barn

84. LoTR OST - Edge of Night (Pippin's Song) 85. Bent - Swollen

82. Unforscene - The Journey 83. Richard Bona & Bobby Mcferrin - Live in Montreal

No worries (seemed like you had a lot to say but was struggling), glad your tech troubles got resolved/are getting fewer.

H. A. W. / 05 12 Fd - Sometimes

80. Aphex Twin - Alberto Balsam 81. Dj Krush & Shuuzan Morita - Still Island

H. A. W. / 04 Calibre - Mr Right on

78. Kimiko Itoh - River of Crystals 79. Blu Mar Ten - Ghost Trio

Hi @Nikita Perminov There's a member here by the name of Elizbaeth (spelled 'ae', yes) who's a mother of two boys if I recall correctly. You could pm her and ask what was her experience... Other than that, sorry for not being able to help more (I guess you've also checked out the threads for keywords too, using the search function) Let us know what worked, Barnsley

Hi thinkers and alike, Have you been to 'The Library of Babel', or rather its most near approximation? Well, have a look and don't be surprised if you find some forgotten notes at one of the desks from Immanuel Kant. It's a 'library' with at least 'books'. By the way, most of them are in languages that have not yet been invented (the writer was an authentic prankster I guess) . Some implications : ° all books are intelligible ° there's one book to (... rule them, bind them... ) unlocking all others ° aiming for knowledge is the most subtle trap, resulting in hindrance ° everything anyone ever going to write is there... oh, noooo(!!!) perhaps there's faith ... Enjoy Barnsley

Sorry man, can't read your 'cryptic' style. What if, you ran it through 'google translator' (assuming you aren't a native English speaker.) ... I mean, you want your message to be understood, right?! Barnsley

Feel free to see into it as you please, however if you make a reasoned argument with proofs that I'm being something else than constructive, I'll certainly attend to the 'reviewing'. (yes, I think it should go both ways. How about that, agreed?) (kinda surprising that I had to write this down so early on but hopefully it clarifies what standards I believe in. If not, ask away.) Thanks for the 'format-magic' with colours 'n dots, unfortunately I can't do exactly the same (for now). Compared to what? For what desired outcome? What is the counter argument? Do you know a counter argument? In what context? ie. economical prosperity, social cohesion, adaptation to environmental factors... etc. What is that you wish to discuss? (A) - Ah, yes. I can be more specific. I do the things I do to get resources, my incentives are for a better life. (even if I do something seemingly negative, it happens because of an incentive) Based on... I wondered if you knew why... a. immigration(mostly) is from 3rd world -> 1st, what incentives are at work? b. why those who are coming being 'accepted', by whom, in what manner, how's the mechanism managed and under what system, the degree of which the people affected have a say in affecting it? c. what incentive you are referring to when saying "should immigrants we allow into our country be mostly asian because there are more of them with higher IQ?" ie. If it is a good thing for you to promote that, why do you think ("should") others do so (if you do)? (B) - Because if a claim is unfalsifiable, we can't do much with it. Stays an opinion, a preference. Esthetics. Not an argument. "Things I have no clue why you are asking... But ultimately, do you believe that the N.A.P. serves mankind and you live by it?" Because the topic is closely related to the Non Agression Principle and I would like to know your standing regarding it.

... keeping in mind that 'aliens' are much more 'real' to a large swath of the population. (no disrespect to the Flying Spaghetti Monster neither) Whoever is responsible in either cases now, it might have just verified the lack of receptivity of the world as it stands, given the relative indifference, consequences. Perhaps the desensitised (to sense data, logic) times we live in has the explanation going for it, compared with the past... (paradox of choice, Barry Schwartz, Ted talks... there are a few good ones) source 2/4 not long in fact, in 1968 a radio show... "It became famous for allegedly causing mass panic, although the reality of the panic is disputed as the program had relatively few listeners." source 3/4 I just want to be instrumental also, in the 'villagers learning better ways of telling the lies from the truths of the Peters in the world. Wolves do exist.' source 4/4

Hi there, I'm not sure if I understand what your focus in your questions are. (I'm unable to nail down your starting point, base argument) i.e. 'To do/get, what?... and... Why('s) that (should be) a good thing?' 1. Because the topics you've referenced are part of a composite, organic structure that is (largely) a naturally developed hierarchical system IN MOTION and 2. apart from one by one comparing elements, seeing correlations , they also are different on an individual level (yet patterns can be found, plus humans are irrational with emotional and cognitive biases). Context matters. You then can prioritise, due to having a 'zero argument'; can build a case. i.e. 1. - Which layer and from what angle of the onion are we talking about? (Is it the same onion?) i.e. 2. <not mocking, trying to make a point, sorry if I'm butchering the quote a tiny bit in the process> Furthermore, think about the fact that humans respond to incentives. What are the incentives behind your proposed observations? How's that true? But ultimately, do you believe that the N.A.P. serves mankind and you live by it? Barnsley

76. Terry Callier - Dancing Girl 77. 101 Strings - Flameout

Same still, though yet another 'glitch in the matrix' not many had picked up on. Japan had it's own false alarm too. At least they were much quicker. source "TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese public broadcaster NHK issued a false alarm on Tuesday saying North Korea appeared to have launched a missile and urging people to take shelter, but it managed to correct the error within minutes."

