So you think that the Western technology will vansih in the next decades. Be honest, that’s your romantic nihilistic sentiment then. How can a technology just vanish in such a short time? Explain please - in English!
I said that the Western technology and the values of the Western culture - because both belong together - will not disappear quickly. This is not a “romantic sentiment”, as you said!
Years ago I had that same thought concerning many ontological assertions (before I even knew what an ontology was). And just earlier I was posting with Jacob about his Value-Ontology wherein he asserts that even photons self-value. - How could a photon do any kind of valuing at all, right?
But what I realized is that in all of these ontologies even from ancient times, when they claim that something seeks or chooses they don’t mean to say that the entity actually weighs its options and consciously chooses one over another - but rather the entity inherently behaves as if it was consciously and knowingly choosing.
They have been doing that with electricity and water in saying that it “seeks the path of least resistance” - as if it was consciously choosing a path. Apparently they were doing that with the gods, the devil, angels, a variety of science principles, computers (“prompting you” - “seeking the solution”) and now with Affectance Ontology (particles “seeking anentropy”) and Value Ontology (“seeking self-values”).
I have come to the conclusion that actually we more common people have always had it upside down - it is consciousness and desire that are given misplaced hierarchy in causation - inborn, inherent behaviors are labeled as “desires” and “conscious choices” that guide further behavior. In reality, desire, seeking, and choosing are each an effect of inherent action as well as an subsequent cause of action (at least when they exist). They are midway between their own cause and their own effect.
So when James refers to seeking harmony or seeking anentropy (a cell seeking harmonious surroundings) - he is referring to the entity just naturally doing something that has the effect of compensating for an imbalance. It isn’t that it knows in the way a person might consciously know something but rather that it just naturally behaves as to compensate - like a soap bubble “seeking” perfect spheroidal shape - subatomic particles actively seek a perfect balance of size and shape to match their ambient environment - atoms “seek” a perfect balance of their electric charge. And in no case do any of these things ever perfectly attain what they “seek” - they are always shifting and adjusting to compensate for some disturbance. Businesses do the same with the market - by seeking highest profit, they constantly adjust for changing market trends and government regulations (then government uses that to control them while they use that to control government - it gets really conflated).
Apparently it is a universal concept that normal people just never recognize and often think of in backwards terms - much like the Darwin realization that being successful is not the result of being a particular species but that being a particular species is the result of being successful.
Right - with an emphasis on the subtle causes and effects (“Affectance”) that literally causes all behaviors of all things throughout the universe - and is actually the entire makeup of the universe.
Right. It is like a presumption of purpose or intent - a suspicion of consciousness - a superstition when no other understanding is apparent when actually it is all natural “forces” balancing out something that has become imbalanced.
I have to put the word “forces” in quotes because James pointed out that forces actually don’t exist in nature at all - they are the same issue - they are actually inherent migrations of affects that give the appearance of some kind of force thing involved when there is nothing there but a migratory balancing of affectance that requires a counter migration to prevent - movement isn’t caused by pushing - rather pushing is caused by movement.
We (in the common world - and science) have always had it backward. And he seems to have validly proven his case - answering the questions that science couldn’t answer…
Here is someone who wants to explain the world with the help of astrology and the like. Why did you not make it clear to him that he is irrational or romantic, because his “thesis rests on a romantic sentiment”. In his case, it is romance and irrationality. But not in my case. Why did you insinuate that my “thesis rests on a romantic sentiment”, although I have only used historical facts?
It is a historical fact that Western technology is spread all over the world.
It is a historical fact that Western technology belongs exclusively to western Culture.
It is a historical fact that Western culture has not been interrupted and has not yet come to its end.You will soon experience this yourself, when the surveillance of all people by the machines (in this case: AI), which are all of Western origin (why do I actually have to explain this today?) , has become established.
It is something like humanizing nature, as we know it from us when we humanize pets. In general, the breeding of animals alone is proof that man himself selects. He has also bred himself - - towards a pet.
I have been trying to work that out (James didn’t leave much concerning what word to use in its place other than “migrate” - explicative but not entirely appropriate in common use). And the question has led to some complex and disturbing thoughts (besides realizing the limits of my vocabulary).
I am not sure that an actual change of the word is really needed, but just for fun if we wanted to get pedantically accurate - it gets challenging, complex, and tideous. I went through a number of potential substitute words and almost settled on “affect” but even though surreptitiously applicable in some uses - inappropriate in others.
Our languages in the West are starting to disturb me. It seems that in many cases we have a language that implies the exact opposite of what is really going on - backwards and upside-down - like the Darwin issue (I have to wonder if that was intentional - maybe we really should learn to write from right to left and bottom to top - and maybe Americans really are driving on the right side of the road — nah).
The first problem I faced was that the word “force” is used in both a dynamic and a static situation - where it implies that something is getting moved (affected) and also when nothing moved (feckless). When pushing your car you say that you are “applying force” but you also say that when pushing against a locked door - in one case there is affect but in the other - no visible affect (although on that ultra-minuscule scale particles are getting crowded closer together). And that led me to think of the word “push” in place of “force” would be appropriate - but not quite.
