ILovePhilosophy.com

James S Saint wrote:I think that I have actually learned something from this thread.

Really?

James S Saint wrote:

obe wrote:Yes, i agree, but the end of history is hypothetical, a far as a precise measurement is concerned, whereas it is unknown, when this will take place. Until this can mor e successfully predicted, basic intuition works on a general framework. The specifics unfold within an unfolding of events, not necessarily sequential , nor within a perceivable model of predictability. Not the least of which the confusion caused by resistive efforts to devise a continuing fictional history by adding virtual, pseudo revisions of historical fill-ins. It is even now difficult to separate fact from fiction and drama instantly created by the addition of ad hoc mythology.

I wasn't referring to a precise prediction of the timing of anything. I was referring to a more precise means to measure "too much" from "too little" of each of the needs of Man.

And fundamentally, that would mean precisely measuring every individuals effort to;
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.

If you want to improve on something, first learn to measure it.
By what means could you measure that particular harmony?

How could you measure the degree of clarity concerning your Perception of Hopes and Threats?
How could you measure the degree of verification of your Perception of Hopes and Threats?
How could you measure the degree of instillment of your Perception of Hopes and Threats?
How could you measure the degree of reinforcement of your Perception of Hopes and Threats?
..all relative to your individual anentropic harmony.

In short; How can you measure and protect your Consciousness?
Your governments are already doing those things for themselves, but most often at the expense of the individuals.

Controlling the Narrative;


Every time a government decides to keep a secret, the consciousness of the individual is sacrificed through intentional obfuscation used to mislead and even create a false history. When have governments not been doing that?

Until the consciousness of the individuals are protected, the history of calamities will continue. Currently almost nothing you hear about the reasoning for what you should or should not do is related to the actual reasons, thereby removing your personal decision making utility and making democracy merely a demockery.

I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,

not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.

Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.

The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.

obe wrote:I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,

not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.

Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.

The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.

Again: Do you believe in „instinctive knowledge“, Obe? What do you exactly mean with „an intuitively grounded intelligence“, especially in your sentence: „The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as »each to his need«, or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness“?

Relating to „instinctive knowledge“: What about food? What about basic goods? What about time preference which actually and exactly means preference of the present time?

But "the right to the enjoyment of happiness" does not belong to an "instincitive knowledge". You know what I mean?

"Intelligence" is dangerous only if you are a stupid cow spending most of your time on getting food and not observing those who are hungry to rule.

Arminius wrote:

obe wrote:I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,

not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.

Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.

The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.

Again: Do you believe in „instinctive knowledge“, Obe? What do you exactly mean with „an intuitively grounded intelligence“, especially in your sentence: „The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as »each to his need«, or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness“?

Relating to „instinctive knowledge“: What about food? What about basic goods? What about time preference which actually and exactly means preference of the present time?

But "the right to the enjoyment of happiness" does not belong to an "instincitive knowledge". You know what I mean?

As products of common sense, which was adopted early as a constitutional configuration, of Adam Smith, later legitimized by a positivist language adaptation to such ideas, (Wittgenstein et. al),the productive sense has developed into corrosive and corrupted system of internalized fear- such as not being able to keep up with the Joneses. Such fear is generated by instinctual and not quantifiable fear, on the part of the consumer, but deliberately fostered by the producer.

This resulted in product development based on misinformation and misidentification, the central intelligence has to do with real dynamics, whereas disseminated information senses of guessing as to basic value questions of identity-what model (of a car, for instance) will best describe who a person is? The only way to protect the consumer, is to blur or misidentify pre existing values. Fear drives misidentification, as protection against intrusive attempts , to save face in the social battlefield. This fear is intuitive , based on the common sense approach to interaction. The models have been converted from traditionally real into virtually unreal evaluations. The price we pay.

obe wrote:I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,

not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.

Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.

The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.

That argument reminds me of the old satanic method of the circle of fire.

Imagine that you were in a castle with a mote. When the barbarians stormed the castle, you pored oil in the mote and lit it on fire. The though was to encircle your domain with a destructive (and obfuscating) force. Such things have worked before.

But if I were the adversary storming your castle, I would merely laugh. I would pore even more oil into that mote along with trees and anything else that would burn. I would keep that fire burning so long that either you would smoother in the smoke and heat or simply starve. I have the entire world of fuel. I could even make money from the spectacle of it and become quite wealthy.

