Donnadogsoth

We confront paradoxes produced by comparing sense data with our preconceptions. The solution is produced and checked by creative reason, a principle, which I imagine must be consistent, and in a sense empirical (even the doubling of the square is empirical), though we don't fancy ourselves empiricists as such, because empiricism is not the end of the matter, principle is the end of the matter. Beyond this I do not know.

I'm saying that the principles are primary, and the sense-impressions are secondary. The principles all add up and are non-contradictory, which in total form the totality of truth.* The sense-impressions, however, are subject to paradoxes when compared with any given current state of scientific knowledge, and this paradox is the basis for a new discovery of principle. So the mind is always present as the repository of both principle and sense-impressions, but the principles are the truths we can dig out of the paradoxical earth of the senses. * This totality is inaccessible, but ever-approachable, like a positive infinity is ever-approachable by an increase in a natural number count.

The more principles we understand, the more we can understand principle. These conversations never get anywhere, because we are studying different ideological source documents. What I have studied have led me to principle, including the creative principle of human mentation, as being primary, and sense impressions being secondary generations or shadows cast by the primary interactions of the aforementioned principles. That is my working hypothesis. Others appear to rely in empiricism and materialism as primary, that the rock, or the orange, or the computer chip is somehow privileged to be primary, and principles are secondary, mere descriptions of empirical interactions but not above them, rather than true substance, as I hold.

A book I've read, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism by Steve Goreham talked about this, but it's good to have an update; thanks.

First, I haven't managed to double the cube, whether it's me or it's badly explained or both I don't know. Maybe you can shed light on that for me. Second, I have managed to put the principle of squaring behind me, so I have a touchstone on a principle; do we both have the same touchstone? Which relates to my most basic point in this thread. Third, does the giraffe have the volume of the doubled cube?

Look at it this way: if you're a member of the elite, do you care?

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

The failure of democracy is always a failure of the people. If people could be trusted to operate an anarchy, they could be trusted to democratically vote in the Philosopher King.

To be fair, you are evading him right now. He asked what strategy do you have to effectively deal with "them". He's obviously getting unfairly castigated by ratepaying regulars who dislike his brusque and peremptory tone while ignoring the urgency of the patent threat to the West.

Principle, Koroviev, that's what is basic, what should be looked for. If we can't agree on that we can't agree on anything, and if principles don't exist there's nothing to agree on anyway. Consider this as a basis for understanding principle and see what you can see. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2917gauss.html

I'm open to principled arguments, Koroviev, meaning arguments coming from the view that principles or monads cast their shadows into our minds (monads). The material world is shadow to principled fire. Is this wrong? It's the basis for human profit, for human creativity, for a solid basis for political freedom. So, no, that's not wrong. There are many things I don't know, including most principles, but the principle of human creativity in terms of the primary relationship between the creative monad and the universe is not wrong. If it were, I would not bother posting here, or anywhere of any import. The arguments never “seem to get anywhere,” because I am operating on the basis of what I have just described, and others are debating their ideology. We're not “on the same page” because there is no principled belief, no belief in principles. We're not working together, we're working at cross-purposes.

Rage of a Privileged Class, by Ellis Cose: The angriest aren't those who didn't get anywhere, or got all the way, the angriest are those who got halfway and were blocked by some kind of insurmountable obstacle along the way.

But, J.D., to teach girls and women to "stop hanging around with rapists" implies we are blaming the victim, by putting the onus on her to lift a finger in terms of being able (or at least attempting) to identify and respond to rape threats. To combat rape culture we must help women squish out of existence their intuition and reasoning abilities regarding danger, so that they are free from all responsibility regarding their own safety. The video itself gave me a strange message. Basically it was saying that rape is a violent attack in a public washroom, and isn't it a terrible thing that no one did anything about it. Did any of the other men in the washroom do anything about it? I don't think so. So there's a lack of heroism there, that the video showed but didn't discuss. Who wants to encourage heroism? That's a manly thing, to be heroic, and we don't want men to be any more manly than they already are, right? It also pulled a bait-and-switch. It went from saying this is what a rapist could look like (in the mirror), to saying that all men are capable of rape, which is a subtly confusing message. Does it mean all men are rapists-in-waiting, or that all men could hypothetically commit rape in the same sense that all men could jump off a bridge? Really what it's saying is “don't trust any man"--there are aliens among us and any man at any time could reveal himself as one of these aliens. This divides the sexes and sows fear.

But I'm not, and I'm inside your head!

Bald assertion based on modernist prejudice. There is no need for the materialist paradigm, and as such I dispense with it. The very notion of experience being "in your head" is itself merely a sense-delusion, or akin to a sense delusion. If "everything" is within your head, that means your head is identical to the universe, which is the same thing as me saying that all is within myself as a monad--except for other monads, which are self-contained in their turn. I'm unclear whether I am within your head or not, according to you, since "everything" is within your head.

There is nothing the materialist paradigm can assert that cannot more coherently be explained by the idealist paradigm.

Human creativity as a function of the human mind. The mind is not material, yet it is the source of efficient cause in the universe. Indeed, it is the reason we continue to exist. Materialists will argue "the brain is the mind" but this is confusing our primary datum of experience, our consciousness, with the sense-impressions associated with it. Sense-impressions are not ontologically primary, they are shadows of the interactions of universal principles such as gravitation, light, creativity, etc.. "Matter" is purely a sense-impression, not a principle.

Logic and empiricism have their place, but materialism? That's a sneaky insert. We can live very well without any concept of material other than a secondary one, a placeholder one. The monad generates the material, not the material the monad.

What about the Muslim fifth column in the West? How do you think that should be addressed?

"Real" can be a hard thing to pin down. Are the Jungian archetypes real? They permeate storytelling, but have no physical location. They are psychic entities associated with humanity, yet are not the same as humanity. A shaman or wise-woman engaged in telling sacred or healing stories involving archetypes and gods may not be understanding "real" in the way a fundamentalist materialist might use the term. He or she might be talking archetypally about things that have an efficient cause in human life even as they lack "reality".

One point to bear in mind when reading it is that he is not describing women as they are, but as an archetype. He spends a lot of effort initially describing how each human individual is a blend of the masculine and the feminine essences, and the ones where the feminine predominates we call "women" and the ones where the masculine, "men". This book transcends misogyny into being a specimen of the bizarre. It's as though the Gor novels were written by Immanuel Kant.

Yes, you grasp the concept of what an absurdity it is to ask where another dimension or world or universe "is".

No, Will, the implication was that asking "where" Purgatory is is like asking "where" the universe is. It just is, it isn't a dot on a map.

[shrug] You asked where Purgatory is and I answered.

I didn't mock rosencrantz, dsayers, I responded as succinctly as I could to get them to ask them to question where they were, and where the universe was, in order to get them to consider those answers in light of their question regarding "where" Purgatory is. You act in bad faith and are projecting that badness onto others. You have nothing constructive to contribute to a discussion of Purgatory. So butt out.