Wheels within wheels.

[Eric the Green]

(03-16-2017, 11:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

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

If it is detected then it probably is matter unless you have devised some method for detecting spirit.  In which case why the hell haven't you shared it and scientifically proven your "theories".  Wouldn't that put materialism to bed once and for all?

See the other thread in the other forum section.

Matter and Spirit are just terms. A spiritualist says that whatever is detected or not detected, is consciousness or spirit. We know this through our own experience and through reason. So we call it spirit, and you call it matter. It doesn't matter. We spiritualists know that spirit exists, because we experience it. Apparently, you don't even know or admit that you are conscious. That's all it takes to verify that spirit exists. Are you conscious, or not? Fess up.

There's no basis for your claim that what exists is "matter." What is "matter"? On what basis do you make such an undetectible claim? Science doesn't claim it anymore. It's all just probability waves.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Undetectable does not mean non-existent.

If something cannot be detected either through the senses or through instruments enhancing the senses how can it be said to exist without merely making unsubstantiated claims?

"Unsubstantiated" from your statement, just means unmeasured. Even science has to acknowledge that dark energy and matter exist and that they don't know what it is. It is not measured, just inferred; even according to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Most of reality cannot be measured; in fact, in reality nothing can be measured; meaasurement is just our projection upon a reality that is all of a piece.

Your argument runs like this: matter is what exists.
What exists is what can be detected.
What can be detected, exists.
Completely circular and arbitrary position.

My argument runs like this: Spirit is what exists.
What exists is what can be experienced in consciousness.
What is experienced in consciousness, is what exists.
Also circular.

It's your choice: do you rely on instruments and your senses to tell you what is real, or your awareness and experience?

I choose awareness, because the senses and its instruments are just objects within my awareness, and they do not provide awareness. However, awareness if necessary for any use of the senses or its instruments.

Quote:The Manifesto was of little importance until the 1880s-1890s when the Second International was forming up.  Marx and Engels wrote it at the behest of a small far left party's central committee.  It essentially languished until the 2nd International made it important.  If you read the document you can tell that it is very much a document of the 1840s and deals primarily with issues of that time period.  Honestly the Manifesto isn't all that important to Marxists today--other than nearly everyone who is a Marxist has read it at some point.

That's not what I read.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:And plenty of non-materialist Marxist philosophers

Wrong!!!!!!  There are plenty of non-materialist philosophers, and there are plenty of Marxist philosophers but there is no such creature as the non-materialist Marxist philosopher because Marxism itself is founded on the basis of materialism.  To claim to be a Marxist and to reject materialism is like claiming to be Christian and rejecting the idea that Jesus lived in the first century C.E., was crucified at some point by the Romans, and was in fact the son of YHWH.

EtI Wrote:Including Marx himself in his younger years.

Marx was a Hegelian idealist in his youth. He didn't stay that way for long though.  Also Marx was no more a Marxist than Jesus was a Christian. As I've demonstrated above. 

Marx was a non-materialist Marxist in his youth, and I know Marxists who are not materialists, and I have studied others.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:No, the essential contention of Marxism is that the working class should gain political power.

Wrong.  The essential contention of Marxism is that the proletariat should gain control over the means of production.  Under Marxist doctrine political power flows out from economic power.  Therefore gaining political power would be meaningless without also gaining control over the means of production. 

This is why the DeLeonites (a school of American Socialism loosely associated with Marxism) are wrong--trades unionism, even that of one giant union can never gain control over the means of production; at best it can disrupt the capitalist system for a while but the bourgeoise eventually adapts to the contagion, isolates it, then destroys it.

Yes that is more or less true, although Marxists also seek and obtain political power directly. None of that is materialism, however.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:That is what you now oppose by embracing its opposite, classical liberalism, which says the bourgeoisie should maintain power.

Classical liberals maintain that property is a personal and individual liberty.  That it can be obtained by anyone regardless their class, and historically speaking in America they usually can.  As such it is possible for the proletariat to have a stake in the system.  This is why Marxism was completely short-circuited in the US.

In Western Europe, social democracy created governmental programs to give an economic stake to the proletariat.  In short their bourgeoisie adapted.

So by whatever rationalization you make, you have thrown over the Marxism you believed in a few years ago, and now embrace the opposite: classical liberalism.

