The only thing I can think of that is absolute about fractals are the equations that spawn them. Even then, they contain imaginary numbers, which probably can’t be considered absolutes. Perhaps another absolute is the inherent repetition that arises on further calculation?
Want another debate?
The infinite whole is inclusive of every iteration.
Can’t argue with that.
People are largely self interested and self serving where these self interests become competitive in debating that then become hostile.
In my experience: most never developed solid critical thinking skills; the vast majority never developed solid conceptual thinking skills. As such, a high percentage are unable to form beliefs/opinions via solid facts and sound reasoning - especially when dealing with abstractions. Consequently they partially, if not entirely, rely on “feel” - with a significant percentage of them believing that the stronger they “feel”, the truer something is.
This is all compounded by the fact that such individuals are effectively incapable of being swayed by reason. As such, it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with them. Even worse, they lack the humility to admit their shortcomings.
I agree that challenge is often necessary for a conversation to move forward. What I’m pointing to is the moment when challenge turns into hostility, like personal attacks, defensiveness, or provocation. At that point, it feels like the conversation stops moving and starts circling, because understanding is no longer the goal. I’m curious why that shift happens so easily, and why antagonism can feel more engaging than genuine exchange.
Reducing it to “low IQ” feels overly simplistic to me. People across the spectrum struggle with objectivity when beliefs are tied to belonging, status, or moral identity. Hostility often seems to come from emotional investment, not a lack of intelligence.
It’s because there just don’t seem to be any objective values or ends… You can be rational about facts or means, but that always seems to happen within a framework of (inter)subjective values or ends. As soon as those values or ends are themselves put into question—by reason, say—, the most reasonable thing is to be unreasonable!
“Definition of Protestantism: hemiplegic paralysis of Christianity—and of reason…” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 10, Mencken trans.)
Thinking is feeling. Reason (action, production) is part of experience, and does not happen apart from it. There is no algorithm indicating the structure (substance, recognition) if no one is the inhabitant (force, reproduction…meaning) behind it (no AI without humans to program it… no humans without the absolute fractal). No one could inhabit/compose it without structure (being) indicating (action) it (force). Neither came first in simultaneous aseity or “explanation of self-existence” (aseity of one’s being, essence, and action). No contingency without the three necessaries (aseity) subsuming it in their whole image.
The whole infinite (absolute) fractal.
In a Word… God.
Often people confuse understanding and agreement. They think that articulating someone else’s position in a way to which that person would not object is a form of endorsement. It makes them feel like a traitor to their own position. It’s an attachment or identity hurdle. This is the source of an existential crisis or abrupt paradigm shift or mental breakdown if they cannot resolve the crisis. If they resolve it with cognitive distortion to ease the dissonance, it will further cement the cognitive bias reinforcing the attachment or identity hurdle. This is the sort of thing that makes cult deprogramming quite a challenge. Especially if they’ve been convinced their cult’s worldview (group think) is the default (unbiased, or properly biased) position of nature/reality.
Critical thinking skills help (like being able to recognize informal fallacies, and so forth), but no amount of those skills is going to prevent someone from resorting to sophistry in their rhetoric if they don’t care if they hurt other people. They may claim their priority is truth when they really just want to win and will take any position because they like winning more than the truth. They may even turn it around and gaslight you and say you just wanna be the one who is right and don’t actually care about the truth. Which is always fun. If someone starts calling you a zebra, you know you’re in a fruitless conversation.
Because people believe very passionately in their differing beliefs where once unresolved in debate gets quickly turned into ridicule, insults, and those antagonisms.
Silence is speech. Stillness (latency, potential) is the root of utterance, and flows inextricably through it. There is no echo revealing the chamber (space, resonance) if no one is the voice (impulse, origination…sound) provoking it (no frequency without the agent to emit it… no agent without the primordial vibration). No one could provoke/sound it without the chamber (medium) carrying (transmitting) it (impulse). Neither holds priority in simultaneous resonance or “harmony of self-expression” (expression of one’s identity, instrument, and song). No transient noise without the three perfections (harmony) tuning it in their absolute chord.
The whole eternal (primordial) vibration.
In a Breath… Spirit.
What is that phrase about when good men do nothing? Sometimes to restrain or loose (not lose) is to be complicit.
Jesus calls it pruning, and something dying so something else can live. Matthew 10:39, John 15:3
I’ve only seen high-IQ people disassociate from their emotionally-invested Beliefs and Opinions. If you can demonstrate low-IQ people doing the same, and “discussing topics rationally and reasonably” then I’d very much like to see that.
