1421) Kathrina, 21.02.2021, 00:14, 00:23, 00:44, 01:47, 03:46, 19:41 (7889-7896)

This one:

I was not talking to you (**), but to the other one (**) who believes in a Darwinistic god who also is a communistic god. It is not God but their „god“, their false god.

Do you now know what I mean?

A Darwinistic god is an atheistic god, a false god.

Do you really think that an atheistic God is possible in the traditional way, for instance in the way of a monotheistic god, let's say Christian God?

It's okay.

Did you NOT write the following post?

Then thanks for explaining.

I haven't been away for long.

You must have been on the MOON (**) too long again. Huh?

They are only justifying and testing their fakes and excuses, which they will use to cover up their own crimes even better.

„God“ goes back to the Germanic *guda („god“), which in turn goes back to the Indo-Germanic *ghau („to call“) and originally meant „the being which is called (by magic word)“.

Maybe the Darwinistic God and the Marxist God are sockpuppets of the Western (Catholic-Protestant) Christian God, because the Enlightenment is a continuation of Western Christianity, especially in the sense that according to both Western Christianity and Enlightenment everything follows a „linear progress“, which allegedly goes to endlessness. This „linear progress“ leads to endless paradise or to endless hell (Christianity), to the endless fitness space (Darwin) or again to endless paradise (Marx), which then, however, means endless hell.

Yes, the sockpuppet theory seems to be the correct one.

But you (**) are right in what you say about the beginning of life and abortion:

The scientists and others say that each human life starts when the female egg gets penetrated by the male sperm head.

1422) Kathrina, 22.02.2021, 00:07, 15:50, 00:44; Great Again, 22.02.2021, 22:59 (7897-7899)

Thinkdr. wrote:

„Thank you, Kathrina.
I stand corrected.

I'm glad you mentioned »magic«since there is a mystery to it.“ **

Thanks for being friendly (that's rare here).

Just for further information:

Our ancestors were heathens.

Christianity came to Europe with Saint Paul, and it took many centuries, in some areas even a millennium, for it to finally take hold.

All cultures had been uninterrupted until the time when they were interrupted. There is only one culture that has not been interrupted: the Western Christian culture. That may soon change.

When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like „world cultures“, and thus they become open, soft and conquered.

Only communists and Bideners can be of the hasty opinion that the West has been interrupted. They want to disrupt the West, but so far they have not succeeded. Not yet.

Besides, by now the whole world is a Western culture when it comes to the application of Western technology. Everywhere on this planet machines are used, electricity is used, trains are used, telephones are used, cars are used, airplanes are used, rockets are used, nuclear energy is used, atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons are used, computers are used, genetic engineering is used, the internet is used. Who wants to destroy the western culture, must first of all abolish the Western technology, the whole modern age.

If Biden and Co. are in the process of destroying Western culture, one should always keep in mind that this destruction itself is still a part of Western culture. Western culture is not finished. Not yet. You left-wing nutcases can think and say that as much as you want. You will perish with and in your own desires.

It's all about success, about the intelligence that is to be eliminated. But this story is not over yet. Not yet.

To be able to achieve all this, they have to lie and cheat even more than they do now (and that's bad enough).

You can see from the reactions in the West, including here at ILP, that the majority of the Westerners themselves (!) wants to destroy the Western culture. The only problem for them is that they have not yet been able to do it successfully. Not yet. And they try to do it by using Western technology.This is as contradictory as it is ironic and cynical, because it is nihilistic.

If the world is going to become more and more like, for example, Biden wants it to be, then it will find itself relatively soon in a huge chaos. A huge chaos!

Remember my words.

How does the cell or its environment „know“ what „harmonious“ is and what not? I guess: by affectance. Right?

Mithus wrote:

„From the book:

Affectance in:
- Physics: Ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses wherein »positive« is electrical positive and »negative« is electrical negative potential.
- Psychology: Subtle influences, often random and unintentional wherein »positive« is perceived hope and »negative« is perceived threat.
- Sociology: Subtle information, often uncontrolled and deceptive wherein »positive« is constructively affirming and »negative« is destructively disseminating.
- Physiology: Subtle nutrients, toxins, and EMR, often undetected organic and inorganic chemicals and microwave signals, wherein »positive« is healthy and »negative« is unhealthy.
- Economics: Small exchanges in trade, often unnoticed and unrecorded, wherein »positive« is wealth gain and »negative« is wealth loss.
- Military: Subtle elements of control, often physical, psychological, traditional, or religious intimidation or inspiration wherein »positive« is more control and »negative« is less control.“ **

The striving to harmony would then be striving to an-entropy, the balance between entropy and anti-entropy. Right?

