luxfelix

I'm pretty sure I caught all the references, but the 4th one (space monkey) was the hardest one for me to understand (it's scatological humor, no?). Also, a few friends of mine started an online comic (and eventually other media) company, and they're looking for more talent. (I recently took a trip to New York Comic Con to help sell comics at their booth and I had a blast!) At the very least, I can e-mail introduce you since you two share career goals, if you'd like.

Thank you for your opinions. I'm guessing we at least share common ground when it comes to the idea that the official story is inaccurate?

Cool beans! (I'm now following so I should get an update when it's posted.)

No worries, I didn't think you were condescending. That's true with Grug, and his growth as a character reinforced the values he already had (love for family). Oh yeah, when/where does that take place by the way?

Picture01 It's hard to tell if you're being sincere or not. I could be wrong, but your last post might be a straw-man fallacy. (It's okay, I know I've done this before too. It just takes some practice. )

Yeah... I suppose it is low-hanging fruit to make that connection. I could be wrong but, wasn't Guy homo sapiens while the Croods were neanderthals? Also, I thought at first that there was going to be the dumb dad trope (as in contemporary sitcoms), but I'm glad that didn't end up being the case.

The following video is not as in-depth on the scientific evidence, but relevant starting at 1:17:00 (it's one of those documentaries about developments and innovations in human domestication... it's good if you are fuzzy on history, but it's also loooong... ). There's also a dark comedy moment about double-speak at 1:35:00 (and earlier about news report stage sets to support the PR campaign for the Gulf War...).

Stefan Molyneux mentioned in one of his videos, something along the lines that, you can't hold a movement/group/etc. responsible for the actions of its members; however, you can hold them accountable for how they respond to those members and/or explain how they don't/didn't follow their established tenets... (I think this came up after a men's conference he attended where they received bomb threats and had to relocate the conference?) It also kinda follows that idea about declaring that north is the correct direction to get to your destination while then proceeding to go south (or in this case, to then begin to dig and dig and dig...).

I saw it! I interpreted it as a remix of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. (Put up a spoiler alert and lets discuss. )

I wasn't originally, but in post #26 of this thread he expressed that he was here primarily to learn, and he mentions a personal experience with government unable to help him much (the source for the bomb going off in his brain?); however, the turn to fascism, as well as his emphasis on the logic of violence (despite using happiness as a gauge for ethics...), presents, at least, a disconnect. (If the violence of the state could not solve the problem (and/or if it was not the cause...?), why would more state violence solve the problem?) I could be wrong, but it sounds like an ideology impassioned by a desire for vengeance through political power. Ken, if you are here to learn, I recommend you address why it is you feel this way; I think you'll agree that you must know yourself as well as your enemy in order to triumph.

Possible free-market solution to anonymity/troll problems: vid01 Plus, as Kevin Beal pointed out, many people here use pseudonyms while retaining decorum.

With reference to Stefan Molyneux's video about Robin Williams, it sounds like Bill Clinton also has to be himself + well-liked; however, whereas Robin Williams worked to provide value (via comedy) to others, Bill Clinton... took a darker path...

On language: I do enjoy etymology as a kind of "human history/migration of thought". Through the Language Glass by Guy Deutscher was an interesting read which asks questions, such as, if-and-how language (and thinking patterns...) affects our perceptions (and he references studies and experiments conducted with these questions in mind). (Side note: I attended a session by the language creator for the Game of Thrones series, and the way he described how he came up with the Dothraki language was, more-or-less, this process in reverse.) On Confucius: I can see that. His premises for calling things by their proper names (a.k.a. accurate names) and focusing on the family may fit nicely with this community; However, his use of families to support the state (as one large family?) sends off sophist alarm bells. So, in addition to drawing parallels, is this thread also about finding the nuggets of golden truth in the surrounding dirt of fallacies, or perhaps more appropriate, discovering philosophical Rosetta Stones with archaeological case studies?

Ah, that's right. So, as it is the beginning of wisdom to call things by their proper name (-Confucius), there's also a consistency of behavior/meaning with regards to ethics/philosophy/etc. that transcends language/culture/allegory; 2 + 2 = 4 == two plus two equals four == dos más dos son cuatro (etc.). If you're reading a text or conversing with someone from a different culture, than this will be helpful to keep in mind; at least etymology from Greek and Latin origins helped(?) cultures of the "Philosophy Club" recognize common meanings between different words, it just takes a little more effort to translate more distant cultures and compare behaviors to discover that they do have parallels.

I like the premise of this thread as (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong ) a way to show historical examples of philosophy/ethics/etc. generating outside of the "philosophy club" of the "West" in various cultures around the world (how it is truly universal). (I'm referring to Stefan Molyneux's example in the "Truth About Slavery" video?) I wonder if there's a Pre-Colombian UPB from the Americas...?

Some support:

Maybe this can be accomplished through societal ostracism (as in the Downton Abbey video) and/or the bargaining mechanism, borrowing from the DRO concept (in this case, based ultimately on customer choice for patent holders)? Relevant portion starts at 02:50 for bargaining mechanism:

I'm reminded of the production triangle where each corner represents "fast", "cheap", and "good" respectively, and we can only choose two. This could be inaccurate to the conversation, yet it sounds as though peaceful parenting/self-knowledge/ethics-based relationships would occupy the "good" and "cheap" corners (where "cheap" is interpreted as generally less expensive than, say, an armed rebellion in terms of life/property/opportunity cost). Although it would be swell to see a peaceful society at large in our lifetimes, If slow and steady will win this race, then it will be worth it for peoples in the future.

