the social general environment by industrialisation / mechanisation / automatisation have changed. There is a correlation between them.In general I use psyche in the sense of not really organic and also not really spiritual (geistig). Psychology can be found somewhere between sociobiology, or mere sociology, and philosophy. I often prefer semiotics especially when I put the focus on the signs or characters - they give nore information.
The state is being undermined at the base by the resolution of the supporting institutions and loses itself upward by the insertion in getting others, always new, uncontrollable structures.
You call such a cluster also a clump, don't you?
Armedrobots.com:Robots Have Begun Writing the News.Mini Humanoid Robots Starting to Walk More Like PeopleHumans Are Programmed to Obey Robots.Robots With Machine Guns, Robotic Pack Mules.The Ethics of War Bots.New Algorithm Detects Humans with near 100% Accuracy.AND SO ON ....
What is tried again and again, is to be powerful, to be the most powerful. They need all people in order to rule, to control them, and therefor they have to split, to divide them. That seems to be a paradox, but it happens due is to an old effective method of ruling: DIVIDE ET IMPERA.
James S. Saint wrote:
For SAM the challenge or problem are its enemies, especially the Glozis because they don't want any enemy, rival, competitor. They would not tolerate it, if a communal particle like SAM had a successful monetary currency or even other successful currencies (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).A successful own currency will never be allowed by the Globalists. An autarky will never be allowed by the Globalists. They will never allow an economy that is directed against their economy.
Obe wrote:
Yes, you are right, but for Husserls and Heideggers phenomenology the world war (WW1) was not as important as you may think because Husserl founded his phenomenology from 1900 to 1913 (thus: BEFORE WW1 [1914-1918]). Starting from the phenomenology Heidegger developed his existential philosophy, which became the first and the only real existential philosophy and conquered the world.
You are talking about the subject/object-dualism.Arminius wrote:
Why are you so sure, or are you not sure?
The worst racism is the auto-racism (racism towards ones own race). The Whites daily show how auto-racism works.
Doesn't what? |
524) Arminius, 27.07.2014, 00:01, 03:19 (1661-1662)
RM:AO doesn't change to be sure - that's what you meant. Right?James S. Saint wrote:
Our existence is surrounded by interferences - everywhere. We live in an atmosphere. It gives us protection. But it is also the reason for the many interferences and other disorders.
Back to one of the most important questions of this thread:Humans or machines: who or what will win? |
525) Arminius, 28.07.2014, 04:37, 14:49, 17:07, 22:30, 23:02, 23:38, 23:59, (1663-1669)
The sentence I am and the sentence I am not can not be proven scientifically. Therefore, but not only therefore, philosophy is necessary. Is philosophy able to answer the questions: Am I?, Am I not?, Is anything outside of me?, Is nothing outside of me? ...?Science is not able to answer that questions (and many other questions). Philosophy has found some answers - the history of philosophy has made that clear. But its answers are not very much convincing.
If one says I think, or I am aware, or I am, then this one says something about a subject (I) and about an object (think, am aware, am) or a predicate. The problem of the subjet/object-dualism is that it is not exactly determinable whether the subjct exists or not and whether the object exists or not. The former is primarily a philosophical, the latter mainly a scientific, both together again a philosophical problem. Concerning this matter the doubter Descartes proved nothing. About 1¼ centuries before Descartes another doubter - Martin Luther - founded a Protestant Christian confession: the Evangelical Lutheran. Luther did not try to prove the existence of the subject, but sought the answer in belief / faith.
Wfs.org:
See also: Debate.org, Zumaworld.blogspot.de, NYtimes.com (mainstream), Xconomy.com.
James, what would the social analogy to the physical noise, especially the noise field be?
Who is really thinking? God?When you think that you think, what do you then think about the question who is really thinking?
A real democracy is merely possible with very small populations or with states of polity (city states) or nations. Nations are one of the greatest Western creations, and nations function, although they have large populations, because of the states which manage the function of nations. If the state is taken away, the nation can no longer exist. A state can exit without a nation, but a nation cant exist without a state. So if you want to have merely a little bit of democracy, you must either have a very small population or a well working state of a polity (city state) or of a nation (if you have one). Now please combine, draw the right conclusions.