As a classical liberal, you value individual freedom. You need to consider that there is no freedom in materialism. All events are caused by previous events, mechanically. You can't honestly be a classical liberal and be a materialist.

Quote:Either Marxism is materialist or it is not materialist.  Are you now agreeing with me that Marxism is materialist?

There are materialist Marxists and idealist Marxists. I would agree most are materialists, but not all. And now you claim they can adapt and be bourgeois classical liberals. Marx apparently means nothing to you anymore.

His meaning for history is that he championed the working class. Although conditions have changed, it's still the case that capitalist bosses oppress and abuse the people, and that politics and unions are needed to counter-act this. And some today advocate employee ownership, which is worker ownership of the means of production. And periodically, Marxist revolutionary movements still happen.

In any case, historically, Marx is still important as a prophet of the realization that capitalist bosses can not be allowed to abuse the people in the name of their own "freedom." By embracing classical liberalism, YOU now think that the common working people should be abused by the capitalist pigs, and you call this "individual freedom." They are still just as much pigs as they ever were, and you now close your eyes and support them fanatically by supporting their leaders and agents. Shame, shame on you.

Quote:

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

Then you must have learned nothing in that class and therefore wasted your (or someone's) money.  Marx said himself his philosophical works were materialist in nature, it was said about him, indeed the whole of Marxist literature is replete with exhortations against philosophical idealism. 

I know Marx was a materialist in his later life, and many Marxists still are. That's why I put him where I did on my philosophy wheel. But you also claimed that adaptations have been made to Marxism. Some have dropped his materialism too, and gone back to his younger philosophy.

Quote:

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

No, you made a statement.  I want some statistics.  Statements =/= statistics.

18% of Americans are spiritual but not religious.

All told, about two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) describe themselves as religious (either in addition to be being spiritual or not). Nearly one-in-five say they are spiritual but not religious (18%), and about one-in-six say they are neither religious nor spiritual (15%).
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones...-religion/

Deepak Chopra is a leading exponent. "He has sold over 10 million books in 30 languages"

http://biography.yourdictionary.com/deepak-chopra

Within a few years of writing his first book, Eckhart Tolle, a spiritual teacher brought up in Germany, formerly worked in Britain and currently living in Canada, has become one of the best known spiritual teachers in the Western world offering retreats, public talks as well as appearing on various television programmes. Millions have read one or more of his four books:

THE POWER OF NOW. A GUIDE TO SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT.
THE PRACTISE OF THE POWER OF NOW
A NEW EARTH. CREATE A BETTER LIFE
STILLNESS SPEAKS
Published in 35 languages, these four books have gone on to sell some 12 million copies or more between them.
https://www.christophertitmussblog.org/e...ightenment

Americans may be getting less religious, but feelings of spirituality are on the rise
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...rituality/

The Celestine Prophecy: As of May 2005, the book had sold over 20 million copies worldwide,[3] with translations into 34 languages. The book was generally well received by readers and spent 165 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list.[5] (Note: many weeks @ #1)

Quote:

EtI Wrote:No, physical science proves we are all connected to the environment.

Physical science only proves that living organisms are dependent upon the environment to which they have evolved to live in. 

Outer space is an environment but should one venture out into without the benefit of a self-contained pressurized vehicle or suit one will die in seconds is not milliseconds.  Conversely there are bacteria that have evolved to live in the hot springs and mud pots of of Yellowstone National Park but put them into water of a temperature we'd find comfortable and of an acidity we'd like and they will die.

No, it's an interdependent relationship. That's what ecology is. As I stated, human beings and living things are not separate beings; science proves it. You deny science.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:If we are connected, we cannot be separate. That's a contradiction.

If we are connected then sending me a telepathic message should require less energy than posting on the forum.  You need merely think the message instead of having to type it out one a key board.  No muscle contractions required so that should save you a few joules of energy.

The way to understand that you are connected to all, is merely to experience it. Take a look at yourself. Telepathy only proves communication.

I sent you a message already.

Quote:

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

I'm not the spokesman for Classical Liberalism.  However, the Classical Liberals I know, and the ones that do the most talking think the government needs to be large enough to ensure my neighbor neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. 

In the context of the US that means apart from things that are clearly the province of the Federal Government (IE Enumerated Powers) those things that people may wish for government to do are the province of the States or the Local Governments.  These United States are and always have been a federation of states rather than a unitary republic.

