871) Arminius, 08.04.2016, 00:49, 03:32, 12:28, 12:57, 13:32, 13:59, 15:37, 19:29, 20:22, 20:54, 21:20, 22:27 (4423-4434)

Topic: Superconsciousness versus Subconsciousness.

If there is a dichotomy of consciousness and unconsciousness, and if there is a subconsciousness too, then there must be a dichotomy of superconsciousness and subconsciousness too.

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So we have two options of reacting to them legally:
1) Applying their methods too, especially by repeating our texts again and again.
2) Divesting them our attention by ignoring them (consequently, of course!).« ** **

There's an option 3, which I think is actually the most common option:
3.) Find a reason to interact with them that doesn't turn on convincing them of anything, or their admitting that somebody else made a good point. I think this is where a lot of trolling on the internet comes from- it is decided that it is pointless to treat a person, or a class of people, or perhaps all people on the internet as rational agents, and so the troll speaks to them for their own amusement instead.“ **

The offer of my two legal options is based on the supposition that the common option - thus: your legal „option 3“ - could perhaps be the legal „option 0“, because it is what we have been doing here for so long, although perhaps just not consequently and thus not effectively enough. .... But, okay, let's see.

Moreno wrote:

„Subsconscious and unconscious are generally considered synonyms, the former a lay term. How do you distinguish them?“ **

I do not necessarily distinguish them but others do. So I think that, if they do that, although there is already the dichotomy consciousness versus unconsciousness, then there must be another dichotomy too, namely: superconsciousness versus subconsciousness.

Moreno wrote:

„And then what is superconsciousness to you?“ **

The opposite of subconsciousness. I have been told that subconsciousness is not like unconsciousness. According to that subconsciousness must be between consciousness and unconsciousness.

Moreno wrote:

„Unfortunately super has come to mean 'really really' or 'best possible' rather than something like encompassing or transcendent..“ **

It has changed its meaning?

Moreno wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»The intent was that ›unconscious‹ refer to things without any consciousness at all; simple nerve responses, trees, rocks, biological growth,.... And ›subconscious‹ was to refer to the lesser elements within a consciousness, often partially conscious themselves.“ **

Do you mean Arminius' intent? Schelling? Coleridge? Not Freud in any case.“ **

Friedrich Wilhelm J. Schelling (1775-1854) for example, yes, but more Eduard von Hartmann (1842-1906) who was called „the philosopher of the unconscious“ long before Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).

Arminius wrote:

„Only Humean wrote:

»Amorphos wrote:

›Your ultimate question in philosophy?‹ **

How do I live a good life?« **

What is »good« for you?“ ** **

Unfortunately, Only Humean has not answered my question. His question could be or even is also my ultimate question, if I have such at all. But I would prefer the question „How do we live a good life?“ instead of his question „How do I live a good life?“. Usually humans live in groups. My main philosophical interest is life. So, to me, life philosophy is the most interesting philosophy discipline - supported by anthropology and epistemology.

Faust wrote:

„I'll complain about metaphysics all day long.“ **

Don't you have something better to do than complaining all day long?

__________________________________________________________

Philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics. This would mean the beginning of the end - in both cases.

It is clear, that, if there is consciousness, then there must be also unconsciousness (I know, in English there is only the adjective „unconscious“ but not the noun „unconsciousness“). But if there is also something that is both not conscious and not unconscious, then it can be said that it is „pre-conscious“ or just subconscious. And if there is something pre-conscious or subconscious, then there must be something too that is post-conscious or superconscious. (Note: pre-conscious and subconscious are as unequal as post-conscious and superconscious). This gedankenexperiment should be followed by discussion.

James has already given an interesting analogy:

James S. Saint wrote:

By analogy, the subconscious of the old constitutional USA would be the House of Representatives with their narrow minded, limited scope issues (national emotionalism). The Senate would be the »conscious«, being far more aware of relevant foreign activities. And the »unconscious« would be the various physical concerns involved in communication: mail service, telephone networks, roads, computers, automated responses,....

And then relative to an individual, the nation's consciousness, the Senate's awareness of foreign and secret activities, is the »superconsciousness«.“ **

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Friedrich Wilhelm J. Schelling (1775-1854) for example, yes, but more Eduard von Hartmann (1842-1906) who was called ›the philosopher of the unconscious‹ long before Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).« ** **

But did he use the word subconscious? I think that came from Piaget who meant pretty much the same thing as Freud's version of unconscious.“ **

I read both Freud (1856-1939) and Piaget (1896-1980) a very long time ago. As far as I remember it was Freud who used the word „vorbewußt“ („vor-bewußt“), thus „preconscious“ („pre-conscious“) but not „unterbewußt“ („unter-bewußt“), thus „subconscious“ („sub-conscious“). But Piaget did not use that words, as far as I remember.

Moreno wrote:

But in any case, how do you distinguish subconscious from unconscious. We can develop the terms. It's not that I want us to align with Freud, but rather that I don't know anyone who uses both terms and have seen them used in the same sense mainly.“ **

Like I said: „if there is also something that is both not conscious and not unconscious, then it can be said that it is »pre-conscious« or just subconscious. And if there is something pre-conscious or subconscious, then there must be something too that is post-conscious or superconscious. (Note: pre-conscious and subconscious are as unequal as post-conscious and superconscious).“ ** **

Let's have a little bit philosophical anatomy and neurology:

Let's say we have (1) a cerebral instinct, thus an instinct brain, (2) a cerebellum, thus a kleinhirn, (3), cerebral emotions, thus an emotion brain, and (4) a cerebral reason, thus a reason brain.

Now look at this picture and read the text below it:

1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.

Now, neurologically and psychoanalytically, Freud would perhaps say that the instinct brain is neurologically what the „Es“ (English: „Id“) and „das Unbewußte“ (English: „the unconscious“) psychoanalytically is, that the reason brain is what the „Ich“ (in English: „I“, „ego“„self“) and „das Bewußte“ (English: „the conscious“) psychoanalytically is. But with what would he correlate the „Über-Ich“ (English: „superego“, „high self“)? Probably with the reason brain too. But it is something like „das Überbewußte“ (English: „the superconscious“ [my invention]). The supersonsciousness is the „group- brain-as-it-is-stray-represented-in-each-individual-reason-brain“, especially the moral system of a group (couple, family, tribe, folk, people, nation, culture ... and so on). And the subconsciousness is the „brain-as-the-stray-parts-between-the-instinctive-brain-and-the-reason-brain“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Six people in two groups.

There are six people A, B, C, D, E, F which are in each case either in group 1 or group 2. The following statements are given:

1. Both A and B are in 1.
2. F is in 2, and if E is in 2, then C is also in 2.
3. D is in 1 and if F is in 2, then A is also in 2.
4. A and E are both in 2.
5. D is in 2 and E is in 1, and if C is in 2, then B is in 1.
6. D and B are both in 2.
7. The statements 1-6 are wrong.

Who is in which group?« ** **

1) A, C, D.
2) B, E, F.“ **

That is right.

What about the solution process?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Who is depicted here?« ** **

Looks an awful lot like: ... (**).“ **

That is false.

Try again.

Would you say that you are a panpsychist, Moreno?

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories.

Early forms of panpsychism can be found in animistic beliefs.