1423) Kathrina, 23.02.2021, 00:07, 01:20; Otto, 23.02.2021, 02:30, 02:50; Kathrina, 23.02.2021, 03:41; Kultur, 23.02.2021, 04:31; Kathrina, 23.02.2021, 14:09, 14:59, 15:08; Great Again, 23.02.2021, 18:19, 19:20; Kathrina, 23.02.2021, 23:59 (7901-7913)

For Western culture, for reasons of Western technology alone, which is unrivaled (something that has never existed before, not even remotely), is uninterrupted and will remain so for a long time, no matter how many left-wing nutcases try to deny even this fact. There are simply too many who want to see the West down.But just think what values would be lost if the West is down: no freedom of speech, no typical Western individuality, no Western identity.

So you (**) think that the Western technology will vansih in the next decades. Be honest, that's your romantic nihilistic thesis then. How can a technology just vanish in such a short time? Explain please - in English!

I said that the Western technology and the values of the Western culture - because both belong together - will not disappear quickly. This is not a „romantic sentiment“, as you said!

Mags J. wrote:

„Obsrvr wrote:

»Magnus Anderson wrote:

›We're both Slavs.‹ **

That really does explain some of our discussions. « **

Glad to have helped. Tho who knows if that’s true.

We are all our own number 1, because we matter unto our own selves.. we don’t need carers.. we are prim(e)ary unto ourselves.“ **

Obsrvr did not affirme that said sockpuppet story (**).

Kathrina wrote

„I haven't been away for long.

»You must have been on the MOON (**) too long again. Huh?

« ** **

Good that you reminded me. Thank you, Kathrina.

This time I have been on the dark side of the Moon.

- Pink Floyd (Waters, Mason, Wright, Gilmour), The Dark Side of the Moon, 1973 -

Obsrvr wrote:

„Great Again wrote:

»How does the cell or its environment ›know‹ what ›harmonious‹ is and what not? I guess: by affectance. Right?« ** **

Years ago I had that same thought concerning many ontological assertions (before I even knew what an ontology was). And just earlier I was posting with Jacob about his Value-Ontology wherein he asserts that even photons self-value. - How could a photon do any kind of valuing at all, right?

But what I realized is that in all of these ontologies even from ancient times, when they claim that something seeks or chooses they don't mean to say that the entity actually weighs its options and consciously chooses one over another - but rather the entity inherently behaves as if it was consciously and knowingly choosing.

They have been doing that with electricity and water in saying that it »seeks the path of least resistance« - as if it was consciously choosing a path. Apparently they were doing that with the gods, the devil, angels, a variety of science principles, computers (»prompting you« - »seeking the solution«) and now with Affectance Ontology (particles "seeking anentropy") and Value Ontology (»seeking self-values«).“ **

Or with „natural selection“: „nature is selecting“!

Satyr wrote:

„Money and the mathematics it is founded upon is but another linguistic form ....“ **

Exactly.

Satyr wrote:

„Francis Parker Yockey wrote:

»It was precisely in the fields of economics and law that the Liberal doctrine had the most destructive effects on the health of the Western Civilization. It did not matter much that esthetics became independent, for the only art-form in the West which still had a future, Western Music, paid no attention to theories and continued on its grand creative course to its end in Wagner and his epigones. Baudelaire is the great symbol of l’art pour l’art: sickness as beauty. Baudelaire is thus Liberalism in literature, disease as a principle of Life, crisis as health, morbidity as soul-life, disintegration as purpose.
Man as individualist, an atom without connections, the Liberal ideal of personality. It was in fields of action rather than of thought that the injury was greatest.«“ **

Nihilism, decadence, destructiveness, downfall, decay, decline.

How can we get out of it, if there is something like a fatalistic law that makes cultures pass away?

She is a woman who has the neurosis of always being behind a cross.

Here is someone (**) who wants to explain the world with the help of astroloigy and the like. Why did you not make it clear to him that he is irrational or romantic, because his „thesis rests on a romantic sentiment“ (**)? In his case, it is romance and irrationality. But not in my case. But why did you insinuate that my „thesis rests on a romantic sentiment“ (**), although I have only used historical facts?

1) It is a historical fact that Western technology is spread all over the world.
2) It is a historical fact that Western technology belongs exclusively to western Culture.
3) It is a historical fact that Western culture has not been interrupted and has not yet come to its end.You will soon experience this yourself, when the surveillance of all people by the machines (in this case: AI), which are all of Western origin (why do I actually have to explain this today?) , has become established.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Or with ›natural selection‹: ›nature is selecting‹!« ** **

Right. It is like a presumption of purpose or intent - a suspicion of consciousness - a superstition when no other understanding is apparent when actually it is all natural »forces« balancing out something that has become imbalanced.“ **

It is something like humanizing nature, as we know it from us when we humanize pets. In general, the breeding of animals alone is proof that man himself selects. He has also bred himself - towards a pet.

And „forces“ should be called „interactions“.

The trend is still in the direction that most ILP members want a renewal of the moderation.

The other truth is: Most ILP members love trolls. Unfortunately.

