barn

H. A. W. / 23. E-Z Rollers - Hope & Inspiration

Pst... I'm never alone, even when people can't see anyone else with me... That's all-right, funsies are cool. Anyhow... If you are seeing individuals, collectivism falls apart like a sugar-cube being dropped in a fine cuppa tea!

Ah, ok. I mean, when appeasement is a virtue the most aggressive gets its way. I probably shouldn't have been so subtle, here, let let me ask directly: Do you see individuals?

Carefully with those wishes pal, they might become reality. Hard/Soft landing... both has its pro/contra. i.e. 'Hard-Rock-no gears-extended' landings usually have the passengers screaming through the top of their lungs and more often than not it ends up in a fireball of mess, countless casualties, lives broken forever...Oh, and some companies (again, more often than not) disappear forever. Quite a scary analogy (spine crawling if you see it in the full perspective of how nature usually deals with the unprepared, the weak) if you get my meaning.

Hi @Aleks Welcome to the board! Just wanted to make sure I properly grasped your question: ° "reality" as in observation of whom, by what standards is it evaluated? i.e. - looking at the history of humanity and then painting with a broad brush to establish things like: tribalistic, preference to hierarchical, not afraid to be aggressive to horrendous extents... etc. And of that is bad, because NAP? ° "collectivism" as in a smaller set of people from a larger set of people, where individual freedom is thrown under the bus i.e. - inherently contradictory, because if an individual must sacrifice its freedom for the benefit of the collective, the whole can't gain the benefits of actions, that of an individual requiring personal freedom and therefore the collective will always be limited to the common lowest denominator. (I know I'm being a bit 'dense' here, does it make sense to you what I'm trying to say?) ° "inherently authoritarian" as in not sentient or simply deterministic or hardwired to negate reason & evidence? i.e. - expecting the capability to compare abstractions and then choose plan of actions based on objective standards would be 'plain nuts' if this was the case. Alternatively... (Sorry if I completely missed your meaning and 'butchering' your quote unfairly, certainly correct me...) "Taking in consideration the reality of bus timetables, would it be accurate to say that scheduling errors are inherent ?" Barnsley p.s. (Good question, nevertheless! An example to demonstrate the meaning would have made it even better imo.)

I know you THINK it's making sense, I don't doubt that it's all established in your mind (somehow). I also know, that I asked you (reasonably) to boil it down, instead of you expecting me to read the whole 'word-collection' (haven't read this one, so can't say what it is) after I had pointed out that in your previous looong post I couldn't find coherent arguments with proofs. AND You didn't reply to my post there when initially I had pointed this out to you. (i.e. - You need to prove your claims, not theorize. Declaring stuff won't make it just change reality itself. This is a philosophy forum, not MSM.) Hmm... By the way, do you buy everything you see, because how else could you tell if it was worth it, other than paying for it first? Nonsense. (as in: makes no sense) Following your logic, we shouldn't judge if something was a waste of our time but instead risk wasting our time, every time . Thanks, This was instructive for me.

I certainly could if I had a reason (enticement). Plus the last time didn't go well, and... I said : to which you replied: I did explain it there (your first thread), maybe you skipped it (by accident?) Have you been superficial and jumped to a false conclusion? (also by accident?) It's ok. People make mistakes. Besides, if you can't distill it into a coherent set of points with proofs, the whole bunch of words, it's kinda pointless to read for anyone who was looking for reason & evidence, (me thinks). In case if you could, but don't want to, like I had said.

319. Fear Factory - Linchpin 320. Wax Tailor - Beyond Words 321. Jamiroquai - Virtual Insanity

Sadly/worryingly(I think), lots of people think similarly. I mean 'the benefit without the actual cost' part. cost here = vulnerability multiplied Just out of curiosity... Do you think there should be a limit to how much power do we allow others to have over us? p.s. (Is it too far fetched to assume, if the lobby groups get their will(I haven't seen a-n-y pushback so far), it'll mean the establishment of an era in which just one company will hold every keys to all the doors? Except if they make a u-turn and reverse their efforts on trying to get into people's heads.)

I see. Well, sure. That's within the set of possible explanations. (By the by... Have you seen the clues I supplemented even so?) Cute bunny you've got there.

Hi @smarterthanone Is it fair to say you aren't familiar with the presentation itself, but you are making knowledge claims nevertheless?