Jerkey wrote:

„Arminius, in addition, there may be the problem with classification. What form does it take? A clear cut severance?“ **

No.

Jerkey wrote:

„In effects, is there clear cut neuro positioning from one area of the brain to the other, corresponding to their effects?“ **

Only in parts.

Jerkey wrote:

„Or, is there an overlay of functions from different parts of the brain?“ **

Yes.

Okay, SUPER- versus SUB-, PRE- versus POST-, it is just a philosophical attempt, a gedankenexperiment. and I belive it is worth the discussion.

872) Arminius, 09.04.2016, 01:26, 02:50, 14:42, 21:41, 23:44, 23:47 (4435-4440)

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Imagine there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore, because both are indirectly forbidden by the government. There is merely something like a socialpsychological religion which is called „science“. And one day you see this:

What are your thoughts?

Faust wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Don't you have something better to do than complaining all day long?
__________________________________________________________

Philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics. This would mean the beginning of the end - in both cases.« ** **

If I had anything better to do, I would be doing it. Philosophy is, in the end, an art and not a science.“ **

I am not saying that philosophy is science, although it partly is of course (duh!), but I am saying that „philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics“ (**|**). For this comparison it is absolutely irrelevant whether philosophy is science or not.

Faust wrote:

„The Arts without Abstract Expressionism would still be The Arts. And in the main, better for it. Comedy would still be comedy without Tim Allen. And it would certainly be funnier..“ **

You are slightly off-topic, Fausty.

Again:

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Alright (**). But I when I said that „there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore“ (**|**) I meant that there is no knowledge about metaphysics and physics anymore.

And now, look at the picture again:

Faust wrote:

„Army - snappy comeback.“ **

Off-topic again.
_______________

Do you know the Lord and Mephistopheles?

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:

„Der Herr: Kennst du den Faust?
Mephistopheles: Den Doktor?
Der Herr: Meinen Knecht!
Mephistopheles: Fürwahr! er dient Euch auf besondre Weise.
Nicht irdisch ist des Toren Trank noch Speise.
....“ **

Translation:

„The Lord: Do you know Faust?
Mephistopheles: The doctor?
The Lord: My servant.
Mephistopheles: Ah, he serves you well, indeed!
He scorns earth's fare and drinks celestial mead.
....“

Reference: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190138&p=2600387#p2600385 .

Source: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Prolog im Himmel (Prologue in Heaven).
________________________________

Another one:

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:

„Der Herr: ....
Es irrt der Mensch, so lang er strebt.“ **

Translation:

„The Lord: ....
Man errs, till he has ceased to strive.“

Source: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Prolog im Himmel (Prologue in Heaven).

873) Arminius, 10.04.2016, 01:32, 01:54, 02:15, 03:16, 22:01, 22:13, 23:59 (4442-4448)

Hard to believe (**).

I have been told that punishment and circumstances in prison are bad in the United States, at least worse than in Europe, where prisons are - comparatively (!) - like paradises.

It reminds me a bit of this:

„Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
Else:
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.“ **

Please, look at the following picture:

Imagine, you were the one on the mountaintop: What would you think?

Examples:

A) „Nice picture“.
B) „Am I alone?“.
C) „Do I have friends?“.
D) „It is about time to go to bed!“.
____________________________

Would a superconsciousness help here?

Imagine, you would have to choose one of those four options (**|**): Wich one would you choose?

I would choose A) „Nice picture“.

Frank Zappa, Zoot Allures, 1976.

In reality or at least according to logic and linguistics, there must also be the prefix „post“ (cf. for example „posthuman“), if there is the prefix „pre“ (cf. for example „prehuman“), and there must also be the prefix „super-“ (cf. for example „superordination“), if there is the prefix „sub-“ (cf. for example „subordination). It is a question of word meaning or concept definition. For example: the term „a posteriori“ is the semantic, especially temporal, and thus also conceptual opposite of the term „a priori“, and the term „superconscious“ is the semantic and thus also conceptual opposite of the term „subconscious“.

And even if science does not prove or disprove this empirically, then there nevertheless remains the theoretical possibility of it.

So the „superconsciousness“ as the opposite of the „subconsciousness“ is what is beyond the „consciousness“, whereas the „consciousness“ itself is beyond the „subconsciousness“ which is beyond the „unconsciousness“. If we believe in an area between the „consciousness“ and the „unconsciousness“, then we can also believe that the „consciousness“ is an area between the „subconsciousness“ and the „superconsciousness“. I would even say that the word „consciousness“ stems from a higher quality than it is currently meant. This meaning has got lost, and my concept of „superconsciousness“ is an attempt of memory, of bringing it back into use.

Please note that these four areas (superconsciousness, consciousness, subconsciousness, unconsciousness) are in permanent contact with each other, they work together.

Faust wrote:

„1) First, decide on whether you are an atheist or a believer in a god. If you are the latter, you might want to decide which god, but the most important thing is to decide if you are a believer in any god.“ **

To find a real atheist is as difficult as to find a real God.

Faust wrote:

„2) Decide between three basic theories of human nature. Are we entirely physical, are we entirely mental (is our essence our „mind“, whatever the fuck that is) or are we essentially „spiritual“. Or, some combination thereof. If it's a combination, god help you. If you believe in a god. If not, you're screwed.“ **

The last two sentences are biased comments.

Faust wrote:

„3) Try to decide this issue: Are you going to think scientifically - seeking ever-closer approximations to close descriptions of the world - or religiously/rationalistically - looking for absolutely correct answers.“ **

Science is not free of religion and rationalism.

Faust wrote:

„4) Try hard to recognize that most written philosophy is political science, however crude.“ **

„Political science“? You - the one who says „philosophy is not science but art“ - are saying that philosophy is „political science“? You contradict yourself.

Faust wrote:

„5) Also try to recognize that every political philosophy supports a morality. No matter what you read, this is the ultimate goal of most philosophers. If you know what morality the philosopher is supporting, you understand him. If you don't know what morality he supports, you don't understand him.

6) Accept that philosophy is a special study of language. You MUST master your language before you will ever be a good philosopher.“ **

Yes, you must master your language and also know at least two foreign languages that are not much related with each other.

Faust wrote:

„7) Master the process of abstraction. Understand it. Well. If you cannot do this well, you're even more screwed than if you screw up 2).“ **

A biased comment again (see also: 2)

Faust wrote:

„8) Read Kant and Hegel for fun, but never, ever read Heidegger without adult supervision.

9) Read the Bible.

10) Read all of Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Dr. Seuss.“ **

And again:

Arminius wrote:

„Your ... 8th, the 9th, the 10th are the most »Biased Commandments«.“ ** **

So 8, 9, and 10 are also the most biased comments (compare them with 2 and 7).

Faust wrote:

„Hope this is helpful.“ **

No. It is not helpful, because it is too vague (see 1 and 3), self-contradictory (see 4), and too much biased (see 2, 7, and especially 8, 9, 10). Only two (see 5 and 6) „steps“ are good, although not good enough.

Sorry.

Try again.

Or ask Mephistopheles.

874) Arminius, 11.04.2016, 02:20, 03:27, 03:47, 16:26, 19:50, 20:01, 21:57, 22:22, 23:59 (4449-4457)

Faust wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»To find a real atheist is as difficult as to find a real God.« ** **

So what?“ **

What „so what?“? Your „1st step“ is pretty nonsensical.