I have found a text passage on the subject of „forces“ in the e-book offered by Mithus:

James S. Saint, in: Gudrun Brune, „Rational Metaphysics : Affectance Ontology“, 2019, p. 20-30, wrote:

„Long ago just prior to Newton's fame, the enlightenment era crew, now called »scientists«, proposed that objects of mass (weight and inertia) were attracted to each other by a mysterious »force« to be called »gravity«. Newton became famous by forming a means of measuring the effect of this »force of gravity« so that it could be tested with a variety of mass objects. And after doing such testing, it was discovered that sure enough, masses did seem to behave as though there was a mysterious force attracting them and related to the amount of mass of each object.

A superstition is a concept superimposed onto an observable physical event so as to »stitch together« the event and the cause of the event. In more ancient times such superstitions were called »gods«, an invisible controller of events and the forces were the »magic« due to them being invisible yet causing sometimes surprising events. And not being visible or understood by the common people, they were »super-natural«, forces that are not themselves physical yet govern physical events.

The »force of gravity« was in fact one of these »superstitious, supernatural forces«. And because the cause and the event of mass attraction could be reliably measured, it was accepted that the »force of gravity“ was in fact a certain physical existence, even though never directly seen or see-able.

....

Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology is a particular understanding of affects, all and any affects. And what we call »mass attraction« or »the effect of the force of gravity«is certainly an affect to be understood. And we all know that such an affect really does occur. It is objectively testable and very observable. So what is the understanding concerning how that magic force works?

Science is all about finding the reasons behind anything and everything through independent investigation and study. And as it turns out, that magic force, spooky action at a distance, »force of gravity«is found in RM:AO to not actually exist at all. The behavior akin to mass attraction certainly happens, but there is no actual force involved. The »Force of Gravity«, that »spooky action at a distance«, doesn't actually exist as a real entity, merely an aberrant effect of other formerly not explained nor imagined events. In that regard, Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, and others were right. The Force of Gravity, the god of mass attraction, is a superstition cast into the world due to reliable correlation data rather than complete rational thinking.

Very briefly, what is actually happening (provably so) is that each and every mass is a concentration of the very same substance that exists between every mass and other masses. In modern physics terms, that substance could be called »ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses«. In RM:AO, it is referred to as simply »Affectance« (meaning »subtle influence«) and is measurable and explainable as to why it exists and precisely how it behaves. What is called a »sub-atomic particle« is merely a concentration of that substance and is constantly reconstituting itself by releasing and absorbing tiny portions of Affectance (»ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses«).

These are, of course, daring theses.

My tribe's ancestors have always, for at least the last 200000 years (except the last 1000 to 200 years), believed that there are many gods.

The one god is selected so that he selects his people (at least in Judaism) as „his chosen people“; the many gods are not selected so that they select those who believe in them as "their chosen people", but because they witness the lives of those who believe in them - for good or for evil.

1424) Kathrina, 24.02.2021, 00:37, 01:37, 01:37, 22:35, 22:47, 22:58, 23:10 (7914-7920)

Obsrvr wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»My tribe's ancestors have always, for at least the last 200000 years (except the last 1000 to 200 years ), believed that there are many gods.« ** **

Define »gods«.

This is what I said in one of my former posts (see above):

Kathrina wrote:

„»God« goes back to the Germanic *guda (»god«), which in turn goes back to the Indo-Germanic *ghau (»to call«) and originally meant »the being which is called (by magic word)«.“ ** **

The Germanic word „God“ originated from the substantivized second participle of the Indo-Germanic *ghuto-m of the verbal root *gheu- „to call“, „to invoke“. According to this, the gods would be the beings called (for instance by magic word).

I describe it by referring to history, to mythology, to the history of mythology, and especially to the history of language.

I think that one should take into account how people led their lives at that time. You can only define the word „God“ if you say that you are making a scientific or philosophical investigation. Otherwise, you have to stick to the meaning that history gives. Meanings and definitions are not the same. Words have meanings and are not usually defined. Terms or concepts, however, are defined so that they can become words, i.e. acquire meanings.

Well, you only want a definition, I guess, but then you must also say what you want to use this definition for.

Now I am curious about your definition of the term or concept „God“.

In mathematics this (**) would be comparable with operations like the different mirroring (at point, straight line) and rotations combined with displacements. And because one can never isolate gluons, so one can never put them under a microscope, then the suspicion comes that these gluons do not exist as objects, just as little as there are reflections as objects.

However, I think I know what you (**) are getting at. You want to point out that science has come to its end with physics and therefore we have to depend on other aids if we still want to recognize something in addition. I can agree with that for the most part. But how will one be capable of making an ojective statement if nobody accepts it objectively? This is only possible by falling back on old recipes: God/gods, religion, theology, also philosophy (which would then experience a great rebirth). But how do you want to explain it to the mass of people, if they don't want to know anything about astrology and the like? That works only about coercion. And coercion is what I reject.

