RichardY

Revelation 3 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. I was thinking, going along the lines of being deluded about God and hedging ones bets, that creation/universe just is, that there is no creator. Why not adopt a philosophy of say, Satanism? I don't mean in the silly dressing up ritualistic sense or even in the hedonistic sense. But in a procreative spirtual kind of sense, still muddling through the idea. For example, Cecil Jacobson an American fertility doctor fathered at least 75 children at a fertility clinic where he worked. Is it unreasonable to say that he was wrong in what he did? From a base biological point of view he was highly sucessful, not only that, but punishment imo was light at 5 years jail and a fine. If reason = virtue = happiness. Perhaps not acting reasonably is a kind of insanity or at least a struggle to be more consistent. Well you might say yeah, but Satanism is morally wrong, though given that people in general do not seem to backup their morality with action, even less so, to take into account 3rd parties thereby universalising morality. And I don't mean in the big things, but in the smallest of things. For example, picking up the odd bit of rubbish from the street or in nature, things a person could easily do but do not, because of some minor inconvience and often not even that.

I remember the go slow the lorry drivers did when it was at 1GBP a litre. I guess with kamizee pedestrians, and given all the "refugees" Germany is taking in, probably changing for the worse. Meant more with their standard of driving. Even if they master facial recognition, still have to enforce or rather not enforce the law. Thinking of when they had that looting in London a few years a go. They made a point on the news to give sentences of 5 years for stealing value rice and bottled water, crazy, at least steal something decent. Yeah not quite like my avatar, probably the farthest thing from it in many ways. Can't see this Anarchist thing happening, would like not to care, I'm pretty sure the UK for the most part is f*cked. If I had sense I'd have probably made a way to s*d off to another anglo sphere country, like the 100,000's that leave every year.

I think the Germanic countries are probably better for driving, though maybe not as relaxed. Though probably not as relaxed as the Americans, more stop start with lack of roundabouts, soft suspension. I really dislike the numbers of people in England, a lot more hectic then it was. I know the region where my parents live is 50%!!! Polish speaking in some areas(then there's the baltic nationalities as well). Given an easy route(decadent) I'd move straight to Australia, USA or maybe even Canada, not really too disimilar to the Polish, except more decadent. I don't think so, thought it was interesting reading about them. More of a passing comment from grandparents, you know you're distantly related to the Earls of Hardewicke, Oh right. So read a little on Wikipedia... apparently the 1st Earl was Lord Chancellor for 19 years. Although another ancestor was Lord Chancellor for basically a day after compromising and feeling shame. Anyway the history is on Wikipedia not that it matters much, I find it entertaining though in a way. Bit like a soap opera perhaps, but with actual bloodshed.

Anyone planning on going to the Day for Freedom on the 6th May in London? Bit confused about the start time, website dayforfreedom.com has it at 4:00pm at Whitehall. While a comment I read had it for 3:00pm. Thought I'd post here as another poster @Add984 had already mentioned it and is more prominent in the General Messages forum. Want to do a meetup at all?

I noticed the plural truths. I mean you can not logically say there is no such thing as (absolute) truth. The problem I see with objectivism is it emphasise an ideal objective self, that only exists as an intellectual idea. So while say a perfect circle exists as an absolute truth in the mind due to uncertainty, in phyisical reality it would perhaps be like altering a bitmap image in MS Paint. I think his view on freewill is similar to mine, that freewill exists as a potentiality and not an actuality. There is a quote by Schopenhauer "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." The best therefore man can do is then either to cultivate his "Will" with "potential" future foresight or say no to the intial impulse to action as it develops. For Nietzsche the man with freewill, is one who dares to promise and means it. The priest is someone who has lost his faith in humanity and instead turns his faith to God, his will to nothingness or Nihlism. Which Nietzsche thinks, is ultimately a lie. The main reason Nietzsche thinks Christianity is doomed as instead of God being the affirmation of a singular unitary Good, God is instead closer to Hinduism or Buddhism and the negation of everything. However if God did exist being a singular unitary being would have positive aspects for a freewill in so far as man is a conflicted being. The affirmation of the universal Good and the setting of limits having some benefits to civilization. Nietzsche's "transvaluation" of values, so something like patience, is a vice according to Nietszche, one could be doing something productive in society. So turn the other cheek, is a reflection of weakness rather then strength. Although if a person could truly forgive people, that would be a reflection of strength according to Nietzsche as you would no longer resent them or resist some aspect of the personality. I don't think Nietszche's point was morality is a matter of aesthetics, more a herd instinct, a way of constructing a collective consciousness functioning together for the betterment of the immediate collective, as opposed to the advancement of the species or development of the individual as part of society. Jermiah 13 23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. 24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness. "In the Birth of Trajedy" Nietzsche talks about two fundamental concepts to him. The Apollonian(Rationality) & The Dioynsian (Arationality). Nietzsche, unlike Schopenhauer does not see the Will as irrational. Instead he see the Dioynsian as the fundamental expression of truth. Saying a clap of thunder, is merely an abstract repetition of an event, not the event itself. So although events maybe recorded, the direct spontaneous experience is a greater expression of truth, due to "the Dioynsian". The point I think is for an individual to advance himself or others he has to be more than rational. For instance I remember Stefan talking about Socrates as a concern troll that "He knows that they have nothing under the kimono, but he's still asking them for underwear." Socrates, someone who was rational, but whose motives are opaque and according to Nietzsche destructive. Nietzsche does not agree with the Reason= Virtue = Happiness. Equation.

