01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [771][772][773][774][775][776][777][778][779][780] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3324 |
3325 |
Arminius wrote
»SAM must work according to the principle of subsidiarity.« ** **
»Subsidiarity (s?b?s?d?'ær?t?)
n
1. a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical levelVery much so. And no doubt even more than the RCC.
People think in terms of a government making decisions and the people doing the work. There is a degree of sense to that of course. The problem is that just as the work must be distributed, the decision making must also be distributed. And many throughout history figured that out too. That issue has been proven to death. But the problem is that they never seemed to have understood upon what basis to divide decision making. They are always globalizing the wrong things and localizing the wrong things. **
And that is the practical function in the belief in God (a wiser decision maker). But the remaining problem is that those who speak for God haven't sufficient reason to be trusted. Thus even though religions can govern a vast population through prophets and preaching, they cannot do it harmoniously enough to establish true »Heaven on Earth«. The belief that there is a wiser decision maker somewhere way up there on the governing mountain or sky is insufficient.
God must be brought down to Earth so that people need not put faith and trust in remote controllers from afar. It isn't God whom people mistrust, rather those who speak for God. SAM removes the middle men (generally upsetting their change tables). **
3326 |
Can one live in ANY society void of pretense?
Excellent question, to which there is but one answer ...: NO!
.... Unless ... it is a SAM Coop.
I challenge anyone to come up with a realistic society in which people can actually be truly open and deeply honest with the people around them yet it not be a SAM Coop. That would be the true Heaven on Earth or, alternatively, total imprisonment. In extreme cases many people can be honest, as long as they stick to specific concerns and speak exactly as the listener requires. To be free to speak without worrying that someone might misunderstand requires SAM. I will debate that with anyone on this whole planet ... well, except conspicuous idiots. **
3327 |
3328 |
3329 |
|
3330 |
Each SAM coop is small but there can be any number of them. And the more there are, the better for everyone. **
But what other governing types are also going on elsewhere is irrelevant other than them being a potential hazard to navigation. SAM doesn't at all require that the entire world population be SAM. **
SAM can exist inside just about any other governing style. Otherwise you would be saying that for humans to live, all animals must become human. **
SAM is a higher intelligence form of society, higher on an evolutionary scale and doesn't require revolution at all. **
3331 |
By »dasein« do you perhaps mean »under the current circumstances«? **
3332 |
Again, my answer would still be »No« unless you are in a SAM Coop. The »outside world« from the Coop would never permit complete honesty with it nor in it. Most secrets are not kept due to them being something negative but rather due to the possibility of them being either presumed negative or simply used against the group/person. People do not tell their address online, not because it is a negative address issue, but because of the possibility, not probability, that the information will be misused. **
3333 |
And even though not telling something is not lying, hiding something generally and eventually requires deception (dishonesty). And as long as the world is being aggressive and presumptuous (those two tend to go together), secrecy to some degree is required and thus deception to a surprisingly large degree is required.
With Socialism and eventual Communism being the world mode and agenda, very serious deception is an absolute must and is a part of the eternal design. So the current dasein situation certainly requires pretense on many, if not all, social levels.
Another simpler but less stable form of establishing total honesty can be arranged through extreme love. The problem with that today is that the powers that be know how to aggravate and destroy any love relationship that is not approved. SAM provides for the extreme love relationship but adds the protection against adversarial interference (an extremely common dasein issue of the day). **
All societies of today are artificial structures and thus require pretense in order to maintain. The leaders must appear sufficiently proper. The workers must appear sufficiently proper. The thinkers must appear sufficiently proper. Everyone must appear sufficiently proper because the whole structure depends upon the beliefs of others, not the truth of the situation. **
3334 |
There would need to be a reason at the end of life, such to give credence to the suffering as the means to create something out of someones life. Change in the world may make us think the reason is worldly learning-from-suffering, and perhaps humanity gets better over time by learning from that. However, if we remove suffering we take away the function and its utility in giving us that purpose. **
3335 |
Sauwelios wrote:
»Nietzsche does of course not says Being is willing to power, but life is will to power or Living is will to power (Leben ist Wille zur Macht).« **
That is a mistranslation. The zu means »for«, not »to«, and Wille is not always merely »will«, as you can see if you consult a good German-English dictionary. Thus, Leben ist Wille zur Macht = »Life is the desire for power«. **
Oh crap ..., Ornello, ... you just broke ILP. **
Well, the Nietzsche portion anyway.
And no matter which way Nietzsche meant it, he was wrong. **
Ich bin zu Berlin means »I am in Berlin«. **
Er is nicht zu Hause means »he is not at home (or in)«. To say I am going home, you say nach Hause, not zu Hause.
3336 |
»Will to« can never be followed by a noun in English. **
The English ... (and b.t.w.: also the Low German) preposition »to« requires a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun, and this is mostly also required by the High German preposition »zu«.
....
