Well, many here told me to stop talking to you, but I didn’t… coz I have a mind of my own, you see.
I debated with many like He when I first joined ILP, and they’d always end up DMing me to offer their penis/sexual services, but I kindly declined. 
Satyr and I have a secret love-child… 
isn’t he adorable… he’s more cow than goat… took more after me than He, but has both our brains…
He’s growing up nicely…
_
WendyDarling wrote: Frankly, you should fire your therapist and hire one that doesn’t tell you its okay to fantasize about murdering someone.
I say: it’s part of flight or fight, silly… we’d be sitting ducks without it,
…it’s like the appendix though, a relic from the past, necessary to hunt
and protect ourselves from all predators.
The direction of the causality is proven by the direction of people’s migration - they freely move TOWARD the US far - far - far more than away from it.
When your nation has been stripped of wealth you follow the path towards the one who took it.
They have few option.
First the land’s wealth is appropriated, its resources, and then this includes human resource - total exploitation.
Give me your desperate longing to run away from their past.
And if none are available, I’ll create them.
Free from nature’s indifferent unjust brutality; free from past.
Salvation myth secularized. Messianism.
Neo-Marxists do something similar.
They work to increase the poverty and misery of the masses to trigger a revolution; they undermine all state attempts to alleviate misery and participate in the system they then pretend to be undermining, making a career out of selling revolution to those they care nothing about and feel superior to.
Opportunism…
Cause & Effect of Self-Deception
The human individual causes his/her life as it stands, at any moment, including that of an infant. ‘Responsibility’ is its innate Nature. It cannot-NOT be responsible for itself. Such that if this infant walks itself into traffic, then it will pay the consequences and die. The ‘Nature’ of all bodies, organic Biology, is as such. Thus to be “irresponsible” is to be reckless, diseased, confused, misled, deceived, ill, etc. Responsibility maybe analogous to Moral Strength (Good), and Irresponsibility to Moral Weakness (Evil). Thus to deny one’s own self-responsibility, is equivalent to denying one’s own self-consciousness. It is a self-annulment.
The psyche has a self-defense mechanism, that if it causes harm to self or others, then it’s Blame or Guilt must be excised and removed. The more grievous the injury, the more this need becomes overwhelming. Because most of humanity is weak by default (according to the Law of Averages), the masses quickly need a method of expunging individual and collective guilt: Scapegoating. Because “myself” is not to blame for any wrongdoing, ever, for anything, the opposite of this abstraction (Malady) is to then blame everybody for everything: Nihilism.
The extremity of this psychosis becomes a redirection, that all illness in life, caused by me, must be ‘avenged’ against everybody and everything else. Classically, this is the mechanic and logical end of ‘Evil’ moral functions.
Who, on this forum, in the last several threads …acts like this daily? Or for his/her whole life??
More propaganda crap -
If that was true - all of the Belt Road nations and half of Africa would be moving into China - along with a good portion of California.
When your own country is so poorly run that you are starving for hope - you run toward the hope.
Californians and their businesses are moving to Texas in droves - Texans aren’t moving to California.
The practice became problematic because of the lie that “all men were created equal”.
They had to stop what they started.
Selective immigration when universalized produces problems…because diversity is not a strength.
China doesn’t have an open invitation.
Immigrants go where they are welcomed…if they can’t get to the wealth they stay in their poverty.
A more rational thinking bloke would know better by now than to still believe that.
Ha!!!
Well, at least you controlled yourself and did not insult me…
But if you say so…
Carry on.
Good points!
If I told you that I’ve got witnesses who claim that they’ve seen a strange man 20 years ago who could walk on water and turn water into wine. He defies science and the causal structures we think of today.
Would you model that the causal structures must have been different 20 years ago? If not, why don’t you trust the so called"witnesses"?
All patterns in nature (phenomena) require energy to upkeep. Some require a lot of energy, representing complexity. Others require little energy, requiring simplicity. The ideal of a man walking on water and turning water to wine, is a pattern associated with Jesus Christ and Christianity as a whole. People cannot repeat this pattern in reality. Simply demand, at any time, that a person prove to you these claims, and they won’t. But the ideal is significant, because it represents a lot of other phenomena, particular to the moral and ethical structures of Christian societies and peoples. The ideal is symbolic. Its realism is less important. Is religion supposed to be scientific, or vice versa? Is Faith equivalent to Trial? No, Science demands strict requirements of proof and evidence, such that experiments must be repeatable and proven across different environments and centuries apart. Gravity and Natural Law operate the same now, as millennia ago, or millennia into the future.
Regardless, people will invest energy into ideals, superstitions, fantasies, and all other manners of speculations, or opinions even when they’re wrong. This will require an upkeep, that they are willing to pay, because of underlying motivations. Sentimental value, for example, can force a person to retain false opinions or delusions, that are not repeatable in nature, or simply never occurred in nature. The fact that Mankind can spend so much time and energy on false opinions, false ideals, and false representations, is what separates him from other less intelligent and less evolved animals.