And where does all that noise come from (originally) ? |
526) Arminius, 29.07.2014, 00:10, 00:34, 01:02, 02:14, 04:11, 04:49, 18:26, 20:13, 21:47, 22:54 (1670-1679)
You say that a clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable »particle« a »standing wave« of noise (**). But you don't say where the noise comes from.The question is not what noise physically is, but the question is where noise comes from according to RM:AO.
So you are saying that the noise is as well eternal as the universe.And because noise is electromagnetic you are also saying that the electromagentic force is - as well as the elctromagnetic field (thus: affectance) - eternal.Thats all without any beginning and without any ending.
So noise and every analogy to noise can cause a so called black hole because the noise can increase as much as it is possible (probably to infinity) and the social analogy to the physical noise, especially the noise field, is really confusion, conflict, and disorder (**), as you say: Such confusion and disorder naturally retards itself into anomalous congestion, commonly known as »cities«. The city is »a particle« of society, as well as states, nations, and empires. The most immediate concern is that such confusion causes undue conflict and suffering, commonly known as »Hell on Earth« and reigned over by deception (aka »Satan« and »The Matrix«). Because none within the field can do anything substantially certain to change anything, the larger particle of noise continues unopposed: »Eternal Hell on Earth«: A single great particle, »black-hole«. .... Socially, the »noise« is the activity of people. Psychologically, the »noise« is the cloud of perceived potential hopes and threats. Economically, the »noise« is the activity of trade by every means. .... Of course socially, psychologically, and economically, a foundation of »noise« must first arise from the physics of noise, »random EMR«. (**). So the noise can't disappear and has a posive and negative charge, personally or socially said: a posive and negative character.And because machines merely conflict faster, making the »noise« more substantial, »louder« (such as guns ...) the probability that they or their creators may cause a black hole is higher than without machines. Said in your terms: Machines, being far more intelligent and rational than humans eventually surmise that the only efficient way to handle the work load is to maintain small groups of relatively autonomous machines (packs of androids) networked together in a specific manner (SAM Corps) and networked to the entire world of machines in a specific manner (A vast body: Machine Manifestation), void of human interference and thus becoming far more capable than anything on Earth at maintaining themselves and accomplishing all needs: surviving by eliminating inefficiencies such as humans and all organic life. (**). So one of the conclusions of this is that for you the probability that the machines will eliminate all humans is higher than for me.
Futuremagazine.net: THE COMPETENCE BETWEEN HUMANS AND MACHINES.
What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a black hole?
Welcome on ILP again, Laughing Man!Laughing Man wrote:
Yes. And not only psychiatry.
What am I doing? Well, right now I am writing and wondering what award Fuse will get, if he will win the third brainteaser too (you may compare his first first award [**|**] and second first award [**|**]). The third first arward should be one of the following four films:1) F.U.S.E.,
Train-Trac. 1, 1993,
|
1677 |
Arminius wrote:
»What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a black hole?« ** **
There are many things that Man could do, but won't. Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.
What must be done is simply to distribute the wealth that is life such that the density can never reach a maximum. The separation must be maintained by natural means. In the past that has been done by land, language, culture, and ontology, the very things that Globalism seeks to unite and homogenize into a great glob. What keeps life safe and continuing is its disbursement. But even that has a balance. Rather than a great single particle, there must be very many autonomous particles merely networked together to share wisdom, not obedience. And to keep them separate, he must learn wisdom. The human body does not simply grow ever larger, but disperses into many relatively autonomous bodies that share their wisdom.
When a man finally learns of the exact make of life, he no longer seeks for ever more and more, but seeks only precise balance, never actually too much nor too little, yet carefully swaying between a little more and a little less so as to keep track of the varying limits. Having ten wives, a wise man would most probably give up eight and possibly all of them, but in the right way. Having millions of dollars, a wise man would give up most of it, and in the right way. But until he learns of the make of life, he hasn't any idea what to give up, how much, nor of the right way to give.
So homosapian would have to learn of the actual make of life and then very precisely distribute the wealth that is life accordingly, something that machines can be made capable of doing far more precisely than humans. Machines have a place with homosapian. Machines properly designed and used enhance life where ever they are. Humans properly taught enhance life where ever they are as well. Even animals recognize that in humans. There is no more to be gained than that.
