Wheels within wheels.

[Kinser79]

EtI Wrote:Thank you.

Giving you those points only brings you to zero.  You've spent two pages digging a hole.

EtI Wrote:It is getting too long and tiresome

You could always stop.  You know I'm not going to.  I'm told I have stamina...and get that idea out of your head you disgusting pervert.

EtI Wrote:you are just repeating yourself and not getting what I'm saying.

Two reasons for that.

1.  You're repeating yourself.

2.  You're not saying anything.

Seriously as is usual for our "debates" I spend more time coding than forming arguments.

EtI Wrote:well, it's still long and entirely useless

Yes it is useless to convince me that white is in fact black, wouldn't matter if you did it in 1 post or 500.  BTW you made me miss celebrating my 666th post.  

EtI Wrote:since it's probably too hard for anyone else to follow, even supposing anyone is interested....

You'd have to actually be leading somewhere for anyone to follow.  You can run really fast on a treadmill and still not go anywhere.  Probably explains why when I go to the gym I see tons of Boomers on the treadmill.  They like running but aren't interested in going anywhere.

I'd imagine they're not.  In fact when I see Dan I'm PMing him to split your bullshit from this thread.  It belongs somewhere other than here since we've been debating how you don't understand the very basics of philosophy (despite apparently having a degree in said field from UC Berkley--of course that might be the problem itself).

EtI Wrote:No you don't "got it." Everything is conscious; no measurement is necessary. Whatever you measure, is consciousness, since that's all there is. Now, it's true that measurement is not necessary to determine this truth. Whether it can actually be measured in some way, again I refer you to the other thread. Maybe.

So you can measure consciousness, you can't measure consciousness, whatever you do measure is consciousness.  Yeah.  Sorry that's a lot of words to say "I'm just typing stuff because I think it makes me sound smart even if it is complete gibberish."

EtI Wrote:No, the hate is on you.

Not quite Eric.  In order to hate you, I'd have to spend energy thinking about you when you're not in my immediate vicinity (forum wise--I'm not going to Commiefornia again [I hated that place the first time I was there in the Navy] and I doubt you'd last 5 minutes where I am, since you don't seem to have much in the way of street smarts).

As such I'm just passionately indifferent towards you.  But you think about me even when I'm not somewhere.  Don't think I've not seen your posts where you evoke my name.  Fortunately for you I'm nowhere near as consistent as Bettlejuice.  Say my name three times I may show up, but I'm just as likely to after 100 times or once.

EtI Wrote:Yes, but that self is everything.

I refer you back to our agreed upon definition of solipsism.

EtI Wrote:Do you think a human being exists separately? Again, that is against science.

I'm pretty sure that it is indisputable (but I'm sure you'll try) biological fact that each human is a discrete and concrete entity.  In English we use the word "person" to denote that entity.

EtI Wrote:I know all about zero, since that is the amount of matter that exists.

I doubt that you do know about zero at all.  I've confused you with the powers of zero already.

If there is Zero matter that exists then how are you posting? Without matter you don't exist, the machine you're using to post doesn't exist, the server this forum is located on doesn't exist, the electricity that powers both don't exist.

Only matter matters.

EtI Wrote:You are lying to yourself and ignorant of science, then, as I already explained.

This coming from the guy who once claimed that plants made a conscious decision to grow towards light.  This coming from a guy who thinks that astrology can explain anything.  And most importantly this coming from a guy who thinks pretty rocks have healing properties.

Thanks Eric you really made my day.  I've never seen someone so not self-aware as to completely project himself onto an other person.

EtI Wrote:The point is the ideas that many people hold, are the basis of the mindsets and moods of those who make up generations and create turnings, and respond to history in their way, etc.

The ideas that people hold are formed by their place in history, which creates their generation and their responses to their place in history create turnings.  Ideas are at most a byproduct of their time and place and not the cause of said time or place.  Otherwise I could make my house 14th century France simply by willing it (but I know, and hopefully--but I'm not holding my breath--you know that is an impossibility).

BTW I've conducted such an experiment...when I was five.  I could do it again but I don't expect different results without having a psychological break down.

EtI Wrote:Ignoring such ideas and mindsets

Is vital because unless I plan on claiming to be able to read minds I don't know what ideas people hold unless they tell me.  As such I'm stuck with measurable trends and events that actually happened.

EtI Wrote:You have made up your own mega-theory; it has nothing to do with S&H.

I'm open to that possibility.  However before I can accept that possibility as being true it would need to be demonstrated by someone who actually understands S&H theory (which excludes you--you may have the jargon down but your posts indicate you don't know what the jargon even means) that my hypothesis is not in fact based on S&H.  Even then that does not necessarily make it invalid.

