03-13-2017, 07:28 PM
Quote:And if any woman looks like a corpse it's Kellyanne Conway.
I wouldn't kick her out of bed.
Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
›
Fourth Turning Forums
›
Theories Of History
Wheels within wheels.
Wheels within wheels.
Thread Rating:
|
Wheels within wheels.
|
 I wouldn't kick her out of bed.
03-13-2017, 07:30 PM
(03-13-2017, 07:24 PM)Odin Wrote: Trump, handsome? Yes. Daddy is handsome. More handsome than Bill who looks like he's dying of AIDS. Kellyanne could probably gain a few pounds, but honestly I think you're just jelly cause you know she's out of your league. But then again Trigglypuff is probably out of your league too.
It really is all mathematics.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of 
03-13-2017, 07:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017, 11:41 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-13-2017, 07:15 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 05:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There have certainly been a lot of your posts to ignore lately Wow, you sure wasted your time. Campaigning for Daddy? What a waste. Quote:Idealism: any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind. Those definitions are fine, but before you defined idealism as "Even a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he sees it, or because he imagines it is there but because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he existed or not." That is solipsism, the idea that reality depends on your OWN mind only. In general idealism does hold that objects depend on the mind "in some way." Quote:EtI Wrote:Thus, you think The Great Power Saeculum was an awakening, because some ideologies were current during it (the one's you mentioned weren't even begun during it). But ideology is not idealism, and it is not awakening. Idealism is not ideas. Philosophical idealism (or as I prefer to call it, spiritualism) says that objects depend on the mind (consciousness, not just thinking). Quote:EtI Wrote:And all those ideologies you mentioned are materialist, collectivist ideologies, which are NOT what come in Awakenings. S&H never said that an Awakening was some sort of time of ideologies. They said: Second Turning The Second Turning is an Awakening. Old Nomads die, Heroes enter elderhood, Artists enter midlife, Prophets enter young adulthood—and a new generation of child Nomads is born. This is an era when institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy. Just when society is reaching its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of social discipline and want to recapture a sense of personal authenticity. Young activists and spiritualists look back at the previous High as an era of cultural poverty. America’s most recent Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution,” which spanned from the campus and inner-city revolts of the mid 1960s to the tax revolts of the early ‘80s. Coming of age during this Awakening was the Prophet archetype Boom Generation (born 1943 to 1960), whose passionate idealism and search for authentic self-expression epitomized the mood of the era. In Parsons’ terms, a Second Turning is an era in which the availability of social order is high, but the demand for such order is low. Examples of earlier Second Turnings include the Third Great Awakening around 1900, marked by labor protests, Billy Sunday evangelicals, and “new woman” feminists, and the Transcendental Awakening, which Henry David Thoreau described as a period “when we have lost the world…and begin to find ourselves.” As you can see, it about people looking within to find themselves, and seeking authenticity and autonomy. It is not specifically a time in which ideologies are created or propagated. That can happen anytime. Quote:Quote: Awakenings are spiritual events, primarily; Wrong. Religions, spiritual movements and cults spring up during Awakenings, and also revivals are a big part of them. Quote:So then your contention is that in the US at any rate an awakening must feature some form of Christian Revival? Okay, I'll grant you that. The GPS certainly had one with the the start of the Jehovah's witnesses, and the Pentecostal church during its awakening in the 1880-1900. OK, you conceded something. Good. But no, religious or spiritual phenomena don't have to be Christian. Quote:Quote:You deny Transcendentalism too, because that's idealism. Then you are picking and choosing parts of Awakenings that you yourself claim are valid or important. That's denial, as I said. That's not history, it's your own ideology. S&H disagreed, claiming it as the name of both a prophet generation and an Awakening/2T. Quote:Quote:Awakenings are also centered on individualism, not collectivism. As the quote from Howe above states, yes, Awakenings are about individual autonomy and authenticity. Most people here understand that Awakenings are times when individual rights are asserted, as well as when individuals protest against society and conformity, and when they learn to find their own path in life and their inner spirituality. But spirituality can also be conformist, of course, if it is traditional religion. But even religion concerns the personal life and salvation of its believers. Awakening revivals are about asserting the importance of faith, a personal attitude, as more significant than works in the world. That's according to Strauss and Howe and The Fourth Turning. Quote:Quote: If you deny that spirituality and idealism even exist, as you plainly do, then you can't account for what happens in the US saeculum cycle. That can't be done, although some kinds of "spirituality" can fall in between the two or take account of both in some way. Like for example the late Brian Rush conceived it. You can subscribe to what you wish. Although I disagree with it, materialism as you define it is a position held by some philosophers and philosophy readers, as well as many scientists. It's part of what I call the philosophers wheel. Materialism is a way that people see the world and reality. That's why I don't go your way, in a corresponding way, and attempt to describe the saeculum without any materialism. If you want to see how I deal with these philosophies and others, you can see my questionnaire: http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm and see where you fall on the map. Quote:I have never denied idealism exists--it would be rather difficult for me to find something that did not exist to be "retarded and dangerous". That is why I can't subscribe to your mega-saeculum, nor can anyone else who does not try to describe all of history without idealism. And it's YOU that takes solipsism to be idealism. That was my point, and you prove again that you cannot understand the points that other people here make. You'd rather engage in word-play and insult. And correct my spelling; that's OK. Solipsism | Definition of Solipsism by Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism Definition of solipsism. : a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism. That is how you define idealism; it is not how I define it. The only "self" that can be the only existing thing, is everything. And that "everything" is consciousness/spirit. That's what idealism says. That's what Emerson, the leading transcendentalist, called the oversoul.
03-13-2017, 07:47 PM
Quote:Wow, you sure wasted your time. Campaigning for Daddy? What a waste. Apparently not, he won Florida (Kinser's state of residence) and the Presidency. 