The presumption of the circle of fire was that the one inside the circle would have control of it, a "controlled fire". But entropy is far easier than control. If you are going to attempt the satanic circle of fire method, don't play it with the entire world. The universe can provide far more fire than you can deal with. Judea was supposed to learn that over 2500 years ago, but they seem far too slow at learning.

But since that strategy has been played and the universe is merely laughing at the spectacle, it would seem wise to focus on quite the opposite intelligence, freezing a snowball amidst fires of Hell - "what are the chances". And the claim is as it has always been, "We Shall be GODS!!", so okay, what's the issue? Surely a god would have no problem providing air-conditioning and joyous life within such a castle - eternally.

My position is that once you see how to freeze the fire (which I discovered back in the 70's, turning chaos into order automatically), you just go ahead and do it. But you don't keep making more fire at the same time as trying to freeze it. Nor do you freeze the entire planet. You prevent the entire scenario by demonstrating the the use of fire is pointless in the first place. You freeze the very incentive the barbarians had in attacking you. Both extremes are non-sense, yet they are the very fundamental thoughts feeding the lust of Man to be God - "Order vs Chaos", "Vishnu vs Shiva".

Heaven is not the city surrounded by Gehenna. Heaven has air-conditioning.

obe wrote:

Arminius wrote:

obe wrote:I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,

not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.

Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.

The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.

Again: Do you believe in „instinctive knowledge“, Obe? What do you exactly mean with „an intuitively grounded intelligence“, especially in your sentence: „The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as »each to his need«, or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness“?

Relating to „instinctive knowledge“: What about food? What about basic goods? What about time preference which actually and exactly means preference of the present time?

But "the right to the enjoyment of happiness" does not belong to an "instincitive knowledge". You know what I mean?

As products of common sense, which was adopted early as a constitutional configuration, of Adam Smith, later legitimized by a positivist language adaptation to such ideas, (Wittgenstein et. al),the productive sense has developed into corrosive and corrupted system of internalized fear- such as not being able to keep up with the Joneses. Such fear is generated by instinctual and not quantifiable fear, on the part of the consumer, but deliberately fostered by the producer.

This resulted in product development based on misinformation and misidentification, the central intelligence has to do with real dynamics, whereas disseminated information senses of guessing as to basic value questions of identity-what model (of a car, for instance) will best describe who a person is? The only way to protect the consumer, is to blur or misidentify pre existing values. Fear drives misidentification, as protection against intrusive attempts , to save face in the social battlefield. This fear is intuitive , based on the common sense approach to interaction. The models have been converted from traditionally real into virtually unreal evaluations. The price we pay.

There is an „instinctive knowledge“, an „intuitively grounded intelligence“, there are „products of common sense, but there is fear too, and fear is used or misused in order to convert traditionally real evaluations into virtually unreal evaluations. The business with fear is a lucrative business, but not the only one.

Historyboy wrote:"Intelligence" is dangerous only if you are a stupid cow spending most of your time on getting food and not observing those who are hungry to rule.

HOw is the observing of those hungry to rule working for you?

Historyboy wrote:"Intelligence" is dangerous only if you are a stupid cow spending most of your time on getting food and not observing those who are hungry to rule.

You might mean to say that "unawareness" is dangerous. What you described isn't intelligence.
And with reference to the poor maligned cow, I hope that the next time you are about to drink a glass of milk it becomes sour the moment you are drinking it...you ungrateful wretch you.

Im observing how to rule.

Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.

HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?

Moreno wrote:

Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.

HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?

And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?

Only_Humean wrote:

Moreno wrote:

Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.

HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?

And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?

They would have to have at some point in their life.

James, the following video fits to your video that you have recently posted.



Nuclear bombs are also a possibility, although perhaps not a sufficient one, to end the history.

Only_Humean wrote:

Moreno wrote:

Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.

HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?

And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?

Probably to some extent. LIke all the military dictator types, probably consciouslyl and unconsciouly modeled superior officers and other alpha males.

I have to say, what you probably already realize, was that his statements seemed to imply some kind of future Power play, or perhaps even his already advancing in the World gaining of Power. Now it is ad hom, though relevent, given his 'they are all cows' assertion, to wonder if anyone would, by any scientific method or sociological analysis, be able to find qualities, in terms of Power, that separate him out from even middle management in a Corporation. I can see feeling like one understands more than the average Joe, including the average middle management executive, but mere understanding didn't quite fit the smugness inherent in Calling people cows. Perhaps one of the cows hates being milked and having her Babies taken away Young, etc. But she probably just looks like all the other cows in the field and has to deal with the same Power imbalances in her society as all the other cows do.

