Wheels within wheels.

[Eric the Green]

(03-15-2017, 12:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Even if I were to agree that "spirit" was the acting force, it would still act upon matter to be detected.  An undetectable force acting on an other undetectable force is undetectable.

It doesn't matter what we call what is detected, matter or spirit.

Undetectable does not mean non-existent.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Back atcha!

So you agree that the vast majority of your posts are meaningless drivel.  Excellent we're getting somewhere.

Bach atcha!

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Marx founded and started Marxism in 1848. If you claim it started in the 1890s in a 2T, you're just wrong. The 2T was when revisionism happened.

Marx was not himself a Marxist, so it would be pretty hard for him to have found it then.  Marx had almost no followers except for Engels (who was basically his sugar daddy) until the founding of the first international.  Marx's ideas did not gain traction until the second international which happened in the GPS 2T.  To deny this is to deny recorded history.  Indeed the term Marxism didn't even get coined until late in the 1st international.

I know that facts are usually inconveniences for you Eric but those are the facts.

I do agree that socialism got a big boost in the 2T (under the Neptune-Pluto conjunction). But it's silly to claim that Marx did not found Marxism. It was the manifesto that got him noticed and respect among his followers, from 1848 onward.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:You conveniently forget your idea. Your idea is that if someone rejects materialism, (s)he rejects every part of Marxism. Not true. You have rejected the best parts of it and still embrace the worst.

Marxism is a materialist philosophy and no amount of word play is going to change that fact.  A rejection of materialism as a whole necessitates a rejection of Marxism--every part of it.  A rejection of Marxism does not necessitate a rejection of materialism.  There are plenty of non-Marxist materialist philosophers.

And plenty of non-materialist Marxist philosophers. Including Marx himself in his younger years. No, the essential contention of Marxism is that the working class should gain political power. That is what you now oppose by embracing its opposite, classical liberalism, which says the bourgeoisie should maintain power. That usually means the upper bourgeoisie, and today refers to corporatism.

google/wikipedia: In Marxist philosophy the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital, to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society.

Quote:

Lenin Wrote:The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to “refute”, under mine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defence or support of religion.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w...ar/x01.htm

Lenin is not the only Marxist. His contention is quite wrong; philosophical idealism does not amount to the defense of religion. Many spiritual but not religious people are philosophical idealists. I cited several popular authors and leaders who have large followings. Marxism is only one kind of materialism; a quite disreputable type of it. Most materialists are not Marxists. There is no such equivalence.

Do you honestly want to maintain that all materialists are Marxists? Go ahead, make my day. Is Richard Dawkins, for example, the most famous materialist of our time, a Marxist?

In this summary of chapters from his best-selling book, there was no mention of Marx
https://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDp...&q&f=false

Quote:I must therefore conclude that you did indeed fail your Americanism vs. Communism course in high school.  And I'm being generous here, magnanimous even.

There was no such stupid course at my school. But I studied Marx in my philosophy class in college.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:The Nation of Islam is Islam; period.

So then you're telling me that all Muslims believe that white people were created by a "scientist" on the Island of Patmos called "Yakub", that these same Muslims all believe that white people are the embodiment of Satan, and that Islam itself is only open to black peoples and that the final prophet is Elijah Muhammad.

I'm no Imam, but I already know from a cursory glance of Sunni and Shia materials that have been translated into English that all of these components are in direct contradiction to mainline Islam.  And the last one precludes the NOI from being Islamic entirely because Muhammad (the Arabian one) is supposed to be the last prophet of Allah.

In short Osama Bin Ladin would call Louis Farrakhan an infidel.  And on the basis of mainline Islam (let alone the strict puratanical Wahabbite version Bin Ladin believed in) Bin Ladin would be correct.

But that is not the point.  The Nation of Islam for all its faults does indeed have a theology, with a deity and all the other trappings of a religion.  It is Islamic in name only.  Which is why and how Malcolm X could convert to Islam.  It runs far deeper than "I don't like this preacher I'm going to the mosque across the street".