Faust wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The last two sentences are biased comments.« ** **

No shit.“ **

What are you talking about? It seems that you are again slightly off-topic. If you want someone to take your „philosophy in 10 easy steps“ seriously, then vour biased comments are the wrong means, unless they are meant rhetorically or satirically (but just not seriously in the sense of the topic of your thread). It seem that you are a comedian who does not know much about philosophy.

Faust wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Science is not free of religion and rationalism.« ** **

Hamburger is not free of rat shit. Should we prefer the rat shit?“ **

I did not know that you were only a cynic. So sorry for taking you seriously.

Faust wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»›Political science‹? You - the one who says ›philosophy is not science but art‹ - are saying that philosophy is ›political science‹! You contradict yourself.« ** **

I take it that nuanced use of language is not your thing.“ **

Your „nuanced use of language“ is just the opposite of a nuanced use of language. You seem to know nothing about language.

__________________________________________________________
Faust is saying that philosophy is „not science“ and „political science“.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faust wrote:

„Did I claim that political science was science?“ **

Did you claim anything at all?

Faust wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, you must master your language and also know at least two foreign languages that are not much related with each other.« ** **

I'm going to take a crazy guess and say that you have done that. I take it that English is not one of them. Which is fine. Not a criticism.

I hope everything I say is biased. It's supposed to be. You don't seem to get much about this philosophy thing.“ **

Q.E.D.. You are the one who does not seem to get much about this philosophy thing.

Faust wrote:

„That's okay - we're all still learning.“ **

This seems to be a typical statement of a politically correct hypocrite, thus again a cynic.

Faust wrote:

„By the way, I use »Faust« because it's my name.“ **

And I use „Arminius“, because it is my name.

„Army“ is quite another matter.

___________________________________________

By the way: I love Faust - and Mephistopheles too.

Hahaha wrote:

„The environment and your relation to it is what creates your choices. You don't create the choices independently or out of some whimsical free will.

You merely react to what limited choices are presented to you environmentally.“ **

That's right. The will of humans is not free but relatively free (relatively unfree).

They must work together, namely as much as they are part of the body. But we should not associate this too much with the psychological or, especially, the psychoanalytic meaning of „association“.

Moreno wrote:

„If we take the example of the prehuman, at least until very recently, if now, there was no post human. Perhaps there will be, but it isn't here now. So perhaps there is no superconsciousness (yet). Perhaps we will turn the world into a nuclear cinder before any posthumans come to be.“ **

This depends on the result of the nuclear catastrophe and, of course, on the definition of „humans“. If we bring the prefix „post“ and the noun „humans“ together, then these compound words form the word „posthumans“ with the meaning „temporally after the humans living X“, whereby „X“ can be either (a) humans or (b) other living beings, because this depends on the more or less exact definition of „posthumans“. Actually „posthumans“ should be humans as well, but they do not have to be humans. This may become clear by another example: A „postwar“ should but does not necessarily mean a „war“. So the prefix „post“ is a bit tricky (and by the way: the prefix „pre“ too). Nonhuman living beings can and some of them will probably survive a huge nuclear catastrophe. So according to the definition-in-the-wider-sense (see: b) they will be the posthumans, but according to the definition-in-the-narrower-sense (see: a) they will not be the posthumans, because nonhuman living beings are not humans.

Moreno wrote:

„Also wouldn't this kind of deduction lead to an infinite series. If we have subcellular processes, then were have cells in a superposition to those, yes. They we have the body in a superposition to that and cells in a subposition to the body. Sure, we can go on to ecosystem, perhaps solar system - though here the terms not longer have meaning to me. But at some point, it seems to me we will reach a place where, yes, there are sub-somethings, but no super-something to all of these.“ **

Yes, but without a „super“ a „sub“ makes not much sense. The dichotomy of „super“ and „sub“ is like the dichotomy of „under“ and „over“ or of „below“ and „above“ etc. pp..

Moreno wrote:

„Hierarchies may have limits. How do we know that the limit relating to consciousness isn't at conscousness. I say this not out of hubris - nothing could be beyond my mind, I am a kind of theist so personally I have no problem with this - it just seems to me it is being fooled by logic into thinking reality must match deductions based on human language.“ **

Yes.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»So the ›superconsciousness‹ as the opposite of the ›subconsciousness‹ is what is beyond the ›consciousness‹, whereas the ›consciousness‹ itself is beyond the ›subconsciousness‹ which is beyond the ›unconsciousness‹. If we believe in an area between the ›consciousness‹ and the ›unconsciousness‹, then we can also believe that the ›consciousness‹ is an area between the ›subconsciousness‹ and the ›superconsciousness‹. I would even say that the word „consciousness“ stems from a higher quality than it is currently meant. This meaning has got lost, and my concept of ›superconsciousness‹ is an attempt of memory, of bringing it back into use.« ** **

What is it referring to, can you use it in a more specific sentence? What do we do with it?“ **

The superconsciousness is comparable with a godhood that is coming from outside and inside of us. Now, the anti-religious and anti-theistic ILP members will say: „This is the same old religion“ . I do not care. Religion does not disappear by forbidding the word „religion“. We can call it „spiritual training“ too. It does not matter at all. At least as long as our brains will work in this way, the phenomenon and the corresponding behavior as a whole will not disappear.

Faust wrote:

„BTW, why are you so afraid of bias?“ **

Why are you so paranoid?

I never said that I was „afraid of bias“.

The same example:

A.: „You are white“.
F.: „Why are you afraid of whites?“.

Zinnat wrote:

„Faust wrote:

»8) Read Kant and Hegel for fun, but never, ever read Heidegger without adult supervision.« **

I enjoyed your list and liked the above one the most. Though, i would have liked to see Nietzsche's name before Heidegger there.“ **

Then read 10) again, Zinnat.

„Faust wrote:

»10) Read all of Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Dr. Seuss.« **

Just guess why Nietzsche is named here.

David Hume is not as relavant as it sems.

Bertrand Russel is based on Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege. So one should read Frege - not Russel (or Russel later).

Theodor Seuss Geisel is not as relevant as it seems.

Hahaha wrote:

„UglyGirl26 And Joker Getting Married.“ **

Really?

HaHaHa wrote:

„It's official, me and UglyGirl26 plan on getting married within the next couple of years.

Eight years ago me and her met each other offline through ILP in North Carolina where we dated each other briefly. We split up abruptly and lost contact thereafter. We started talking to each other again for the last three months where we have every intention in living together and having a long term relationship through committed marriage.

For the longest time since we split up I felt she was the lost love of my life that got away and now that we're back together we plan on tying the knot.

The marriage will more than likely take place in an undisclosed place in Florida within the next two to three years.“ **

Unbelievable. Uglygirl 26 and Prettyboy 29. (26 + 29) / 2 = 27.5. That's right.

....

How ugly and pretty!

Hahaha wrote:

„Yes, we really do plan on getting married within the next couple of years Arminius.“ **

Okay. That's fine. I wish you all the best!

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Only Humean wrote:

›How do I live a good life?‹ **

What is ›good‹ for you?« ** **

If I could tell you that, it wouldn't be much of a question, would it?“ **

That's right. So we have to and obviously like to live with the question and can say: „this is our ultimate question in philosophy“. That's okay.

Only Humean wrote:

„The primacy of the question is in its immediacy and application to a running project.

