When Trump pulls the US out of NATO, these people will cheer like crazy: "Finally, out of it! Good riddance!" — ssu

Which is an over-reaction. But so is NATO. Its 30 years out of date, at least.

Some kind of philosophy of hte species remaining a single, pure species (yes, that's on purpose) and the concept of liberal/egalitarian thinking.

I don't think they relate, let alone align (again, on first reading. I'm just beginning thoughts on it).

It seems obvious that there are empirical facts about what is good for us. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There truly doesn't seem to be any facts of this kind. There appears to be habits.

Oh yes, obviously.

This thread speaks extremely loudly for itself. Mods, this is in the correct place to be actioned.

Childs be childs i guess.

No.

Post again.

My understanding is the prehemispheric structures solve this problem in humans, and make sets of data from both halves cohere in our perception. I've not looked deeply into it but found that a very interesting suggestion.

*quotes Mikies entire post history and leaves an emoji. Like a fucking child*.

The philosophy of staying together is liberalism and egalitarianism. The philosophy of splitting is what Land is talking about. — frank

This strikes me as totally incoherent. They aren't related(on my first reading.. This isn't an impugning). the "philosophy of staying together" as a species? What thinker has broached this outside of sci fi? Real question, and not one I think is a gotcha. I'd like to know who to read on that, because its clearly a prima facie conservative line of thinking.

I think it's pretty confusing when people speak about 'liberal' values when referring to directly conservative actions. Is it that there's something more to the story of the dichotomy? I think so, and that conversation is rarely had prior to the kind of us v them utterings all throughout the forum on these sorts of threads.

You're a dick. Dress it up however you want.

Its beyond me why we allow a child to run around this forum insulting everyone, making absolutely insane posts that belittle the forum, its members and its intent - and he's just... Here. Doing all that.

Probably time to clean up. Congrats on the consensus Mikie.

In practice, it's worse than that. What often gets poo-pooed is a caricature of the other side's position. — Relativist

Very good point. Steel-manning is a practice few can actually carry out. I have a hard time, so i usually dont engage in those arguments.

And the immense contradictions of setting one race apart from others only follow. — Fire Ologist

Yes, and it's possible this is the reason for the pushback. Stupid people will see the hypocrisy in this, but not notice their own.

I don't care. You've proved yourself to be a risible character with absolutely zero self-awareness. Enjoy.

I very much hope you find something truly compelling to bring your life joy :) It certainly isn't this forum.

Having a thread which allows for a single stance is directly against the ethos of the forum. Mikies behaviour in general, for the last year at least has been almost unacceptably so.

This should not surprise. He's like the kid every lets run around and do weird shit because they're not to be taken too seriously.

Going through Woody Guthrie, Rosetta Tharpe and Mahalia Jackson currently. Also bought an old Joan Baez record recently and remember how god damn f**king good she was/is.

LOL. What a thread.

That's fair, as long as you're still making room for any an all degrees of error, whcih i assume you are :)

White workers bear the double burden of recognizing how they themselves are the victims of discrimination (as wage slaves) and how they may discriminate against other workers. Don't feel guilty about it; just recognize reality and do better in the future. Blacks are not your #1 enemy: it's the 1%, the rich man who is your enemy and the black man's enemy alike. Unite in solidarity. — BC

That final note cannot be achieved by the prior imperative.

The additional difficulty is that, without an account of subjectivity, nothing homo sapiens may allegedly learn about the world and themselves can have any claim to justification -- there can be no reasons, since reasons are not part of the objective world. — J

Very good. And a real problem for the question per se, I think. Maybe they simply cannot come apart and our world still be seen to cohere.

For me, there's also a question of 'truth' here. We're talking justification and related concepts - but truth only applies to beliefs and thoughts about things that (theoretically) already are. So, in line with another recent thread I think 'nature' is taken to be true to avoid this issue. If there is, in fact, a state of affairs prior to any mind apprehending it, then that would be 'natural'. For that reason 'objectivity' seems to be a concept which could only apply to consensus.