Howdy @Elizbaeth Still not one question? (don't have to but I had thought you had a problem understanding stuff... maybe not. Hmm, maybe you aren't trying to understand what I had proposed to you? Strange. ) Ok. No. Your view is false. "inextricable" = impossible to solve, stays a conundrum forever That's why I keep saying you're locked in a deterministic mindset/worldview. i. e. 'You are what your childhood was.' - Just plain wrong. What is true instead, is that what your childhood was is ONLY a part of you(if you aren't a child). You could choose to decide how influential, prominent your past is to you. Big difference that is, right?! Another great thing for those who grow up in falsehood, propaganda, coercion is that childhood doesn't last forever. Taking responsibility for our own - & Allocating responsibility - for other people's actions leads to realisations that grant us the option to disregard bad parenting, falsehoods. i. e. Narcissists didn't care for me, therefore what they taught/coerced me into served them but not me. Therefore, most of it could be simply bs and sabotaging my happiness, worth re-examination. If I defend it, I'll reproduce it. And upholding the same values will turn me into 'like them'. Do I think that's a good idea? I have a choice to make, actions to follow-up with... that is, if I'm serious about 'walking the walk'. Just as, if an apology doesn't prevent the next recurrence, it wasn't a real apology. After you're done being a child, the onus is on _insert agent_. (Scary but very important red-pill question: When did you stop being a child?) I am biologically primed to consuming the maximum amount of sugar but don't do so. One thing is incentive, another is acting out something. Women who are irresponsible do as you say. Responsible women think hard about the future consequences adequately, carefully choose supportive social structures and usually have a plan B as well(I've seen it turning the tides, I understood then why so worth it). So therefore conformity is ok? Women can't possibly make decisions separate from the expectations of their existing social conventions? In fact they can, but a large portion choose to not do so. Though it would make a pretty good excuse, if there wasn't reason&evidence to see it's about choices people make, missed opportunities and their cost. I don't believe for a second that virtuous women put up with coercion in their private life, or that there's nothing else but conformity. That’s why perhaps I find such virtuous women even more beautiful than what they physically are, will find them attractive even though aging. (i.e. a 7 becomes an 8 and stays an 8 regardless aging, or even incrementally gains more appreciation over time... at least that's what I experienced. Confirmed the opposite too... obviously I had to break up there because she was 'getting uglier'. I don't have a clue what would I have done if there was children in the equation. I empathise with those who have that 'square to circle'... must be haaaard.) I don’t think it’s false. Women really don’t have much time between childhood and prime reproductive abilities. That’s why a woman’s SMV typically peaks and then declines after age 25. And by saying that sometimes it’s too late, I meant that it would be too late for her to have her family. After age 35 a woman is reproducing on prayers and wishes. Time - I know, tough. Yet, then they should act accordingly. If they don't, but could've... After - So, what? She messed up. Her support group messed up. Her society took part. But she still won't attract a virtuous partner until she comes to terms with the 'sour grape' reality. And hopefully she'll share her story of failure so that other girls will not even think about taking things so lightly. Don't rush into establishing a family ignorantly, 'not planning, is planning for...' (have seen this too, committed a similar error myself as well) Well, if women are helpless to make a difference in their own life due to social pressure, too little time available, biological incentives... etc. Perhaps they should be treated as children and told what to do. (Naturally, NO. I don't think that's the case, but you've been 'whiteknighting' for women imo...Following your logic, that's exactly what you would need to treat women as... pretty funny, given you are one. Understandable too. Please notice, my examples are what you had mentioned earlier.) If you had depicted women as not helpless children, (the following below) I might have given it a second guess... Unfortunately no, I suspect that you are on a mission trying to convince others so that you don't have to face your own reality. (WITH ALL DUE RESPECT... If it is any worth to you, me saying it at this point. I am sorry but perhaps there's still an important red-pill for taking... It's for your own good, family, long term happiness.) *this last one I suspect is what you hope to make others believe so that you can put your mind to rest* And then I read you saying (was kinda eerie :-p) ... So maybe I’m just projecting my own issues into the female gender at large. That’s a possibility. Yep, this is what I had meant you suspecting it too, deep down. On 01/17/2018 at 3:19 AM, Elizbaeth said: I think it is deterministic in a sense. Me (back, a couple posts ago) pointing out that you probably knew deep down the same: I don't doubt that you believe this (it's with a reason, with an incentive behind for you) but I also suspect that you suspect it too, the whole thing is somehow wobbly. (I could be wrong, but wanted to share anyway.) Barnsley P.s. /Do you consider yourself an open minded person who demonstrates curiosity, pro-actively seeks understanding? Or rather someone who tends to avoid inconvenience(close relationships)?/

