1111) Arminius, 28.11.2017, 01:47, 06:05, 06:26, 07:07, 07:21, 08:12; Kathrina, 28.11.2017, 15:21, 15:25; Arminius, 28.11.2017, 19:46, 20:43, 21:24, 23:59 (6781-6792)

Science will not save us. It is more likely that it will do the opposite.

Religion is likely more capable of saving us than science is. How likely is it? Which kind of religion would or should it have to be? Would or should this religilion be a theistic one? If yes: Would or should it be a religion of pantheism (is already very close to atheism), of monotheism, of polytheism. If no: Would it or should it be a primitve religion, at least a heathenish religion?

If the demographic, economic and political development we have been experiencing for a pretty long time will go on, then we will get a syncretistic religion (**|**) or just the islamic religion which is a monotheistic religion and currently increasing the most. This is possible and probable, but not what I would like to have.

Arminius wrote:

„Related to the global population, the number of the unaffiliated decreases and will further on decrease, whereas the number of the muslims increase and will further on increase.

“ ** **

Encode Decode wrote:

„Arminius.

It is perhaps my fault that you would arrive at such a conclusion - it is likely that the way I have presented some things that there is some ambiguity.

Arminius wrote:

»Why should an emotion not be a kind of an affect?« ** **

To clarify I would say an emotion is a kind of affect, and an emotion is itself being affected. James mentioned to me earlier that commonly used categories for things are often not well defined and this is conceivably where I am guilty of introducing an equivocation on the matter of an emotion.“ **

Encode Decode, I concluded it just from my thoughts about „emotion“, not from the text in your opening post. So, it was not your fault.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„The transition for Chinese people is much easier since they largely avoided the paradigm of heiarchy, institution, dogma and rituals of religion. 18th 17 and 18th century European intellectuals rationalists and empiricists ... the Leibniz crowd ... recognized this fact. They couldn’t understand how such a sophisticated civilization could emerge without religion. Though the Chinese have always had religion .... Chinese people over the age of 8 have long recognized the expression »Dao De« ... literally translated ... »The Way ... Virtue«. Seems the Chinese religion has always been more focused on the built in biological model .....“ **

And if Christianity had not overrun Europe, then Europe would have kept and further on developed its own religion: the European religion.

The Translator of Oswald Spengler’s „Untergang des Abendlandes“ wrote:

„The Classical* religion lived in its vast number of separate cults, which in this form were natural and self-evident to Apollinian man, essentially inaccessible to any alien. As soon as cults of this kind arise, we have a Classical* Culture, and when their essence changes, in later Roman times, then the soul of this Culture is at an end. Outside the Classical* landscape they have never been genuine and living. The divinity is always bound to and bounded by one locality in conformity with the static and Euclidean world-feeling. Correspondingly the relation of man to the divinity takes the shape of a local cult, in which the significances lie in the form of its ritual procedure and not in a dogma underlying them. Just as the population was scattered geographically in innumerable points, so spiritually its religion was subdivided into these petty cults, each of which was entirely independent of the rest. Only their number, and not their scope, was capable of increase. Within the Classical* religion multiplication was the only form of growth, and missionary effort of any sort was excluded, for men could practise these cults without belonging to them. There were no communities of fellow believers. Though the later thought of Athens reached somewhat more general ideas of God and his service, it was philosophy and not religion that it achieved; it appealed to only a few thinkers and had not the slightest effect on the feeling of the nation — that is, the Polis.

In the sharpest contrast to this stands the visible form of the Magian religion – the Church, the brotherhood of the faithful, which has no home and knows no earthly frontier, which believes the words of Jesus, »when two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them«. It is self-evident that every such believer must believe that only one good and true God can be, and that the gods of the others are evil and false. The relation between this God and man rests, not in expression or profession, but in the secret force, the magic, of certain symbolic performances, which if they are to be effective must be exactly known in form and significance and practised accordingly. The knowledge of this significance belongs to the Church — in fact, it is the Church itself, qua community of the instructed. And, therefore, the centre of gravity of every Magian religion lies not in a cult, but in a doctrine, in the creed.“ (*Source of the translation*) *Source of the original*

*) „Classical“ means here: „Ancient-Greek-and-Ancient-Roman-before-both-became-Christian“.

These days, ruling or having the most power has not much to do with the formal government, for example the public government of a state or a nation. And I was not talking about such a public government. I was talking about a dictatorship of a ruling system. The rulers of this ruling system do not rule in a public way, but in a private and secret way. They are more like drug dealers of a global extent than like politicians of a national extent.

So, Trump, for instance, is by far not the most powerful man in the world.

