Donnadogsoth

How about communication, as between freely willed entities? I am not forcing you to believe me, I am making my case and you decide within your own sovereign mind how you shall respond. It is possible to force another person's mind through brain-manipulation, tricks, fraud, confidence artistry, but, outside of that we do not force, we persuade. Perhaps, though, ultimately everything is persuasion. Is not the nail I strike with a hammer waiting for that particular "statement" by the hammerhead in order to agree to go into the wood? Then, every tool is persuasive in its own way. Even argumentation wins by its "force" or "power" of thought. "Force" as I've been using it refers to outside the sovereign mind of man. Even if technically everything is persuasion, the quality of persuasion demanded by the sovereign, functioning mind is such that it is not the type of force that is akin to money's force-like nature.

Without the PSR, all is chaos. You may subscribe to occasionalism, but, I see there no "reason" to join you! "Probability" means "we don't know the cause but can make a bet". Is that the Universe you ascribe to? A gambling house, maybe with little green men under the floorboards of reality rolling dice to decide what happens? A Gnostic Universe, in other words, where the obvious and everyday are incomprehensible "its" controlled by the Absolute Chaos on the other side.

Eyeglasses force light to bend a certain way. Computers force electrons. Pens force ink onto paper. Engines force wheels to turn. No?

What will will take his place?

Hammer a nail? Is that not force?

This condition of the Universe falls, for the ordinary person, into the category of what philosophers call "brute facts"--facts that "just are," that exist "for no reason" but exist all the more indubitably and solidly for all that. This violates the principle of sufficient reason, and any such violation destroys the validity of science and reason and, so, must be guarded against. The modern "quantum mechanics" explanation for the Universe being the way it is, leans on the so-called Many World Theory, which says that, in fact, all permutations of possible Universes exist simultaneously. And then...? And then it falls flat back into the problem posed. Why should the Uni- or, rather, Multiverse exist in a condition that it is? To this, silence. The only answer to the problem is will. Will is that quality of mind which effects change. In a monad, an individual, that individual requires both perception in order to know what to change, and desire or appetition or will in order to change it. Without these characteristics there is nothing in the Universe that can be termed "substance"--nothing substantial. So, in a Universe of change, all change is wrought by will; that which wills not, is not, in any substantial sense. And the Universe is, overall, the way it is because of a capital Will, which is our only escape from brute fact.

Doesn't DeVos basically want to destroy public education? Is this bad?

HOPE by Friedrich Schiller translated by William F. Wertz All people discuss it and dream on end Of better days that are coming, After a golden and prosperous end They are seen chasing and running The world grows old and grows young in turn, Yet doth man for betterment hope eterne. ’Tis hope delivers him into life, Round the frolicsome boy doth it flutter, The youth is lured by its magic rife, It won’t be interred with the elder; Though he ends in the coffin his weary lope, Yet upon that coffin he plants—his hope. It is no empty, fawning deceit, Begot in the brain of a jester, Proclaimed aloud in the heart it is: We are born for that which is better! And what the innermost voiceconveys, The hoping spirit ne’er that betrays

Without will, change is a brute fact, inexplicable, and, so, in violation of the principle of sufficient reason.

All other tools are inferior to money. Imagine you had an infinitude of hammers. What could you do with them? But an infinitude of money is infinitely more efficient and versatile. Tools are force, they have a force-nature to them. That force-nature is retained by money, to infinity in principle. Thus, to love money, one is loving that omnipotent force-nature above all things and that love is the root of all evil. Money is associated with water. We call cash “currency”. We keep it in a (river) “bank”. We “liquidate” our assets. We have a "floating" exchange rate. Is there a better metaphor than water for money? If we hold to my theory that money has a force-nature then we can ask if there is anything more destructive on this planet than water—tidal waves, floods, ice storms, rot, disease? And water is our primary bodily component, something like 67 percent of our bodies is water, and over 90 percent of our blood. Water is the basis for all known life. Loving money is thus in a sense loving the flesh over the divine. If there were some way to associate money with fire, rather than water, money would “lift up” towards a divinity as the ancients thought fire was the most divine of all the elements. Today we know “fire” is “plasma” or the fourth state of matter. Sounds futuristic. Good pride: Joy in accomplishment is a natural and good reward for one's good labour. One may take pride in one's group's accomplishments if that spurs one on to one's own accomplishment. Bad pride: Arrogance about one's accomplishments or non-accomplishments. Pride in one's group's accomplishments may become an excuse for laziness.

Thanks for this excerpt, Tyler. It makes a good case, but is not quite what I'm talking about. The problem, of course, is not that money is evil. I would even be willing to at least consider Rand's proposition that money is the root of all good, if it represents the dynamic between goods, ideas, and mind. If money is a tool, the problem is that one can come to love the tool, above all other things. Then the tool becomes a god, and the poetry of life gives way to moral silence.

The Jews are afraid of what will happen if Whites become nationalistic again. Last time it turned out badly.

White guilt.

The heart of man is desperately wicked with propensity to sin. The self wants, and it wants to have most efficiently, and nothing is more efficient than Money, effectively something-for-nothing. There it has found its God. Thus, love of Money is behind all idols which are behind all sins.

Hypocrisy is an idol to the self. It is a luxury. And if the hypocritical man could buy that luxury instead of working for it, he would. Ergo, love of money or Mammon is the idol behind the idol of the hypocritical self.

