03-15-2017, 01:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2017, 11:51 AM by Eric the Green.)
(03-14-2017, 09:29 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Actually I could stop at any time. I'm just not going to. I'll wear you down like I always do. Also if I knew you to be right I'd simply agree and not do this--I won't dignify it with the term debate--with you. After all it isn't like you came out and said "Donald Trump is President" or "The sky is blue except when it isn't".
Like I said, you can't stop because you know I'm right.
Quote:Moron claims that his actions have nothing to do with matter or its modifications. Also proves once again that he's a nihilist.
See, like I said, you have trouble with "nihilism."
Matter is lack of action. Of course my actions can't have anything to do with "matter." "Matter" as you materialists describe it, cannot act.
Quote:I'm not responding to the rest of that passage as it is meaningless drivel.
Back atcha!
Quote:Obviously if you've claimed inventing it you have documentation. Yes I know the old forum is gone but surely you saved something of "your seminal work". I first encountered it in the writings of Chas 88. Unfortunately it doesn't seem he's among us here as I used to really enjoy reading his work of theory.
No need; you would knock whatever I post. I'm sure it's on there but it goes back a long way. I don't have time to search for it just to respond to someone who doesn't debate respectfully or honestly.
Quote:I fully expect that others have come up with a four stroke cycle too. I've read more than one type on the old forum. I found each of them wanting. They were incomplete in one aspect or an other.
I would welcome the input of Mike and others--which is why I put up the first two posts. Generally that is why people put up posts on the theory of history forum. Unfortunately Mike in particular seems to only want to nitpick our conversation--the others are probably munching popcorn waiting for you to tire, which you will.
That's silly. They can comment any time they like on your "theory." Mikebert is the most likely to comment, probably, and if he's only nitpicking, it's probably because he doesn't think much of it. Which would be the correct thought.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Hardly. Marx died in 1883. The 2T began in 1886.
Which is why the major interpretation of Marx's work was started in the 2nd international (as I've pointed out twice). Which was formed after Marx's death. I understand that you, like most people, are ignorant of the history of Communist Philosophies but surely you'd have looked at Wikipedia. I mean failure to do so, well it simply isn't kosher.
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.
Quote:EtI Wrote:That's your idea, not mine.
Actually it isn't mine either. Its Karl Marx's actually. He's the one who put forward that his theories are based on materialism. Indeed the major process of Marxist Inquirer is called Dialectical Materialism. Did you fail Americanism Vs. Communism in school? I know they had it when you were in school, my mother took such a class and you're not so old as to be very much older than her--10 years max.
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.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Yes, you have forgotten everything valuable about Marxism and have embraced its opposite, as you have told me here in this discussion.
No I said I've forgotten more Marx than most people have ever learned. That means pea-brain that I've learned much more Marxism than most people do, and managed to forget some of it and still know more about Marxism than said most people.
You know nothing whatever.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Yes, Islam has all those things.
Not a point of contention in this "debate". The Nation of Islam also has all of those things too. Ergo it is also a religion.
The Nation of Islam is Islam; period.
Quote:I do notice you didn't even attempt to refute my point that "genuine spirituality" means "Spirituality Eric likes". Probably because it is self-evident to anyone who reads your posts.
No need to disprove a mere insult. 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.
Quote:EtI Wrote:No, it simply describes a fact about the members of "we". We are all one is a scientific fact. You deny science.
No. The English word "we" as a concrete and discrete meaning. It is unless one is a monarch, always used to denote a collective of persons, the speaker/writer and one or more others. To say "We are all one" is to claim that this collective is a single body. It may be, as a collective, but it is still composed of concrete and discrete individuals.
Has it really? Then demonstrate the experiment by which it was shown to be a "fact". Where are the measurements, the papers.
I'll wait.
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.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Same damn thing. Small details like that don't matter. Classical liberals don't want the state to exercize much power either. It's all about less government.
Not true.
Libertarians typically do not feel that any government should involve itself in the actions of the people, except in the defense of the lives of the citizenry, and their property and the state (should one exist). Unless they modify this with corollaries they become in their purest form Anarcho-something. There are Anarchists who are Communist and Anarchists who are Capitalist.
