Absolute Simplicity is Absolute Truth.

I know that you say that understanding 'is beyond our capacity' and, of course, there are limits but without a certain amount, surely, we would be completely lost. — Jack Cummins

I think "completely lost" is not a bad descriptor for the state of our species.

Our understanding is no better than it has ever been. It's just more complex (which is an indication that it is further from the truth).

Thinking is just a system that has to make sense in order for people to buy-in. So, all the parts of the system...mathematics, science, philosophy, literature, etc., do their part to hold-up each other allowing people function socially in this world no different than folks in the past who had their systems, as well.

Although we have a good laugh when we think about how silly our ancestors were in believing all of their non-sense, we take our own system as "The Word Of God," and forget that not so long in the future, our descendants will be laughing at us and our system, as well.

I am not convinced of the logic that to understand one thing would result in knowing everything. If only.. I also think that it is just as easy to go insane from lack of knowledge rather than too much of it. We probably have so much information to process, but that is completely different from understanding. — Jack Cummins

The complexity of understanding is so vast that to be able to understand one thing, you would be able to understand all things. For example...

The simplest of things has been brought into being by an infinite number of events preceding, so in order to understand this particular thing, you would have to understand the infinite number of things that brought it into being and on top of that, understand the infinite number of things that brought the each of the infinite number of those things into being, so on and so forth. This is just for the simplest of things.

Understanding, that "thing" that man wants more than anything else, is so far far beyond our capacity that it is literally incalculable. Of course, the silver lining is that understanding is not necessary (nor even preferable, in my view).

If we did understand what was going on (literally), what would be the point in living?

Are they unfathomable mysteries, beyond human understanding? — Jack Cummins

Everything is beyond human understanding because if you understood one thing, you would would understand everything, and if you understood everything, you would immediately go insane.

Saddened to read your resigned perspectives. Does it imply that you don't believe a sustainable future is possible? Or is it that you don't believe it's possible for us? Is your resignation a consequence of the unlikelihood of this plan being put into effect? Had you considered that the right move would necessarily be improbable? The probable course is what you're resigned to! And further you seem to imply that you're aware of the inadequacy of the current approach - that it probably won't work. — counterpunch

I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens.

If you approach each moment as brand new, averting the trap of being caught in the snare of past thoughts, you are given the chance to live fully and continuously without regard to this, that, and the other thing, particularly attempting to save the species (a very noble endeavor, I might add).

I prefer to be among the other organisms that ply the planet attempting to live my life as close to being in concert with Nature as possible, so whether we last another twenty minutes or several million years is of no matter to me. I'll take each moment as they come and do the best I can.

But how the hell do you re-engineer the entire world of billions around individual lines? Do you have some non-theoretical, practical solutions? — Tom Storm

Unfortunately, the elite have always known how to deal with the rest of us...fear, lying, coercion, extortion, murder, fraud, theft, counterfeiting, and of late, bribery.

On the other hand, a great number of people seem to want to do very little or nothing to help themselves out, so your guess is as good as mine.

You do what you can to get your own act together and then you help others when and where possible. Otherwise, try to get three people to agree on something, yet 8B!

My sense of it is that we are but a temporary surface nuisance here on the planet and we should be leaving sooner than later.

We are essentially good. Starting naked in the forest with nothing but sticks and stones, we have survived and built all this. We're doing well, but need now to take measures to continue our meteoric rise from ignorance and squalor into knowledge and prosperity. It's not a moral question for me; it's an epistemic problem - and that is subject to remedy sufficient to politically justify the measures necessary to a prosperous sustainable future. — counterpunch

I am a philosophical anarchist (when I must think :)) because I believe that if you get any more than a few people together, all hell breaks loose. The best hope for man remains his individual spiritual development.