The German preposition »zu« does not always but mostly also require a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun. ** **
It's impossible. The 'to' is not a preposition here, but part of the infinitive (»to live«, »to fight«). **
There is no such thing as »will to (noun)«. **
But in German, Wille zu is followed by a noun, sometimes a nominalized verb (Wille zum Leben). Thus, Wille zur Macht is perfectly normal. **
The zur means »for«, just as it does in zum Beispiel. Thus, since »for« is the correct translation of zur (and »to« is incorrect), a noun such as »desire« or »wish« is called for. **
3337 |
3338 |
It doesn't matter whether German allows Wille zu + verb or noun. I have seen plenty of examples of both. My point is that in English, 'will to' + noun is impossible, because the 'to' is not a preposition but part of the infinitive. **
There is no »will to cheese«, »will to ketchup«, »will to peanut butter«, etc., but »desire for« works for those nouns, and for any noun. But, observe that »desire for« cannot be followed by a verb: »desire for eat«, »desire for run«, »desire for fly« are improper formations. **
|
3339 |
No, there is no »exception« to the rule in English. The earliest translation of Nietzsche's expression I could find was »will for power«, from the 1890s. Some time later, some translator used »to« instead of »for« .... **
... probably because he didn't know the German zu means »for« since it sounds like »to« and is used with verbs like the English »to« is. **
But of course the academic morons have no sense and never even questioned it. Perhaps it was a native-speaking German translating into English (such mistakes are frequently made by non-natives). **
It is not 'incorrect', it is impossible. **
3340 |
3341 |
The German »zu« and the English »to« have the same root. In Low German »to« is still used instead of »zu« which is High German, as i said several times. So »to« is not only used in English but also in Low German. ** **
3342 |
3343 |
3344 |
3345 |
I am a native English speaker and a professional translator of Nietzsche. Don't tell me! **
3346 |
3347 |
3348 |
You'll not see them. **
If you are a native speaker .... **
I am not surprised that you want to distort the English to conform to the German. This is typical of Germans .... **
This is typical of Germans, and part of the reason that one should never translate into a foreign language. One must always translate into one's native tongue. No exceptions! The native speaker is always right. ALWAYS!!!! **
3349 |
|
3350 |
3351 |
And being human does not prevent the possibility of a lion attacking and eating you or perhaps a gang of apes from attacking your family. So is that going to stop you from trying to be human? Would you rather be an ape or a lion? **
3352 |
What if time is actually flowing BACKWARDS??? **
3353 |
3354 |
Other than finding another planet to invade, SAM is the only hope homosapian has left. SAM knows how to use machines ... and how not to. **
3355 |
That is correct. Do you know why? **
3356 |
Then why did you start the topic with precisely this question? **
3357 |
I can understand that. **
Do you want me to give you a Freudian perspective on that? **
3358 |
3359 |
3360 |
3361 |
3361 |
3362 |
3363 |
|
3364 |
3365 |
States won't dissapear. They'll just evolve into the global super state instead citizen!
Global big brother has come to bring utopia, salvation, and heaven to everybody all across the planet. **
3366 |
3367 |
|
3368 |
* Grabs popcorn and a cigarette * **
3369 |
Our bodies don't lie. They always respond authentically to their environment. **
We can say that an »authentic human life« means a »life according to the human's nature«, whereas an »unauthentic life« means a »life according to the human's culture/s«.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (**|**), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically. ** **
We have created a difference, or differance, to set the stage for the showdown of the noumenal with the phenomenal world, and if I were a Kantian, I could say, we should stick to our guns and resist the phenomenal invasion into our cultural authenticity. **
|
3370 |
|
3371 |
3372 |
Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids. ** **
|
3373 |
3374 |
These puzzles are on Wikipedia with solutions explained. **
3375 |
Never heard about philosophy jobs. Philosophy is about being destitute and not fitting into society. Satyr is one of the best philosophers here, and he lives with his mom. **
3376 |
3377 |
3378 |
3379 |
Spaces of Transformation: Spatialised Immunity.
Peter Sloterdijks philosophico-morphological theory is based on an understanding of the history of culture as spatialisations of forms. The world in which we live now requires us to design new types of spatialised immunity. More broadly, the concept of a spherical logic of space a polymorphologic of form, order and thinking is explicated in Spheres, his three-volume archaeology of the human attempt to dwell within spaces, from womb to globe. The Spheres project (Bubbles, Globe, Foam) is a significant topological turn in the field of contemporary philosophy, »a super-workout for communicative energies capable of finding contact throughout the entire world.« **
3380
3381 |
3382 |
3383 |
The Darwin principle of evolution has only been a part of what has been altering the nature of life, animal and human. The principle of filtering the strong in and the weak out is entirely situationally dependent. Given the exact same competitive creatures in a different environmental situation, the opposite set could succeed instead. **
Strength and weakness are not simple concepts when it comes to actual life. **
Darwin actually defined strength and success in terms of which ever mutation survived. So actually by definition, the strong always survive more, else they weren't really the strong. But when it comes to human interaction (societies) and reproduction, »strong« has to be thought of in different terms than merely direct conflict. In a Darwin minded society, those who seek to reproduce the most are stronger than those who perhaps seek to kill their competition. They are not thought of as being strong because people still think in terms of natural animal competition when they envision strength. And as stated by Platospuppy, successful during this era is mostly an issue of monetary gain or public recognition, not proliferation. **
So it all gets very complicated and from one era to another can almost completely change. But there is one aspect that can never change. And that is which ever behaves in a manner that is more anentropic, survives longer. But then ensuring which behavior that really is can be complicated.