Additionally: I would like to know who those „right wingers“ really are that you are talking about (**). It is possibly very questionalble whether they are real „right wingers“ or not. But anyway: Fact is that they are not the real rulers.

An example of a first preform of scientists are the monks of the Order of Saint Benedict (ca. 480–543).

You should feel much better now.

Thank you (**). I’m verry happy now.

Arminius wrote:

„Magic word: „EQUALity“!

Thus: No quality ! “ ** **

It was meant as a tendency. If, for example, A equals B, then there is no quantitative difference between them, so: A = B then. I believe that in real life equality has the tendency to make also a qualitative difference indifferent, thus equal, so that there is at last a qualitative indifference. In other words: if you have no quantitative difference, then you have to expect that you will - sooner or later - have no qualitative difference either.

Peter Sloterdijk wrote:

„Die moderne Welt ... wird sich als eine Zeit erweisen, in der die Wünsche durch ihr Wahrwerden das Fürchten lehren.“ **

My translation: „The modern world ... will turn out to be a time in which the wishes teach fear when they come true.“

The use of others as „scapegoats“ is part of an old strategy. In a more primitive way, „higher“ animals also use others as „scapegoats“.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:

„Am Ende hängen wir doch ab, von Kreaturen, die wir machten.“ **

My translation: „At the end, nevertheless, we depend, on the creatures which we made.“

1112) Arminius, 29.11.2017, 00:15, 14:49; Kathrina, 29.11.2017, 19:44; Arminius, 29.11.2017, 21:25, 21:29, 21:44, 22:30 (6793-6799)

Immanuel Kant wrote:

„Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig hat.“ **

My translation: „The human is an animal that needs an education.“

Thinkdr wrote:

„Yes, everything can be misused.

And everything is questionable.

Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?“ **

Are you saying that misusing things and humans has not to do with the topic of this thread? Are you saying that questionability of the distribution of power, political positions and how all that is „legalized“ has not to do with the topic of this thread?

You are wrong!

I’m convinced now: Donald Trump is dangerous since the US nation is dangerous. The US nation has been starting wars since a long time over and over again. More and more people have been learning how to justifiably hate the US nation for this fact.

It seems that Thinkdr is an „ethical Prismatic“ and that Prismatic is a „religious Thinkdr“. Their „progress“ is regress. At least, what they want to be realized is dangerous. It is similar to what certain humans have already experienced. Look at the history of communism. Communists are always saying that they want to „make the world a better place“ (**) and that therefore „adult-education seminars“ (**) and many similar things are needed (also the belief in the false conclusion „God is impossible“ [**]), thus: they want even more dictatorship.

Currently, liberalists and communists are in the same globalistic boat called „humanitarianism“ - not knowing what „humanitarianism“ means, what „humanity“ means, what „human“ means. They are confusing „good“ and „bad“ („evil“), „true“ and „false“ („wrong“), „objective“ and „subjective“, „ideal“ and „real“, „possible“ and „impossible“, „progressive“ and „regressive“.

Uccisore wrote:

„I still maintain it’s much more likely they just got the maps from somebody - for example European traders.“ **

That is indeed much more likely.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„OK ... you win!“ **

Why do you give up so early?

The legend of „Sodom and Gomorrah“ is expressed in the Old Testament, thus a taboo within the Jewish religion.

1113) Arminius, 30.11.2017, 07:23, 07:31, 07:38, 08:26, 08:28, 08:50, 09:38; Kathrina, 30.11.2017, 13:12, 13:39; Arminius, 30.11.2017, 22:48, 23:47 (6800-6810)

Good Mo(u)rning.

Pandora wrote:

„You mean, Happy Thankstaking day?

“ **

So, in 1970 you got mourning as the second reason for celebrating a national day of remembrance on the same calendar day. In other words: Since 1970 you have been celebrating Thanksgiving and Thankstaking on the same calendar day.

Kant did NOT say „God is an impossibility“!

Meno wrote:

„Kant did not say god is an impossibility, Arminius , my friend,
because he did not rule out the a-priori synthetic which Marxists did rule out. For them an a- posterior synthetic was the only acceptable basis , and as such made anything else immaterial.

Hope You are doing fine, always carefully reading Your worthwhile and valuable comments.“ **

Thank you.

Prismatic 567.

Again:

Arminius wrote:

„You have proven nothing.

What you are doing is nothing else than advertising destruction, thus nihilism.“ ** **

So, Prismatic 567, you have again proven that you have proven nothing.

Your emotional response makes it clear that I have nailed it: You are regressive. And you use words that mask this fact.

You use one of the nihilistic „programs“ in order to try a transvaluation of values, and the result is always: failure.

We know from all communistic experiments how regressive communism is. I am not throwing this against you, it is not necessary, because you yourself are doing that for me.

