Anyway, I think that talking about mysticism is like talking about sex; why talk when you can do? — Pneumenon

Because it's sexy.

I think the Chinese manufactured the virus to kill as many Americans as possible. That's why it targets fat people. — Benkei

Only 40% are obese, and they tend to be poor and rural rather than elite and in areas worst hit by the virus, so poor targeting. Whoever invented and mass-produced high fructose corn syrup should be given credit for effectively killing Americans. HFCS is cheaper than sugar and is a better preservative and that translates into increased profit. We don't need any help with killing ourselves, in other words.

I think it’s essentially about rationalization, or an inclination towards order and predictability, which is both creative killing and soul crushing. McDonaldization, in other words. Currently my biggest client is a franchise consultancy, the very epitome of mcdonaldization and complete BS. Pays well though.

It’s only an obstacle if you don’t belong to the same tribe. :razz:

I agree with you though.

Also there is secularisation within mysticism, which I am about to get embroiled in I expect with a couple of other posters. — Punshhh

Are you suggesting that there should not be secularization within mysticism? If so, why?

I don't think mysticism and logic or reason should be separated. In fact, I think they should be inseparable. — Tzeentch

I wonder what you mean by this, particularly after relating experiences that you still pursue the meaning of.

... the president should have taken her number, stood over the desk of the bureaucrat whose job it is to send those payments, and made it happen. — NOS4A2

Ah, you do have a sense of humor.

So like this then:

A (metaphysical) and B (physical) are components of X (metaphysical).

And this also works:

A (metaphysical) and B (physical) are components of X (physical).

If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work?

Not the first time someone's used their intellect to (sort of) mask an inner rottenness. — BitconnectCarlos

On several occasions, he mentioned issues related to stress, so as I see it he was remarkably open. I've had anxiety issues in the past so I can relate.

A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).

A (tails) and B (heads) are components of X (coin).

It appears to me you're claiming that information is a component of information. Is this the weird (inexplicable) part you keep mentioning?

N-word flaming — Baden

Very hard to believe that he meant that. He's been expressing frustration and disillusionment with the forum lately, so to me, it sounds like another fuck-this-place-ban-me kind of thing.

I was surprised that someone could make it through a university degree and snap so easily — I like sushi

It depends on the school, of course. For instance, the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry may offer a magical defense against emotional outbursts spell as part of its graduate program.

So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).
— praxis

It seems to me that he is saying that both “matter” and “spirit” are reducible to “information”. Your B is a subset of A, not coextensive with it. C (spirit) is also a subset of A. If I understand him correctly. — Pfhorrest

He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information." Presumably, "spirits" are metaphysical, so your C is A, and not a subset of A.

So I’ve been promoted from reasonless to unreasonable. Cool :cool:

you're all emotion and no reason
— Harry Hindu

And you believe this is a reasonable claim?
— praxis

Absolutely. — Harry Hindu

And then you proceed as though I have the capacity for reason. You, Sir, are a lier.

How can any view be well established if it isn't falsifiable? — Harry Hindu

You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result.

As I mentioned earlier in the topic, I read a portion of Gnomon's website that caught my interest. It was about meditation and related subjects. Granted it may touch on philosophical issues, however, the bulk of it is well within the falsifiable realm.

this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worlview. — Gnomon

You're partly to blame for making off-topic assertions.

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
— praxis

A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. — Gnomon

You claim that everything is information (A). If everything is information then whatever it is that we "conventionally" call matter (B) is A (information). That being the case, it wouldn't seem to matter if we call matter Information or matter since they are the same thing.

So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).

So I'm not sure if I should ask the same question a third time or ask what X is.

you're all emotion and no reason — Harry Hindu

And you believe this is a reasonable claim?

If A and B are two properties (or sets of properties) of the same thing, it makes a difference. — bert1

Yes, take a computer for example, we could say that one property is hardware and another is software.

There’s another way that makes a difference that involves purpose. For example, a hammer can be both a hammer and a paperweight.

Think climate change denial on a smaller scale. Similar motives, similar backers, similar tools. — Baden

... similar moral framework.

Isn't that weird? — Gnomon

We say something is weird when we can’t explain it.

What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information?
— praxis

I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are both physical substance and metaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, both Science and Philosophy. both Mechanics and Meaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference". — Gnomon

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?