I would like to throw a thesis into this virtual space:

Is it possible that RM:AO and VO are in the same relation to each other like rationality and irrationality or like (Kant/)Hegel and Schopenhauer/Nietzsche? I don't mean a strict opposition, but something like a rivalry in the attempt to find out the most important thing in cognition, which is tried on the one hand by means of rationality/reason/logic and which is tried on the other hand by not ignoring rationality/reason/logic, but considering it less important.

By the fact that mathematics has discovered the set of the irrational numbers, the rationality, so typical for mathematics, has not disappeared. The irrational numbers function in (function) equations, and that's all they are supposed to do. The rationality does not suffer from it, but enriches itself thereby even.

I did not say that you (**) are „Chinese“, „left-leaning“ and want „to destroy the West“, because I know that you are not Chinese, not left-leaning and do not want to destroy the West. I was referring to my own post, the last one, in which your previous post is still included. It would have been better to take your post out before. So sorry, Mags. I was referring to leftists / comunists, not to you.

Why not ban all trolls from ILP?
Because then there would be too few posters left!

Humans are group beings (pack animals as well as e.g. wolves).

But what advice does VO give to this question about the group?

I don't like to use the word „social“, because this word has only been misused by almost everyone.

Perhaps you (**) would agree when I said that truth can also refer to the ideal or spiritual realm, that is, it does not have to refer to the real or material realm alone.

1425) Kultur, 25.02.2021, 00:58, 01:02; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 25.02.2021, 02:02, 23:57 (7921-7924)

As I have already briefly explained in my thread „The Rise and Fall of Cultures“ (**|**), I assume two „higher“ forms of culture: the „metaculture“ and the individual „high cultures“, the former containing the latter.

I think, both forms of higher human culture will soon reach the end of their cycle, their completion. It is possible that we will soon see (a) a new higher human culture form, (b) two new higher human culture forms, or (c) no higher human culture form at all (I have not considered the primitive human culture form here because it does not belong to the higher human culture forms). That will depend on whether what has to do with the current agenda of the globalists will work: the establishment of a new culture form by means of „artificial intelligence“ (AI). This new cultural form would also be capable of carrying within itself, as a metaculture, several cultural forms subordinated to it. Whether this will happen, however, I do not know.

Americanism is the last stage of Western-Christian (Faustian, as Spengler called it) high culture. This high culture is as good as completed - whether one evaluates this negatively or positively. Such completions are inevitable.

The other, which will also be completed soon, is the metaculture, now 6000 years old, which contains all these high cultures. Not only, but also the monotheistic religions have contributed to this completion.

I think, both forms of higher human culture will soon reach the end of their cycle, their completion. It is possible that we will soon see (a) a new higher human culture form, (b) two new higher human culture forms, or (c) no higher human culture form at all (I have not considered the primitive human culture form here because it does not belong to the higher human culture forms). That will depend on whether what has to do with the current agenda of the globalists will work: the establishment of a new culture form by means of „artificial intelligence“ (AI). This new cultural form would also be capable of carrying within itself, as a metaculture, several cultural forms subordinated to it. Whether this will happen, however, I do not know.

Americanism is the last stage of Western-Christian (Faustian, as Spengler called it) high culture. This high culture is as good as completed - whether one evaluates this negatively or positively. Such completions are inevitable.

The other, which will also be completed soon, is the metaculture, now 6000 years old, which contains all these high cultures. Not only, but also the monotheistic religions have contributed to this completion.

__

Please, be so fair and let the good times roll change the voting mode (**), because there is no possibility at all to vote for a „no“ (in the sense of: „do not ban him“).

Is there any „interim result“ at all?
And if so: Can anyone even see it?
And if so: Which is it?

__

You will notice a „little“ difference between the two petitions, if you compare their two polls.

One poll with a vote for „yes“ and „no“ (as it should be for fairness reasons). One poll with a vote for „yes“ only.

1426) Kultur, 26.02.2021, 00:08, 00:28; Kathrina, 26.02.2021, 19:09, 21:43 (7925-7928)

Satyr wrote:

„Christian is not Faustian.“ **

That's right.

I have used the expression „Western-Christian“ only to prevent misunderstandings, because some readers do not know what is to be understood exactly by „Faustian“, and since it concerns with a culture always also a space and this should be generally understandable, I have used the expression „Western-Christian“, which is also not fundamentally wrong, because it designates the area, in which also the Faustian is at home. The Faustian is at home there, where also the Western-Christian - the Catholic/Protestant - is at home. However, not every Catholic/Protestant is automatically also a Faustian. So once again, Christianity is not Faustian.

Since you said that you „develop ... memes as extensions of genes, spread linguistically“ (**), you certainly don't see anything positive in Christianity, but rather a „parasite-meme“ (**), as you called it, don't you?

