“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Simple example lies in four different perspectives
Tha Master, who say's "Do this" (and leaves out the "or I'll kill you")
The University professor, who says, "The Master told you to do this because it fits into the "science" of "how things should be done."
The Hysteric who see's a paradox between what the Master says and the reasons given by the University professor... (rules of power etiquette are science?)
...and the Analyst who explainss the real (personal) reason why the Master asked for what he did (to serve his own SuperEgo) and explains it to the Hysteric so that the hysteric doesn't go mad from the anxiety of the Master's unstated threat to kill him if he disobey's.
\\Tha Master, who say's "Do this" (and leaves out the "or I'll kill you")
That is... too primitive. Yawn. Even in most primitive slavery there is other part. "...and I'll feed you".
\\The University professor, who says, "The Master told you to do this because it fits into the "science" of "how things should be done."
Bogus idea. And university professors like to spread bogus ideas. Like this. Like that that they have ANY power. :-))) Dreams of an impotent about raping whole fem fraternity. :-)))
\\The Hysteric who see's a paradox...
Aha. Trully. :-)))))
\\...and the Analyst who explainss the real (personal) reason why the Master asked for what he did (to serve his own SuperEgo) and explains it to the Hysteric so that the hysteric doesn't go mad from the anxiety of the Master's unstated threat to kill him if he disobey's.
If simple idea "I'll kill you" need such a prolonged procedure of explanation. That mean that pacient is braindead. Like dErpy. :-)))
PS Thank you. Now I see that it all just a fatamorganas made up of empty words... Well, IMHO.
We all, as animals. Mammals. Born as helpless, needing constant care creatures. So, "following orders" that was WISE idea of Evolution to built-in into us.
See. Simple. And streamlined. Not like that fantasmagorical sophistic ideas.
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › The_Sleep_of_Reaso... The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters or The Dream of Reason Produces Monsters is an aquatint by the Spanish painter and printmaker Francisco Goya.
Well... that is difference between humanitarian and natural sciences.
In humanitarian you are pefectly free to devise whatever theory and explanation you want or see fit, or prefer because of political reasons.
In natural sciences (and technologies ;-)) -- there is NO such freedom. That is like trying to make a blimp filled with chlorine gas. ;-P
No matter how much you want it and see "profitable". And easy to implement. And popular among your peers. And viable in the eyes of investors. And etc.
///I, as technologist and cybernetic. Just looking into WHAT directly... to devise HOW... to fix it with technological means. ;-) \\Sounds as if you're just looking for some orders to follow... ;) /Where exactly it "looks" that way? That's why I citing so often. To avoid such "looking like that".
Because you have "answers".... "use tech this way, or that way... "
Politicians always come to experts looking for answers to their questions... but most times, they're asking the wrong questions. They can't compose the right "questions" because they can't conceive or characterize the problem through the lenses of their ideology. It blinds them. Most of time their questions address the symptoms of a problem, not the root cause.
As for you "distinction", you run into the same problem. Every tech innovation leads to the next humanitarian problem. So yeah, you can get your colony to Mars, but what will your colonists be doing once they get there? Will their existance still be human?
Me: Carl Sagan, a famous astronomer and science communicator, argued in his work The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.[32]
Carl Sagan's words are thought to be a prediction of a "post-truth" or "alternative facts" world.[33] In the context of politics, post-truth has recently been applied to the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections, Brexit, the COVID-19 "infodemic", and the conditions that led to the storming of the US capital on January 6, 2021. The historian Timothy Snyder wrote of post-truth and the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol:
"Post-truth is pre-fascism... When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions... Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth.[34]"
The writer George Gillett has suggested that the term "post-truth" mistakenly conflates empirical and ethical judgements, writing that the supposedly "post-truth" movement is in fact a rebellion against "expert economic opinion becoming a surrogate for values-based political judgements".[35]
Mustang: Truths aren’t self-evident. That’s what makes them difficult. They can be hard to understand, or contravene intuition or closely-held, ancestral beliefs. Carl Sagan knew that didn’t make them less true, and it makes them even more important. —Adam Rogers
Me: The section on Hannah Arendt in the link below, I believe, is particularly apropos....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth
There are at least two factors contributing to our inability to discern truth from fiction. One is the constant bombardment of ads from "consumerism"... and the associated deliberate "shading" of customer judgement that accompanies it, under-valuing or making the consumer "indifferent" to certain value-aspects of the product being sold and emphasizing certain others, conditioning everyone so that they become "ready to buy" (on impulse) their advertised product. The other lies in the raising the individual's level of abstraction... the McNamarization of the Vietnam War being but a recent example... that you could "numberize" casualties and equipment to show and convince yourself of the "inevitability" of your victory... through enemy body counts/ dropped-bomb statistics or of "profitability" through corporate balance sheets.
Referring to the aforementioned concept of "defactualization" by Arendt, but applying it to the information society of the twenty-first century, Byung-Chul Han argues that a "new nihilism" is emerging, in which the lie is no longer passed off as truth, or in which the truth is disavowed as a lie. Rather it is the very distinction between truth and falsehood that is undermined. Anyone who knowingly lies and resists the truth, paradoxically recognizes it. Lying is possible only where the distinction between truth and falsehood is intact. The liar does not lose touch with the truth. His faith in reality does not waver. The liar is not a nihilist, he does not question truth itself. The more determined he lies, the more the truth is confirmed. "Fake news" are not lies: they attack "facticity" itself. They "de-facticize" reality. When Donald Trump offhandedly says whatever suits him, he is not a classic liar knowingly distorting reality, as to do that one would need to know it. He is rather indifferent to the truth of facts.
This is particularly difficult in a multi-cultural environment, as the same facts may be perceived by individuals differently on the basis of the specific individual's culture/religion and the culture/religion of the world around him and in which he exists..
In his essay Science as a Vocation (1917) Max Weber draws a distinction between facts and values. He argues that facts can be determined through the methods of a value-free, objective social science, while values are derived through culture and religion, the truth of which cannot be known through science. He writes, "it is one thing to state facts, to determine mathematical or logical relations or the internal structure of cultural values, while it is another thing to answer questions of the value of culture and its individual contents and the question of how one should act in the cultural community and in political associations. These are quite heterogeneous problems."[4] In his 1919 essay Politics as a Vocation, he argues that facts, like actions, do not in themselves contain any intrinsic meaning or power: "any ethic in the world could establish substantially identical commandments applicable to all relationships."[5]
To MLK Jr., "Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."[6][7][8] He stated that science keeps religion from "crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism" whereas Religion prevents science from "falling into ... obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."[9]
Albert Einstein remarked that:
"the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
This increased multiculturalism also contributes greatly to the nihilism surrounding a society's apparently increased indifference to facts. We no longer expect our neighbors to share our values, or to perceive facts in the same ways that we do (although paradoxically, this seems to be the censorial Left's increasing demand - that we share their "values" like ESG and Woke/ SoJus and thereby interpret their "less pertinent -to-us" "facts" in the same way).
\\...but most times, they're asking the wrong questions...
As Lem himself said: "To ask wise questions one need to be wise enough himself".
\\Every tech innovation leads to the next humanitarian problem.
To have problems -- means to be alive. And to be alive -- it's better than be dead. Well, for very least there is no representatives from that side to state their opinion. ;-P
\\Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking.
It's interesting, why he didn't said "philosophy" here? While that is obviouscle are philisophy -- aka "way of thinking". How do you think? ;-)
\\when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority;
Well... you have me... here. But what wise use of me you devised THIS FAR. ;-) So... why and for what you need that with "their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority" anyway?
\\Carl Sagan's words are thought to be a prediction of a "post-truth" or "alternative facts" world.[33]
Yep. He didn't knew Lem. ;-P
\\"Post-truth is pre-fascism...
I honor Snyder as a person. But this his babbling... well, he just don't know what he trying to talk about. Well, that is not big sin... too few of people do otherwise.
Francois Duc de la Rochefoucauld stated, “Everyone complains of his memory, and no one complains of his judgment.” We focus on the wrong thing.
\\If we lose the institutions that produce facts...
There is NO such facilities. :-))))
And sole idea that "facts" can be produced somehow, so then it can be placed into minds -- totally fascistic. ;-P
Isn't that funny. Funny as Hell. :-))))
\\Mustang: Truths aren’t self-evident. That’s what makes them difficult.
Bull Shit. :-))) Truth IS self-evidant. Otherwise that is anything else but NOT Truth.
\\Byung-Chul Han argues that a "new nihilism" is emerging
Yep. Mind in poor condintion cannot distinguish Right from Wrong.
But well, again, Lem... from mouth of Golem XIV, said that. But was there anywhere someone ready to LISTEN? Well, I am one. But is ONE enough... for anything??? :-/
\\When Donald Trump offhandedly says whatever suits him, he is not a classic liar
Blah-blah-blah... so much "smart" words to say that mt.t is merely stupid clown. :-))))) But, WHY they cannot say that Truth??? Because. Polit-correctness -- their own invention. They clouded that that might be and MUST be apparent. They did it DELIBERATELY, for the sake of their political goals and sheer profit from sophistic power. But... forgot about it. And lost control of that narrative. Which start showing that the same as mustang... narratives are free and self-governing, and do not allow riders. :-))))
\\This is particularly difficult in a multi-cultural environment, as the same facts may be perceived by individuals differently
Yet again. What definition of "fact" you are using. ;-)
\\To MLK Jr., "Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."
Bull Shit. :-)
\\ But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.
Well... that is... damn interesting question. Is religion needed to install sicence? Well, it is, even if purely technological. Modern sciences inhereted framework of teological disputes and all.
\\Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. /It's interesting, why he didn't said "philosophy" here? While that is obviouscle are philisophy -- aka "way of thinking". How do you think? ;-)
The Fact-Value Distinction. The Values part is more the "philosophy" (sets goals). The Fact's part is the science of determing "cause" from the Facts using logic/reason so that it can be remembered when facts get repeated in a similar fashion. Yes, you must "value" knowing "cause", but I suspect this comes from one's inate "will to power".
\\when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; /Well... you have me... here. But what wise use of me you devised THIS FAR. ;-) So... why and for what you need that with "their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority" anyway?
Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty.
\\Carl Sagan's words are thought to be a prediction of a "post-truth" or "alternative facts" world.[33] /Yep. He didn't knew Lem. ;-P
No? Synopses may not accomplish much in explaining the appeal of the works of Stanislaw Lem. A message arrives from the stars, and humanity comprehensively fails to decipher it. An astronaut returns from a centurylong mission that we barely hear about. A robotic swarm extinguishes nearly all life on a planet, and a mission can’t figure out anything to do to counter it. Yet Lem is one of the few world-renowned science fiction authors not to have written in English, with fans as diverse as Anthony Burgess, Douglas Hofstadter, Carl Sagan, and John Updike. Six of his works have been rereleased by MIT Press this month, all of them excellent.
\\"Post-truth is pre-fascism... /I honor Snyder as a person. But this his babbling... well, he just don't know what he trying to talk about. Well, that is not big sin... too few of people do otherwise. Francois Duc de la Rochefoucauld stated, “Everyone complains of his memory, and no one complains of his judgment.” We focus on the wrong thing.
I agree to disagree. It represents a values breakdown (religion). From the Jowett summary of Plato's "Republic": There remains still the finest and fairest of all men and all States—tyranny and the tyrant. Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy. Both arise from excess; the one from excess of wealth, the other from excess of freedom. ‘The great natural good of life,’ says the democrat, ‘is freedom.’ And this exclusive love of freedom and regardlessness of everything else, is the cause of the change from democracy to tyranny. The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals. Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women. Nay, the very animals in a democratic State have a freedom which is unknown in other places. The she-dogs are as good as their she-mistresses, and horses and asses march along with dignity and run their noses against anybody who comes in their way. ‘That has often been my experience.’ At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master. Such is the glorious beginning of things out of which tyranny springs.
\\If we lose the institutions that produce facts... /There is NO such facilities. :-)))) And sole idea that "facts" can be produced somehow, so then it can be placed into minds -- totally fascistic. ;-P Isn't that funny. Funny as Hell. :-))))
Really? Nietzsche, "On the Future of Our Educational Institutions"
On the other hand, that adhesive and tenacious stratum which has now filled up the interstices between the sciences--Journalism--believes it has a mission to fulfil here, and this it does, according to its own particular lights--that is to say, as its name implies, after the fashion of a day-labourer.
"It is precisely in journalism that the two tendencies combine and become one. The expansion and the diminution of education here join hands. The newspaper actually steps into the place of culture, and he who, even as a scholar, wishes to voice any claim for education, must avail himself of this viscous stratum of communication which cements the seams between all forms of life, all classes, all arts, and all sciences, and which is as firm and reliable as news paper is, as a rule. In the newspaper the peculiar educational aims of the present culminate, just as the journalist, the servant of the moment, has stepped into the place of the genius, of the leader for all time, of the deliverer from the tyranny of the moment. Now, tell me, distinguished master, what hopes could I still have in a struggle against the general topsy-turvification of all genuine aims for education; with what courage can I, a single teacher, step forward, when I know that the moment any seeds of real culture are sown, they will be mercilessly crushed by the roller of this pseudo-culture? Imagine how useless the most energetic work on the part of the individual teacher must be, who would fain lead a pupil back into the distant and evasive Hellenic world and to the real home of culture, when in less than an hour, that same pupil will have recourse to a newspaper, the latest novel, or one of those learned books, the very style of which already bears the revolting impress of modern barbaric culture--"
\\Mustang: Truths aren’t self-evident. That’s what makes them difficult. /Bull Shit. :-))) Truth IS self-evidant. Otherwise that is anything else but NOT Truth.
Truth is whatever makes you "feel" more powerful. Nietzsche, WtP 533 (Spring-Fall 1887)
Logical certainty, transparency, as criterion of truth ("omncillud verum est, quod clare et distincte percipitur." Descartes): with that, the mechanical hypothesis concerning the world is desired and credible.
But this is a crude confusion: like simplex sigillum veri. How does one know that the real nature of things stands in this relation to our intellect?--Could it not be otherwise? that it is the hypothesis that gives the intellect the greatest feeling of power and security, that is most preferred, valued and consequently characterized as true?--The intellect posits its freest and strongest capacity and capability as criterion of the most valuable, consequently of the true--
"True": from the standpoint of feeling--: that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego");
from the standpoint of thought--: that which gives thought the greatest feeling of strength;
from the standpoint of touch, seeing, hearing--: that which calls for the greatest resistance.
Thus it is the highest degrees of performance that awaken belief in the "truth," that is to say reality, of the object. The feeling of strength, of struggle, of resistance convinces us that there is something that is here being resisted.
534 (1887-1888)
The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.
\\The Values part is more the "philosophy" (sets goals).
Instinct of Survival instilled into us by Evolution...
\\Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty.
Ehm???
\\\\He didn't knew Lem. ;-P
\\No?