»What is good?« is a subsidiary question, insofar as it's relatively uninteresting besides in its application to the main question. It's also a question that can lead you off down many blind alleys. »Good« is a profoundly contextual word. There's little value in abstracting what makes a good cupcake, a good novel, a good day and a good haircut and trying to tie that into a good life, for me. It would be more instructive to prioritise those four (and many others) in their importance/necessity in leading a good life.

I like your refinement of the question; a good life (for me) unquestionably is lived in a social setting, and the good and health of the society and the culture is an integral part of that. Thank you for clarifying my question.“ **

No problem. Thanks for your response.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Only Humean wrote:

›How do I live a good life?‹ **

What is ›good‹ for you?« ** **

Good answer by OH but Arminius rightly raised that question.“ **

The answer to that question is indeed not easy. But I think that the answer can sometimes appear by thinking and talking about the question. I had such moments, but after them, when I was in another mood (!), they always faded a bit.

875) Arminius, 12.04.2016, 19:14, 20:28 (4458-4459)

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, but without a ›super‹ and ›sub‹ makes not much sense. The dichotomy of ›super‹ and ›sub‹ is like the dichotomy of ›under‹ and ›over‹ or of ›below‹ and ›above‹ etc. pp..« ** **

I would certianly think that before we get to the level of 'the universe' there will always be some kind of super for each sub. But it seems not necessarily of the same kind, that a category shift, a move away from the object or organism in question takes place or can. IOW I am not saying that there is nothing beyond my consciousness (and in fact in my belief system there is something that could perhaps be called a superconsciousness), but for, for example, a physicalist, we have a subconsciousness, a consciousness, but there is nothing conscious in super relation, as part of that human, beyond. There is stuff beyond the consciousness of the individual, but it would not be his or hers. What I am saying here is that a physicalist could use the term subconscious, when referring to Joe, without it entailing a superconsciousness. The subconsciousness is below a threshhold and consciousness is above it. No need to bring in a superconsciousness which is above or surrounds that.

Which brings up another issue. To me consciuosness is surrounded by what I would call the unconscious, not the reverse.“ **

That is indeed another issue.

Moreno wrote:

„Moreno wrote:

»Hierarchies may have limits. How do we know that the limit relating to consciousness isn't at conscousness. I say this not out of hubris - nothing could be beyond my mind, I am a kind of theist so personally I have no problem with this - it just seems to me it is being fooled by logic into thinking reality must match deductions based on human language.« **

Arminius wrote:

»Yes.« ** **

You are agreeing now?“ **

Yes, because: (1) Hierarchies may have limits. May! We just know not much about it. (2) You are a kind of theist, yes. (3) It seems to you that it is being fooled by logic, yes. (4) Reality must match deductions based on language, yes. The linguistic relativity should not be underestimated but also not overestimated.

Moreno wrote:

„The superconsciousness is also comparable with a godhood that is coming from inside and outside of us. The anti-religious and anti-theistic ILP members will say: „This is the same old religion“. I do not care. Religion does not disappear by forbidding the word „religion“. We can call it „spiritual training“too. It does not matter at all. At least as long as our brains will work in this way, the phenomenon and the corresponding behavior as a whole will not disappear. In addition, the superconsciousness is not solely a religious phenomenon. The religious phenomenon is merely one of many other examples that can show how the superconsciousness is working.

I suppose that model is similar or really at such a level of abstraction that it can fit with my beliefs.“ **

It can fit with your beliefs? Could you describe your beliefs precisely?

Hahaha wrote:

„World War I destroyed Tsarist Russia which is how the communist revolution took place effectively there.“ **

Because of the lack of economic development in Russia it was not the communistic revolution that the communistic philosophers/ideologists had predicted. It wa just a terroristic „revolution“ in the name of a „communistic revolution“ but not the communistic revolution the communist communistic philosophers/ideologists had predicted.

876) Arminius, 13.04.2016, 02:45, 16:09, 16:48, 17:36, 21:17 (4460-4464)

Repeating words again and again functions like advertising or other propaganda. So it is one of the most affective means of rhetoric.

Eureka? No!

Neither http://www.djedefsauron.net/index.php?o ... Itemid=144 nor http://www.filedropper.com/x-piesolver works!

Please put the main or the most interesting points of the theme („The word roots of the Proto-Indo-European language“) in this thread. Thanks.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, because: (1) Hierarchies may have limits. May! We just know not much about it. (2) You are a kind of theist, yes. (3) It seems to you that it is being fooled by logic, yes. (4) Reality must match deductions based on language, yes. The linguistic relativity should not be underestimated but also not overestimated.« ** **

Yes, I am not making a rule that language is arbritrary. I am countering the rule that reality must work the way language implies it will and that we can always deduce via language to how reality will be. I have no rule in either direction. Sometimes we can and sometimes we cannot.“ **

„Arminius wrote:

»It can fit with your beliefs? Could you describe your beliefs precisely?« ** **

Well, no, not really. But relevent to this I can say that I believe there is a wider consciousness of which our own is a fragment.“ **

Thus: A superconsciousness!(?)?(!).

Moreno wrote:

„Western logic has the either A or not A type self evident truths. I think these are limited. IOW I think there are 'things' events processes where it is me AND not me. Inside but also outside. Self and not self. We can see this with things that are unconscious in us. Say we have a pattern of behavior in relation to women. Others notice this. We are not aware of it. Years later we become aware of it. Perhaps first we notice that they have a point. We do behave in a certain way that implies this. But why would we be angry at women?“ **

I wonder how you have come to the latter conclusion, if it is one.

Moreno wrote:

„The anger is in the unconscious. Yet - and here's the key point - when we do become aware of it, there is a way in which we can feel we were always aware of it. This is a an A and not A situation, but, sadyly for certain logicians, I think it is the case.“ **

That reminds me a bit of Heidegger and his concept of „Angst“.

Moreno wrote:

„I mention this because this is consciousness and unconsciousness, but something like this seems to me to be the case in the consciousness to superconsciousness direction. Separation and connection.“ **

Yes, I can agree with that.

And I agree with it the more, the more it is not meant in the way of psychoanalysis but of pure existence and its analysis (compare: „Dasein“ and „Daseinsanalyse“ - Martin Heidegger).

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:

„Faust wrote:

»I'm still wondering how ›read the Bible‹ is biased in the first place. ›Read one of the (or maybe just 'the') seminal works of Western literature‹ may show that I am biased toward literacy and education. I can live with that.« **

Well it is ethnocentric, but then again, most of this board is in the Western Hemisphere. Plus the Western Hemisphere seems to be the hemisphere to be.“ **

Yes, but it is ethnocentric too, when „Y“, who belongs to the non-ethnocentric part of the ethnocentrism ethnos, says that „X“, who belongs to the ethnocentric part of the ethnocentrism ethnos, is ethnocentric. Both do the same: propagating ethnocentrism.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Thus: A superconsciousness!(?)?(!).« ** **

Yes. If your various exclamation points, etc., can be interpreted to mean something like: Hey, but I thought you didn't think it existed what was all that stuff about not being able to deduce.....etc., I was arguing in general, not because your conclusion was one I disagreed with, but the process seemed weak to me. I stand by my issues with deducing it exists because a subconscious exists, but, for my own intuitive and experiential reasons do in fact believe in something that could be called that.“ **

„Arminius wrote:

»I wonder how you have come to the latter conclusion, if it is one.« ** **

I was using it as an example, a hypothetical. That said, I do think men and women are angry at each other....all of them. There are degrees of this and degrees of awareness of this.“ **

Would you say that the sexes are the main issue of being angry, or are they just a part of many other issues of being angry (one ILP example we have is WW III Angry who is indeed WW III angry, as he told me)?

