I have nothing against philosophy becoming mathematics, but then no one should complain, as you seem to do, that “no one cares about philosophy”.
As I said, I am not against technology either. Quite the opposite. So I am not against digitalisation either. Quite the opposite. Perhaps technology does indeed conceal the revelation of being, which is thus revealed through technology, as Heidegger put it. That is the good, pleasant and perhaps even making very happy aspect of technology. So again: I am not against it.
But I am against the misuse of technology and therefore also against the misuse of digital technology - just as Heidegger and others were against the misuse of technology. This abuse was and is a fact. You should not deny it either. I have already written about it at other places.
That is really nonsense! It is not just about the lack, but about the fact that something does not always have to be single, but can also be manifold, and not only numerically manifold, but also non-numerically manifold.
You are simply insulting because you are incapable of reasoning. You do not argue at all, but rely on the effects that the insults can produce. You only ever show that you are dumb.
Do you even know what the principle of throughout (universal!) destination means? And because I wrote what it means: Do you even know what the principle of throughout (universal!) destination as a precondition of the supposedly possible digitalisation of the world means? And because I wrote what it means: Do you even know what digitalisation is?
The all-determining people who pretend to know that the world can be totally digitalised should first prove it, but they are not capable of proving it. But conversely, those who are more modest can know and do know that the world can never be completely digitalised.
It is not possible to determine each thing individually, whether it is alive or not, whether it exists or not or no longer or not yet.
Everyone only has to remember his or her childhood to know how interwoven everything can be, that there are subjective facts as well as objective ones, that there is non-numerical manifoldness, and that BEFORE numerical manifoldness. For animals and also human infants there is no numerical manifoldness yet.
And: Everyone is a different person today than everyone was yesterday, and everyone is a different person tomorrow than everyone is today. Only on the one hand everyone is himself, on the other hand everyone is in fact a different person from phase to phase. Everyone can observe this in himself.
And once again:
The problem with technology is not technology itself, but the misuse of technology.
The transhumanizers are not in control of technology, but technology is in control of the transhumanizers. The transhumanists who want to abolish humans risk abolishing themselves as well.
That is the true entropy!
The ghosts you once called, you can no longer get rid of.
So, to be clear again: the problem is not the technology, but the misuse of technology by a few humans.
All knowledge & understanding can be used to move towards the attainment of an objective.
The objective is what is in question - it exposes the subject’s motives and through them its secret assessments of itself relative to the world.
The ends justifying the means.
If the objective is deemed to be advantageous to us, we consider it ‘good,’ and all means to be justifiable; if the objective is deemed to be against our interests, then it is considered ‘bad’ or ‘evil’, all means directed towards its attainment are considered unjustified.
Reality has no motives. All knowledge and understanding of it must remain unmotivated by anything other than clarity and honesty - it must remain will-less, i.e., pure perception, as objective as possible.
Subjectivity is a corruptive factor: emotions, interests, ego, will, preferences.
The use of insights into reality can be as varied as the individual minds exposed to them, none of which falsify or validate them.
There are objectives that are so unrealistic as to contradict perceived existence - some of them are intentionally so.
That is not correct.
Globalization is a process (“isations” are always processes); globalism is something like a goal to which globalization should lead and has already led, i.e. globalization has come to its end (I would say: since about 1990/2000); NWO is pretty much the same as globalism - with the difference that NWO is an order, while globalism is the ideology or rather an idealism of it. is an idealism for it, and a rather nihilistic one, which assumes that our globe can and will be regulated to infinity by data and money alone, that there can and will be an order for this globe regulated to infinitely small and infinitely large.
( 
)
Yes, of course. Just as they have always dominated the USA.
Not the next phase, but the reinforcement, the supplement, just to their completion (see above: definition) needed antithesis, i.e. antithesis in the Hegelian sense. In this way they can now finally dominate the whole globe in such a way as it corresponds to a reality which is indeed characterized by contradiction. They also have to control the contradiction. In this way, the opponent becomes a harmless pseudo-opponent. Whether this calculation works out, however, is questionable, because contradiction (resistance) forms again and again, unless one controls also the brains to 100%, e.g., by nano and genetic engineering (chip in the brain etc.).
Oh, these conflicts do exist, but they are managed conflicts (as I described above). Every opponent (every contradiction) shall be managed, thus: controlled.
And the way the conflicts are managed is by creating the image of conspiracy, by leaving such control to the imagination of those they want to control.
@elf
I was in the process of scrolling past all of your tldr posts without reading them, but this caught my eye “The problem with technology is not technology itself, but the misuse of technology.”
Yeah, no. The problem is, quite literally, 180 degrees rotated and perpendicular to that. A complete refutation. Not even in range of the same plane or planet or alignment or orbit or any other metaphorical symbolic semiotic or syllogistic framing attempt or a corresponding emotionalized sperg-out copestorm.
I do wish you luck, though. I think you might make it someday. See me when you do =D> 
I will when I see you first.
What I wrote there wasn’t for you, it was for that other guy.
You already exist, so I wouldn’t need to say that to you.
In fact that is the core problem, that the use of techno Warner be eliminated at last due to an initially benevolent programming to fight those who can turn it 18O degrees, and really wish you luck as well.
Yeah cogito ero sum, the support of renewal for rationalistic humanism .based on modular transhumanistic transcendence
It’s interesting, but it’s also strange. How does Putin know that the Western financial system is becoming obsolete? Does he mean that the cash money should be disposed of? He himself is in the process of abolishing cash money in his country. He was also at the WEF in the early 1990s. The financial system must be changed, but this does not only affect the Western financial system, but the entire financial system.
All the chaos we’ve been experiencing since the financial crisis of 2007/'08, especially since the financial system has come to know in January 2019 that it can’t raise interest rates again or keep printing money forever , and that’s why Covid 19 came about, is meant to distract from the fact that the world financial system can no longer be sustained.
But Putin was not and is not isolated from this.
I interpret what he says about the West as rhetoric (he was with the KGB, after all), but unlike the Soviet rulers at the time, who imitated the West, Putin no longer wants to have anything to do with the West and relies on Russia as an independent culture. From today’s point of view, this is probably actually better for Russia and, by the way, it is only the first time that Russia is no longer imitating the West. That’s why Putin wants to stand out from the West all the more clearly. Hence his constant mockery of the West.
I don’t think he means money is becoming obsolete, but the western - American based - monetary system is becoming obsolete.
He’s also talking about using gold as a standard.
A return from abstractions to tangible reality.
A semiotic return to the real world, away from the ideal world.
This would include all forms of human exchange…language.
So, no more inverted genders, but genders referring to sexual reproductive roles converted to social roles.