RichardY

There was even a video(think it's been removed) on one of the "news sites" showing a picture of a load of worms then Stefan on the stage speaking at an event.(muted) Utterly bizarre and disturbing. Alt Right, Far Right. Lies upon lies. Impossible to make an argument or have a speech, totally flies in the face of the notion of freewill, like a load of zombies.

The Scorpion and the Frog A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too." The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature... --------------------- I remember Stefan mentioning in a fairly recent video he had a friend who bred dogs, his friend said that he wouldn't breed a dog that bites or fails the sh*t test. Although by breeding the more vicious elements out of a creature, it can become more susceptible to exploitation. ---------------------------- @barn I did not vote down your post. But, I do find many of your posts fragmented and hard to follow, in terms of layout and sentence structure. I did consider voting down your posts, but have not found reason to do so. Enthusiasm for posting, personable. Although I tend not to be personable, sometimes outright tactless. Said the food wasn't very good at a wedding once to the Bride & Groom. (too many butter beans and square plates). Usually I ignore your posts. I found accusations of doubling down a while a go annoying. Generally prefer to stick to the topic, although open to various exploits or insights of people. I wouldn't assume warmth from me or trust. Generally indifferent to praise, criticism is fine as long as it's not concern trolling and is constructive. I don't mind focusing on various abstract collaborative topics, although prefer it be focused on the topic. "you of all people". does not endear me to help, even if everything else is positive and praiseful in a message.

.

Bad as the UK changing laws to ban Nationalist MEP's after they've been elected. "One does not simply walk into a venue in New Zealand." Lauren Southern on Twitter. Moral courage and sanity, is there anything rarer?

Was thinking that god is not moral. If God created Satan, Lucifer, The Devil... whatever flavour. And that The Devil, was created perfect. In what way was he, the devil perfect? What does perfect even mean? Perhaps God is imperfect. Perhaps perfection is moral perfection? I say that God is not moral and can not be moral, if he is omniscient. As well, as attributed atrocities, and Commandments; not a moral explanation. Also, the book of Job, is cited by Carl Jung as an example of projection. Whereby God projects on to Job, his power and authority. Instead, what if the Devil is moral? Why fear the Devil? If you've done nothing wrong, at least perhaps, not consciously aware of wrong doings. If a force of nature of God or the Devil, what can be done about it, except provision. The Devil is not omniscient, but is omnipotent. - If he were omniscient, he could not be moral. God is omniscient, but not omnipotent. - If God is everything or omniscient, how is omnipotent an issue? ------------------------------------------- Ezekiel 28 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. Mathew 5 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. John 8 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. 30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

They still have oil right, probably played a bit at industry. Can't really describe them as feudal as all contracts are with God right. Thralls are slaves. Enthralled, a positive connotation of attention. Would be put to death, if they didn't work the farms while the karls were away on raids. Were freed, unlike serfs as yields were meagre, Christianity looking down on murder. Feudalism relies on a contract. Yeah I have no doubt. Wanting the "right" to sell land to settlers, or financial control over tobacco and cash crop exports. Neither of which British Aristocrats had much interest in taking direct control over. Similar to trade with Portugal, would make no sense to try and attain more political control over the economy. Plantation owners and corrupt continental councils wanting to line their own pockets and have power as an end. BS monkey mind, why not play a game of chess or something.

Is Saudi Arabia Liberal or Russia? Feudalism was largely dead on arrival in the Northern Scandinavian countries due to the scarcity of agricultural products, not worth collecting/extorting a tithe. Iceland, first parliamentary democracy. Although as a general trend it makes sense. I think given a high enough intelligence and literacy, agrarian societies may become Aristocratic or a Jeffersonian Democracy if peaceful. The Amish are perhaps Anarchistic, although would have thought some sects might have some overbearing religious customs.

It is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence, every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. . . . Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitable be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand. In a small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded; and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality. p169 (from The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious) Thought that was interesting, usually helps to look at quotes in wider context. Haven't read the book, intuitively can piece together things sometimes.