Moreno wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»And I agree with it the more, the more it is not meant in the way of psychoanalysis but of pure existence and its analysis (compare: ›Dasein‹ and ›Daseinsanalyse‹ - Martin Heidegger).« ** **

I'll do that. I am not a Freudian, though I suppose I am a post-Freudian. There are things not dreamt of in his philosophy that I beleive exist. And I think he saw some patterns and made them rules when they are not. I also think his map of the mind is limited. I rather liked Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's book on how Freud ended up with his SEduction Theory. It nicely places Freud in his time as an individual.

I do not think it is just consciousness however. There is also a super...hm, not sure a good term here, but it would be feelings, desires, urges, intuitions. What fills the internal space of consciousness. That from which consciousness springs and which gives life.

A lot of the mystical traditions have what I would consider a rather male idea of transcendence, this super awareness. Sort of a Buddha, or Angel gazing out over existence. I think that's only part of life.“ **

By the way: What do you think about the Ancient-Greek mythology, especially how it was put into everyday practice?

877) Arminius, 17.04.2016, 01:22, 01:25, 01:31, 01:47, 02:01, 02:08, 03:11, 03:14, 04:28, 16:10, 16:43, 19:39, 19:49, 20:08, 20:18, 20:36, 21:03, 21:15, 21:55, 22:29, 22:49 (4465-4485)

Hahaha wrote:

„Evolution And Maladaptability.

This thread our focus of conversation shall be examples of maladaptability found in nature, human civilization, and evolution.This will be another ongoing project of mine.

Could former definitions of degeneration or de-evolution merely be an actual emphasis on maladaptability?

»A maladaptation is a trait that is (or has become) more harmful than helpful, in contrast with an adaptation, which is more helpful than harmful. All organisms, from bacteria to humans, display maladaptive and adaptive traits. In animals (including humans), adaptive behaviors contrast with maladaptive ones. Like adaptation, maladaptation may be viewed as occurring over geological time, or within the lifetime of one individual or a group.

It can also signify an adaptation that, whilst reasonable at the time, has become less and less suitable and more of a problem or hindrance in its own right, as time goes on. This is because it is possible for an adaptation to be poorly selected or become less appropriate or even become on balance more of a dysfunction than a positive adaptation, over time.« (**).“ **

This reminds me of my thread: „Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?“ ** **

Evolution is all about self-preservation.

The so-called „Neolithic Revolution“ was a process of settling, husbandry (agriculture and stock breeding), urbanisation. And parts of this process have not ended yet.

Artimas wrote:

„The economy needs to be abolished for the world to live green.“ **

Do you mean all human economy?

If yes:

You need all humans (exactly 100% - not 99,9999999'% are not enough -, you need exactly 100%) in order to abolish the economy, and that is not possible.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Hillary and Bill.“ **

Do you mean Hillary and Bill Clinton?

As Billary Clinton?

Do you have any evidence or even a solution process?

Pandora wrote:

„Random Factor wrote:

»I'm saying that everyone has homosexual tendencies whether they admit it or not.« **

What kind of nonsense is this?! Where the hell are you getting this from? Your self? Some science magazine? That's like saying everyone is susceptible to a particular mental illness. Or that everyone could be fetishized in a particular way. Just because you might like taking it up your arse and enjoy it, doesn't mean that everyone could learn to enjoy it as well (because they, being like you, should already have the potential in them).“ **

You are right, Pandora.

I know what Random Factor is trying to say, but his sentence (see above) is more „politically correct“ than correct. It has too much rhetorical tendencies, regardless whether he admits it or not, and this rhetorical tendencies belong to one of the totalitarian ideologies, namely the egalitarianism.

All totalitarian ideologies are largely wrong. The error magnitude of egalitarianism is as high as the error magnitude of liberalism. Humans are not equal, they are merely relatively equal (relatively unequal); and they are not free, they are merely relatively free (relatively unfree).

It does not make egalitarianism and liberalism more „right“ just because they have become migfhtful ideologies. And if they have become mightful enough, they always turn out as dictatorships.

Also sexuality has always been a subject of politics. Formerly everyone had to learn that all humans were or had to be heterosexual. Now everyone has to learn that all humans are or have to be homosexual.

So: What about those who have no homosexual tendencies? Why does who want everyone to have homosexual tendencies, although most humans do not have such tendencies? In other words: Why are heterosexual humans discriminated? Formerly the homosexuals were discriminated, but they obviously did not learn from history. Now the heterosexuals are discriminated, and this shows that the homosexuals, and probably many heterosexuals too, have not learned from history. Most humans are probably not capable of learning from history.

Moreno wrote:

„Until we or whatever we make to replace ourselves, replace them with gm machines and nano-cellulose goops which we take on our spacecraft upon leaving a dead and used up planet behind 'us'.

(Just to be gloomy.)

Otherwise I agree.“ **

Do you think that machines will „eat“ the crust of the planet?

Copied post in another thread.

Despite the fact that scientists are believed to be exact and objective or objectivistic, they follow the primacy of the subjectivity, because scientists dominate the objects, their methods and models are part of them and not of the objects. This illustrates the connection of finding the object and disguising the subject. This kind of hubris is the price of the objectivity and is likewise bought by the quiescence and the standardization of what the subject is allowed to realize / recognize .... So in the long run the team of researchers can merely become a homegenous army of subjects who are all shaped by the same methodical disguising. In the long run they have to become uniformed (same interests, same methods, same concepts, same words).

The opposed pole is the primacy of the objectivity, where the researcher comes closer to the object by loving it. (Yes - by loving it!) So the primacy of the objectivity has to do with aesthetics and erotism, whereas the primacy of the subjectivity has to do with agonal competition, with war and death. And, of course, the theories are opposed too: erotic theory versus agonal theory.

I think we have to consider both.

Okay, here comes the „solution process“:

Bill and Hillary Clinton becoming => Billary Hilliam Clinton.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Hey, three times „A...s“: Arminius, Amorphos, Artimas.

Stark! Crass! Isn’t it?

Amorphos wrote:

„2op.

Scientists don't know every area of science, that's why you get experts. I think philosophers should know the science [or any knowledge or philosophy] which pertains to what they are saying philosophically.“ **

Copied post in another thread.

Artimas wrote:

„I votes yes, the more you know the more evaluating you can do, the more evidence you can reach and apply to your arguments or quest.

The quest for any philosopher should ultimately be the quest for knowing more, right?“ **

Yes, but we should be careful, because all science becomes dependent on the moneygivers, thus on the corruption. Therefore I mentioned both the primacy of the subjectivity with its agonal competition and the primacy of the objectivity with its erotic aesthetics. The former is currently the hegemonial one, and it's up to the latter to „survive“.

Intelligent existence needs something like subsistence / sustenance.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you think that machines will ›eat‹ the crust of the planet?« ** **

If it all heads toward the singularity I assume they will find a way to 'eat' everything.“ **

Okay, thus also the mantle and the core of the earth.