So I cannot say that the principle is entirely true nor entirely false. It is partially true and partially false. It is not a »holy«, stand-alone principle and is often reversed. And the intentional effort to go along with it, completely defeats it. **
3384 |
Well, I hope this benefits someone. **
Arminius wrote:
- Es <=> id
- Ich <=> ego
- Über-Ich <=> superego.« ** **I was only using the English for all you here. **
I read Freud in German. **
I read others in English, but I do think to remember they used »it«. **
However, the Wikipedia shows »ID«, as you say. Maybe my memory is faulty, but then again, the Wikipedia is not always right. Anyway, use a translator from German to English and find out that the German word »Es« is translated with »it«. **
Arminius wrote:
»Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.« ** **
Children learn things bit by bit. It took my son a while to figure out that eating seashells is not a good idea. He is still working on not balancing on the window sill to try to reach the door handle. He has only fallen once or twice. It worries me, so I stop him. Because I stop him, he has not learned yet. **
Anyway, do you agree with the general ideas in what I wrote? Is it helpfull to you? **
Arminius wrote:
»I wrote:
Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids. ** **
They learn for example some hygienic aspects or the eating habits of their culture.« ** **
I want to point out that the Super-Ego is what contains the cultural lessons and is often spoken of simply as culture. I don't think you know that; judging from your replies. **
3385 |
Arminius wrote:
»Partially true and partially false scientifically means false, because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one part of a theory is false. It is the theorist who has to provide a correct theory.« ** **
Certainly as a logical statement or solitary theory. My point was that Darwinism isn't a solitary principle when it comes to evolution. There are other principles involved. So as far as being the god of evolution, Darwinism is certainly a false god (aka "incomplete controlling theory").
And since I first heard of the phrase »survival of the fittest«, I immediately noted that it is actually the »survival of the fitted« (those who fit into their environment at the time).
Darwin was really asking, "Why do we see this variety of creature at this time?" His answer was "because these are the one that survived." That much of it is unquestionably true. **
But then the idea got extended and extrapolated (as people seem to not be able to avoid) to suggest that absolutely nothing else was responsible for life being the way it is found. That was over-reaching the principle and certainly false.
What had some truth to it, became preached as a god. **
3386 |
Arminius wrote:
»No. All what you said was no news to me.« ** **
Warum hattest du denn dies Subjekt angefangen? **
Arminius wrote:
»The English translation of Freud's Es is id. Why do you not know this. A German native speaker must tell an Englsih native speaker who claims to know some Freud's books how to translate Freud's Es. That's odd.« ** **
Im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch ist »es« doch »it«. **
Und, ich sage dass ich es auch oft in Psychoanalyse so gelesen habe. Wie gesagt: es ist möglich dass ich es nicht ganz richtig mehr erinnere. Es ist schon einige Jahre her. **
Arminius wrote:
»I know almost all books of Freud ....« ** **
Kennst du seine Werke? **
Arminius wrote:
»You should not stop him to often, because children need freedom in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.« ** **
Ja. Natürlich, aber als er da fällt, ist es möglich dass er seinen Hals bricht. Solle ich nicht passieren lassen natürlich! **
Arminius wrote:
»As I said: All what you said was no news to me.« ** **
Das war mir nicht deutlich wie viel du weisst davon. ***
Arminius wrote:
»Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist). I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his Über-Ich (superego) as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A) culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.« ** **
Aber immer noch mit kleinen Schritten. **
Mein Deutsch ist vielleicht nicht sehr gut. **
Ich brauche es nicht oft. Es ist auch nicht meine erste Sprache. Englisch is auch nicht meine erste Sprache. So spriche ich noch enige Sprache. Jedemfalls: entschuldige vor den Fehler. **
3387 |
Arminius wrote:
»Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu wissen.« ** **
Vielleicht ist es nu Zeit deine Gedanke zu erzählen? **
Arminius wrote:
»Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in der Fachsprache Freuds.« ** **
Vielleicht ist es auch abhängig von wen wir lesen? **
Oder ist man nicht so strict mehr? **
Vielleicht sollen wir einander noch mal treffen , weil seine Werke doch immer noch inspirieren können. **
|
3388 |
==>
|