Re-read:
A Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovich;
Of Mice and Men/Cannery Row;
The Crying of Lot 49; and
The Problems Of Philosophy (about 11 pages to go) this year.

I think both of you are supremely missing hte crux of why these two (general) camps cannot see eye to eye: they see things from different perspectives and 'broadness' is basically the only relevant determinate.
Whenever i've pinned down a (at least self-identified) conservative on some particular issue, it turns out mostly they have coherent but, for me, erroneous values. If you truly believe a bare zygote (as such) is a human being worthy of all moral rights a post-birth baby is, that explains that belief without any recourse to some kind of knuckle-dragging 'retrenchment' concept coming into it. This applies to most issues - homelessness, civil rights, etc... as they affect the person and their closest relatives and friends only (in general). Their approach to the moral boundaries of sex is a perfect example of this.
However, there are two areas where I think these sorts of comments (the post posts above(three i guess)) are totally apt: LGBT stuff - I think, in reality, what's happened is what old mate says in book quoted by frank. But what the 'right' see, is something other than what's actually happened and they seem to be willfully pushing a narrative that supports that erroneous basis. The other is drugs. That one is fraught, given that staunch anti-drug sentiments also exist even in harder-left-leaning minds. But it seems obvious that they still want the same thing liberals want with regard to drugs - reduced harm.

Whenever I have pinned down a (at least, self-identified) "leftist" the only thing I can discern from their arguments beyond "yep, that sounds reasonable" is that they truly don't care about the 'facts' or counterintuitive thinking. They want the broadest possible benefit for the the widest number of people - excluding those who do not believe what they do - and often at the expense of their closest family and friends (in general). Luigi Mangioni and the absolutely morally bankrupt response from most leftists exemplify this.
But Race is an area where I cannot get anything reasonable out of a leftist. It's probably hte one issue I think "the right" sort of approaches from the right place but hten just gets caught up in social media-type vying for likes. A shame, really. Conversations should start from "what do you want to achieve" and taken at face value. Inconsistencies would actually help change someone's views if they know, that you know, that they want the same things. No one is immune to 'missing something'.

So, you can see that this is just a vicious cycle of poo-pooing each other's value set. It will, and could, not get anywhere.

Totally wild - not unexpected

Want to be very clear, that 'trans' isn't relevant to why I think this is wild. But it is somewhat relevant to why I think its unexpected, inb4 'BIGOT'. This IS wild. However you look at it.

It's good to see process being talked about. When I read P&R I reached out here for some thoughts/discussion and nothing came of it. Appreciate these threads.

You could all just stay here, and let that thread do what it's meant to do -= allow for all discussion around climate change. Echo chambers aren't helpful, and are essentially anti-philosophical in terms of enquiry. Having an extremely intense emotional reaction to someone's input is not a problem of the thread title LMAO. Even when you're 'correct' as to why.

For me, the straight answer to this is that, with more restriction and more direction, this is what's happening in waking life anyway. There are those who would reject this on the basis of the difference between perceiving 'actual things' and perceiving say 'ideas' or 'memories'. I don't see as much of one there.
Perhaps the question of how this occurs, in either case, is the real question - and one that seems, hitherto, unable to even be approached reasonably by intellect.

This is potentially hte most ironic post I've seen in months. Nice.

Sounds like the first line was all that was needed to me

Those fellas certainly do LOL.

Still very relevant. Not particularly well read - and he has the awkward problem of most people reading him being dumb late-high-school, early-University edgelords who think his philosophy will deliver them from their internal shortcomings.

I think he was just.. a bit silly.

On it's plain wording, it seems impossible to say 'no'.

I ignored most of your post because it was little more than whining. — Darkneos

Well that's where this ends. I suppose its good you've made clear your attitude early in your career here.

