Ok, so we have the same meaning of terms. So what's extra mental, like, if you look outside your window or go woods or something - what's extra mental in this environment? — Manuel

"Extra mental" would be anything that's beyond mental. It's an idea, not something you witness with your eyeballs.

I don't understand. What is extra mental, when we look at the world?

No, culture has nothing to do with my view. — Manuel

I just meant "not mental stuff."

I think your worldview is the basis for your belief that the world existed before there was anything mental.

This is all mediated by mind, but there are glimmers that we are seeing something extra-mental. Having a degree of confidence is the best we can do, given the circumstances. — Manuel

I don't think the glimmer of the extra-mental is seen anywhere. It's part of the structure of our worldview that we look out at a non-mental world. A few thousand years ago that would have sounded absurd. So the ground of your claim is cultural, right?

The problem is in most cases we can never know what might have exised in that gaping hole. — NOS4A2

Fire!!!

Acceptance

By all means, continue believing that nuclear devices can cause tidal waves then — Tzeentch

Ok. Thanks.

He doesn't mean that we are doomed or that we don't also do magnificent, selfless things, but this dark patch is there, waiting, and history tells us it doesn't take much to be activated. — Tom Storm

Right. Aggression is a two edged sword. We didn't take over the land surface of this planet by being model, moral creatures, although that has a place.

The question that's left is whether you can accept that, or does it make you grind your teeth to know that it will all happen again? Because that's wasted grinding, isn't it?

Well, had you asked me in 1944 or 1968 maybe I would have answered you differently. — Tzeentch

Physics hasn't changed that much since 1944, Tzeentch. You don't know what you're talking about.

well said

You tell me. — Tom Storm

How am I supposed to know? :grin:

Because the power of a nuclear device is dwarfed by the power required to cause tidal waves. — Tzeentch

But apparently the US military thought it was possible.

Only someone who knows absolutely nothing about military hardware would think nuclear torpedoes can cause tidal waves, so don't worry. — Tzeentch

They can't? Why not?

:up:

In organizations/governments there need just be factors/ideas overriding (positive) ethics, and atrocities can take place. — jorndoe

What kind of factors cause that?

Killing Jews was a crowd pleaser well before the Enlightenment. The Crusades had people doing it at home as well as abroad. — Paine

I know. But I think the average human would be left speechless by Dachau. It was just in another level. Although, people who witnessed conditions in Brazil during the slave trade reported Holocaust-like conditions where there was brutality for the sake of doing it. As @jorndoe pointed out, it's group think that does it.

"A pro-Vladimir Putin TV host, Dmitry Kiselyov, said in May last year that these torpedoes would be capable of causing a 500-meter [1,640 feet] high tidal wave of radioactive seawater, and that they could "plunge Britain into the depths of the sea". Newsweek

I'm starting to wonder if there's a big disaster at the end of this tunnel. (One which Russia won't survive).

Totalitarianism was a completely new phenomenon in the beginning of the 20th century, so it was not "business as usual" - something clearly changed.

Scientism may have played a role with its promise of final answers and singular truths. It is a way of thinking which is apparent in especially the Soviet system, where society as a whole was treated literally as a scientific equation with their planned economy. — Tzeentch

Exactly. This wasn't something that had ever happened before. Was it?

In a way, the Enlightenment was more about what is, than what ought be. — jorndoe

That's what I was getting at. The particular kind of immorality that created the Holocaust, for instance, could it have been related to a weak moral anchor?

In the big picture, people have not changed. — BC

Yep — Banno

Humans are killer apes — Tom Storm

So we're just in a lull? We can expect 100s of millions to die violent deaths at the hands of their relatives sometime around the corner?

Or could we find a way to channel our aggression with less bloodshed?

It's the accountability — Outlander

How would you assess accountability?

Machine guns. Bombs and Missiles. Industrial Project Management. Mass Media. The shrinking of the world as a shared — Paine

I assume you agree that these things were to he result of science and technology. Do you agree that scientism was also a factor?

Ennui — Paine

How so?

There's a similar list for the United States. Right? Genocide and chattel slavery aren't ancient history, either. — Moliere

The US came into existence in 1776. It was on the back end of both of those crimes.

If you check your source again, I think you'll find that he or she was assigning blame to Europe, not the US.

How could the West not foresee Putin was dangerous!? Look at this highly specific analysis using only points which lead towards the conclusion of Putin being dangerous, it was all there for anyone to see at any time! — Judaka

Since he had been repeatedly aggressive to his neighbors, I don't think anyone thought of him as benign. Plus, remember that when the US tried to persuade China to ask Putin to back down from invading Ukraine, they publicly scoffed in a way that wasn't particularly graceful.

I don't think this one counts as hindsight analysis.

Or are you the special one? — Isaac

No, that would be Geoffrey Hoskings, who spent time in Russia examining records from the Soviet era.

Aren't you banned yet?

That's why there are historians which are both pro and anti — Moliere

The 20th Century events in the USSR and China are unique in human history. It was mass insanity, not evil. No other country can compare, including the US.

Although, crediting capitalism for the robustness of the western economic scene is over simplifying. The west received a boom of energy through emancipation from religious tradition, which acted as a cap on progress. Descartes' works on philosophy were partly an attempt to pull the Church out of the mud so as to enjoy its blessings on scientific and mathematical advancement. Capitalism funded the Reformation, so together, they crushed the opposition. Science and capitalism have been joined at the hip ever since.

That hinges on knowing the outcome. If I turned history into a video game, you could "backtest" your prediction skills to see if you're using your analytical tools correctly.

