Wheels within wheels.

[Kinser79]

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?

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?

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

EtI Wrote:Bach atcha!

Not so fast their Mr. "I got an IQ of 150".  You do realize that by saying that you're saying my previous post about your posts being meaningless drivel is 100% correct.  I could stop here but I know you're a glutton for punishment. 

EtI Wrote:But it's silly to claim that Marx did not found Marxism.

Marx was no Marxist as he said himself.  The quote is attributed to him by Engels, I would suggest that it has the same validity as if one of my own close personal friends attributed a quote to me

Engels Wrote:What is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’ [If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist]

If Marx was not a Marxist how could he have founded Marxism?  He did not, it developed out of his writings, because other people believed them and expanded upon them.

EtI Wrote:It was the manifesto that got him noticed and respect among his followers, from 1848 onward.

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.

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. 

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.

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

Again wrong, this time fortunately for you because your original precept was also wrong to start with--GIGO is an iron law.

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.

EtI Wrote:Lenin is not the only Marxist.

No but he is the only Marxist to have lead a successful socialist revolution without having Lenin to guide them.  Ergo due to his success that makes him the most important.

EtI Wrote:His contention is quite wrong; philosophical idealism does not amount to the defense of religion.

In general perhaps not.  On the issue of Marxism, he is correct.  Marxism is materialist.  It was materialist in its inception, it is materialist in its processes and it is materialist in its outlook.

EtI Wrote:Marxism is only one kind of materialism

I see Kinser's Second Law at work again.

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

EtI Wrote:Most materialists are not Marxists.

True true and also not an argument.  One can just as easily say "All tomatoes are members of the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae), but not all members of the nightshade family of plants are tomatoes."  Suffice it to say while not all materialists are Marxists, all Marxists are materialists. 

EtI Wrote:Do you honestly want to maintain that all materialists are Marxists?

Never maintained such a stupid position.  But do go on battling strawmen.  When you're finished I have some wind mills that need to be tilted at.

EtI Wrote:Is Richard Dawkins, for example, the most famous materialist of our time, a Marxist?

To my knowledge he is not.  And yet he is still a materialist.  Just like not all members of the nightshade family of plants are tomatoes. What's your point, do you even have a point?

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. 

EtI Wrote:It doesn't matter if Muslims would consider the Nation of Islam infidels.

I would think it does if you plan on saying the Nation of Islam is in fact Islam and not a religion of its own. After all who would know Islam better a Muslim or a non-Muslim?  Given the choice I'm going to go with the Muslim.

EtI Wrote:It still claims to be Muslim

Not an argument.

And I can claim to be Samuel Jackson, that doesn't make it true.

EtI Wrote:The KKK has rituals too.

The Klan doesn't claim to be a religion or a sect of a religion.  It can be--and I'm being extremely generous here--a fraternal order the members of which are white Christian men.

Also the Klan has far less influence these days then the Nation of Islam.  David Duke can get what 20 maybe 30 people to come see him?  Louis Farrakhan fills stadiums.

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

Thank you yet again demonstrating that your command of the English language is sporadic at best.  I'm honestly amazed that you graduated from a university.  Is Berkley's standards so low that if you drive past it they throw a diploma into your car?

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

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

EtI Wrote:You are not open to the phenomena

I'm perfectly open to phenomena.  I'm even willing to be far more loose with the definition of that word than Brian Rush was too.  Either you can communicate with me telepathicly or you cannot.  Demonstrate that we are "spiritually" connected.

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.

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.

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 spokeman 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

EtI Wrote:You are just not willing; you're not alone, most people do require more than my words to have the experience.

You're right on this, but only because I gave you the answer beforehand.  I would need an experience, I'm still waiting on that telepathic message Eric.

As for Deepak Chopra, yeah I don't need a charlatan to take my money thanks.  Remember I know the religion con well my sperm donor has been at it for decades and has made himself a nice living.  Funny thing about YHWH, he supposedly can create the world in 7 days and yet can't handle money. 

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

Yes it is.  But given your reaction I must have struck a nerve.  Did I trigger you snowflake?

EtI Wrote:I disproved your assertion about lifespans by showing that Silent leaders are still in office during this 4T

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.

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.

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.

EtI Wrote:Are you saying these current Silent leaders are NOT in office?

Of course not.  I'm not going to provide straw for your strawmen either.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.