And? Where his comments about Golem XIV??? Where is his comments about Summa Technologia??? 'Noug said, isn't it? "one must be wise to listen to wise advices" (tm)
\\I agree to disagree.
Ehm??? With what exactly? That TS do not know a shit?
\\Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy.
I was saying that several times already. Old wisdoms cannot account for new historical events. What would Plato said about Oswentsim??? Who knows?
\\Byung-Chul Han argues that a "new nihilism" is emerging /Yep. Mind in poor condintion cannot distinguish Right from Wrong. But well, again, Lem... from mouth of Golem XIV, said that. But was there anywhere someone ready to LISTEN? Well, I am one. But is ONE enough... for anything??? :-/
Perhaps I am another.
\\When Donald Trump offhandedly says whatever suits him, he is not a classic liar /Blah-blah-blah... so much "smart" words to say that mt.t is merely stupid clown. :-))))) But, WHY they cannot say that Truth??? Because. Polit-correctness -- their own invention. They clouded that that might be and MUST be apparent. They did it DELIBERATELY, for the sake of their political goals and sheer profit from sophistic power. But... forgot about it. And lost control of that narrative. Which start showing that the same as mustang... narratives are free and self-governing, and do not allow riders. :-))))
The origin of the narrative lies in the speakers "values" which now arrange the facts is a manner supportive or critical of those "values".
\\This is particularly difficult in a multi-cultural environment, as the same facts may be perceived by individuals differently /Yet again. What definition of "fact" you are using. ;-)
Again, I arguing that one's values have a large impact on what facts are selected as "important" and what they actually mean to particular individuals with different value sets (culture/religion).
\\To MLK Jr., "Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary." /Bull Shit. :-)
It actually helps to think of it this way, IMO. Science tries to derive "cause" from the facts. Religion/ culture influence what it "means" and how it applies to the individual in a larger context (beyond cause).
\\ But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. /Well... that is... damn interesting question. Is religion needed to install sicence? Well, it is, even if purely technological. Modern sciences inhereted framework of teological disputes and all.
I take religion a bit farther, it can be a culture with a secular ideology (ie liberalism) prevalent today.
\\Really? Nietzsche, "On the Future of Our Educational Institutions"
We already discussed this one.
\\Truth is whatever makes you "feel" more powerful. Nietzsche, WtP
Thank you for good example of "whatever else". ;-P
\\"True": from the standpoint of feeling--: that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego");
Today... we have no need in such clumsy definition.
We have -- computers.
If you program it CORRECTLY... it will work, as planned. If not... well, you can use it as a hammer, or as a stepping stone, or as house for a squirrel... :-))))))))))))))))) that would be very wise and productive uses TOO. Isn't it?
(and now, try to substitute computer for your brain inside your scull ;-))
\\The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.
A-a-a-and? What conclusion you able to conjure of that "wise" claim??? ;-)
I still do not know what you took out of that our talks about Lem.... to conclude that. :-/
\\The origin of the narrative lies in the speakers "values" which now arrange the facts is a manner supportive or critical of those "values".
Bike/car on a trashyard consist of the same parts as one in your garage... so, what's the difference? ;-)
\\Again, I arguing that one's values have a large impact on what facts are selected as "important" and what they actually mean to particular individuals with different value sets (culture/religion).
This point do not need additional pounding. Can you add someting new to that banal obviousness?
\\It actually helps to think of it this way, IMO.
Yes. If you live in non-secular soceity, where you ought to show piety, just while innocently walking by a street. Because other way, believers could turn mad on you and stomp you in mud. (how do you like my pun here ;-))
But that is not like it is elsewhere...
\\Science tries to derive "cause" from the facts.
Problem is... Science do not say anythinbg like that about science. ;-)
That is all what being babbled outside of Science.
\\Religion/ culture influence what it "means" and how it applies to the individual in a larger context (beyond cause).
\\The Fact-Value Distinction. /Facts... that is stone falling on your head. What is Value? ;-)
Prevent injuty? Avoidance? Is it important to know cause? Why?
\\The Values part is more the "philosophy" (sets goals). /Instinct of Survival instilled into us by Evolution...
Is survival "enough?"... or do we want a "good life", something "moreZ" that mere survival?
\\Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty. /Ehm???
Free to use one's own power.
\\\\He didn't knew Lem. ;-P \\No? /And? Where his comments about Golem XIV??? Where is his comments about Summa Technologia??? 'Noug said, isn't it? "one must be wise to listen to wise advices" (tm)
I don't know, I never followed Sagan closely. That was a comment by someone who claimed so in an article on Lem.
\\The Fact-Value Distinction. /Facts... that is stone falling on your head. What is Value? ;-)
\\Prevent injuty? Avoidance? Is it important to know cause? Why?
??? Isn't that self-evidant? :-)
\\Is survival "enough?"... or do we want a "good life", something "moreZ" that mere survival?
That is The Question. ;-)
\\\\Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty. /Ehm???
\\Free to use one's own power.
And how it relates to "having power"? ;-)
\\I don't know, I never followed Sagan closely. That was a comment by someone who claimed so in an article on Lem.
Well...
"Lem was tremendously skilled at not only dreaming up fantastical scenarios but precisely calibrating them to unsettle our schemes for understanding the world. It’s easier to venture beyond the limits of the galaxy than those of our knowledge, and Lem repeatedly struck at the artificially tidy relations we impose on reality. He labored strenuously to imagine things we haven’t seen before and generally foregrounded protagonists who don’t comprehend them. Ursula Le Guin commented about his work, “We are not yet used to hearing that there are things that we don't understand.”"
As far as I understand -- that is by all means correct summary of his artistic proves (I deliberately separate it from his phylosophical ones).
But well... the same as with ice cream -- how much fullfilling it is -- to know that some ice cream is GREAT (from ads)... from feelin git yourself? Can it be a substitute? ;-P
\\Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy. /I was saying that several times already. Old wisdoms cannot account for new historical events. What would Plato said about Oswentsim??? Who knows?
lol! And you are not a dialectician dividing a "whole" into "parts".
\\"True": from the standpoint of feeling--: that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego"); /Today... we have no need in such clumsy definition. We have -- computers. If you program it CORRECTLY... it will work, as planned. If not... well, you can use it as a hammer, or as a stepping stone, or as house for a squirrel... :-))))))))))))))))) that would be very wise and productive uses TOO. Isn't it? (and now, try to substitute computer for your brain inside your scull ;-))
\\The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power. /A-a-a-and? What conclusion you able to conjure of that "wise" claim??? ;-)
That maybe you need to read more Nietzsche. Logic is an error. There are no "equal" things.
\\The origin of the narrative lies in the speakers "values" which now arrange the facts is a manner supportive or critical of those "values". /Bike/car on a trashyard consist of the same parts as one in your garage... so, what's the difference? ;-)
I obviously value the one in my garage than the one in the junkyard. Or perhaps I only need 1. 2 would "waste" my use of my space.
\\Again, I arguing that one's values have a large impact on what facts are selected as "important" and what they actually mean to particular individuals with different value sets (culture/religion). /This point do not need additional pounding. Can you add someting new to that banal obviousness?
\\It actually helps to think of it this way, IMO. /Yes. If you live in non-secular soceity, where you ought to show piety, just while innocently walking by a street. Because other way, believers could turn mad on you and stomp you in mud. (how do you like my pun here ;-)) But that is not like it is elsewhere...
lol! like wokeism and green scientisms? You want to put carbon in the atmosphere? Lock him up!
\\Science tries to derive "cause" from the facts. Problem is... Science do not say anythinbg like that about science. ;-) That is all what being babbled outside of Science.
No, it's simply assumed as a given under Kuhn's conditions of "Normal Science".
\\Religion/ culture influence what it "means" and how it applies to the individual in a larger context (beyond cause). /There is perfect cartoon/caricature for such things.
Yes... that's how "technologists" do it. :)
\\The Fact-Value Distinction. /Facts... that is stone falling on your head. What is Value? ;-) \\Prevent injuty? Avoidance? Is it important to know cause? Why? /??? Isn't that self-evidant? :-)
Only if you don't perform the fact-value dialectic.
\\Is survival "enough?"... or do we want a "good life", something "moreZ" that mere survival? /That is The Question. ;-)
No, how much "truth" we can tolerate, THAT is the experiment.
Nietzsche, "Gay Science"
110
Origins of Knowledge. Throughout immense stretches of time the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them proved to be useful and preservative of the species: he who fell in with them, or inherited them, waged the battle for himself and his offspring with better success. Those erroneous articles of faith which were successively transmitted by inheritance, and have finally become almost the property and stock of the human species, are, for example, the following: that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it appears, that our will is free that what is good for me is also good absolutely. It was only very late that the deniers, doubters of such propositions came forward - it was only very late that truth made its appearance as the most impotent form of knowledge. It seemed as if it were impossible to get along with truth, our organism was adapted for the very opposite; all its higher functions, the perceptions of the senses, and in general every kind of sensation, cooperated with those primevally embodied, fundamental errors. Moreover, those propositions became the very standards of knowledge according to which the "true "and the "false" were determined - throughout the whole domain of pure logic. The strength of conceptions does not, therefore, depend on their degree of truth, but on their antiquity, their embodiment, their character as conditions of life. Where life and knowledge seemed to conflict, there has never been serious contention; denial and doubt have there been regarded as madness. The exceptional thinkers like the Eleatics, who, in spite of this, advanced and maintained the antitheses of the natural errors, believed that it was possible also to live these counterparts: it was they who devised the sage as the man of immutability, impersonality and universality of intuition, as one and all at the same time, with a special faculty for that reverse kind of knowledge; they were of the belief that their knowledge was at the same time the principle of life. To be able to affirm all this, however, they had to deceive themselves concerning their own condition: they had to attribute to themselves impersonality and unchanging permanence, they had to mistake the nature of the philosophic individual, deny the force of the impulses in cognition, and conceive of reason generally as an entirely free and self-originating activity; they kept their eyes shut to the fact that they also had reached their doctrines in contradiction to valid methods, or through their longing for repose or for exclusive possession or for domination. The subtler development of sincerity and of skepticism finally made these men impossible; to be continued...
their life also, and their judgments, turned out to be dependent on the primeval impulses and fundamental errors of all sentient beings. The subtler sincerity and skepticism arose wherever two antithetical maxims appeared to be applicable to life, because both of them were compatible with the fundamental errors; where, therefore, there could be contention concerning a higher or lower degree of utility for life; and likewise where new maxims proved to be, not necessarily useful, but at least not injurious, as expressions of an intellectual impulse to play a game that was like all games innocent and happy The human brain was gradually filled with such judgments and convictions; and in this tangled skein there arose ferment, strife and lust for power. Not only utility and delight, but every kind of impulse took part in the struggle for "truths"; the intellectual struggle became a business, an attraction, a calling, a duty, an honor; cognizing and striving for the true finally arranged themselves as needs among other needs. From that moment not only belief and conviction, but also examination, denial, distrust and contradiction became forces; all "evil "instincts were subordinated to knowledge, were placed in its service, and acquired the prestige of the permitted, the honored, the useful, and finally the appearance and innocence of the good. Knowledge thus became a portion of life itself, and as life it became a continually growing power; until finally the cognitions and those primeval, fundamental errors clashed with each other, both as life, both as power, both in the same man. The thinker is now the being in whom the impulse to truth and those life-preserving errors wage their first conflict, now that the impulse to truth has also proved itself to be a life-preserving power. In comparison with the importance of this conflict everything else is indifferent; the final question concerning the conditions of life is here raised, and the first attempt is here made to answer it by experiment. How far is truth susceptible of embodiment - that is the question, that is the experiment.
Try show your "will to power" before computer. Let me laugh of it. :-))))
You just do not know, do not see the difference? Why that experience is so important.
If one works with human system. Like general commanding to his soldiers -- he can try passion and persuasion. And it will work. Well, maybe. But he always have a chance to say "that is not my fault, that lasy ass cowrds to blame!"
If some mechanical worker with a mechanical system. He either can ask somebody else to do that. Or hammer it in. Or broke damn thing. While cursing and talking with it, which would LOOK LIKE you applied some will and passion, and was able to "persuade"... damn thing.
But... with computer it will not work. You can broke damn thing, throw it out of window, but it will only prove that you are dumbest of dumb.
Only concentration. Only clear mind. And openness to possibilities. While same time being consious of your goals. That is purely, passionless, smartassing. ;-P
\\That maybe you need to read more Nietzsche. Logic is an error. There are no "equal" things.
Nothing of said gives anything new to me.
Do you know that saying? About repeatable doing same thing again and again, while waiting for a new result?
\\I obviously value the one in my garage than the one in the junkyard. Or perhaps I only need 1. 2 would "waste" my use of my space.
That's it. You habitually conclude, like already knowing the answer. Insteed of analysing. ;-)
\\\\Can you add someting new to that banal obviousness?
\\\\Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty. /Ehm??? \\Free to use one's own power. /And how it relates to "having power"? ;-)
Nietzsche WtP 1067 (1885)
And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be "empty" here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself--do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!
\\I don't know, I never followed Sagan closely. That was a comment by someone who claimed so in an article on Lem. /Well... "Lem was tremendously skilled at not only dreaming up fantastical scenarios but precisely calibrating them to unsettle our schemes for understanding the world. It’s easier to venture beyond the limits of the galaxy than those of our knowledge, and Lem repeatedly struck at the artificially tidy relations we impose on reality. He labored strenuously to imagine things we haven’t seen before and generally foregrounded protagonists who don’t comprehend them. Ursula Le Guin commented about his work, “We are not yet used to hearing that there are things that we don't understand.”" As far as I understand -- that is by all means correct summary of his artistic proves (I deliberately separate it from his phylosophical ones).
You should read Nietzsche...
/But well... the same as with ice cream -- how much fullfilling it is -- to know that some ice cream is GREAT (from ads)... from feelin git yourself? Can it be a substitute? ;-P
There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not."
I would not be able to find anything like that in my withinity.
That's why it's so hard for me to corelate with your culture.
\\No, it's simply assumed as a given under Kuhn's conditions of "Normal Science".
Are that Kuhn scientist?
That's it.
Lem, cleverly pointed out that topic too. ;-P
\\Yes... that's how "technologists" do it. :)
Cannot concur. Neither as direct rebuff. Neither like joke.
Technologists do it completely different.
For the first thing -- unlike scientists, they work in completely know environment. Where all elements of a puzzle done. And possible results pretty much known. Question is -- how much thye can optimize? What exactly they must optimize? And etc.
\\Only if you don't perform the fact-value dialectic.
That is... circula reasoning. Ya-a-a-awn.
\\\\Is survival "enough?"... or do we want a "good life", something "moreZ" that mere survival? /That is The Question. ;-)
\\No, how much "truth" we can tolerate, THAT is the experiment.