To prevent misunderstandings:

I have used the expression „Western-Christian“ only to prevent misunderstandings, because some readers do not know what is to be understood exactly by „Faustian“, and since it concerns with a culture always also a space and this should be generally understandable, I have used the expression „Western-Christian“, which is also not fundamentally wrong, because it designates the area, in which also the Faustian is at home. The Faustian is at home there, where also the Western-Christian - the Catholic/Protestant - is at home. However, not every Catholic/Protestant is automatically also a Faustian. So once again, Christianity is not Faustian.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Perhaps you would agree when I said that truth can also refer to the ideal or spiritual realm, that is, it does not have to refer to the real or material realm alone.« ** **

I don't understand why you are saying that. Truth is founded in the ideal/divine/conceptual realm.“ **

Because you said this:

Obsrvr wrote:

„James S Saint, Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:36 pm, wrote:

»....Truth (meaning »Reality«, »Your Real Situation«).« **

....“ **

7928

What about a petition to ban the troll, stalker and sock puppet Sculptor? Sculptor is likely thesock puppet of Lev Muishkin. Both have said that they:
1) have cancer (as far as this is concerned, I'm really sorry for them),
2) were born around 1960,
3) come from England,
4) are atheists,
5) are communists, worship Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,
6) worship Darwin for no reason,
7) like to provoke (similar to trolls or stalkers etc.)
_) and many other things that point to striking similarities.

Actually, I'm not at all for banishment. But enough is enough. Isn't it? A person who is a troll, a stalker and a sock puppet should be banned.

1427) Kultur, 27.02.2021, 00:00, 00:02; Alf, 27.02.2021, 20:40, 21:12, 22:49; Kathrina, 27.02.2021, 23:57 (7929-7934)

I was going to say the same thing (**) myself in my previous post (**|**). And the so-called „progress“ is also only followed because of the prosperity and the promise of prosperity that is made over and over again.

What do you (**) mean by „bif“ and by „secular Abrahamism“?

Topic: Time and Change.

Just as time without change, change without time is not perceptible, recognizable.

We have become accustomed to interpreting time in a one-sided way: linear. Before that, it was natural to interpret time as you experience it in your immediate environment: cyclically. Think of the course of the day, the seasons and the dependent growing, blossoming, flourishing and passing of the experienced nature. Harvest is dependent on it. Our rhythm of life is dependent on it, apart from the unnatural to counternatural rhythms caused by technical inventions. We have forgotten that we are dependent on a cycle.

Time is the perceived form of the change: of the coming into being, becoming, flowing, passing away in the world and/or this itself together with all contents affected by it. The „objective“ time, measured by the distances of the celestial bodies and other phenomena, is to be distinguished from the „subjective“ time, which is based on the experienced time consciousness.

Only the „now“ is „time and opportunity“; it lies between „too early“ and „too late“ and must be „perceived“, noticed, seized, so that something can be done at all. Past, present, future are abstractions of these concepts of time, in which the „too“ is a sign for the worry character of dasein (cf. Martin Heidegger's concept of „time“, „being“, „worry“, „dasein“). According to Heidegger, time is neither in the subject nor in the object, neither „inside“ nor „outside“; it „is“ earlier than any subjectivity and objectivity because it is the conditions of possibility itself for this „earlier“.

Reflect more on how you experience time and change(s) in everyday life.

Topic: Philosophy of History.

This thread is an addition to my previous thread: „Time and Change“ (**|**).

Topic: Is God there in any Situation?

Is God there in any situation?

And to what extent is there a relationship between God and any situation at all?

Do you have any suggestions?

Topic: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Is humanity the best or dangerous?

„Humanity“ is one of the most misused and subsequently misunderstood words.

As its main goal, humanity should have the harmonious education of the valuable dispositions typical of human beings. But in practice, it has often been the other way around.

I would like to know your opinion about this.

Thank you.

Every day (!) about 10000 ABORTIONS in USA, Canada, EU. And the difference between RICH and POOR today is about as big as the difference between an elephant and a bacterium (!). Not to mention the wars!

1428) Alf, 28.02.2021, 00:30; Kathrina, 28.02.2021, 00:44, 00:54, 01:20, Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 28.02.2021, 20:02; Kathrina, 28.02.2021, 21:04, 21:13; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 28.02.2021, 21:40; Great Again, 28.02.2021, 23:30 (7935-7943)

Hello again, Wendy.

My thought was that the thread „Time and Change“ (**|**) should be more about the interpretation of what time actually is, that it means „change“, „to be as to become“, „to be to death“ (in creatures) and in conclusion „development“, „history“ (whether natural or cultural).

The added thread (**|**) should not be so much about time itself, but about what is changed by time in space and subsequently told, written down, made music, painted, photographed, filmed, kept in brains, libraries, museums and elsewhere, that is, what we call „history“.

Alf. Hi.

How have you been?

Is this thread (**|**) (again) about the difference between linearity and cyclicity?

