<= [531][532][533][534][535][536][537][538][539][540] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
531) Arminius, 04.08.2014, 13:00, 13:45, 21:44, 22:23, 22:48, 23:06, 23:55 (1722-1727)
James S. Saint wrote:
RM:AO is a daring metaphysics, because the modern physicist might feel threatened.
James S. Saint wrote:
Would you mind describing the world of pure joyous harmony between humans and machines?
Wygotsky is (partly) wrong, Piaget is (partly) wrong. Do you agree to that statement, Obe?
Both Wygotski and Piaget claim to speak about something that nobody knows what it actually is: psychology (see also here [**]).
Interterrestrial wrote:
Of course: human language and computer language are different.
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eEQ4J6Lnrs
Interterrestrial wrote:
That's no argument that these two languages are the same.Please notice that I'm not saying that this two languages have no common ground(s), but I am saying that they are just not the same.
|
532) Arminius, 05.08.2014, 00:30, 01:00, 02:14, 03:04, 03:20, 03:36, 03:54, 04:49, 04:57, 05:24, 05:34, 13:38, 14:55, 14:57, 15:21, 16:47, 17:09, 18:06 (1729-1746)
Obe wrote:
That's right, and (not only therefore) they are wrong.
James S. Saint wrote:
This could be my signatue, ... if I had one.James S. Saint wrote:
One can learn (whatever) from your RM:AO, and that (and not off topic [for example: post a picture of yourself]) is crucial. Strange that so few members of this forum are interested in RM:AO. And the reason for this is not that they would have understood anything of it. That's funny, isn't it?
Pandora wrote:
That is one of the reasons why there must be philosophy.
Obe wrote:
Hi, Obe, opposites are indeed simply opposites, but each of them can be wrong anyway.
Who are this tough guys?
What Is Life? is a 1944 non-fiction science book written for the lay reader by physicist Erwin Schrödinger. The book was based on a course of public lectures delivered by Schrödinger in February 1943 (Wikipedia), when George Harrison was born ( ). In the case the text of the musician George Harrison is more right than the text of the so-called scientist Erwin Schrödinger.
What are the signs of the end of history for you?
James S. Saint wrote:
Because the powerful people get more power, when they are spreading more nonsense than sense.
Reformimg democracy? (). Which Democracy?
A very lovable human - being imaged:
Guess where this foto was taken.
Is that Dwyane Wade's house? (**) is a question. Questions, especially responded questions, are not allowed in this game. What a shame. You have not won anything. Maybe you should try it one more time. Or you owe it to yourself to take a break.
The best place on Earth:
James S. Saint wrote:
Yeah.Do you also know Orwell's book Animal Farm?
James S. Saint wrote:
Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same.RM:AO does not fit into the present day; the time of RM:AO is going to come and perhaps will be known and used by more people than today, provided that there will be human beings.
Copied post in another thread.
My thousandth post !Mithus wrote:
My Saltus Teutoburgiensis is a very nice place. But it isn't the best one, is it? |
533) Arminius, 07.08.2014, 19:29, 21:09, 21:47, 22:16, 22:42, 23:25, 23:40 (1747-1753)
HVD wrote:I'd like to wish the All-Seeing Eye a happy 226th birthday.
May (note: no, because his first forename was Johann,
his second forename was Adam)
Weishaupt's ghost rest in pieces. Ewige Blumenkraft, Ewige Schlangekraft (note:
»Schlangenkraft«).