Sometimes, a false ideal can be worthwhile, which is a risk. When Nicolaus Copernicus rejected Geocentricism for Heliocentricism, it was a false ideal at the time, but later proved true. But this is the exception, not the rule.
So no matter how much time & energy people want to force into walking on water, and turning water into wine, pragmatically it is more useful to concern themselves with practical matters.
Then again, Humanity now has excess time to waste on trivial and rather meaningless endeavors. This is the plight of Postmodernity.
First-hand knowledge - experiences.
Second-hand knowledge - adopted experiences.
The source of knowledge is to be evaluated in relation to its past performances.
The information being transmitted must then be evaluated in relation to existence - not only within manmade environments but primarily environments without human interventions.
A probability is established of what is more and what less likely.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtf4FDlpPZ8[/youtube]
In schizophrenia the mind is fractured and fragmented…compartmentalised, so as to simultaneously maintain two contradictory ideas - Newspeak, in Orwellian lingo.
For the right-hemisphere the left-hempisphere is like an alien agency, and for the left-hemisphere the right is like a god, imposing order, declaring laws…
Circumcision symbolizes an individual’s submission to divine masculinity - sexual self-mutilaiton, self-emasculation.
In this case self-lobotomization signals a desire to capitulate either to order or to chaos.
If the left is dominant then the individual will identify with it, and if the right is dominant then the individual will identify with a completely contrary world-view.
Identifying with the left-hemisphere is to identify with ordering…one is the objective.
Identifying with the right-hemisphere is to identify with chaos, or primal impulses, emotions, feelings, sensations…nil is the objective.
Personality is determined by organ hierarchies…character is determined by personality controlling how much and which parts it will performs, allow expressions to.
The status of every organ in a organism shapes its personality.
McGilchrist’s metaphysical positions are spot on…
Personality is determined by organ hierarchies…character is determined by personality controlling how much and which parts it will performs, allow expressions to.
The status of every organ in a organism shapes its personality.
Character is shaped during adolescence when the individual discovers that he/she cannot be entirely himself/herself - as the modern mythos urges them to - but that they must establish an image, a social caricature of their personality, in relation to how they relate with their environments, populated by other individuals, each one judging you through appearances, and how they interpret your past made present, i.e., your presence.
Thanks a lot. Really appreciate your answer and reasoning.
Is our language built upon hypothesising the existence causal relationships? Because this… then that?
Is language and communication about reality possible without refering to causal relationships?
Not really, most of language and communication is based on Causal Logic, especially Syntax and Predicate meanings.
"Syntax
Traditional grammar
The notion of a predicate in traditional grammar traces back to Aristotelian logic.[2] A predicate is seen as a property that a subject has or is characterized by. A predicate is therefore an expression that can be true of something.[3] Thus, the expression “is moving” is true of anything that is moving. This classical understanding of predicates was adopted more or less directly into Latin and Greek grammars; and from there, it made its way into English grammars, where it is applied directly to the analysis of sentence structure. It is also the understanding of predicates as defined in English-language dictionaries. The predicate is one of the two main parts of a sentence (the other being the subject, which the predicate modifies).[a] The predicate must contain a verb, and the verb requires or permits other elements to complete the predicate, or it precludes them from doing so. These elements are objects (direct, indirect, prepositional), predicatives, and adjuncts"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(grammar
Declarative Language isn’t necessarily Causal, which represents most “truth-claims” and Declarations about Reality.
For example, naming objects, subjects, nouns, or phenomena is not necessarily true nor false. Humanity simply names phenomena to refer to it.
But explaining why and how those phenomena appear and occur, is when Causality is introduced and then implied.
Understanding reality and existence, is a rank-Ordering mechanism. The most pivotal or primary Causes are investigated and hypothesized as Premises.
Premises which most of humanity no longer question or doubt, and take for granted as “automatically true”, are called Axioms.
Great answer, thanks!
Today I found a great article on the subject that I hope you find interesting:
What language use tells us about causal categories?
“All languages of the world provide their speakers with connectives to express causal relations in discourse – indeed, although no physicist has found“causation” out in the world, all humans in all cultures seem to interpret and describe the world in terms of causal relations. As in other semantic domains, the cognitive scientist and the linguist are therefore interested in how much of this causal modeling is specific to a given culture and language, and how much is character-istic of general human cognition. Causal connectives and causative auxiliariesare among the salient markers of causal construals. Speakers of English, forexample, can choose between because and since or between therefore and so.How different are these from the choices made by Dutch speakers, who speak a closely related language, but (unlike English speakers) have a dedicated markerfor non-volitional causality (daardoor)? On another grammatical level, speak-ers may use causal auxiliary verbs, such as make and let to mark causal relations expressed within one clause – but how different are these from laten(related to“let” both etymologically and semantically) and do en‘do, make’in Dutch…”
Source:
degruyter.com/document/doi/ … 429.1/html