There are parts of this response that are going to come off combative - I would implore you to not assess every line as an attack. You have clearly misread much of comment, and are attempting things that are not open on the level of Socratic dialogue.
I have not given my own positions, other than trying to help you navigate the conversation. In terms of Whitehead/process philosophy I have been purposefully vague and indeterminate on how I think his philosophy plays out (save for one thing which I will note where it is relevant (nearer the end)). So please do you best to come into this, not as some hard-ass dismissing every attempt to convince you - that is not what is happening. Obviously, no one will convince you. I am trying to do what you asked, which has nothing to do with that.

It’s sorta hard to regard this well because Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKenna's stuff and it’s effectively nonsense. — Darkneos

I apologise, but you need to carefully re-read what has been written. You are not responding to things I've actually said here. Every aspect of this response misunderstands the plain language of my comment. Please re-read and, if you want, have another go. Hint: I am in your firing line, not Gnomon).

I also note that these are assertions of your emotional responses to things, and not arguments. Poisoning the well, if you will. However, in kind, the bolded is a pretty dire red-flag to me. To turn your words:
"just because something is dense and hard to understand doesn’t make it good bad (either)".

That said, we can disagree. No worries. I would just suggest something like "I've read McKenna's stuff" wont be taken too seriously with such a flippant and empty(not pejorative!) take on it. Not that you're a dick or anything, but that's nothing to chew on other than to think "Oh, this guy is predisposed to reject McKenna's thinking". Which is fine, but unhelpful - but that was a throwaway/aside remark on which absolutely nothing in the comment turns.

This is more about you not about me. Like I said I’m trying to understand this but so far people are really bad at explaining it, and I’ve asked everywhere. — Darkneos

I think you are doing what I've just said you're doing. You are not hearing that people have done what you've asked (like myself below, but your responses show you are not seeing this). You are dissatisfied. That's fine. Ironically, that is something about yourself. Not those commenters (though, your claim isn't precluded. I just don't see the evidence for it).

Not exactly. — Darkneos

This response is a side-step into territory I did not agree to. I have given you an account, as asked(inferentially and explicitly). I have not claimed it is 'good', 'successful' or even interesting Philosophy in that passage. I have given you the account you asked for. Your response goes into analysis based on reference to other people's work and an apparent assumption about my position on Whitehead's work. Does not seem an apt response to that account. If you could perhaps explain how "Not exactly" applies to my account of his philosophy (particularly given you claim to not understand it, but are telling others how it works), that would be helpful. Paradox rears its head.

Like I said I’m trying to understand this — Darkneos

This simply does not come through in your responses, like the one above. Please take note of that, and reflect on it. If you're not accurately conveying your thoughts, that's just as much a criticism that needs your attention as would be that said "you're wrong". I don't care about hte latter - but the former appears to be the consensus. Perhaps just take a moment with it..

Not really. — Darkneos

This passage is, again, a response to things I have not said. That is what his theory applies to, and wants to talk about. Your agreement or disagreement is not relevant to an account of it.

t might appear as such but that doesn’t make it so — Darkneos

Your consistent assertions to the opposite, without much to follow on, do not negate that account either. Interestingly, I'm not talking about that. That is simply an account. I do not know how many more times this will need to be pointed out... But I would really appreciate if you could refrain from commenting on a bare account as if it is some analysis. It gets us no where but thinking you are not accurately reading these comments.

Well the thing is that it’s not scientifically obvious. — Darkneos

If you can point me to any object which is unchanging, interminable and non-becoming (as it were) id be happy to hear it. But that would be an anomaly. It is scientifically obvious that all things are always in flux. That's what I've noted, and there's no serious way to disagree with this. Whitehead's account of that fact is what (may or may not.... I think almost certainly) fails to do us any good, scientifically.

Change and creative process aren’t fundamental because you need source material before any of that. — Darkneos

Argue with Whitehead about that. I didn't claim that was true.

It seems like his philosophy incoherent when it comes to some aspects and breaks down in others. — Darkneos

That may be hte case. I tend to agree. Its helpful to understand experience (well, to those disposed to get much from it anyway) - not 'the world'. I agree its rather impenetrably, and where it is, there are inconsistencies. (see, this is my giving you a position on the philosophy).