I really like this idea! Where/how did you come up with idea to design an armorial achievement?

Ah, me too! For anyone reading this, go check out the link if you've not seen the video before (it's less than ten minutes). Here's another version about five minutes long:

A common theme in horror, haunting in particular, is that of the replaying of trauma; some of these stories feature a detective element that suggests that if the trauma can be addressed, then the ghost/spirit/tulpa can at last rest in peace. There can be something reassuring about this, that one can address past traumas (through the process of self-knowledge) and release the stress, coming to catharsis. The theory in the following video is more of the, "this person's eternal torture will serve as a lesson to others" view of horror; a consequence for heinous acts that, imagining the criminal's perspective, leaves a lingering horror:

I think it's just a misunderstanding; That post was in response to EndTheUsurpation as an attempt to translate a series of poetic stanzas (appeals to the senses) into philosophical terms and to see if it is still of value there as well, or if it only serves as flowery language (like if it's an accurate model of a Hydrogen atom or something painted in visually appealing paints and brushstrokes ). If it does hold up well in both languages (or is at least able to be adjusted into an accurate model that is of value and interest), then I would attempt to then translate it into scientific terms; Anything that does not fit with all three languages simultaneously would then be removed from that center section of "white light" to streamline/refine an answer to the original post of this thread. The criticisms are generally self-directed since I'm learning to improve my philosophical and scientific language skills, and since I find it easiest to communicate through an artistic perspective that, on its own, is at best incomplete, and at worst is sophistry.

At first I thought it read, "or is this a fallacyyyyyy"

Thank you. It's funny that you mention sleep, because the five stanzas were a result of automatic-ish writing (more akin to dream journaling actually). God as a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment sounds like a fair interpretation (I'll come back to this). I included the stanzas as a response to the original post, that what might convince one of god's existence would be a redefining (I can see how that would also set off a sophist alarm bell). (The other questions might be, "is that even necessary? Is there anything from the pantheon of history worth keeping or studying?") (Regarding redefinition, that there is no square circle, but we could make a square shape by lining up multiple circles might fall under the "moving the goal post" problem in an attempt to prove its possibility based on one's perspective... it's poor execution... we can do better... ) The five stanzas are structured in a way that redefines god multiple times (which is likely unhelpful...) while focusing on numerical perspective: (1) That the supernatural (god) is natural (phenomena i.e. Zeus's lightening) = they are one (everything is made from the same stuff/energy?) = 1/1 = cancelling out = no distinction necessary = "god" is then a misnomer for the unknown. (2) Further elaborating that the split (designating something like a god that is exempt and/or separate from the world) is an illusion (mirage) that serves the conquerors (supported by sophists) whose will it is to divide and conqueror = us vs. them (or self-attack...) = 1/2, however =/= 2/1 as "bad" (male/female, night/day, etc.), just that the separate designation of an arbitrary exception with regards to universal claims is self-detonating (i.e. sending someone a letter describing how letters never get delivered...). (3) Introducing a triptych perspective of viewing "god", as defined through Science/conscious (god as algorithm), Art/subconscious (god as awe), and Philosophy/collective conscious(?) (god as misnomer) = 3/3 = Red, Green, and Blue light mixing to form white light = all three needed for an accurate and complete definition of god. (4) Using a three-ringed Venn diagram to describe stages of knowledge (for both individuals and society at large?) from what can be labeled "true" from all three (logos, pathos, and ethos), what can only be labeled "true" from one or two of the three, what can only be labeled "true" by one of the three, and what can not be labeled "true"/is unknown to any of the three = 4/4 = "enlightenment leads to benightedness, science entails nescience" -Philippe Verdoux = god as the unknown -or- god as man's quest to know = there is no direction on the diagram that one could go to "reach god" (the unknown) but through an expansion of the center section via expansion in the field(s) of your choosing (mixing what you discover with the discoveries of others to form more and more "white light"). (5) Continuing with an explanation of how that expansion can take place through exchanges within a free market = god as a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment (I like the way you summed it up by the way!) = the invisible hand of the market = 5/5 (as in five fingers and also possibly for capital archetypes...?) = the will (god as will?) prerequisite to trade freely = increasing levels of complexity and entropy(?). ... I hope this was a helpful unpacking (I know it's long...).

From what I understand, copyright and patents are both forms of intellectual property; what is the fundamental difference between the two? I'm describing options from what I've learned about how free markets work, as well as my limited experience interacting with others for mutual gain. In your example, Goodyear may or may not have agreed to use and respect a patent system. If they signed with a DRO that does not acknowledge patents, then you could try to work cooperatively with them for future gains or refuse to share any future discoveries with them etc. until they agree to acknowledge your patents. Thank you for your clarification. If that's the way you feel, then continue to work with patents. I do not fault you for using them now, and even in a free society I would not fault you for using them; patent systems do not have to be the casus belli they oft become, and if you continue to profit from a patent system without inflicting violence on others than more power to you! One more example I would like to share: Patents/copyrights are not used in the fashion industry, and yet there are many examples of wealthy couturiers. They actively copy each other and do not fear losing profits to knock-off brands. I want you to succeed without misgivings because you've expressed your concerns and intent to be moral, and you obviously have the know-how to invent and profit from your work; that is the purpose of this thread is it not?