Thank you. I'll try not to disappoint you! Call it “necessary panpsychism,” for experience is the primary level of experience. All percepts or predicates are predicates in the awareness of an experiencing being. Try defining what the essence is of a grape without relying on any sense-data or other information that comes to us as experience. In the end, there is only your mind which is having experiences, and any other (invisible) minds which are having their experiences. If the grape exists in-of-itself, then the only substance that fits that bill is consciousness or experience (composed of what Leibniz called perception and appetition or desire). I happen to think grapes are rather full of themselves due to their Roman heritage of being fed to patricians by their slaves, but, in any case, the grape must have some kind of experience, presumably of wanting to be eaten and so to fulfill its intended purpose. Jumping from that ridiculously banal example to the æternal machine, whatever rudimentary consciouness the grape has must be trumped colossally at the opposite extreme for the Origin itself. Or else the Origin is a mere percept, which means it isn't itself, which means solipsism.

Money is no more corrupting than land or livestock or a personal aeroplane. It's the love of money that's corrupting. Let me be clear, I'm not saying "loving a coin" is the root of all evil, nor that enjoying prosperity is; I'm saying that loving Money as an idea, even an idea that has yet to reify, as with the paleolithic, is the problem. I conjecture that, just as behind all numerable numbers there is Number, and behind all spinnable stories there is Story, and behind all utterable entities there is the Word, so behind all sin and false gods there is Money. Even an inaccurate choice of modern classroom mathematics such as one based on Newtonian deductive axioms rather than a Keplerian principles and synthetic geometry, which has disastrous effects on human creativity, is in a sense monetary. Even the garden of Eden's tree of knowledge of good and evil bore, in the end, golden fruit that the serpent beguiled such a love of into Eve, that she with her unfallen nature would not have normally had, and she beguiled Adam, and thus there was the first sin: pride. ETA: Behind every sin is a false god, and behind all false gods is love of money.

So far, this thread has floated hypocrisy, nihilism, child abuse, jealousy, envy, and collectivism as the “roots of all evil”. The worst sin in the Old Testament was idolatry. This is why Jesus scourged the money-lenders and drove them from the Temple. This sin's magnitude is reinforced by Jesus' first commandment that thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart. So, idolatry is the worst form of deviation because it takes one's eyes off of God and puts them onto an idol of some kind, subject to one's sinful whims. Money can be such an idol. The difference between money and other idols, however, is the abstract force-like nature of money. The soul who loves money wishes it could buy everything, sees in it a symbol of everything, including the purchasing of hypocrisy itself. Money as a god annihilates other gods and concerns, displaces love of children, makes one jealous or envious, and corrupts the nation. The love of money is sloth, wrath, envy, pride, lust, gluttony, and greed incarnate. One can be slothful or greedy without loving money in a literal, conscious sense, but, so, one loves it as a god outside of the one God, secretly, and that secret love ramifies one's life. Just as modernists, collectivists especially, deny Original Sin, so do men deny that Mammon is the false god of false gods. For, what do we call what a man values but his "treasure"?

Love of money. He who loves money wishes he could buy everything: immortality, luxury, love, art not for sale, the deaths of his enemies, status, divine power, his neighbour's wife, even the ultimate luxury of hypocrisy. He loves the force-like nature of money and wishes it were absolute. This sets up a corruption in his soul from which all manner of evils may spring. This is most evident in the present condition of Terra under the rule of the worshippers of Mammon. Someone who murders doesn't necessarily wish to avoid being murdered himself; look at murder-suicides.

I'm saying there are no emergent properties, and all is explicable-in-principle. For, for anything to be inexplicable-in-principle and thus violating the PSR, is to contaminate the entire Universe with irrationality, since all things are in relationship to all other things, and if one thing were irrational, its reflection into the monads of every other respective thing would place an irrational spot there. Since monads are parts-less, such a spot could not be isolated and sequestered, but would exist as a tincture of the entire monad, making its entirety irrational. Therefore, all monads would be irrational, no principles would apply, and occasionalism would be the only way to truthfully explain the nature of the Universe.

Billionaire closer to mining the moon for trillions of dollars in riches "According to co-founder and chairman Naveen Jain, "Moon Express now has all the capital it needs to land its small robotic spacecraft on the surface of the moon in November or December of 2017." The company's goal is twofold: 1) mine the moon for valuable resources, such as Helium-3, gold, platinum group metals, rare earth metals and water; and 2) help researchers develop human space colonies for future generations. "The ability to mine Helium-3 could have a tremendous impact on Earth and the environment. Helium-3 is a clean, non-radioactive energy source that could potentially power nuclear fusion reactors. Theoretically, a relatively small amount could produce enough clean fuel to power entire industries, if not the entire planet. It's for this reason that the Chinese have also announced plans to mine Helium-3 on the moon. "Another draw is tapping water on the moon's surface. Hydrogen and oxygen can then be separated to create rocket fuel for deep-space missions to Mars and beyond. Essentially, the moon can serve as a fueling station for spacecraft."

Yes, that which cannot be explained in principle, cannot exist, for it would violate the principle of sufficient reason.

And, did Marxism go anywhere or do anything of note, on anything resembling a large scale, without first incubating within and developing its elabourate theory (Marx, Engels) in response to, Christendom? You wrote: "To your title, I'd correct it to Christianity - God = Judeoprotestant (Judeochristian an aporia) => Freemasonary => Judaism" as if Judaism didn't have a God to be deducted. I found that confusing. Are there any Jewish scriptures supporting modern Marxism, even proto-Marxist?

Since substance is both necessarily conscious, to whatever degree, and the efficient cause of its own self-transformation, then it requires will (what Leibniz called "appetition") to do so.

Confucius say, Mountain say to miner: pick on someone your own size!