03-13-2017, 08:03 PM
03-13-2017, 08:07 PM
(03-13-2017, 08:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 07:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:Wow, you sure wasted your time. Campaigning for Daddy? What a waste. Why was it a waste of time? I think Kinser79 got quite a bang for the time expended for what his goals were for said time spent. Florida was one of those close call states. The results went his ways.
---Value Added
(03-13-2017, 08:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 08:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 07:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:Wow, you sure wasted your time. Campaigning for Daddy? What a waste. Personally I thought it was both fun and time well spent. If you all must know Trump carried my county by around 5000 votes or so, so I'm sure some of those were from my active campaigning and the GOP picked up 3% more Africans in America than in 2012. Honestly the worst part of it was missing almost all of the kid's soccer games. Apparently "Mr. <surname>" (yeah he still calls my BF that at home no less) going to them isn't the same as when I do. Thankfully he's 17 and not 7 so he understood the whole "I'd like to but I feel that the future of our country is very important and Florida is a major state." ETA: I also made sure we had fresh donuts. The Mrs was happy as she could write that off.
It really is all mathematics.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of
03-13-2017, 10:11 PM
EtI Wrote:Those definitions are fine, but before you defined idealism as "Even a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he sees it, or because he imagines it is there but because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he existed or not." That is solipsism, the idea that reality depends on your OWN mind only. In general idealism does hold that objects depend on the mind "in some way." I see that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Are you sure you went to university? I said that a five year old understand that a rock is real not because he sees it. Seeing a rock is a process of the mind once you get past the physics of why the eye sees what it sees. I said a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he imagines it is there. Imagination is a process of the mind. Almost always when imagining people are using mental reflections of what exists or did exist at one point in time and manipulate it within their thoughts. I said a five year old understands that a rock is real because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he not existed. That is to say simply that the rock is a piece of matter and that it exists, and it exists independently of the existence of any other matter. Furthermore, then if what you say is true then all idealism can be condensed into solipsism. After all if Idealism is any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind, how can we be sure of any activity of any mind other than our own? Ergo if we then agree that A is A, then A must equal solipsism. EtI Wrote:Idealism is not ideas Never said that Idealism were ideas. EtI Wrote:Philosophical idealism (or as I prefer to call it, spiritualism) says that objects depend on the mind (consciousness, not just thinking). Wrong again cupcake. Spiritualism: the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality. Since we've agreed that google can define philosophical terms, guess where that definition came from. While one could say that objects depend on the mind to exist (the general definition of idealism) we've already determined that idealism and solipsism are the same. So at most I'd say you have gone from A to A^2 (that's A squared btw since I know you have trouble reading mathematics as well as English) that really doesn't mean much. If A=0 then A^2 = 0 not A + B. EtI Wrote:As you can see, it about people looking within to find themselves, and seeking authenticity and autonomy. It is not specifically a time in which ideologies are created or propagated. That can happen anytime. 1. Define "look within" without a clear definition we cannot agree that B is B. Assuming that is even B to start with. After all if solipsism is the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. And all idealism can be condensed into solipsism then is looking within even necessary? Otherwise this just sounds like unproductive navel gazing to me. 2. Define what you mean by authenticity. A violin can be an authentic violin and not be an authentic Stradivarius. It could look like a Strad, even sound like a Strad but not actually be a Strad. 3. Define what you mean by autonomy. Are not all adults more or less autonomous anyway within the confines of the laws of their society. 4 This is the most important would not this search for authenticity and autonomy not naturally lead to the creation of ideologies. Remember I'm using ideology here to cover the gamut from religious doctrines to political theories to economic formulations. EtI Wrote:Wrong. Religions, spiritual movements and cults spring up during Awakenings, and also revivals are a big part of them. Remember you're proposing a precept here that religions/cults and such only develop during awakenings and never happen at any other time. EtI Wrote:OK, you conceded something. Good. But no, religious or spiritual phenomena don't have to be Christian. I conceded nothing. Those churches were founded during the Awakening Period recognized by S&H for the GPS. And yet: The Nation of Islam was founded in 1930. It is a real religion, also clearly not a 2T. In fact the opposite of a 2T a 4T! Scientology was founded in 1954. It is really a UFO cult, but it claims to be a religion. As we see my contention that a religion can be founded at any time holds true. We have one religion founded in a 4T, one founded in a 1T and I bet if I dug deep enough I could find one founded in a 3T. All dates supplied by wikipedia. EtI Wrote:Then you are picking and choosing parts of Awakenings that you yourself claim are valid or important And you don't? While the Transcendentalists were running around doing god knows what on Walden Pond, do you know that the Evangelical Branch of the Baptist Church was founded during that same Awakening period. Now tell me which was more influential in the world? Evangelical Christianity which has even spread to the Catholic Church (its called Charismatic Catholics) or some guy who wrote a couple books that don't even get read in high school in America--let alone the rest of the West. And that isn't even to get started on Mormonism, the fastest growing Christian sect. EtI Wrote:That's denial, as I said. That's not history, it's your own ideology. S&H disagreed, claiming it as the name of both a prophet generation and an Awakening/2T. Both are probably derived from New England stock--as probably are you. I don't feel like doing a genealogy on either tonight, though I could, my mother has access to the Mormon databases for some weird reason. Probably for that project she's been working on since she got her shit together after divorcing her second husband. Anyway they had to name the generation something--and Transcendentalist sounded better than Mormon or Evangelical because both names