So, thank you for your stupidity.

So, it was an act of kindness. It is kindness what ILP lacks a bit. So, what you said, Pilgrim Tom, makes me very happy.

But my response was an act of kindness too.

I hope, you have noticed that.
_____________________

How should we go on?

We stopped here:

Arminius wrote:

„Uccisore wrote:

»I still maintain it’s much more likely they just got the maps from somebody - for example European traders.« **

That is indeed much more likely.“ ** **

Prismatic simply misuses Kant - for particular reasons.

So, Prismatic, you do not read your own posts. But that does not help you either.

You have no arguments. You have never had any argument.

Pseudo-arguments, wrong conclusions, insubstantiality, misuse of great philosophers and other stupid swindels - it has always been the same with you. You are failing on the most fundamental level. (See all your threads.)

I have proven you wrong. And many other ILP members have proven you wrong.

Also, one of your problems is that you are not capable of knowing that the term „God is a possibility“ is not the term „God is real“. You do not even understand the simplest statements. We were talking about possibilities and impossibilities in your God thread (but obviously, you do not even know this) and not about realitiy as such. So, you do not know the distiction between reality and ideality.

No wonder that you are not capable of understanding Kant who was a philosopher of two eras: (1) the era of the German Enlightenment and (2) the era of the German Idealism.

And by the way: You were responding to me in this thread - even two times (see above).

Inconvenient Reality wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»I’m convinced now: Donald Trump is dangerous since the US nation is dangerous. The US nation has been starting wars since a long time over and over again. More and more people have been learning how to justifiably hate the US nation for this fact.« ** **

*hits rewind on the Hate America tape*

Justafiably hate the US. I suppose, but who should people then love? Should Americans hate the US?“ **

If they justafiably hate the US, then yes, of course. And some of them do. They should be more.

Otherwise the others are going to hate the US even much more. A real nightmare, Inconvenient Reality!

Inconvenient Reality wrote:

„Who should Americans love?“ **

Non-Americans. Most Americans have Non-American roots anyway.

Inconvenient Reality wrote:

„Isn't hate bad?“ **

Isn’t this a question of the ethic „coin“? I mean hating on the one side, being hated on the other. Isn’t it justyfied to hate a hater who started hating? Isn’t starting wars bad?

Inconvenient Reality wrote:

„Shouldn't people be tolerant of the cultural and social sensibilities of others?“ **

Yes, for example the cultural and social sensibilities of Non-Americans.

Music affects the soul.

Plato wrote:

„Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul.“

Plato wrote:

„Music is a more potent instrument than any other for education.“

Yes (**), governments protect the 1%.

And there is an interesting hierarchy (which is an absolutely „democratic“ one ):

(1) 1%. Rulers.
(2) 19%. Governmental and other functionaries (protect the 1% and buffer between the 1% and the 80% - in favor of the 1% of course)
(3) 80%. Enemies (cynically called „people“ or „humans“; powerless; always turned against each other and played off against each other).

Climate zones:

What do you (**) think about the following video (**)? (The Inuit are the Very Cold Ecotype - see for example: 9:17 ff., 23:37 ff., 28:29 ff. in the video).

1114) Arminius, 01.12.2017, 09:00; Alf, 01.12.2017, 09:55, Arminius, 01.12.2017, 09:59; Alf, 01.12.2017, 10:53; Arminius, 01.12.2017, 13:08, 14:12, 14:42, 17:30, 20:28, 21:27, 22:05 (6811-6821)

The Antarctic is a bit colder than the Arctic.

Donald Trump is the current „Benedict Arnold“.

Hello again.

I am wondering whether those „leaders“ are already geared up for the final battle.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Prismatic 567 wrote:

»Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.« **

Gyahd ....

»I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about.« - 13 year old boy.«“ **

„I inhaled and exhaled once, so I am a medical specialist for breath control.“

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»As I have stated multiple times, you do not understand what the word ›perfect‹ means, thus your claim is lacking meaning.

But since you don't understand what ›Reality‹ means either, such as to propose multiple ›realities‹, there isn't much point arguing about your absolute statements, as they could only be relevant to which ever reality happens to conform to them, thus not really absolute.

Your concepts are all conflated and confused, so of course your effort to deduce anything is going to be merely whatever you prefer the conclusion to become, dominated by wishful thinking rather than rational thinking (the exact thing that you accuse religious people of doing).

