Wheels within wheels.

[Kinser79]

(03-13-2017, 05:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There have certainly been a lot of your posts to ignore lately

Yeah well I was kinda tired and needed a break after working hard all 2016.  Unlike you I have a full time job and was volunteering some 30 hours a week at the campaign for months.  Even missed my kid's soccer games and shit.  He was very upset about that.  So I needed a break from it all and had to concentrate on getting my life on track--which of course precluded arguing with ingrates on the internet.

EtI Wrote:And I have.

Okay, that one time.  I'll give you that.  Otherwise EtI we already know you're view is Eric is always right, anyone who disagrees with him is always wrong and Kinser is always wrong even if he manages to agree with Eric for some reason (usually because of a fluke of nature).

EtI Wrote:Your debates are silly, because all you do is dispute words and throw insults.

Projection.  When you post to me are you looking at a mirror when you type?

As for semantics, yes, I do debate semantics.  You'll be hard pressed to find any debate where there isn't some discussion on the definition of words.  It comes with the territory.  Don't want to define the words you use, when you use them in ways that don't conform with the standard dictionary definition...don't even bother showing up for the debate then.

EtI Wrote:You can't comprehend a point that someone makes.

Not true.  When someone actually has a point, provided they write it in English, Spanish, German or Russian (assuming its not too technical) I'll understand

EtI Wrote:By your own standards, you have no wisdom. And to be wrong in your eyes, is to be right.

Completely wrong.  The first key makes it clear that the only path to knowledge (and by extension wisdom, which is applied knowledge) is through materialism.  The second key is understanding that I (and by extension everyone else) cannot have full understanding of all things.  The quote is actually from Socrates.  Considering that at one time you told me you studied philosophy in university you should have picked up on that.

EtI Wrote:You don't understand idealism; you didn't define it in your post.

I also didn't define the words "and", "the", or "but" either but I'm still going to use them.  You want a definition of what Idealism is.

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.

That definition is provided by Google no less. A mere google search of "Idealism" will provide it.

I'll do you one better and also define materialism.

Materialism:  the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

EtI Wrote:You defined solipcism.

"Solipcism" isn't even a word do you mean "Solipsism"?  In which case I can define that too.

Solipsism:  the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

You should be really familiar with that last one Eric.

All definitions are provided by google which will happily define the philosophical meaning of any term for you.  Strangely these same definitions are also to be found in these heavy rectangular objects made of paper, glue and paperboard with words in them and the definitions of those words.  A dictionary I believe they are called.  Surely you're familiar with them having gone to a university.

EtI Wrote:The only point here being that your mega-saeculum can't be right, because you omit idealism from your awareness of the trends in society, generations and events.

Let us go back to the definition of Idealism for a second....

Self, This Post Wrote: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.

As we can see events under the various systems of thought are dependent on the activity of the mind.  Alright.  What if I suddenly decide with my mind that none of them exist?  Do they disappear?  No they do not.  Why not?  Because trends, society, events and generations all exist outside of myself.  And while I can solipsistic-ally say they don't exist, because the only activity of a mind I can ever truly know is my own mind, they yet still exist.

Therefore:  it is reasonable to believe because of that, and other evidence, that trends, society, events and generations exist within the realm of matter and its modifications.

>>see my definition of materialism in this very post.

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.

So then your contention is that ideologies are not the product of minds?  That they are not the material expression of thoughts?  Are you sure you want to go down that route?

If Idealism is

Self, Same Post Wrote: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.

Then neither ideologies nor idealism can exist.  That is to say you have negated both with the stroke of a pen.  However a materialist can come and say "This collection of matter (Mr. A) wrote down B Ideology.".

And just so we are clear I've never said that ideologies were the same as idealism.  Ideologies can certainly be derived from an idealistic philosophy, to be sure, but they are not one and the same.  We have to agree that A is A, and B is B and that B is not A.  That is if you actually want do to more than make an ass out of yourself--which so far you've yet to do in my years on these boards.

EtI Wrote:And all those ideologies you mentioned are materialist, collectivist ideologies, which are NOT what come in Awakenings.

Really?  Why not?  If one can form an ideology based on an idealistic philosophy is it not just as easy to form an ideology on the basis of a materialistic ideology?  Surely, it is.  In fact it is even easier to come up with an ideology on the basis of materialism than it is to do the same on the basis of idealism.  After all, if we reduce what we can truly know of the world, apart from our own minds what are we left with but matter and its modifications.

Or is your line of argument coming from "Because Eric said so that's why"?  In which case it can be rejected out of hand.

EtI Wrote: Awakenings are spiritual events, primarily;

Define what you mean by spiritual.  Otherwise I'm going to take it to mean "hocus pocus woo woo of a semi-religious or religious nature".  If what you mean is precisely that then we can reject that thesis immediately because various cults spring up and die repeatedly in various ages--and not always during an Awakening.

EtI Wrote:that's what they were in US history, and that's why they were called Great Awakenings.

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.

But the "Age of Aquarius" was not strictly speaking a Christian phenomenon now was it.  That being the case we have to throw out the consciousness revolution as an awakening due to the definition you just defined here.

EtI Wrote:You deny Transcendentalism too, because that's idealism.

Deny what about it?  That it exists?  Surely not.  Anyone with a library card can read Thoreau should they be so inclined.  I have.  I found him to leave much to be desired.  What I deny is that Transcendentalism was of great importance in the long term scheme of history.  It never reached the US South! Much less the Solons of London, Paris or Berlin.

EtI Wrote:Awakenings are also centered on individualism, not collectivism.

Apparently you've never been to a tent revival.  Not your fault I suppose.  But there is no evidence to back up this statement.  Awakenings create ideologies (which includes religions).  These ideologies may be individualist or they may be collectivist.  It really depends on the ideologies created.  In the GPS, most of them happened to be collectivist--so what.

EtI Wrote: 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.

If you can define for me a "spirituality" that is based upon matter and its modifications I'll happily subscribe to it.

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".

I can easily account for the US saeculum, as well as the ones for most Western European countries (and Russia) because trends, generations and events exist in a state of matter.  No idealism, much less solipsism which you take to be idealism, is required.