Heute die Welt, Morgens das Sonnensystem (note: »morgen
- no »s« because »morgens«
means »in the morning«, and »Morgen«
means »morning«, and »morgen«
means »tomorrow«, and »tomorrow« is meant in that text). |
1748 |
1749 |
1750 |
1751 |
And no offense intended, but this whole issue of how the brain thinks is not really a philosophical issue any more. It is a hardcore engineering fact. There is actually very little mystery about it. Recursive, recurrent, and forwardfeeding processes are simply the way neural networks function, whether organic or mechanical. It doesn't matter what we would like or fancifully imagine might be taking place. There is nothing that a human brain does that an artificial brain (a neural network) hasn't been designed to replicate and surpass. **
When they finally get to the point of allowing you to see what real neural androids can do, it is going to make you feel so mentally handicapped that it is going to scare and depress you pretty seriously. They very seriously don't need You. **
1752 |
1753 |
At noon, +30
In the afternoon, +50
In the evening, +75
Around midnight, +90
Early morning -40
In between, there are lots of other figures. **
534) Arminius, 08.08.2014, 02:51, 03:36, 04:34, 15:25, 23:09, 23:29, 23:51 (1754-1760)
For you, Obe, a gift because (1.) the following music production is a Hungarian one, (2.) sung in English, (3.) you were born in Hungary, and (4.) you can speak English.- Omega, Time Robber, 1976.Wikipedia wrote:
Right now I am not reading a book, but a text of a web forum called I LOVE PHILOSOPHY. If I will again have time to read , I will go on with the reading of a book with the title Zeit und Tage (Time and Days) by Peter Sloterdijk.
Post your favorite pieces of art here?Do you mean all arts, or merely visual arts?If you mean all arts, then I post a piece of music: A Passion Play (1973) by Jethro Tull.- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), A Passion Play, 1973.If you mean merely visual arts, then I post this: Felsenschlucht (Rocky Gorge) (about 1822) by Caspar David Friedrich.
|
1758 |
In your last post you use the broad term of culture, western culture, when we are talking about liberal democracy, which is perhaps (at least currently seen as) the west's penultimate representative form. **
I happen to be one who holds an antipathy towards life in liberal democracies. **
It is not that I am averse to rights or other such safeguards for freedom, it is just that I do not find life lived through the institutions particularly fulfilling. This feeling may not be shared, at least by those willing to act on their sentiments. **
It is worth noting something again from Fukuyama's text:
For Hegel, all human behavior in the material world, and hence all human history, is rooted in a prior state of consciousness - an idea similar to the one expressed by John Maynard Keynes when he said that the views of men of affairs were usually derived from defunct economists and academic scribblers of earlier generations. This consciousness may not be explicit and self-aware, as are modern political doctrines, but may rather take the form of religion or simple cultural or moral habits. And yet this realm of consciousness in the long run necessarily becomes manifest in the material world, indeed creates the material world in its own image. Consciousness is cause and not effect, and can develop autonomously from the material world .... **
Many people might see the »End of History« as a very good thing, and be actively striving to bring it about. And many others are apathetic or unconscious of the role they play in holding up the dominant structures. I don't really think the »End of History« is something you can argue for or against in the sense that by constructing the more logical or rhetorically alluring turn of phrase you can win history onto your side. The result of the »End of History« is something that will come about by the actions we do or do not take. There is nothing inevitable about it, but there is a strong momentum that is leading in that direction, and I think it is not unreasonable to say that there are also powerful interests that look forward to an »End of History« in this sense, because the deck is already stacked in their favor and they would like to keep it that way, and they have the resources which they are using to make sure their positions are rested on a solid and stable foundation. I do not subscribe wholly to the view of an elite working culture behind the scenes, but I also think it would be folly to deny that figures like Rupert Murdoch are not exerting influence to keep the consciousness of the general population at a certain level and pointed in a certain direction.
I suppose the question is, as history unfolds, what role will we take in its development? **
1759 |
Arminius, just curious, the table describing, those for and those against the op's proposition has been a while. Would/could a more upgradedversion be printed? **
Or, as it looks, the number of participants have narrowed down a bit. **
May this be significant/ as far as the holding of pro/con opinions, or may be the narrowing down of opinions to only a few, be of some significance in it's self? **
1760 |
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat, Barbarianhorde, Ivory Man, Moreno, Ierrellus. | Obe, Kriswest, Mithus, Nano-Bug, Lizbethrose, Cassie, Eric The Pipe, Backspace Losophy, Sweet Misery, Ralfy, Interterrestrial. | |
Sum: | 6 | 12 | 11 |
535) Arminius, 09.08.2014, 01:38, 02:07, 03:18, 18:39, 19:24, 19:50, 21:08, 23:06, 23:45, 23:58 (1761-1770)
D 63 wrote:
You are right, originally it is Leibniz' sentence, but later Heidegger were also very intensively busy relating to that sentence. Heidegger meant, inter alia, that in situations of fear nothingness becomes apparent.
