People will begin to always just assume you're lying even when you're not, and begin to just stoput listening.

There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.

It means that our notions are incomplete. There are two problems with fitting the world in your head in its entirety... the first being that it's really really immeasurably big, and your head is comparatively minuscule. Secondly you'd also have to fit your head in your head too.

Yeah, we can't quite define things, or capture them in their entirety in thought. We can't quite define, or show exactly what we our selves are, or even necks and heads for that matter -- but do we have any trouble actually doing it in practice?

Sounds like Lokis wager to me

There is a conflation, much like with the virgin birth and immaculate conception, non-self (not "no self") and co-dependent origination are different things. Non-self is a strategy. It's so different when it's me! Non-self is the active distancing, and development, or cultivation of non-identification with thought, body, aggregates, world, universe others, or anything else. It's a strategy for reducing the pain of truth, and increasing resilience. The second is an alternative explanation, or idea of the self to the atman, or eternal unchanging soul (actually just literally "breath"....). It also isn't "no self", but rather that we're always changing, no part of us is permanent, and we're a product of causality.

He's wrong on both points, but that is my understanding of his views.

Jorndoe is a really nice and cool guy. I met him a couple of times in person when I lived in Nova Scotia.

Oh Ellen, her or Rachel Maddow are whom come to mind when I'm grabbing my big rubber boots (tools of the trade you see, you put the sheep's feet in them too, and then they can't easily escape or kick you. Pretty sure that was their original intended purpose).

I think that it's hardly a big deal, and seems reminiscent of that straight outta campton thing, where they apparently for auditions were rating the women on darkness of complexion, and attractiveness. As they wanted uglier, darker complected women for the beginning of the movie when their life is shitty, and the hotter lighter complected women for later in the movie when their life is great now!

Seems worse with them, and they were the bosses. I do agree though, that you are pretty much contractually obligated to do certain things, and act certain ways or you'll be fired. I was fired from my parking booth job, because they were bought up by a bigger company, and they introduced terrible ridiculous uniforms, that I refused to wear for a couple of weeks. I wore the sweater, but not the pants or tie. They wouldn't give me an inch though, and finally gave me the ultimatum, so I left.

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything. There is no longer a reward for them because the memory of them is forgotten." - the holly bibble.

I wouldn't take the death and rebirth thing literally. Remembering past lives, and already innately knowing the forms as Socrates suggested, and one need only "remember them" sounds a lot closer to the mark.

The living know only one thing, the dead don't even know that.

I have like a super duper secret for you. It's so secretive that I can't look at the screeen as I right it! See, thing is, that the next life is actually way, way worse than this one... so I'd soak it up while you still can. It's not even interesting like hell or anything, it's more like... hmm... this, I guess:

Double up good. — Bitter Crank

I would prefer to triple up excellently.

Not The Sleepwalkers, by Arthur Koestler? Excellent book, in any case. — Wayfarer

It was A Short History of Nearly Everything. I remember it fondly, and fairly well I believe, it had lots of dirt on a lot of histories greatest scientists, it was great.

Yes, they wish to remove the person and render everything in the third person, which is why they use the language that they use. At work now, I'll have to look up the book when I get home. T'was good.

More people talk about God. Yup, love me some sacred cow. Yum yum yum.

"science" is a hyperobject, or is an umbrella term for a large conglomerate of institutions, individuals, and practices. It subsumes, implicitly whatever anyone thinks it does when they hear the word, and also connotes different things depending on which camp you're allied with.

Which philosophers of science have you read? I'm thinking of Feyerabend and Kuhn respectively. The former for my view that "science" cannot be demarcated from any form of problem solving activity in any substantial way, and Kuhn with respect to the history of science, and the methodological trends, and theoretical frameworks operated within as "normal science", kind of drudgery, and then there is revolutionary extraordinary science which makes and breaks the rules, rather than follows them.

There was also a super awesome book that I forget the title and author of now (herhaps someone will know?), but it was written by a journalist, about the history of scientists themselves, what quirky crazy fucks most of them were, and how much infighting posturing, and tribalism is present among scientists, for some reason I remember the author being on a plain... or something... but anyway, it was a sweet counter-balance to the distancing/denotative/former language scientists like to use by focusing on the people themselves.

Nope. That would be gravity. You can read all about the scientific studies of this amazing force, which can tell you just how fast and how hard you'll hit the ground if and when you take the plunge out of that window. — Arkady

Really now, then I suggest that you undertake your own suggestion. Take the plunge, and then tell me that science told you anything remotely as informative.

The only real problem of science is that it doesn't exist. It is a top down idea of a special path, or way which leads to truth. Except that that's not the thing it is, it's about testing, and collecting data, and then trying to make sense of that data (often entirely different disciplines), and money talks, as it always has. Scientists need funding, so they make promises that they cannot possibly deliver on (like cancer research), rather than just funding a wide variety of smaller projects. Sagan made this point, I believe that it was part of the last speech he gave.

I find the new cosmos (the like two episodes I watched) offensive compared to the original, particularly head by an idiot and a liar. Tyson the first time I saw him was criticism Dawkins for being too much of a dick, and now is all trying to be cool and witty, can't beat 'em join 'em. More significantly though, he claims a relationship with Sagan he never had, and blatantly lied in a letter he sent to him claiming he was getting his PHD when by that time he would have been fully aware that he wasn't...

Scientists are not objective truth machines, they're human beings. Some are better than others, and just like with everything else, revolutions begin to take hold when enough of the old fuckers in the way die already.

