561) Arminius, 04.09.2014, 17:00, 17:47, 18:10, 18:29, 19:18   (1984-1988)

Mainly there were not books, but there was always the life. The life was the most influence for my philosophy.

If you want to know at the least one book, then I say it was a good dictionary.

I'm sorry, Zinnat, but I don’t think so. You said (for example):

Zinnat wrote:

„Fixed Cross once told me that i misread him and advised me to read The Birth of Tragedy. I downlowded and start reading it but many chapters passed i was still unable to understsand what his referred subject it, much less his opinion, thus stopped.

I don’t think that Nietzsche’s texts are difficult to understand - the revers is true: Nietzsche’s texts are easy to understand. Nietzsche said this and that, there are some contradictions in his texts, but they as such are not difficult to understand.

If you are in love with philosophy because of aesthetics, then please let me know.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, if you want to just use a single definition that is most compatible with me, »spirit« refers to physical motion or behavior and »concept« refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume.“ **

It seems to be a translation problem. „Spirit“ as the common translated German word „Geist“ also „refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume“. „Concept“ as the common translated German word „Begriff“ („Konzept“, „Idee“) also „refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume“. So if I translate those two words - „spirit“ and „concept“ -, I always get „those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume“.

Howsoever, do you agree with me that there are material and non-material forms of existence?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Like I said, the word »spirit« has become ambiguous, so let's just leave that word out and use either »energy« for the essence of any movement and »behavior« for any particular form or type of movement.

Ambiguous. Oh, I see.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Howsoever, do you agree with me that there are material and non-material forms of existence?« ** **

I can agree to that. RM:AO allows for a »physical realm of existence« (or »material«) and also a »conceptual realm of existence«. And understand that as the material existence reduces to zero, it approaches the conceptual realm. They share a border at »zero physical existence«.“ **

And there are merely this two realms, because accordong to RM:AO „absolutely zero“ does not exist, so a zero realm does also not exist.

562) Arminius, 05.09.2014, 00:38, 15:52   (1989-1990)

History has not ended yet, although it seems to sink, to go down, to decline, to shrink.

History can’t have ended yet because the „historical existentials“ haven’t ended.

Arminius wrote:

There is no doubt that some of those examples of historical existentials have been shrinking, while other historical existentials have been expanding.

So the historical existentials state (=> 5.), city and country as contrast (=> 7.), education, especially in schools and universities (=> 8.), science (=> 9.), order of sexulality / demographics, economics (=> 10.), and last but not least historiography / awareness of history (=> 11.) will probably disappear during the next future, provided that humans will be alive then. But we still don't know whether the historical existentials religion (=> 1.), rule (=> 2.), nobleness (=> 3.), classes (=> 4.), graet war (=> 6.) will end as long as humans are alive.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»And there are merely this two realms, because according to RM:AO ›absolutely zero‹ does not exist, so a zero realm does also not exist.« ** **

Yes, that border of »absolute zero« can never be breached. It is non-existence. Concepts have nothing to do with time or distance. For a concept to become a physical reality, it doesn't »cross the border«, but rather a physical potential (»situation«) must independently arise such as to form the concept within the physical realm. At that point the concept is a »physical state«.

Principles (»laws«) have that same issue because a principle is merely a special case of a concept. For a principle to physically exist, a situation must arise that constitutes a physical state to represent the principle otherwise the principle has no physical representation and remains independent of time and distance. A »political state« is an example.“ **

So the whole spiritual part of life - for example principles, „laws“, rules, ideas, and all the other special cases of a concept - would have to remain in the spiritual / conceptual / energetic realm of existence and can’t reach the other realm, the physical / material realm, if a physical potential (as the situation) hadn’t occured.

563) Arminius, 06.09.2014, 02:40   (1991)

If you are in love with philosophy because of ethics, then please let me know.

564) Arminius, 07.09.2014, 15:31   (1992)

Here you said that I should use the word „energy“ instead of „spirit“:

„Like I said, the word »spirit« has become ambiguous, so let's just leave that word out and use either »energy« for the essence of any movement and »behavior« for any particular form or type of movement.“ **

Here you said „spirit“ and „energy“ don't mix:

„Well, there you go using the »s« word again after we agreed not to. The conceptual realm and energy don't mix. Energy is of the physical realm.“ **

565) Arminius, 08.09.2014, 01:49   (1993)

If the word „spirit“ has really „become ambiguous“ (**), then it should also not refer „to the physical realm“ (**). In this case „ambiguous“ means that the reference is not clear, thus there is no refernce to both the conceptual realm and the physical realm.

566) Arminius, 09.09.2014, 02:16   (1994)

I prefer rock, especially progressive rock music and jazz rock music, partly also pop music, folk music, electronic/techno music, and - last but not least - classical music!

When it comes to determine the time of the best music during my previous life I designate the 1960’s, especially the late 1960’s, and the 1970’s, especially the early 1970’s.

Now you can easily guess how old I am, can't you?