The Two-Stroke Regulator for example is no where mentioned in S&H yet is readily accepted here.

Indeed the very idea of a mega-saeculum first came to me one day when I was winding my pocket watch.  I can't use quartz based watches for some reason--I can put on a brand new watch and it will stop in three days (inb4 EtI posts some mystical nonsense about that)--and I hate having shit on my wrists.

EtI Wrote:All you have explained here, is that you think those who disagree with you are stupid.

Not quite.  Read again.

But for the record I certainly think you are stupid.

EtI Wrote:You put it in the gilded age, which was a 1T, in both Europe and America

Really, perhaps you should re-read S&H.  I'm pretty sure both the 1880s and 1890s were not a 1T.  And that is where the majority of the work took place.

EtI Wrote:You as a former Marxist appear to have misunderstood it

Possible, but unlikely.  I've forgotten more about Marx than most people have ever learned.

EtI Wrote:since you have defected from its most essential insights

You do realize that Marxism is a materialist philosophy, and as such, according to you cannot have any "insights".

I think it's time for a Second Kinser's Law.

"On a long enough timeline the chances of Eric contradicting himself approaches one."

EtI Wrote:The Napoleonic wars era was definitely a 1T era in Europe.

LOL.  Even if you forgot everything you ever read about S&H you'd know that that  1848 is still 33 years after 1815.  Even if you propose that the Napoleonic Wars were 1T (which they weren't Again go read the Hornblower books or any other book about the topic for that matter) that would make it a 3T.

And that discounts the fact that we know that turnings are about a decade behind in Europe as compared to the US.  I'd argue because of an elongated 4T in the RevSaec Mega-Crisis.

EtI Wrote:Calling the Nation of Islam a religion is insane.

So they don't have a deity, they don't have religious rituals, and they don't have a theology?  Sorry but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck I have to assume in the absence of contradictory evidence that I have a small aquatic bird of family Anatidae.

EtI Wrote:There was clearly no spiritual awakening associated with its emergence. It is merely a kind of nationalist and ethnic extremism.

1.  Never claimed that there was.  Only you Eric have claimed that spiritual awakenings are required for the emergence of cults.  I've always argued that cults form and dissolve "all the time".  By "all the time" I mean of course without a specific juncture within the saeculum to be associated with.

2.  Is it your argument that religions preclude nationalist and/or ethnic extremism?  I mean you can make that argument you'd still be wrong though because the presence of one religion with nationalist or ethnic extremism would negate your point.

EtI Wrote:I read the Scientology books; I don't get my information about religions from stupid TV shows and sci fi. I studied that religion thoroughly, and you have not.

Are you sure you want to go there?  Anyone can get their books.  How do you think South Park got the material to write about?  They really do believe that that a space man put human souls on the Earth with a feet of space ships that look like Boeing 707s.  Ergo UFO cult.

Like I said, even if I had only read the Wikipedia (I didn't my mother almost got sucked into that garbage--seriously I think with some Boomers just saying something is 'spiritual' makes them want to play with fire) would still be more studying on the topic than you've ever done.

Your nonsensical defense of them more than proves it.  Or is there a deeper issue at play here?  Kinser dislikes X so I, Eric, must uphold X no matter how retarded.

EtI Wrote:That seems an incredibly stupid statement, even for you. NOI is not Islam because Malcolm converted to Islam by joining it?

Um....actually it should be self-evident that were NOI Islam Malcolm could not convert to Islam after his Hajj seeing as he would already have been a Muslim for a long long time.  Like I said one doesn't "convert" from being Baptist to being a Methodist.  Both are Christians, that's just changing the address of the church one attends.

EtI Wrote:The fact that it's taught in CA high school, where I also learned about it and liked it, is proof that it's influential.

And here we come to the crux of your argumentation as to why Emerson is "important".  Because You liked it.

You realize he's taught in FL as well, as also IL and IN.  However, for those of us with better things to do with our time we learned just enough to pass the test and then promptly forgot it like so much useless garbage it is. 

I think you fail to understand what is socially important and what is not.  

EtI Wrote:You admit my point. You exclude genuine spirituality from awakenings. No, lots of people are interested in it.

Not exactly.  Your point was that excluded all spirituality.  I'm not even sure what "genuine spirituality" even means, I'm taking it to mean "Spiritualities that Eric likes".  This is not the case.  I'm merely omitting those spiritualities which are socially irrelevant.

If you have a country with 1 million Christians, and 100 Jews and both have an Awakening, whose Awakening is more socially relevant?  Surely the Christians.  Did the one for the Jews happen?  Well surely it did.  But an event that only affects 0.0001% of the population is at best a rounding error and at worst lost in the noise to signal ratio.