And I am not sure I would agree with your assessment that man is inherently good. Again, I believe the best hope in this regard is to minimize group activity. The history of the world is replete with horror after horror in the name of every damn thing. Individuals can only do so much harm whereas groups are capable of unspeakable crimes committed on a regular basis.

Scientifically and technologically there's a very reasonable series of measures we could take, that are beyond the wildest dreams of the ideologically arranged regimes that have met two dozen and two times to discuss the climate and ecological crisis. If science were true we could solve it. Attacking the problem from the supply side, to provide more energy not less - to extract carbon, desalinate, irrigate recycle etc, would create wealth - and avoid all the implications of the current green approach, to pay more and have less, or go without. We could make the deserts bloom. — counterpunch

Energy is not the problem. Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain.

Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy).

I'm agnostic, and sceptical. I really don't know if God exists or not, but recognize the significance of the fact that all civilizations have been built around the concept of God, under his eye one way or another. Consequently, I deftly sidestepped the majority of your previous post. I'm on a philosophy forum and here epistemic implications are necessary to demonstrate the rightness of my proposals, but I have no particular interest in commenting on your traditions. I accept there are people who do not believe what I believe and you're one of them. Those I'm trying to convince are in fact very few, and I'm trying to convince them of one specific thing, refined from the understanding of reality I discuss; that a prosperous sustainable future is possible. — counterpunch

I did not mean to imply that you were religious, just that you believe in "something," which is becoming rarer these days. It's the reason I enjoy chatting with you. Most people don't believe in anything (especially themselves). And I do understand your positive outlook on the future and think that's wonderful. Truly positive people are another rare commodity these days.

I don't put my point of view out there in order to get people to "understand" me, as I know there is little chance at that taking place, instead, I do it simply to give people exposure to different way of approaching life, my intention being to challenge people to keep an open mind, that all kinds of possibilities exist when you are unburdened by previous experience.

I suppose there is always the chance that you are right about what you comment on but I believe we are intellectually so primitive that our take on what's going on is kind of a joke (constantly "proven" as new discoveries are unpackaged (albeit delivered with their own expiration dates).

Keep up the good fight and keep an open mind and you will find the few...

Make it yours and then you would be interesting too. — counterpunch

You are a true true-believer, no doubt about that!

We've had a couple of discussions about science and I like I've conveyed previously, I see it for what it is, but it's just part of the overall deal (albeit an important part).

I take each moment as it comes and try to do the best I can. What else can one do?

I think this happens because humans tend to be so stubborn in all painful things or issues. It is quite a paradox right? Repeating aspects that hurt us. — javi2541997

Who knows? And yes, it is quite the paradox.

My opinion is trying to find something connected to happiness. This always been the main goal of humanity. — javi2541997

Up until a couple of hundred years ago, it was ALL about survival. It's just of late that people became obsessed with the delusional state of happiness, that temporary biochemical rush we prostrate ourselves for when we believe we have outsmarted The Universe (only to be set-straight when the gods inevitably prick our bubble and we sputter back down to Earth (and beyond)...only to resume our never-ending search for yet another wall in which to bang our heads.

We have intelligence, and intelligence deserves to play out to the fullest - to carry us as far as it can, and maybe - who knows, to star after star. That so, one could say the opportunity cost of failing to secure a sustainable future is potentially infinite. — counterpunch

cp, I certainly don't want to rain on your parade, but yours' is one of the most interesting personal positions I've encountered vis a vis existence. Consider the following...

As part of the Earth's matter (literally), and then being a part of the solar system's matter, so on and so forth, we are part of the whole, and because of this (potential) truth, we are part and parcel, ONE. That is, we have been EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE!

Isn't that enough?

I have absolutely no interest in wresting political power from anyone; but I do have a legitimate interest in the survival of the human species. — counterpunch

What kind of legitimate interest do you have in the survival of the human species? Twenty-five species disappear from this planet every day, so certainly we are on the docket (sooner of later).

Rule one, everything comes and goes...

Yes, I am reading the sentence. What does that tell you?