I had no idea that it was science that makes stuff fall to the ground. It also, I hear, has improved life expectancy by a third, and instead of chanting theories like dogma, they're always opposed and ready for opposing the establishment!

I hear that immortality is just around the corner too. That's usually a good sign that everything's legit.

Science is itself a myth without strictly adhered to principles, besides trying to do what the last superstar did. Science is so respected because of technology, and it's association with substantial dividends. The intellectual patent brought about the industrial revolution, not science. The first too big winners of it having stole their technology and then patented it. One made wigs, the other did something with farming, or agriculture... I forget...

The desperate need for slaves in the south was also due to a new invention. Something that like sorted cotton super fast, meaning that they needed a super fast supply, and the emancipating of the slaves was more an economic move than anything...

Lol, there is no problem of justification. There's a problem of getting everyone to believe us. I hold "truth" to be identical to "honesty", and falsity to be identical to "deception".

I long ago left my house in search of home (it sounds cool when I say it like that, but I'm pretty young).

Yeah, Sam had some sweet acid trips for awhile until they started getting good (weren't fun anymore), and then stopped. He also advocates the LSD use to his children, lol.

Now more jarringly he advocates killing people for thought crime, talks of "moral geniuses", and tells us that science can tell use what to do.

He also recounts this one time, he was in a hotel with his fiance or wife or whatever, and they're just enjoying the view when they both realize (not just him, surely!), that they're so relaxed when they could be suicide bombed at any moment! That's a thing now, you know.

His arguments tend to be that there is clearly a difference between pleasure and suffering, things being good for you, bad for you, sickness and health, and demonstrates this be pointing out extreme cases of either, but then says nothing for their subtleties, or where the difficulties actually lie.

The only thing he has on the other guys, is that he knows that believing stuff usually indicates that you do stuff about it.

Laughter, children, orgasms, contrentment, reaching the top of the mountain — apokrisis

Hopefully not all in one day.

No, it isn't sound, as Hegel pointed out in his criticism of Kant, one can select any arbitrary chunk, as it were, of infinity and progress from the assigned beginning to the assigned end.

What's really wrong with it is two fold. First of all an infinite universe implies that everything that is possible is actual, even contradictory things. Like an alien that exists that has destroyed an infinite amount of the universe, but there still being an infinite amount left to destroy.

Secondly, it assumes a linearity of time rather than relativity. Without there being some context, some movement, change, space then it makes no sense to talk about time, and certainly not in a linear overarching progressive fashion such as that.

Beauty takes three forms, first being static form, second being continuous or changing/moving form, and the third is aesthetic, or logos.

He didn't say it per se, a character in a book he wrote did. The reason being that other people make us self-conscious, make us view ourselves as an object from the outside.

Nope, you're fairly creative, and aware of how full of shit people are. Anyone with children, and anyone that loves some real living people more than themselves needs to have some fairly far reaching sight -- and gets to see everything that people do, just in more obvious, less complex or sophisticated forms.

Oh, well I'm glad that you were only pretending not to believe me then.

You're thinking that all I'm saying is bull shit, and I'm sensing a lot of "pfffft"s too.

I can't literally read minds, but if I get to know you I can guess at your reference material, influences, and dispositions and then contexts will arise where there are only so many things to say to that, or where a reference would be perfect as a reply, then I'll know what they're going to say.

The rest I'd prefer not to give away if you don't already know.

I prefer the former.

It's all art brah. I'm an illusionist of sorts. I'm just pointing at stuff in your own experiences, that depending on your self awareness you should already know and be nodding your heads to, whereas it will just be like any other statement to someone that doesn't know, but there are lots of ways to point, and lots of different things to point at. I'm not even talking to any of you. I'd worry if you start finding me more interesting than yourselves... or worry about anyone you find more interesting than yourselves.

The ridiculous thing about people that think that there is an internal is that they have zero deferences. They're entirely transparent as if they're the only ones in the world. I can tell people what they're going to say before they say it, and then tell them that I can read minds. It really mind fucks them.

Objectification is wrong to the extent that the person is depersonalized, and viewed not as a free self-directed agent, but a thing to be used for a purpose. People can be used for purposes, but they probably wouldn't like it referred to as being "used", should expect at least equal benefits from the co-operative venture, and just in general is approached entirely differently.

I think that most feel ripped off though unless they take out more than they put in. Equivalent exchange doesn't seem as good as getting more than everyone else -- thing is, that if we all take out more than we put in, then things start getting shitty pretty fast.

The worst thing about porn I think, is that people learn sex from there, and it's a really nasty teacher.

Shouldn't repress, should refine. Anger, or violence are strategies, and are always about control. They are last resort strategies when faith has been lost, then force must be applied -- but that force can only make you perform a certain way, it can't make you actually believe it. As such, it is at its very core a denial of the reality of the loss of faith, and a denial of any need for contrition, or to make amends, or to in some way restore their faith.

You're right, I remembered that wrong, I thought I read it on the wikitionary but doesn't seem to be there, and looking into the etymology it originally meant what one would think it would mean, coming from the process of distillation, it meant "the basic ingredients which give something its particular character". I must have membered that wrong.

And for fun, the word "essence" comes from "essentia" which used to refer to non-abstract or monetary properties.

"thing in itself" is just a literal translation of what came to be referred to as "essences", the idea, simply being repeating Socrates in saying that we don't have access to the forms... well, you know... you don't.