|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 29, 2019 15:24:09 GMT
Read Pirsig's "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It is a good book.
In it he presents an argument I agree with (but am expanding upon right here): Western culture is grounded in Aristotelian Identity properities that necessitate an "us vs. them" mentality founded within the empirical perspective as "atomism". This atomism is summated under the these identity properties, within the grounds of "logic" as a means of interpreting reality, through the law of excluded middle where the "or"function is the focal point in which the western perspective is defined as a process of measurement.
In simpler terms when we observe the "or" function what we observe fundamentally is an act of separation itself as "or" is the foundation of the first "dichotomy" or "dualism", thus setting the grounds for the relation of "parts" (whether these parts are actual empirical phenomenon such as the atom, or abstract phenomenon such as the concept).
All particulation is atomism at its core, thus setting foundations for "relativity", with this atomism and relativity sythethised under the perspective of materialism through empiricism.
Aristotelian identity properties are a zeitgeist that form much of academic, and by default the surrounding, culture and as such they are as much a perspective and "means of measuring" reality considering they set the assumed axiomatic base western culture is founded upon. The "vs." mentality, exemplified under the law of excluded middle, while assumed, is a manner of assumption itself in which a phenomenon is observed an divided.
This division, whether it be abstract or empirical with this dichotomy in itself being subject to this same law of excluded middle, requires a projection of the observer as the observer him/her self is the"means" of separation in which the individual is the "point of awareness" that exists through that assumptive nature of "or".
"or", as a logical function, is a means of assumption in the respect and as such sets "a" grounding for awareness when observing the nature of assumption (or rather assuming assumption) requires a process of reception in which a phenomenon is defined "as is" thus necessitating a form of seperation because of its very act of definition requires a simultaneous "what it is not". A phenomenon, such as a bird, is assumed for what it is by what it is not, thus necessitating "or" as "assumption" being equivalent to a process of separation.
This "or" as the focal axiom of awareness reflects back to the psychology of the peoples and the culture composed of these peoples.
This further sets the ground for the process of "individualism", as a separation from the herd, that sets the context for current societal standards (under the context of consumer self-expression) that can be observed in the western process of individuation observed in Jungian Psychology, Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which mirrors Jung's process of individuation), Einstein's Relativity as the foundation for atomic technology, etc. that exists through the current industrialized manner we perceive reality as an "us vs nature".
In simpler terms, the "vs" mentality (or rather the extremes to which it is taken as competition and seperation is inevitable), can be argued as a logical conclusion to the foundations our civilization was built upon and is evidenced by the perceived social and world division resulting in what exists today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 29, 2019 15:55:36 GMT
"us vs them"? Seems Eastern world uses it too. Zoroastrists had elements of duality in their religion; right before Christianity there started to appear many thoughts about "heaven and hell". The same is for yin and yang.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 29, 2019 19:33:36 GMT
Read Pirsig's "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It is a good book. In it he presents an argument I agree with (but am expanding upon right here): Western culture is grounded in Aristotelian Identity properities that necessitate an "us vs. them" mentality founded within the empirical perspective as "atomism". This atomism is summated under the these identity properties, within the grounds of "logic" as a means of interpreting reality, through the law of excluded middle where the "or"function is the focal point in which the western perspective is defined as a process of measurement. In simpler terms when we observe the "or" function what we observe fundamentally is an act of separation itself as "or" is the foundation of the first "dichotomy" or "dualism", thus setting the grounds for the relation of "parts" (whether these parts are actual empirical phenomenon phenomena such as the atom, or abstract phenomenon phenomena such as the concept). All particulation is atomism at its core, thus setting foundations for "relativity", with this atomism and relativity sythethised synthesized under the perspective of materialism through empiricism. Aristotelian identity properties are a zeitgeist that form much of the surrounding, culture and as such they are as much a perspective and "means of measuring" reality considering they set the assumed axiomatic base western culture is founded upon. The "vs." mentality, exemplified under the law of excluded middle, while assumed, is a manner of assumption itself in which a phenomenon is observed and divided. This division, whether it be abstract or empirical with this dichotomy in itself being subject to this same law of excluded middle, requires a projection of the observer as the observer him/her self is the"means" of separation in which the individual is the "point of awareness" that exists through that assumptive nature of "or". "or", as a logical function, is a means of assumption in the respect and as such sets "a" grounding for awareness when observing the nature of assumption (or rather assuming assumption) requires a process of reception in which a phenomenon is defined "as is" thus necessitating a form of separation because of its very act of definition requires a simultaneous "what it is not". A phenomenon, such as a bird, is assumed for what it is by what it is not, thus necessitating "or" as "assumption" being equivalent to a process of separation. This "or" as the focal axiom of awareness reflects back to the psychology of the peoples and the culture composed of by these peoples. This further sets the ground for the process of "individualism", as a separation from the herd, that sets the context for current societal standards (under the context of consumer self-expression) that can be observed in the western process of individuation observed in Jungian Psychology, Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which mirrors Jung's process of individuation), Einstein's Relativity as the foundation for atomic technology, etc. that exists through the current industrialized manner we perceive reality as an "us vs nature". In simpler terms, the "vs" mentality (or rather the extremes to which it is taken as competition and separation is inevitable), can be argued as a logical conclusion to the foundations our civilization was built upon and is evidenced by the perceived social and world division resulting in what exists today. You are afraid of conflict and desperately seek the illusion of common ground with those who threaten us in order to evade your responsibility to the advanced side. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 8, 2019 15:07:09 GMT
"us vs them"? Seems Eastern world uses it too. Zoroastrists had elements of duality in their religion; right before Christianity there started to appear many thoughts about "heaven and hell". The same is for yin and yang. All dualism necessitate a "both/and" logical function considering the premise that any thetical phenomenon exists through its antithetical and vice versa. This necessitates the dualism as "1" continuum where the tension observes an inherent "synthesis". Thus the dualism, as 1 perpetual act of synthesis necessitates the "or" logical function as the grounding of an approximation of "unity" considering its sets the foundations for the dualism itself. However this "or" function, effectively as nothing in itself considering it is only observed through the multiplication of one phenomenon into many, fundamentally is self-negating considering it requires "A" and "B" as "AB" in order to exist. Aristotelian logic, and its grounds of excluded middle, thus are incomplete because the property of identity requires all phenomena to exist as a middle in themselves. Take for example "A=A or B=B". This "or" function of A and B requires them to fundamentally exist through "P=P" if A is to equal A and B is to equal B with A and B representing the divergence of P=P. P/A∧B = P Where P/A and P/B observes P existing as a fractal through itself considering P/A∧B = P requires both A and B to be elements of P thus existing through P. A=A and B=B respectively both equal P in these respects where they are merely variations of P. Thus what we observe through the act of division in P/A and P/B is fundamentally P existing through a continual variation. I might have to explain this further to make it clearer. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 8, 2019 15:09:16 GMT
Read Pirsig's "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It is a good book. In it he presents an argument I agree with (but am expanding upon right here): Western culture is grounded in Aristotelian Identity properities that necessitate an "us vs. them" mentality founded within the empirical perspective as "atomism". This atomism is summated under the these identity properties, within the grounds of "logic" as a means of interpreting reality, through the law of excluded middle where the "or"function is the focal point in which the western perspective is defined as a process of measurement. In simpler terms when we observe the "or" function what we observe fundamentally is an act of separation itself as "or" is the foundation of the first "dichotomy" or "dualism", thus setting the grounds for the relation of "parts" (whether these parts are actual empirical phenomenon phenomena such as the atom, or abstract phenomenon phenomena such as the concept). All particulation is atomism at its core, thus setting foundations for "relativity", with this atomism and relativity sythethised synthesized under the perspective of materialism through empiricism. Aristotelian identity properties are a zeitgeist that form much of the surrounding, culture and as such they are as much a perspective and "means of measuring" reality considering they set the assumed axiomatic base western culture is founded upon. The "vs." mentality, exemplified under the law of excluded middle, while assumed, is a manner of assumption itself in which a phenomenon is observed and divided. This division, whether it be abstract or empirical with this dichotomy in itself being subject to this same law of excluded middle, requires a projection of the observer as the observer him/her self is the"means" of separation in which the individual is the "point of awareness" that exists through that assumptive nature of "or". "or", as a logical function, is a means of assumption in the respect and as such sets "a" grounding for awareness when observing the nature of assumption (or rather assuming assumption) requires a process of reception in which a phenomenon is defined "as is" thus necessitating a form of separation because of its