Nevertheless, we can't ignore the fact our sense organs are generic i.e. there seems to be no difference, at least in any obvious way, in re our sensory apparatus. — TheMadFool

That's an absurd statement. You need to study the human body.

Imagine believing that people see the color red the same!

There are many reasons why this is not the case, but let's just consider some of the obvious physical ones. Let's take a control wavelength of visible red light to be 700nm. The source that emits this light is is subject to a variety of media that will alter this light (atmosphere, pre-corneal tear film, cornea, aqueous, lens, and vitreous). Everybody has a different make-up of the previously mentioned media, therefore the 700nm wavelength light source is going to undergo changes (various aberrations) accordingly.

Once the photons (waves?) reach the retina, there are all kinds of changes that take place which nobody has any clue about (as there are eight layers of the retina). Once the photoreceptors transmit through the ganglion cell layer axons which accumulate as the optic nerve, there are many unknown processes that take place along the optic tract until the nerves synapse in Brodmann area 7 of the cerrebral cortex.

You folks are chatting about something that nobody has the faintest idea about. The interesting thing is that whereas its fairly easy to imagine the complexity of the visual process, this applies to all things, no matter how simple they may appear. Nobody has any clue about anything...thank God for small favors!

Very nice! Thank you.

We're talking about the same things people have been talking about forever (albeit, the modern version, at times).

If anybody ever figures out any of this (which is impossible), everybody will know about it within ten minutes.

I have always maintained that if people could figure things out intellectually, they would immediately go insane, that is, our species is not great at dealing with the relative truth, yet absolute Truth.

But having ideas and debate about it are important too and here is where philosophy is crucial. — javi2541997

It definitely has entertainment value, but after a few thousand years of it, what have we learned?

When your significant other comes up to you and looks at you in a certain way, need more be said?

Either you kind of get this kind of thing or you don't.

Philosophy is strange. — ghostlycutter

Philosophizing is people bullshitting (but they think the their BS doesn't stink).

Life is about doing. That's the real philosophy.

How do you know the lessons will save millions? By what metric did you measure the bad and good?
In what way can you even say the lesson has been learned? By who? There are still genocides, still horrors of all the kinds so where exactly are these lessons saving millions?
And again, how do you know it ends up equal? — DingoJones

Because it cost millions of lives. It really doesn't matter how you measure it, only that you apply it equally.

Good makes bad. Bad makes good. One cannot exist without the other. You have to be able to see things in their totality. The effects of the Holocaust will last for centuries (perhaps millennia). Over that period of time, it will balance out.

The conventional definition of responsible adulthood can be stultifying. — Bitter Crank

I guess it might depend on what period of time you reference, but to me (I am 66), a responsible adult is one who can make their way in this world independently (more or less) and leaves others to the same task without interference.

By the time one retires, how much do you need?

You'd have to do everything yourself. — Bitter Crank

OH NO!, you'd have to do everything yourself. God forbid. :)

BC, isn't the point of living a adult life to become as independent as possible? Have you been corrupted by these newfangled ways of not doing anything yourself?

What is the equal amount of good to the bad in the Holocaust for example? — DingoJones

In the end, there will be an equal amount of good because the lessons learned by it will have saved millions. It's just how The Universe works.

"Collectively" doesn't work for me. Almost all good things that happen is because of individual compassion, and almost all bad things that happen are because of collective efforts.

Give an example of a truth that can exist on it's own.
— synthesis

If I say "I always tell the truth" that statement could exist on it's own. — maytham naei

This is a false statement because nobody can know the truth as it is not accessible by the human intellect.

It's possible for an individual to say "I always tell the truth" and actually always do say the truth. — maytham naei

See above comment.

Maybe one idea cannot exist without the opposite of that idea. For example, you cannot have the concept of darkness without light. Although you can have a totally dark room, which is defined as the lack of co-existence of light.