A Classical Liberal on the other hand finds government to be a necessary evil that must be instituted among men to protect their individual rights. In the Context of the US specifically Classical Liberals wish for the Federal Government to concern itself with its enumerated powers plus the protection of those individual rights (as in many cases it has been shown through history that the states don't do a very good job of that) and leaving all the other pesky details of governance to the the states and/or the local government and/or the people themselves.
Not the same thing at all. Though I will agree that the less power the government has the better I like it. Did not the logic of violence currently require that we have at least a small professional army I'd essentially abolish it except for a very small officer corps and support staff--focusing military power instead on the Navy and Air Force.
But again that is due to the US's context. Like Bismark said we are bordered on the top and bottom by weaklings and on both sides by fish. We need a big navy cause I don't trust the fish.
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.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Translation: you can't admit a mistake. But you corrected it anyway. And without my correction you'd still be writing "GSP"
I'm not going to take lessons on humility from a man who claims to be god. The GSP thing is a typographical error most likely. I don't always skim through long posts looking for commas and spelling errors.
You are god too.
Quote:EtI Wrote:The GPS Awakening was just an awakening like any other, including the one during which you were born, and all previous ones. It doesn't stand out as an Awakening from the others. It was a foundational time, but that's because of its position on the cycle of civilization as the start of one. Many things were begun then, but most of those changes and aspects of the new cycle were not awakenings.
The GPS awakening was an awakening and the GPS itself was a mega-awakening because it put forward the major themes for not only that saeculum but the one that followed it. Just like the Reformation put forward the major themes for that saeculum and the one that followed it.
I notice you make the claim that the GPS is the start of your cycle. I've yet to see you post more about your theories other than to shout "Wrong" in my threads.
If you plan on making claims bring evidence.
I've posted about that many times here, or you can just read my website.
http://philosopherswheel.com/fortunes.htm
"Major themes" being put forward does not an Awakening make. An Awakening is described already by Strauss and Howe. That is quite sufficient; they nailed it fine.
Your mega-Awakening alleges to set the themes for the next 340 years or so, not the next 160 or so.
Quote:Paul preached wisdom, not just "about an idea about a Jewish guy." A mystical experience reveals certain truths to people that are common to all people everywhere. If another person has an inkling of it, communications about it can be meaningful. A teacher can point the way to someone open-minded to look at the facts that mystical experience demonstrates. That excludes you; you are not open-minded, and refuse to look at self-evident truth, so you can't have the experience.EtI Wrote:Out of his experience came his whole career as an apostle, and all his wisdom. Mystic experiences are shared all the time through the arts, philosophy, ceremonies, books, relationships, etc. They can be shared, because mystical experience is the foundational experience of all life everywhere. It IS life.
Wrong again skippy. Paul's career may or may not have been caused by an experience. As an experience he could have it subjectively, but for all we know it was a hallucination. So what did Paul preach about? He preached about the idea that there was this Jewish guy who got killed by the Romans was the son of YHWH and all the other assorted things dealing with that.
Assuming that mystical experiences do in fact exist, then how does one share it? Telepathy?
No if they are an experience then they can only be experienced by the person experiencing them. We can have no proof that someone else has had a mystical experience unless there is devised some empirical way to measure what happens physically to a person who has said mystical experience.
Failing that: We have at most their description of that experience, a description which could be truthful entirely, truthful mostly but fragmented (IE they don't remember all of it), or it is entirely a fabrication of their own mind (they are lying or they were hallucinating).
I've heard lots about mystical experiences but the closest I've ever come to one is while eating mushrooms. I was convinced that a live oak tree was the tree of ages or some such nonsense. (I recorded this session btw). Needless to say the next day while I remembered the hallucination I realized it was a matter of being on drugs and not anything I should base my life on.
That said I will eat me some mushrooms if offered. The trip is usually pleasant.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Go ahead, make my day. Prove this assertion with real statistics from real expert sources.
Don't need to. There is a psychotic disorder called schizophrenia. It has many incarnations, one of them includes being spoken to by gods and devils as well as other visual and auditory hallucinations.
Being talked to by gods sounds like a mystical experience to me and people are committed for it. So there you go. I suggest taking it up with NM she's the Psychiatrist around here.