But Man cannot do what Man will not do. **
1678 |
Well, I don't know what you want to call them, but basically the continents (North America, Africa, Asia, Europe, ...) become the primary separation between centers (which I would call »nations«) with »provinces« within each. It is more like a polyparticle (»weak force« holding the empire together).
And SAM doesn't become a significant part of anything until the very end of the blind lusting. SAM IS the end of the blind lusting and the dissolution of the last empire. **
1679 |
527) Arminius, 30.07.2014, 00:00, 02:35, 17:04, 17:54, 19:25, 20:05, 20:37, 22:31, 22:42, 23:43 (1680-1689)
When the nations are eliminated, there is no more impediment for the Glozis to eliminate the states of that ex-nations as well. First the nations, then their states. If a nation is already eliminated, then its state is not needed anymore. And if there are no nations and their states anymore, very small social unities or empires can merely be possible. An empire has its own state, and that state has nothing to do with any political participation of the people/s. So either imperial dictatorship or anarchy will follow, if nations and their states are eliminated.What we can currently notice is the reduction of national aspects, which shall lead to the elimination of the nations, then of the national states, or even states at all, with the result totalitarianism as never before: globalism.
Do you accept the dualism of light (which means that light is both a wave and a particle) ?
Moreno wrote:
When I was saying that nations are one of the greatest Western creations (**|**), I was referring to a cultural merit and to democracy (**|**) and not saying that nations are the best, but saying that I don't know a better social form when it comes to manage the greatest possible social form. Empires can only be held together, if they are like dictatorships, if they are totalitarian (**|**).From another threadArminius wrote:
So let me come back to my question:Arminius wrote:
Because your answer was:James S. Saint wrote:
If his fate is really so certain, why should we then form a Communal particle or SAM (Social Anentropic Molecule) corporation?, why should we then defend ourselves against the globalists?, and why should we then defend ourselves against the machines?Do you really love philosophy?
Topic: Do you really love philosophy?Do I really love philosophy? Love? No, I dont love philosophy, but I like philosophy. Probably I like philosophy even very much, but I dont love philosophy.But what about you? Do you really love philosophy?Notice that the accentuation is on the word love!One can love the next related and other next, but not the philosophy. Maybe Ive merely mentioned a problem that belongs to the contrastive linguistics, because the English verb love is not exactly the same as e.g. the German verb lieben, and the English substantive love is not exactly the same as e.g. the German substantive Liebe , but even if it is so, it would also be a philosophical problem. The term love can refer to people, things, and everything else, but it doesn't do it to the same extent or with the same intensity in all languages. What do you think, if someone says I love stones" instead of I like stones? If love and like become the same or almost the same - I think thats the current semantic development of these two words -, then it is quite a loss of language and philosophy.So again: Do you really love philosophy?
James S. Saint wrote:
That's right. So the human fate was not very much seriously meant by you (I took you at your word!), wasnt it? You said: Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain. (**). Who is Man in that sentence? If Man means all human beings in that sentence, then we would have no chance to change anything, and if we have no chance to change anything, then it would be also useless to prepare for what e.g. that empire is going to fall toward, SAM.
Obe wrote:
So for you there is no or merely a little difference whether you love your parents, your siblings, your sons and daughters, and your wife, etc., or you love the dead things, the ideas, the images, the words and texts, the numbers and functions, etc.?
Pandora wrote:
Yeah, but sometimes one wants to be left alone and at peace by parents, siblings, sons and daughters, husbands or wives, etc., too.Beloved humans are allowed to annoy or even to stalk, because they are loved.
Why do the affects that were headed in the direction of motion remain within the particle of noise longer than others when the center of the noise shifts?