Moving away from the light analogy. What I would like to discuss is that in a self contained boundary, a complete lie cannot exist, but in the same self contained boundary the complete truth can exist on it's own. — maytham naei

OK, let's say you and a blind person are in the same room with a bright light on. Does light and dark now exist at the same time?

Give an example of a truth that can exist on it's own.

This is what I've felt for a long time. However, until at least now, even if we have a huge asset bubble everywhere, the whole system has been very persistent. The doomsayers have had their same line for decades now. Hence I'm really puzzled about MMT and have wanted to have a serious debate about it, yet it seems to be too difficult. Even the believers of MMT do state that too much debt will cause a inflationary crisis, yet they argue that for the US this doesn't matter. At least now. How much is too much? — ssu

Keep in mind that there are tremendous dis-inflationary forces happening coincidentally which are balancing out the ledger sheet somewhat. Mining cheap labor and technology's exponential growth have kept productivity high and inflation low. And (of course), most of the dollar printing is in the form of bank reserves having yet to see circulation.

I am still in the deflation camp and believe the forces of technology and cheaper labor (Africa, India, East Asia, to some extent) will hold inflation in check unless the politicians go ape shit and do a Zimbabwe or something like that, but you are correct, who would have thought this could still be going on 50 years after they abandoned the final link to sound money?

The U.S. health care system is another example of massive fraud, believe me, as I have been part of it for many decades.
— synthesis

It actually an interesting question why has it become so failed. I think that the simple reason is that every part of the system has to make a profit, the corporations themselves have made the policies to favor themselves and in the end people without any long term health care have to be then in ER. Why Americans accept this is beyond me. — ssu

Americans have wanted a national health care system since 1950. Unfortunately, the corporations didn't. It always comes down to one thing, corruption, and there is plenty of blame to go around. It's a complete failure...the health care professions, the health care corporations, the government, and the citizens themselves for not taking care of themselves.

Man makes his own hell in this world.

All opposites co-exist. You cannot have one without the other.

Think about it.

Equal amount of good and bad in everything.

My compliments on the detailed post!

Globalization didn't start in 1980, it might be called an era of de-regulation.

Also here it's important to see also the reasons of American dominance before, because the US isn't an island when it comes to the global situation:

1950: All other major industrialized countries in ruins after WW2, China has communism, India and the Far-Eastern "Tigers" very poor, some still colonies. Hence US dominance in every field.

1980: China just starting to change it's economic system, West Europe and Japan back on track and can compete well with the US.

2021: China has enjoyed historical growth, India has too shed it's socialist system, many Far-Eastern Tigers like South Korea and Taiwan are wealthy countries. — ssu

I should have stated, "this foray into serious globalization," which will end just like other attempts...in a trillion tears.

The lasting legacy of globalization has been monetary inflation which has gutted the American middle class. This is a product of monetary policy and (by far) the winners are those who profited by the corporate bonanza in cheap manufacturing in Asia, the ramp-up in stock prices, ,and the political class (and it's employees who in 1950 made 50% of what the average private-sector worker made, and now makes double what the average makes in this country!).
— synthesis

Indeed, I think this more because of monetary policy than because of globalization. Going off the gold standard and having a fiat system was the crucial thing. Other countries, like mine, would quite quickly face a current account crisis and a run on their foreign reserves, but not the US. When the Saudis were OK with just getting dollars for their oil, why not? (And then are things like that Americans simply want to pay the most for a mediocre health care system, I guess.)

The US has enjoyed the situation where it can print the global currency everybody uses, hence debt doesn't matter and the current account can be negative for over 40 years. And why not? Since the World is OK with an US Dollar system, then US politicians can print as much as they want. We all seem to believe now in modern monetary theory. — ssu

It was the creation of full FIAT reserve currency, of course, which allowed this to happen on the scale it did (so what should that tell you?). Globalization is a fraud, plain and simple, as it is exploitation at some of its worst, and MMT is simply a polite term for counterfeiting, nothing more.