Let’s use the other extreme… high-IQ people tearing into one another. Satyr, on this forum, is a good example. He has high-IQ. So what is his defense? He claims, many times, that he does it “as a response in kind”. And that is reasonable to me. Why shouldn’t somebody respond in kind to emotional, Ad Hom attacks?
Many people seem to do it without self-awareness, without even realizing they’re doing it. So that demonstrates a lack of self-consciousness. People are generally not aware of their own core-beliefs and values.
Distancing is not necessarily the same as dissociating. Dissociating is involuntary.
And if you had high emotional IQ, you wouldn’t be posting the crap you post all over the place. Just saying. “Perfect” example:
See… low-IQ personal, Ad Hom attacks, and she doesn’t even realize she’s doing it.
Thank you for proving my entire case!
Much of the hostility is orchestrated by normies, as a coercion tactic to get philosophers in line with the mainstream status quo. I don’t think all of these normies are shills, but some are just brainwashed NPCs, useful idiots. These useful idiots have a collective neurosis where they chimp out on anyone who offers unique perspectives.
Low-IQ people take “Low-IQ” personally; they take it as an insult. Even though that was not, and never is, my intention.
Want to know what else has low-IQ? Animals, pets, cats and dogs, bovines, equines, canines, etc. Do I hate animals? Am I insulting animals? No, I’m stating facts about Life and Nature. But the Normie, NPC brain, has been conditioned and trained (by American eDuMaCaTiOn) to have emotional responses to divergence of IQ. Race and IQ are deeply taboo in USA and throughout the West, for a number of reasons (but mostly pertaining to the precedents set by Nazi Germany and Zionist Jews). Thus, Americans are trained, from youth, to hate “high-IQ” and perceive it as a threat.
Thus they are “emotionally invested” in defending Low-IQ, or worse, heralding it as a societal, moral “Good”. This is why ‘NPC’ brains are exalted and cheered by Americans and many other Westerners.
(They’re wrong.)
“to have emotional responses to divergence of IQ.”
Whether you ‘hate’ a dummy or not changes nothing about the dummy’s defensive nature regarding this matter. Knowing one’s intellectual incapacity is an experience and admission of lacking power… and that direct experience of impotence necessarily causes the dummy to be offended by and on guard against smarter people. And all this is perfectly natural.
You can pet a dummy on the head all you want and show not the slightest bit of contempt for him… but if he knows he’s not that bright, he’s going to be bitter about that fact and suspect that someone is gonna cheat him or take advantage of him somehow. Why. Because that’s how it is and has been for eighty thousand years. That dummy’s intuition is a survival mechanism; a dummy stays alive by raising a fuss about all the possible ways he’s being fucked so that he solicits the sympathy of a group majority that can provide for him (because of his relative unproductivity). Prior to this group arrangement, the dummy was either tossed or enslaved.
In any case, admitting an IQ difference between an animal and a human isn’t a problem for either party. But between people, big problem. Why. Because the social contract rests on a few fundamental errors… one of which is that people are equal before some third party (a god, a state, a constitution) and that, therefore, no capacity of one person should give them an advantage over another person. You can be smarter than me but not better, not deserving of more opportunity, not appreciated more, not privileged more, etc. These are the resulting errors of reasoning that cause the rancor and envy of the inferior type.
On the other hand, if a dummy were intelligent enough to rid himself of these notions, he’d not feel any shame in a revolt against his betters. That third-party god he imagines that likes him as much as all the einsteins also acts as a prohibition against the dummy’s natural drive to weaponize himself against his superiors. He behaves himself instead, so his envy gets pushed down and ferments in his primitive soul.
“Thus, Americans are trained, from youth, to hate “high-IQ” and perceive it as a threat.”
In fact, intelligence is a great virtue and still considered so… but the promotion of intelligence and education in a capitalistic society will be in a commodified form to accommodate the demands made by the market. One gets schooled, taught, to prepare for a job… not to become intelligent (enough to call out bullshit). ‘Classical’ intelligence is history, and philosophy courses are taken for fun.
In fact, you yourself are such a student of commodified education and indoctrination. Your understanding and perception of Marxism, for instance, is surgically confused and made that way on purpose by bourgeois western institutions. The irony here is that while you are dumb, what you believe is called ‘intelligent stuff’ by the institutions that raised and educated you. So it’s kind of a paradox. You are pretty fuckin smaht at being pretty fuckin dumb.