Truth... is the easiest of foes. Disappears like thin spirit even without a need for you to blow it. ;-P
\\It seemed as if it were impossible to get along with truth, our organism was adapted for the very opposite; all its higher functions, the perceptions of the senses, and in general every kind of sensation, cooperated with those primevally embodied, fundamental errors.
And what with Lindy's Effect? ;-P
\\The human brain was gradually filled with such judgments and convictions; and in this tangled skein there arose ferment, strife and lust for power.
Same story Golem XIV told... but does this one gave some ANSWERS too? ;-)
\http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_the_will_to_power/the_will_to_power_book_III.htm /Try show your "will to power" before computer. Let me laugh of it. :-)))) You just do not know, do not see the difference? Why that experience is so important. If one works with human system. Like general commanding to his soldiers -- he can try passion and persuasion. And it will work. Well, maybe. But he always have a chance to say "that is not my fault, that lasy ass cowrds to blame!" If some mechanical worker with a mechanical system. He either can ask somebody else to do that. Or hammer it in. Or broke damn thing. While cursing and talking with it, which would LOOK LIKE you applied some will and passion, and was able to "persuade"... damn thing. But... with computer it will not work. You can broke damn thing, throw it out of window, but it will only prove that you are dumbest of dumb. Only concentration. Only clear mind. And openness to possibilities. While same time being consious of your goals. That is purely, passionless, smartassing. ;-P
No I cannot "power" or "threaten" a computer into fulfilling my will. That's why I have programmers, like you... I don't even have to do that. I can simply say, here's a $million for the one who writes the working program and a thousand programs will begin to work. Their wills will make it happen. :)
Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols"
What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros!
Nietzsche WtP 53 (March-June 1888)
Even the ideals of science can be deeply, yet completely unconsciously influenced by decadence: our entire sociology is proof of that. The objection to it is that from experience it knows only the form of the decay of society, and inevitably it takes its own instincts of decay for the norms of sociological judgment.
In these norms the life that is declining in present-day Europe formulates its social ideals: one cannot tell them from the ideals of old races that have outlived themselves.-
The herd instinct, then--a power that has now become sovereign--is something totally different from the instinct of an aristocratic society: and the value of the units determines the significance of the sum.--Our entire sociology simply does not know any other instinct than that of the herd, i.e., that of the sum of zeroes--where every zero has "equal rights," where it is virtuous to be zero.-
The valuation that is today applied to the different forms of society is entirely identical with that which assigns a higher value to peace than to war: but this judgment is antibiological, is itself a fruit of the decadence of life.--Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.--As a biologist, Mr. Herbert Spencer is a decadent; as a moralist, too (he considers the triumph of altruism a desideratum! ! !).
\\That maybe you need to read more Nietzsche. Logic is an error. There are no "equal" things. Nothing of said gives anything new to me. Do you know that saying? About repeatable doing same thing again and again, while waiting for a new result?
Water, dripping on a stone...
\\I obviously value the one in my garage than the one in the junkyard. Or perhaps I only need 1. 2 would "waste" my use of my space. /That's it. You habitually conclude, like already knowing the answer. Insteed of analysing. ;-)
Analyse it for me. How should I have analyzed it?
\\\\Can you add someting new to that banal obviousness? \\Nope. /So? What was the point of saying it?
Difference and repetition. Perhaps the water will pentrate the stone... through a new crack.
Do you think that he is some unique wiseman? Who took his ideas out of thin air, while nobody was able to, before (and after)?
Or... he just summed up foundings of his age. ;-)
\\No I cannot "power" or "threaten" a computer into fulfilling my will. That's why I have programmers, like you...
Show me how you perform that will and passion to that programmers.
For me to laugh of that performance. :-)))
That is known wisdom about "controlling coders... it's like herding cats". ;-P
\\ I can simply say, here's a $million for the one who writes the working program and a thousand programs will begin to work. Their wills will make it happen. :)
Yep. While that program is "make me something, like that guy... you know Tsukerberg, did". ;-P While there is NO programmer who'd fullfill "your will"... without prolonged and detailed instruction of what and how to make. ;-P Something new. Almost like that computer.
\\Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.--As a biologist, Mr. Herbert Spencer is a decadent; as a moralist, too (he considers the triumph of altruism a desideratum! ! !).
Go try to turn "do not kill" vice versa, and look what will happen. ;-P
Answer is... nothing. Because... what mother should do with her newbornm under such rules? Eat it?
\\Water, dripping on a stone...
Good attempt. But. That is not SAME water. ;-P
\\Analyse it for me. How should I have analyzed it?
Why that car on a trashyard? Maybe there's something wrong with it. Or with its rider.
But my point was -- look at results. While technically that cars are identically. One can perform its duty, while other can't. And that is... important difference... isn't it?
\\Difference and repetition. Perhaps the water will pentrate the stone... through a new crack.
\\There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not." /Was sufis wise? Maby they was... knowledgeble? Masterful? Maybe they was powerful? No. That is all tautological pseudo-wisdom. I know several other sources spouting something like that. So, what?
Fine. Be happy with your "virtual" life. Have a "virtual" cup of coffee, I'm sure it'll be just as satisfying as a real one.
\\You should read Nietzsche... /Do you think that he is some unique wiseman? Who took his ideas out of thin air, while nobody was able to, before (and after)? Or... he just summed up foundings of his age. ;-)
Yes to the first two, and no to the third.
\\No I cannot "power" or "threaten" a computer into fulfilling my will. That's why I have programmers, like you... /Show me how you perform that will and passion to that programmers. For me to laugh of that performance. :-))) That is known wisdom about "controlling coders... it's like herding cats". ;-P
I set deadlines for programmers ALL THE TIME. I either get the code drops I need, or they start getting calls from all kinds of managers/bosses telling them to drop everything else their working on and give me my code drops. And when they give their code to me and it doesn't work, they get to sit in the lab with the hardware engineers and Integration/ Test team until it does and their managers/bosses stop calling them every day to find out how its' going. And after a few weeks, I either have the code, or I have new coders.
\\ I can simply say, here's a $million for the one who writes the working program and a thousand programs will begin to work. Their wills will make it happen. :) /Yep. While that program is "make me something, like that guy... you know Tsukerberg, did". ;-P While there is NO programmer who'd fullfill "your will"... without prolonged and detailed instruction of what and how to make. ;-P Something new. Almost like that computer.
The conductor of a symphony doesn't need to know how to play every instrument. He just needs to tell the other musicians when to play their notes. For that, he chooses a composer, and follows a score, and then instructs the musicians as to how he wants them to play that score to his will/ liking.
\\Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.--As a biologist, Mr. Herbert Spencer is a decadent; as a moralist, too (he considers the triumph of altruism a desideratum! ! !). /Go try to turn "do not kill" vice versa, and look what will happen. ;-P Answer is... nothing. Because... what mother should do with her newbornm under such rules? Eat it?
Abortion/ Exposure. You tell me. Euphemisims will be created.
\\Water, dripping on a stone... /Good attempt. But. That is not SAME water. ;-P
Heraclitus: “you can’t step in the same river twice”
\\Analyse it for me. How should I have analyzed it? Why that car on a trashyard? Maybe there's something wrong with it. Or with its rider. But my point was -- look at results. While technically that cars are identically. One can perform its duty, while other can't. And that is... important difference... isn't it?
There's a couple of assumptions there, that the car in the trashyard doesn't work, while the one in my garage does. I may have assumed that they were the same, either both worked or both didn't. It wasn't "self-evident".
...and so \\The origin of the narrative lies in the speakers "values" which now arrange the facts is a manner supportive or critical of those "values".
Bike/car on a trashyard consist of the same parts as one in your garage... so, what's the difference? ;-)
You would seem to "value" what's in your garage more highly than what's in a trashyard or less highly than one at a dealership/store?
\\Difference and repetition. Perhaps the water will penetrate the stone... through a new crack. /Trial and error. But, what's knowledgeble and smart in it?
I don't think that you're incapable of understanding, I just need to try a different approach?
"For I repeat it, my friends! All culture begins with the very opposite of that which is now so highly esteemed as 'academical freedom': with obedience, with subordination, with discipline, with subjection. And as leaders must have followers so also must the followers have a leader--here a certain reciprocal predisposition prevails in the hierarchy of spirits: yea, a kind of pre-established harmony. This eternal hierarchy, towards which all things naturally tend, is always threatened by that pseudo-culture which now sits on the throne of the present. It endeavours either to bring the leaders down to the level of its own servitude or else to cast them out altogether. It seduces the followers when they are seeking their predestined leader, and overcomes them by the fumes of its narcotics. When, however, in spite of all this, leader and followers have at last met, wounded and sore, there is an impassioned feeling of rapture, like the echo of an eversounding lyre, a feeling which I can let you divine only by means of a simile.
"Have you ever, at a musical rehearsal, looked at the strange, shrivelled-up, good-natured species of men who usually form the German orchestra? What changes and fluctuations we see in that capricious goddess 'form'! What noses and ears, what clumsy, danse macabre movements! Just imagine for a moment that you were deaf, and had never dreamed of the existence of sound or music, and that you were looking upon the orchestra as a company of actors, and trying to enjoy their performance as a drama and nothing more. Undisturbed by the idealising effect of the sound, you could never see enough of the stern, medieval, wood-cutting movement of this comical spectacle, this harmonious parody on the homo sapiens.
"Now, on the other hand, assume that your musical sense has returned, and that your ears are opened. Look at the honest conductor at the head of the orchestra performing his duties in a dull, spiritless fashion: you no longer think of the comical aspect of the whole scene, you listen--but it seems to you that the spirit of tediousness spreads out from the honest conductor over all his companions. Now you see only torpidity and flabbiness, you hear only the trivial, the rhythmically inaccurate, and the melodiously trite. You see the orchestra only as an indifferent, ill-humoured, and even wearisome crowd of players.
"But set a genius--a real genius--in the midst of this crowd; and you instantly perceive something almost incredible. It is as if this genius, in his lightning transmigration, had entered into these mechanical, lifeless bodies, and as if only one demoniacal eye gleamed forth out of them all. Now look and listen--you can never listen enough! When you again observe the orchestra, now loftily storming, now fervently wailing, when you notice the quick tightening of every muscle and the rhythmical necessity of every gesture, then you too will feel what a pre-established harmony there is between leader and followers, and how in this hierarchy of spirits everything impels us towards the establishment of a like organisation. You can divine from my simile what I would understand by a true educational institution, and why I am very far from recognising one in the present type of university."
\\Fine. Be happy with your "virtual" life. Have a "virtual" cup of coffee, I'm sure it'll be just as satisfying as a real one.
Your brain is the same as mine. And DO NOT allow you to percieve Reality "non-virtually", directly. Only through mediation of all kinds of proxies installed in your brain by Evolution: biases, cognitive limitations, prejudges and etc.
\\\\You should read Nietzsche... /Do you think that he is some unique wiseman? Who took his ideas out of thin air, while nobody was able to, before (and after)? Or... he just summed up foundings of his age. ;-)
\\Yes to the first two, and no to the third.
Then... with all my regrets... you are delusioned by him. ;-P
In contrast to it -- I rever Lem, but only after double-checking. ;-P While knowing that he is just an ordinary human. With his weaknesses and limitations. Only... his earthly path was maybe little bit more zigzagged than of most of us. Which allowed to him to percieve something, too unusual to average man. And he was clever enough to write it down... his revelations.
\\I set deadlines for programmers ALL THE TIME.
:-)))) You know that parable about monkeys and British Encyclopedia?
\\The conductor of a symphony doesn't need to know how to play every instrument. He just needs to tell the other musicians when to play their notes. For that, he chooses a composer, and follows a score, and then instructs the musicians as to how he wants them to play that score to his will/ liking.
I am not conductor... but I think that if you'd ask one, how he work, it wouldn't be tha simple. ;-P Or... there'd be no such speciality and even janitor would be able to be a conductor. ;-P
\\Abortion/ Exposure. You tell me. Euphemisims will be created.
Well... that is interesting sphere to hypothetise around. We discusses such a text -- from Yudkowsky, remember? "Three worlds collide".
\\Heraclitus: “you can’t step in the same river twice”
Yap. :-)
\\There's a couple of assumptions there, that the car in the trashyard doesn't work, while the one in my garage does. I may have assumed that they were the same, either both worked or both didn't. It wasn't "self-evident".
Yes. But that is -- damn inevitable.
ALL that communication scheme with human language built on such "assumptions".
That's why "fact" is so damn hard concept to grasp. To have common agreement of.
And that is... seems like main reason why my simplest of simple ideas seems like so damn complex. :-(((
\\You would seem to "value" what's in your garage more highly than what's in a trashyard or less highly than one at a dealership/store?
And WHY they do that? Why they behave so "unreasonable"? Why they assign "value" in such a discriminative way? ;-P
Maybe... just maybe, because there are some subtle reasons? ;-)
\\I don't think that you're incapable of understanding, I just need to try a different approach?
That is... interesting question. Indeed. What is "understanding"? What it even mean?
But it seems like you are too delusioned by that Nietzsche... to divert you attention to that, more interesting questions. Am I wrong? Let it be that I'm wrong. (shy)
\\But perhaps THAT is what we need.... LESS efficient capitalism. "Ant-Fragile capitalism".
There is only one way we can have it -- some disaster, which would level the ground, for it to start grow anew...
But. If it'll be able to grow anew -- it WILL overgrow... that state you like the most.
And we again will be on a square one. ;-P
\\And as leaders must have followers so also must the followers have a leader--here a certain reciprocal predisposition prevails in the hierarchy of spirits: yea, a kind of pre-established harmony.
For me... as cybernetic and progammer. I do not need such poetical(sic) persuasion to know that hierarchical is most simple and economical structure... but well, it is not versatile. ;-P
\\But perhaps THAT is what we need.... LESS efficient capitalism. "Ant-Fragile capitalism". /There is only one way we can have it -- some disaster, which would level the ground, for it to start grow anew... But. If it'll be able to grow anew -- it WILL overgrow... that state you like the most. And we again will be on a square one. ;-P
Meden Agan!
\\And as leaders must have followers so also must the followers have a leader--here a certain reciprocal predisposition prevails in the hierarchy of spirits: yea, a kind of pre-established harmony. /For me... as cybernetic and progammer. I do not need such poetical(sic) persuasion to know that hierarchical is most simple and economical structure... but well, it is not versatile. ;-P OR... we would live in a World of Crystals. :-))) No... we would not, because here'd be NO us. ;-P
\\Sure. Lindy.... aka "Tradition". /That "tradition"... isn't it like instincts for animals? But... do you like to be "just that animal"? Brainless. Uncurious.
Human's aren't animals? Animals could live w/o "instincts"?
Yes, but that doesn't mean "still not animal". It's the "human" part we must conquer, Over-men, not the animal part. Dionysius AND Apollo. Today men want to be all Apollo (logic/reason). Nietzsche seeks a god who can DANCE.