|
1763 |
1764 |
Arminius wrote:
»Why the penultimate representative form?« ** **
My mistake on the word penultimate. **
Arminius wrote:
»B.t.w.: I do not only use the broad term of culture, Western culture, when I am talking about liberal democracy«, but also because the liberal democracy is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement.« ** **
I wrote that you seemed to use the term Western culture broadly when referring to liberal democracy because you said that the End of History would be the end of a history of culture, and while I understood that you did mean other things, it seemed to me that what is understood by western culture has been partly taken from other cultures either in its origins or throughout its development... so it seemed like what was most under focus was the spread of liberal democracy. **
Arminius wrote:
»All "lliberal democracies" content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all "liberal equalities" or all "capitalistic socialisms". And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.« ** **
So we agree there is antagonism, but then it seems like you think that when I infer there might be a change in the system it would be to take away liberty, which I did not say and made clear below. I did not propose in my last post what form the government could take instead. What I did say was:
I do not find life lived through the institutions particularly fulfilling.
So the question would be, if the institutions were dramatically changed and some done away with, would it still be what is called liberal democracy (keeping in mind that we live in republics no? Perhaps it would .... **
Arminius wrote:
»Not only and perahps not mostly.« ** **
I'm not sure exactly what you meant here.
I suppose the question is, as history unfolds, what role will we take in its development. **
1765 |
Existence is that which has affect.
....
A clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable »particle« a »standing wave« of noise. **
1766 |
The best place on Earth?
For sightseeing, maybe. .... **
1767 |
Arminius wrote:
»So first there is (exists) an affect or an affectance, then a noise or even a noise-clump, and only after that there is a particle.« ** **
If thought about in sequence, that is true, although I would say, »first there is an affect. Then many affects as noise. Then clumps of noise - a particle«. But the universe has always had all of that concurrently happening. There was never a time when there is only one affect, nor a time when there were no particles. **
1768 |
I find most of the institutions of society unfulfilling .... **
Introducing a novel form of a commons would be a step in that direction. **
I understood your previous post where you said that history would in essence end if a global culture was acheived in which no other culture could arise which was not global. **
What I don't understand here is what you mean when you say history is a kind of development. What kind of development are you talking about? **
I define »history« as a »cultural evolution«. All »archivable artifacts« belong to history. So e.g. padded dinosaurs in a museum belong to history because they are archived artifacts, although dinosaurs themselves belong to eveolution-without-history because they did not archive artifacts, they did not have any history. Even human beings had not had any history for the most time of their existence. But they have been having story (here »story« means only »telling story«, »told story«, etc.) since they began to speak. So »story« as a »oral tradition« (tale and so on) does not belong to history.
Do you agree with that definition? If yes, then we can think about the »Eloi« as an example for humans without history in the future, can't we? The question in this thread is not, whether humans will have story in their future or not, but the question in this thread is, whether humans will have history in their future or not.
Why am I saying that? Because we should not confuse history with any development, for example with the natural development or with the natural evolution. History is cultural evolution. Archivable artifacts belong to history, and history belongs to evolution, and evolution belongs to development in nature. So history is embedded in evolution and in natural development, while evolution is only embedded in natural development. All events are based on natural (physico-chemical) development. Evolution is based on natural (physico-chemical) development. History is based on natural (physico-chemical) development and on (biological) evolution, history is defined as a cultural evolution. Story - as I define it (cp. above) - is also defined as a cultural evolution, but in contrast to history story contains no archivable artifact (except all kinds of an engineered story like an audiotape and so on). Story in this text and context means merely oral tales or oral narratives - not more.
