I think it is very interesting not many people
have speculated that with the rise of feminism in the 1960's with the culture
of permissible abortion it is the case of actually playing into and complimenting
the state eugenics movement.
Permissible and readily accessible abortion
to the greater portion of the population being entirely sponsored by a form of
Feminism as a means of controlling female reproduction.
Feminism seems to go hand in hand with state eugenics. **
I thank you for this thread, Laughing Man. Most people do
not have the courage to speak about such taboos. The so-called feminism
does not do anything for female humans - the reverse is true. If there were no
or almost no abortion the reproduction of the Europeans in the whole world would
be exactly 1 (that means ideal because both no growth and no shrinkage). With
the abortion that reproduction is about 0.4. Who benefits from the abortion? Cui
Feminism is one of the means of controlling human reproduction.
goes hand in hand with eugenics.
We need a slight correction here .... **
I think many of the people of the US and many other countries
outside from Europe do not know enough about Europe. And what they are told by
the media, is largely lie.
The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation didn't
last 500 years, as you said, but 1000 years - exactly from 843 (treaty of Verdun)
to 1806 (during the Napoleonic wars). And b.t.w., Obe, Metternich was not Austrian
but German, he was born in Koblenz; but that doesn't matter very much because
Austria had been a part of Germany until 1866 - and again from 1938 to 1945 as
you probably know, for example: Hitler was an Austrian, he was born in Braunau
(Inn). Since the end of the Second World War the Austrians have been confusing
Metternich with Hitler ()
and saying Metternich was an Austrian and Hitler a German, although the reverse
There were more than one attempt in the European history to form
an European Union, and any time it was Germany that did the first step. The EU
we now have is a product of six countries: West-Germany, France, Italy, Holland,
Earlier, in the end of the 19th
and in the early 20th century the German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm
II. were going to build something like an European Union, then the First World
War startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European Union
is good but it has to work. The current European Union doesn't work well. So it
has to be reformed - SOON - or it is going to decay. Cui bono? **
the German government started at that time was almost the same that Europe got
later, after the two world wars, but it was just the beginnig of the First World
War that destroyed this European Union, as if there were interests to prevent
it (and such interests existed, especially in England).
The German Hanse
or other Städtebünde (associations of cities in Germany and Italy) were
the first attempts of creating something like an European Union.
project of an European Union has always had proponents and opponents. The last
powerful European opponent was the British Empire. No wonder that there was no
possibility for an European Union before the British Empire ended. The German
Empire was no European opponent but the most powerful proponent, and - of course
- the most powerful rival of the British Empire. The profiteer of the rivalry
between the British and the German Empire was the USA - that is the reason why
the Dollar Empire could be formed. So the current most powerful European opponent
is the USA as a Dollar Empire, and merely other than economic unions with the
USA are no European opponents, for example the NATO. So the NATO is important
also for Europe; but again: I don't want such an aggressive NATO, and I also don't
want the hierarchical structure the NATO has. We should reform the NATO, change
it from an aggressive and unilateral into a defending and multilateral military
There also was a post below the title.
In Sein und Zeit, Heidegger says that »the Being
of that which is is not itself something that is.«
He also says somewhere that the Nothing itself nothings. So we might
say that the Being of that which is »is« nothing, whereas
the nothinging of that which nothings is (i.e., is Being). So existence
is really the nothinging of the Nothing. **
existence philosophy teaches that the nothing(ness) becomes obvious or evident
by the fear (Angst) in which always lies a move back from something
which is in reality the nothing(ness). The essence of the nothing(ness) is the
nihilation, namely the repellent or resisting reference to the sinking entity
in the entirety, meaning to the nothingness of all entity.
Worum sich die Angst ängstet, ist das In-der-Welt-sein
selbst. (Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 1927, S.