Copied post in another thread.

Hahaha wrote:

„Why sex bots? Because women are becoming less female and desexualized with cultural or political social engineering along with an increasingly socially alienated male population. That's why I think.“ **

But if „women are becoming less female“, as you say, are men then - according to your belief - not changing, or are they becoming less male or even more male?

To answer the question in the opening post more precisely (and with a link [**|**] too):

Hahaha wrote:

„This thread our focus of conversation shall be examples of maladaptability found in nature, human civilization, and evolution.This will be another ongoing project of mine.

Could former definitions of degeneration or de-evolution merely be an actual emphasis on maladaptability?“ **

Yes, and instead of „maladaptability“ one could also say „false-selection“ or „negative-selection“ or „dysgenics“ ... and so on and so forth (**|**).

Moreno wrote:

„Hahaha wrote:

»Maladaption is merely evolutionary adaptions that are more harmful than beneficial.« **

But then it is very hard to judge. Even what we consider genetic diseases were useful in some times/Environments ....“ **

The solution of that problem is that a disadvantage can later become an advantage then (and only then), if (and only if) the environment changes in a way that leads to the maladaptation-adaptation change. So the maladaptation can become an adaptation, more exactly: a postadaptation. A postadaptation does not mean that there was no maladaptation; the reverse is true: a postadaptation means that there was a maladaptation that has later become an adaptation due to the change of the environment.

Amorphos wrote:

„Hahaha wrote:

»Well, I guess my interest in maladaption concerning biology, nature, and evolution is because I view all of humn civilization as one giant maladaption.« **

According to nature that may be true, but we have adapted to the things we have created. First we devised things from nature in prehistoric times, then came metals and we could now shape things however we wanted e.g. swords. We have continued to adapt to all the inventions through the industrial revolution and til now. I agree that that is a maladaption in terms of evolution and nature, then to a lesser degree so was the stone age. We are not the only animals which use tools tho.“ **

Tools used by other animals are not enough. Language (I mean - of course - the human language) is the most important tool. But there are many preconditions necessary for the use of the human language, and one of them is the human brain, thus the human intelligence.

878) Arminius, 18.04.2016, 02:38, 02:47, 15:18, 15:38, 15:50, 16:03, 16:25, 16:38, 21:46, 23:08 (4486-4495)

If ...:

Then ...: how could we depict logic?

Two Numbers and Two Mathematicians.

Two natural numbers between 2 and 20 are selected. Mathematician S. knows the sum, mathematician P. the product. Both mathematicians know the lower limit of the two numbers, but not the upper limit.

S.: „I can not imagine that you can find out my sum.“
P.: „Now I know your sum.“
S: „Now I know your product.“

What is the sum?
What is the product?

Artimas wrote:

„It's because A names are the best.“ **

And the first.

Only Humean wrote:

„I voted no as I understood the question to mean »is knowing every branch of science an 'ought' for any given philosopher?« I don't see that the majority of philosophy is improved by knowledge of bivalve reproduction or karst formation.

If you meant something along the lines of »should every branch of science have interested philosophers who know about it?«, then I think yes.“ **

I meant both, but especially the first one: „is knowing every branch of science an 'ought' for any given philosopher?“.

Only Humean wrote:

„If you think that philosophers are less prone to guarding religious edifices of dogma, which you seem to accuse scientists of, I would disagree. There are precisely the same motivations and mechanisms at work in all fields.“ **

In all fields, yes, I agree to that.

These fields are subordinated, they obey politics, which obeys the process of culture, and culture can be used as a „clock“, because all other fields are subordinated, they obey culture, whereas culture obeys only nature.

Moreno wrote:

„Does anyone know a branch of science? OK, I am being fussy, but it seemed rather yes/no without gradations. It would be strange, I think, if a philosopher did not also find some interest in science, likely a couple of fields.“ **

Indeed, that would be strange.

Moreno wrote:

„Biology and physics come to mind as ones with easy connections to many philosophical issues. I am not sure it is a necessary condition for being a good philosopher, but I would guess that any philosopher who did not get curious about some of the sciences would like not have the necessary attributes to be a philosopher. Just as it would be strange if they never read any literature or had no interest in psychology.

I have to say I am more concerned about scientists having no knowledge of philosophy, which actually seems more likely given specialization and how philosophy is viewed.“ **

Yes, that's right, but scientists and philosophers do not differ much from each other when it comes to culture (including politics - of course), which they obey. Compare my last post (**|**).

When the culture has great times (whatever „great“ means in this relation), then science follows and gets great times too, often when culture already starts having less great times.

Copied post in another thread.

Maybe Hahaha is as skeptical towards Darwinism as I am. One does not have to be fully against Darwinism, if one is skeptical towards it.

Moreno wrote:

„I would think that it would be useful for most philosophers to have delved into the philosophy and history of science. To do this well, they would need to have some sense of specifics. OH mentions a couple of specifics and I agree with him, in the sense that a philosopher needs not, for example, have an in depth knowledge of all or even on butterfly species and its ecology. But to understand general issues, it would be good, I would think, if he or she read about some specifics, got into one or more scientific fields, as an amateur, enough to be able to read professional papers on specific species and get the gist. Or some parallel exposure to specifics in some other science. Otherwise epistemology and methodologies and models are too abstract. It would be too easy to think you understood what science was about, getting all in some dry an airy way.“ **

Agreed.

Moreno wrote:

„I would think that philosophers would draw conclusions, just as much as scientists along dogma lines, BUT they would be less likely to simply scoff at alternate positions. The scientists I have known are more likely to simply say something is fluff or BS and think that is a good endpoint to the discussion. The philosophers I have known generally will explore, especially if you do it well. At the end of the day they end up back where they started, but the interaction is much more useful and respectful. My sense is also that they become skilled at smelling at least one type of lies or better put the lies of one political party, one paradigmatic ontology, etc. Whereas scientists often are really quite limited. They have opinions and can be rational, so to speak, but I am not sure how good they are at spotting the problems with the more polished advocates of any position. Whereas from philosophers you can get nice lines of argument about at least those groups they tend to oppose.

I think also that if you replaced scientists with philosophers - and somehow they could do the scientists jobs - they might, for example, have a harder time just aligning with Monsanto, say. They would notice issues where the scientists would not. They would be more suceptible to outside criticism. Perhaps this would merely be a phase before they hardened up and ratinoalized away whatever dissonence the criticism created, but it seems to me they would have to, by temperment and training, engage the critics at least in their own minds. Scientists are trained to dismiss, to treat ontology as a no longer controversial subject, etc..“ **

I think that it is not good that, according to the English language, the word „science“ mainly refers to „natural science“, all other branches are not mainly regarded as scientific branches, but at least they are sometimes called „human sciences“ or „moral sciences“, otherwise: „arts“ or „humanities“.

Where is philosophy here? Should it be there?

I mean: Philosophy is somehow science too. All scientific theory is somehow philosophy.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»When the culture has great times (whatever „great“ means in this relation), then science follows and gets great times too, often when culture already starts having less great times.

« ** **

Not quite sure what to make of that »chart«. Is the moon landing a great thing? I mean, I can see it as an incredible achievement, but not even good. Though in the image it would correspond to fashion that might not seem great, so perhaps it isn't.“ **

Valuing this depends on your philosophical character, whether you are a more laughing philosopher like Demokritos (Democritus) or a more laughing philosopher like Heraklitos (Heraclitus). I am neutral.