It's not slight. It just seems like a simple acknowledgment that Stalin has secured a place in history far worse than any US leader would be a simple thing to do, with the understanding that that doesn't mean the US hasn't done bad things as well. — Hanover

I agree. So would the average historian. Westerners don't have any frame of reference for understanding what happened in the USSR.

It’s just dressed up Ayn Rand — i.e., an excuse to be a selfish asshole. That’s the “theory.” — Mikie

That's kind of a childish attitude. The world isn't black and white. It's shades of grey.

The reason owners get to be owners and maintain a higher percentage of profits is because it works better that way and people want it that way. — Hanover

It is very effective and efficient. It's also volatile and occasionally crashes, so a little of both sides of the spectrum is a good thing.

So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says. — Hanover

I don't know if the next economic crash will take out the US government. I hope not. I just meant we'll probably renew socialist measures that were enacted during the Depression (and dispensed with starting with Reagan), and probably do further steps to the left.

The subsidization of farming is to protect a dysfunctional industry that society isn't willing to allow to adjust to true economic forces. — Hanover

I think it's that rich farmers know how to lobby. I don't think the average American knows how much they're actually getting. In some cases they're being paid to withhold planting. It's state sponsored price fixing.

All of that started as an attempt to help small farmers, but the wealthy quickly turned it to their own advantage. That's happened over and over, which is one reason to let the poor starve: if the state tries to help them, it just ends up making the rich more powerful.

I know. The revolution is at hand. — Hanover

It will happen eventually.

The other idea is that we can collectivize the farms so that all the food belongs to society so that we can all share in the profits, but instead we all starve. — Hanover

American farms are pretty heavily subsidized, and we haven't starved. It actually doesn't make sense to pay CEO's the bizarre reimbursements they get.

That will change in the next big economic adjustment. We always lurch toward the left when the whole system starts breaking down, as during the Great Depression.

This is an old union song sung to the melody of an Appalachian spiritual.

C'mon all you working people
Good news to you I'll tell
All about how the good old union
is coming here to dwell

Which side are you on? (sung four times)

Rich man say he's gotta put us down
and educate his child.
His children live in luxury
and ours are almost wild.

Which side are you on? (sung four times)

Now we got the good fight
I know we're bound to win.
Cause we got those gun thugs
looking mighty thin.

Which side are you on? (sung four times)

It appears that a lack of regulation inevitably leads to disaster in markets of this type. Or do you think some entities are just more upstanding than others? And if so, how would you identity them?

Not to mention the wars on the First Nations, colonialism, manifest destiny. Collectivism, through and through. — NOS4A2

American collectivism came originally from the need for defense.

I suspect through family and kinship. — NOS4A2

In a number of ways the English North American colonies were deeply divided and distrustful of one another. The South had a different type of economy from the North, along with slavery, the small colonies were defensive about being bullied by the larger ones, and for whatever reason, Massachusetts and NY just hated one another.

Family ties? No.

But collectivism isn’t. — NOS4A2

How did we end up with a collective with no collectivism?

Individualism demands that you be a selfish asshole who doesn’t give a damn about the world outside the self. — Mikie

Not really. A strong argument against collectivism is that information is used more effectively in a free market. Concern for the welfare of both individuals and society is in play in this theory.

Striking out against it as selfish assholedness is a waste of time. Counter the argument by pointing out why it's wrong, or even if it's right, why there's a better idea.

What role does science play from that perspective? — Paine

I don't understand the question.

It means to me that individualism is more inclusive, that it concerns itself with more human beings, even all human beings, whereas collectivism is exclusive, that it inevitably pits individuals against other individuals. — NOS4A2

Strictly speaking, no. A collective of some sort is required for the defense of civil rights.

When you say: "There isn't any phenomenal aspect to the third person account, that is to ignore the role of paying attention to phenomena has in moving toward that prize of objectivity. One can recognize the difference without pitting them against each other in a zero-sum game. — Paine

I wasn't pitting them against one another. Hyperion was saying that when you look out at the world, this is third person data. It's not. It's first person.

Third person data has no POV per se. It's usually thought of as a construct.

We have very different views of that issue. :chin:

Are there any objections to this? — NOS4A2

I'm just not sure how this observation is significant. Maybe you could share what it means to you.

On the far end of the spectrum of individual freedom, we have, say, feudal Europe, where there aren't any cities to speak of. There are individual manors which are so isolated they're like tiny worlds until themselves. All industry takes place in these small holdings and there's little in the way of trade. Travel is so dangerous that you'll have to be armed. The only libraries are in monasteries, which have thick walls to withstand raiding.

You can see from this picture that a lack of any collectivism, or as you say, submission, means that might always makes right. There are no civil rights because there is no government capable of assuring them.

Collectivism comes to Europe in the 1000's. Trade routes open back up and communities of free tradesmen come into being. These communities build cathedrals, which stand as symbols of collectivism. The cathedral is the town hall, the university, the theatre, and of course, the house of God with windows that let light in from the outside world in a marked contrast to the dark, closed monasteries. Rule of law isn't here yet, but civil society has appeared which will act as the foundation for forms of government that can ensure rule of law and human rights.

The world we live in has both of these as its heritage. The pendulum keeps swinging.

When we observe anything in the world, we are observing it from a third person perspective. That is a component of our first person perspective, what it is like to be us. — hypericin

There isn't any phenomenal aspect to the third person account. It's the God's eye view. If you read a novel that's in third person, it's from a POV that no individual could have. Like:

They all knew that sooner or later the aliens would come back. What none of them realized was that the aliens were already among them, having shed their exoskeletons and invaded the local chickens.

That's third person.