You opened another thread that goes in this direction.

The Indo-Germanic root of the word „time“ is *di and means „to divide“, „to cut up“, denotes in a sequence of events the succession in a non-reversible direction.

An example of cyclicity:

Culture cycle means that a culture undergoes fluctuations. The course can be divided into phases of depth (analogous to the phases of the primeval-/pre-culture), up (analogous to the phases of the early culture), height (analogous to the phases of the high culture), down (analogous to the phases of the late culture), which are again subject to fluctuations.

The similarities with the business cycle of the economy are particularly striking: low (depression, stagnation), up (revival, expansion), high (boom, bull market), down (recession, crisis, contraction).

In economics, conjuncture is the name given to (cyclical) fluctuations in the production volume of an economy caused by interacting changes in certain economic variables, because they denote a situation resulting from the combination of various phenomena. Many economists still claim that the economy grows into infinity, but the responsible persons of the economy have to deal constantly with the business cycle and not seldom admit that there can be an unlimited growth only if also the raw materials, the access possibilities to them, their usages, thus also the market (where supply and demand meet) and the population continue to grow into infinity. The economic history runs only temporarily like the positive slope of a parabola or hyperbola.

Also the cultural history does not run at all only steeply, but follows a cycle, which itself again follows a linear or steeper form, which follows a cycle, which follows a steepness ... etc. All developments have similarities with positive or negative gradients, but also with cycles or periodicities.

Cultures emerge depending on the climate, on the seasons, on the landscape as environment.

From all what you have said (**) does not follow anything like value ontology or self-value ontology, well, also not any other theory or philosophy, except the one which agrees with the fact of the history of science that since the time when Planck founded the quantum theory (1900), physics in the main has become quantum physics, the empirical findings because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle just fuzzy, imprecise, and also theoretically resp. mathematically no more exactly, but only with statistics and probability calculation can be proved, that therefore from the point of view of physics the world does not look any more like before 1900 (Planck), but can look like „as it wants“, and we can only state that the weltanschauung has changed dramatically since then.mathematically no more exactly, but only with statistics and probability calculation can be proved, that therefore from the point of view of physics the world no more looks like before 1900 (Planck), but can look like „as it wants“, and we can only state that the world view has changed dramatically since then. We do not know what is going on in a „black hole“ - that means: we also do not know whether the "black hole" does "what it wants".

Everything can be always also completely different - this is the cognition which physics since 1900 (Planck) has helped more and more to the breakthrough. If everything can always also be completely different, then everything can also be exactly the other way round, then everything can also be like Orwell's „Newspeak“ dictates. But it does not have to be that way.

The logotype for „Ingsoc“ from the film „Nineteen Eighty-Four“ („1984“):

With „humanity“ I meant both: „humanity“ and „human kindness“. The English language, unfortunately, does not distinguish so much in this matter. And I intenionally avoided the word „humanism“.

You are right, Encode Decode:

Encode Decode wrote:

„It would seem to me that the word holds no logical singular meaning; as with many words in the English language.“ **

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„I am not sure Sculptor is a troll. He seems to be merely unpleasant (not that such should be tolerated.) Lev Muishkin was worse, I think.“ **

But then you couldn't have petitioned either, because there are no rules in this webforum about who is a troll and who is a stalker, although you can find out pretty easily by going through post by post, thread by thread. You can figure it out! Funny that "Facebook" as the largest web forum in the world has „fact checkers“as censors and the small web forum „ILovePhilosophy“ doesn't even have a moderation.

I have given many more references than you have and, unlike you, have also spoken of stalking. Have you ever had to endure stalking? I have looked at the relevant posts again.

And as for the communists, well, it's clear anyway that they tend to cover for a communist. There would have to be a neutral moderation. But there is not. We should renew the moderation in a neutral direction. See Great Again's thread „Renewing the Moderation“ (**|**). But will such a renewed moderation work?

What else remains as a poster is the ignore list.

Encode Decode wrote:

„Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„I voted ›yes‹, although I am not for a big control, as you can imagine.

In the US, everyone seems to be fighting everyone (as in Hobbes' time in England) - the differences are in the technical and economic possibilities as well as in the composition of the society and the age of the culture. In the USA skin colors fight against one skin color, upper and lower class against middle class, women against men, young against old, atheists and non-Christians against Christians, left against right, ›progressives‹ against conservatives, homosexuals and transsexuals against heterosexuals. (Soon also machines against humans? Or again animals against humans?). Although, no because we are doing so well, everybody is fighting everybody.

But this is not unique to the US, it is true wherever there are Westerners. This is not a coincidence. In the USA it is - at the moment in any case - only worse than in the other nations of the West.

The internet ›promised‹ so much in the beginning and not only failed to deliver on any of that promise but brought more and more autism, asociality, lack of independence, dictatorship, censorship, prohibition, banning.