Rationalization



“[…] the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the ‘saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.’ But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.”
– Max Weber. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905

What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information? We have to call them something. For the spiritualist/materialist rift that you mention, are you suggesting that because matter is really information, that spirits can exist, and that materialists can accept the existence of spirits because they no longer distinquish between matter and information?

there are more ways to make money - at least, more forms within the categories - where you don't need to make money. Some of them led to the 2008 crash. I wish I had the economic knowledge to demonstrate who pushed us in this direction and by what nefarious, negligent and careless means. — Coben

Banks - money based on debt - and various financial instruments.

Ceasing the exploitation of workers is not going to happen through any evolutionary process. (Maybe it will happen through a devolutionary process, where civilization collapses, masses die of starvation, and there is essentially no economy in which to exploit anyone. NOT something to look forward to.) — Bitter Crank

I'm currently reading a book about the end of economic growth and in it the metaphor of a 2 lb hummingbird is used to express the point that degrowth is inevitable. Increased productivity and substitution (alternatives to fossil fuel, e.g.) can only go so far, and then there's toxic buildup, climate change, overpopulation, etc.

Then the bullshit jobs that produce all the bullshit products would disappear and America would no longer be great. :sad:

As fun and interesting as this is, why don’t you just reread what I actually wrote.

are you emotionally attached to your statements that you make on this forum — Harry Hindu

I don’t think anyone else would make my statements, but to answer the question, yes. Are you not human?

Economists call it 'confidence' and measure it. It is real, it is social, it is the glue of society, and the media that betray it are more destructive than war and terrorism.

Do you trust Google? — unenlightened

Economic confidence is a belief in how the economy will grow in the future and many things can influence that prediction. I imagine it's possible, for instance, for Google to tweak its algorithm to favor search results that contain negative words or phrases in association with economic growth, possibly influencing user's economic forecasts on an unconscious level and ultimately lead to a downturn, potentially causing more destruction, in terms of human suffering, than war or terrorism.

I have trust issues.

What's weird about a form of idealism?

What philosophical views are "well established"? — Harry Hindu

I'm interpreting the thrust of your question to be something like 'what philosophies are generally accepted?' Generally speaking, established views are generally accepted.

I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. — Gnomon

You're essentially saying that you don't have more authority than scientists or philosophers. You're not saying that you have less. Nothing wrong with that of course, besides the false modesty.

You just proved my point in the sentence following the quote : "Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out." — Gnomon

I went to a subject that I'm currently interested in when I visited one of your websites. It did not express a desire to really understand the subject. I'll characterize it as a half-ass effort to dismiss a competing idea to your "weird idea," whatever that is. I have no idea of what your weird idea is.

I have found that few people have the interest and the patience to read it from problem statement, to hypothesis, to supporting arguments, to summary thesis. — Gnomon

The funny thing is, having googled ‘Enformationism’ and briefly skimming the results, that this appears to be your basic modus operandi. It makes me wonder why someone would construct a WorldView with only a cursory glance at well established views. The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics.

Not a great idea unless you don’t minds them being practically everywhere you go.

I made a hammer for the purpose of pounding a nail.

I set aside an olive so that come cocktail hour I can make a martini.

Etc...

The ultimate authority is the Oligarchy, which runs secular institutions. — h060tu

Do they provide answers to ultimate questions? Do we accept their rule on faith or do they need to justify their policies with reason?

Why are language, math, art, being, purpose, knowledge, justice, mind, will, education, governance, and the meaning of life all topics of one thing, “philosophy”? — Pfhorrest

I tend to think of philosophy as pre-science.

I notice that you don’t have a chapter in your book dedicated to metaphysics, incidentally.

I like seeking the truth, practicing writing and critical thinking, discovering things that I might not have otherwise found, and seeing if others agree with my understandings.

If you're an employer and you offer to bring your employee back to work and they decide not to, that's a voluntary quit," Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) said Friday. "Therefore, they would not be eligible for the unemployment money.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/495050-states-telling-workers-theyll-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-refuse

Actually, in an economic recession (declining GDP) income inequality typically decreases. The poor stay poor, but the rich aren't getting the profits. This happened for example in my country when we had a serious economic depression (thanks to speculative bubble and a banking crisis) in the 1990's. — ssu

Having checked the New Yorker article that I was reading this morning it appears that I misread it. :yikes: It says that in many Western countries over the past couple of decades that slower growth has been accompanied by rising political polarization.

I started to read a book about The End of [economic] Growth today. Particularly interesting now that economic growth has truly stopped, if only temporarily.

It equates to ultimate authority. There’s no ultimate authority in secular institutions.