It doesn't matter if Muslims would consider the Nation of Islam infidels. It still claims to be Muslim. It's deity is Allah. But even though it's different in some respects, I see nothing in the NOI to suggest that its founding represents any sort of "awakening." Racist bullshit is not the product of awakenings. The KKK has rituals too. It was founded at the end of a 4T.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:No need to disprove a mere insult

Wrong.  The sentence:  "I suppose 'real spirituality' is any 'spirituality that Eric likes'".  Is a statement.  The sentence:  "Eric is a moron."  Is an insult.  Unfortunately it insults morons, I imagine you should strive to learn enough to one day be classified as a moron.

You obviously don't know what an insult is; no wonder you make so many of them.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:The fact remains that genuine spirituality during Awakenings is not traditional or fundamentalist Christian, although it can also be Christian as well as other religions. Your statements devaluing non-Christian spirituality are mere prejudice against non-Christians.

I never claimed that "genuine spirituality" didn't have to take traditional or even fundamentalist Christian forms.  That is a straw man argument you insist on tackling.  I said that in Majority Christian Countries (such as the US) non-Christian phenomena are of lesser social importance.  It is like arguing that the salinity of the Atlantic Ocean has been changed because I pissed into it.

I have shown the popularity of non-traditional spirituality already.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Why wait? I already proved it. Just try to breathe without any connection to the environment, or eat, or drink, or even be conscious.

I'll wait.

Air is matter, not this "mystical" spirit nonsense you keep bringing up.  Furthermore the atmosphere would exist whether you or I did.  Holding my breath is not a valid test for "We are all connected".

But I do have one.  You can send me a telepathic message.  I might not be able to measure it but I would experience it.  Observation is typically the first step to devising a hypothesis which can lead to an experiment.

I'll wait.

You can't receive it. You are not open to the phenomena. You wouldn't know it if you got it. But I just sent one. So, what did I say to you?

No, physical science proves we are all connected to the environment. That is what you deny. Have you stopped breathing yet? Let me know how that works out for you. If we are connected, we cannot be separate. That's a contradiction.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Same god damned thing, and the worst scam being perpetrated on Americans today. You piddling over details means less than nothing. No, classical liberalism is not merely concerned with federal power. It wants less state power too. It is merely the doctrine that less government is better. Libertarianism pure and simple.

Still wrong and still not an argument.  /molyneux

I'm not going to comment further because you're as clueless about libertarianism and classical liberalism as you are Marxism.  Seriously dude I know I pay social security taxes buy a fucking clue already.

If classical liberalism opposes strong or big government, that does not mean it favors big state government. It doesn't.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:You are god too.

Really and what sort of evidence do you have for that?  And I mean real evidence not some solipsistic clap trap about "we are all one" and other New Age woo woo.  If I'm god and you are god, prove it empirically.  Anything else is beneath consideration. 

That is just your philosophical assumption; there's no proof for it.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Paul preached wisdom,

That is debatable.  Have you read the New Testament?

I've read a lot of wisdom from St. Paul. I'd say 1st Corinthians 13 is pretty good; wouldn't you?

Quote:

EtI Wrote:not just "about an idea about a Jewish guy."

Yeah, he pretty much did preach exactly about a Jewish Guy who was supposedly the son of YHWH.  That's sort of the basis of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is the Jewish God's son.  Again have you read the New Testament?

He didn't spend that much time on that. He wrote more about wise conduct and helping his congregation to practice the Christian ethics.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:If another person has an inkling of it, communications about it can be meaningful.

Let us take experiences outside of the woo-woo realm and discuss sushi for a moment.  I don't know if you have had or like sushi but that's not relevant, it is conceivable that you've eaten some at some point--in fact most people on this board probably have.  We could discuss the texture of the rice, the combinations of fish and seaweed, the cut of the fish and so forth.  But the point is we would require a frame of reference to start with.

It would be impossible for me to have a conversation about sushi with a Bushman for example.  They simply have no frame of reference.

The rest of your passage is a bunch of shit as usual.  It is clear to everyone that I've not had a Mystical Experience as you'd define it, and well I'm about as likely to have one as a Bushman is to go to a New York sushi bar.  Because I'm closed minded?  No.  Because for the most part these experiences seem to be centered on the insane, and feeble minded.  I'm neither so....