Sorry, you brought no evidence for your mindless assertion. Just as I thought. No, mental wards are not full of mystics. Mystics are the sanest people. You don't qualify. You are nuts.
Quote:I've heard that theory; I disagree. No time to disprove yours right now. 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.EtI Wrote:Sorry, but many prophets live on into the 1T, especially now that life spans have increased.
Lifespans have not increased. Average life expectancy has. Now I know you have problems with the properties of the number zero so I'm going to try for what seems to be the 50th time to explain how averages work.
Average: Noun: a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.
If you have a population of 100 people and 1 lives to be 100, and 30 die before they are 5 and everyone is somewhere in the middle you can expect a number in the middle range to be the "Average Life Expectancy". Because that is how "Averages" work. You add up all the numbers generated from a set and divide by the total number of the set.
If those 30 who died before they were five live beyond age 5 say to even 20 or 30 it would increase the number.
Average Life Expectancy in the West has increased not because the Maximum Lifespan of humans has changed, but rather because more people are NOT dying younger.
I'm clearly not going to do a data set for you since I've tried that already and you still didn't get it. I expect everyone else on the forum has passed 4th grade math though.
Quote:trump and all the other oligarchs are the Establishment, and you support it fanatically. You support oligarchy now.EtI Wrote:But will you never get tired of losing, once the saeculum rolls, and the ideas of the 2T form the 4T as they always do?
Actually we're winning.
If the 2T was all about standing up to the "establishment, man", then we need to see who is the establishment. It is the NeoCons in the GOP (they're on their way out) and the SJWs and Clintonistas in the Dims. If for no other reason is why you don't have a President Hillary.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Well, that's a big part that you yourself have thrown over by supporting Drump.
Yes, I'm a total Uncle Tom because I support the most pro-gay, pro-black, pro-Latino (but legal ones only), pro-woman GOP President ever. Yeah that makes me an Uncle Tom.
You do realize that Uncle Tom actually was the hero of that book right? He sacrifice himself so black women and children could escape bondage. Its a very good book that is rarely read these days.
You support Uncle Tom, since Drump is the least pro-gay, pro-Latino, pro-woman president ever. You are a traitor.
Quote:EtI Wrote:How do you know that today's 5 and 10 years olds hate the 2T? Prove it.
Not all of Z is so young. Some are teenagers already knowing nothing of the world before permanent war. They have no use for SJWs or NeoCons. I have one in my house. But if you're not adverse to Gavin....
super Baloney. There's no Zer over 12.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Nope, you can't. If the universe is infinite, then the most you can ever say about it is that it is here and now, which is what mystics say. If anything is infinite, it rolls back to zero
Nope. While the universe is believed to be infinite it can be measured. How else do we know that Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away?
Also if something is infinite its value is not zero. Zero has a value all its own.
If the universe is infinite, then four light years means nothing. It's all here and now, period, and nothing but here and now. Motion is relative; distance is relative. Space and time, matter and energy are relative concepts; illusions if seen as anything but relative. The fact is, everything is connected and there is nothing measurable at all. Show me an inch in nature anywhere. That doesn't stop me from constructing a ruler, or measuring light years. But since the universe is infinite, such measurements are only relative and ultimately just concepts in your mind. Kant comes home to roost.
If anyone travels to Alpha Centauri, they will still be here when they get there. From the point of view of experience, anyone is always "here and now" and nowhere else. Here is everywhere in an infinite universe. Think I'm dribbling? Try a thought experiment. Go beyond the visible universe. Go on, keep going. Keep going. Pretty soon, if you go fast enough, beyond all objects, your motion is nothing. Motion is relative to objects moved against. A universe that just goes on and on is redutio ad absurdum.
Quote:EtI Wrote:I am not tangling with you. That's how YOU roll. I am just amusing myself. Wasting time, no doubt. But, one of my mentors Alan Watts said that time is to be wasted.
Alan Watts is definitely smarter than you are. But the same could be said of my cat. If you are wasting your time then why bother. As for me...it isn't a waste of time. I enjoy making Eric the Ignoramus look like the ignoramus he is. He never disappoints in providing me more than ample ammunition.
Yet you always fail.
I am not an Ignoramus. I am a hippopotamus. From top to bottomus.