Mr. Reasonable wrote:
A pig does not (necessarily) love the shit, but uses it only to get rid of annoying bugs. So a pig probably likes the shit, but it doesn't love the shit. |
528) Arminius, 31.07.2014, 00:23, 03:02, 03:20, 04:09, 04:49, 04:56, 16:46, 17:14, 17:38, 23:27, 23:27 (1690-1700)
James S. Saint wrote:
I thought that you meant the human beings as such, or that man who rules or represents all human beings, when you used the word Man.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, or like I said: The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That's the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen? ** **
Kriswest wrote:
Yes, philosophy is sometimes similar to art, but mostly yet different. It's a bit like Schopenhauer said in his book: Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation), 1818. Merely the genius of music, or poetry, or visual arts, can consider and illustrate the eternal ideas by pure contemplation and unusual power of imagination. The music has a particularly high significance, since the music does not reflect the ideas, what the other arts do, but the music is the immediate objectification of the world will in us. Do you like (not love ) Schopenhauer?Therefore some music from Wolfgang A. Mozart and Ludwig v. Beethoven:- Wolfgang
Amadeus Mozart, Die Zauberflöte, 1791, |
1692 |
I want to wallow in philosophy like a pig in shit. I love it. **
I wanna dive in it like scrooge mcduck dives into all that money on the show duck tales. **
1693 |
|
1694 |
You, Arminius, a good German, and me obe, a good hungarian, whatever, may understand that love what we call love be waaaaaaaaay different from what we think of it from how we feel about it. A lot of love, and i would not consider most of it., is projective, we want to believe we are loved to the same degree as we love, bur sorrily, late, too late we find out it is not so, and do gooders as we are supposed to be , and acting as we are supposed to, from ideal conceptions of love, we are stuck with responsibilities, which the GERMANS, or even EUROPEANS as a whole are very good at subscribing to. So , more often than not, we are left with lopsided definitions, feelings, but the good old Protestant ethic of do good, sticks, and we want to believe in love.
The same goes for religion, we go to church to impress our neighbors, friends, of our upright attitudes, and we intercourse our wives and lovers out of the need to satisfy per contractual responsibility. Then we hit the bier gartens with relish, relieved of having to justify ourselves. **
1695 |
1956 during the revolution. **
1696 |
As far as i am concerned, i would say that i like philosophy but i do not love it. **
Do I really love philosophy? Love? No, I don't love philosophy, but I like philosophy. Probably I like philosophy even very much, but I don't love philosophy. ** **
Theoritically, love should not used for non living things, but used here intentionally as a idiom to show how extreme the liking is. **
1697 |
You said: »Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.« (**). Who is »Man« in that sentence? ** **
1698 |
You know that an empire is forming (actually already has). You know that it is going to be pretty nasty, far more than it is. And you can bet that it is going to fall. And since you know it is going to fall, why not prepare for what it is going to fall toward, SAM. **
You said: You said: »Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.« (**). Who is »Man« in that sentence? If »Man« means »all human beings« in that sentence, then we would have no chance to change anything, and if we have no chance to change anything, then it would be also useless to prepare for what e.g. that empire »is going to fall toward, SAM«. ** **
But again:
Please answer my question I »once« asked you:
»Arminius wrote:
You said: 'Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.' Who is 'Man' in that sentence? ** **
Who is meant with the word »Man« in that sentence? ** **
1699
I've never remembered a time when i wasn't. **
1700 |
C..D. Friedrich, Kreidefelsen auf Rügen, 1818. | C.D. Friedrich, Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer, 1818. |
I want to wallow in philosophy like a pig in shit. I love it.
As far as i am concerned, i would say that i like philosophy but i do not love it. **
529) Arminius, 01.08.2014, 00:50, 01:25, 02:44, 03:06, 20:41, 21:34 (1701-1706)
What about the possibility that the globalists, or the machines, or both together will bring such a situation to the people of the whole globe as it was brought by Augustus to the people of Rome (Pax Augusta / Pax Romana)?This Pax Augusta (Pax Romana) for the whole globe or for the whole solar system? With such Glozis as rulers? And/or with such machines we have already described as the probable rulers of the world in the future?
Affects are merely waves of electromagnetic radiation?
Machines decide according to rational aspects, and rational decisions are not always bad. But if the machines say the humans are too costly, too expensive, and too dangerous, too rebellious, then thats just bad (without exception!) for the humans.
I am the advocate of the English word soul:Wikipedia wrote:
No. Thats not proven, and as long as it is not proven one can say that the definition of psyche is unproven and probably false.
|
1705 |
1706 |
Well, it is more like an EMR wave is made of affectance waves. There is a huge difference in scale between basic RM:AO and common physics. RM:AO deals with waves that range from (but not including) absolute zero up to perhaps 1000 times smaller than an electron. Whereas the smallest physics gamma wave is much larger than an electron.