So I merely pointed out that contrary to your prior claim, »God« does in fact refer to Truth, Logic, Reality for those far more educated than you on the subject. But since you have no understanding of those terms either, I am not interested in continuing to argue with you over it amidst such excessive ignorance of the language and its concepts.« **

Note I was once a pantheist Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.“ **

That is also a typical example for your so-called „arguments“. There is nothing behind it. It is all surface. It is more appearance than substance. It is more illusion than reality. It is more the opposite of what is said. „I am a progressive human being, so I am a World Citizen“; „I am a World Citizen, so I am a progressive human being“; „...“; „I read once the translation of the titles of the chapters of Kant's books, so I know Kant's philosophy“; „I was once a pantheist Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about“; „...“; and so on and so forth. These are no arguments. And especially not when it comes to the topic of this thread. You are always derailing your own threads.

Those „modern“ guys who say „religion is opium for the people“ want to give them their religion, a modern religion (examples: „liberalism“, „egalitarianism“/„communism“, „fascism“, „humanitarianism“/„globalism“), which has always to do with the elimination of the old religion and with antitheism (with slogans like „religion is opium for the people“, „God is an impossibility“ ...). The main problem ist that the new, the „modern“ religion is even worse than the old one.

Do not buy the modern opium!

Nice (**).

Do you have already snow over there ( in Iowa [?] ) ?

Many greetings to you and Joker - and the dog.

I hope that we will have snow on the 24th of December.

My wish is to have a white Christmas - not more.

Tiernan Morgan and Lauren Purje wrote:

„Hegel’s ... teleological understanding of history served as a useful template for Danto’s conclusions. Hegel understood progress as an overarching dialectic — a process of self-realization and understanding that culminates in pure knowledge. This state is ultimately achieved through philosophy, though it is initially preceded by an interrogation into the qualities of religion and art. As Danto summarized in a later essay entitled »The Disenfranchisement of Art« (1984):

When art internalizes its own history, when it becomes self-conscious of its history as it has come to be in our time, so that its consciousness of its history forms part of its nature, it is perhaps unavoidable that it should turn into philosophy at last. And when it does so, well, in an important sense, art comes to an end.

Danto is not the only philosopher to have adopted an Hegelian dialectic. Both Francis Fukuyama and Karl Marx utilized Hegelianism to reach their own historical conclusions. Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy and free market capitalism represented the zenith of Western civilization, whilst Marx argued that communism would replace capitalism (neither of these developments have quite panned out).“ **

Arthur C. Danto wrote:

„HEGEL’S END-OF ART THESIS.

»Art , considered in its highest voc ation, is and remains for us a thing of the past. Thereby it has lost for us genuine truth and life, and has rather been transferred into our ideas instead of maintaining its earlier necessity in reality and occupying its higher place.« - Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Arts. Translated by T. M. Knox. Oxford; The Clarendon Press, 1975. 10. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Hegel’s writing are to this superb translation. This is the most forceful of Hegel’s many formulations of what we may designate his End-of-Art Thesis, and it appears very near the beginning of the published version of his Lectures on Aesthetics - his Vorlesungen über die Aesthetic - delivered for the fourth and final time in the Winter Semester of 1828, at the University of Berlin.

The thesis is so intricately woven into the texture of Hegel’s text, however, that it must be regarded as a central and indeed as tructural feature of his philosophy of art, rather than a critical obiter dictum regarding the art of his time. And it as much addresses what other philosophers have said about art, as art itself.

Of course art will go on being made. There w ill be art after the end of art.

»Art can be used as a fleeting play, affording recreation and entertainment, decorating our surroundings, giving pleasantness to the externals of our life, and making other objects stand out by artistic adornm ent.« - Ibid., 7.

So understood, art will play any number of roles in what Hegel terms the objective spirit of a society - the system of meanings and practices that constitute the form of life its members live. But Hegel was not speaking of art in terms of objective spirit when he advanced the End-of-Art Thesis.

»The universal need for art ... is man’s rational need to lift the inner and outer world into his spiritual consciousness as an object in which he recognizes again his own self.« - Ibid., 31.

That is art’s »highest vocation«,to which alone the End-of-Art Thesis has application. So the truth of the thesis was consistent with art, and even great art, continuing to be made. In the Epilogue to his lecture, Origins of the Work of Art (1935-’36), Martin Heidegger wrote:

»The judgment that Hegel passes in these statements cannot be evaded by pointing out that since Hegel’s lectures ... we have seen many new art works and art movements arise. Hegel did not mean to deny this possibility. The question, however, remains: is art still an essential and necessary way in which truth that is decisive for our historical existence happens, or is art no longer of this character?« - Martin Heidegger, »The Origin of the Work of Art«. Translation by Albert Hofstadter, Philosophies of Art and Beauty: Selected Readings in Aesthetics from Plato to Heidegger. Edited by Albert Hofstadter and Richard Kuhns. New York; The Modern Library, 1964. 700.