Baloney. The need is clear for government at all levels to keep the greedy bosses from "picking our pockets." That is what the EPA does, protect us from the bosses; which Drump and classical liberals in congress are abolishing. Shame on you for opposing the need to control the bosses, require them to pay living wages, treat their workers fairly, offer safe products, keep from ruining the economy through speculation, and keep them from polluting our world. By being a classical liberal, you wish the bosses to have "freedom" to do these things to us. That is what Drump and the classical liberals in congress are doing to us. You worked for this, you voted for this.

Quote:

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

So what you're saying is you have nothing but solipsistic woo-woo nonsense to back up your "spiritual" statements.  As I suspected.

No, that's what I said about YOU. There's no basis for any philosophical assumption; it's just your theory.

Quote:

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

I've read it.  I'm particularly partial to Verse 11 of that chapter.  Indeed that is why I'm not an idealist.

1Cor 13:11 ASB Wrote:When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things.

But that is not the thrust of Paul's work, he is speaking into his letter to those already converted since it is a letter to an existing church.  The thrust was converting people who were not already Christians into Christians.  My point still stands.

Your point was that Paul was not imparting wisdom. You disproved yourself. There's lots of wisdom in his letters.

Quote:

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

Actually I think you'll find that you have to create a congregation before you can teach about wise conduct and Christian ethics.  Or have you forgotten the entire Book of Acts?  It's called Acts because it is a brief early history of the Jesus Movement--quite literally the acts that the apostles carried out.

But you were talking about what Paul wrote in The Bible. He wrote words of wisdom and advice. That's mainly what he wrote.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Your assertion that mystics are insane is not proven.

I've yet to meet a mystic who wasn't insane or feeble minded.  Like with Marxists not all idealists are mystics.  But it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that those who go on about their experiences with divine beings are quite likely insane.  And rightly so.  We know far more about psychopathic disorders now than we did in the 19th century, let alone the 1st.

"No, you made a statement.  I want some statistics.  Statements =/= statistics."

Quote:

EtI Wrote: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.

I don't think it is possible for a mystic to read your scribbles and discover mystical truth (assuming mysticism can ever produce truth except by accident).

It is possible for any sincere seeker or interested person to read my scribbles and discover the truth. One who is already a mystic doesn't need to read my scribbles to discover the truth. YOU DO

Quote:You're right on this,

You should say that more often

Quote:The presence of more people living to advanced age does not indicate that the Maximum Lifespan has increased.  Merely that AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY has, which was never a point of contention.  Thus you proved nothing other than my point that you didn't understand the difference between Maximum Lifespan and Average Life Expectancy.

It proves the likelihood that Boomers will still be in leadership positions during the 1T, which was the only point.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:It is quite an easy conclusion that some Boomer leaders will be in office during the 1T.

There were some GIs in the Senate until recently.  They were neither powerful nor important.  The fact that one or two boomers may be in the Senate or on the SCOTUS during the 1T is not particularly relevant.  In the Senate their voices are drowned out and the SCOTUS is reactive rather than proactive.

In short because one or two people hold office in the 1T and they just happen to be Boomers doesn't mean much.  During the 1T I expect X to hold the Presidency, the House definitely (they already do) and the Senate.  Depending on how many seats open up in the next 8 years they may even be the majority on the SCOTUS bench too.

That's quite an influence. And there's more than one or two Silent Senators today.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Your opinion about these leaders has no bearing on that point at all.

Actually those are not just my opinions but rather the power dynamics in the Senate.  I know Dianne Feinstein might seem important to you being a Commiefornian, but she's one voice out of a hundred to everyone else.  She might be a ranking member on a committee somewhere but otherwise her powers as a senator are limited.

John McCain may seem important cause the Fake News Media (CNN, MSNBC and the like) love to talk to him, but even in Arizona he is a joke.  Personally I think they keep re-electing him because he usually runs in off years and turn out is low.

McConnell is very important but he delegates his tasks to underlings.  That isn't an opinion, that's just his style.  Durban can make noise being minority leader but that's about it.  Should the other Dims defect his power is broken.  At most he can obstruct.  Again not an opinion.

They are Silents, and in positions of leadership. If you say only the president is powerful, you are not only wrong, but since Silents were never elected president, it doesn't matter.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Your baloney requires nothing more than to reassert what I said. You are a traitor to your earlier cause.