The U.S. health care system is another example of massive fraud, believe me, as I have been part of it for many decades.

Despite access to your yellow tropical fruit, this past 50 years has been a disaster the average American worker and a bonanza for the average corporate exec and all federal employees. It's the exact opposite of what you want in a healthy economy and another example of how socialism destroys everything it touches.
— synthesis

Well, some export oriented countries like Germany have done quite well and don't have such wealth inequality. Even if I'm not a leftist, I think one important issue is that Americans aren't in labor unions, hence the employers can do nearly whatever they want. I think this also more of a domestic issue than just globalization. — ssu

Japan and Germany are both homogeneous societies and lack the social, educational, and cultural differences found in the U.S. The labor unions that still do exist (such as unions for federal employees) are about as corrupt as it gets, and, as well, have pretty much bankrupted many cities and municipalities. Here is California, it seems as if most of the public employees make over 100KUSD, and a fair percentage quite a bit more than that. It's crazy. Let them eat bananas! :)

Isn't this the entire point of every social institution that ever was, that is, getting something for nothing (somebody else footing the bill).
— synthesis

The problem is when the shareholder and his peers make so much money they can buy off their obligation to pay taxes or provide good transportation. But that is not society's fault. That might be the fault of politicians and people that allow that to happen, and maybe society sits back a lets themselves get screwed, but that is not society's point. The point, and the individual reliance on and participation in the social contract, was to protect the individual; not make him pay for some jerk's adventure. — ssu

You have to approach any government situation ASSUMING that bad things are going to happen (because they almost always do). And remember, the Social Contract was written by the powerful group's attorneys!

In other words, there is no doubt that people often get together and agree to look the other way while the Earth, or some other poor sap or people bear the brunt of their adventures. But that is not the point of society..... — ssu

What is the point of society?

The answer is ALWAYS more freedom and transparency. Those advocating the opposite are attempting to protect their dirty system.
— synthesis

I disagree. Transparency does not translate into an ability to do anything about an asshole who is exercising freedom to shit in the river. Unless, of your course, you are granting me the freedom to shoot him through his brain housing group. Lots of misuse of freedom are out in the open. We try to regulate those misuses, but the offender then whines about regulation. At least that regulation works in favor of the integrity of his skull. — ssu

At least with transparency, you have a chance. Without it, you're totally f*******.

I'll take my chances and ALWAYS err on the side of too much freedom.

You perhaps think that any large system leads to corruption, opaqueness, tyranny, etc. A brief perusal of history, or group dynamics, will show that one can get the benefits of corrupt, opaque, arbitrary and capricious rule just as well in small groups as in large.

We are quite far apart in this. — Bitter Crank

For me, the ideal group size is one. :)

And I do believe you will find that the degree of insanity (demonstrated by group activity) is directly proportional to the size of the group. [Nietzsche's First Law of Group Dynamics]

Just look at what all the larger countries and corporations do as their size and power accumulate.

And keep in mind that main priority of every group is self-perpetuation.

Whereas I will agree that early hominoid groups were beneficial in keeping Sabre tooth tigers and the like at bay, it was all down hill from there.

I doubt we are very far apart at all...

That should be kept in mind when deciding whether or not one wants to externalize the costs of his actions upon the backs of everyone else. — James Riley

Isn't this the entire point of every social institution that ever was, that is, getting something for nothing (somebody else footing the bill).

The EU, composed of a population of something like 440 million, seems to have served people well with regulation, systems, organization, etc. Pulling out of the EU was so stupid... but what's done is done, at least for now. — Bitter Crank

WHAT?? The EU is a complete joke...one destined to failure from the start. Why would any successful country want to be part of that dys-functional dys-union unless their political leaders were totally corrupt?