Pushing is the act of increasing the affectance (or energy) between particles in a material. The particles keep “trying” to balance out that extra affectance by migrating away from each other (again “trying” meaning to inherently behave such as to bring that effect). But what about decreasing the affectance between them?
If there is a word for push there has to be a word for pull - but guess what - according to the ontology absolutely nothing ever actually pulls anything anywhere ever - pulling is even more substantially nonexistent than force. When we pull, we do one of two things - we “grab” and effectively push from the other side or we (in the case of being chemically stuck or bonded to a surface) we inspire a migration of the particles toward us by decreasing the affectance between the particles - making them “try” to migrate back together. But what is an appropriate word for that?
I haven’t worked that out yet.
I think what it amounts to is either increasing the affectance between objects (what we would normally think of as the attempt to decrease the proximity of objects - pushing away) - or decrease the affectance between them (increase that proximity - pulling closer). The behavior of the Earth an Moon reflect that as a balance - the momentum of the Moon “tries” to decrease the affectance (flying away) while simultaneously the gravity from both is “trying” to increase the affectance (pulling closer) - yielding the anentropic state of a stable orbit - “pushing” and “pulling” - but - not really.
“I am going to cause a decrease imbalance of affectance between me and my wife”
just doesn’t sound right - because it means that I am going to increase the attraction (or migration) between us.
That never stopped James - if he thought he knew the logic behind his assertions (and usually proved that he did) he would have debated God himself. That is one of the things that caught my attention - seriously confident and willing to back it up (much like Mr Trump in that way). James mostly talked about what is necessarily true - not merely probably true.
Having read through his reasoning - especially concerning his ontology - I have to accept nearly everything he asserted (other than things he admitted to be only his guessing from a distance). He had valid logic behind everything and stated that the very first thing you must do is to “Define your words”
In various places he explains the exact details concerning why what he asserts must be true and that what he claims is never in conflict with what science has observed - only in the way they interpret it. You end up being able to strongly sense the difference between when you just think you are right and when you know that you absolutely have to be right.
And I can tell you that after a while of working through it - that confidence rubs off on you - it changes you inside.
Let’s talk about science as you understand it though. What is your take on the dynamics of the gluonic shifts, do you favour a mosaic or a system of suspension?
In mathematics this would be comparable with operations like the different mirroring (at point, straight line) and rotations combined with displacements. And because one can never isolate gluons, so one can never put them under a microscope, then the suspicion comes that these gluons do not exist as objects, just as little as there are reflections as objects.
However, I think I know what you are getting at. You want to point out that science has come to its end with physics and therefore we have to depend on other aids if we still want to recognize something in addition. I can agree with that for the most part. But how will one be capable of making an ojective statement if nobody accepts it objectively? This is only possible by falling back on old recipes: God/gods, religion, theology, also philosophy (which would then experience a great rebirth). But how do you want to explain it to the mass of people, if they don’t want to know anything about astrology and the like? That works only about coercion. And coercion is what I reject.
I mention the East, and you think I’m trying to destroy the West? I weren’t making any comparisons here.
I’m not Chinese… I don’t give that much of an f about this… I was just interested and intrigued by the suggestion I came across and the reason behind the reasoning why it is said to be so.
This was about history, not politics, and I’m not left-leaning in my politics in any way shape or form. You have presumed far too much here, so please stand corrected.
I did not say that you are “Chinese”, “left-leaning” and want “to destroy the West”, because I know that you are not Chinese, not left-leaning and do not want to destroy the West. I was referring to my own post, the last one, in which your previous post is still included. It would have been better to take your post out before. Sorry, Mags. I was referring to leftists / comunists, not to you.
It’s always been the source of great amazment how clowns like you soak up exactly the right amount of propoganda to completely undermine your own interests and to maximise your own oppression. There are no reds under the beds. There is only the corporate interests that promote this rather idiotic myth.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Actually what Id be getting at is that science has not yet learned to think. I trust you’ve read my post on refuting the law of identity, in the thread you recently visited.
Leave astrology out of it, it is just an art of power, it has little to offer scientific thought. Governments and banks use it, not scientists. Leave religion out of it too.
But what is this idea that the masses should be wooed? That has never been the case - science has always operated best far away from the masses. Im sure you’re not ignorant of the lives of Archimedes, Newton or Galileo. Nor of the fact that Einstein, after he became famous, did not produce much of consequence. Science is a matter of unearthing subtleties through extreme patience and persistence, something for which the masses are entirely unfit.
Your statement that the world will forever, at least until its destruction, be under the dominion of science, and that this science is of western origin, is true. There are elements of nonwestern thought that can be applied to science in order to enable it to deal with certain contradictions that have come to light early in the 20th century, but these elements can also be derived simply from clear thought.
The scientific matter before us now is that of 4 dimensional engineering, as premonitioned by the phenomena of superposition and entanglement. Supposedly various companies and governments are in possession of a quantum computer - but I expect there to be very interesting “bugs” coming into play, which will point to our inefficiency at 4d architecture, because we do not yet understand precisely how the future influences the present as much as the past does; we do not know how to approach systems in their own terms.
Perhaps this science is actually quite well established in secret. Much new science is established in secret. And much of it is kept, partly for very good reasons, away from the masses.