Moreno wrote:

Somewhere underlying much of my response to this is the takeover of the technocrats coupled with modern versions of capitalism. If there is no problem there is no product so find a problem or make one then design a product for it. Make sure solutions are technological and never reduce overall energy consumption or product consumption. Downplay non-technological solutions. Downplay political solutions where we can find a way to sell a technological one. Try to get as much of the world conceived of as mechanism, because mechanisms require repair, upgrades, liscences and corporate dependence. Anything that does not view things as mechanisms should be downplayed.

Very few people take this position at this level of abstraction, yet it is the most powerful position out there today and it is worming its way into everything.

To a scientist it need not be a given, but it does tie in with their culture and also with their epistemology.

A philosopher's culture does not head them in this direction - though the rest of the culture does.“ **

Do you think that a philosopher is more harmless than a scientist?

Artimas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Evolution is all about self-preservation.

« ** **

And passing information/beliefs while preserving.

Micro to macro, the cell passes it as do we.“ **

Information is serving self-preservation. Without self-preservation or, more exactly, without any interest in self-preservation information would be useless.

879) Arminius, 19.04.2016, 03:10, 04:00, 17:01, 17:42, 18:07 (4496-4500)

Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.

The „stage“ of evolution consists of the evolutionary „actors“ (here: living beings) and the evolutionary „scenery“ (environment). My thesis is that the „actor“ homo sapiens has been destroying his „scenery“ for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the „Neolithic Revolution“ [**|**]) the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).

By the word „dissociation“ I mean the „avoidance of adaptation“.

The eugenic politics for 1%, the dysgenic politics for 99% of all humans. That is like the increasingly opening scissors, the increasing difference between rich and poor, between capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism). Most of the humans of the dysgenic politics confuse and shall confuse this dysgenic politics with eugenic politics. Other examples of such confusions are war/peace, man/woman, male/female, hate/love, good/evil, friend/foe, native/foreign, true/untrue, truth/lie, progressive/regressive, real/ideal, belief/knowledge, yes/no, strong/weak, more/less, big/small, thick/thin, ..., and son and so forth ... (almost everything).

It is possible, yeah probable, that the difference between the 1% and the 99% of all humans will lead to two different species in the future.

According to Edward N. Wolff the following chart sums up the difference across US wealth:

Edward N. Wolff wrote:

„The top 1 percent only have about 40 percent debt-to-income and hold onto a large portion of assets. This group also controls most stock wealth in the US ....“ **

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I think that it is not good that, according to the English language, the word ›science‹ mainly refers to ›natural science‹, thus all other branches are not mainly regarded as scientific branches, but at least they are sometimes called ›human sciences‹ or ›moral sciences‹, otherwise: ›arts‹ or ›humanities‹.« ** **

But that stuff is just made up!!! It's entertainment!!! Or guesswork!!! (Wry).“ **

What is „just made up“? And by whom?

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Where is philosophy here? Should it be there?

I mean: Philosophy is somehow science too. All scientific theory is somehow philosophy.« ** **

Yes, and if you tell most scientists that they will say that science is not dependent on philosophy and that the latter is speculation. They have the axioms they trust and are running with it. And this works, in many ways, but not others.“ **

Philosophers should know better.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you think that a philosopher is more harmless than a scientist?« ** **

To damn them with faint praise, I suppose. There are scientists who simply explore the world and are not directly caught up in various organizations that I think are pernicious.“ **

When I was a student and a research assistant at the university, I hoped to simply explore the world too, but then I noticed that science is more a dependent institution of mercenary competitors or warriors than a free market of research.

Moreno wrote:

„I see the greatest threat now to everything I love and could love to be coming from technocratic forces. Thus scientists are at the very least being used or their work is being used and I hear little outrcry from the mainstream portion of the science community. Philosophers today are mostly fine tuning various philosophical positions and have little effect on anything. I wish they would turn their minds onto the dominant assumptions out there. They don't need to draw conclusions that are alternative, but if they could attack the rhetoric and models and arguments of the dominant patterns first, then work their way down to alternative ones, it could be great. But they seem to have little interest in this.

IOW they need not believe what I do, but could function as skeptics, demanding justification for what has the most power out there, even if they agree with it. I mean if they agree with it, then they should assume it can have excellent justification.“ **

Yes, but many philosophers are used and misused too, and they allow their moneygivers to use and misuse them too.

Moreno wrote:

„This is a part of my negative reaction to the whole civilization is female or suits females.“ **

Do you mean that that is a part of your „negative reaction to the whole“ that *says* „civilization is female or suits females“?

880) Arminius, 20.04.2016, 01:36, 02:27, 02:54, 03:34, 04:28, 05:13, 05:40, 06:09, 15:36, 16:15, 16:44, 19:08, 19:44 (4501-4513)

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What is »just made up«? And by whom?« ** **

That was me playing outraged that the humanities or psychology etc, could be referred to as sciences.“ **

Aha.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Philosophers should know better.« ** **

Yes, though today I think most take a wide range of issues for granted. It is as Jesus said render unto science that which is sciences and render unto modern neocapitalism that which is neocapitalism's. This leaves not so much to discuss in ontology and epistemology, and then in politics either.“ **

How many ILP members are really interested in philosophy? What do you think?

A) About 100%.
B) About 80%.
C) About 60%.
D) About 40%.
E) About 20%
F) About 0%.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»When I was a student and a research assistant at the university, I hoped to simply explore the world too, but then I noticed that science is more a dependent institution of mercenary competitors or warriors than a free market of research.« ** **

I think many of us had the image of the 1800s amateur polymath naturalist, out there pursuing interests, making drawings, sending long letters to colleagues, collecting, having brandy thursday evenings and discussing the latest ideas from the continent before wandering off again alone into higher math or the Amazon.“ **

Maybe I was or am (?) one of the examples loving the polymath naturalist of the last third of the 18th and of the first two thirds of the 19th century. One of my class teacher called me „Humboldt“, because he thought I could become a polymath naturalist. Well, I think that my class teacher did not know everything about me () or about F. Wilhelm C. C. F. von Humboldt (1767-1835) and his brother F. W. H Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859).

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, but many philosophers are used and misused too, and they allow their moneygivers to use and misuse them too.« ** **

I think shame is a powerful force. To question certain things, in a serious way, can lead one to being shunned and/or shamed. Seen as silly, dismissed. Yes, the organized religions have tremendous power in much of the world, but the shaming of anyone going against the mainstream is enormous and powerful. You will be mocked. Your kids going to school will have friends who show you being mocked by some expert or other. Your department colleagues will look at you as if you are strange. It may of course affect your funding and direct power moves are always present. But after more than a decade in the education system, where one might presumably exploring, one has been trained that taking certain ideas seriously or questioning other ideas means you are a fool, deluded, insane, damaging young minds, immoral. It is one thing to read about what, say, Dawkins says in the newpaper about someone else, but to have local shamers and bashers come after you is really unpleasant. The indirect emotional controls in Western society are very powerful.“ **

Yes, of course. Dawkins, by the way, is a good example for those who can say as much nonsense as they want and will nonetheless be taken seriously.

A choice of words.