would be "problematic". The simple fact of the matter is while the Transcendentalists were important in one section of the country, their impact was not great outside of it. Much less their impact on anywhere else. To deny this is to deny the evidence of your own eyes Eric. EtI Wrote:As the quote from Howe above states, yes, Awakenings are about individual autonomy and authenticity And this individual authenticity and autonomy cannot be found at all within the framework of a collectivist ideology? Are you sure about that? Have you not said "We are all one" yourself on many times? Assuming you mean by "We" a collective group of humans, specifically all of humanity that exists now, has existed and will exist and that you mean "one" to mean the same or well for that matter even the number itself would work too....isn't that collectivist. Indeed nothing is more collectivist than the claim that every human is the same as every other human, that we act as one unit. I mean it is completely retarded to be sure--but it is also collectivist, the most collectivist of all collectivisms. EtI Wrote:Most people here understand that Awakenings are times when individual rights are asserted, as well as when individuals protest against society and conformity, and when they learn to find their own path in life and their inner spirituality No. That is what you understand an Awakening to mean. I'll let others define what an awakening is for themselves if they define it differently than I have done....namely that it is the time period where major ideologies come to the fore in a society. Bear in mind once again I'm using ideology to mean everything from religious/spiritual ideas/movements to political ideas/movements. EtI Wrote:But even religion concerns the personal life and salvation of its believers. Not quite. If we are speaking of Christianity in particular I'd agree. I've not studied (Non-NOI) Islam sufficiently to make a statement about it. NOI Islam concerns itself primarily with the individual and his relationship with other black peoples, particularly his own national group--primarily Africans in America (for example I cannot be an NOI Muslim not because I'm gay [they don't like that particulary] but because my significant other is a white man {aka a devil}. Allah is an after thought (which is understandable since the NOI is a black empowerment movement first and a religion second). I could go further about how the NOI believes that white people were created from blacks by a scientist named Yakub...but I think you get my drift in that they don't care about "salvation" as according to them black men become saved by the act of rejecting the white devil and his white devilish ways. The various forms of Paganism, particularly that of the Ancient type concerned itself with the social performance of ritual to appease the gods (themselves embodiment of the forces of nature). Judaism concerns itself with the upholding of the covenant between 'Ashem (or YHWH or Jehovah if you prefer) and the Hebrew people. Very few religions actually concern themselves with salvation, much less personal salvation. EtI Wrote:That's according to Strauss and Howe and The Fourth Turning. Close but again not quite. And close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. That is nothing less than your interpretation of the self same book. I've not read it in several years but I know the material. EtI Wrote:(about spirituality's material definition)That can't be done, Then it isn't anything more than solipsism. A is still equaling 0 Eric. I'm not impressed. I've already taken your quiz thing on your site years ago. I'm a hard core materialist (as if that isn't a surprise). I feel no need to revisit your website, which last I looked at it was in serious need of an update sometime around 1997.  EtI Wrote:That is why I can't subscribe to your mega-saeculum, nor can anyone else who does not try to describe all of history without idealism. You do realize that I knew you wouldn't subscribe to the Mega-Saeculum. I know you think you're--well whatever-crap-you-believe-in's--gift to human thought, but I don't. I classified you as an ignoramus years ago. I don't debate you because to me it is like debating someone who rides the short bus. It isn't that he's so great, it is that to defeat him is no victory. Incidentally you know what you call history without idealism? History. As for the rest of your post...you can't agree at the beginning that the google definitions I used are okay and then at the end disagree. Not how the game is played--not that I expected better. I really do think in a chess match you'd play along until you realized I was beating you and then over turn the board and then declare victory. Of course the only one fooled is yourself. Boiled down to its essence if idealism requires the mind to perceive it how does that mind know it even exists? The answer likewise is as simple as it is profound, a mind's only evidence of its own existence is that it exists--that is to say: "I think therefore I am" is to say "I am therefore I am" which is solipsism to the highest degree. So we've determined that A=0 which means A^2 or A^infinity all equal 0. And speaking of Zero.
It really is all mathematics.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of
03-13-2017, 10:11 PM
(03-13-2017, 08:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 08:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 07:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:Wow, you sure wasted your time. Campaigning for Daddy? What a waste. And our nation is being wasted by its worst president ever. Nothing but destruction of everything valuable. What a waste of time to work for THAT! Uh, obviously..... why a waste? you ask??? Surely you knew what I meant without asking.
03-13-2017, 10:25 PM
(03-13-2017, 10:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 08:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 08:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 07:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:Wow, you sure wasted your time. Campaigning for Daddy? What a waste. Eric, Eric,Eric. It does not matter what you or I think on the results. The results are only tied to Kinser79. All that matters in the context of the thread is explicit. The effort [of Kinser79] assisted in the [results for Kinser79]. So I restated my perception of the meme of the thread is just that.
---Value Added
03-13-2017, 10:39 PM
(03-13-2017, 10:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 08:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 08:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 07:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:Wow, you sure wasted your time. Campaigning for Daddy? What a waste. Let us just suppose that the nation is being wasted by the worst president ever. That nothing but destruction will come from his presidency. Do you not realize that destruction is part of creation? Without Shiva, Brahma cannot create the world again. As I've said in other threads, if Trump manages to cut a Gorbachev role in this 4T then I'll be happy. Managed demolition is preferable to the un-managed demolition of nuclear bombs being dropped on US cities that the Dims offer.