Hi (again) @Elizbaeth That's ok, misunderstandings can be resolved by asking for clarification, leveling. If desired. So far I haven't seen any questions or implied ones...anyhow, feel free to ask, if you want to or feel the need to do so. (I'd be glad to help but same here, don't know what's unclear) I'll reiterate some of the previous quotes, in hopes it'll clarify things, given what's your most recent reply (notice, how the first two categories involve women in passivity, while the third is completely misguided.) then (passivity) I know this sounds heartless and cold, but 'so what'? I don't mind not seeing a mechanic when my car's broken down and the first fella I bump into has no idea how to fix cars but wears the uniform. Should I take pity on him/her and risk spending a fortune on wasting my time? (sorry for the rhetorical) At the same time, if the said mechanic could guarantee a no negative scenario and demonstrated that he's willing to become a better tradesman, I might just give him/her a try. I would even tip him/her if the reparation was a success for being honest and trying hard. (but it depends on my circumstances a lot) and People who don't pro-actively work on themselves besides also looking for alternatives to try out, hardly ever find upgrades, usually(99.9%) cement themselves in 'photocopy reproduction'. Got it. but somehow women have a harder time, according to you I ask, why didn't they start earlier? They could have! {1} - This is just false. Taking away agency, belittling women's responsibility for prior 'having not acted differently but could have' (I sort of guessing it's something similar that happened to you. Am I wrong in my assumption?). {2} - This is what missed opportunity means. Sad but true, unchangeable.

74. Quartetto Minimo - Le Maitre et Marguerite 75. David Sylvian - When Poets Dreamed of Angels

Hi @Elizbaeth Fantastic. So you don't believe in deterministic, pre-drawn life-paths anymore, neither that bad parenting overturns free choice for life. Furthermore you mean under 'shorter time-frame' for women is in the context of, in comparison with men whom are at a disadvantage from the get-go(no eggs, male disposability)? i. e. trying to convince a person to buy your product, competing with hundreds of salesperson simultaneously vs. receiving a huge amount of calls with all sorts offers but you only have a limited amount of time to make up your mind And here you implied that the salesperson had an easier time or greater chance for success?