Is there any way to avoid writing on something too similar to someone else given the anonymity? Or do we not care?

Haven't read the whole thread - skimmed, and sought your most recent takes before replying.

You are alternately taking Whitehead too seriously, and not seriously enough. Gnomon has done a fairly good job, but its pricklier than I would have responded having not gone through the thread.
I think, but could be wrong, the most recent and most visible person who pushed Whitehead's process philosophy was Terence McKenna. I probably shouldn't need to say more - while I think McKenna is a much, much better thinker and writer than probably 80% of this forum, there is no chance he is giving us anything with which we could further understand, or build on the philosophy rather than the metaphor/poetry in Whitehead's work. And that's roughly where this form of philosophy has been left.

Process & Reality is an extremely hard book to get through but it's pretty much sui generis. No need to implicate it in all these other fields and ways. If it doesn't teach you anything, that's fine. It can do for those who are trying to get something from it (I would ascribe this to most Continental philosophy too, but that's a digression).

Unfortunately, the response above this one, posted while I was writing, doesn't give me hope that you will take on board the criticisms many have leveled. That's unfortunate. I came in that hot too and assumed that not hearing what I wanted amounted to being talked past. That is a difficult hurdle to jump. This forum is largely populated (the very consistent posters anyway) with ideological people who spend more time in the politics/news type threads than elsewhere. I wouldn't think this the best place to learn how to do philosophy, or even read discussion clearly. I only joined when i started my degree, and the two have come apart in a rather extreme way.

To finish, my take on process philosophy:

It is not a 'system' the most philosophies are. It is a descriptive philosophy trying to make sense of what Whitehead sees to be 'facts' about how Humans 'become' across time (whcih is, strictly, a fact - we are never stagnant, in any sense of the word, as beings). Every individual change can be (intellectually/metaphorically) compartmentalized, incorporated and subsumed by the 'being' at any given moment. It is a necessarily vague philosophy and describes a process which is patently occurring. It take it to be attempting a poetic reading of a scientific speculation (that there are 'units' making up the 'being' which come into existences independently. The point is that 'things' are actually 'events' in constant flux of 'occurring' or 'becoming' and not 'objects' to be observed or taken as-is. In this way, change or creative process per se, is a fundamental aspect of reality/existence. He then implicates God in this process as the director, in some sense, but still part of it. So, in some sense this is scientifically obvious, but his theory extends to it being the final analysis which doesn't seem possible.

Of course there is. — Benkei

No there isn't. They are express policies of racism, sexism and bigotry. On their face, and on analysis.

It's been funny seeing people argue doing nothing resolves problems — Benkei

That's a wild leap to make. Not one which applies to me, at any rate. I have no idea what the rest of that comment is getting at/supposed to say/what the point it. Sounds like you just don't like people disagreeing with you, and so say things to convince yourself of a moral high ground.

You are correct - except when those policies are in force to remedy existing prejudicial practices. And in the US, racial prejudice dies hard, thus equality policies will have even a prophylactic function. — tim wood

You cannot solve a problem by doing the same thing which caused it (unless you're suggesting there are extant conflicting policies - some of which arbitrarily protect or raise certain groups, and some of which remedy that obvious injustice - but obviously, that's batshit to claim). And the proof is already in the pudding on this one, anyhow. It's not really an 'opinion' issue anymore.

This phenomena isn't unique to the far-right. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Its not unique at all.

I said I disagreed about the Bishop. Not quite sure why you're asking about Trump's post?
oh for fucks sake there's absolutely nothign defensible about sex and race based hiring or policy practices.

Ari's "golden mean" is something of a fallacy when taken out of context -- the middle between extremes isn't going to be true or false just cuz it's in the middle. — Moliere

No, of course. BUt Ari's mean is to do with extremes of behaviour, for the most part. Not the truth or falsity of something. The whole "your story, my story, and then the truth" is clearly bogus for your reasons though!