In der hellen Nacht des Nichts der
Angst entsteht erst die ursprüngliche Offenbarkeit des Seienden als eines
solchen: daß es Seiendes ist - und nicht Nichts. Einzig weil das Nichts
im Grunde des Daseins offenbar ist, kann die volle Befremdlichkeit des Seienden
über uns kommen und die Grundfrage der Metaphysik: Warum ist überhaupt
Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts? (Martin Heidegger, Was
ist Metaphysik?, 1929 **).
fear (Angst) isolates the existence (Dasein)
and opens it in this way as possible being (Möglich-Sein),
as free being (Frei-Sein) for the freedom (Freiheit)
of the self chosing (Sich-selbst-wählen) and self
The being in the world (In-der-Welt-Sein)
is the transcendental basic constitution (Grundverfassung)
of the existence (Dasein). The concept of the
In-der-Welt-Sein deactivates the consciousness concept
and the subject/object dualism.
According to Sloterdijk, the contemporary age
is an age of foam, i.e., a multiplicity of people, who rub up against each other
with their own private semiologies. The pre-metaphysical age was a bubble, i.e.,
God as the transcendent signified, who encased the Earth, like a dome. This divine
macro-sphere provided a psychological immunization to the Lacanean »real«.
But now, since all the grand narratives and transcendent signifieds have been
deconstructed, in the contemporary age, we are in a state of existential nakedness,
exposed to the Lacanean »real«. The grand bubble has popped and now
what remains is foam, the multiplicity of semio-spheres, which contain their own
idiosyncratic logic and meaning. Understanding this macro/micro symbolism is conducive
to the understanding of contemporary art. Much of modern art is extremely perplexing
and ambiguous, even absurd - it isn't confluent with the pre-metaphysical grand
narratives and transcendent signifieds. The deconstruction of the transcendent
signified has allowed room for play, as Derrida would say - the signifiers can
now play around and create their own semiologies. Once you understand the personal
bubble of the contemporary artist, his logic and meaning, you can begin to become
part of his semio-sphere. **
You dont need to refer to Lacan or Derrida in order to understand
what Sloterdijk means. But it is useful to refer to Leibniz monadology,
especially when it comes to understand the meaning of Sloterdijk's hubbles
example: Foams. What doese Sloterdijk's foam theory mean?
Die Schaumtheorie ist unverhohlen
orientiert: Ihre Monaden jedoch haben die Grundform von Dyaden oder komplexeren
seelenräumlichen, gemeindlichen und mannschaftlichen Gebilden. (Peter
Sloterdijk, Sphären III - Schäume, 2004; S. 61 **).
foam theory is openly neo-monadological oriented: Its monads, however, have the
basic form of dyads or more complex formations of emotional rooms, communities
and team unions. (Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres III - Foams, 2004; p.
Peter Sloterdijk wrote:
Die Schaum-Metapher bietet den Vorzug, die topologische Anordnung
von kreativ-selbstsichernden Lebensraumschöpfungen im Bild zu erfassen.
.... So evoziert die Schaumvorstellung sowohl die Ko-Fragilität
als auch die Ko-Isolation der in dichten Verbänden gestapelten
Einheiten. (Peter Sloterdijk, Sphären III - Schäume,
2004; S. 255 **).
The foam metaphor offers the advantage to gather the image of
the topological arrangement of creative-self-securing habitat creations.
.... In this way the foam idea evokes both the co-fragility and the
co-isolation of the stacked units in dense associations. (Peter
Sloterdijk, Spheres III - Foams, 2004; p. 255).
you know Hermann (von) Helmholtz.
This is really not much more than mental
masturbation, this psychobabble using all these big words and meaning nothing.
Einstein said it best, only those who truly understand a matter can
make it simple enough for everyone to understand. **
Einstein but Schopenhauer said that, and more than a century later Einstein -
who was a Schopenhauerian - quoted him.
This is what i was trying to say in the Marx forum also. Before artists used to
paint realistically, beliefing in ideal forms such as God, determinism, there
was no abstaction, disassocation , there was no modern art to speak of , nowadays
there are only private spheres, and where the private globus only represents within
the many. (Where there is no comparison, there is no meaning) The deconstruction
this dis-associative objective narrative, created the private narratives.
Orb, are you familiar
with this work of Sloterdijk? **
Not really, but most of the moderns follow a
similar line using pretty much similar analysis. But i will try to familiarize
myself with it, will be interesting how it corresponds with the others'.
Bubbles/Spheres is a trilogy - consists of three
parts, each of which is very dense, but jam-packed with innovative perceptions.