"It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror! Horror has a face, and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies." The current plan seems to be based on a massive economic crash, followed by 1776, hand-holding or more likely hand-wringing. Or to go not with a bang, but with a whimper. Personally couldn't give a sh*t about the moral case, given the welfare state, although probably should. Looking at the big board, pretty obvious that ethnic "minorities" are going to clobber the native "majority" as things continue, when has that not happened. Objectivism(Classical Liberalism): Which acknowledges a state and it's use of force. Libertarianism: Which opposes a state, and ends up perpetuating it. Both Anarcho-Captialist(providing the economic brains) and Left wing Libertarianism(social organisation). Voluntarism: Realisation of the state as illusion, delusion or madness. But, relies on morality. Anarcho-Primitvism: Fight Club. Communism: I don't think is viable from a purely psychological perspective. Someone has to act independently in order to create, even if that creativity is based on what has come before. To truly create God would be required, or Quantum mechanics got to be something, or just rearranging matter. Creativity otherwise has no meaning, needs some intelligence behind it. Alternatively discovery, gross or not would be the correct concept. -------------------------------------------------------------- @Souleye Without freedom there can be no morality. Both the imposition of authority or the need for worldy pleasure (Cenobites; an actual group of philosophers and monks!). Personally I think if there were a case example, maybe things would be different. I mean China is not going to become a free society anytime soon, and Europe is rapidly less free, same with the USA and even Australia it seems. In small countries change might be possible. Develop relationships with people, and slowly expand like early Christianity. Education of future generations. Making the state redundant.

Reminded of the universe of energy ride at Epcot Disney. Where the ending of the ride has human ingenuity, rather than the sun as the source of energy. Funnily Epcot was actually planned to be a fully planned corporate city at one point, saw a video about it on Youtube. However, if the Earth continues to heat up, presumably the excess radiation would have to be vented into space, or stored in the core gradually increasing the Earth's temperature over time? Although there is the carbon cycle.. life, why we have oil right? So presumably energy could be stored in more complex molecules oils for example. But to avoid extinction level events someway of reflection or absorbing excess energy of the sun. On a less conscientious level human terraforming of the planet is a presumable plus. Unless paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. If not maybe, the giant killer robot from the Day the Earth Stood Still would be funny.... I guess there's probably more intelligent life somewhere out there in space.........

Like the beginning of the Movie "War of the Worlds"? Or Like Star Wars? I heard Jordan Peterson mention "What is Life" a book by Erwin Schrodinger, where it mentioned that life is anti-entropic, was one of the things Jordan Peterson mentioned when discussing freewill. I thought that was interesting, as I figured maybe consciousness, could counteract entropy. Sounds a bit like the Force from Star Wars, the scene on Dagobah.(swamp planet).

Wondered what people think about the following three theories? Had a few ideas, but to flesh them out takes time, and my ego is finite. Curious to see what people think of the theories lay into Infinitism or The Correspondence Theory of Truth. 1) Correspondence Theory of Truth. Justified True Belief. Foundationalism. Hypothesis. Calculus. Rationalists. Freewill, Libertarians. Aristotle. Plato. Batman. a) How can truth be based on a belief? b) Why do I need to justify it, or myself? c) What foundation is stable or do you hold as stable? d) If not JTB what else? 2) Coherence Theory of Truth. Followed in my opinion by; leftists, Determinists, Isl@mists & psych0paths/Werewolves. I don't think that the coherence theory of truth is actual, as it still comes down to foundationalism or a form of double think. Absolute Idealism, Hegel. An unconscious form of empiricism. 3) Infinitism. Set Theory. Accepts infinite Regresses as logically plausible, tendency for people to go insane or crazy, although maybe it's humanity in general that's messed up. Emphasise consciousness instead of freewill. I would say empiricists, over rationalists. The Joker. Spiritual Nihilists/Vampires. Not as widely adhered to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth, Sextus Empiricus. Spinoza. Taoism. Pantheism. 4) Some other Theory. I'm interested in Infinitism and Correspondence Theory of Truth, I think the coherence theory of truth is more of a psychological phenomena based on, tribalism rather than an actual theory of truth. Kind of split personally between the other two.

