Additionally, I'm mostly interested in Christian mysticism and other topics relating to the experience of the divine >:) (Y) — Buxtebuddha

Why is an atheist interested in Christian mysticism and the experience of the divine? :P

So here is the serious question: How could Astrology work? — Banno

That obviously depends on your metaphysics. If you adopt a Hermetic position for example and go by the principle "As Above, So Below", then it's not at all mysterious how astrology could work. Then the human world would be a reflection of the heavens, and the heavens would be a reflection of the human world.

I have had my horoscope professionally done a few years ago, since one of my friends' mother back then was a professional astrologer.

I don't necessarily agree with any form of astrology in particular, but I do think that the cosmos and the human world are related.

Astrology... — Baden

In a bit, need to finish some work first :D - I was going to comment on Astrology.

Ok, Leo. Well I would have said that but it sounded too complimentary. — Baden

Right, I understand, you didn't want to come off as too gay on me :D

Now tell us how it works. Even if you don't believe a word you're saying. (Y) — Baden

How 'it' works? What's it?

I am actually a very big kitten, with large sharp claws that likes to be King and rule over the other animals :-O

>:O >:O Wrong and wrong :P .

Guess which one I am >:)

But according to my post, I refer to a certain form of unreasonable prejudice, one which places the values of one's own culture as higher than another's. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, still not racism. That would be xenophobia at most.

And culture is an aspect of race. — Metaphysician Undercover

:s lol

If you can separate culture from race, such that culture is not an aspect of race, then you might have an argument here. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, you can. Take America. America is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation and culture.

...once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. — Benkei

The problem wasn't probably that you were sexist, that was merely a pretext to get back at you for daring to do something that could be flirty with HIS secretary. This is exactly what I mean with regards to this political correctness. It is just a weapon, and nothing else.

I really think that many people in this thread have no clue what racist means. Racist has to do with race, not with nation or culture. So saying my nation and my culture are superior to all others isn't the same as saying my race is superior to all others. The former is nationalism while the latter is racism. But, having now said that, racism implies an assertion of superiority that is not actually based on reality. It also implies something that involves discrimination, and one (or more) race(s) being treated differently.

Because if I were to just say that generally black athletes run the fastest, and are therefore "superior" in running, that wouldn't be racism, since it's true.

Anything of value is ours, and anything despicable is foreign; that is racism. — unenlightened

The short answer: yes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. That's just a version of nationalism. It's not the same. My nation can be multi-ethnic, in which case it would not be racist. It's the nation and culture that is relevant, not the race of the people(s) who make up the nation or culture.

Now we're at a time where sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself because of the aforementioned nuances and multiple interpretations. — ProbablyTrue

Would any of you even make the same jokes in a boardroom setting? Call me a prude, but I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on a female coworkers body. — ProbablyTrue

Yeah, I've heard such comments in boardroom settings too (amongst business owners I've worked for in the past), of course. The idea that installing these "politically correct" barriers will do anything but enact hypocrisy is wishful thinking. What is required is a spiritual change in people, which cannot be achieved politically.

Your example proves nothing. I could point out a hundred things which I think are unethical, yet within the law. But that wouldn't alter the fact that, contrary to your suggestion, politics, law enforcement, and ethics, have a significant relationship. It is the business of parliament to legislate, and it is the business of the police to enforce the law. Parliament is political, and that which is political has a foundation in ethics. Your liberalism is no exception. — Sapientia

Still, it's not the business of the law to legislate morality. Yes, no doubt there are correlates between the law and morality, but they are by no means identical, nor as related as you want them to be.

Then you have a misunderstanding of what ethics is - in other words you have politicized your ethics. The two aren't the same. It's unethical to be gluttonous, but we're not going to make a criminal charge of it.

Not exactly, politics is not in the business of enforcing ethics generally.

Yes, yes, of course, but neuroplasticity does not over-write the basic design of the brain. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but it certainly changes the output. How information is processed by the hardware is more important than the hardware itself generally (unless we're dealing with severe limiting factors like mental retardation, brain damage, etc.)

Libido was always a term describing a strong, vital, but blunt urge, that could be redirected by the will into the sort of constructive activities which you describe in your own life. Or, it can be channelled into debauchery and dissipation, or into a great quest, scholarship, and so on. And, of course, it includes the specific "sex driver". — Bitter Crank

But if libido simply means that, why not call it "life energy"? Why not call it "spirit"? These words indicate something that has an abundance of energy and must spend it somehow - must pour that energy into the world. And from a strictly physical point of view, that's what human beings are - we take energy in, process it, and then must outpour it back into the world. So a better way to think of this is that there is some primal energy, which isn't sexual in nature, but can become sexual if it is channelled along the sexual path.

Are people all alike, or are they all different. — Bitter Crank

But there are practical implications if we go one way or another. It's not a purely metaphysical issue that would remain identical regardless of how the physical world is. If people are all the same, as you hold, then we should expect to be able to turn any one person into any other person in terms of desires and values. But we can't turn one person into another in terms of their values and desires. This seems to be the most evident truth that I've learned so far about people.