03-13-2017, 10:41 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017, 11:45 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-13-2017, 10:11 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:EtI Wrote:Those definitions are fine, but before you defined idealism as "Even a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he sees it, or because he imagines it is there but because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he existed or not." That is solipsism, the idea that reality depends on your OWN mind only. In general idealism does hold that objects depend on the mind "in some way." The same way anything is investigated. Unless you apply methods of knowledge, it doesn't matter whether the object of your knowledge is held to be spiritual or material in nature. You don't know it, until you know it in your mind. Others have investigated many things, and they tell their results to us, so we know them. So, we know other minds when we perceive them. Idealists just call those things "minds," and you call them "material." Quote:EtI Wrote:Idealism is not ideas Yeah, you did. Quote:EtI Wrote:Philosophical idealism (or as I prefer to call it, spiritualism) says that objects depend on the mind (consciousness, not just thinking). Solipsism says only my own self exists. Idealism and spiritualism hold that spirit exists and is the only reality. Those are two different definitions. Whatever math you apply to them is irrelevant and incorrect. You can't apply math to it. A mystical idealist like myself or Emerson cannot be isolated within the self, because we know that we are connected to everything. That by definition cannot be solipsist. I assume you're not really interested much in philosophical idealism, but you obviously don't know much about it. Berkeley is a leading idealist. He specifically excluded solipsism by bringing God into his picture of reality. God is a symbol of the cosmic universal consciousness, or infinite spirit. Whether you think the notion of God is valid or not, it must be admitted it is a key component of idealism. Ronald Knox explained Berkeley's point in a limerick poem: There was a young man who said "God Must find it exceedingly odd To think that the tree Should continue to be When there's no one about in the quad." Reply: "Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd; I am always about in the quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God." ![[Image: Tree+in+the+Quad.jpg]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dVjKTT47a2Y/SmM9H2XHBgI/AAAAAAAAAUo/IZY00YFXLug/s400/Tree+in+the+Quad.jpg) About our limerick above, do you remember this question: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This poem, along with our bishop, contends that God always perceives the tree, and that therefore anything it does- even crashing to the ground- is being observed. Therefore yes, the tree is heard. http://myopicpoets.blogspot.com/2009/07/...erick.html In other words, other minds and other objects exist, if we stop perceiving them, because God perceives them. Quote:EtI Wrote:As you can see, it about people looking within to find themselves, and seeking authenticity and autonomy. It is not specifically a time in which ideologies are created or propagated. That can happen anytime. Awakenings are not about the creation of ideologies. If you are discussing Awakenings, it's better to stick to S&H definitions. If those are not good enough for you, then forget claiming mega versions of them. It doesn't matter what S&H "sounds like" to you. Quote:EtI Wrote:Wrong. Religions, spiritual movements and cults spring up during Awakenings, and also revivals are a big part of them. No, generalizations like S&H use do not imply "always" or "only" or "no other." It is about trends. Quote:EtI Wrote:OK, you conceded something. Good. But no, religious or spiritual phenomena don't have to be Christian. I know scientology only became popular in 1966. It's not a UFO cult; you obviously know nothing about it. The Nation of Islam is not a religion; it is Islam, founded in 622 AD. Islam Origins, Islam History, Islam Beliefs - Patheos http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam Islam is a monotheistic religious tradition that developed in the Middle East in the ... Islam, which literally means "surrender" or "submission," was founded on the ... Origin: Arabian peninsula Sacred Texts: Qur'an Formed: 622 CE Followers: 1,500,000,000 Quote:EtI Wrote:Then you are picking and choosing parts of Awakenings that you yourself claim are valid or important So what? I didn't exclude traditional kinds of Christianity from Awakenings. You excluded other kinds of spirituality from Awakenings. You exclude genuine spirituality from Awakenings. Quote:EtI Wrote:That's denial, as I said. That's not history, it's your own ideology. S&H disagreed, claiming it as the name of both a prophet generation and an Awakening/2T. Take it up with S&H. Quote:EtI Wrote:As the quote from Howe above states, yes, Awakenings are about individual autonomy and authenticity No, not at all. "We are all one" is not a collective. A collective is a collection of individuals. Collect; get it? Individual vs. collective is a contrast or polarity recognized by all philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and probably every other poster here. You sure you want to deny it or call it irrelevant? You are really reaching, even for you. Quote:EtI Wrote:Most people here understand that Awakenings are times when individual rights are asserted, as well as when individuals protest against society and conformity, and when they learn to find their own path in life and their inner spirituality And you are misuing the word. Ideologies are the way people get hooked on false memes and dominate people. They are beliefs we should all question, forced upon us by social authority and people with agendas. No, Awakenings are times when idealism predominates and idealists come of age. Ideologies are just ideas, and have nothing to do with idealism; especially the philosophical kind. Only 4Ts are preoocupied with changing external institutions. That is what the "ideologies" you talk about are interested in. Not everyone is a materialist like you. Not everyone is worldly like you. Some people are interested in culture and the spirit. You constructed a saeculum based on attitudes and approaches that you personally consider valid, and exclude the rest, and then build a mega-saeculum cycle on top of it. A genuine cycle concerns includes approaches taken by most people in society, not just those that you consider valid. Quote:[quote] Salvation and faith were dominant concerns in Christian revivals, which have been part of Awakenings. Other spirituality may not be, but they are concerned with unfolding spiritual consciousness, then. Or other forms of worship of a spiritual being(s) which informs their "inner" spiritual life. NOI is irrelevant, and I assume you focus on it because of your race. OK, so what is "within" or "inner"? Are you conscious? That is your within and inner life. Materialist explanations of consciousness are not only unproven and unprovable, they are irrelevant. snip irrelevant kinser rantings... Quote: Boiled down to its essence if idealism requires the mind to perceive it how does that mind know it even exists? The answer likewise is as simple as it is profound, a mind's only evidence of its own existence is that it exists--that is to say: Saying that "I am" does not at all mean that "I alone am," as Descartes went on to prove. You didn't read that part, I assume. That I am connected to all, is not only true because consciousness requires objects in order to be conscious, it is scientific fact. Or do you deny that you need air, food and water? Go ahead, deny it and see how far you get kinser. No, you are not a separate self, or a separate object. I am glad you took the questionnaire earlier, and confirmed you are what I would have thought you were. If you care to give me your exact score, I can add a dot for you on my map of all known responses, and add to the numbers of materialists on the map. This may be published someday (the dots are anonymous). http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm
03-13-2017, 10:58 PM
(03-13-2017, 10:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <big hugeass snip>Hmmmm... My BS detector just outed an internal contradiction. 1. You have a questionaire which which determines "materialism" as it pertains to Eric. However, Eric has done Presidential horoscopes for a few forum members, but of course not all. This means Eric has shitty statistics wrt verifying Presidential scores for accuracy. An thus, Eric needs all input from all forum members to refine his Presidential Detector Horoscope Meter. 2. See............... I've expanded Eric's horizons by telling him where to get a plethora of inputs... 