Audible is great for books can get 24 audiobooks for £109.00 a year(the sales are good as well), so is Scribd (though the selection is smaller and it's a subscription). Many of the voice actors could be better, and some works that you would expect to be on Audible or Scribd aren't. For example "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." John Locke is not on Audible or Scribd. Would be better, if they had some better voice actors, for the non-fiction. I read although I'm not sure it is the case $200 per hour or Royalties for voice actors. I guess the selection might differ a bit between the USA and UK on Audible for books. Librivox is pretty much the only free platform, but they are hard to follow, although sometimes you can get books not on the others. You can get "The Pelopennesian War by Thucydides". On Scribd. I started listening to it, yesterday actually(though was not paying much attention). Basically I'm drawing up a chronological list of various Philosophers, Historians & Psychologists. Interesting to see perhaps how their thinking develops. As opposed to looking, at fragment by fragment.

.

I would say real is what conforms to an established cultural framework or construct. Getting into to the Matrix territory. What can I purchase with Bitcoin that I can't purchase more easily or not all, with £ or $ and how do I do that? "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

Yes I had that in mind. I wonder what edge they had in terms of their culture maybe morality that allowed them to overcome many other tribes and civilizations. 1) I would say there is not an absolute universal morality. 2) and there can not be an absolute universal morality. I think it is an example of the aforementioned false positive, sounds plausible, but is a red herring. Having said that, there still is morality, at the least to be able to structure, how one interacts with another. Out of either a) an Idealistic apriori universal morality or an empirical morality. I would say morality is (b) empirical. What I have difficulty with is, if matter is all there is, and everything is determined(Hard Determinism, as if there could be another) then morality is false(Pinball Machine). Therefore, in order for there to be morality the underlying metaphysic must be a kind of Neutral Monism or Idealism. I find that Aristotelian Substance Monism sounds possible, but so does perhaps a kind of Nietzchean, Heraclitean flux. Or Subjective Idealism of George Berkeley, although David Hume seemed to refer to it as "fairyland", destroying the notion of probability. I don't take morality to be an absolute, although I don't think it is pluralistic or relative either, I think there can be a kind of pseudo moral relativism. Although not an Idealistic apriori morality, having recently listened to George Berkeley "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge". He does state that a large proportion of mankind are not reflective. And that various notions that many take for granted, he gives the example of a triangle, do not exist in reality.(I had a similar idea of that of a sphere, the centre point being infinitesimally small as to not exist). Where as Hume states something like while they don't exist, they are determinate, an oval being different from a square. Seeming to take a more brute force approach. "Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the slave of the passions.” I think morality must be empirical. As if it is dependent on an aproiri Idealistic Morality, what's stopping someone from saying they are moral when really they are not. There's no way to tell if what they say is what they do. I think to hold the notion yourself, is to be deluding yourself. A kind of moral cowardice, no skin in the game. What is interesting is what implications that has when morality is empirical. Although wouldn't wisdom be more beneficial and then morality? If we can not know or maybe in error, what is best regardless?

So what about it is substantive?

More like "Manifest Destiny". I liked the Ulama link, for some reason that Aztec ball game came to mind, something about sacrificing the other team if they lost. There could be say cultural tab00's or customs that require you to help a weary traveller, crossing the Sahara for example. Customs which would be developed based around various environmental factors. However, if one tribe had a more integrated moral system, they maybe able to impose their way of thinking on others, through brute force and ignorance. What I'm thinking of, is a tribe of nomads can be morally relative as they are not fixed to anyone particular place. Where as a tribe with moral absolutism will be able to enslave others to a larger collective. That is they are able to articulate their moral absolutism, where as the moral relativists have no explanation but tribal idols, culture or tradition; they are in a less conscientious position, then those that provide some form of reason, fallacious or not. Take no prisoners aye? That would be moral relativism, I think it applies when people have not yet established the concept of universalism and operates on an inductive unconscious process. I don't like to use the just world fallacy. Although if I were moral(not sure on that, if morality is a negative), I think it should be taken to a universal conclusion, as that is the only way it can have a conscious meaning.