Quite right. That's the result of sublimation, a very noble process where we redirect our most basic, organic drive into sometimes very etherial. — Bitter Crank

See, I don't think this drive is organic. It's just pure energy seeking an outlet. The easiest outlet does happen to be sexual. So this energy goes along the path of least resistance in the absence of a consciousness or reason to direct it differently.

Mother Nature set up the hardware and wrote the operating system. — Bitter Crank

That is at least partly wrong. "Mother nature" (or it may be the result of the Fall) may have set up the hardware, but the operating system is by and large self-altering. The brain has what is known as neuroplasticity, and there's a series of drives within the human organism, not just sex.

the broadly defined sex drive — Bitter Crank

So broadly defined that it doesn't mean much anymore.

Some people, for example, are driven by curiosity to know more about the world, to find out more about nature, to understand the universe better. And that is their dominating instinct as Nietzsche would say, not sex. In their case, this dominating instinct takes over even the sex drive.

Other people are driven by deep piety and devotion to God, and they seek to deepen their spiritual understanding, reach closer to God in this life and so on. All instincts then become subordinate to this one.

Others are driven to build something in the world, to make a mark, to leave something behind. This is also a form of reproduction, albeit not a sexual one.

Others are driven to build a big family, with all that it takes.

Others are driven to have as much sex as possible and spend almost their entire time being busy with their sexual drive.

And so on. People are very different, we don't all have the same dominating instincts.

Freud, if I remember correctly, didn't have a lot of sex either for most of his life, and viewed this with pride.

you're wrong about regulations concerning sexual harassment because you don't understand how regulation works or why it's necessary — Baden

I don't think this regulation is at all necessary. Just more bureaucracy

A manager can say, "This fuckin report is so full of errors, what a bitch this is!". Or he can say to his subordinate, "Get me the FUCKN report NOW!!" in an extremely aggressive tone. Would you say there is a difference there? I would. — schopenhauer1

Yes, in the latter case, the manager may have to change secretary quite frequently :P

How's that book you're writing? — Akanthinos

It's good, do you want to pre-order a copy? ;)

Yes, governments have their faults but you owe everything you have to their cumulative efforts over centuries — Baden

The cumulative efforts of people who the governments have for centuries robbed, yes.

Uh, because your business would be nothing without the infrastructure the government provides like roads, education for your workforce etc. — Baden

Yeah, you mean those dummies in the government :-d ... can't do anything with their lives, entirely useless - so they go into politics. If you fail in everything, that's what you do - you go become a politician and enforce your silly rules on others by force. You take their money, etc.

Therefore the government has a right to tell you what to do in terms of certain things. If you don't want to be regulated, go set up an acorn selling business in the woods. — Baden

The government should then do something productive. They can't produce anything, communism proved that. The government failed in running production. When they can finally run an efficient operation, then they will have proved to me they know what they're talking about, and the business owner might listen to them. Until then, they should listen to the business owner.

In Europe, darn socialism is spreading everywhere once again...

:s I didn't tell anyone how to feel about anything. It's you who is trying to tell some people how to feel about running their workplace the way they want to.

If I want to run my company as a military base for example, who are you or the government to stop me? People who work there will obviously agree with those terms.

Well maybe if you don't like certain things, you shouldn't do certain jobs or work in certain environments. It's like me, who thinks sex outside of marriage is wrong. Someone like me shouldn't go into porn for example. I shouldn't open an erotic massage saloon, etc. If I do go into one of those jobs, then I cannot complain that I feel uncomfortable, because I chose it myself!

So if I walked into an office where stuff like that happened, I wouldn't work there. I'd just give my papers in and resign. I cannot force a business owner to run his place by my rules. If I don't like the rules, I'm free to leave.

You peeps have invested too much energy in the bottom head, and not enough in the top one... that is the only way to explain why the one that sits on the bottom actually rules the one that sits on the top >:O

That's not what it usually means. It usually means spiteful, malicious, catty, vindictive — Sapientia

Okay, thanks for explaining that.

It could be, in a limited sense, by clamping down on it. — Sapientia

People who want to do that will keep doing that if they have power.

The question is ethical in nature — Sapientia

I don't think the question is ethical, your question is political. With regards to the ethical question, I do think it's unethical. With regards to the political question, whether we should clamp down on it, I don't think we should.

Are you suggesting that you think that it should not be, despite your personal dislike of it? — Sapientia

If you're asking whether I think we should use a hammer to put an end to it, then probably not. Using a hammer has its own deficiencies and can also be abused, for example, to get rid of people you don't like. In addition, it will just breed hypocrisy.

So the beer, and the drugs, are an alternative path of fulfilment, to the path of personal growth? — Punshhh

I didn't say they're a path to fulfilment, just a path that many people take, probably because it's easy, and not very painful upfront.

What do you mean, "bad-natured"? — Sapientia

Not in accordance with moral standards of behaviour. Not the type of behaviour I enjoy seeing.