So if we are asking in this thread, whether history ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, then we are always asking, whether cultural evolution ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, whether the relation between human beings and archivable artifacts ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not.
The house of development:
| History |
|____ Evolution ____|
|______ Development ______|History is merely the roof of the house of development.
Arminius wrote:
»The end of history means the end of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all historical existence (Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on.« ** **
End of history or not, end of historical existence or not - that's the question of this thread. ** **
So: History is always part of the evolution and of the general development, and evolution is always part of the general development. Development can, but don't has to be evolutuion and history, and evolution can, but don't has to be history. ** **
It seems that you imply that the role we play as historical beings is unimportant, and I'm not sure why. **
I don't think that idea of a role is by any means a simple thought, and I am sure I haven't done it justice in the above, but I hope I've at least gotten across what I mean when I am asserting that individuals play a role in the development of history. **
Probably the most significant thing I've left out is any consideration of free will. **
1769 |
1770 |
536) Arminius, 10.08.2014, 00:09, 00:56, 17:50, 21:25, 23:42 (1771-1775)
Chomsky is a Leibnizian. He says what Leibniz (1646-1716) has said 300 years before him.
Thick as a Brick (1972) by Jethro Tull.- Jethro Tull (Anderson, Barre, Barlow, Evan, Hammond-Hammond), Thick as a Brick, 1972.
James S. Saint wrote:
The reason why the Glozis, their functionaries, and their seduced crowd can say that it is communistic or socialistic - and not just democratic. They say: You are not democratic. You are communistic or socialistic like Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and many others were. And so they can incite their seduced crwod against you. The crowd is too much influenced by the Glozis and their functionaries.James S. Saint wrote:
Anyway, they say: That is communistic or socialistic, thus not democratic. (See above). They themselves are more communistic or socialistic than you, I know, but they have the power.
Obe wrote:
Would you mind explaining what you mean by that?Obe wrote:
Do you mean that Deleuze and Guattari want the war of ideas?Obe wrote:
What about the West? Do you remember what happened after the so called Cold War relating to the former members of the USSR? Many states of the erstwhile Eastern Bloc came back into the Western control, and the Westerners agreed to the Russian will to control all - except the Baltic - erstwhile members of the USSR. That was the deal. According to this deal it is not allowed that the ertswhle members of the USSR can also become a member of the EU, thus EUSSR.I don't think that one can speak of Putin's game, although Putin is more powerful than Obama - not at first because of the dictatorship, but because of the fact that US presidents are politicians (as functionaries!), but not rulers because they are dependent on their money lenders, donors, sponsors. Not only Russia has an interest in the erstwhile members of the USSR, but also the West, in spite of the fact that according to the deal I mentioned (see above) the West is not allowed to have an interest in the erstwhile members of the USSR. So the presumption is justified that the West is corrupt and that not the West itself - as a whole -, but his leaders, the globalists, have this interest and pretend as if the whole West would defend the so called free world. That's ridiculous!Please don't understand me wrong, because I am not saying that Putin is innocent. But the West is also not innocent.