What communism?  Yeah I'd go with I'm a traitor to that.  Doesn't mean anything though. 

Marxism-Leninism doesn't work (see USSR) and the conditions for it simply don't exist for it to even be tried in America.  So unlike you, rather than tilting at windmills all day thinking I'm slaying dragons I decided to try something completely different.  At most you can say I stopped being insane as per Einstein's definition.  And that's never a bad thing.

Einstein Wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Which is why you need to question your other beliefs too.

Quote:

EtI Wrote: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.

Trump is not a bigot.  You keep using that word but I'm not sure you know what it means.  Here lets define it.

Bigot:   a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Definition provided by Webster's dictionary.

Lets see Trump has obviously hired blacks, latinos, women, gays, and so on and so forth so his treatment of those groups is not bigoted, and he seems willing to listen to the opinions of others.  Ergo I must conclude, as per the definition, Trump is not a bigot.  I can only go by his actions as I cannot see into the man's heart anymore than you can.

That being said, you Eric, on the other hand are both obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and you certainly treat at least one person of another racial group with hatred and intolerance....so I have to conclude you're projecting your own bigotry onto Trump.

Trump has since the 1990s spoken against the unfair trade deals made by the likes of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.  Since neoliberals want more of these deals and not less I kinda have to conclude he isn't a neoliberal much less a neoliberal on steroids.

As for being a supporter of "capitalist pigs", yeah so what.

Yeah, so that's a big deal. You are a traitor to your cause. You support the people who harm our country and humanity. Yeah, it's a big deal. Pollution and climate change are big deals, imposed poverty and inequality are big deals, destruction of democracy are big deals; institutional racism is a big deal. Unnecessary wars are big deals. As a supporter of capitalist pigs, you support all these big deals continuing and causing real harm to real people. Shame on you.

Trump is a bigot and has proven it over and over. His views on eugenics, for example. He called Mexicans rapists in his declaration speech of his candidacy. He is xenophobic about Muslims. That's enough proof for anyone. Trump is a bigot and a racist. And you support him. That makes you a bigot too.

And you are extremely intolerant of idealists and mystics. You call them insane and say they make up most of the insane asylum inmates. If that's not intolerant, sorry, but I don't know what is.

Although I recognize the place of materialism in the circle of philosophy, or the universe of ideas, you do not accept spiritualism in this universe. Yours is the narrow-minded approach.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:I'm sure we can just rely on what you "find."

Not just me...Gavin McInnis is finding it too.  Milo is finding it, loads of people are finding it.  We can quibble about birth years but the point is the people after Core Millies are sick and tired of both Boomers and their SJW nonsense.  And I imagine that many Millies are getting that way--life's been rubbing the contradictions of the left's ideology in their faces for a while now.

Just because you don't go outside doesn't mean other people don't.

What's happening now is that all sane people of all ages are waking up and expressing their outrage against Trump and the GOP. The left's "ideology" is nothing but common sense willingness to solve problems, using the government if necessary. That's all it is, and that's all it ever was. The Right wing is just the group that defends keeping the problems and not doing anything about them. That's YOU. That's the fucking status quo.

You are a big, fat, huge pillar of The Establishment.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:You need to draw lines to measure anything.

Not really.  Lines may help but they are not necessary.  For example if I take a piece of wood that is a foot long I can measure my arm with it without drawing a single line.

Even so, lines, in Euclidean geometry anyway (I'm not familiar with non-Euclidean geometry and well you have trouble with arithmetic so I know you aren't), are themselves infinite.  So what you've just said is you need this infinite thing to measure other infinite things. 

That's right; there really are no lines. You can't find one. They are conceptual. You can't call something a foot long without that concept.

Quote:

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

Yes, I've heard of them.  They usually involve cards with shapes and whatnot on them.  There are 5 or 6 shapes so statistically speaking one should guess right by mere chance 20% of the time.  But that is more a test at good guessing than psychic ability.

I'm really good at cold reading which is most of what passes for psychic ability.

No, you don't know the test. That was not the test I took.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:You have always failed.

Nope still winning.  I'm waiting on you to get tired of losing, or me getting bored with the Eric the Ignoramus Show.

I win against you so much that I'm getting tired of winning.