Like Plato's "Republic".... a state in a "fevered heat" with "Guardians" (philosopher kings)... or more like the Magnesia of his "Laws"? One with its' SuperEgo "Nocturnal Council" which meets in secret and keeps its' "administrators" on task (and OFF tech/commerce)?
“I would believe only in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity - through him all things fall.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Well... who said to you, that science, techs... are passionless???
Are they good at accepting jokes? It's fine to seek truth, but sometimes truth isn't what is needed for a species "survival".
Who will control the controllers? Simple. Two (or more) controllers. Remember Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation? In US, that used to be RNC/DNC. Sparta had two kinds. Rome had two consuls (and later also two tribunes).
That's where America has gone wrong. In 2001, the US Information Community was unified under Homeland. THAT became the death of America and birth of the UniParty.
\\“I would believe only in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity - through him all things fall.”
\\― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Well... he is (with that remark: not his fault, just times he was living) just a knownothing... as we know today, with all that Habble and Webb telescope -- that "god" is more like dancing gods of Induses... ;-P
\\Are they good at accepting jokes? It's fine to seek truth, but sometimes truth isn't what is needed for a species "survival".
Here... I accept it. After Fainman there's not many who able to rise his flag. :-(((
\\Who will control the controllers? Simple. Two (or more) controllers. Remember Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation? In US, that used to be RNC/DNC. Sparta had two kinds. Rome had two consuls (and later also two tribunes).
That ruins that perfect hierarchical system. ;-P
\\The point is to avoid CENTRALIZED SINGULAR control. You need a dialectic. Generation from opposites.
That is called -- equilibrium. Equilibrium forming when there's two forces, not uni-directed. ;-)
\\That's where America has gone wrong. In 2001, the US Information Community was unified under Homeland. THAT became the death of America and birth of the UniParty.
NMP.
\\Trump is America's last-best hope to return to divided control.
Go find crowd of supporters... of this your claim. ;-P
\\“I would believe only in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity - through him all things fall.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra /Well... he is (with that remark: not his fault, just times he was living) just a knownothing... as we know today, with all that Habble and Webb telescope -- that "god" is more like dancing gods of Induses... ;-P
\\Are they good at accepting jokes? It's fine to seek truth, but sometimes truth isn't what is needed for a species "survival". /Here... I accept it. After Fainman there's not many who able to rise his flag. :-(((
\\Who will control the controllers? Simple. Two (or more) controllers. Remember Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation? In US, that used to be RNC/DNC. Sparta had two kinds. Rome had two consuls (and later also two tribunes). /That ruins that perfect hierarchical system. ;-P
Not ANOTHER rhizome... :(
\\The point is to avoid CENTRALIZED SINGULAR control. You need a dialectic. Generation from opposites. /That is called -- equilibrium. Equilibrium forming when there's two forces, not uni-directed. ;-)
"Life is a chemical System that uses energy to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium. Equilibrium is the situation in which chemicals no longer have a tendency to react over time." ...aka - "death"
\\That's where America has gone wrong. In 2001, the US Information Community was unified under Homeland. THAT became the death of America and birth of the UniParty. /NMP.
Apparent miscommunication. Calling my frivolous remark about "dancing god of India" -- serious? :-)))
\\"Life is a chemical System that uses energy to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium. Equilibrium is the situation in which chemicals no longer have a tendency to react over time." ...aka - "death"
Well... thermodinamical equilibrium. While creating it's own. Inner. Like homeostasis. ;-)
And well, there is dinamical equilibriums too. ;-)
\\It will be if/when the war ever ends.
And why do you care? ;-)
\\I know of only ~70 million of them who voted for Trump in the last election.
That is HIS folowers. Not yours. And even HIM... will have a big problem, to reactivate em for twice. ;-P
\\It will be if/when the war ever ends. /And why do you care? ;-)
I'm paying for it.
\\I know of only ~70 million of them who voted for Trump in the last election. /That is HIS folowers. Not yours. And even HIM... will have a big problem, to reactivate em for twice. ;-P
He won't have any problems in that department. The TtBO movement will be unstoppable.
Naah. Now your paying extra funds because of your negligence. If USA would be diligent (with it's semi-imperial stance obligations), there'd be no need to pay that extra.
That is like paying for repaiting costs in cash... because you was not paying insurance in-time.
\\He won't have any problems in that department. The TtBO movement will be unstoppable.
NMP. That's just how it looks like... from afar. Take it, and make conclusions... or throw it out of a window. WYS/WYD.
Well... and how'd he do that... from jail. ;-P There was such a stunt actor... but that was 100 years ago. So, such a recap... would be greatly appreciated (I bet). All around the world too. ;-)
But, well... lets stop that lame games here. :-/ It maybe pleasant for you, but totally ambigious for me.
Let's use such an example, that would not content allusions to current realities. Just factual structure.
You surely know that story about that sneaker Odissey, isn't it? ;-)
And I mean -- end of that story.
When he came to his home, at last. Which, because of his prolonged negligance (willing or unwilling, doesn't matter), was occupied by all kinds of scum.
And he was forced to fight back... his stance.
Well, whole goddess, Afina was helping him. To not do it stupid way. And he was successful.
I am... not Afina. :-))) And if USA wanna do it stupid way. Or lose it completely. NMP. ;-P
Once uppon a time, there was Kingdom of Donkey and Elephant Casino. ;-)
Business was going smooth. Just some small bumps for a times anybody (care to)remember. But nevermind, principle "casino always win" intact.
But... suddenly. A tsug came to that casino. Behaving brazenly. Declaring that he came to "rob the casino". Scaring good lawful public.
Best idea was... to throw him out. And that way problem would be solved right away.
But.
Security of casino grown timid, and lost ability to withstand tsugs. And that tsug was showing that he have a gun, under his suit. And a bunch of minions nearby. And... chief, Big Master, in security control room decided:"let him, nothing big would happen". Because principle "casino always win" intact. And even that tsug will go out, peacefull, after losing his due.
But.
Suddenly. (well, not suddenly at all, as that tsug was screamning about it even before entering, and it was in news, and posters was all around town... but, who cared, cause principle "casino always win" intact) That tsug took a sit before Huclear Poker table. Which was unusable from unknown times... and was used as catering table, even, from time to time.
And started to demand cards being drawn for him... and it was.
And suddenly... a cold goosebumps and shiver visited everybody in that security control room... but, nobody gave their attention to it -- just turned conditioner a couple points higher.
Game started.
Stackes start rising more and more.
Attention from public started growing more and more.
Some people even dig out and read -- what rules of that Nuclear Poker actually are... and it seems, that it allows Final Stake -- Casino Itself. Under Win or Bust Principle... which goes totally against "casino always win" everybody saw as Main and Only Principle.
And... suddenly Big Boss of rival casino downhill... came closer to that table, and started show his interest. ;-P
PS Go propose your coorections to this metaphor? Or... you don't like it?
I kinda like it. Only in my version, the casino starts changing and rigging the game so that the casino always wins a little bit more and more... and pretty soon, people stop coming to the casino to gamble because they have no money to risk/ play with. And there are no rival casinos owner because they've all been bought out and must offer the same rigged gmes to their customers.
That is how it (may) look like to ordinary public of that "casino". ;-P Regulars especially. Who rarely coming out of it. Or even look from window... eh, crap -- there's no windows in casinos. ;-P For people to not know whot time of the day, what year, what century... in Reality. ;-P
Humblebrag Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › hum... The meaning of HUMBLEBRAG is to make a seemingly modest, self-critical, or casual statement or reference that is meant to draw attention to one's admirable ...
An internal drive... something like hunger or sex (DaVinci's "Vitruvian Man")... that can square and circle your life when applying mind and transforming "drive" into a "desire".
Like those priests denied sex so they could funnel all that energy into the Church (your Pavlovian dogs)...
\\Like those priests denied sex so they could funnel all that energy into the Church (your Pavlovian dogs)...
Yep... if you have use for tons of saliva. ;-P
\\with pure pleasures..
And what that are? %-)
\\...the math of a golden ratio... and the symmetry of a woman's perfect body where the "ratio" is maintained (breast:waist:hips) 1.61....:1: 1.61 . ;)
Numerology... bleh. :-)
\\An alchemist's love for "gold"...
Did you read that "Alchemist" bestseller? That is... where true "gold" is. ;-)
And fifth, those pleasures which we separated and classed as painless, which we called pure pleasures of the soul itself, those which accompany knowledge and, sometimes, perceptions?
And no, I never read The Alchemist. What was the gold? The journey or the destination?
Emerson, "The Conduct of Life" (Beauty)
Beauty... as never form and never face So sweet to SEYD as only grace Which did not slumber like a stone But hovered gleaming and was gone. Beauty chased he everywhere, In flame, in storm, in clouds of air. He smote the lake to feed his eye With the beryl beam of the broken wave; He flung in pebbles well to hear The moment's music which they gave. Oft pealed for him a lofty tone From nodding pole and belting zone. He heard a voice none else could hear From centred and from errant sphere. The quaking earth did quake in rhyme, Seas ebbed and flowed in epic chime. In dens of passion, and pits of wo, He saw strong Eros struggling through, To sun the dark and solve the curse, And beam to the bounds of the universe. While thus to love he gave his days In loyal worship, scorning praise, How spread their lures for him, in vain, Thieving Ambition and paltering Gain! He thought it happier to be dead, To die for Beauty, than live for bread.
...he naturalist is led from the road by the whole distance of his fancied advance. The boy had juster views when he gazed at the shells on the beach, or the flowers in the meadow, unable to call them by their names, than the man in the pride of his nomenclature. Astrology interested us, for it tied man to the system. Instead of an isolated beggar, the farthest star felt him, and he felt the star. However rash and however falsified by pretenders and traders in it, the hint was true and divine, the soul's avowal of its large relations, and, that climate, century, remote natures, as well as near, are part of its biography. Chemistry takes to pieces, but it does not construct. Alchemy which sought to transmute one element into another, to prolong life, to arm with power, — that was in the right direction. All our science lacks a human side. The tenant is more than the house. Bugs and stamens and spores, on which we lavish so many years, are not finalities, and man, when his powers unfold in order, will take Nature along with him, and emit light into all her recesses. The human heart concerns us more than the poring into microscopes, and is larger than can be measured by the pompous figures of the astronomer.
\\Immanuel Kant's, "Observations of the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime"
Today its called "endogenous opioids". ;-P
\\Numerology? No. Symmetry and Measure. Phi represent "evolution's number".
I got it.
Pythagoreanism - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Pythagoreanism Pythagoreanism was a philosophic tradition as well as a religious practice. As a religious community they relied on oral teachings and worshiped the Pythian ...
110 comments:
Add some examples... ple-e-e-ease. ;-)
:P
:)
I mean real world.
Like, you know.
Socrat is a human.
Humans are mortal.
...
God is dead.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead.
God
Simple example lies in four different perspectives
Tha Master, who say's "Do this" (and leaves out the "or I'll kill you")
The University professor, who says, "The Master told you to do this because it fits into the "science" of "how things should be done."
The Hysteric who see's a paradox between what the Master says and the reasons given by the University professor... (rules of power etiquette are science?)
...and the Analyst who explainss the real (personal) reason why the Master asked for what he did (to serve his own SuperEgo) and explains it to the Hysteric so that the hysteric doesn't go mad from the anxiety of the Master's unstated threat to kill him if he disobey's.
\\Tha Master, who say's "Do this" (and leaves out the "or I'll kill you")
That is... too primitive. Yawn.
Even in most primitive slavery there is other part. "...and I'll feed you".
\\The University professor, who says, "The Master told you to do this because it fits into the "science" of "how things should be done."
Bogus idea.
And university professors like to spread bogus ideas. Like this. Like that that they have ANY power. :-)))
Dreams of an impotent about raping whole fem fraternity. :-)))
\\The Hysteric who see's a paradox...
Aha. Trully. :-)))))
\\...and the Analyst who explainss the real (personal) reason why the Master asked for what he did (to serve his own SuperEgo) and explains it to the Hysteric so that the hysteric doesn't go mad from the anxiety of the Master's unstated threat to kill him if he disobey's.
If simple idea "I'll kill you" need such a prolonged procedure of explanation.
That mean that pacient is braindead.
Like dErpy. :-)))
PS Thank you.
Now I see that it all just a fatamorganas made up of empty words...
Well, IMHO.
Too primitive? LOL!
For law to function as law, the Real of violence must be concealed.
Ethology.
We all, as animals. Mammals.
Born as helpless, needing constant care creatures.
So, "following orders" that was WISE idea of Evolution to built-in into us.
See.
Simple.
And streamlined.
Not like that fantasmagorical sophistic ideas.
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › The_Sleep_of_Reaso...
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters or The Dream of Reason Produces Monsters is an aquatint by the Spanish painter and printmaker Francisco Goya.
You mean the "memory" of the "pain" from being beaten when we didn't, don't you?
Why beaten???
Being beaten is one of lesser pains. Easy to avoid. (with death for example, as wise Japanese devised)
And well... pain is the lesser horrors in this mundane World.
As buddhist would said -- pain BEING in this World, horror big enough for itself. ;-P
But that is... just a cultural rethorical workarounds.
I, as technologist and cybernetic. Just looking into WHAT directly... to devise HOW... to fix it with technological means. ;-)
Sounds as if you're just looking for some orders to follow... ;)
Where exactly it "looks" that way?
That's why I citing so often. To avoid such "looking like that".
Well... that is difference between humanitarian and natural sciences.
In humanitarian you are pefectly free to devise whatever theory and explanation you want or see fit, or prefer because of political reasons.
In natural sciences (and technologies ;-)) -- there is NO such freedom.
That is like trying to make a blimp filled with chlorine gas. ;-P
No matter how much you want it and see "profitable". And easy to implement. And popular among your peers. And viable in the eyes of investors. And etc.
You OUGHT to use He or H... ;-P
So... yeah... "some orders to follow", yes.
///I, as technologist and cybernetic. Just looking into WHAT directly... to devise HOW... to fix it with technological means. ;-)
\\Sounds as if you're just looking for some orders to follow... ;)
/Where exactly it "looks" that way?
That's why I citing so often. To avoid such "looking like that".
Because you have "answers".... "use tech this way, or that way... "
Politicians always come to experts looking for answers to their questions... but most times, they're asking the wrong questions. They can't compose the right "questions" because they can't conceive or characterize the problem through the lenses of their ideology. It blinds them. Most of time their questions address the symptoms of a problem, not the root cause.