There are copious amounts of reviews on the book ( the first one ), which give
distillations and explanations of the technical jargon. Def. recommend this.
Sloterdijk's trilogy is called Spheres, not Bubbles.
The part Bubbles is merely one part of it:
1) Spheres I = Bubbles,
2) Spheres II = Globes,
3) Spheres III
Sloterdijk's trilogy Spheres - the title
is to be understood as an anthropological concept and cultural theory - refers
to Sloterdijk's Spenglerian main thesis, according to which life is a formality.
And that main thesis suggests that life, spheres forming, and
thinking are different terms for the same thing. This Spheres could
also be called Space and Time because it is a connection project to
Heidegger's Being and Time and describes the cultural development
of mankind from a philosophical-anthropological perspective.
Those visitors, who are not the members
or regular posters, usually visit to see just what is going on. More often than
not, they only read the headings on the first page of most active threads and
leave. A very few percentage of visitors read the threads.
most visitors are not interested in pure intellectual discussions like determinism,
free will or objectivism/subjectivism. They are more interested in such subjects
with whom they can relate themselves or are related with their day to day life.
such threads, which are of complete different zone, also get more hits than normal
ones, even if they are not about hardcore philosophy. **
all is true - unfortunately!
Been reading Mindless (http://www.amazon.com/Mindless-Smarter-
... 0465018440) which is a slightly different facet of the transition we are undergoing
than I have seen before. It deals with computer systems that simplify and organize
management and are making management smaller -iow part of removing the middle
class- and the jobs of middle management more boring and much faster. IOW taking
the kinds of streamlining from manufacturing, starting back when with Ford's assembly
lines, and using this as a model for all types of management - including healthy
care, hotels, banking, social work and more - and then computerizing it, companies,
and most of the large ones now do this, and state run companies, can effectivize
the process through which a specific process takes place - say a loan application
and approval process, or the intake of a patient all the way to discharge - AND
allow upper management to monitor, in real time - talk about a panopticon - exactly
what they mid and lower managers are doing. So the programs 1) lay out the decision
making process for the managers 2) create data about speed and effectiveness from
hundreds of different angles of individuals, departments and so on and 3) allow
for direct monitoring. This is a happening all over the place, in most fields.
So the repetitive, highly controlled, brave new world type control that US and
Japanese manufacturing plants could use to scientifically manage and control all
movements and actions of their working class employees, has now spread to middle
class and professional and service type jobs, departments and companies.
chapters on Amazon and Walmart give a good sense of just how horrifying this is
and also give a sense of what this will mean for more skilled positions.
it is a replacement of human actions and mental facilities by machines - but not
yet in an AI way - worse it makes the panopticon more present, and also leads
to humans acting as cogs in a machine at higher levels then ever before in organizations.
you now answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human
more differently, perhaps even with yes?
That intelligent machines might draw the same
conclusion . via simple analysis of output, for example - seems not at all strange
to me. I don't know where you get the idea that using simple programs is dictated
even now. Sure, if you can choose between a simpler program that does the task
as well as more complicated ones, well both AIs and humans are likely to choose
the simpler. But right now we all use unbelievably complicated programs to do
similar tasks and this is going to increase. Treating humans as resources is precisely
what corporations do now and likely will want AIs to do later. Once they are seen
as resources, which can be described in numbers, they will be evaluated through
performance and other mathematically represented indicators, and these will likely
lead AI, just as human run corporations decide this kind of thing every day, to
conclude that robotics and AI can work better/cheaper. These decisions may not
always be correct, but trend is alreayd in place, it is already happening. Just
as they would, in a heart beat, replace, say, plants and animals as food sources
or sources of power, if they can come up with something better - see genetic modification
or plans to grow meat directly or the replacement of horses as a major means of
transportation and so on. They are replacing pets right now with robots, and sure,
given the current technology, most pets are still organic. But more people have
robot pets, so the need for organic ones, that market, it already being cut into.
As technology increases more organic resources are going to be replaced. No reason
to think humans will not be, since this is, as said, already happening.
you now answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human
more differently, perhaps even with yes?
What do you think about the year 0?
Possible answers are (for
1) The year 0 is no year like the other years.
The year 0 is a year with 365 days.