The reason why almost no moderation can be found here is that almost no one wants to have and show responsibility out of fear. Maybe Carleas is already in prison? For us (is he like Jesus on the cross?)?

The fear goes around.“ ** **

Does autism really have as much to do with it as you think? I would suggest most of the people that appear autistic are just fucking idiots and/or sociopaths.“ **

I used the words „autism“ and „asociality“, you used the word „idiots“ and „sociopaths“, so I think that we are in agreement.

Try to decipher:

1429) Kultur, 01.03.2021, 01:08, 01:21, 01:27; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 28.02.2021, 14:40, 15:06, 15:16; Great Again, 01.03.2021, 17:32; Alf, 01.03.2021, 19:50, 20:02 (7944-7952)

Does anybody know more about John David Ebert (**) and Masaman (**)?

„Historical pseudomorphoses I call cases in which a foreign culture lies so powerfully over the country that a young one, which is at home here, cannot catch its breath and not only does not attain to any formation of pure, own forms of expression, but not even to the full development of its self-consciousness. Everything that rises from the depths of an early soul is poured into the hollow forms of alien life; young feelings freeze in ancient works, and instead of the awakening of one's own creative power, only hatred against the distant power grows to gigantic size. This is the case of the Arab culture. Its prehistory lies entirely in the realm of the ancient Babylonian civilization, which for two millennia has been the prey of changing conquerors.“

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 784-785 (translated by me).

„The pseudomorphosis begins with Actium - here Antonius should had won. It was not the decisive battle between Romanity and Hellenism that was fought out; that was fought out at Cannae and Zama, by Hannibal, who had the tragic fate of fighting not for his country, but for Hellenism. At Actium, the unborn Arab culture stood against the aged ancient civilization.“

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 788 (translated by me).

I said that the fact that we can't be sure about position and momentum of a quantum at the same time - Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) - was a trigger for very specific theorists and philosophers to change their weltanschauung, which then in turn has led to the fact that politics has also been changed, even if money has also taken care of the implementation of that.

Do you also refer to any patterns of history?

I'm afraid that this will perhaps even go so far that no one will have a self-consciousness anymore.

Kathrina wrote:

„Ancient Rome - short, simplified interpretation of what happened in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC..*

The construction of the Roman state could not suffice in the long run for the domination and administration of the growing world empire. Moreover, the prosperities that streamed into Italy from the plunder of wars and the exploitation of Rome's supremacy, and the sunny influences of the quite different Hellenistic world on Rome, which was still quite simple around 200 A.D., brought about internal and moral changes that greatly affected not only the ancient Roman state mentality, but the entire internal structure of Roman life.

The competition of cheap overseas grain from taxation and the influx of money in the Roman upper class, which had to seek investment primarily in landed property, and other related developments worked in the direction of the shrinking of the peasant middle class of the Roman citizenry. This, with the shrinking of the legions' recruiting base and, at the same time, ever-increasing military tasks, directly touched the foundations of Roman rule and conjured up other clearly visible dangers. The reform attempt of the Gracchi, who wanted to counteract this development by resettling peasants on available state land, failed for various reasons and, with its side effects, led to the outbreak of civil war-like processes (and thus civil wars in general) and a disastrous tension between the estates of the Roman people.

Marius drew from this situation the other conclusion, for the formation of the army needed for the colonial war against Jugurtha in North Africa and then against the Germanic threat in the north and in the west, no longer to resort to conscription of the middle classes of the Roman people, but to form his army by recruitment. In order to be successful, Marius had to offer the recruits not only a short-term military service, but also a kind of life position. The recruits thus became professional soldiers with at least twenty years of service, who then also demanded to be provided for somehow for their further life after their discharge. It is natural that these new professional soldiers came primarily from the proletariat, which, moreover, streamed to Rome in ever-increasing numbers from Germania, Gaul, North Africa and the Hellenistic states, and according to established Roman ideas, this immediately had further consequences.

One of those consequences was that the bonds between the soldiers and the commander became closer and closer. Another consequence was that with this ominous aggravation of the internal political antagonisms, the interest of the leading class in Rome shifted completely to these personal power struggles (private wars!) and intrigues, and they no longer paid sufficient attention to the developments in the external sphere of Rome's power and let them drive to real catastrophes like the domination of the whole Mediterranean Sea by the pirates and the conquest of Asia Minor by Mithridates with the murder of all the Romans in the country (at least 80000; cp. „Vesper of Ephesus“).

Here, the most serious mistake of the republican Roman leadership took its revenge on Rome itself, the lack of interest in the provinces, which one as a lower subject country did not really think had to worry about and in which one therefore allowed to happen, about which one did not really think to have to care about as an subject country and in which one therefore let happen what then led to the fall of the republic itself. The unrestricted power and self-importance of the Roman imperial leaders in the provinces, which did not directly affect Roman citizens and therefore did not seem to be particularly disturbing, had the consequence that the great military leaders in the provinces and on the borders of the Roman Empire were able to act almost freely and, in the wars they led, created the great armies and turned them into tools of their policy, with which they could conquer Rome from the provinces.