In a way, big deal.

Only_Humean wrote:

Moreno wrote:

Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.

HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?

And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?

More to the point, it might be a case of WHO those wishing to rule study? A fair benign ruler would study a great humane ruler from the past - a ruler who wanted to rule only for power and greed would study - who? Ghengis Khan, Hannibal? I don't really know the kind of rulers they were. Charlemagne might be someone to study. Alexander the Great perhaps if one wanted to be a despot.

And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?

Arcturus Descending wrote:
More to the point, it might be a case of WHO those wishing to rule study? A fair benign ruler would study a great humane ruler from the past - a ruler who wanted to rule only for power and greed would study - who? Ghengis Khan, Hannibal? I don't really know the kind of rulers they were. Charlemagne might be someone to study. Alexander the Great perhaps if one wanted to be a despot.

As Nietzsche's Zarathustra said, "the knowledge will bring you to power"(Herrschaft), of course, there is an order of rank in intelligence:

1. Wisdom
2. Reason
3. Slyness
4. Stupidity

unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.

Historyboy

As Nietzsche's Zarathustra said, "the knowledge will bring you to power"(Herrschaft), of course, there is an order of rank in intelligence:

1. Wisdom
2. Reason
3. Slyness
4. Stupidity

unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.

Wouldn't you put self-awareness and consciousness of self first?
Knowledge of what? What you will do with that power? What your intention is in attaining it?

Arcturus Descending wrote:Historyboy

As Nietzsche's Zarathustra said, "the knowledge will bring you to power"(Herrschaft), of course, there is an order of rank in intelligence:

1. Wisdom
2. Reason
3. Slyness
4. Stupidity

unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.

Wouldn't you put self-awareness and consciousness of self first?
Knowledge of what? What you will do with that power? What your intention is in attaining it?

I don't know. Perhaps making the floors around slippery without noticing it.

Historyboy wrote:

And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?

Arcturus Descending wrote:
More to the point, it might be a case of WHO those wishing to rule study? A fair benign ruler would study a great humane ruler from the past - a ruler who wanted to rule only for power and greed would study - who? Ghengis Khan, Hannibal? I don't really know the kind of rulers they were. Charlemagne might be someone to study. Alexander the Great perhaps if one wanted to be a despot.

As Nietzsche's Zarathustra said, "the knowledge will bring you to power"(Herrschaft), of course, there is an order of rank in intelligence:

1. Wisdom
2. Reason
3. Slyness
4. Stupidity

unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.

And since the post- Nietzschians tend to accept mainstream science and rule out other methodologies, it gets very hard for them to distinguish some types of stupidity from wisdom. They do hate the reasonists, sometimes for good reasons (lol), but there they are, calling for something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.

Moreno wrote:And since the post- Nietzschians tend to accept mainstream science and rule out other methodologies, it gets very hard for them to distinguish some types of stupidity from wisdom. They do hate the reasonists, sometimes for good reasons (lol), but there they are, calling for something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.

Well I'd say Nietzsche has been an immense influence on me, and I accept a good deal of scientific methodology when it comes to knowledge and understanding the world, and maybe I'm crazy or brainwashed for thinking this, but I actually think science is a good tool for distinguishing between stupidity and reason. I've explained my reasoning before, will do it again if requested. Convince me otherwise?

I think anyone can confuse stupidity and wisdom at times, but those who are most frequently confused and who identify as proponents of scientism may not actually understand the scientific method and are just dropping sciency terms around for fad, 'cause it seems intellectual and unchallengeable.

Moreno wrote:something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.

This seems counter to scientific methodology I'm aware of on all three accounts. This is why I always separate people who support & agree with science in some vague way with what the scientific method actually is.

fuse wrote:

Moreno wrote:something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.

This seems counter to scientific methodology I'm aware of on all three accounts.

I'm not sure which parts seem counter to scientific methodology. If Wisdom is something beyond reason, then it incorporates processes that are definitely beyond scientific methodology. Which I think wisdom does. So do a lot of stupid methodologies. The N-ians look down on most people who have methodologies outside the scientific, while at the same time reserving for themselves Wisdom, which is also outside, but in some, not clearly defined correct way of being outside.

This is why I always separate people who support & agree with science in some vague way with what the scientific method actually is.

Yes, I call the former science groupies.

distinguishing between stupidity and reason

I definitely meant *wisdom* and thought it as I wrote that post. don't know why reason came out.