3) The year 0 is
a year with 366 days, thus a leapyear.
I voted yes.
There are churches like
such here too, where mass is not aimed at any one religion and all denominations
are welcome if they want... it is the future. **
I ask you what your denomination is?
The German astronomer Carl Wilhelm Wirtz was the first who proved the
expansion of the universe. But Wirtzs observational evidence that
the Universe is expanding is not often mentioned.
in 1918 observed a systematic redshift of nebulae, which was difficult to interpret
in terms of a cosmological model in which the Universe is filled more or less
uniformly with stars and nebulae. Wirtz additionally used the equivalent in German
of K correction. The term continues to be used in present-day observational cosmology,
but Wirtz's observational evidence that the Universe is expanding is not often
mentioned. He wrote:
»It is remarkable, that our system
of fixed stars shall have such a very strong displacement of 820 km/s, and equally
strange is the interpretation of the systematic constant k = + 656 km. If we ascribe
a verbatim interpretation to this value, then this means that the system of spiral
nebulae is drifting apart by a velocity of 656 km with respect to the momentary
location of the solar system as the center.«
he wrote a paper where he argued that the observational results suggest, that
the redshifts of distant galaxies are becoming higher than more closer ones, which
he interpreted as an increase of their radial velocities with distance, and that
larger masses have smaller redshifts than smaller ones. In another note of the
same year, he argued that counter-clockwise spiraling galaxies have smaller redshifts
than clockwise spiraling ones. In 1924 he obtained more precise results, and interpreted
them both as a confirmation of an increase of radial velocities with distance,
but also as confirmation of a de Sitter universe, in which the increase of redshift
is seen as caused by an increased time dilation in distant parts of the universe.
In 1936, Wirtz wrote a short paper alluding to the priority for his 1922-conclusion
that the radial velocities of galaxies are increasing with their distance.
The Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître brought Wirtz
observational evidence that the Universe is expanding into a theory, namely
a more Christian theory.
do you think about the expansion and the dimensions of our universe?
Every radiation, frequency sooner or later will
go to zero .... **
told you that?
It is quite possible that the electromagnetic radiation
is an eternal phenomenon.
Do you really know what religion is and/or means?
people who say that they are not religious are often more religious
than the other people.
Do you really know what religion is
Your translation is clear, although Sorge
is care in the sense of caring, paying attention; care as a standalone noun often
means or implies medical care - a care home is a residence for people who need
some form of ongoing medical care. I think a native English speaker would say
something like »How should we recognise the end of the history? Perhaps
it (is/will be) when we cease caring.« **
I conclude from your answer that you know the German language?
Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?
I would say: yes, it is.
What do you think?
is much more than psychology.« **
Well of cause it is, psychology only behavior of human nature,
not the neurological aspect. **
or behaviourism is a realm of biology, also called biology of behaviour.
term Abrahamic Religions is not a well chosen one. It is as well a
crutch as the term Monotheistic Religions.
the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different. **
For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic
and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is
Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God.
That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from
the Old Testament.
we slow down the mobilisation, the consumption, the lust, the greed which are
around us almost everywhere on this planet?
can switch back and forth between the one- and the three-dimensional-time?
is useful to know any and every branch of science.
and every civil war is the worst and the most horrible and terrible war of all
According to Peter Sloterdijk religion is exercise,
How dangerous are demographically armed societies?
- Demographically armed societies are extremely dangerous, thus very
much more dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 51-100 danger points
for the demographically armed societies and 0-49 danger points for the
- Demographically armed societies are not more and not less dangerous
than other societies. Out of 100: 50 danger points for both the demographically
armed societies and the other societies.
- Demographically armed societies are less dangerous than other societies.
Out of 100: 0-49 danger points for the demographically armed societies
and 51-100 danger points for the other societies.
- Demographically armed societies mean societies with a very high number
of young people aged 0 to 14 years (30% and more of the whole society)
and/or aged 15 to 29 years (20% or more of the whole society). This phenomenon
is also called youth bulge.
An example for a society with a youth bulge
Pakistan of 2007 as an example for a youth bulge:
of population younger than 30 years old (2005 and 2025):
S. Saint wrote:
you really know what religion is and/or means?« **
I voted »yes« for myself and »no« for most other
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation exists
about 14 billion years (after big bang) but sooner or later will be disappeared
to zero. **
is merely a theory, one of thousand theories.
