Donnadogsoth

Existential threat: Islam? The derivatives bubble? No, "nuclear power"! By which you mean "nuclear fission," which is already obsolete. Nuclear FUSION holds great promise and is a very clean source of power. So, fine, end fission, but replace it with fusion or else you're not serious about solving the energy crunch this side of condemning people to power-poverty.

They also lacked the KNOWLEDGE that said resources even existed.

What do you suppose the tipping point is, whereupon the people will realise the State is their enemy, because the State disallows them from defending themselves AND imports the very hateful unassimilables that they need defense from?

Maybe you already grasp the problem. What you don't seem to grasp is that there are people with the capacity to grasp the problem who simply haven't been exposed to the truth. The greater the saturation of reports of the extent and consequences of the current alien invasion, the higher the chances are these people will come to understand the danger.

My idea of a thought experiment is Einstein throwing a ball on a moving train. That's something that could actually happen in the real world, but which is difficult to arrange or measure in the real world. Rooms with no laws of physics aren't what I would call valid thought experiments. Life as a whole is negentropic, but the death of an individual is entropic, or else entropy has no meaning. Yes, energy can be recycled, but a dead body is less creative than a live one, less in accord with the Golden Section. The remains of a live body can be exploited by other live bodies, but a world of dead bodies will not exploit anything but simply return to dust. I would direct astrophysicists and quantum mechanic scientists to the Schiller Institute as they know and can explain these things better than I. Do you believe science can discover anything, or is just an endless, farcical quest for non-knowledge?

Colour me thick but I don't understand how room 1 is relevant if it contains conditions that never obtain. The negentropic processes (birth, growth) alternate with entropic ones (death, decay). My point is the Universe is primarily characterised by the former and only secondarily by the latter, unlike modern classroom physics which is sitting in its comfortable (entropic) chair.

I'm not claiming the Universe is a closed system in the sense that the "heat death" believers would have it. It is certainly "open" to new complexities. (I'm not sure I understand the thought experiment. In Room 1 we have no laws of physics and a collection of objects that just sit there. In Room 2 the objects clatter to the floor. Neither are expressed negentropy as I understand it, there is a kind of order to their existence in either room but the second room could as easily be termed the high-entropy one as work is being performed that accomplishes no higher complexity.)

I hold God as the Creator but His method with regards life is evolution. Evolution is how God creates new species. So I think you may have misread me on that count. On negentropy the question is the grandest possible: the destiny of the Universe. According to modern, accepted classroom physics, the Universe, being a closed system, is subject to entropy and will eventually "die" in a "heat death" some trillions or quadrillions of years in the future, at which point all usable energy will be depleted and scattered throughout the cosmos. I disagree with this understanding of the Universe and hold that the Universe is negentropic, in the sense that it will continually give rise to new and higher forms of complexity with no principled limit. Merely rearranging the items in a box is not negentropy in that sense; evolving vision, is.

Take a look at this: pg 31, "Thus, Newton was correct in blaming his choice of Cartesian algebraic mathematics for the "clock-winder" fallacy "hereditarily" embedded within his Principia as a whole." etc. It doesn't source the quote but refers to the quote. As I consider Fidelio more reliable than the typical mainstream news provider I have faith that the quote is true. http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fidelio_archive/1992/fidv01n03-1992Fa/fidv01n03-1992Fa_016-on_the_subject_of_metaphor-lar.pdf

The thread topic wasn't exactly boiling, so I see no trouble in expanding on a tangent, especially one that relates both to a child's education and to the economy in which that child will find itself. The astrophysical world, the microphysical world, to my knowledge, display a geometry characteristic of life. That is the astrophysical, the microphysical, and the biotic are all characteristically negentropic in their geometries. That is as much proof as we need to infer that the universe is primarily negentropic, only secondarily entropic. As Newton said, the clockwinding universe is an absurd model deriving not from empirical experiment but from choice of mathematics.

Newton wrote that his mathematics convey the impression the universe is winding down like a mechanical clock. That there are phases of entropy isn't the point, the point is that the universe itself is negentropic, and eternal, as Newton's universe was outside of his choice of mathematics.

It is presented as a universal physical principle when it is not universal. The universe itself is not entropic, but negentropic. The universe is not "winding down" into entropic disorder, a conclusion Newton admitted was due to his choice of mathematics, and not accurate about the universe as a whole.

Outside of classical art, the eventual standard is what we have now: anything goes. If you know of principles, I'm all ears. I am always eager to learn new principles. Are they akin to the principles the Schiller Institute talks about, art (Shakespeare) and science (Gauss), or are they more akin to faux principles like the oligarchal principle or the second law of thermodynamics?

Van Gogh, Dali, and Escher are not classical artists. Drugs and non-classical art(ists) may be related, but was Shakespeare high? Was Mozart high? I doubt it. High on beauty maybe, not hashish or heroin. I take the views of those who have dedicated their lives to the cause of classical art: the Schiller Institute. Non-classical artists may have the best of intentions in bettering humanity, but their art (shit on canvas or whatever's in vogue now) is at cross-purposes with their aim. Noise is not harmony. My best guess is the education of children is a huge effort that spans decades and chiefly involves immersing them in beauty and teaching them to hate ugliness. The development of the genius personality is not replicated by censoring every line or colour choice, but by guiding them towards echoing Nature, towards understanding principle, and towards developing love toward their fellows. A child obsessing over anti-classical violence would be an example of a case of concern, yes.

The notion that narcotics helped produce classical art is, we might say, highly dubious. Classical art is intended to better humanity. Jazz is intended to entertain and supplant high culture. (That was one of its original names, "The art of destruction". For more information about jazz music, see http://www.wlym.com/archive/campaigner/8009.pdf) IF we want a rational society, THEN we should promote those forms of art that reshape the mind to be more rational.