D 63 wrote:
Obe wrote:
Leibniz, Wolff, Kant - that's the line from Leibniz to Kant (with some more philosophicalstations and persons between them, for example Martin Knutzen) which leads to many other lines, amongst others to Wilhelm von Humboldt. Why I am mentioning Wilhelm von Humboldt? Because of the fact that you mentioned Chomsky. Chomsky's linguistic theories are based on the philosophy and especially on the ideas of Leibniz and especially of Wilhelm von Humboldt (Neu-Idelaismus - New-Idealism). Generally it may be right to say that he is at first a Kantian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Humboldtian, but in some aspects (see above: linguistics) it is reverse: at first a Humboldtian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Kantian. Let's say he is a rationalist and idealist. |
537) Arminius, 11.08.2014, 01:30, 02:30, 02:25, 03:52, 04:21, 21:17, 22:07 (1776-1781)
The Artful Pauper wrote:
Before I answer that questions we should clarify something, I think. Would you please tell me what you mean when you are speaking of personal actions. Do you want to know whether I am a criminal? Or do you want to know whether I am a dropout who lives in a desert, or deep forest, or elsewhere, without any contact to the civilisation?In any case we must expect much, because the future will not be easy.Maybe, if history will end, the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).Or
maybe, if history ends, the humans will feel happy in the dictatorship of the
machines. |
1777 |
Arminius wrote:
»Maybe, if history will end, the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).« ** **
I don't see that one. Why would all technology (for example) be forgotten just because things stopped changing? **
1778 |
Thus the »language of the mind«, the »language of thought« is emulation of sensing, replaying events in the mind as though they were real. **
Verbal language is merely one of the sensing schemes that gets triggered into emulation (that inner voice as one thinks to himself). The verbal cues, although only emulated, trigger additional pondering/emulating that would not have taken place. Inwardly verbalizing thoughts is a means for reducing interference and focusing on a topic, as is writing it down. **
Machines, not having to deal with the medical interference that humans do, have no need to an inner voice. **
1779 |
1780 |
The weakness You pointed out, in the West, is taken Advantage .... **
1781 |
Arminius wrote:
»But at least as long as living beings, and especially human beings, will exist there will also be the questions: what was before 'Y'?, what was before 'X'?, ...?, and so on.« ** **
That is much like the questions concerning why the Sun and Moon rise and fall, what are those little sparkly things in the night sky, and from where did Man come? Do you still ask those questions with any substantial doubt? **
1782 |
In English:
hos·pice (hsps)
n.
1. A shelter or lodging for travelers, pilgrims, foundlings, or the destitute, especially one maintained by a monastic order.
2. A program that provides palliative care and attends to the emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients at an inpatient facility or at the patient's home.Although in the USA, it is a place where one goes to die. **
538) Arminius, 12.08.2014, 00:37, 01:28, 03:00, 18:01, 21:31, 21:34, 22:33 (1783-1789)
James S. Saint wrote:
Does it have to be democratic? And if so: why?You know that even SAM can merely be successful and more than ever democratically successful, if it remains a small common or corporation. But more than other forms of government democracy is prone to corruption. That is - b.t.w. - the reason why democracy has a shorter duration than other forms of government. But anyway: if this small commons or corporations do not grow in the long run, then they will have a chance. And this chance would grow, if each common or corporation would be more like a (for example!) city state, thus more like a republican aristocracy. I don't say this because of my own social and political belief or opinion, but because of the logic of SAM.James S. Saint wrote:
But you want to be successful in the long run.James S. Saint wrote:
The forms of history repeat. In other words: The time of SAM is going to come!
It is normal, typical for humans and their cultures to forget their technologies. For example: the technologies of the Mesopotamian culture, of the Egyptian culture, of the Apollinic (Greek/Roman) culture, and of the American (Maya/Inca) culture were forgotten after the death of this cultures. So I predict that the technologies of the Occidental culture will be forgotten after the death of the Occidental culture. Relating to the forgetfulness, it makes only a little difference that the Occidental culture is the only one which has conquered and captured the whole globe and parts of the universe.On average it is posible that it takes merely three or four generations, until cultural affairs are forgotten, if nothing is done against that forgetful development. You don't believe that? Remember the Roman history. When the Germans conquered Rome and the Roman territory the Romans had already forgotten many of their own technologies. Or remember the Aztecan history. When the Spanish conquered the Aztecan territory the Atztecs had already forgotten how to build their pyramids.