I would say that the differences are an effect of tribal custom, customs which maybe be opposed, or unknown to unencountered tribes, and which may not be in opposition. Morality however, must have universality about it, to have any meaning. Otherwise it's definition is purely subjective and has no wider content. The universality aspect though can exist as a potentiality, if not actuality. If morality however is presumed to be an absolute, dependent on various tribes vying for dominance, then the only way it can exist as a universal, is if constant war allows for the subjugation of less moral peoples, i.e the people's with low to no in group preference or opposing group preference.

Even Stefan said in his original Bitcoin presentation it does not meet the Aristotelian definition of money, it has no substance. I agree with the Billionaire Jewish guy Peter Schiff, that it is not viable or at least a good idea. A Red Herring. Plato's Objective Idealism. Hasn't bitcoin crashed in proportion to the dollar since the beginning of the year? I don't agree bitcoin has a moral dimension to it. "I see when a bubble develops, and I buy." George Soros. Cold blooded psychopath, procrastination be damned. Yeah doesn't sound very romantic to have the skill peel away from your gums and haemorrhage blood, develop the odd infection. The Revolutionary War may have never occurred, if soldiers were not sent in. No one to fight against. The legitimacy of the revolutionaries would have been zero. However the Tory Party(King's Faction) dominated at the time, and were for sending in soldiers. Didn't help much that the Whig Faction leader committed suicide after being appointed Lord Chancellor, distantly related to the guy, the 1st Earl of Hardwicke was more successful, holding the office for 19 years before retiring and promoted to Earl. Interesting that Whig means "cattle driver".

That would mean universal morality; morality being presumed to be universal to have any meaning, would only be possible through war, covert or open. Absolute morality. "We must meet this threat with our valour, our blood, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy "Now and ALWAYS!!!" - Starship Troopers. Yes, I remember you mentioning the rider on the Elephant analogy of Johnathan Heidt. It's the not much that interests me, as even if it's not much, it is still something that can be affected. The snake is in the bushes. The snake is not in the bushes. What snake. "This is a picture of the inner party members. This is not a picture of the inner party members. What picture." O'Brien 1984

So would it be based more on memes? A fixed point or grouping, perhaps even "trust"? (Geneset preference?). Occasionally other organisms can become apart of the whole, I think mitochondria is one example. Although as I think I've said before what does being aware of various unconscious biases do? Where as Utilitarianism, is more mechanical? I think also it can lead to the "coherence theory of truth" and double think. "Like a flash you could miss him going by No one knows quite how he does it but it's true they say He's the master of going faster. " - "Faster" George Harrison

Is that glorified utilitarianism though? Yes, but neither does Mathematics. Another perspective than Good or Evil. How can one make sense without the other though? I have been playing around with the idea of Substance Monism as a metaphysic. Where consciousness is an inherent property of matter, which is neither physical nor mental. For example I would say a living gut has varying levels of consciousness, but is not conscious. A good deal of serotonin production takes place in the gut, the heart has nerves of it own. The human being I belief is also distantly related to the lamprey(bloodsucking fish), a sweet flesh supposedly, but then I wouldn't know. I view it as one big joke, like bringing a flamethrower to ants.

Really lame, as well as evil. Where's the challenge in killing presumably innocent women and innocent children. If it's "Alpha", pretty disgusting. One sick b*tch, marrying it and it would be a Russian. Not exactly an endorsement, for even a night-watchmen state.

It ain't happening change the channel!!!