Yeah pure numbers game, though whether its Communism through a bureaucracy, or a Plutocracy(Rule of the Wealthy) through a democracy. Even under Anarchism I'm sure one group(cough* Islamic Fundamentalists or various cartels) would sieze power directly or indirectly. I.Q I guess supposedly makes Anarchism a blatantly impossible situation for the forseeable future. Personally I think there should be an Aristocracy that fund their own position. Though not going to happen, because Democracy! Still more viable imo than Anarchism. Best you can do is probably flee(Yay.. white flight) various areas of the west or former colonies for friendlier regimes, bit like in the "Fortress" Movies (One with the Highlander movie Actor). I hate existing in the UK, England is the most densely populated country in the World. China & India more ghetto dwellers. Take the money or be right. Plutocracy, money talks and bullshit walks. Had an ancestor kill himself after becoming Lord Chancellor for 1 day, read about it on Wikipedia, thought that was interesting. Would kind of be like perhaps if one of the USA presidents topped himself after becoming President, though over the opposing political party not good. Yeah the base needs. Love is an interesting one, not really sure if it exists or whether it's just "will to power". Listening to too much Nietszche perhaps. One thing the USA or Australia is you can always form your own compound or move to some small town and say f*ck the world. Plenty of abandoned mining towns with a nice warm climate.

@Donnadogsoth Matthew 6 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. The ability to say no and mean it in an action, maybe what is required. Aristotle would term them pleasures, though he would not say pleasure is good in itself. I think because the good aims at the negation of "Evil" that is in the "human heart". An action being a conscious "not" doing, rather than doing(something spontaneous). Proverb 28 26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. Though whether to cultivate the good through an attempt at negation. "Thou shalt not". Or through a more Nietszchean affirmation and cultivation of the instinct and not of reason.

When are you wrong when trying to force your views into others? Or even should you? Always. Assumes a position of weakness. Anger is good when it is moderated, and integrated into a larger vision( perhaps articulating that would be important). Highly conscientious people tend to get angry when things are not done when they specify, or when they're not working at something. A good source of power, though imo can lead to fastidiousness in excess.

"They're on a loop. They go around the block. They come back. They go around again. They just go 'round and 'round! Round and round!” - The Truman Show.

I'm guessing that's not kill people, and instead speculate as to motive and worldview. Though why would karma apply in the later . It's onething trying to find out for yourself it's another "persuading" many others to join you. I mean with the flat Earth debate, why does it matter if the Earth is flat or 911 was staged, pincess Diana assasinated etc? With the Flat Earth you could find out like on "The Truman Show". Maybe it's herd instinct instead of looping. If 90% of people told you the Earth was flat and you had no practical indepth knowledge of physics, like probably most of the population; how would you know?

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. - Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle. Thoughts?

@J.L.W Well as Stefan says, the parasite is always more focused on the host than the host is on the parasite. Except when the parasite comes bursting out of someone's legs, like a particular African parasite(guinea worm). Jiggers looks pretty nasty as well. I mean there is no doubt semi-secretive organisations do exist. So many Internet Dramatists, maybe they're right who knows, though if you genuinely believed the earth was flat for instance, why not try and findout. Get a boat or a airplane actively gather firsthand information. AND not come up with there's a "hole in my bucket excuse." But how many Internet Philosophers are there outthere? Actual practical ones and not lecturers...or Internet trolls.

@Will 001 Pft, What argument only mindless assertions. High in group preference is K. WHY? Because it says so.

What I'm getting is that there is an ultimate good (God) and that to "believe" in God is to take a "Leap of Faith" that some form of ultimate good is not only possible, but actual. Basically "surrendering" or conceeding your will to God. Whether this is through a Puppetmaster's realization of the Best of all Worlds, Leibnizian and German Continental Philosophy. Or to conceed obedience to the moral law of God the best that can be understood; through some kind of Substance Dualism, though this involves the indivisibilty of the soul and moral responsibility. In actuality there is chance instead of God and given that we can not know a German Continental noumenal realm. And any substance dualism and the world beyond, which could be a deception, demon or madness. There is only oblivion. Explain creation? No explaination for creation can be given. Though that it is, all one can do is work with what one has. The only "explanation" is Pantheism or the mind of god, though as one can not conceive of the mind of God, no explanation can be understood. If God is the Ultimate Good however and chance is prevalent instead of God. Perhaps there is no Ultimate good, only right action defined as good. To "be good" (E.T.)