---Value Added
03-13-2017, 11:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017, 11:33 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-13-2017, 10:25 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 10:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 08:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 08:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 07:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Apparently not, he won Florida (Kinser's state of residence) and the Presidency. Well, sorry; I thought you were SomeGuy. My "idealist" perceptive ability fails me at times. So, as hard as it may be for kinser to believe, I stand corrected; sorta. Far be it for me to say you were wrong about anything! So, yes kinser got his results. My opinion of his "results" are an abject and total waste.
03-13-2017, 11:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017, 12:00 AM by Eric the Green.)
(03-13-2017, 10:58 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 10:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <big hugeass snip>Hmmmm... My BS detector just outed an internal contradiction. No, silly. Put down your ragweed. I got my stats about presidential election horoscope scores by looking at the horoscopes of all the candidates in history. Forum members have nothing to do with it, since none will ever run for, much less ever be elected POTUS. The only one who might conceivably be a candidate is David Kaiser, who is an old boomer and I don't know his horoscope score. I haven't even done Neil Howe's score. It's funny, tho. I spent most of my many hours and days of research this past year to determine that Daddy Drump had a higher score for getting elected than Hillary the Hag. And I still predicted Hillary would win. Oh well.... I snipped the first part of your quote. I'm trying to be just a little more respectful than that, even to kinser, but it requires editing on my part.
03-13-2017, 11:43 PM
(03-13-2017, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 10:58 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Hmmmm... My BS detector just outed an internal contradiction. Let's try again. Eric, Eric, Eric. OK, there big boy, Forum members will most likely make it to POTUS. Now let's consider the attributes [Eric thinks are important to POTUS getting. ] It's like the MBTI, there must be some number of attributes that forum members have that have +/- attributes wrt getting POTUS. That means you need to get data to refine the attributes, right? It comes down to this: a. Gather data to refine attribute X as it applies to POTUS. b. You obviously can't know what attributes/Horoscope signs, as you mentioned, right? c. The more data you have, then more accurate/important it is. d. Ragweed: So, which strains of weed should I combine to make the perfect marijuana, "Ragweed, the best sedative". ?
---Value Added
03-14-2017, 12:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017, 12:21 AM by Eric the Green.)
(03-13-2017, 11:43 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(03-13-2017, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-13-2017, 10:58 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Hmmmm... My BS detector just outed an internal contradiction. ha ha! No, forum members will not make it to POTUS. I have determined the attributes already, through my research. There can't be any more data than I already have, most likely. I can give anyone here their score for getting elected POTUS if they want it. This does not change the scoring system at all, which is and can only be based on actual candidates who ran, plus some smaller consideration to astrological theory, and to statistic considerations like aspect sample size. Horoscopes don't change the fact, however, that candidates must put themselves in a position in society to become contenders. If you know your chart, you can probably score yourself: http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
03-14-2017, 12:18 AM
EtI Wrote:The same way anything is investigated Okay, with what instrument is this mind activity--lets call it consciousness (cause that's where this is going)--measured? In what units is it measured. EtI Wrote:Unless you apply methods of knowledge, it doesn't matter whether the object of your knowledge is held to be spiritual or material in nature. An object that is material in nature exists outside of my body. It exists if see it existing or if I've never seen it existing. I'm sure that there is some xenoplanet out there that hasn't been discovered yet. It exists but no one has seen it or detected it as of yet. And that is no great leap of faith since astronomers are finding those every day. If an object is "spiritual" as you've defined it, I can only know it within the activity of my own mind. Since my own mind can only know of its own thought processes by virtue of knowing them--spiritual matters are reduced to solipsism. A still equals 0. EtI Wrote:Others have investigated many things, and they tell their results to us, so we know them. Really. Do they have evidence beyond their mere say so? I mean I could tell you the sky on earth is hunter orange with blue polka dots (which it never would be anyway since that specific color has never been demonstrated to exist in nature--which is why it was chosen for that application) but I'd be lying. Do these people have measurements? Photographs? Video recordings? Results of scientific experiments? If not then how do we know that they are not lying or are not delusional. EtI Wrote:So, we know other minds when we perceive them. Idealists just call those things "minds," and you call them "material." No..fools call them minds. Which is why you do it. I call material things, material things. The closest I've ever come to experiencing an other mind is the behaviors evident in my cat, my boyfriend and other people. But for all I know, for certain, is that my own mind exists. Idealism always leads back to solipsism. A materialist on the other hand would say, "X, Y, and Z phenomena are associated with/correlated with consciousness therefore H is conscious". At no time can a materialist know for certain that said mind/consciousness exists merely that phenomena of associated with consciousness does and therefore it is reasonable to assume that said object is conscious. Your perverse solipsism is go great as to attribute consciousness to such things as rock, grass, dirt, and trees. Objects that have demonstrated no phenomena associated with consciousness. Indeed outside of more complex orders of animals it is difficult to go past "responding to external stimuli" which in no way itself is a associated with consciousness. EtI Wrote:Yeah, you did. We going the Kindergarten route? I know what I said and when I said it. Just because you can't follow along doesn't mean I can't or that others can't. EtI Wrote:Solipsism says only my own self exists. Idealism and spiritualism hold that spirit exists and it the only reality. Those are two different definitions. Whatever math you apply to them is irrelevant and incorrect. You can't apply math to it. 1. Everything can be boiled down to mathematics. See my signature, good song, you wouldn't like it though. In fact the 5%ers have a whole theory of numerology which they claim to be the essence of all knowledge. I've looked into it, it makes sense until they get into the kooky magic stuff though. https://genius.com/Nation-of-gods-and-ea...