....“ **

But the end of art could be a sign, an omen for the end of history in the relatively soon future.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

1115) Arminius, 02.12.2017, 09:04, 09:36, 10:24; Alf, 02.12.2017, 11:17; Arminius, 02.12.2017, 12:58, 13:00, 18:58, 18:59, 19:33, 19:38, 19:50, 20:21, 21:32, 22:43 (6822-6835)

A sign or omen for the end of states in the relatively soon future could be the following impression:

Zero Sum wrote:

„The more I look at the modern state versus anarchy or anarchism I am coming to the conclusion that they are essentially the same thing. This might of not been the case with states of the past ( especially our ancient past) but again certainly can be said of the modern ones. Modern states are becoming more chaotic, disorderly, unorganized, self destructive, and socially conflicting internally. These are the kind of things you would expect in an existence of anarchy and not that of a governed state of society that prides itself on social order.“ **

It will likely take time before this description will become reality. But the thing is that some certain indicators have been being perceptible for a relatively long time.

And for example: Is a welfare state with billions of debts still a well working state? If so: For how long will this last? A huge crisis - and this state is really bankrupt!

The crash is only a matter of time.

Prismatic 567, your statements are childish - as almost everyone knows here.

Just an example how childish your alleged „arguments“ are:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Prismatic 567 wrote:

»Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.« **

Gyahd ....

»I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about.« - 13 year old boy.«“ **

A 13 year old boy is a child. Your statements are like statements of 13 year old boys.

And you have shown this in each of your posts.

Note that we have given you a lot of arguments and logically proven you wrong. And these arguments are not based on religion, but on logic. You are confusing almost everything.

You really do not know what you are talking about. Why should we take you seriously?

We have proven you wrong. So why should we always repeat this? We have done this in each of your threads.

And your misuse of Kant is a fcat too, it is easily provable that he has never said „God is an impossibility“. So you are a liar and faker too.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Prismatic 567 wrote:

›Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.‹ **

Gyahd ....

›I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about.« - 13 year old boy.‹« **

Pure Stupidity!“ **

Yes, it is your pure stupidity.

You really think that this is an „argument“ (used in your thread called „God is an Impossibility“ of an internet forum called „I Love Philospophy“ in the 21st century):

Prismatic 567 ( ¡ thinking of an „argument“ ! ) wrote:

„Note I was once a pantheist Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.“ **

It is merely a typical example again for your childish naivety, your stupidity.

He is like „Benedict Arnold“ was.

Zero Sum wrote:

„Is this the place you request a username?

I want the username, Machiavellian Negator.“ **

That is a good idea.

Now, Prismatic 567, look what you have done. I believe that these charges (**) are sufficient to condemn you for ever (ad infinitum).

Nno, Nhe Ndidn’t (**).

Perhaps, you (**) should change your avatar then (?).

Or you should request the username „Antimachiavell“ („Anti-Machiavell“ or the English version: „Anti Machiavel“).

For how long do you (**) want to stay in the corner?

Poor boy!

Or, perhaps, you meant the corner in a boxing ring.

However. Good luck with your new username.

Globalism means - amongst other things - the elimination of nations, of states. And the fact that we are living in a globalistic era means - as long as this era lasts - that globalism is more powerful and thus seems to win. But who knows who will really win in the end? Globalism will end someday.

Just think for example of a company or any kind of corporation where you can find the same structure (mostly with the Pareto distribution of 20%/80% and a ruling 1%). Not wanting to value here, I am just saying that this is a structure that you can find very often.

You (**) mean a new thousand year kingdom (empire) is likely?

The following tree (lime) is far more than 1000 years old and can be found in Puch (near Fürstenfeldbruck):

Far More Than 1000 Years Old Tree (Lime) in Puch (near Fürstenfeldbruck), Germany.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Interestingly, before the relativity theory of 1905/1916, the most accepted cosmological theory was the ether theory; and if someone wants to imagine how full the universe is of affectance according to RM:AO, it is helpful to imagine how the universe is full of ether according to the ether theory. But anyway, the ether theory and RM:AO are not the same.« ** **

Yes, quite true. The distinction of the Affectance Field is:

A) Affectance is provable.
B) Affectance is understandable.

The aether field was speculated in a typical superstition fashion of trying to make sense of other known events. The problem is that they were merely speculating that there must be a field of some kind (and now they have invented the Higgs Field for that purpose) yet didn't understand it enough to properly test the hypothesis. They ended up speculating that the aether field must behave this way and that. After testing to find that there was no such behavior, rather than speculating that perhaps the aether doesn't behave that way, the Quantum Magi cult demanded that the only resolve was that there couldn't be any aether field (a fallacy in logic). The behavior of affectance is both rationally sensible and testable.“ **

I know. And the relativity theory (1905/1916) I was talking about was something that made the aether theory redundant according to the mainstream physicists after the test during the total solar eclipse on 29th May 1919, although this test was criticized.