For Pythagoras, the world was a harmonious whole, an eternal, divine being: the cosmos. The world harmony was musical for him. Pythagoras had recognised that numerical relations arrange for the harmonic series of tones.

If all humans had merely a bit more music in their souls (and not in their supermarkets), they would be much more happy, peaceful, and satisfied.

567) Arminius, 10.09.2014, 22:03   (1995)

I think the Greek word „nous“ („nous“), the German words „Geist“, „Vernunft“, „Verstand“, „Intellekt“ „Idealität“, „Ideal(e)“, „Idee“, „Begriff“, „Vorstellung“, „Konzept“, „Plan“, and others describe very well what you mean by „conceptual realm“. Strangely but according to what you said, the English word „spirit“ doesn’t fit very well, although its German translation is often but not only „Geist“. But okay, I should prefer to follow your advice and avoid as much as possible the word „spirit“ when it comes to the „conceptual realm“.

568) Arminius, 11.09.2014, 01:01   (1996)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Zinnat wrote:

»It is almost concluded now withih the scientific fraternity that the universe is expanding. And, its proof is the red shift observed by Hubble and its explanation is Doppler affect.

As far as the Doppler affect is concerned, it looks logical and can be used. But, i failed to understand how it proves that the red shift observed by the hubble is because of an expanding universe?« **

I can think of 4 reasons for red shift to occur. Only one of them requires an expanding universe.
1) Energy loss
2) Polarity segregation
3) Relative velocity (Doppler effect)
4) Shrinking universe

1) Energy loss refers to the fact that a photon of light is not a fixed particle, but rather a clump or bunch of EMR noise and that clump gradually loses a little of its energy as it travels for 1000's of light years. In physics, it is presumed that the energy content and the wave length are a one-to-one correlation. So if they measure the energy content of a photon, they calculate the presumed »wavelength«. And if the photon has lost some of its energy content due to the extreme distance of travel, which it certainty will, they will deduce that the wavelength is lower than it was when it left the distance star. The physical length of the wave might not have changed at all, but they will deduce that it has = »presumed red shift«.

2) Polarity segregation refers to the fact that positive pulses of EMR and negative pulses do not experience the exact same delays from space while traveling through such great distances. A photon has both positive pulses within as well as negative, leaving it neutral in electric potential. If the space that the photon is traveling through has a greater delay upon the small positive pulses than the negative, the photon clump will elongate. That elongation is the segregating or slight filtering of the positive and negative EMR pulses within the photon. That elongation will constitute an actual increase in wavelength = "actual red shift".

3) Relative velocity refers to what is known as the Doppler effect that takes place any time a wave source is traveling away from a receiver. In such a case, the emitted light is transmitted with a longer wave length because each tiny portion of the clump leaves the moving source at a slightly different time. That results in a lower wave length being received by the receiver than what would have been received if the receiver had been moving with the light source. Such an effect constitutes an »apparent red shift«.

4) Shrinking universe refers to the fact that all sub-atomic particles are possibly slightly dissipating, yielding slight larger distances between objects as measured by the size of those particles. This effect has two consequences. Through time, it would appear as if the universe was expanding due to the distances between objects getting greater. But it would also have the effect of causing any wave being received to appear longer than it was when it left its source. The photons are also losing energy, but by a different rate. Thus the shrinking of the particles helps to compensate for the actually lower energy content that will be measured as higher by the smaller receiver. The combination of these yields a »perceived red shift«.

So I would say that answering only one out of four possible scenarios is hardly »proof« at all. A true proof requires the elimination of all alternatives. And in Science nothing is fact until it is "falsifiably demonstrated". They can at best falsify that the Doppler effect will yield a red shift. They cannot falsify that the appearance of red shift was caused by the velocity of the light source.

Their conclusion is merely a part of their extensive religiosity = what the want for you to believe they have »proven«.“ **

The common physicists assume that the red shift (Hubble effect) is an effect of the Doppler effect.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But since WW2, Science was made into a religion. One is not allowed to question its dogma, so any experiment demonstrating otherwise will not be allowed and if revealed, will be altered so as to display the proper ordained theory.“ **

This is also the reason why science (as science!) simply does not get further. But it gets further as religion, as a new religion. Those of the common physicists who are honest say that they are too stupid to get further - I say they are already too religious to get further. Science had its great time long ago, and its time is not yet over but is going to be over in the relatively near future, full of dogmas and no science anymore because dogmas are a certain sign for religion. How many dogmas has science already accumulated?

569) Arminius, 12.09.2014, 01:41   (1997)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Phoneutria wrote:

»It involved wondering if you ever have a thought that isn't about a conspiracy to usurp global authority.« **

Can you name any significant thing that Man has done since the advent of the »word of God« that wasn't either an attempt to dominate the world or defend against someone else trying to dominate the world?

Today almost everything the USA does is all about »National Security« against the evil »terrorist« who seem to always be either Islamics or more often simply American citizens. And of course Islam is trying to defend against the evil Western imperialism as are those American citizens. And is founded by the Department of Homeland Security a legally required to be conspiracy (and paranoid extremists). Meanwhile Israel laughs all the way to the bank ... oh yeah, they ARE the bank founded by the conspiracy known as "usury" (lending out more money than you really had).