-annotated 2. You've just said in your previous post that idealism and spiritualism are one and the same. Ergo since we can reduce idealism to solipsism it as a consequence takes spirutalism with it. After all how does a mind know that it exists? It knows it exists because it exists. I think therefore I am, really means, I am therefore I am. Or to put it bluntly the self can only ever using idealistic precepts know the self. EtI Wrote:A mystical idealist like myself or Emerson cannot be isolated within the self, because we know that we are connected to everything. That by definition cannot be solipsist. Emerson can get away with saying such an absurd thing because he was born, lived and died long before the advent of psychology. You, however, are not so lucky. To say you are connected to everything--I know you mean spiritually and consciously and not "I'm one part of a giant machine"--is not only arrogant but boarders on the insane. Indeed were you to not crouch it in semi-religious language you'd be committed. If I actually thought you dangerous to others I'd seek to have you committed. But so far as I can tell you confine yourself to fleecing people with astrology and being a run of the mill internet crank. I guess that's better than mugging people--but not by much. A non-mystical materialist such as myself cannot be isolated within the self because we know we are a small part in a much larger social whole. That is to say we have evidence that others exist around us, and that we exist in a society composed of people, and concepts such as laws, and so forth. EtI Wrote:Awakenings are not about the creation of ideologies. And yet that is when ideologies are created. If a political philosophy is an ideology, and a religion is an ideology, and a social concept is an ideology. When are most of those created? During an awakening. The fact that they are also created at other times too does not negate this as I've not precluded it. EtI Wrote:f you are discussing Awakenings, it's better to stick to S&H definitions. I have actually, and far better than you. After all I'm not the one insisting that all awakenings everywhere are always about spiritual nonsense. EtI Wrote:No, generalizations like S&H use do not imply "always" or "only" or "no other." It is about trends. Ugh...reading comprehension again. I swear I think you're lying about going to college. I'm writing at most at a fourth grade level and you're having difficulty. There's no way in hell you went to college and came out knowing less about the language than I assume you did going in having had to graduated high school first. I said YOU were implying that "always" and "only" happened. When I use the word YOU I mean YOU as in Eric Allan Meece. Typically when I mean a group of people I use y'all or you all. Since in my post I did not modify the word you with the word all I strictly meant you and not anyone else on the board, the board as a group of persons or S&H specifically. EtI Wrote:I know scientology only became popular in 1966 Doesn't matter. If the precept that you propose is that religions are only founded during awakenings then the founding of Scientology in 1956 and the Nation of Islam in 1930 demonstrate this to not be the case. When it became popular is not of concern here. EtI Wrote:It's not a UFO cult; you obviously know nothing about it. Obviously you've not read their books. I have. It is beyond crazy the shit that they believe. And I for one am open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientolog..._practices Not exhaustive or complete but it's a start. EtI Wrote:The Nation of Islam is not a religion; it is Islam, founded in 622 AD. The Nation of Islam is a religion. It is also not Islam. Were the NOI simply Islam it would be impossible for Malik Al Shabazz (also known as Malcolm X) to convert to Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam is the form practiced in most Islamic countries by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam EtI Wrote:So what? I didn't exclude traditional kinds of Christianity from Awakenings. You excluded other kinds of spirituality from Awakenings. You exclude genuine spirituality from Awakenings. In correct. I've not excluded any form of spiritual ideology (traditional Christianity or otherwise) from the ideologies created during the awakening. What I said was that Transcendentalism itself was not wide spread or important. Tell me who speaks of Thoreau or Emmerson outside of a classroom these days? Nobody. Who goes to Mormon and Evangelical church services every Sunday? Loads of people. As we can see one is of lasting impact on the world, the other was a small and now long dead clique of backwoods philosophers most people who've never studied philosophy have ever heard about. EtI Wrote:Take it up with S&H. Isn't my concern. I'd prefer to call them the Transcendental Generation because saying the Evangelical or Mormon Generation might actually get them confused with currently existing generations in the minds of some people. I remember, being a preacher's son, having to sit through youth services and listen to the youth pastor preach about how "God had planned for us to be an Evangelical Generation, that we were to take the gospel to the outer most ends of the earth, to outer space even." The reason evangelical Christians are called evangelical is because they believe as a major precept that they must evangelize--that is "bear witness" of the gospel. Or as I like to call it, annoy people with their religion. EtI Wrote:We are all one is not a collective Wrong again sunshine. If "We" are all "one" then "we" must be a collective. By using the term "we" you imply that you are speaking of a group of more than one person. If that we is therefore "one", it must be a collective. Much like the Borg. They are all one consciousness too. EtI Wrote:Ideologies are the way people get hooked on false memes and dominate people. Not quite true. Some ideologies are false--like your spirit-whats-it--others are not false. For example the ideology that science can be used to explain the natural world using reason and empirical evidence. Some ideologies can be used to dominate people, for example Nazism, or Communism, or Christianity. Other ideologies cannot be used in such a way, for example Libertarianism, or Non-violent resistance. Don't get on my bad side Eric or I'm going to forgive you so hard your mother will feel it. EtI Wrote:They are beliefs we should all question, forced upon us by social authority and people with agendas. You mean by forcing your silly beliefs onto me and pressing your "new age" agenda? Which is hilarious since you don't understand the most basic and publicly known precepts of Scientology or the Nation of Islam. EtI Wrote:No, Awakenings are times when idealism predominates and idealists come of age. You are confusing idealism as a philosophical construct with the title idealist given to Prophet generations. The Missionaries, even the most religious of them, focused on material progress. The social gospel was all about maximizing the the material good for the maximum number of people. According to you these people should in fact be materialists. Are you then claiming that there was no awakening in the GSP? Surely not, you are intentionally mis-interpreting the works of S&H to fit the narrative you want to have. EtI Wrote:Only 4Ts are preoocupied with changing external institutions. That is what the "ideologies" you talk about are interested in. Again, you misread S&H. They clearly say that the ideas (I call them ideologies for the sake of simplicity) of the 2T are implemented in the 4T by changing the external institutions. Therefore, it is only logical that if this is the case that the ideologies themselves are created/thought up/whatever in the 2T. Did you even read their books? EtI Wrote:Not everyone is a materialist like you. Not everyone is worldly like you. Some people are interested in culture and the spirit. 