Sounds like we've stepped into an illusion, or a delusion, about where good order comes from. As I have emphasised previously, in other locations, the culture is important. There needs to be a strong, ordering culture in order to produce a good society. That's one reason why multiculturalism is so horrifying, it's anti-order. Feminism here as you've described is anti-male-order, thinking that the de-masculinised society will refashion itself to better care for women (and children). Others have noted that feminism and related attitudes have inflected male responsibility for women's safety onto the police. But as we see with sex ring and rape scandals in Cologne and other parts of Germany, and in places like England and Sweden, the police have turned against women for fear of being perceived--by women--as racist. This is a capital irony. Feminism is now eating its own children.

Watching this back-and-forth, I think the most important lesson to be learned here from AccuTron is that Europa's moral degradation is such that it has created this problem in first place. The shields are down, we are in a position of weakness, and our leaders have stirred up foreign wars and strife. That women have become skanks is just a symptom, a little whore's blossom, of the greater problem that is we let these bastards in here in the first place.

Is that true for Arabia?

Confucius say... ..."Grasp one principle, and one grasps the Idea of Principle." ..."Science or art, no matter, what matters is one grasps the Idea." ..."The wise know the wise as the loving know the loving--words and deeds." ..."The wisest will find a way that is authoritative and practical." If I knew art as I should I would be able to lead you through an understanding of such works as “Ode on a Grecian Urn” but I know very little. I know of such principles, is all. Consider the following article addressing “Urn,” more Keats and Shakespeare. Read it and tell me what you get from it. An Evening in the 'Simultaneity of Eternity' with Shakespeare, Keats, and William Warfield by Dan Leach http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/013_poetry.html Men may prefer narcotics to lived life; so they may prefer non-classical arts to classical ones. That most people don't prefer it doesn't make it inferior. We have had massive infusions of non-classical, highly refined music—refined like coca leaves are refined--pushed on the populace, to ensure they don't prefer what is best. However, that someone prefers classical music over non doesn't prove anything. One may like the right things for the wrong reasons, and such a fan may be simply addicted to it without “getting” what it means. So one may like the wrong things, or like the right things for the wrong reasons. Do I like classical music, for example? Somewhat, but I recognise that I should like it, and so I listen to it more than I otherwise am inclined to. Universal principles akin to doubling the square—principles that hold everywhere and at all times. Artistic principles must be those which apply to all people's minds, though we must grant that some people are too damaged to participate in them. The essential point is ideas. As Schiller put it, we seek to educate the emotions, such that men cease to become beasts and become proper men. Merely knowing about science or about art isn't enough, one must be changed by it. Whether or not you slap a “I love classical music” button on your sweater makes no difference. A society could conceivably laud classical music and be rankly immoral.

Some here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45553-religion-of-peace/?hl=+dsayers%20+donnadogsoth and here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44880-why-does-god-need-to-be-outside-of-time/page-3?hl=%20torbald%20%20donnadogsoth in the spirit of Will Torbald's condemnation of Christianity: “You cannot save the world from evil with more evil. You can't free the world with enslaving dogma. You can't enlighten minds with obscurantism. You can't bring reason to ignorants with superstition. Christianity will never save the world. It will only shroud it back to the middle ages. It is pure bigotry and authoritarianism. “ Do you agree with that condemnation? Such sentiment can't avoid leading to negative reps, if people vote where their mouths are. In a “free society” majority of such sentiment can lead to your power, water, trade ability etc., being cut off by “free” and “rational” people until you stop teaching your children Christian beliefs. I can't believe you don't smell the implications here. The implicit understanding on this board is that Ancap is not merely a “free society” but a rational one, and that to achieve it a majority of the population would have to be rational enough to become free, which means rational enough to become atheist. “Bigots,” “authoritarians,” and “superstitious” people (e.g., Christians) would lack the moral integrity to become free. The problem with Mormonism, down to brass tacks, is its ignorance of high culture. I won't say it's incompatible with high culture, but it doesn't lead anyone to it. It's just “a religion” that exists in its dimension of religiosity, like any other religion. So it has to be judged based on whether it leads to, or ignores, or leads away from high culture, classical culture. If your kids were a bad influence on my kids in terms of encouraging them to deny any principle of art or science, then I wouldn't let them play with mine. If they're playing Romeo and Juliet together or doubling the cube or what have you then that's great. If they're denying the Crucifixion then there's a problem. I appreciate your interest, but ask you: do you separate your Christianity from classical culture? Do you see the need for a Christianity that is reconciled with classical culture rather than being hermetically sealed from it in a bubble? The danger is that we view our religion as an otherworldly enterprise that has nothing to do with the political situation of today. Christ's Crucifixion is intimately related with the Glass-Steagall Act, if we know how to look. This entire complex is the only place the maximum freedom for mankind will emerge from, not from atheistic, bigotted, sterile NAP worship.

Not "appreciate 'high art'" in the sense of merely being afficionados, but people who have grasped and internalised the universal principles contained within classical art, which are akin to the universal physical principles of science. Such people would constitute the best-educated and most moral of people, and thus the best judges of whether or not a child is being abused.

High culture is maintained by the initiated. People who understand Keat's "Ode on a Grecian Urn" and kindred examples of classical art, which collectively form high culture.

What's your take on an autarchic family that is indifferent to being cut off from "the people who decide whether to do business or voluntarily engage" but which is abusing their children? What I mean is, when do you invade their property and forcibly take their children?

Who gets to decide what is and isn't "abuse"?

Confucius Say... ..."Without high culture binding us together, free market society tears us apart." ..."Take children away if they're denied high culture and a chance to participate in the creative life of the nation." ..."Do not take children away merely if they're raised as Christians."