Have a nice meal.

I like noodles very much, especially the German version „Spätzle“.

From another thread:

Arminius wrote:

„Spätzle with Zwiebelrostbraten (Zwiebel-rost-braten), roasted / grilled / fried beef and onions in gravy.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Spätzle with cheese and onions.“ ** **

Do you like that?

1116) Alf, 03.12.2017, 00:00, 00:24; Arminius, 03.12.2017, 13:53, 14:04, 14:22, 21:12, 21:45, 21:59, 23:01, 23:12 (6836-6845)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Humans are NOT »evolving«, but rather are being designed, modified, and bred.“ **

Interesting and likely true. But what would you respond if someone said to you that humans had ancestors that „evolved“?

So, we should not claim that nobody is making art any more, but that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it would. The „end of art“ refers to the beginning of our modern era of art in which art no longer adheres to the constraints of imitation theory but serves a new purpose. But what exactly serves this new purpose?

The Holy Roman Emipre of German Nation lasted 1000 years: from 843 to 1806. The Frankish empire that Karl der Große (Charles the Graet) established was the predecessor of the Holy Roman Emipre of German Nation. Both had not really to do with the Ancient Roman empire - unless one accepts wishful thinking as reality. All of this Kaisers wanted to be like the Caesars were, but the Holy Fathers (popes) of the Christian Church wanted the same. So, we have two sides of this mytho-motivity: a more secular one and a more sacral one. This time was over in 1806, when almost everything became secularized, although after this secularization there was the Restoration, namely from 1815 till 1848 or, in some regions, even till 1870.

This worldwirde currency could be called „Globo“. Am I the first one with the idea of this „Globo“?

„Globo“ sounds like „Euro“, doesn't it?

Communists have to be optimists. They have no other choice - except death, caused either by a bullet or by Gulag. And they have no arguments and evidences, but only ideology (modern religion). Their „arguments“ and „evidences“ are not more than merely ideology (modern religion), in praxis: terror, thus death again. When their terror system crashes, they are so much depressed that it is not possible ot find them on the surface of this planet. So in reality, communists are those pessimists who are using optimism as a mask for power reasons.

What about a „Holy Dollar Empire of the One World Nation“ as the new Thousand-Year-Empire?

Art has become dependend on money. Almost everything has become dependent on money.

Alf wrote:

„Interesting and likely true. But what would you respond if someone said to you that humans had ancestors that „evolved“?

“ ** **

Do you mean that the first five or that all six „guys“ in that picture represent the ancestors?

Meno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel’s dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if it is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history (**|**), also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggles (war) remain.« ** **

Clearly, an excellent analysis.
Basic entitlements and privileges are a hindrance of history
How one gets those is the question and the sustenance of
the structure of entitlements from beginning to end usually proceeds on a declining curve.

The end of history may signal the beginning of doubt as to the pathogenesis of the attainment of capital, corresponsongly the power of its sustenance.

Now, when that historial awareness fractures in any bounded social group, that social group, be it a family or country,
They will be progressively defensive and aggressive about their awareness their own entitlement.

People will act as if they have nothing to worry about except their own state of mind and resulting connect with others who appear to threaten the safety and security of their own domain ,will be bothered by their apparent disconnect with the look of others, thereby suppress a socially incongruent approach to each other in favor of focusing on social heresay, relating to their own activities generally.

This general disconnect seems to hang in the air, as if previously no connection can be made with the idea of past
repressed ideas commensurate with others in Their domain.

This oftime fearful transference becomes so overwhelming as to enable some leaders in their field to make accessible the relevance which in most people mind remains insurmountable.“ **

Maybe after the relatively long lasting war - as the last war -, there will be humans as the last consumers without any history, without any knowledge about any of their ancestors, thus without genealogy, without any memory (thus also without any cultural memory), only with consumption.

Sir Winston Churchill likely wrote:

„The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself.“

1117) Arminius, 04.12.2017, 12:54, 13:09, 00:01, 00:01 (6846-6849)

Thinkdr wrote:

„Here are some questions upon which I have been reflecting lately, and upon which I invite you to think of some solutions:

How can we maximize human fun and minimize human suffering?

How can we attain widespread prosperity?“ **

Leaving out survival, leaving out thymos, leaving out rage, leaving out threat ... and so on and so forth - all this means leaving out a complete side (which is mostly called „the negative side“, „the bad side“, „the evil side“, „the haevy side“, „the difficult side“) of the issue. So, this leaving out leads only to more problems.