(thumbs ʌp)

Hey, that's a really nice compliment! Agree and my pleasure, really! In a sense, pessimism is the easiest of all, not much resistance there... I'd be cautious, things tend to speed up going down on a slope. Writing things off prematurely is exactly that, wasting precious opportunity cost. And since one man's food is another's poison (Sorry, today's my big proverbial dump... haha, nevertheless they seem to encapsulate my meaning), when we lose out on an opportunity, someone else gains a chance to utilise that moment for their agenda. -> Perhaps it was a good idea asking yourself, Who does you being/feeling/acting pessimistic benefit? Barnsley

I got 'busted' , my editing didn't make it into your quotes... oh, well. You have only to gain, I guarantee you that! Huh... Fellow self-improvement taker? The '1 book-a-time-period' segment? Nice, good on you! The importance isn't really in that method, or any other for that matter but the principle. I agree with those who say 'Emotions can't be affected by intellectual arguments/abstractions, rationalisations much at the desired depth, if at all '. (I'm just going to make a mental note here, a small little bookmark, that I'm getting a sensation (vaguely) that you could be self-restricting, who knows... maybe self-sabotaging 'unconsciously'? Dunno, just a thought. Why else not follow through with something that could be potentially a 'game changer', as in a door to long forgotten emotions. Powerful and meaningful emotions.) That makes perfect sense. (Not sure if what you think you see is what you constantly are or if you're seeing it in glimpses, perhaps even warped. Is that it?) Am I far off, when I suspect you might be experiencing peace controversially enough, while your mind is racing? Is it also true that it's one of the moments when you feel really useful and productive? Like, really proud of yourself? That's ok. It's all-right. I'm capable to make up new synonymous questions, multiple times. like this: If the most valuable asset of a leader is to be able to make decisions that are more often beneficial for the 'running' of things... and that's his foundation -> What should be your foundation for anything else? What should be essential for you? I kinda agree, except for the utility of 'productive envy', and the ability of some individuals to be able to make others see things if they wanted to. As in: 'If it wasn't for you, I'd have never been able to see the... '. I tend to cherish those who are helping me see 'more'. I don't know how much of it will you be able to utilise... you're welcome(?). You'll see. Besides, you did post a decent ask in my opinion!

Hi @Mark G Welcome to the forum! Your story is a handful... Thank you for your honesty and please accept my sympathy. (some ACEs relatable 'n all, as with many other people in society I guess) A couple of things for starters, as I probably would like to ask some more. Hope you won't mind me being curious. First. You might find Gabor Mate's work on addiction (it's the 'real work' type work, really dedicated people produce) to say the least, like 'quasar-level' illuminating. I did. Second. If yourself could be seen as a friend and you (I know I'm being complicated, bear with me for a sec.) had the ability to talk with, how would the conversation go? Would your 'friend' tell you that he feels your undivided and dedicated attention, feels supported or... well, not so much? Third. What do you think is the pre-requisite to being able to give your all-in for whatever you decide to do later on? What is, that will be the solid foundation to anything else you might later build on top? Or if you are unsure, what should that foundation be made of, essential ingredient in it? Fourth. What do you think about people who don't want to be helped, don't want to accept others trying to help... Can they be helped? Yes? No? Why? Respectfully, Barnsley

Oh, don't worry. You're good, I have nothing against you seeing it as something to brighten yourself with... Perhaps, the main reason why I wouldn't, is it does tend to transform the whole situation to a less serious matter... and I don't think that is a good idea. When such 'tools' in the world ARE NOT SEEN for what they really are, they tend to get overlooked, allowed to 'roam without any responsibility'... and 'once the Djinee is out, you'll have to pay precious sacrifices to (maybe) get it back in the lamp'. I just think, vigilance and prevention is a much better idea for a sacrifice than let's say... more loss of freedoms, an even tighter grip of the already tight noose on the individual thanks to more intrusive tech perks from a tech giant and it's best buddy the bully that every citizen fear rightfully. In short. I do, yes. Although, you minimised your own concerns for yourself and that doesn't involve me. Those, who reading you, having been already aligned with how you see things will probably even enjoy the joke you created. Others, not so much. Even so, you might have noticed I'm not all that serious, kill-joy type of a person, maybe seen my 'funsies' here and there. It's just that this topic sent chills down my spine, maybe because of what I understand. Or, perhaps because what I don't. I just don't see it funny. (Maybe Benjamin Owen could change my mind in a blink of an eye) Thumbs up! That's observant. You did research, looked it up. I tried to be sarcastic/ironic there with acknowledging the fact that I knew I was being sarcastic/ironic for the sake of a joke, a statement about my seeking of the virtuous. That's it. (maybe I overdone it a bit) If you are referring to your comment, me seeing it as distasteful... No, pal. You're good, so far! Do I think if it was a good joke? Personally, from my own-unique-subjective-taste-opinion-preference-liking... not really. (Which doesn't mean anything and please feel free to make up new jokes whenever you feel like it.) In certain circumstances, me too. (If I got what you meant... dark humour, right?!) I strongly uphold the idea that context, intent, the originator's responsibility... etc. matters. Like, when you tell a joke because you hope to induce laughter and when the same joke is told as a form of mockery where the recipient(s) won't laugh. But even then, 'Sticks and stones, may break my bones but words will *NEVER harm me.' *caveat = Well, this is originally about letting taunting/name calling be ignored, I do think there's such a thing as verbal abuse and is different... but yeah, I don't want to go any deeper here. I hope you 'get me' enough already.