* Roman civil wars: 133-30 BC.

(From: Ernst Meyer, Einführung in die antike Staatskunde, 1968, S. 218-220; translated by me).

Please compare, taking into account, of course, the differences owed to occidental modernity.“ ** **

I summarize compressively:

This went on, intensified, took on ever greater dimensions.

In my opinion, these civil wars could have already ended with Marius or Sulla, if the Senate had not been so blind to the events around it, which includes that it would also have been ready to relinquish external territories,

because they simply overwhelmed it.

Thank you, Kathrina.

This thread should not only be about the difference between linearity and cyclicity, but first and more generally about what „time“ as „change“ means.

Time has a linear and cyclic course. If one takes both courses together, then he gives a spiarl cycle. But if the linearity turns out to be also cyclic, then there is only cyclicity.

But what is time, if one sees it not only under the aspect of form, but also and - in this thread - perhaps especially under the aspect of change?

If there were no changes, then we would also not notice that time passes; and if there were no time, then we would also not be able to notice any changes; or, in other words, we cannot even imagine how it is without time/change. It would have to be like death. Or?

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„Do you also refer to any patterns of history?“ ** **

Yes, I also refer to any patterns of history.

I see patterns of history reflected in nature, i.e. in what we perceive as changes in nature, e.g. the sprouting, the first blossoms, the withering and disappearance of plants, the dependence of all creatures (perhaps apart from some microorganisms) on the seasons. This ebb and flow, this appearance and disappearance is also evident in history.

1430) Otto, 02.03.2021, 01:48, 02:19, 14:19, 14:24, 15:47, 18:23, 18:53, 19:26 (7953-7960)

Currently there is a lot of talk about trolls and sock-puppets here at ILP.

My contribution to this:

What annoys a poster more: the troll or the sock-puppet?

Trolls and sock-puppets are functions of a strategy.

This petition is to ban someone who is considered a troll, isn't it?

Good day.

I think of the problems that the so-called „social media“ in particular have brought: internet communism, e.g. total surveillance through AI censorship, neo-speech, cash withdrawal through digital money, just communism.

What annoys a poster more: the troll or the sock-puppet?

Trolls and sock-puppets are functions of a strategy.

The strategy of a troll is to isolate the others, to destroy them, but sometimes also to have fun with themunder the condition that this leads to the goal of having no other topic than the topic „fun“.

This is my assessment. I do not consider myself a troll, but I am interested in the motives of trolls.

Encode Decode wrote:

„Meno wrote:

»What's the most necessary relation between troll and suckpuppet , for can a poster be indicative of both?

Im sure there are hybreds, and by consequence, would they not be the most xxxxx ( expletive)?« **

A sock puppet is just an alternative account from what I am led to believe.

Wikipedia wrote:

»A sock puppet or sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.« **

A troll could use an alternative account.“ **

Yes, of course, but then he/she „works“ in two ways: as a troll and as a sockpuppet.

A sockpuppet can be or become a troll, but then he/she „works“ in two ways: as a sockpuppet and as a troll.

That's funny, isn't it.

Again:

Otto wrote:

„What annoys a poster more: the troll or the sock-puppet?

Trolls and sock-puppets are functions of a strategy.

This petition is to ban someone who is considered a troll, isn't it?“ ** **

Encode Decode wrote:

„

If I had another account, I could troll myself.

Ignore everybody else?

“ **

Yes.

That's a funny idea, isn't it?

Basically, a troll is very self-centered, downright self-absorbed. A „professional“ troll does not tolerate anyone else next to him/her. This does not necessarily mean that a troll ignores everyone -, because a troll needs the others, after all - but that a troll uses everyone to elevate him-/herself, which seems to the others, however, with much justification like ignoring.

Pinkladydragon wrote:

„Otto wrote:

»I think of the problems that the so-called ›social media‹ in particular have brought: internet communism, e.g. total surveillance through AI censorship, neo-speech, cash withdrawal through digital money, just communism.« ** **

I couldn't agree more. Another aspect of the internet that I dislike is that it creates isolation.“ **

That's why I put the word „social media“ in quotes. I mainly meant that „social media“ are the most antisocial of the whole internet. The „social media“ cause all this antisociality, this isolation up to autism. The word „social media“ is one of the countless words of the neo-speak (newspeak). The people should not notice how antisocial the „social media“ are.

The internet has been being antisocial and isolating in its effect since its very beginning.

Pinkladydragon wrote:

„People start to depend on the internet for socialising or for business instead of talking to people face to face. Nowadays people increasingly experience life second hand through the internet. I once heard a man on the radio say that he did not have to go out into the world because google brings the world to his living room.“ **

This man is socially dead.

==>