Those who whine about totalitarianism have often brought it upon themselves through their exercise of unbridled freedom, a lack of enlightenment in their pursuit of self-interest, and their externalization of costs onto the backs of others, without supporting those others politically or in some other form. — James Riley

The answer is ALWAYS more freedom and transparency. Those advocating the opposite are attempting to protect their dirty system.

Hence I object to the populism that the only winners are the (corporate) elite and the politicians and the (only?) losers are the regular folks. Sorry, but anybody talking about the benign "regular folks", the "common people" as these people who are the suffering losers uses populist rhetoric. You and I know that in the West the majority of the people have it OK. They are not starving. They have it reasonably well. It is a minority, the underclass, who really are poor. In the US or in Western Europe, they don't make up a majority. — ssu

Let's look at three periods, post WWII (say, 1950), the beginning of globalization and financialization (1980), and forty years later (2021). And let's just take the U.S. as an example.

The great thing about economic self-sufficiency is that a country can create a relative balance between production and consumption. This is very important for all kinds of reasons. Economic dependency can lead to all kinds of problems (as witnessed over the past year).

One of the great benefits of self-sufficiency is sound money, and if you had to lay blame at one issue that has un-nerved all kinds of markets, it is has been the proliferation of funny money. Just the same, it is key that your country manufacture most of it's necessities.

With the final disengagement of the USD to gold in 1971 and the onset of the financialization in and around 1980, you see the first results of globalization, the outsourcing of much of the West's manufacturing base to Asia. This had a profound effect on Western middle classes as well as on the value of currency (which was dropping precipitously and the money-printing party was on).

Other than losing tens of millions of good manufacturing jobs (so you can enjoy your banana in January in the North Pole :), inflation is what has economically destroyed most people in the U.S. No longer could regular folks afford to buy a house (without be quite house-poor), they couldn't afford to send their kids to college (so the next generation was plunged into debt), they couldn't afford health care, or anything else that could not benefit from cheap labor-added in Asia. Quality commodities and services based in the U.S. became very expensive.

The lasting legacy of globalization has been monetary inflation which has gutted the American middle class. This is a product of monetary policy and (by far) the winners are those who profited by the corporate bonanza in cheap manufacturing in Asia, the ramp-up in stock prices, ,and the political class (and it's employees who in 1950 made 50% of what the average private-sector worker made, and now makes double what the average makes in this country!).

Despite access to your yellow tropical fruit, this past 50 years has been a disaster the average American worker and a bonanza for the average corporate exex. and all federal employees. It's the exact opposite of what you want in a healthy economy and another example of how socialism destroys everything it touches.

The real problem is that far too many things that globalization has given us we take for granted, while we are too eager to focus on the downsides. Perhaps it's just a matter of rhetoric: we simply don't want make an argument like this and that is good, but here we have problem. Far better to say only that here we have a problem. — ssu

You might have difficultly having doctors (getting out of school hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt) buying into that idea.

Seems pretty interesting that Germany and Japan still kept robust high quality manufacturing in their countries.
— synthesis
They have been far more better export oriented countries than many. And here we get onto thin ice, if we really want to look at why some countries have been more successful than others. Some can argue about a worse starting point, poverty or war or having been colonies, but sometimes, as in the case of Argentina, the real reason why they have been failures is quite puzzling, when they have had all the cards stacked for them. — ssu

I think it called making to the commitment to manufacturing high quality products that people want to buy. Ever drive a Porsche?

I will stipulate to globalization being good when the losers get to take their boat out now and again. — James Riley

Globalization is about two things and two things only, access to cheap(er) labor and new markets. If your neighbor across is having to eat cockroach stew for dinner because if it, so be it.

I think that is a critical point. I'm not sure Trump cared either but he said he did. No one had heard that before. — Tom Storm

The guy is a billionaire. The fact that he took the time and went through the Hell that he did to do the whole presidency thing is telling. Who would bring such a thing on themselves if they didn't care?