very act of definition requires a simultaneous "what it is not". A phenomenon, such as a bird, is assumed for what it is by what it is not, thus necessitating "or" as "assumption" being equivalent to a process of separation. This "or" as the focal axiom of awareness reflects back to the psychology of the peoples and the culture composed of by these peoples. This further sets the ground for the process of "individualism", as a separation from the herd, that sets the context for current societal standards (under the context of consumer self-expression) that can be observed in the western process of individuation observed in Jungian Psychology, Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which mirrors Jung's process of individuation), Einstein's Relativity as the foundation for atomic technology, etc. that exists through the current industrialized manner we perceive reality as an "us vs nature". In simpler terms, the "vs" mentality (or rather the extremes to which it is taken as competition and separation is inevitable), can be argued as a logical conclusion to the foundations our civilization was built upon and is evidenced by the perceived social and world division resulting in what exists today. You are afraid of conflict and desperately seek the illusion of common ground with those who threaten us in order to evade your responsibility to the advanced side. Ad-hominum. Common ground is inevitable considering the premise of all logic is grounded in assumption of premises where the universal premise fundamentally is assumption. All assumptions are variations of 1 assumption considering the act of assumption itself is grounded in a unifying a phenomenon. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 8, 2019 19:30:30 GMT
Dhimmi Doormats You are afraid of conflict and desperately seek the illusion of common ground with those who threaten us in order to evade your responsibility to the advanced side. Ad-hominum. Ad Hominem Common ground is inevitable considering the premise of all logic is grounded in assumption of premises where the universal premise fundamentally is assumption. All assumptions are variations of 1 assumption considering the act of assumption itself is grounded in unifying a phenomenon. You desperately seek to elevate yourself dependently. You make up a universal unity in order to feel you are the prophet of a higher power. But don't feel bad; Christopher Langan (IQ 195) has put himself in the same sinking boat. Latham is still another example of the plutocratic parasites' goal to humiliate or mislead High IQs, who create all their wealth. His shallow assertion that, "Going to college is for people who want to make a lot of money" is a brain-numbed view. Smart people believe stupid things when they fail to recognize the universality of liars at the top. College is for teenagers who are afraid to grow up. Derivative viewpoints show only the self-contempt that creative geniuses are smothered with, by design of the freeloaders off corporate patents. So your viewpoint is meant to minimize individualism and self-pride. John Nash's insanity was caused when he realized that he should have gotten a beautiful girl all along, just like the superior athletes do. Not being brought up expecting that reward for his own superiority, he couldn't handle it. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 9, 2019 16:10:10 GMT
Ad-hominum. Ad Hominem Common ground is inevitable considering the premise of all logic is grounded in assumption of premises where the universal premise fundamentally is assumption. All assumptions are variations of 1 assumption considering the act of assumption itself is grounded in unifying a phenomenon. You desperately seek to elevate yourself dependently. You make up a universal unity in order to feel you are the prophet of a higher power. But don't feel bad; Christopher Langan (IQ 195) has put himself in the same sinking boat. Latham is still another example of the plutocratic parasites' goal to humiliate or mislead High IQs, who create all their wealth. His shallow assertion that, "Going to college is for people who want to make a lot of money" is a brain-numbed view. Smart people believe stupid things when they fail to recognize the universality of liars at the top. College is for teenagers who are afraid to grow up. Derivative viewpoints show only the self-contempt that creative geniuses are smothered with, by design of the freeloaders off corporate patents. So your viewpoint is meant to minimize individualism and self-pride. John Nash's insanity was caused when he realized that he should have gotten a beautiful girl all along, just like the superior athletes do. Not being brought up expecting that reward for his own superiority, he couldn't handle it. Nice projection from a "prophet of God", I enjoy your anger...it makes you look more serious "grrrr"....  ...like you are convinced of something that matters...how cute...it warms my heart.
Your continual need to negate my arguments is strictly a means to "seek to elevate yourself dependently" considering you have no real material of your own.
Whatever...now you can take your assumptions and eat them...see how sweet they taste.
Look at your argument, it starts out as an ad-hominum with you failing to realize that in you stating that there is no unity as a response to my argument you strictly are connected to the argument itself. Your attempted negation of my argument exists as an extension of what my argument is because of its isomorphic properties.
In simpler terms our arguments are thetical and antithetical respective of each other and as such, they exist as extensions. Now this may appear as a contradiction on my part, me saying you are wrong but existing as relatively thetical to what is presented.