:P
As for you "distinction", you run into the same problem. Every tech innovation leads to the next humanitarian problem. So yeah, you can get your colony to Mars, but what will your colonists be doing once they get there? Will their existance still be human?
from a post I made yesterday at another site:
Me: Carl Sagan, a famous astronomer and science communicator, argued in his work The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.[32]
Carl Sagan's words are thought to be a prediction of a "post-truth" or "alternative facts" world.[33]
In the context of politics, post-truth has recently been applied to the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections, Brexit, the COVID-19 "infodemic", and the conditions that led to the storming of the US capital on January 6, 2021. The historian Timothy Snyder wrote of post-truth and the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol:
"Post-truth is pre-fascism... When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions... Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth.[34]"
The writer George Gillett has suggested that the term "post-truth" mistakenly conflates empirical and ethical judgements, writing that the supposedly "post-truth" movement is in fact a rebellion against "expert economic opinion becoming a surrogate for values-based political judgements".[35]
more....
(cont.)
Mustang: Truths aren’t self-evident. That’s what makes them difficult. They can be hard to understand, or contravene intuition or closely-held, ancestral beliefs. Carl Sagan knew that didn’t make them less true, and it makes them even more important. —Adam Rogers
Me: The section on Hannah Arendt in the link below, I believe, is particularly apropos....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth
There are at least two factors contributing to our inability to discern truth from fiction. One is the constant bombardment of ads from "consumerism"... and the associated deliberate "shading" of customer judgement that accompanies it, under-valuing or making the consumer "indifferent" to certain value-aspects of the product being sold and emphasizing certain others, conditioning everyone so that they become "ready to buy" (on impulse) their advertised product. The other lies in the raising the individual's level of abstraction... the McNamarization of the Vietnam War being but a recent example... that you could "numberize" casualties and equipment to show and convince yourself of the "inevitability" of your victory... through enemy body counts/ dropped-bomb statistics or of "profitability" through corporate balance sheets.
Referring to the aforementioned concept of "defactualization" by Arendt, but applying it to the information society of the twenty-first century, Byung-Chul Han argues that a "new nihilism" is emerging, in which the lie is no longer passed off as truth, or in which the truth is disavowed as a lie. Rather it is the very distinction between truth and falsehood that is undermined. Anyone who knowingly lies and resists the truth, paradoxically recognizes it. Lying is possible only where the distinction between truth and falsehood is intact. The liar does not lose touch with the truth. His faith in reality does not waver. The liar is not a nihilist, he does not question truth itself. The more determined he lies, the more the truth is confirmed. "Fake news" are not lies: they attack "facticity" itself. They "de-facticize" reality. When Donald Trump offhandedly says whatever suits him, he is not a classic liar knowingly distorting reality, as to do that one would need to know it. He is rather indifferent to the truth of facts.
more....
(cont.)
Me: Another aspect of this difficulty lies in the fact-values distinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction
This is particularly difficult in a multi-cultural environment, as the same facts may be perceived by individuals differently on the basis of the specific individual's culture/religion and the culture/religion of the world around him and in which he exists..
In his essay Science as a Vocation (1917) Max Weber draws a distinction between facts and values. He argues that facts can be determined through the methods of a value-free, objective social science, while values are derived through culture and religion, the truth of which cannot be known through science. He writes, "it is one thing to state facts, to determine mathematical or logical relations or the internal structure of cultural values, while it is another thing to answer questions of the value of culture and its individual contents and the question of how one should act in the cultural community and in political associations. These are quite heterogeneous problems."[4] In his 1919 essay Politics as a Vocation, he argues that facts, like actions, do not in themselves contain any intrinsic meaning or power: "any ethic in the world could establish substantially identical commandments applicable to all relationships."[5]
To MLK Jr., "Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."[6][7][8] He stated that science keeps religion from "crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism" whereas Religion prevents science from "falling into ... obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."[9]
Albert Einstein remarked that:
"the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
This increased multiculturalism also contributes greatly to the nihilism surrounding a society's apparently increased indifference to facts. We no longer expect our neighbors to share our values, or to perceive facts in the same ways that we do (although paradoxically, this seems to be the censorial Left's increasing demand - that we share their "values" like ESG and Woke/ SoJus and thereby interpret their "less pertinent -to-us" "facts" in the same way).
\\...but most times, they're asking the wrong questions...
As Lem himself said: "To ask wise questions one need to be wise enough himself".
\\Every tech innovation leads to the next humanitarian problem.
To have problems -- means to be alive. And to be alive -- it's better than be dead.
Well, for very least there is no representatives from that side to state their opinion. ;-P
\\Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking.
It's interesting, why he didn't said "philosophy" here?
While that is obviouscle are philisophy -- aka "way of thinking".
How do you think? ;-)
\\when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority;
Well... you have me... here.
But what wise use of me you devised THIS FAR. ;-)
So... why and for what you need that with "their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority" anyway?
\\Carl Sagan's words are thought to be a prediction of a "post-truth" or "alternative facts" world.[33]
Yep.
He didn't knew Lem. ;-P
\\"Post-truth is pre-fascism...
I honor Snyder as a person.
But this his babbling... well, he just don't know what he trying to talk about.
Well, that is not big sin... too few of people do otherwise.
Francois Duc de la Rochefoucauld stated, “Everyone complains of his memory, and no one complains of his judgment.” We focus on the wrong thing.
\\If we lose the institutions that produce facts...
There is NO such facilities. :-))))
And sole idea that "facts" can be produced somehow, so then it can be placed into minds -- totally fascistic. ;-P
Isn't that funny. Funny as Hell. :-))))
\\Mustang: Truths aren’t self-evident. That’s what makes them difficult.
Bull Shit. :-)))
Truth IS self-evidant. Otherwise that is anything else but NOT Truth.
\\Byung-Chul Han argues that a "new nihilism" is emerging
Yep.
Mind in poor condintion cannot distinguish Right from Wrong.
But well, again, Lem... from mouth of Golem XIV, said that.
But was there anywhere someone ready to LISTEN?
Well, I am one.
But is ONE enough... for anything??? :-/
\\When Donald Trump offhandedly says whatever suits him, he is not a classic liar
Blah-blah-blah... so much "smart" words to say that mt.t is merely stupid clown. :-)))))
But, WHY they cannot say that Truth???
Because.
Polit-correctness -- their own invention.
They clouded that that might be and MUST be apparent.
They did it DELIBERATELY, for the sake of their political goals and sheer profit from sophistic power.
But... forgot about it. And lost control of that narrative. Which start showing that the same as mustang... narratives are free and self-governing, and do not allow riders. :-))))
\\This is particularly difficult in a multi-cultural environment, as the same facts may be perceived by individuals differently
Yet again.
What definition of "fact" you are using. ;-)
\\To MLK Jr., "Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."
Bull Shit. :-)
\\ But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.
Well... that is... damn interesting question. Is religion needed to install sicence?
Well, it is, even if purely technological.
Modern sciences inhereted framework of teological disputes and all.
\\Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking.
/It's interesting, why he didn't said "philosophy" here?
While that is obviouscle are philisophy -- aka "way of thinking".
How do you think? ;-)
The Fact-Value Distinction. The Values part is more the "philosophy" (sets goals). The Fact's part is the science of determing "cause" from the Facts using logic/reason so that it can be remembered when facts get repeated in a similar fashion. Yes, you must "value" knowing "cause", but I suspect this comes from one's inate "will to power".
\\when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority;
/Well... you have me... here.
But what wise use of me you devised THIS FAR. ;-)
So... why and for what you need that with "their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority" anyway?
Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty.
\\Carl Sagan's words are thought to be a prediction of a "post-truth" or "alternative facts" world.[33]
/Yep.
He didn't knew Lem. ;-P
No? Synopses may not accomplish much in explaining the appeal of the works of Stanislaw Lem. A message arrives from the stars, and humanity comprehensively fails to decipher it. An astronaut returns from a centurylong mission that we barely hear about. A robotic swarm extinguishes nearly all life on a planet, and a mission can’t figure out anything to do to counter it. Yet Lem is one of the few world-renowned science fiction authors not to have written in English, with fans as diverse as Anthony Burgess, Douglas Hofstadter, Carl Sagan, and John Updike. Six of his works have been rereleased by MIT Press this month, all of them excellent.
\\"Post-truth is pre-fascism...
/I honor Snyder as a person.
But this his babbling... well, he just don't know what he trying to talk about.
Well, that is not big sin... too few of people do otherwise.
Francois Duc de la Rochefoucauld stated, “Everyone complains of his memory, and no one complains of his judgment.” We focus on the wrong thing.
I agree to disagree. It represents a values breakdown (religion). From the Jowett summary of Plato's "Republic": There remains still the finest and fairest of all men and all States—tyranny and the tyrant. Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy. Both arise from excess; the one from excess of wealth, the other from excess of freedom. ‘The great natural good of life,’ says the democrat, ‘is freedom.’ And this exclusive love of freedom and regardlessness of everything else, is the cause of the change from democracy to tyranny. The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals. Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women. Nay, the very animals in a democratic State have a freedom which is unknown in other places. The she-dogs are as good as their she-mistresses, and horses and asses march along with dignity and run their noses against anybody who comes in their way. ‘That has often been my experience.’ At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master. Such is the glorious beginning of things out of which tyranny springs.
\\If we lose the institutions that produce facts...
/There is NO such facilities. :-))))
And sole idea that "facts" can be produced somehow, so then it can be placed into minds -- totally fascistic. ;-P
Isn't that funny. Funny as Hell. :-))))
Really? Nietzsche, "On the Future of Our Educational Institutions"
On the other hand, that adhesive and tenacious stratum which has now filled up the interstices between the sciences--Journalism--believes it has a mission to fulfil here, and this it does, according to its own particular lights--that is to say, as its name implies, after the fashion of a day-labourer.
"It is precisely in journalism that the two tendencies combine and become one. The expansion and the diminution of education here join hands. The newspaper actually steps into the place of culture, and he who, even as a scholar, wishes to voice any claim for education, must avail himself of this viscous stratum of communication which cements the seams between all forms of life, all classes, all arts, and all sciences, and which is as firm and reliable as news paper is, as a rule. In the newspaper the peculiar educational aims of the present culminate, just as the journalist, the servant of the moment, has stepped into the place of the genius, of the leader for all time, of the deliverer from the tyranny of the moment. Now, tell me, distinguished master, what hopes could I still have in a struggle against the general topsy-turvification of all genuine aims for education; with what courage can I, a single teacher, step forward, when I know that the moment any seeds of real culture are sown, they will be mercilessly crushed by the roller of this pseudo-culture? Imagine how useless the most energetic work on the part of the individual teacher must be, who would fain lead a pupil back into the distant and evasive Hellenic world and to the real home of culture, when in less than an hour, that same pupil will have recourse to a newspaper, the latest novel, or one of those learned books, the very style of which already bears the revolting impress of modern barbaric culture--"
\\Mustang: Truths aren’t self-evident. That’s what makes them difficult.
/Bull Shit. :-)))
Truth IS self-evidant. Otherwise that is anything else but NOT Truth.
Truth is whatever makes you "feel" more powerful. Nietzsche, WtP
533 (Spring-Fall 1887)
Logical certainty, transparency, as criterion of truth ("omncillud verum est, quod clare et distincte percipitur." Descartes): with that, the mechanical hypothesis concerning the world is desired and credible.
But this is a crude confusion: like simplex sigillum veri. How does one know that the real nature of things stands in this relation to our intellect?--Could it not be otherwise? that it is the hypothesis that gives the intellect the greatest feeling of power and security, that is most preferred, valued and consequently characterized as true?--The intellect posits its freest and strongest capacity and capability as criterion of the most valuable, consequently of the true--
"True": from the standpoint of feeling--: that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego");
from the standpoint of thought--: that which gives thought the greatest feeling of strength;
from the standpoint of touch, seeing, hearing--: that which calls for the greatest resistance.
Thus it is the highest degrees of performance that awaken belief in the "truth," that is to say reality, of the object. The feeling of strength, of struggle, of resistance convinces us that there is something that is here being resisted.
534 (1887-1888)
The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.
\\The Fact-Value Distinction.
Facts... that is stone falling on your head.
What is Value? ;-)
\\The Values part is more the "philosophy" (sets goals).
Instinct of Survival instilled into us by Evolution...
\\Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty.
Ehm???
\\\\He didn't knew Lem. ;-P
\\No?
And? Where his comments about Golem XIV???
Where is his comments about Summa Technologia???
'Noug said, isn't it?
"one must be wise to listen to wise advices" (tm)
\\I agree to disagree.
Ehm???
With what exactly?
That TS do not know a shit?
\\Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy.
I was saying that several times already.
Old wisdoms cannot account for new historical events.
What would Plato said about Oswentsim??? Who knows?
\\Byung-Chul Han argues that a "new nihilism" is emerging
/Yep.
Mind in poor condintion cannot distinguish Right from Wrong.
But well, again, Lem... from mouth of Golem XIV, said that.
But was there anywhere someone ready to LISTEN?
Well, I am one.
But is ONE enough... for anything??? :-/
Perhaps I am another.
\\When Donald Trump offhandedly says whatever suits him, he is not a classic liar
/Blah-blah-blah... so much "smart" words to say that mt.t is merely stupid clown. :-)))))
But, WHY they cannot say that Truth???
Because.
Polit-correctness -- their own invention.
They clouded that that might be and MUST be apparent.
They did it DELIBERATELY, for the sake of their political goals and sheer profit from sophistic power.
But... forgot about it. And lost control of that narrative. Which start showing that the same as mustang... narratives are free and self-governing, and do not allow riders. :-))))
The origin of the narrative lies in the speakers "values" which now arrange the facts is a manner supportive or critical of those "values".
\\This is particularly difficult in a multi-cultural environment, as the same facts may be perceived by individuals differently
/Yet again.
What definition of "fact" you are using. ;-)
Again, I arguing that one's values have a large impact on what facts are selected as "important" and what they actually mean to particular individuals with different value sets (culture/religion).
\\To MLK Jr., "Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."
/Bull Shit. :-)
It actually helps to think of it this way, IMO. Science tries to derive "cause" from the facts. Religion/ culture influence what it "means" and how it applies to the individual in a larger context (beyond cause).
\\ But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.
/Well... that is... damn interesting question. Is religion needed to install sicence?
Well, it is, even if purely technological.
Modern sciences inhereted framework of teological disputes and all.
I take religion a bit farther, it can be a culture with a secular ideology (ie liberalism) prevalent today.
\\Really? Nietzsche, "On the Future of Our Educational Institutions"
We already discussed this one.
\\Truth is whatever makes you "feel" more powerful. Nietzsche, WtP
Thank you for good example of "whatever else". ;-P
\\"True": from the standpoint of feeling--: that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego");
Today... we have no need in such clumsy definition.
We have -- computers.
If you program it CORRECTLY... it will work, as planned.
If not... well, you can use it as a hammer, or as a stepping stone, or as house for a squirrel... :-))))))))))))))))) that would be very wise and productive uses TOO. Isn't it?
(and now, try to substitute computer for your brain inside your scull ;-))
\\The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.
A-a-a-and?
What conclusion you able to conjure of that "wise" claim??? ;-)
\\Perhaps I am another.