Your two questions are not new; they are pretty old; and the history is full of failed trials of answers.

We should not only consider the light and easy things, but also the heavy and difficult things.

Why are you not asking for harmony?

Timocracy: ....

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Communists have to be optimists. They have no other choice - except death, caused either by a bullet or by Gulag. And they have no arguments and evidences, but only ideology (modern religion). Their „arguments“ and „evidences“ are not more than merely ideology (modern religion), in praxis: terror, thus death again. When their terror system crashes, they are so much depressed that it is not possible ot find them on the surface of this planet. So in reality, communists are those pessimists who are using optimism as a mask for power reasons.« ** **

Arminius ... you’re a genius! .... Notwithstanding your access to that yuge data bank. “ **

What do you mean by the word „yuge“, Pilgrim Tom?

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I am apolitical, thus not bothered to be a communist or otherwise.

But as Schopenhauer has stated, the true blind optimists are theists especially those of the Abrahamic religions who so optimistic they will have eternal life in heaven/paradise as promised by an illusory God. And Schopenhauer sarcastically declared, if that is theistic optimism, then he [Schopenhauer] is a pessimist.

Believing in an illusory and impossible God is blind optimism which as a whole enable and is complicit to greater enmity in terms of terrible terrors, violence and all sorts of evils.“ **

Fact is that the communists killed more than a hundred million people within a few decades! World record! Communism is the world champion of murder and terror!

And by the way, Prismatic 567: What can be seen in all your threads and especially in your „God ...“ thread is that you have never understood that we have not argued for a belief or for a religion, but for logic. We have proven you wrong and reminded you of your many logical fallacies.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Prismatic 567 wrote:

»Believing in an illusory and impossible God is blind optimism which as a whole enable and is complicit to greater enmity in terms of terrible terrors, violence and all sorts of evils.« **

Prismatic ... what a »drift« from your first comment in this OP.

New Eastern Outlook wrote:

»Drugged on the self-aggrandizing drugs of excess, lude and lascivious lifestyles, and utter godlessness, the United States is all set for an apocalypse few in my country see.« **

“ **

Pilgrim Tom, is the owner of this New Eastern Outlook (NEO) an East Asian or an North American?

1118) Arminius, 05.12.2017, 18:44, 23:57 (6850-6851)

An aristocracy or oligarchy (degenerated aristocracy). Both are two „sides of the same coin“.

Yes (**).

One example: **.

1119) Arminius, 06.12.2017, 12:00, 13:56, 17:47, 19:07 (6852-6855)

Today’s communists do not publicly, but nevertheless still say that „people should be forced to work together“ (**).

1) Do you (**) consider two or more different realms (for example the physical as the first realm, the chemical as the second realm, the biological as the third realm ... and so on)?
1a) If yes: Are this realms like the Leibnizian monads?
1b) If not: Does „genetic determinism“ (**) really produce „all organisms“ (**), as you said, or is the genetic determinism itself also (just like all organisms are) a product of the physico-chemical nature?

To me, genetics is something between the chemical realm and the biological realm.

Arminius wrote:

„The theory is based on analogies. For example: Sun and technique (technology), planets and cultures, moons and economies, other bodies and art. The pre-condition I made is that the problem of the »dualism« between nature and culture can be overcome by analogies. In addition to the great »dualism« between nature and culture there are three other »dualisms«; so actually there are four »dualisms«, thus one »quadrialism« - four regions, and each region has two subregions; so I've got eight subregions (little »worlds«), and this eight »worlds« are: (1) physical, (2) chemical, (3) biological, (4) economical, (5) semiotical (incl. psycholgical/sociological), (6) linguistical, (7) philosophical, (8) mathematical. We can combine them: I (1 and 2), II (3 and 4), III (5 and 6), IV (7 and 8 ); or: A (1,2,3,4 or 1,2,3,8) and B (5,6,7,8 or 4,5,6,7). We can also combine them in this way, which makes the quadrialism clearer: (1 or I) natural, (2 or II) natural-cultural, (3 or III) cultural, (4 or IV) cultural-natural; and the eight »worlds«: (1a or Ia) physical, (1b or Ib) chemical, (2a or IIa) biological, (2b or IIb) economical, (3a or IIIa) semiotical, (3b or IIIb) linguistical, (4a or IVa) philosophical, (4b or IVb) mathematical. But the principal point is the analogy by itself, just in principle. It is very much stuff! So it is very much text too!“ ** **

** ** ** ** ** ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Physics: 1a and Ib.
Chemistry: 1b and IIa.
Biology: 2a and IIb.
Economics: 2b and IIIa.
Semiotics: 3a and IIIb.
Linguistics: 3b and IVa.
Philosophy: 4a and IVb.
Mathematics: 4b and Ia.