Eric the Pipe wrote:
Reforming Demography.If we really want to reform Western societies and economies, we must take into account the correlation between wealth, intelligence/knowledge and demography.Like I said: We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). ** **What is said in that video is merely partly right because it suggests that the knowledge would depend of the so called free market, and again: that is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a free market. (2.) Knowledgte depends also on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.When it comes to speak about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge for a society and its economy, then it is primarily important to do it (1.) in connection with culture, (2.) in connection with (the history of) culture, (3.) in connection with economy, .... That does not mean that economy is somehow unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological and cultural issue (remember and see above: long time) - and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western societies -, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present (although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but will not have anymore in the future.So first of all a society has to have
people with knowledge and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with
a trustful will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of this
people because they have enriched the economy and via economy also the society.
And b.t.w.: In order to get the final direction, this thread should not be called Reforming Democracy, but Reforming Demography(see above).
James S. Saint wrote:
This is reflected in my statements. I included it. My question wether it must be democratic was meant generally and related to the possibility that if SAM is democratic, it would get more and more under the control of the gloablists and their System of corruption. Then you wouldn't have a "SAM", but a "GANG".James S. Saint wrote:
But that is what makes SAM vulnerable to corruption, even if SAM remains small.James S. Saint wrote:
That's clear. I know that difference very well, James. So there is no problem of understanding that difference. If you are not any of them, but a member who is known by all other members, then it would be more probable that you can almost be sure that you are not corruptible. It depends on (1.) the social/political system you belong to, (2.) the personalities and characters of the members of the social/political system, and (3.) the might around you (currently the power of the globalists and their system). (1.) SAM for instance is perhaps democratic, but democracy means more vulnerable to corruption than other forms of government; and SAM has for example 4 groups - seers, strategists, doers, overseers -, and that doesn't sound like democracy, although SAM's smallness allows to call its social/political system democracy. (2.) One has to be sure, in spite of the smallness of SAM, that all members are not corruptible. (3.) The globalists as SAM's enemy can eliminate SAM, if it SAM not willing to be corrupt.Logically, SAM has firstly to be monarchic, then aristocratic, and at last democratic. Else you can't build it correctly. Check out the history of all hitherto successful companies/corporations! No one of them started democratically, but they all started monarchically, then they changed to aristocracy, and at last they perhaps changed to democracy (perhaps! because most of them did not want to change to democracy, but they lastly had to because the corruption had grown and forced them). It would be no good omen for SAM to start democratically, in spite of its smallness. Unless you could be sure that no one of its members is corruptible. But how can you be sure in that case? You can never be sure, but almost be sure, if your socíal/political system is monarchic, thus authoritarian.That's logical.
Affirmative action is racism and sexism, the increased form of racism.Affirmative action has such results (for example):- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqCLr6MSBWk. |
1788 |
1789 |
We are at a certain disadvantage in the west by a conflation between what human rights and laissez fair's corruptible sense of meaning may imply. **
539) Arminius, 13.08.2014, 00:34, 01:43, 02:36, 02:55, 16:39, 17:27, 18:13, 22:24, 23:24, 23:40, 23:49 (1790-1800)
James S. Saint wrote:
The Nazis were never conservative, on the contrary, the conservative humans were their greatest enemies. The only real (!) resistance against the Nazis were the conservative humans.- Lady Morphia, Widerstand, 2007.
Arcturus Descending wrote:
I do not anyway. But the Swedish Eija-Riitta Eklöf-Berliner-Mauer does! (**|**). Do you think that she lies?Arcturus Descending wrote:
That image should merely represent philosophy or thinking and a bit suggest that one can't love philosophy or thinking (**|**).
I estimate that merely 20% of this forum members are really interested in philosophy, the other 80% are not really interested in philosophy or even don't know what philosophy is, they just want to have fun, or even to derail, to troll, to insult, ... and so on. I guess, that if one asks for the emotional relationship to philosophy, the most of those 20% would say I like phislosophy, while the most of those 80% would say I love philosophy. That leads to the following questions:1.) Who are those 20% and 80%? |
1793 |
She actually married the Berlin Wall in 1979 .... **
She actually married the Berlin Wall in 1979 and when it was destroyed in 1989 it was a big tragedy for her. She created the term »Objectum Sexuality«, which means that the object has feelings and a sexual desire. (I wonder how that works) «We have an equal relationship and are not bothered about conventions, our story is one of two lovers and our souls will be connected eternally.« **
1794 |
Maybe they should have just cemented her into the wall. **
1795 |
Time does not cause change ....