1. Agreed. For smart people to exist, the stupid have to exist also if only for something to have comparison against. There is no light without darkness after all. 2. For someone who is nearly twice my age you certainly are not as wordy as myself. You're in here claiming that the Nation of Islam was founded in Saudi Arabia and not by Elijah Muhammad in 1930! Could you not even do a google search? 3. Yes. They are. The ones that concern themselves with the spirit almost always turn into religious fanatics, and are as dangerous as they are stupid. EtI Wrote:Salvation and faith were dominant concerns in Christian revivals, which have been part of Awakenings. Other spirituality may not be, but they are concerned with unfolding spiritual consciousness, then. Or other forms of worship of a spiritual being and informs their "inner" spiritual life. NOI is irrelevant, and I assume you focus on it because of your race. 1 Salvation and faith are the dominate concerns of Christianity in general, not just revivals. Or do you believe that the sinner's prayer only gets prayed on muggy nights in August in a tent? 2. Other spiritualities do not concern themselves with salvation. Either because they do not believe in sin, or because they believe salvation can only be achieved after passing through many lives or some other nonsense. 3. The Nation of Islam is hardly irrelevant. It is the main branch of Islam in the US practiced, furthermore you earlier in this post openly claimed that the Nation of Islam was Islam as a whole (I know that it isn't) and Islam is very important being the second largest religion after Christianity--and far more dangerous than Christianity. 4. I focused on it specifically because it was the form of Islam I'm familiar with. Yes, I am familiar with it because of my race. I've studied the 5%ers in much more depth. They are a split from the NOI and they are rather irrelevant. EtI Wrote:Saying that "I am" does not at all mean that "I alone am," as Descartes went on to prove. You didn't read that part, I assume. You assume wrong. I've read Descartes proof, but all that means is one can use formal logic to prove anything anyone wants. Mostly because logic is a tool. EtI Wrote:That I am connected to all, is not only true because consciousness requires objects in order to be conscious, it is scientific fact. Okay, let us suppose that consciousness is a scientific fact. With what instrument is consciousness detected? In what unit is it measured? By what experiment is it demonstrated? Unless these questions can be answered there is no scientific evidence for consciousness. There may be philosophical evidence through the observation of phenomena associated with consciousness but that is about it. See my paragraph above. EtI Wrote:I am glad you took the questionnaire earlier, and confirmed you are what I would have thought you were. If you care to give me your exact score, I can add a dot for you on my map of all known responses, and add to the numbers of materialists on the map. I took it long ago and don't remember the number nor care to have a dot on your "map". I'm not taking it again, in fact I'm not going to your website until you update it to at least the current century (2000 will do). Seriously that thing looks like it was slapped together by a 12 year old girl in 1994. The only thing it lacks is unicorns. Your asinine comments about objectively good music have been ignored of course. I can't take your opinion on music seriously since you have a hard on for that-singer-who-shall-remain-nameless. I mean if it was like Enrique Iglacias I could understand but TSWSRN I just don't get.
It really is all mathematics.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of
03-14-2017, 12:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017, 02:04 AM by Eric the Green.)
(03-14-2017, 12:18 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:EtI Wrote:The same way anything is investigated Use any measure that you like. Idealism/spiritualism only says that WHATEVER you measure is consciousness, since that is what exists. Quote:EtI Wrote:Unless you apply methods of knowledge, it doesn't matter whether the object of your knowledge is held to be spiritual or material in nature. Within your materialist philosophy, all that may work for you. In a spiritualist perspective, it does not work. In idealism, "my own mind" includes the entire universe and beyond; whatever exists. My individual mind is simply a focus point for that cosmic mind. Quote:EtI Wrote:Others have investigated many things, and they tell their results to us, so we know them. Scientific measurements can tell us many things, and it cannot tell us many other things. There are 4 basic methods of knowing, in my perspective: science, religion/mysticism, the arts, and philosophy. Quote:EtI Wrote:So, we know other minds when we perceive them. Idealists just call those things "minds," and you call them "material." Yes, idealists hold that all objects are conscious, in differing degrees. Teilhard de Chardin is a great exponent of this view. You have your materialist perspective, which is valid in your opinion, but others have other perspectives. The point is that no analysis of history can be correct if it excludes perspective held by vast numbers and whole nations and eras. I do not do this, but you do. Quote:Good luck with thatEtI Wrote:Yeah, you did.  Quote:EtI Wrote:Solipsism says only my own self exists. Idealism and spiritualism hold that spirit exists and it the only reality. Those are two different definitions. Whatever math you apply to them is irrelevant and incorrect. You can't apply math to it. Yes, because the "self" is everything. Everything outside my body and my sense perception is also me. The personal self is only an aspect of reality; it does not exist separately. I am less polarized along the mathematics/experiential or horizontal axis, as I call it. I don't entirely disagree with you that everything is mathematics. Of course, astrology is based on it too. But, however you look at it, mathematics by itself is not material, and those like you who say everything is really mathematics, are not necessarily materialists, even though some can be; and even though science uses it and depends on it. Plato for example would agree that everything is mathematics, following upon his predecessor Pythagoras. He was also definitely spiritualist. Mathematics is not a physical object. Quote:EtI Wrote:A mystical idealist like myself or Emerson cannot be isolated within the self, because we know that we are connected to everything. That