It was regarded as workplace banter, and they all burst out laughing. Doesn't that context mean anything to you? — Sapientia

Sure, and I have no issue with them doing this if they like it, but I wouldn't like working in such an office, even if I were to actually laugh at such a comment.

Besides, you have zero credibility when you talk about these matters, since you frequently and openly praise Donald Trump, recently saying that he's an inspiration to you. This is the same Donald Trump who made comments that go far beyond sexual innuendo, and who occupies the most powerful position in the United States. — Sapientia

Why besides? I am sort of on your side, I said I don't personally like it, and wouldn't engage in that sort of office humour, but I don't think it can actually be stopped. Compare that with other people around here who also don't like it, but think we can do everything in the world to bring it to an end through the One Supreme Commandment of political correctness...

OK, so personal growth ain't everything. — Jake Tarragon

The beer, the entertainment, etc. - that is everything to them :P

I think the world needs less technology ... let's start there. — Aurora

Why?

Cool. It's an exciting field to be in.

I work in marketing / web development now though. I've done some programming for clients too.

It's interesting, I can never imagine myself working in only one thing. I love learning, tackling new problems, etc. And I'm quite adept at finding resources and learning what I need to learn to solve pretty much whatever problem I encounter nowadays. I've worked by myself for more than 1 year already, finding clients, and all the business aspects. It's a hustle, but you get a lot of freedom compared to if you work as a specific thing in a company.

What kind? — darthbarracuda

Civil of course :D

I mean, a company an engineer works for isn't just doing to accept an employee's "intuition" - but the engineer might just have this intuitive leap, and then go back and check their work, show their "reasoning", to make sure their intuition was founded and isn't going to get someone killed, etc. — darthbarracuda

A company doesn't accept either intuitions nor scientific calculations, at least in term of civil engineering. They accept bureaucratic paperwork (which does include some calculations performed in the way indicated by the bureaucracy, including stuff like factors of safety, etc. etc.) which shows you've followed certain standards :P

I think that regardless of what we do, unfortunately, these kind of bad-natured sexual innuendos will not end at the workplace... Most people are too controlled by sexual desire.

I dunno - the rich and leisured life gets boring very quickly without personal growth. — Jake Tarragon

That depends on character. If most people make a lot of money, you see them the whole day at the pub >:O .

And education for personal growth, hopefully! — Jake Tarragon

Most people are interested in personal growth only because it helps them earn a bit more. But if money was no longer relevant since everyone was provided with life's necessities, then I doubt they'd be interested in self-development.

It would seem intuitively obvious that the best worker is one willing to learn on every step on the way forward before, during, and after work. — Posty McPostface

>:O - then he wouldn't be a worker Posty, what are you thinking?! Of course, the ideal worker isn't someone who is willing to learn, someone who is willing to learn is a master, not a worker, and is actually dangerous in an organizational setting. Do you think an Aristotle would ever accept to be working under someone else? There's a reason he departed from Plato's Academy to form his own. Those who love learning and challenging themselves will not remain workers for long - the constraints of structured environments are not for them.

Innate — schopenhauer1

Yes, it is innate.

But my main rebuttal is, why create more people in the first place that need to help and also procreate, and help and procreate etc.. — schopenhauer1

>:O - yeah, your question presupposes that there needs to be a reason to procreate and to help. The truth is that no such reason is required, because procreation and help are natural. Your question assumes that procreation and help are not the natural states (which should be not to procreate), and then asks why do we do it? Then the question makes sense. But without assuming this a priori your "rebuttal" has no legs to stand on.

I can likewise ask you why not procreate, why not help? My question is as valid as yours, it just makes the opposite assumption, that procreation and work are natural.

Ok, so when most jobs are performed by robotics and software, what will people do, would they then be obsolete, or would they have to be creative and find something else to do? — Punshhh

Who programs the robotics and the software that does the jobs?

There will always be new and innovative things to work on, things that robots cannot do. The problem will be that most people will not be willing to or able to work on such issues, since they will take a lot of knowledge and expertise to work on. So the question really should be what should be done with those people, who now no longer need to work (cause robots provide for them), but now have all this free time? And I frankly don't know. But I think they will be sort of marginalized (a strange word, since they will be the majority), living in a sort of idiocracy, like in Brave New World, with lots of drugs, sex, and partying to keep them going. Entertainment will be a very big business.

I agree, however, the teachers the world needs aren't the teachers you find in academic settings generally (there are of course exceptions).

Good, you believe what you want, I can't be bothered to bicker around with you on this. I gave you enough sources and references for you to read for yourself. And no, permanence is not meaningless without a context. That's precisely the point.

Impermanent means depending on something else for your existence - ie being conditioned by that something else. Your body is impermanent because it depends on a certain physical arrangement of atoms for its existence. It is conditioned. If it were unconditioned, it wouldn't be impermanent. So to say that permanence is a conditioning is BS - it's not understanding what to be permanent means, ie not to depend on something else for existence.

Permanence is not a conditioning. That which is a conditioning is always impermanent. That's the point.