This is not a contradiction however considering to observe the nature of argument as thetical and antithetical is fundamentally a synthetic observation itself with this synthesis necessitating a thetical biproduct. In simpler terms, you can argue I am right or wrong all you want but if I am joining the arguments...a thetical state will always be the biproduct though synthesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 10, 2019 20:18:43 GMT
With Our Enemies, You'll Find Common Ground Six Feet Under ItYou desperately seek to elevate yourself dependently. You make up a universal unity in order to feel you are the prophet of a higher power. But don't feel bad; Christopher Langan (IQ 195) has put himself in the same sinking boat. Latham is still another example of the plutocratic parasites' goal to humiliate or mislead High IQs, who create all their wealth. His shallow assertion that, "Going to college is for people who want to make a lot of money" is a brain-numbed view. Smart people believe stupid things when they fail to recognize the universality of liars at the top. College is for teenagers who are afraid to grow up. Derivative viewpoints show only the self-contempt that creative geniuses are smothered with, by design of the freeloaders off corporate patents. So your viewpoint is meant to minimize individualism and self-pride. John Nash's insanity was caused when he realized that he should have gotten a beautiful girl all along, just like the superior athletes do. Not being brought up expecting that reward for his own superiority, he couldn't handle it. Nice projection from a "prophet of God", I enjoy your anger...it makes you look more serious "grrrr".... ...like you are convinced of something that matters...how cute...it warms my heart.
Your continual need to negate my arguments is strictly a means to "seek to elevate yourself dependently" considering you have no real material of your own.
Whatever...now you can take your assumptions and eat them...see how sweet they taste.
Look at your argument, it starts out as an ad-hominum with you failing to realize that in you stating that there is no unity as a response to my argument you strictly are connected to the argument itself. Your attempted negation of my argument exists as an extension of what my argument is because of its isomorphic properties.
In simpler terms our arguments are thetical and antithetical respective of each other and as such, they exist as extensions. Now this may appear as a contradiction on my part, me saying you are wrong but existing as relatively thetical to what is presented.
This is not a contradiction however considering to observe the nature of argument as thetical and antithetical is fundamentally a synthetic observation itself with this synthesis necessitating a thetical biproduct. In simpler terms, you can argue I am right or wrong all you want but if I am joining the arguments...a thetical state will always be the biproduct though synthesis.
Much as you so desperately need one to get a group hug from a Hegelian cult, a synthesis does not necessarily follow after a thesis and antithesis. In many cases, only annihilation follows, as the Dark Ages followed from the collapse of the Classical Era. Exhaustion followed that, in the stagnant Middle Ages. It is significant that in today's Postmodernism, the decadent academics claim that there were no Dark Ages. Unless some enlightened group reverses our course, Postmodernism is nothing but a prelude to a new Dark Ages. I don't waste my time on pathetic New Age conformists. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 11, 2019 21:06:49 GMT
Nice projection from a "prophet of God", I enjoy your anger...it makes you look more serious "grrrr".... ...like you are convinced of something that matters...how cute...it warms my heart.
Your continual need to negate my arguments is strictly a means to "seek to elevate yourself dependently" considering you have no real material of your own.
Whatever...now you can take your assumptions and eat them...see how sweet they taste.
Look at your argument, it starts out as an ad-hominum with you failing to realize that in you stating that there is no unity as a response to my argument you strictly are connected to the argument itself. Your attempted negation of my argument exists as an extension of what my argument is because of its isomorphic properties.
In simpler terms our arguments are thetical and antithetical respective of each other and as such, they exist as extensions. Now this may appear as a contradiction on my part, me saying you are wrong but existing as relatively thetical to what is presented.
This is not a contradiction however considering to observe the nature of argument as thetical and antithetical is fundamentally a synthetic observation itself with this synthesis necessitating a thetical biproduct. In simpler terms, you can argue I am right or wrong all you want but if I am joining the arguments...a thetical state will always be the biproduct though synthesis.
Much as you so desperately need one to get a group hug from a Hegelian cult, a synthesis does not necessarily follow after a thesis and antithesis. In many cases, only annihilation follows, as the Dark Ages followed from the collapse of the Classical Era. Exhaustion followed that, in the stagnant Middle Ages. It is significant that in today's Postmodernism, the decadent academics claim that there were no Dark Ages. Unless some enlightened group reverses our course, Postmodernism is nothing but a prelude to a new Dark Ages. I don't waste my time on pathetic New Age conformists. Synthesis is grounded in natural law under reproduction, the basic joining/diverging properties of atoms/molescules, language changes across cultures that intermingle (for example the word "skunk" in English originates with the Huron Tribe), etc. It is a basic process of inversion where many phenomenon join as one or one phenomenon diverges into many. The Dark ages where a result of the Roman empire disentigrating and being synthesized into barbarian tribes with much of the dialect being carried over into western and northern European language.
Go back to being a dissillusioned "prophet"...history is full of them. Generally they diverge off of some belief, or series of beliefs, and synthesize these beliefs under there own personal interpretatation with the premise their awareness is fundamentally "joined" or "synthesized" to Divinity.
|
|
...like you are convinced of something that matters...how cute...it warms my heart.