I still do not know what you took out of that our talks about Lem.... to conclude that. :-/
\\The origin of the narrative lies in the speakers "values" which now arrange the facts is a manner supportive or critical of those "values".
Bike/car on a trashyard consist of the same parts as one in your garage... so, what's the difference? ;-)
\\Again, I arguing that one's values have a large impact on what facts are selected as "important" and what they actually mean to particular individuals with different value sets (culture/religion).
This point do not need additional pounding.
Can you add someting new to that banal obviousness?
\\It actually helps to think of it this way, IMO.
Yes. If you live in non-secular soceity, where you ought to show piety, just while innocently walking by a street.
Because other way, believers could turn mad on you and stomp you in mud. (how do you like my pun here ;-))
But that is not like it is elsewhere...
\\Science tries to derive "cause" from the facts.
Problem is... Science do not say anythinbg like that about science. ;-)
That is all what being babbled outside of Science.
\\Religion/ culture influence what it "means" and how it applies to the individual in a larger context (beyond cause).
There is perfect cartoon/caricature for such things.
\\The Fact-Value Distinction.
/Facts... that is stone falling on your head.
What is Value? ;-)
Prevent injuty? Avoidance? Is it important to know cause? Why?
\\The Values part is more the "philosophy" (sets goals).
/Instinct of Survival instilled into us by Evolution...
Is survival "enough?"... or do we want a "good life", something "moreZ" that mere survival?
\\Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty.
/Ehm???
Free to use one's own power.
\\\\He didn't knew Lem. ;-P
\\No?
/And? Where his comments about Golem XIV???
Where is his comments about Summa Technologia???
'Noug said, isn't it?
"one must be wise to listen to wise advices" (tm)
I don't know, I never followed Sagan closely. That was a comment by someone who claimed so in an article on Lem.
\\The Fact-Value Distinction.
/Facts... that is stone falling on your head.
What is Value? ;-)
\\Prevent injuty? Avoidance? Is it important to know cause? Why?
???
Isn't that self-evidant? :-)
\\Is survival "enough?"... or do we want a "good life", something "moreZ" that mere survival?
That is The Question. ;-)
\\\\Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty.
/Ehm???
\\Free to use one's own power.
And how it relates to "having power"? ;-)
\\I don't know, I never followed Sagan closely. That was a comment by someone who claimed so in an article on Lem.
Well...
"Lem was tremendously skilled at not only dreaming up fantastical scenarios but precisely calibrating them to unsettle our schemes for understanding the world. It’s easier to venture beyond the limits of the galaxy than those of our knowledge, and Lem repeatedly struck at the artificially tidy relations we impose on reality. He labored strenuously to imagine things we haven’t seen before and generally foregrounded protagonists who don’t comprehend them. Ursula Le Guin commented about his work, “We are not yet used to hearing that there are things that we don't understand.”"
As far as I understand -- that is by all means correct summary of his artistic proves (I deliberately separate it from his phylosophical ones).
But well... the same as with ice cream -- how much fullfilling it is -- to know that some ice cream is GREAT (from ads)... from feelin git yourself?
Can it be a substitute? ;-P
\\Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy.
/I was saying that several times already.
Old wisdoms cannot account for new historical events.
What would Plato said about Oswentsim??? Who knows?
lol! And you are not a dialectician dividing a "whole" into "parts".
\\"True": from the standpoint of feeling--: that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego");
/Today... we have no need in such clumsy definition.
We have -- computers.
If you program it CORRECTLY... it will work, as planned.
If not... well, you can use it as a hammer, or as a stepping stone, or as house for a squirrel... :-))))))))))))))))) that would be very wise and productive uses TOO. Isn't it?
(and now, try to substitute computer for your brain inside your scull ;-))
Nietzsche, WtP 516
\\The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.
/A-a-a-and?
What conclusion you able to conjure of that "wise" claim??? ;-)
That maybe you need to read more Nietzsche. Logic is an error. There are no "equal" things.
\\The origin of the narrative lies in the speakers "values" which now arrange the facts is a manner supportive or critical of those "values".
/Bike/car on a trashyard consist of the same parts as one in your garage... so, what's the difference? ;-)
I obviously value the one in my garage than the one in the junkyard. Or perhaps I only need 1. 2 would "waste" my use of my space.
\\Again, I arguing that one's values have a large impact on what facts are selected as "important" and what they actually mean to particular individuals with different value sets (culture/religion).
/This point do not need additional pounding.
Can you add someting new to that banal obviousness?
Nope.
\\It actually helps to think of it this way, IMO.
/Yes. If you live in non-secular soceity, where you ought to show piety, just while innocently walking by a street.
Because other way, believers could turn mad on you and stomp you in mud. (how do you like my pun here ;-))
But that is not like it is elsewhere...
lol! like wokeism and green scientisms? You want to put carbon in the atmosphere? Lock him up!
\\Science tries to derive "cause" from the facts.
Problem is... Science do not say anythinbg like that about science. ;-)
That is all what being babbled outside of Science.
No, it's simply assumed as a given under Kuhn's conditions of "Normal Science".
\\Religion/ culture influence what it "means" and how it applies to the individual in a larger context (beyond cause).
/There is perfect cartoon/caricature for such things.
Yes... that's how "technologists" do it. :)
\\The Fact-Value Distinction.
/Facts... that is stone falling on your head.
What is Value? ;-)
\\Prevent injuty? Avoidance? Is it important to know cause? Why?
/???
Isn't that self-evidant? :-)
Only if you don't perform the fact-value dialectic.
\\Is survival "enough?"... or do we want a "good life", something "moreZ" that mere survival?
/That is The Question. ;-)
No, how much "truth" we can tolerate, THAT is the experiment.
Nietzsche, "Gay Science"
110
Origins of Knowledge. Throughout immense stretches of time the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them proved to be useful and preservative of the species: he who fell in with them, or inherited them, waged the battle for himself and his offspring with better success. Those erroneous articles of faith which were successively transmitted by inheritance, and have finally become almost the property and stock of the human species, are, for example, the following: that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it appears, that our will is free that what is good for me is also good absolutely. It was only very late that the deniers, doubters of such propositions came forward - it was only very late that truth made its appearance as the most impotent form of knowledge. It seemed as if it were impossible to get along with truth, our organism was adapted for the very opposite; all its higher functions, the perceptions of the senses, and in general every kind of sensation, cooperated with those primevally embodied, fundamental errors. Moreover, those propositions became the very standards of knowledge according to which the "true "and the "false" were determined - throughout the whole domain of pure logic. The strength of conceptions does not, therefore, depend on their degree of truth, but on their antiquity, their embodiment, their character as conditions of life. Where life and knowledge seemed to conflict, there has never been serious contention; denial and doubt have there been regarded as madness. The exceptional thinkers like the Eleatics, who, in spite of this, advanced and maintained the antitheses of the natural errors, believed that it was possible also to live these counterparts: it was they who devised the sage as the man of immutability, impersonality and universality of intuition, as one and all at the same time, with a special faculty for that reverse kind of knowledge; they were of the belief that their knowledge was at the same time the principle of life. To be able to affirm all this, however, they had to deceive themselves concerning their own condition: they had to attribute to themselves impersonality and unchanging permanence, they had to mistake the nature of the philosophic individual, deny the force of the impulses in cognition, and conceive of reason generally as an entirely free and self-originating activity; they kept their eyes shut to the fact that they also had reached their doctrines in contradiction to valid methods, or through their longing for repose or for exclusive possession or for domination. The subtler development of sincerity and of skepticism finally made these men impossible; to be continued...
(cont)
their life also, and their judgments, turned out to be dependent on the primeval impulses and fundamental errors of all sentient beings. The subtler sincerity and skepticism arose wherever two antithetical maxims appeared to be applicable to life, because both of them were compatible with the fundamental errors; where, therefore, there could be contention concerning a higher or lower degree of utility for life; and likewise where new maxims proved to be, not necessarily useful, but at least not injurious, as expressions of an intellectual impulse to play a game that was like all games innocent and happy The human brain was gradually filled with such judgments and convictions; and in this tangled skein there arose ferment, strife and lust for power. Not only utility and delight, but every kind of impulse took part in the struggle for "truths"; the intellectual struggle became a business, an attraction, a calling, a duty, an honor; cognizing and striving for the true finally arranged themselves as needs among other needs. From that moment not only belief and conviction, but also examination, denial, distrust and contradiction became forces; all "evil "instincts were subordinated to knowledge, were placed in its service, and acquired the prestige of the permitted, the honored, the useful, and finally the appearance and innocence of the good. Knowledge thus became a portion of life itself, and as life it became a continually growing power; until finally the cognitions and those primeval, fundamental errors clashed with each other, both as life, both as power, both in the same man. The thinker is now the being in whom the impulse to truth and those life-preserving errors wage their first conflict, now that the impulse to truth has also proved itself to be a life-preserving power. In comparison with the importance of this conflict everything else is indifferent; the final question concerning the conditions of life is here raised, and the first attempt is here made to answer it by experiment. How far is truth susceptible of embodiment - that is the question, that is the experiment.
\\lol! And you are not a dialectician dividing a "whole" into "parts".
I am programmer. ;-P
And I know that what is difference between "code looks like (it should be) working" and... "it works!". :-)))
All that illusive dialectics and other clutches of phylosophy...
yak!
\\http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_the_will_to_power/the_will_to_power_book_III.htm
Try show your "will to power" before computer.
Let me laugh of it. :-))))
You just do not know, do not see the difference? Why that experience is so important.
If one works with human system. Like general commanding to his soldiers -- he can try passion and persuasion. And it will work. Well, maybe. But he always have a chance to say "that is not my fault, that lasy ass cowrds to blame!"
If some mechanical worker with a mechanical system.
He either can ask somebody else to do that. Or hammer it in. Or broke damn thing. While cursing and talking with it, which would LOOK LIKE you applied some will and passion, and was able to "persuade"... damn thing.
But... with computer it will not work. You can broke damn thing, throw it out of window, but it will only prove that you are dumbest of dumb.
Only concentration. Only clear mind. And openness to possibilities. While same time being consious of your goals.
That is purely, passionless, smartassing. ;-P
\\That maybe you need to read more Nietzsche. Logic is an error. There are no "equal" things.
Nothing of said gives anything new to me.
Do you know that saying? About repeatable doing same thing again and again, while waiting for a new result?
\\I obviously value the one in my garage than the one in the junkyard. Or perhaps I only need 1. 2 would "waste" my use of my space.
That's it.
You habitually conclude, like already knowing the answer.
Insteed of analysing. ;-)
\\\\Can you add someting new to that banal obviousness?
\\Nope.
So? What was the point of saying it?
\\\\Liberalism, liberal arts, freedom, liberty.
/Ehm???
\\Free to use one's own power.
/And how it relates to "having power"? ;-)
Nietzsche WtP 1067 (1885)
And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be "empty" here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself--do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!
\\I don't know, I never followed Sagan closely. That was a comment by someone who claimed so in an article on Lem.
/Well...
"Lem was tremendously skilled at not only dreaming up fantastical scenarios but precisely calibrating them to unsettle our schemes for understanding the world. It’s easier to venture beyond the limits of the galaxy than those of our knowledge, and Lem repeatedly struck at the artificially tidy relations we impose on reality. He labored strenuously to imagine things we haven’t seen before and generally foregrounded protagonists who don’t comprehend them. Ursula Le Guin commented about his work, “We are not yet used to hearing that there are things that we don't understand.”"
As far as I understand -- that is by all means correct summary of his artistic proves (I deliberately separate it from his phylosophical ones).
You should read Nietzsche...
/But well... the same as with ice cream -- how much fullfilling it is -- to know that some ice cream is GREAT (from ads)... from feelin git yourself?
Can it be a substitute? ;-P
There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not."
\\lol! like wokeism and green scientisms?
Again. That is your LOCAL experience.
I would not be able to find anything like that in my withinity.
That's why it's so hard for me to corelate with your culture.
\\No, it's simply assumed as a given under Kuhn's conditions of "Normal Science".
Are that Kuhn scientist?
That's it.
Lem, cleverly pointed out that topic too. ;-P
\\Yes... that's how "technologists" do it. :)
Cannot concur.
Neither as direct rebuff. Neither like joke.
Technologists do it completely different.
For the first thing -- unlike scientists, they work in completely know environment. Where all elements of a puzzle done. And possible results pretty much known.
Question is -- how much thye can optimize? What exactly they must optimize? And etc.
\\Only if you don't perform the fact-value dialectic.
That is... circula reasoning. Ya-a-a-awn.
\\\\Is survival "enough?"... or do we want a "good life", something "moreZ" that mere survival?
/That is The Question. ;-)
\\No, how much "truth" we can tolerate, THAT is the experiment.
Truth... is the easiest of foes. Disappears like thin spirit even without a need for you to blow it. ;-P
\\It seemed as if it were impossible to get along with truth, our organism was adapted for the very opposite; all its higher functions, the perceptions of the senses, and in general every kind of sensation, cooperated with those primevally embodied, fundamental errors.
And what with Lindy's Effect? ;-P
\\The human brain was gradually filled with such judgments and convictions; and in this tangled skein there arose ferment, strife and lust for power.
Same story Golem XIV told...
but does this one gave some ANSWERS too? ;-)
\\And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end;
Old wisdoms can grow to became unrelated.
Like, we know today, that out World, our Universe -- it not endless. ;-P
\\This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!
Amen. Alleluya. And Kumbaya. :-)
\\You should read Nietzsche...
Was I THAT blunt... and not in the least teasing? and ppaetising? About Lem. ;-P
\\There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not."
Was sufis wise? Maby they was... knowledgeble?
Masterful?
Maybe they was powerful?
No.
That is all tautological pseudo-wisdom.
I know several other sources spouting something like that. So, what?
\http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_the_will_to_power/the_will_to_power_book_III.htm
/Try show your "will to power" before computer.
Let me laugh of it. :-))))
You just do not know, do not see the difference? Why that experience is so important.
If one works with human system. Like general commanding to his soldiers -- he can try passion and persuasion. And it will work. Well, maybe. But he always have a chance to say "that is not my fault, that lasy ass cowrds to blame!"
If some mechanical worker with a mechanical system.
He either can ask somebody else to do that. Or hammer it in. Or broke damn thing. While cursing and talking with it, which would LOOK LIKE you applied some will and passion, and was able to "persuade"... damn thing.
But... with computer it will not work. You can broke damn thing, throw it out of window, but it will only prove that you are dumbest of dumb.
Only concentration. Only clear mind. And openness to possibilities. While same time being consious of your goals.
That is purely, passionless, smartassing. ;-P
No I cannot "power" or "threaten" a computer into fulfilling my will. That's why I have programmers, like you... I don't even have to do that. I can simply say, here's a $million for the one who writes the working program and a thousand programs will begin to work. Their wills will make it happen. :)
Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols"
What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros!