Did you really think that the USA gained its independence from England without conspiring to do so? Or that England wasn't conspiring to prevent it? Nations are not formed without conspiring to form them against anyone preferring not to.

Did you really think that the world wars came about by accidental happenstance?

Although there have been an uncountable number, this is a very shortened list of proposed »world empires« (not to mention at all the number that never succeeded):

British Empire
Qing Dynasty
Russian Empire
Mughal Empire
Japanese Empire
Northern Song Dynasty
Second French colonial empire
Mongol Empire
Ming Dynasty
Tang Dynasty
Southern Song Dynasty
Roman Empire
Spanish Empire
Mauryan Empire
German Colonial Empire
Earlier Zhao Dynasty
Umayyad Caliphate
Dutch Empire
Yuan Dynasty
Han Dynasty
Sui Dynasty
Austro-Hungarian Empire
Italian Empire
Achaemenid Empire, Iran
Western Jin Dynasty
Abbasid Caliphate
Rashidun Caliphate
Ottoman Empire
First French colonial empire

If you are not conquering the world, you are defending against the conquering of the world. Today they call themselves »Democratic Socialists«. Socialism itself cannot exist without conspiracy always at hand and under foot. Propaganda is inherently conspiratorial. What in your world hasn't been founded on and by conspiracy?

Even the original Science was merely an effort to escape the inherent conspiracy of cultism, only to later become its former enemy. The only innocents of conspiracy are those on the very bottom of society being the dupes conspired upon.

The hope for and of the world is to one day have a world without conspiracy. Of course a little not-conspiring would help.“ **

There are two hostile groups within one „society“: (1) the powerful one of the rulers (controllers), and (2) the powerless one of those who are ruled (controlled). Roughly calculated 1% are powerful and 99% are powerless.

You see that conspiracy and conspiracy theories are mainly the issue of the powerful 1% and not of the powerless 99%.              

A) Those of the 1% who assume someone who is a member of the 99% to be a conspiracy theorist support the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
B) Those of the 99% who assume someone who is a member of the 99% to be a conspiracy theorist support the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
C) Those of the 1% who assume someone who is a member of the 1% to be a conspiracy theorist reveal the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
D) Those of the 99% who assume someone who is a member of the 1% to be a conspiracy theorist reveal the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
- And the latter two (see C) and D)) are living dangerous because being hunted by the 1% and a great part of the 99%.

Someone who denies conspiracy denies the power of the powerful 1% or even the existence of the powerful 1%, ... and in the extreme case this someone denies even any difference between living beings - b.t.w.: that is the reason why it is so easy for egalitarians and similar totalitarians to have success with their rhetoric and methods of catching their victims.

570) Arminius, 13.09.2014, 00:05   (1998)

Relating to the process of awareness / consciousness there are two „ways“: (1) the way from semiotical, linguistical operations to logical (philosophical), mathematical operations, (2) the way from mathematical operations to logical (philosophical), linguistical, semiotical operations.

Some of the non-human living beings have consciousness, but they have a very much smaller brain and less consciousness than the human beings have. Only human beings have such very, very complex conscious systems, especially the linguistical, the logical (philosophical), and the mathematical system. Let's say that some of the non-human living beings have a pre-consciousness because the diffrence between their consciousness and the consciousness of the human beings is too large.

An example:

A lioness „instinctively »knows«“ how much cubs she has. When one or more of them are lost, she realises it, but she can't count like humans can. At first the lioness „goes“ the conscious „way 1“ without any linguistical and logical operations (see above), thus from the semiotical operations (sign: „lost cubs“) to the mathematical operation („all cubs – missing cubs“), and then she „goes“ the conscious „way 2“ without logical and linguistical operations (see above), thus from the mathematical operations (for example: 7 – 2 = 5) to the semiotical operation (sign= „less cubs“). The mathematics in the brain of the lioness works but she doesn't „consciously »know«“ that it works.

Another example:

A predator must be able to calculate the „worth“ of attacking a prey. If it is not profitable or even too dangerous, it is better to protect oneself and to gather forces. A predator with a broken leg can hardly catch a prey; a predator with a broken lower jaw can hardly eat a prey: a predator without a tongue can hardly drink. Predators must „instinctively »know«“ much about their environment and their skills, their risks, what is possible and what is too dangerous.

In order to survive the non-human living beings don't need such a complex brain, such a complex awareness / consciousness, especially such complex systems of language (linguistics) and logic (philosophy), as the human beings have. Human beings are luxury beings (**|**|**|**|**|**).

Human beings can say: „I don't want to eat today because tomorrow or later I am going to eat a Sacher torte“. The evolution of the luxury beings means the process of winning more and more luxury at the cost of losing more and more instincts, means becoming less and less beings of adaptation to the environment but more and more beings of alienation, of insulation. Nevertheless, human beings are also predators, but they are luxury predators because they are luxury beings.

==>