Cool, a cult? Have any fun? Yeah, perhaps it's one of those situations if there really was a grandplan, going to end up like NKorea in a decade or so.

If YOU, say so. Given that wolves cover a large area and rabbits stick to warrens. I can't see why rabbits being territorial, with other rabbits, should not have a high in group preference. Where as wolves or say horses that cover a large area should not have a low in group preference to avoid inbreeding. Makes me think of the video Tommy Robinson did with Stefan mentioning middle class households in Britain generally not giving a shit. The diversity of accents in Britain was/is pretty vast. Conservative people may like to think they have high in group preference, look at all we have done, our history etc, charity starts at home etc, but largely they are BS-ing themselves. Contrast that with the left "the teamplayers". Life goes on. A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms. Enthusiasms... Enthusiasms... What are mine? What draws my admiration? What is that which gives me joy? [grabs a baseball bat] Baseball! A man stands alone at the plate. This is the time for what? For individual achievement. There he stands alone. But in the field, what? Part of a team. Teamwork.... Looks, throws, catches, hustles - part of one big team. Bats himself the live-long day, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and so on. If his team don't field... what is he? You follow me? No one! Sunny day, the stands are full of fans. What does he have to say? "I'm goin' out there for myself. But... I get nowhere unless the team wins." [Beats his henchman to death with his bat] The Untouchables. Go Team...

@Hubot Yeah looks pretty accurate to what the Mustache guy said, thought I'd listen to an audiobook version. Sounded so comedic in nature, could have thought it was the other German Mustache guy at one point. Do you agree with what Nietzsche said? Seemed to have a collective ego vibe going about the book. What use is morality if it is ultimately used to enforce social norms for the sake of the collective, even if the sum of those norms is destructive and life destroying. In opposition to a Schoppemhauer negation of the will.

Would you say that there is a finite amount of matter though in existence? If so, why should there not be any particular order to it, i.e chaos? (in the beginning there was darkness) Why given another form of disorder/chaos (chance)(Let there be light) should there not be order formed from two types of chaos. Kind of like 2 negatives making a positive. Would you equate structure to order, if not what would you say is the distinction? Though does time increase like a balloon? or is it like some form of continium stretching out to eternity. Maybe entropy varies as matter interacts, perhaps varying forms of consciousness provides a way of counteracting entropy as uncertainty is partially resolved is consciousness. Given uncertainty i.e chance, winding back time is impossible, as micro affects would make it impossible to determine emergent phenomena, although consciousness & memory allows some "rough" winding back of time. "We all have our time machines, don't we. Those that take us back our memories...And those that carry us forward, our dreams." - The Time Machine (2002) So instead of God, why not start a society called the Vulcans or something. What is the Logos how does one bring it into existence? Is it merely through truthful speech? What about truthful expression? Was listening to Geanology of Morals as another member had mentioned the book and I remember Nietzche referencing even the Greek God Zeus being subject to chance. My point being that with uncertainty, how does the Logos or Judeo-Christian God reign supreme and wouldn't this is turn destroy freewill? Unless God is outside of spacetime, different universe.

Really, do tell? Yeah probably monitor most politically inclined forums. I wonder if there's any grandplan behind it all. 1)Cull the population. Reasonable. 2)Cause mayhem for the sake of it. Potentially fun for a while, though ultimately self destructive and finally lame. 3)Control people to make themselves feel better. Lame 4)Bribery and Corruption from Middle East and China. Leading ultimately to Western Genocide. Reasonable, but boring. 5)No grandplan. Just indulge base lusts through BS moral justification. 6)Something I missed?

I think Gremlins would be a better analogy for r rather than rabbits. Still only analogies though.........

Cashing in with word salad. Oh look at "me" these are the conservative pundits that have said things about r/K now buy my book. SAVE AMERICA!!!!

@Will 001 At least Darwin had the balls to publish his name, kind of hard to talk about someone when you don't know their name. There was actually a scientist before Darwin that developed an evolutionary theory, but was not acknowledged, heard it from listening to "A history of Western Philosophy". Conservative psychology in the populace – since the wolves are the only psychology which is capable of weathering the storm produced by the rabbit Must be some viscious rabbits, as the rabbits seem to be emasculating the wolves.

So, because you say so? Conservatives are losing so how does it make it "seminal"? The second defintion of seminal may be more appropriate. I mean I guess Japan could be considered K. But their history is kind of messed up with rapid technological development.

How do you know you're not confused? The conservatives are typically losing, so why are you taking some annoymous ones advice? What is a K-Selected country then, to give an example?