Nietzsche WtP 53 (March-June 1888)
Even the ideals of science can be deeply, yet completely unconsciously influenced by decadence: our entire sociology is proof of that. The objection to it is that from experience it knows only the form of the decay of society, and inevitably it takes its own instincts of decay for the norms of sociological judgment.
In these norms the life that is declining in present-day Europe formulates its social ideals: one cannot tell them from the ideals of old races that have outlived themselves.-
The herd instinct, then--a power that has now become sovereign--is something totally different from the instinct of an aristocratic society: and the value of the units determines the significance of the sum.--Our entire sociology simply does not know any other instinct than that of the herd, i.e., that of the sum of zeroes--where every zero has "equal rights," where it is virtuous to be zero.-
The valuation that is today applied to the different forms of society is entirely identical with that which assigns a higher value to peace than to war: but this judgment is antibiological, is itself a fruit of the decadence of life.--Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.--As a biologist, Mr. Herbert Spencer is a decadent; as a moralist, too (he considers the triumph of altruism a desideratum! ! !).
\\That maybe you need to read more Nietzsche. Logic is an error. There are no "equal" things.
Nothing of said gives anything new to me.
Do you know that saying? About repeatable doing same thing again and again, while waiting for a new result?
Water, dripping on a stone...
\\I obviously value the one in my garage than the one in the junkyard. Or perhaps I only need 1. 2 would "waste" my use of my space.
/That's it.
You habitually conclude, like already knowing the answer.
Insteed of analysing. ;-)
Analyse it for me. How should I have analyzed it?
\\\\Can you add someting new to that banal obviousness?
\\Nope.
/So? What was the point of saying it?
Difference and repetition. Perhaps the water will pentrate the stone... through a new crack.
\\You should read Nietzsche...
Do you think that he is some unique wiseman?
Who took his ideas out of thin air, while nobody was able to, before (and after)?
Or... he just summed up foundings of his age. ;-)
\\No I cannot "power" or "threaten" a computer into fulfilling my will. That's why I have programmers, like you...
Show me how you perform that will and passion to that programmers.
For me to laugh of that performance. :-)))
That is known wisdom about "controlling coders... it's like herding cats". ;-P
\\ I can simply say, here's a $million for the one who writes the working program and a thousand programs will begin to work. Their wills will make it happen. :)
Yep.
While that program is "make me something, like that guy... you know Tsukerberg, did". ;-P
While there is NO programmer who'd fullfill "your will"... without prolonged and detailed instruction of what and how to make. ;-P
Something new.
Almost like that computer.
\\Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.--As a biologist, Mr. Herbert Spencer is a decadent; as a moralist, too (he considers the triumph of altruism a desideratum! ! !).
Go try to turn "do not kill" vice versa, and look what will happen. ;-P
Answer is... nothing. Because... what mother should do with her newbornm under such rules? Eat it?
\\Water, dripping on a stone...
Good attempt.
But.
That is not SAME water. ;-P
\\Analyse it for me. How should I have analyzed it?
Why that car on a trashyard?
Maybe there's something wrong with it. Or with its rider.
But my point was -- look at results.
While technically that cars are identically.
One can perform its duty, while other can't.
And that is... important difference... isn't it?
\\Difference and repetition. Perhaps the water will pentrate the stone... through a new crack.
Trial and error.
But, what's knowledgeble and smart in it?
I'll be back, Euthyphro...
I'm running a little dry on my philo of sophie. :(
\\There is an ancient Sufi parable about coffee: "He who tastes, knows; he who tastes not, knows not."
/Was sufis wise? Maby they was... knowledgeble?
Masterful?
Maybe they was powerful?
No.
That is all tautological pseudo-wisdom.
I know several other sources spouting something like that. So, what?
Fine. Be happy with your "virtual" life. Have a "virtual" cup of coffee, I'm sure it'll be just as satisfying as a real one.
\\You should read Nietzsche...
/Do you think that he is some unique wiseman?
Who took his ideas out of thin air, while nobody was able to, before (and after)?
Or... he just summed up foundings of his age. ;-)
Yes to the first two, and no to the third.
\\No I cannot "power" or "threaten" a computer into fulfilling my will. That's why I have programmers, like you...
/Show me how you perform that will and passion to that programmers.
For me to laugh of that performance. :-)))
That is known wisdom about "controlling coders... it's like herding cats". ;-P
I set deadlines for programmers ALL THE TIME. I either get the code drops I need, or they start getting calls from all kinds of managers/bosses telling them to drop everything else their working on and give me my code drops. And when they give their code to me and it doesn't work, they get to sit in the lab with the hardware engineers and Integration/ Test team until it does and their managers/bosses stop calling them every day to find out how its' going. And after a few weeks, I either have the code, or I have new coders.
\\ I can simply say, here's a $million for the one who writes the working program and a thousand programs will begin to work. Their wills will make it happen. :)
/Yep.
While that program is "make me something, like that guy... you know Tsukerberg, did". ;-P
While there is NO programmer who'd fullfill "your will"... without prolonged and detailed instruction of what and how to make. ;-P
Something new.
Almost like that computer.
The conductor of a symphony doesn't need to know how to play every instrument. He just needs to tell the other musicians when to play their notes. For that, he chooses a composer, and follows a score, and then instructs the musicians as to how he wants them to play that score to his will/ liking.
\\Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.--As a biologist, Mr. Herbert Spencer is a decadent; as a moralist, too (he considers the triumph of altruism a desideratum! ! !).
/Go try to turn "do not kill" vice versa, and look what will happen. ;-P
Answer is... nothing. Because... what mother should do with her newbornm under such rules? Eat it?
Abortion/ Exposure. You tell me. Euphemisims will be created.
\\Water, dripping on a stone...
/Good attempt.
But.
That is not SAME water. ;-P
Heraclitus: “you can’t step in the same river twice”
\\Analyse it for me. How should I have analyzed it?
Why that car on a trashyard?
Maybe there's something wrong with it. Or with its rider.
But my point was -- look at results.
While technically that cars are identically.
One can perform its duty, while other can't.
And that is... important difference... isn't it?
There's a couple of assumptions there, that the car in the trashyard doesn't work, while the one in my garage does. I may have assumed that they were the same, either both worked or both didn't. It wasn't "self-evident".
...and so \\The origin of the narrative lies in the speakers "values" which now arrange the facts is a manner supportive or critical of those "values".
Bike/car on a trashyard consist of the same parts as one in your garage... so, what's the difference? ;-)
You would seem to "value" what's in your garage more highly than what's in a trashyard or less highly than one at a dealership/store?
\\Difference and repetition. Perhaps the water will penetrate the stone... through a new crack.
/Trial and error.
But, what's knowledgeble and smart in it?
I don't think that you're incapable of understanding, I just need to try a different approach?
Nietzsche, "The Future of our Educational Institutions"
"For I repeat it, my friends! All culture begins with the very opposite of that which is now so highly esteemed as 'academical freedom': with obedience, with subordination, with discipline, with subjection. And as leaders must have followers so also must the followers have a leader--here a certain reciprocal predisposition prevails in the hierarchy of spirits: yea, a kind of pre-established harmony. This eternal hierarchy, towards which all things naturally tend, is always threatened by that pseudo-culture which now sits on the throne of the present. It endeavours either to bring the leaders down to the level of its own servitude or else to cast them out altogether. It seduces the followers when they are seeking their predestined leader, and overcomes them by the fumes of its narcotics. When, however, in spite of all this, leader and followers have at last met, wounded and sore, there is an impassioned feeling of rapture, like the echo of an eversounding lyre, a feeling which I can let you divine only by means of a simile.
"Have you ever, at a musical rehearsal, looked at the strange, shrivelled-up, good-natured species of men who usually form the German orchestra? What changes and fluctuations we see in that capricious goddess 'form'! What noses and ears, what clumsy, danse macabre movements! Just imagine for a moment that you were deaf, and had never dreamed of the existence of sound or music, and that you were looking upon the orchestra as a company of actors, and trying to enjoy their performance as a drama and nothing more. Undisturbed by the idealising effect of the sound, you could never see enough of the stern, medieval, wood-cutting movement of this comical spectacle, this harmonious parody on the homo sapiens.
"Now, on the other hand, assume that your musical sense has returned, and that your ears are opened. Look at the honest conductor at the head of the orchestra performing his duties in a dull, spiritless fashion: you no longer think of the comical aspect of the whole scene, you listen--but it seems to you that the spirit of tediousness spreads out from the honest conductor over all his companions. Now you see only torpidity and flabbiness, you hear only the trivial, the rhythmically inaccurate, and the melodiously trite. You see the orchestra only as an indifferent, ill-humoured, and even wearisome crowd of players.
"But set a genius--a real genius--in the midst of this crowd; and you instantly perceive something almost incredible. It is as if this genius, in his lightning transmigration, had entered into these mechanical, lifeless bodies, and as if only one demoniacal eye gleamed forth out of them all. Now look and listen--you can never listen enough! When you again observe the orchestra, now loftily storming, now fervently wailing, when you notice the quick tightening of every muscle and the rhythmical necessity of every gesture, then you too will feel what a pre-established harmony there is between leader and followers, and how in this hierarchy of spirits everything impels us towards the establishment of a like organisation. You can divine from my simile what I would understand by a true educational institution, and why I am very far from recognising one in the present type of university."
Plato would call this "a generation from opposites".
High culture... low culture.
Today in America we have "mass culture" manufactured through a "culture industry"... to keep happy slaves happily slaving.
...and Ukraine's workers demand to only serve a particular Master? They will be unhappily slaving if their Master is Russian?
We'll ALWAYS get fooled again.
\\Fine. Be happy with your "virtual" life. Have a "virtual" cup of coffee, I'm sure it'll be just as satisfying as a real one.
Your brain is the same as mine. And DO NOT allow you to percieve Reality "non-virtually", directly.
Only through mediation of all kinds of proxies installed in your brain by Evolution: biases, cognitive limitations, prejudges and etc.
\\\\You should read Nietzsche...
/Do you think that he is some unique wiseman?
Who took his ideas out of thin air, while nobody was able to, before (and after)?
Or... he just summed up foundings of his age. ;-)
\\Yes to the first two, and no to the third.
Then... with all my regrets... you are delusioned by him. ;-P
In contrast to it -- I rever Lem, but only after double-checking. ;-P
While knowing that he is just an ordinary human. With his weaknesses and limitations. Only... his earthly path was maybe little bit more zigzagged than of most of us. Which allowed to him to percieve something, too unusual to average man.
And he was clever enough to write it down... his revelations.
\\I set deadlines for programmers ALL THE TIME.
:-))))
You know that parable about monkeys and British Encyclopedia?
\\The conductor of a symphony doesn't need to know how to play every instrument. He just needs to tell the other musicians when to play their notes. For that, he chooses a composer, and follows a score, and then instructs the musicians as to how he wants them to play that score to his will/ liking.
I am not conductor... but I think that if you'd ask one, how he work, it wouldn't be tha simple. ;-P
Or... there'd be no such speciality and even janitor would be able to be a conductor. ;-P
\\Abortion/ Exposure. You tell me. Euphemisims will be created.
Well... that is interesting sphere to hypothetise around.
We discusses such a text -- from Yudkowsky, remember?
"Three worlds collide".
\\Heraclitus: “you can’t step in the same river twice”
Yap. :-)
\\There's a couple of assumptions there, that the car in the trashyard doesn't work, while the one in my garage does. I may have assumed that they were the same, either both worked or both didn't. It wasn't "self-evident".
Yes.
But that is -- damn inevitable.
ALL that communication scheme with human language built on such "assumptions".
That's why "fact" is so damn hard concept to grasp. To have common agreement of.
And that is... seems like main reason why my simplest of simple ideas seems like so damn complex. :-(((
\\You would seem to "value" what's in your garage more highly than what's in a trashyard or less highly than one at a dealership/store?
And WHY they do that? Why they behave so "unreasonable"? Why they assign "value" in such a discriminative way? ;-P
Maybe... just maybe, because there are some subtle reasons? ;-)
\\I don't think that you're incapable of understanding, I just need to try a different approach?
That is... interesting question. Indeed.
What is "understanding"? What it even mean?
But it seems like you are too delusioned by that Nietzsche...
to divert you attention to that, more interesting questions.
Am I wrong? Let it be that I'm wrong. (shy)
...Capitalism with Chinese/Authoritarian values is MUCH more "efficient" than the old Western capitalism.
But perhaps THAT is what we need.... LESS efficient capitalism. "Ant-Fragile capitalism".
...with many petit bourgeois tyrants instead of one genius 'Der Lider' tyrant.
\\You would seem to "value" what's in your garage more highly than what's in a trashyard or less highly than one at a dealership/store?
And WHY they do that? Why they behave so "unreasonable"? Why they assign "value" in such a discriminative way? ;-P
Maybe... just maybe, because there are some subtle reasons? ;-)
Sure. Lindy.... aka "Tradition".
\\But perhaps THAT is what we need.... LESS efficient capitalism. "Ant-Fragile capitalism".
There is only one way we can have it -- some disaster, which would level the ground, for it to start grow anew...
But.
If it'll be able to grow anew -- it WILL overgrow... that state you like the most.
And we again will be on a square one. ;-P
\\And as leaders must have followers so also must the followers have a leader--here a certain reciprocal predisposition prevails in the hierarchy of spirits: yea, a kind of pre-established harmony.
For me... as cybernetic and progammer. I do not need such poetical(sic) persuasion to know that hierarchical is most simple and economical structure... but well, it is not versatile. ;-P
OR... we would live in a World of Crystals. :-)))
No... we would not, because here'd be NO us. ;-P
\\Sure. Lindy.... aka "Tradition".
That "tradition"... isn't it like instincts for animals?
But... do you like to be "just that animal"? Brainless. Uncurious.
\\But perhaps THAT is what we need.... LESS efficient capitalism. "Ant-Fragile capitalism".
/There is only one way we can have it -- some disaster, which would level the ground, for it to start grow anew...
But.
If it'll be able to grow anew -- it WILL overgrow... that state you like the most.
And we again will be on a square one. ;-P
Meden Agan!
\\And as leaders must have followers so also must the followers have a leader--here a certain reciprocal predisposition prevails in the hierarchy of spirits: yea, a kind of pre-established harmony.
/For me... as cybernetic and progammer. I do not need such poetical(sic) persuasion to know that hierarchical is most simple and economical structure... but well, it is not versatile. ;-P
OR... we would live in a World of Crystals. :-)))
No... we would not, because here'd be NO us. ;-P
A Rhizome (Deleuze and Guittari). ;P
\\Sure. Lindy.... aka "Tradition".
/That "tradition"... isn't it like instincts for animals?
But... do you like to be "just that animal"? Brainless. Uncurious.
Human's aren't animals? Animals could live w/o "instincts"?
What culture has produced more Nobel winners. The "unthinking" Jews?