Peitho wrote:

„A metaphor, before I look for the nearest door

existence a river
Life emerging in the flow
fighting the current

Self-preservation is an indication of standing your ground
constant effort
If strength is enough
excess energies can be directed up-stream, or across stream, or to reproduce
a new life for the storm

Need is the sensation of this endless flow
fitness determines how much energy will overflow

The fittest reproduces or reaches the highest point up-stream
a dream
The weakest are washed away
slowly the energies subside
and not enough are present to resist the flow
Natural selection

In this time weakness is protected,
helped along
Giving the impression of fitness
Multiplying weakness

How long before the entire structure is washed away?

a herd protected from culling, eats all the vegetation
leading to its own demise
Mutations left unchecked
illness spreads
The herd suffers a slow death

cycles repeat
in existential heat
Will machines suffice
to resist the tide?“ **

We were talking about evolution and that evolution is all about self-preservation.
See: ** (**) ** (**) **

And homo sapiens is the only species that is relatively free of having to be compatible with the environment and can even destroy it. The environment of the very modern homo sapiens is the whole world.

Copied post in another thread.

Amorphos wrote:

„Are the current generation the suckiest of all time?“ **

What or whom do you mean by „current generation“? The oldest (80+x), the older (60-79), the middle (40-59), the younger (20-39), or even the youngest (0-19) generation?

I guess you mean the younger generation. Is that right?

Amorphos wrote:

„They think crazy is getting a bit drunk, but where's the anarchism, the chaos of youth, and what's with all the general conformity?“ **

The 29 years old Hahaha calls himself

„Violent Chaotic Anarchist.“ **

His occupation is:

„Anarchist, Outlaw, Super Villain, Social Deviant, Criminal Entrepeneur, And General Outcast.“ **

His interests are:

„Chaos, Collapse Of Civilization, Human Expirience, Nihilism, Anarchism, Primitivism, Violence, Inequality, Tyranny, Extinction, War, Nature, Egoism, Sadism, Selfishness, Misery, Despair, Guns, Knives, Grenades, Barely Legal Women, Sex, Cigarettes, And Booze.“ **

So maybe you should ask Hahaha.

Amorphos wrote:

„The music industry won, they conformed rock n roll and then everything else until now they aren't selling much at all. Well done them, that's a lesson in how to suck so badly you suck the life out of your own business.“ **

The music industry has always been about money, thus: power.

Amorphos wrote:

„The political conformists [the system] has successfully removed nearly all lefty subculture, at least limited it to a level it can manage. So now we move from box to box, we don't just spring up a free festival wherever, we don't do anything we are told not to do. Is that philosophically healthy? Don't you need danger and a variety of different factions at each others throats? What will become of humanity if everyone conforms?

My guess is that the world wont have it, and just when the system thinks it has us all in check, something will happen that will catch them by surprise and they wont be prepared for it. - I hope so anyway.“ **

My hope is with your hope.

Amorphos wrote:

„I suppose that if things don't change, then humanity will destroy itself simply by continuing down its current course. Ergo you need change!“ **

I suppose that change itself is the problem (in any case: too much change) and what you need is anti-change, for example: protection against change!

Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius, ask me what?  “ **

Amorphos should ask you „where's the anarchism, the chaos of youth, and what's with all the general conformity?“Just as he asked in his opening post.

Amorphos wrote:

„They think crazy is getting a bit drunk, but where's the anarchism, the chaos of youth, and what's with all the general conformity?“ **

Hahaha wrote:

„What do I think of the younger generations? I call them the Mickey Mouse Generation.

The younger generations are the pinnacle achievement of social conditioning, engineering, and manipulation.

On a psychological level they are the direct creation of psychological government experiment in human husbandry.

Take a look at the brain dead Facebook twattle dumb masses of the younger generation and you'll see the abstraction of authoritarian collectivism mastered to such extensive effect in real time. Their entire existence is what I like to refer to as the Mickey Mouse Effect.“ **

Would you say that the younger generation is almost lost, because it is already too much degenerated?

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»And homo sapiens is the only species that is relatively free of having to be compatible with the environment and can even destroy it. The environment of the very modern homo sapiens is the whole world.« ** **

Arminius wrote:

»Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.

The ›stage‹ of evolution consists of the evolutionary ›actors‹ (here: living beings) and the evolutionary ›scenery‹ (environment). My thesis is that the ›actor‹ homo sapiens has been destroying his ›scenery‹ for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the ›Neolithic Revolution‹) the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).

By the word ›dissociation‹ I mean the ›avoidance of adaptation‹.« ** **

Beavers tear down trees, change courses of rivers, and flood entire forest areas just to make themselves a cozy pool in which to swim so they won't have to walk instead. Unlike many mammals closely related to them, they have eliminated the need to hibernate, spending the winter months eating food that they stored up and grooming/socializing inside their dens.“ **

Beavers do not willfully destroy their environment.

Again:

Arminius wrote:

„Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.« ** **

Phoneutria wrote:

„How do humans or beavers falsify the principle of selection?“ **

Beavers do not falsify the Darwinistic principle of selection.

Moreno wrote:

„The category of poster I am least charitable with is the 'voice of reason and science' poster who doesn't really know any philosophy, certainly not any epistemology or philosophy of science, has little idea of how one justifies an assertion, is content with fallacies strewn in their own posts as they deride whomever they consider barbarians, such as Chrisitans, New Agers, alternative medicine people, conspiracy theorists, spiritual people. Dawkins is a famous example of the type.“ **

Yes.

Moreno wrote:

„What didn't your teacher know about you? them?“ **

Well, he did perhaps not know for example what kind of life I prefered to lead at that time. If he had known that, then he would not have called me „Humboldt“, or he would not have known the lifestyle of the noble (aristocratic) von Humboldt brothers.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Unfortunately I cannot get into the psyche of a beaver in order to determine whether it does anything willfully. However, the case is hardly made for human behavior to be unlike that of beavers. Both transform the environment to suit their desires first and foremost, and in a way that is careless for the consequences.“ **

If a beaver really destroyed its environment like humans do, then it had to have the same intelligence, it had to know what „destroying of environment“ means, it had to be as cynical as humans are.

Beavers are not capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously. They know absolutely nothing about destroyimg of the environment, nozthing about ecological destruction ... and so on.

Moreno wrote:

„Some people (here, for example) say that civilization suits women better than men, and, essentially that men thrive in something more primitive and civilization does not suit their needs and desires. I say, BS. I see civilization as organized more by males and to suit the male desires for linear interactions, distanced relations, and control.“ **

It is controlled by males, only by males. The relatively few males of this higher „class“ (later becoming an own species?) organize, thus control their lives according to an old patriarchal system.

But note: Not all men but only a few men are meant here. And this few men are enough to control the world. That is the problem we have.

Amorphos wrote:

„My conclusion is that Shiva [or a given androgynous deity, as per culture] exists and is a god.“ **

Two questions:

1) Is Shiva your only God, so that you can say that you are a monotheist ?
2) What about Satyr?

Amorphos wrote:

„Do we own ourselves?“ **

We must distinguish between „ownership“ („Besitz“) and the „right of ownership“ („Eigentum“).

There are so-called „human rights“. So my answer is a doubled one:
1) „No“ for 99% of all humans.
2) „Yes“ for 1% of all humans.

==>