by definition cannot be solipsist. But you remain an isolated object, in your view. Many people today hold views like Emerson's. Welcome to the real world. Not everyone agrees with you. A big majority of people are spiritualists today. Many of those are traditionalists, but not all of them. Spiritualism is the default philosophy, or perennial philosophy. Quote:EtI Wrote:Awakenings are not about the creation of ideologies. No, that is not when ideologies are created. Marxism, for example, dates from 1848 in what was likely a 3T or borderline 4T, but certainly not a 2T. Awakenings are spiritual, not ideological. But if you exclude spiritualism as insane, obviously you can't admit this. Quote:EtI Wrote:I know scientology only became popular in 1966 No, founding dates don't necessarily matter. It's when they become much more popular than before, that counts the most. Quote:I have studied it, you have not. Scientology has nothing to do with UFOs. It is a method of clearing past traumas and discovering that you are a spiritual being, and applying that to your life. And paying lots of money for it.EtI Wrote:It's not a UFO cult; you obviously know nothing about it. Your reading of that wikipedia page on Scientology, demonstrated how you distort everything with your own materialist point of view. It is not a UFO cult, just because it asserts that we have had other lives on other planets. That does not follow. Their belief, which they claim to demonstrate by helping people recall their life experiences, is about reincarnation-- not travels in spaceships. Why did that distinction elude you? Because it does not conform to your own materialist beliefs. The page is a more positive treatment of Scientology than I would have expected. It is in many ways a quite-typical version of spiritualism. I see it also mentions how it attacks people it considers its enemies, however. That seems more traditional, like the Inquisition. Quote:EtI Wrote:The Nation of Islam is not a religion; it is Islam, founded in 622 AD. Baloney. NOI is Islam. Sunni Islam dates from the 660s CE. Quote:EtI Wrote:So what? I didn't exclude traditional kinds of Christianity from Awakenings. You excluded other kinds of spirituality from Awakenings. You exclude genuine spirituality from Awakenings. Your opinion; others quite disagree and consider it influential, including obviously Mr. Howe. YOu have been excluding non-Christian religion and spirituality from Awakenings here in these posts. Quote:EtI Wrote:We are all one is not a collective Wrong. "we are all One" means that we are One, not a mere collection of separate individuals. Quote:EtI Wrote:Ideologies are the way people get hooked on false memes and dominate people. I'm already on your bad side in this, because as is quite clear, I consider Libertarianism to be the biggest fraud of our time that is used to enslave and control people. How do you think Reaganomics has dominated our politics for 40 years? But if you now embrace non-violence (and perhaps you still don't), I consider that an improvement for you. Quote:EtI Wrote:No, Awakenings are times when idealism predominates and idealists come of age. Obviously not, since my own current religious affiliation descends from the GSP Awakening. Philosophical idealism apart from material progress is the major part of all Awakenings. Social idealism is also a part of Awakenings. That is all explained in the quote from Howe I gave you above. Isn't it the GPS Awakening (Great Power Saeculum)? Or is GSP your own name for it? Quote:EtI Wrote:Only 4Ts are preoocupied with changing external institutions. That is what the "ideologies" you talk about are interested in. I don't think YOU did. There is little or no reference to ideologies by S&H. But yes, ideals are conceived in 2Ts which are put into effect in 4Ts, as well as a new culture developed. But the effect on this 4T may not happen this time, because of your cynical generation that has rejected everything that was conceived in the 2T. As YOU have now done to an astonishing and exaggerated degree by supporting someone who totally opposes the ideals of the 2T, and is destroying every trace of it to the best of his ability. Shame, shame on you. Quote:1 Salvation and faith are the dominate concerns of Christianity in general, not just revivals. Or do you believe that the sinner's prayer only gets prayed on muggy nights in August in a tent?You didn't read S&H. Salvation through faith rather than works is the major perspective of Christian revivals during 2Ts. Quote:EtI Wrote:Saying that "I am" does not at all mean that "I alone am," as Descartes went on to prove. You didn't read that part, I assume. And I claim Descartes proved it well enough, and so did Berkeley. We disagree. So what? Quote:EtI Wrote:That I am connected to all, is not only true because consciousness requires objects in order to be conscious, it is scientific fact. I am not going to do a search for scientific evidence for "consciousness" right now. We have threads on that subject here already. But it seems to be the implication of modern physics, although materialist interpreters still try to avoid the implication. On the other hand, asking for consciousness, which is immeasurable since it is infinite, to be measured, is self-contradictory to begin with. If it can be measured, it probably can only be measured or proven indirectly. It's like asking for cats to be proven to be dogs. From a spiritualist point of view, it doesn't matter. We know spiritually by experience that everything is one, and it's all spirit. So anything that is measured, is also spirit. And that every human being is connected to the environment, is physical fact. Quote:Your asinine comments about objectively good music have been ignored of course. I can't take your opinion on music seriously since you have a hard on for that-singer-who-shall-remain-nameless. I mean if it was like Enrique Iglacias I could understand but TSWSRN I just don't get. Why should I care about your opinion of that-singer-who-shall-remain-nameless? Your view of objectively-bad music speaks for itself.
03-14-2017, 01:14 AM
(03-13-2017, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The only one who might conceivably be a candidate is David Kaiser, who is an old boomer and I don't know his horoscope score. I haven't even done Neil Howe's score. Eric, Eric, Eric, you're supposed to snip stuff that's redundant. I'm OK with that, OK. 1. You need, and I mean NEED to get a sample of the current posters, OK? 2. As for David, he has his own links and curriculum Vitae, Right? 3. That means you can do their scores, right. And... I can even provide stats for Eric for moi? I have the data, I have the answers, I'm the key to Eric's stuff. 4. 5. See... The answer for the California Gold Rush. I, Rags of the materialistic , geologic rationale , as to why California has gold. That's important, right? California, gold, that's the tickets. I understand how and why gold is where it is. Wanna have me move to California and loot da gold? I have the power, the knowledge , and the patience. So, Eric, I know the locations of gold, in California. I say this, the Orveville, I know the scene, the ways, the geology, Oreville< that"s the location of Rag's GoLd. ok ? ...........
---Value Added
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)