1) Anorganic.
2) Organic.
3) Mental.
4) Spriritual.
I) Order (means mainly ordinary mode of being).
II) Matter (means mainly material mode of being).
III) Function (means mainly functional mode of being).
IV) Consciousness (means mainly conscious or phenomenal mode of being).“ ** **

So, if I have translated your text rightly, then you have answered my question 1) with „no“, so that 1b) remains: Does „genetic determinism“ really produce „all organisms“, as you said, or is the genetic determinism itself also (just like all organisms are) a product of the physico-chemical nature? Your statement that „organic and inorganic are two interdependent sides of a single phenomenon“ does not sufficiently answer that question, because interdepedence is not causation, and I was asking for the causation (a producer [cause] produces a product [effect]).

Yes (**).

In my words:

Arminius wrote:

„Money ... is something that can be exchanged between things, between living beings, between things and living beings, provided that these living beings confide, trust, believe in it as a means of exchange (barter). Money is a promise, which will be fulfilled in the future. So, if the money shall work, the promise shall be fulfilled in the future, one has to confide, trust, believe in it; and if one really confides, trusts, believes in it, it will work, the promise will be fulfilled.“ ** **

I guess you noticed that I was speaking of believing in money and a promise that shall be fulfilled in the future. Yes, money has to do with belief, with religion, with theology, theism, with God. Money is a secularized God (false god), buying in the sense of spending money and accelerating the circulation of money is a secularized religion, the constant jurisdiction in favor of money is a secularized theology or theism. And each bank is a secularized church.

1120) Arminius, 07.12.2017, 13:20, 13:38, 17:50, 18:44, 18:55, 20:57 (6856-6861)

Goethe was capable of foreseeing the end of our industrial modernity, the Faustian modernity. He knew that this modernity has a good and a bad side.

And in the end ...:

Oswald A. G. Spengler (translated [**]):

„To impose upon the world the form of his will, Faustian man sacrifices even himself.“ ** **

Oswald A. G. Spengler (translated [**]):

„The Faust of the Second Part is dying, for he has reached his goal. What the myth of Götterdammerung signified of old, the irreligious form of it, the theory of Entropy, signifies today — world's end as completion of an inwardly necessary evolution.“ ** **

I opened once a thread with the title „Can we slow down the modern velocity?“ (**|**).

Especially, the „animal kingdom“ lacks promises for the remote future, lacks belief or trust in those promises, lacks institutions like banks that hords those promises and works with them (mostly by misusing those promises).

We have to consider two realms: (1) the real realm, (2) the ideal or spiritual realm.

This means that the existence is either necessary (=> 1) or possible (=> 2).

So, we have to consider necessity (=> 1) and possibility (=> 2).

„Wenn die Bedingungen der Möglichkeit in ihrer Totalität da sind, dann bilden sie zugleich Notwendigkeit.“ - Nicolai Hartmann.
My translation:
„If the conditions of the possibility are there in their totality, then they form at the same time necessity.“

Please prove, give evidence, show objectively that „the eternal return slows down time“ (**). You can believe in the eternal return, but the eternal return is not provable, although this does not mean that it is impossible.

Again: We have to consider necessity (=> 1) and possibility (=> 2). See: ** ** .

Belated HAPPY BIRTHDAY (**)!

My birthday is the 21st of December. So, our birthdays are temporally not far away from each other. We are both born under the sign of Sagittarius ( f ).

If I have translated your text rightly, then you have not proven that „the eternal return slows down time“ (**).

Your „supercomputer“ (**), your „program of not using any humanly pre learned data basis“ (**), your „sense of the quantum proof of learning genesis without reliance on a learning without a sense of a historical antecedent“ (**), your „a contemporaneous ... process (is a contradiction, by the way), anti historical and anti transcendental“ (**), your „world beyond history“ (**), your „time travel“ (**), your „time manipulation“ (**) - all that does not prove that „the eternal return slows down time“ (**). Humans have and know that they have a sense of time, a time consciousness, a memory. If you want to say that they become cyborgs, then just say „humans become cyborgs“. But as long as humans will still use their sense of time, their time consciousness, their memory, there will be no real „slowing down of time“.

And if you are saying that they will confuse reality with ideality, so that they interpret a ceratin ideality or/and possibility as their only reality or/and necessity and their only reality or/and necessity as the only ideality or/and possibility, then just think of dictatorships in countries where this has been dictated and experienced in spite of the fact that the people did not lose their sense of time, did not lose their time consciousness, did not lose their memory. So, what you are saying in this case is not that „the eternal return slows down time“, but that „there will be a dictatorship which is even more like hell than each one before it“.

==>