When you live inside a cultural straight jacket, your mind has to go somewhere. ;)
\\And we again will be on a square one. ;-P
\\Meden Agan!
Then... you need a feedback loop. ;-P
But... hardly such is possible.
And you'd need a damn smart-ass tech to make one, anyway. But you fear techs. ;-P
No winning scenario I percieve here...
\\A Rhizome (Deleuze and Guittari). ;P
Aha... some more waters will flow into the ocean... and they'll open to themself concept of "continuum" (aka real numbers).
Oh, that phylosophers. :-)
\\Human's aren't animals? Animals could live w/o "instincts"?
That is not the question.
Question -- do we like to be/stay animals? ;-P
You talking to me Nietzsche this, Nietzsche that...
but isn't that HIS idea??? To became UBERmansh ;-P
Yes, but that doesn't mean "still not animal". It's the "human" part we must conquer, Over-men, not the animal part. Dionysius AND Apollo. Today men want to be all Apollo (logic/reason). Nietzsche seeks a god who can DANCE.
Then... you need a feedback loop.
Like Plato's "Republic".... a state in a "fevered heat" with "Guardians" (philosopher kings)... or more like the Magnesia of his "Laws"? One with its' SuperEgo "Nocturnal Council" which meets in secret and keeps its' "administrators" on task (and OFF tech/commerce)?
I'd need to put 99/100 US citizens in a Dionysian Chorus to keep them "honest".
\\ Nietzsche seeks a god who can DANCE
And you can show that with quotes?
Well... who said to you, that science, techs... are passionless???
\\One with its' SuperEgo "Nocturnal Council" which meets in secret and keeps its' "administrators" on task (and OFF tech/commerce)?
Naah.
Who will control the controllers? ;-P
That needs brains. ;-)
“I would believe only in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity - through him all things fall.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Well... who said to you, that science, techs... are passionless???
Are they good at accepting jokes? It's fine to seek truth, but sometimes truth isn't what is needed for a species "survival".
Who will control the controllers? Simple. Two (or more) controllers. Remember Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation? In US, that used to be RNC/DNC. Sparta had two kinds. Rome had two consuls (and later also two tribunes).
The point is to avoid CENTRALIZED SINGULAR control. You need a dialectic. Generation from opposites.
That's where America has gone wrong. In 2001, the US Information Community was unified under Homeland. THAT became the death of America and birth of the UniParty.
Trump is America's last-best hope to return to divided control.
erratum: "Intelligence" for "Information" above.
:)
\\“I would believe only in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity - through him all things fall.”
\\― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Well... he is (with that remark: not his fault, just times he was living) just a knownothing... as we know today, with all that Habble and Webb telescope -- that "god" is more like dancing gods of Induses... ;-P
\\Are they good at accepting jokes? It's fine to seek truth, but sometimes truth isn't what is needed for a species "survival".
Here... I accept it. After Fainman there's not many who able to rise his flag. :-(((
\\Who will control the controllers? Simple. Two (or more) controllers. Remember Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation? In US, that used to be RNC/DNC. Sparta had two kinds. Rome had two consuls (and later also two tribunes).
That ruins that perfect hierarchical system. ;-P
\\The point is to avoid CENTRALIZED SINGULAR control. You need a dialectic. Generation from opposites.
That is called -- equilibrium.
Equilibrium forming when there's two forces, not uni-directed. ;-)
\\That's where America has gone wrong. In 2001, the US Information Community was unified under Homeland. THAT became the death of America and birth of the UniParty.
NMP.
\\Trump is America's last-best hope to return to divided control.
Go find crowd of supporters... of this your claim. ;-P
Ehm?
\\“I would believe only in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity - through him all things fall.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
/Well... he is (with that remark: not his fault, just times he was living) just a knownothing... as we know today, with all that Habble and Webb telescope -- that "god" is more like dancing gods of Induses... ;-P
Why so serious?
\\Are they good at accepting jokes? It's fine to seek truth, but sometimes truth isn't what is needed for a species "survival".
/Here... I accept it. After Fainman there's not many who able to rise his flag. :-(((
hmmmm....
\\Who will control the controllers? Simple. Two (or more) controllers. Remember Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation? In US, that used to be RNC/DNC. Sparta had two kinds. Rome had two consuls (and later also two tribunes).
/That ruins that perfect hierarchical system. ;-P
Not ANOTHER rhizome... :(
\\The point is to avoid CENTRALIZED SINGULAR control. You need a dialectic. Generation from opposites.
/That is called -- equilibrium.
Equilibrium forming when there's two forces, not uni-directed. ;-)
"Life is a chemical System that uses energy to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium. Equilibrium is the situation in which chemicals no longer have a tendency to react over time." ...aka - "death"
\\That's where America has gone wrong. In 2001, the US Information Community was unified under Homeland. THAT became the death of America and birth of the UniParty.
/NMP.
It will be if/when the war ever ends.
\\Trump is America's last-best hope to return to divided control.
/Go find crowd of supporters... of this your claim. ;-P
I know of only ~70 million of them who voted for Trump in the last election.
\\Why so serious?
Apparent miscommunication. Calling my frivolous remark about "dancing god of India" -- serious? :-)))
\\"Life is a chemical System that uses energy to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium. Equilibrium is the situation in which chemicals no longer have a tendency to react over time." ...aka - "death"
Well... thermodinamical equilibrium.
While creating it's own. Inner.
Like homeostasis. ;-)
And well, there is dinamical equilibriums too. ;-)
\\It will be if/when the war ever ends.
And why do you care? ;-)
\\I know of only ~70 million of them who voted for Trump in the last election.
That is HIS folowers. Not yours.
And even HIM... will have a big problem, to reactivate em for twice. ;-P
\\It will be if/when the war ever ends.
/And why do you care? ;-)
I'm paying for it.
\\I know of only ~70 million of them who voted for Trump in the last election.
/That is HIS folowers. Not yours.
And even HIM... will have a big problem, to reactivate em for twice. ;-P
He won't have any problems in that department. The TtBO movement will be unstoppable.
\\I'm paying for it.
Naah.
Now your paying extra funds because of your negligence.
If USA would be diligent (with it's semi-imperial stance obligations), there'd be no need to pay that extra.
That is like paying for repaiting costs in cash... because you was not paying insurance in-time.
\\He won't have any problems in that department. The TtBO movement will be unstoppable.
NMP.
That's just how it looks like... from afar.
Take it, and make conclusions... or throw it out of a window.
WYS/WYD.
If USA would be diligent (with it's semi-imperial stance obligations), there'd be no need to pay that extra.
:)))) 2025 - Trump cancels policy AND closes the wallet.
Factor of time ;-P
Well... and how'd he do that... from jail. ;-P
There was such a stunt actor... but that was 100 years ago.
So, such a recap... would be greatly appreciated (I bet). All around the world too. ;-)
But, well... lets stop that lame games here. :-/
It maybe pleasant for you, but totally ambigious for me.
Let's use such an example, that would not content allusions to current realities. Just factual structure.
You surely know that story about that sneaker Odissey, isn't it? ;-)
And I mean -- end of that story.
When he came to his home, at last. Which, because of his prolonged negligance (willing or unwilling, doesn't matter), was occupied by all kinds of scum.
And he was forced to fight back... his stance.
Well, whole goddess, Afina was helping him.
To not do it stupid way.
And he was successful.
I am... not Afina. :-)))
And if USA wanna do it stupid way. Or lose it completely.
NMP. ;-P
I'm afraid there will be no "happy ending" for Ukraine. She will end up like Ajax, not Odysseus. Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad.
And why, should you care bout UA???
O. K. Another metaphora.
A fairytale. ;-P
Once uppon a time, there was Kingdom of Donkey and Elephant Casino. ;-)
Business was going smooth. Just some small bumps for a times anybody (care to)remember. But nevermind, principle "casino always win" intact.
But... suddenly. A tsug came to that casino.
Behaving brazenly. Declaring that he came to "rob the casino". Scaring good lawful public.
Best idea was... to throw him out. And that way problem would be solved right away.
But.
Security of casino grown timid, and lost ability to withstand tsugs. And that tsug was showing that he have a gun, under his suit. And a bunch of minions nearby.
And... chief, Big Master, in security control room decided:"let him, nothing big would happen". Because principle "casino always win" intact. And even that tsug will go out, peacefull, after losing his due.
But.
Suddenly. (well, not suddenly at all, as that tsug was screamning about it even before entering, and it was in news, and posters was all around town... but, who cared, cause principle "casino always win" intact)
That tsug took a sit before Huclear Poker table. Which was unusable from unknown times... and was used as catering table, even, from time to time.
And started to demand cards being drawn for him... and it was.
And suddenly... a cold goosebumps and shiver visited everybody in that security control room... but, nobody gave their attention to it -- just turned conditioner a couple points higher.
Game started.
Stackes start rising more and more.
Attention from public started growing more and more.
Some people even dig out and read -- what rules of that Nuclear Poker actually are... and it seems, that it allows Final Stake -- Casino Itself. Under Win or Bust Principle... which goes totally against "casino always win" everybody saw as Main and Only Principle.
And... suddenly Big Boss of rival casino downhill... came closer to that table, and started show his interest. ;-P
PS Go propose your coorections to this metaphor? Or... you don't like it?
What would be end of that story? ;-P
I kinda like it. Only in my version, the casino starts changing and rigging the game so that the casino always wins a little bit more and more... and pretty soon, people stop coming to the casino to gamble because they have no money to risk/ play with. And there are no rival casinos owner because they've all been bought out and must offer the same rigged gmes to their customers.
That is how it (may) look like to ordinary public of that "casino". ;-P
Regulars especially.
Who rarely coming out of it. Or even look from window... eh, crap -- there's no windows in casinos. ;-P For people to not know whot time of the day, what year, what century... in Reality. ;-P
that tsug ;-P
....same as the old boss.
Quit bragging, will ya? :-)
Who's bragging? I'm lamenting.
I learned that from your Ams.
That termin.
Humblebrag Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › hum...
The meaning of HUMBLEBRAG is to make a seemingly modest, self-critical, or casual statement or reference that is meant to draw attention to one's admirable ...
;-)
...no, really. It's time to get this guy's foot off our f'in necks.
And what can be better help for that... than new tech? ;-)
The laws that hold us down can't be fixed with "tech"... unless it's a legal "tech". No, the Gordian knot must be cut (ala Alexander the Great).
Revolution happen... when new techs appear. ;-P
Well, revolution it is New Tech too. Social one.
lol! Revolution is most certainly an "old" tech.
...perhaps only "new", in a sense, to "us".
Of course... new things cannot be pointed at, so easily.
That is only OLD things we know and can refer to. ;-P
Events, like new technologies, can only be considered in hindsight... like Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
Yap.
But also... there need to be a stimulus. (like that Rubicon river ;-P for example)
...a "jouissance". :)
Examples, examples, examples!
Really, do you know what examples in Math mean?
They are... models. ;-)
An internal drive... something like hunger or sex (DaVinci's "Vitruvian Man")... that can square and circle your life when applying mind and transforming "drive" into a "desire".
Like those priests denied sex so they could funnel all that energy into the Church (your Pavlovian dogs)...
...or as Plato's "Philebus" might do... mingle pure thoughts with pure pleasures... forming a "mixture"
...the math of a golden ratio... and the symmetry of a woman's perfect body where the "ratio" is maintained (breast:waist:hips) 1.61....:1: 1.61 . ;)
A "love" of "wisdoms" (philo-sophie).
An alchemist's love for "gold"...
\\Like those priests denied sex so they could funnel all that energy into the Church (your Pavlovian dogs)...
Yep... if you have use for tons of saliva. ;-P
\\with pure pleasures..
And what that are? %-)
\\...the math of a golden ratio... and the symmetry of a woman's perfect body where the "ratio" is maintained (breast:waist:hips) 1.61....:1: 1.61 . ;)
Numerology... bleh. :-)
\\An alchemist's love for "gold"...
Did you read that "Alchemist" bestseller?
That is... where true "gold" is. ;-)
And fifth, those pleasures which we separated and classed as painless, which we called pure pleasures of the soul itself, those which accompany knowledge and, sometimes, perceptions?
Immanuel Kant's, "Observations of the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime"
Numerology? No. Symmetry and Measure. Phi represent "evolution's number".
:)
And no, I never read The Alchemist. What was the gold? The journey or the destination?
Emerson, "The Conduct of Life" (Beauty)
Beauty...
as never form and never face
So sweet to SEYD as only grace
Which did not slumber like a stone
But hovered gleaming and was gone.
Beauty chased he everywhere,
In flame, in storm, in clouds of air.
He smote the lake to feed his eye
With the beryl beam of the broken wave;
He flung in pebbles well to hear
The moment's music which they gave.
Oft pealed for him a lofty tone
From nodding pole and belting zone.
He heard a voice none else could hear
From centred and from errant sphere.
The quaking earth did quake in rhyme,
Seas ebbed and flowed in epic chime.
In dens of passion, and pits of wo,
He saw strong Eros struggling through,
To sun the dark and solve the curse,
And beam to the bounds of the universe.
While thus to love he gave his days
In loyal worship, scorning praise,
How spread their lures for him, in vain,
Thieving Ambition and paltering Gain!
He thought it happier to be dead,
To die for Beauty, than live for bread.
...he naturalist is led from the road by the whole distance of his fancied advance. The boy had juster views when he gazed at the shells on the beach, or the flowers in the meadow, unable to call them by their names, than the man in the pride of his nomenclature. Astrology interested us, for it tied man to the system. Instead of an isolated beggar, the farthest star felt him, and he felt the star. However rash and however falsified by pretenders and traders in it, the hint was true and divine, the soul's avowal of its large relations, and, that climate, century, remote natures, as well as near, are part of its biography. Chemistry takes to pieces, but it does not construct. Alchemy which sought to transmute one element into another, to prolong life, to arm with power, — that was in the right direction. All our science lacks a human side. The tenant is more than the house. Bugs and stamens and spores, on which we lavish so many years, are not finalities, and man, when his powers unfold in order, will take Nature along with him, and emit light into all her recesses. The human heart concerns us more than the poring into microscopes, and is larger than can be measured by the pompous figures of the astronomer.
\\Immanuel Kant's, "Observations of the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime"
Today its called "endogenous opioids". ;-P
\\Numerology? No. Symmetry and Measure. Phi represent "evolution's number".
I got it.
Pythagoreanism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Pythagoreanism
Pythagoreanism was a philosophic tradition as well as a religious practice. As a religious community they relied on oral teachings and worshiped the Pythian ...
But again... "endogenous opioids".
\\And no, I never read The Alchemist. What was the gold? The journey or the destination?
Banal means. ;-P
Well, I mean that gold author received for his text. ;-)
\\Alchemy which sought to transmute one element into another, to prolong life, to arm with power, — that was in the right direction.
Preaching to a choir?
Emerson? Always.
Post a Comment