It's possible. Not sure why you'd see it funny though. (Is there something wrong with me for not seeing it humorous when people can't tell the difference between a real person and an AI subroutine being programmed to mimic identity and curb/influence behaviour... both 100% successfully?) p.s. - Lyrebirds can't be taught to identify/compose arguments while simultaneously using metadata in real time. Storing everything forever, down to the last bit of data and interfacing with other arms of the network I suppose is obviously understood as well. Oh, and none of the available potential will be mishandled or can be misused. Big companies don't have to worry about intrusions or forced gov. cooperations... Shuure, right?!

317. Amon Tobin - At The End Of The Day 318. John Digweed & Nick Muir - Tangent (Marco Bailey Remix)

Ahh... so you haven't seen it.

For a second it didn't click what show you were referring to... haha. I (personally) would be highly skeptical regarding anything that's on TV, 'even the questions'. Is there any chance you could ask someone (who you know) at least about the pension route? ('skin in the game' and all that... ) As of the crypto, there's quite a few threads, videos on the board/channel (if you understood what the main properties were, that'd be a good start i.e. - What is & why crypto isn't a 'Fiat currency'). Maybe if you had specific (educated) questions, until then I'm hesitant to go any deeper. (it's a touchy subject to give advice on, I think) Barnsley p.s. (I'm not an economist or anyone who is greatly knowledgeable about money, trading, gov. regulations)

Hi thinkers and alike, Recently a tech giant has unveiled their latest(?) product, an AI (artificial intelligence like subroutine) that demonstrated it's ability effortlessly to: ° make a phone call as a real person ° use language to seamlessly ask-respond-continue a conversation ° the human(?) on the other end of the line treated the caller AS A REAL PERSON, changed its behaviour based on the contents of the call (!!!) Some creepy stuff, you can find the demonstrations easily for yourself on pooTube, I'm sure you will know which one I'm referring to once you see it. Barnsley

p. s. to my post earlier on: FDR podcast - 4089, from minute 110, have a listen. Perhaps to the whole convo with the caller there.

Hi @Terran Sorry, tldr. (In your last post I found your argumentation highly subjective and lacking objective proofs, therefore I would like to avoid reading a lot only to find out, the same applies here as well.) Could you outline the major claims that you are putting forward with an objective proof for it at each point? (If you don't want to, that's fine too.)

To manipulation the diametrically opposing value-set is within honesty, self- integrity/assertiveness and curiosity. i.e. (a made-up example) A: I think you should do this, not for me but because I know it is good for you and I love you. B: That sounds good, it's just that I have doubts about it. Mainly it's because I'm not sure if it's universal for you too. Why didn't you apply it in your own life/allow people to act in this manner towards you? And I'm not blaming you or anything, it's just what you are saying I should do makes me uncomfortable. Can you provide objective proof? A: Oh, I understand... Um... Er... you know, with me it's different, so different that it doesn't apply. Trust me, let me explain better what you should do, again. B: Well, I don't think you are taking my ask. You don't have to but that means I should step over the doubts I have expressed. Sorry, I won't do that. I'm happy to discuss this topic when you respond to my previous questions. If you would like me to unpack my questions further, I can certainly do that too... A: I'm sorry, you are too stubborn for your own good. I tried to help you but I can't if you don't let me... B: I disagree but it is okay, we don't have to agree. Don't get me wrong, what you outlined at first sounds good, I just can't accept it without proofs and you not addressing my questions makes it at best unresolved, I'm the same doubtful still. A: Yeah, well... - parting - The best guidance I have ever got came for me in my life so far from a book called Real Time Relationships, colloquially referred to as (RTR). It's really more than a book, when you apply realisations you get while reading and take it to real life relationships, you'll see that they can be tested, evaluated truthfully. Very-very powerful stuff. You can download it free, courtesy of the author. If you think it has provided value, consider donating. I certainly do (but that's just me, you can decide it for yourselves). Have real-time relationships, always! Barnsley p.s. (I don't have manipulators in my life, sure I stumble into them occasionally. What's better and proof enough for me, is that they either give up/escalate(helping me avoiding them) or they give me a wiiide berth. Oh, and one more thing. I have learned this skill by examining my own convictions and sticking to principles such as truth above anyone/anything else for me. Well, that is if I had to further simplify what I had already simplified.)

Hi @Strat lover. Three things. 1. Is it true (have you observed) that emotional dilemmas can't be influenced by intellectual arguments. i.e. - (rationalisation, abstractions, common sense) 2. Appeasement of the 'evil' diminishes the strength of the virtuous. i.e. - (avoidance, maintaining/facilitating vulnerability) 3. What we allow we normalise and what we have normalised we tend to reinforce, practise. i.e. - (unexamined ______s become embeded, after a point they become part of the foundations of our personality)