EtI Wrote:The "we" collection is transcended in the experience of oneness, and the we becomes the one. That answers your discussion about we and one. But, we also remain individual expressions of the one.

Translation:  I'm making shit up because I don't like the way the people who speak English have defined English words.

Lets see if I can make this clear.  "We" is defined as a pronoun: 1. used by a speaker (or writer) to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together; 2.  used in formal contexts for or by a royal person, or by a writer or editor, to refer to himself or herself.

While you might think yourself a King, Eric, everyone else sees the Village Idiot so obviously definition 2 does not apply.  Language is a social construct after all.

As such, "We" can only be used in a collective sense.  Since there is a collective there must be a collection of descrete and concrete individuals.  That is to say more than one.  Ergo there is no one, but rather the many.

Thus:  "We are all one" is a nonsensical statement, usually uttered by those who believe themselves to be profound but are usually just insane.

EtI Wrote:[on Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism]Same god damn thing.

Not quite. Libertarians usually view no role for government in many issues taken up by the state and the federal government.  Classical liberals on the other hand think that except for enumerated powers, the federal government is usurping the state's power to exercise the roles reserved to them or to the people respectively.

Though from the Green Party we might look the same I assure you we are different. 

EtI Wrote:You wrote incorrectly that the abbreviation was GSP.

Not an argument because you and I both know we're talking about the Great Power Saeculum.  /molyneux

EtI Wrote:The GPS was not a mega-awakening, but like every seaculum, it had an awakening, which, like all awakenings, included more than the usual amount of spiritual and religious movements.

Again not an argument against my point.  A mega-awakening is the saeculum wherein the great ideas of the mega-saeculum emerge.  This can manifest, but doesn't always, in religious ideologies. 

EtI Wrote:My current religious affiliation is one of them.

Proving my point.  I'm not going to bother with the rest because it is nonsense.  I've already explained what the default "spirituality" is.

EtI Wrote:In the case of the spiritual or what you call religious ideas, the important thing is not the ideas, but the experiences behind them.

Wrong.  Mystical experiences are completely irrelevant on the social and historical plane.  Even with we agreed that these experiences occur, and I'm not sure that we do or don't, they cannot be shared amongst people.  At most they can be described or explained which leads us to....  Religious ideas on the other hand are extremely relevant.  The Apostle Paul had an experience on the road to Damascus--but was that experience the important thing in history or the fact that he converted to the Christian idea and then proceeded to spread that idea.

You could argue that had Paul not had that experience  he would not have become a Christian and then spread the Christian idea, but the point is moot because what he spread was the idea not the experience

EtI Wrote:Just because you are an Xer and therefore seem to be allergic or immune to such experiences, does not mean the rest of us are as well.

I would like to think that I am immune to insanity considering asylums are filled with people who've had mystical experiences.

EtI Wrote:Why should I knock Xers?

I don't see why not since you already do.  Its okay though, you'll all be dead soon and then we can have 15 or so years of peace before the world goes to hell again.

EtI Wrote:You admit that you reject the most recent 2T, so you have no part in implementing its ideas in the 4T, as proven by the fact that you very actively support the candidate whose sole mission is to oppose these ideas.

Eric, Eric, Eric.  I admitted that a long time ago.  I know it is difficult to keep up what with being everything, and everyone at all times and places but surely the Kinser part of your consciousness told you before I did that I soundly rejected everything associated with the 2T about the time I sprouted hair on my jimmy.

Yes, yes I did.  In fact I supported him precisely because he was opposed to those ideas.  But as you can see, we won, and are winning and I plan on winning so much that I get tired of winning.

EtI Wrote:I plan on defeating you guys and your shameful, mistaken, rotten, ancient nonsense. Well, we'll see how it goes.

Well that's your prerogative.  What specifically are you planning on doing.  Writing to GOP Congressmen?

Just remember we've got the numbers and we've got Generation Z coming up behind us and they HATE everything that came out of the 2T except the parts about not hating people on the basis of their race/sex/orientation.  Oh wait, the Silents did that part.

EtI Wrote:Nonsense; infinite means it cannot be measured, and there is no such thing as "close to infinite."

You should take that up with cosmologists.  So far as we know the universe is 14 billion light years across. but it is still expanding with no signs of slowing down so it could theoretically be infinite.  And yet we've already measured that 14 billion light years part.

So if an object is in fact infinite, we can indeed measure finite parts of that infinite thing.

EtI Wrote:I don't care, which is why I am not commenting further.

Honestly you shouldn't have commented to start with.  Every time you tangle with me you just make yourself look like a fool.