Moderator: Dan~
Contra-Nietzsche wrote: This thread has nothing to do with pagans, heathens, christians, arabs..... just a linguistic maze by a german frustrated they lost the war in WW2, and wants everyone to walk around still legged with pointy hats hailing some great reich leader. Its rather lame. The heathens I know like metal music and Rammstein. They dont care about these silly riddles.
James S Saint wrote: So to what degree are people "free"? And which people?
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote: So to what degree are people "free"? And which people?
People can merely be relatively free, as I said a number of times. Even the most powerful people are merely relatively free. However, there is a great difference between relative freedom of the most powerful people and relative freedom of the most powerless people.
James S Saint wrote:Sorry, it was Volta, not Voltaire (been a while, grade school stuff for me).
A philosopher is required to figure out what is to be figured out. In Votla's case, it was an issue of measuring the strength of specific movement that seemed relevant. Thus he had to metaphysically define a unit of measure, the "volt" without any scientist trying to tell him what it was.
Scientists then try to figure out if he was observably false.
The same situation with Ohm and Lorentz (his aether theory).
They were the philosophers who began the thing you now call science. It was a philosopher who stated Nullius in Verba. The prior name for "Science" was "Natural philosophy".Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences such as physics.[1][2]
It helps to be a philosopher (preferably an ontologist) if you are trying to figure out what a philosopher actual does and what science actually is. Scientists are technicians, nothing more. Although today's "scientists" are more like monks working for the Secular Church.
Philosophy is about reasoning, Logic, Mathematics, understanding (ontologies), and epistemology (defining words). Philosophers have created all religions, sciences, and governing methodologies. Unfortunately there is an insidious lot as well as an altruistic lot, some as serpents and some tasked to catch the snakes in a pit. Everything involved in societies, both good and bad, has been derived from philosophers.
Religion is merely metaphysical philosophy being applied to sociology.
Science is merely one particular philosophy being applied as the art of observational confirmation.
James S Saint wrote:Something just occurred to me. Paganism is actually devolved philosophy and hedonism is the lack of philosophy.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:Something just occurred to me. Paganism is actually devolved philosophy and hedonism is the lack of philosophy.
Why should paganism actually be "devolved philosophy"?
James S Saint wrote:Since the Monotheism has already arisen and now is decaying, thoughts are "devolving" into a prior state of paganism. And as it continues, will lead into pure hedonism (just before being completely whipped out).
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:Since the Monotheism has already arisen and now is decaying, thoughts are "devolving" into a prior state of paganism. And as it continues, will lead into pure hedonism (just before being completely whipped out).
Hedonism has been existing for a long time, and when it "will lead into pur hedonism", as you said, will that be the "black hole" as a social metaphor, the "singularity" because of the most extreme individualism?
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481828
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481830
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481834
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481840
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481843
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481846
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481848
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481850
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481857
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481867#p2481867
Arminius wrote:According to the current physicists the pre-condition of forming a "black hole" is the mass of a stellar object (mostly a star with more than 3.2 masses of our sun [cp. the so called "Oppenheimer-Volkoff-Limit"]) which later becomes this "black hole". But what is the pre-condition according to your RM:AO?
James S Saint wrote:All it takes (as the physicist are aware) is an increase in affectance density ("energy density") over a larger physical space than a particle could sustain.
That is why they suspect that it might dissipate. As a particle, it would have to shrink. But what they don't show the understanding of, is that the new "super-particle" would automatically begin absorbing "mass" from the space itself, something that they cannot detect or currently imagine it seems (although Krauss has indicated some understanding in that regard).
What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain. Once it is formed, if it is not seriously isolated from any mass field (as in far, far into the inter-galactic space) it stands a good chance of never stopping from absorbing energy endlessly.
Arminius wrote:When I say "according to the current physicists“, you don't accept that, do you? Not seldom you seem to overread the term "according to the current physicists". I mean the statements of the current physicists, although they are mainstream physicists, „exist“, don't they? This mainstream physicists say that the gravity is probably the most important force, you say that affectance or electromagnetic force is most important. Why should they always be "wrong"? They say a mass of 3.2 masses of our sun are needed for forming a "black hole", you say: "What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain". Who is right?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:When I say "according to the current physicists“, you don't accept that, do you? Not seldom you seem to overread the term "according to the current physicists". I mean the statements of the current physicists, although they are mainstream physicists, „exist“, don't they? This mainstream physicists say that the gravity is probably the most important force, you say that affectance or electromagnetic force is most important. Why should they always be "wrong"? They say a mass of 3.2 masses of our sun are needed for forming a "black hole", you say: "What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain". Who is right?
"Who is Right" has become a critically important question, even more important than "What is right". I have found that there is a large gap between truth and mainstream. And that is why Science was founded on "Nullius in Verba", "take no one's word". And that is also why I created RM, so that individuals, without billions of dollars of equipment and education can find out for themselves what is principally true.
When it comes to the principles of the universe, anyone who can logically deduce, can know what must be true, without being told by mainstream anything.
Arminius wrote:Which religion or religious confession would or should be appropriate for your sam corporations, James?
Arminius wrote:"SAM" works only when the number of population of the "communal particle" remains very low.
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:"SAM" works only when the number of population of the "communal particle" remains very low.
True. It cannot grow large and still be a SAM corporation, communal particle.
To get a large gathering, one must have very many relatively independent SAM corps. who network together for trade. This constitutes a "molecule of particles" that grows into the body of Man.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:"SAM" works only when the number of population of the "communal particle" remains very low.
True. It cannot grow large and still be a SAM corporation, communal particle.
To get a large gathering, one must have very many relatively independent SAM corps. who network together for trade. This constitutes a "molecule of particles" that grows into the body of Man.
The biggest challenge is the self-containedness, the sufficiency, the autarchy (autarky).
James S Saint wrote:With proper use of technology, that isn't the issue that it used to be.
Actually the Greeks with their "city-states" and Moses with his regional Pharisees, had the right general idea, but lacked precision and required too many people. Technology resolved both of those concerns and allows for the freedom of the city-state method by using extremely small "cities", SAM Corporations.
Jesus had everything right but didn't mention the issue of momentum (too much quite peace void of the necessary momentous harmony). The Catholics then compounded that concern by trying to establish single a world order, the "Holy Roman Empire" - went the wrong direction, just as the Globzis of today.
Man keeps trying to bring it ALL under one rule, not understanding that the only "supreme ruler" has to be Reality itself and that requires what we call "localized democracy and culture".
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]