Hi @Elizbaeth I don't doubt that you believe this (it's with a reason, with an incentive behind for you) but I also suspect that you suspect it too, the whole thing is somehow wobbly. (I could be wrong, but wanted to share anyway.) consequences DOES NOT equal determinism. A human being isn't analogous to a lifeless rock, one's sentient. Not every woman's choice echoes her upbringing, thankfully or not. (It's important to know why's that, because that is the gist of basically everything I have ever written to you, what I'm fleshing out here too.) I know you said 'often' but just wanted to lay down first that correlation isn't proof. Biological tick-tack... absolutely, they should be (some are) more careful, responsible, mindful therefore. It's the opportunity cost. No second chances. Nev-a! (This and expressions such as these ruffle my feathers. And I'm not angry at you or anything... of course not. ) Set out on a bad path... (too bad, you're doomed from the get go. <- fallacy) Well, kids have not been able to do as they pleased throughout the history of humanity but that equation certainly gets redrawn once a child can & have the opportunity to start an independent life. (The first time you realised, the living spaces in this universe aren't cleaning themselves, there's a correlation with bills and electricity usage, leftover money... oh, the fun stuff of being an independent adult living separately ) From that point on, I don't think anyone with a working moral compass would place the onus on anyone else but the individual who's now every bit as able to act coercion free, make COM-PLETELY new and different decision compared to what his/her parents did/didn't. (mind you, I am conscious of the biggest coercive power is the state but in 'life decisions' it's still just the individual who chooses something AND NOT the other... consequences acrew,i. e. think long and hard before you invest especially if you don't have much money but even then you can mess up due to lack of _insert skills here_) I also am fully conscious how strongly incentives matter, while it is a fact that no matter how good an idea seems like THERE'S STILL ACTION REQUIRED for it to manifest. Otherwise "[..], beggars would ride". It's fair to say (and I believe) that context matters a great deal. It's also true that the person who's been accumulating bad habits have a harder time 'getting through to the desired/stated clearing'. Therefore (demonstrable too, is that) such 'explorers finding themselves in the jungle of bad prior decisions' will reach for rather a flamethrower than a pocket knife to make way. People with immense conundrums can and do make relative 'quick' recovery investing proportionately in their healing, demonstrating the sternest dedication to turning things around and happily willing to pay each and every cent the price tag implies. (Think of the many dozens of calls where people described the lengths they were willing to go to, in order for recovery... and the many other hundreds with see-through rationalisations, explaining away so they wouldn't have to move a finger.) (I'm not implying anything here) I know this sounds heartless and cold, but 'so what'? I don't mind not seeing a mechanic when my car's broken down and the first fella I bump into has no idea how to fix cars but wears the uniform. Should I take pity on him/her and risk spending a fortune on wasting my time? (sorry for the rhetorical) At the same time, if the said mechanic could guarantee a no negative scenario and demonstrated that he's willing to become a better tradesman, I might just give him/her a try. I would even tip him/her if the reparation was a success for being honest and trying hard. (but it depends on my circumstances a lot) People who don't pro-actively work on themselves besides also looking for alternatives to try out, hardly ever find upgrades, usually(99.9%) cement themselves in 'photocopy reproduction'. Got it. Oh, yes. Certainly that must be true for a slice of the population. Seemingly. However, I would distance myself from an incomplete perspective like that for my own sake. The whole thing starts at a much earlier age, the moment we can and do evaluate our reality consciously; start listening to our inner self; integrate our needs/wants with what we experience and make comparisons (with friends, tv-book-game characters, grandparents,.. etc.) . It's merely an anecdote but I knew from age 7, I was never going to be like my parents(couldn't explain but knew). So in a way, did I have a headstart on finding the major red-pill that sped things up and prevented my demise, compared to the 22yr old ladies? I don't think so. It's not 22, but those who start later have a longer way to make, they should turn on the 'after-booster' if they want to catch up. Or not if that's too much of an effort. Meaning they're essentially not willing to come to terms with reality. It's personal preferences, free choice and I respect people's choices the like I do with my own elections. It's hard, of course. No arguments there. Not surprising, It doesn't work out for everyone, that's a fact too. It's a stark reminder of the concept 'pay me now or pay me later, but you will pay!'. Yet, there's no other way if they claim to seek virtue, not just wishful thinking. A person who's broken his leg will probably never run as fast had he not had it injured but his degree of recovery is closely related to the effort he's willing to make in doing therapy, exercising. No- shortcuts, no- reduction in price, no- skipping any part... ultimately, and what perhaps might get me in trouble for saying, no excuses but consequences. Barnsley p. s. The whole thing goes for men too and I am no exception either. It is what it is. The sooner people accept reality, the earlier they can start acting better... or not. Some people choose conformity and die a slow emotional death, spreading sorrow and misery in their wake. Making sure to strangle every doubt they encounter so that they don't have to be reminded of the inevitable hell they are consciously creating in their lives. (Good) philosophy can make you see that but can't do no more.

Hi @RichardY I'm sorry to see that you're doubling down. Sort of expected it based on multiple previous negative (subjective) experiences, I was still hopeful somewhat.. p. s. Don't mind the grrrrmer or the far out ideas. My discontent is with your lack of ° intention for making connections, ° circling back ° considering my asks and on top of that I perceive your writing as a person who does zero effort whatsoever to try to be 'digestible' (I honestly experience this) ... while these are my subjective criticisms, I do hope it helps you see why I've lost all interest being in a convo with you as long as you keep doubling down. Surely some people don't mind your style, I do. Dunno, man... perhaps you were never interested in a conversation and just wanted a larger exposure for your monologues. Ok. That's fine with me. All the best, Barnsley

71. Michael Andrews - The Artifact & Living 72. Vangelis - Memories of Green 73. Boards of Canada - One very important thought

If we overlook what free choice is, sure. People fall for things that are detrimental, no agency present. The story will play out one way, or the other. If however, we allocate free choice and hold others to the same standard... a very clear demarcation line can be drawn between those who got exposed to better ideas but chose to ignore them and those who at least did their best (first step, calling things by their proper name) hence whatever circumstantial build-up. I'm not saying it is easy (for everyone) or that it's possible (for everyone) but I'm saying it's the only one that's opposite to 'continual sliding down' (regardless the pace). I see all the 3 categories, as you put them(very interesting btw), how they are set up, deterministic. Therefore I am certain, that your starting point is misguided.

We aren't encouraging pupils to write essays that they truly embed their hearts in. Otherwise, all is working fine from the indoctrination perspective. (notice the lack of apostrophes prior, also I'm lucky to not be in the Royal 'we'... though, rather on the' poor' side of things)

There's got to be a point when 'women' come to their senses and start returning to the main competitor of the state... the unity of family. I want that.