Your assertion that mystics are insane is not proven. But I think it's possible for someone like you to read what I say and follow it, and take a look, and discover mystical truth. You are just not willing; you're not alone, most people do require more than my words to have the experience. But it's possible for someone like Deepak Chopra to guide people into the experience. After all, all you have to do is take a look.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Mystics are the sanest people.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  You're a mystic and you probably need to be in a mental ward.  I'd venture to guess the only reason you're not is you're only a threat to other people's wallets and not their person.

Myself when I hear people say "God talks to me" I automatically think "You need to be on thorazine".

That's just your opinion. It has no basis in reality, and you can't prove it.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:But the fact that Pelosi and McConnell and McCain and Feinstein et al are doing just fine as leaders proves my point. Boomers will be leaders too well into the 1T.

Pelosi still leading the Dims in the House is evidence of their party's weakness.  They are doubling down on the very things that have lost them major bench coverage in the House and the states.

McConnell is still relatively healthy and leads primarily through delegating tasks.  He's never been exactly hands on.  McCain is actually reviled by everyone in the GOP now except for the NeoCons which if the Dims have a hope of surviving they're going to take on board due to party-shift.

Feinstein is a joke.

It should be noted that neither McCain nor Feinstein are in senate leadership except perhaps as committee chairs/ranking members and well they had to pick someone and the Senate goes on seniority.

It should be noted that usually after the 4T ends Congress has a massive purge, and those who get purged are almost always Prophets and their Nomad Hangers on.  See the 1866 mid-terms and 1946 mid-terms.

Assuming the end date for the 4T is 2028 then the mid-term following it will be 2030 but it may be as late as 2032.

Sorry but even the youngest Boomers are going to be far too old to be in the drivers seat.  Y'all won't live forever.  Thank whatever gods may exist for that too.

I disproved your assertion about lifespans by showing that Silent leaders are still in office during this 4T. It is quite an easy conclusion that some Boomer leaders will be in office during the 1T. Your opinion about these leaders has no bearing on that point at all. Are you saying these current Silent leaders are NOT in office? Prove it, sunny boy.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:trump and all the other oligarchs are the Establishment, and you support it fanatically. You support oligarchy now.

We really need a ROFLMAO emoji.

I know you only consume fake news Eric, but still, even you should know that Trump's biggest enemies in DC are not the Dims.  Trump's biggest threat are the establishment GOP--Lyin' Ryan and the like. I believe Rags said something along the lines of Gingrich "Newts don't care to have their swamps drained."  As such he clearly is not part of the establishment.  He may or may not be an oligarch, but I'm fine with that.

Yes, we clearly need that emoji.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:You support Uncle Tom, since Drump is the least pro-gay, pro-Latino, pro-woman president ever. You are a traitor.

Actually yes, considering I've read Uncle Tom's Cabin yes I would say Uncle Tom was the hero in that book.  Really the other stuff. 

1.  Daddy doesn't want to import people who want to throw me and my bf off roofs.  That's a big plus in his column.  the Dims want to import them by the ship loads.  Bad Dims, Bad!

Your baloney requires nothing more than to reassert what I said. You are a traitor to your earlier cause. Trump is a bigot and an oligarch who supports oligarchy, and therefore by supporting him and his neo-liberalism on steroids, you are the worst sort of supporter of capitalist pigs.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:super Baloney. There's no Zer over 12.

Eric people have trouble putting birth years on Millies too.  I know Howe seems to think the oldest were born some time around 2005, he could be right.  But I find that those born in 1999, 2000, and 2001 are heavily conservative already.  Even if they are very late wave Millies they are a whisper of things to come.  Or have you conveniently forgotten all about generational cusps being a thing.

I'm sure we can just rely on what you "find." Where's that emoji?

Quote:Let me put it simply.  If space is infinite, and we can measure the distance between earth and alpha centaurii then the infinite can be at least partially measured.  My point stands.

Your point is quite obviously false.

You need to draw lines to measure anything. Find a line anywhere in infinite space. Or even on Earth, that was not drawn by humans for measurement. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Psychic ability can be partially measured too, btw. There are tests. I did well on one. You would fail badly.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Yet you always fail.

Depends on what your definition of fail is.  If I expose you for the ignoramus you are then I have succeeded.  So far I've always succeed.

You have always failed.