Time is not an effect. **
1796 |
More than everybody here, added together. **
1797 |
The dying person is seldom told.
Machines care for elderly.
Japan, which has the world's oldest population, has allocated 2.39bn yen (£14.3m) in the 2013 budget to develop robots to help with care.
BBC wrote:
»Toyota is developing devices to help carry the elderly or provide mobility support and Toli Corp has created a mat with a wireless sensor that can track and deliver feedback if an elderly person is moving around.
A special robot with 24 fingers has been developed for hair washing and head massage, useful if a person has limited arm movement. It is something Panasonic has also tried out in Japanese hair salons.« **
Let's look to Japan in order to see what will happen also in North America and Europe soon. How man more people will than become redundant, unemployed. The maintenance area, the area of caretakers, which is currently booming in Europe, will then be mechanised. ** **
1798 |
Like I said: I don't love philosophy, I like philosophy. So before I give you a "number from -100 to +100", I would like to determine that scale a little bit, for example in this way:
-100 to -51) I hate ...;
-50 to -1) I dislike ...;
+1 to +50) I like ...;
+51 to +100) I love ....1. How much are you attracted towards philosophy (say, love philosophy)? My answer according to the scale: 40 to 50.
2. How deep are you interested in philosophy? My answer according to the scale: 90 to 100.But again and again: I don't love philosophy, I like philosophy. Although I like philosophy very much, I don't love philosophy.
What about you? ** **
1799
Once any party obtains control, they become conserving of their control, the »conservative party« actively resisting any change from that control: »We like it the way it is.« **
1800
540) Arminius, 14.08.2014, 00:30, 01:43, 01:45, 02:29, 04:19, 17:50, 18:36, 23:17, 23:35 (1801-1809)
Interterrestrial wrote:
Arcturus Descending, are you alive? And if you think that you are: do you also know that you are alive? I can't believe it!Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive!
Laughing Man wrote:
That's true!You stole my words, Laughing Man.
This is always the same:Please follow the arrow!And the process is a circular / elliptic or a spiral motion.Almost like the one which is shown in the picture on the right side.The motions of the planets and their moons are also spiral motions, even the motion of the sun is a spiral motion. And the motions of the planets and their moons belong to the motion of the sun. There is perhaps only one or even no arrow in the universe because all orbits in the universe universe belong probably either to one spiral (one arrow) or to one circular / elliptic (no arrow) orbit.Naturally / universally considered, the forms of government have also only one or even no arrow / goal. That is the reason why we often say: always the same. IT's just true.
If I had to distribute the current 31 ILP smilies on the 80% philosophy lovers/haters and the 20% philosophy likers/dislikers, I would do as follows:- Philosophy lovers/saters
(80%): (24
several smilies). |
1806 |
Is that suppose to be Rodin's (?) Thinker? **
That doesn't seem compelling enough. **
One can grow and thrive on what philosophy brings to them. I suppose we can use the word "enamored". For me, it's seeking the truth, no matter where I find it or how it makes me feel. I think I actually enjoy and am turned on more by science than philosophy. **
Interterrestrial wrote:
»For example, arcturus descending claims that she knows that she is alive.« **
Arcturus Descending, are you alive? And if you think that you are: do you also know that you are alive? I can't believe it!
Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive! ** **
1807 |
1808 |
No fundamental distinction can be made between science and religion. **
RELIGION => THEOLOGY (DIVINITY) => PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE => NEW THEOLOGY (NEW DIVINITY) => NEW RELIGION. |
1809 |
Arminius wrote:
»This thread is not about art, but about philosophy; and this thread is also not about aesthetics, but about one's emotional relationship to philosophy.« ** **
The title could also be about how we perceive things and lie to ourselves .... **
==>
|