Therefore ... Radiation, frequency cannot »always exist«.
not? Your statement has never been proved.
frequency cannot be »forever«. **
not? Your statement has never been proved.
radiation, frequency sooner or later will go to zero. **
Your statement has never been proved.
am talking about the year 0 (zero) and its meaning, especially
its calendrical significance.
S. Saint wrote:
I guess it would depend on who's calender
you are using. I am not much into arbitrary assignments. I suspect that the concept
of »year zero« would be tough for most people, educated or not, during
that time in all parts of the world. So most calender attempts would begin with
»year one«. Now that world domination through systematic technology
has taken over, new calenders will include »year zero« to meet the
dictated world standard (ISO). »The Emperor has spoken«. **
year 0 is generally accepted everywhere, isn't it?
The question as the topic of this thread refers also
to the phenomenon that a year zero is or is not like the other
years. Actually the year zero has zero days, zero months,
zero weeks, zero days, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds; so the
year zero is merley something like the number zero.
The year 0 has significance for a very important
reason, beyond the choices You have demarked. It is the year of Christ's birth.
Marry Christmas! **
it is, at least it was planned, because today it is more likely to assume that
Christ was born five or seven years before the year zero. But the intention was
to mark Christ's birth, yes.
you now answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human
beings more differently, perhaps even with yes?« **
No. But I understand why you ask the question. **
asked not because I wanted you to say yes but I asked because I wanted
to make sure that I had not misunderstood you.
is what I wrote in a thread called Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior:
The term »Abrahamic Religions« is not a well chosen
one. It is as well a crutch as the term »Monotheistic Religions«.
Christianity on the
one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.
example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as
Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus
as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic.
And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament. **
referred to astronomers, who interpreted the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn
as the Star of Bethlehem. This conjunction took place in the year
7 to 5 BC.
it is not necessary, but it is useful to know any and every branch of science.
It depends on the individual case; for some it is useful for others it is more
of a burden. So one has to decide.
I voted yes ... though what religion initially was has changed
over time. **
said: the exercise has changed over time.
nevertheless, the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn as the Star of Bethlehem
is not a sure evidence.
think Leibniz was the philosopher who knew more about science than all other philosophers;
one can even say that Leibniz was a great philosopher, a great scientist, and
a great technician.
You're both wrong. **
you are wrong.
I am not saying that the year zero exists,
because I am saying that the year zero is not like the other years,
and this means that the year is merely similar to the mathematical number zero,
thus the year zero does not exist like the other years. That is what
I am saying. Thus I am right.
question as the topic of this thread refers also to the phenomenon that a year
»zero« is or is not like the other years. Actually the year »zero«
has zero days, zero months, zero weeks, zero days, zero hours, zero minutes, zero
seconds; so the year »zero« is merley something like the number zero.
Compare also the only one vote which is mine: 1) The
year »0« is no year like the other years. **
also the quotation marks I always put when referring to the year zero.
But I am also saying that the year zero is accepted, namely
as a mark (Christ's birth) but not as a year like every other year. Thus the year
zero does not exist as a year but as a mark (and otherwise it is like
nothing or like the number zero).
Maybe you said that in a different post
for example in this post:
The question as the topic
of this thread refers also to the phenomenon that a year »zero« is
or is not like the other years. Actually the year »zero« has zero
days, zero months, zero weeks, zero days, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds;
so the year »zero« is merley something like the number zero.
Flannel Jesus wrote:
what you said in the post was that year 0 was intended to mark Christ's birth.
and that is what I said. I said that the year 0 or zero
(please note the quotation marks!) is not like the other years (they consist of
365 or 366 days), but it is a mark (Christ's birth) which was put by the Christian
(Catholic) Church. That is the reason for the distinction of ante Christum
(before Christ) and post Christum (after Christ).
Year 0 wasn't intended for anything, because
the calendar we're talking about doesn't have a year 0. **
are wrong. The distinction of ante Christum (before Christ) and
post Christum (after Christ) was intended (see above). That does
not require a year but a mark, namely 0.