In RM:AO there is no such thing as an affectance wave that isn't made of smaller affectance waves. And a typical EMR wave is a huge collection of affectance waves that just happens to have similar direction and polarity because of how such waves are produced. It is similar to comparing the sizes of an ocean wave (representing a gamma physics wave) to a single water molecule in RM:AO (representing an affectance »pulse« or wavelet).
To physics, an electron is so small as to be merely a tiny spec with almost no mass or size. But in RM:AO, that same electron is filled with millions of affectance wavelets or pulses with very notable mass and size. And an EMR gamma wave is much larger than that electron and filled with billions more affectance waves. An EMR wave is a huge wave of infinitesimal affectance waves. **
530) Arminius, 02.08.2014, 00:38, 01:07, 02:00, 02:30, 02:47, 02:53, 02:59, 03:33, 04:02, 14:04, 15:38, 18:21, 18:33, 22:09, 23:57 (1707-1721)
James S. Saint wrote:
You've just given me a very general and thus a well known definition, but I wanted a physical definition, James.So I guess there is no physical definition for affect and affectance according to RM:AO.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, but how will it be?Perhaps firstly like this:And perhaps secondly (and probably lastly) like this:
Pandora wrote:
Very impressive and somehow mighty.Pandora wrote:
Very beautiful! Thank you for that picture!Pandora wrote:
And why, Pandora?
Should I watch the film Elysium, James?
Who was quoted there? **
Thats right. Greed is NOT good. Greed is very bad, unhealthy, and homicidal.
James S. Saint wrote:
You meant want, right?
James S. Saint wrote:
It is a somehow mysterious might. The following picture somehow fits:Posted by Pandora.
James S. Saint wrote:
But you are no member of the Club of Rome?The term limits to greed reminds me of the term limits to growth:Wikipedia wrote:
And you are also not Joseph Martin Fischer or Al Gore?
James S. Saint wrote:
So you are saying that the limits to growth of the Club of Rome are refutable.
James S. Saint wrote:
Extrapolation is a problem (outside mathematics), especially when such people apply it.RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives. I think you meant RM:AO deals only with the alternatives. But you said RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives. With the lack of alternatives? The lack? Would you mind explaining that?
For example:EMR as such can be explained physically, has a physical definition, although we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical. Both affect and affectance as such cant be explained physically, haven't physical definitions, although we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical. Both affect and affectance as such have meatphysical definitions, and we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical.
James S. Saint wrote:
Then I have to ask you again: RM:AO deals with a lack?I repeat your sentence (and add some words in order to prevent misunderstandings): RM:AO doesn't deal with merely »possible truths«, but rather the »impossible (truth which shall be proven) to be false« or simply the »lack of alternatives«. Is that right?
Copied post.
Welcome, Pharaoh!Pharaoh wrote:
First of all, a kid is normally loved not only by the mother, but also by the father. So you should say: Parents normally love their kid.Pharaoh wrote:
Like I said: I don't love philosophy, I like philosophy. So before I give you a "number from -100 to +100", I would like to determine that scale a little bit, for example in this way:-100 to -51) I hate
...; |
1721 |
You can only know that »2+2=4« with 100% certainty because there is no possibility of it being anything else.
If someone defines »ephalante« as »a large gray beast«, then there is no possibility that an ephalante is anything other than »a large gray beast«. There is no alternative to the fact of it because the ephalante is defined to be that. A word or concept can only be what it is defined to be. Thus there is a »lack of alternatives« concerning what an ephalante is.
RM:AO deals with what things are defined to be and the proceeding logic due to those definitions. Thus RM:AO is always dealing with (and guided by) a lack of alternatives (due to the practice of using the very definitions involved rather than speculations of probable truths).
When RM:AO deduces something (and gets properly verified), there is no alternative to the truth of it. RM:AO deals only with 100% certain truths, or worded differently, »deals only with what things are defined to be and the consequential logic« or »deals only with the lack of alternatives«. **
RM allows for many ontologies to be fully acceptable and changed to and from depending upon rational use. RM:AO is merely one that exactly describes the make of the physical universe. Sometimes that is not important (most of the time). But a corollary to the fundamental physics of the universe is (for example), »PHT«. PHT dictates ALL human and animal behavior (aka »spirit«) and thus when dealing with psychological or religious concerns, PHT is indispensable.
RM:AO is more exacting than both Science and Religion. But often, being exacting is not important. **
==>
|