... and this:

My definition of a closed mind, Mayor of Simpleton, is a mind that has made its mind up and then closes that mind to anything that may challenge the closed mind.
Consciously or unconsciously that mind may appear to open but fundamentally it has closed. — david plumb

Indeed... and that sort of 'thinking' is not the realm of scientific method, but is the cornerstone of religious belief.

For most scientific studies published in journals it requires a link (or a subscription). Not everyone can access these links (or subscriptions)... the funny thing is this has less to do with economics, but actual accreditation.

In short, many of these journals realize that if people who do not understand the particular science involved this information (if misunderstood and misapplied) could prove to be dangerous; thus is it not open access.

A former member of the old Philosophy Forums, an actual physicist in dealing with the philosophy of science section of the Forums one wrote to someone who was obviously unqualified, misinformed and quite misguided wrote them the following:

"You are taking your sense of wonder, combining it with your inability to conceive of certain things, and demanding from everyone else that they remain as ignorant. That's not good."
― Kwalish Kid

It's not really an elitist stand point, but one that simply acknowledges that some folks who have indeed studied the fields of science will have notions and opinions that out weigh the notions and opinions of those without such acquired knowledge. Basically all opinions are not equal.

A funny side note is the illegible handwriting of doctors for prescription medicines is intentional. The 'scribble' was actually a 'code', as the pharmacy could read it, but the patient often couldn't... it kept the notion of prescribing medication in the hand of those who have knowledge.

7) To illustrate the above, imagine a car racing down the highway at ever accelerating speeds, while the driver's skill increases maybe a little bit now and then.

8) If the above is true, what is the logical outcome?

9) If the logical outcome is eventual chaos, what would be the point of developing more new knowledge, given that it would likely be swept away in that chaos? — Hippyhead

If the outcome is 'chaos' (assuming we don't have chaos prior to the 'addition of chaos') why blame the car?

This kind of reads like 'why not ban hammers as they can be used to hurt people rather than build'?

I'm not sure if this is the point, but I have the notions it sounds like 'dumb it down for the sake of convenient controlled order'.

Science isn't the 'death trap', but rather humans are their own 'death traps'.

Science has a lot to answer for, Mayor of Simpleton. Even science realises its limitations when it constantly updates and changes its beliefs. — david plumb

Exactly... and science does this on a regular basis.

That's what is completely missing in religious belief.

Science (which is a process... it's not a belief system in an of itself) knows it doesn't know everything, as if it did know everything it would stop.

Religious lays claim to a certainty it cannot back with anything other that saying 'because it's so' and has essentially stopped investigations, as this self-assumed certainty grants them no more cause to investigate further. All you need is faith, so facts matter little and in the end religion has little to answer for.

More or less science starts with what can be observed, tests it and refines it's conclusions provided a conclusion can be drawn form the process. There is no principle in science that state the scientist need be satisfied with the results.

Religions starts with drawing the conclusion then creates 'tests' that conform to the conclusion using only that which is observed that fits the conclusion subsequently tossing out anything else observed that might come into conflict pre-assumed conclusion. In religion the believer will in the end be satisfied with the results of the loaded dice they toss about.

So which is really closed minded?

The one who knows they don't know everything or the one who decrees in all certainty a conclusion of which they have no evidence or support other than saying 'because it's so'?

I'll try and reframe the issue at stake in a way that, to me, highlights the features that interest me. — TheMadFool

That is somewhat helpful, but isn't it running the risk of cherry picking the premises and hinting toward pleading a special case (as you probably know chess is one thing, but the totality of what sort of mental gymnastics is likely much much more as in all things... so I'll leave that example out).

As to the points you highlight regarding physical age... aren't they case in 'some of the cases' and not all of the cases, just as they are also in those under 30 'some of the cases'?

So, 'some' of the folks over 30 have 'some' of the qualities you highlight, so 'all' folks over 30 are what exactly?

As to mental age... I'm not too sure there is a consensus on a standard of measure for such a all encompassing determination.

On a side note: Personally I only know 4 top level chess players... the oldest is 74 and the youngest is 23. Indeed this isn't a large sample size, but one thing they have in common is that none of them have very mature social skills.

Minds opened or closed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=RFO6ZhUW38w

If anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single psychic
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they are able to read minds

And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single astrologer
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they can predict future human events
By interpreting celestial signs

And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single homeopathic practitioner
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff
Dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water
Has a consistently higher medicinal value
Than a similarly-administered placebo

And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single spiritual or religious person
Who has been able to prove
Either logically or empirically
The existence of a higher power
That has any consciousness or interest in the human race
Or ability to punish or reward humans for their moral choices
Or that there is any reason other than fear
To believe in any version
Of an afterlife
I will give you my piano
One of my legs
And my wife

This brings up the broader question of what constitutes reality? — Aristotle21

Is the answer supposed to be something easy to understand, perhaps a list of a few factors or a single factor?

What if this is an answer that continues to present itself in a new manner as one simply receives more and more information over time; thus refining this answer never allowing it to be a fixed point?

What if the answer ends up as 'everything'?

I'm not completely sold with the notion of the human mind 'delights' in finding patterns. It would seem that pattern seeking is a key to survival and 'delights' seems a bit too much like the humans are out on a lark having fun just for kicks.

What are things?

Aren't things in the end simply a collections of matter that we recognize in some sort of consistent manner and thus grant them a value and a name?

It's quite useful to recognize if something is food and not toxic as to continue living rather than dying, so I'm not sold of the 'delights' aspect.

Anyway... the Gould quote reminded me of this, for what it's worth:

We constantly create false positives, we touch wood for luck, see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition we desperately want to feel there’s an organizing force at work in our bewilderingly complex world. And in the irrational mind set if you believe in the mystical pattern you’ve imposed on reality, you call yourself spiritual.
― Richard Dawkins

Wouldn't the answer depend a bit upon which thoughts one has in mind and when one asks the question?

This was easier (and perhaps 'nicer') to portray it in this manner than attempting to post a can of farts to represent a series of unrelated premises being argued ad nauseam concluding with a 'the absolute real and only truth of all truths'.

I sort of look at philosophy more as a Rubik's cube that fights back, as if one was able to have within the cube both the Rock and Zeus combined when attempting to ascend a never ending mountain while being accompanied by a bitchy toddler asking every 30 seconds "are we there yet?".

So in a sense... hell isn't other people or yourself... it's everything and nothing at all.

FYI... MSC has been banned, so don't expect a reply anytime soon.

I cannot begin to say how much I love this band and wish they still made music...

This basically explains all of my interactions in social networks...



Tending my fruit, tending my fruit
Ah, you've got to have a hobby
A man must have a shed to keep him sane

Spraying my buds, spraying my buds
Got to keep away diseases
I mix the poisons and the wife don't complain

Some people say that I am out of my tree
Or just a strawberry fool
Someday they'll see, 'til then I'll blow you a raspberry
'Cause apples and pears are me

So I'm tending my fruit and I don't give a hoot
'Cause it keeps me sane, it keeps me sane

Some people say that I am out of my tree
Or just a strawberry fool
Someday they'll see, 'til then I'll blow you a raspberry
'Cos apples and pears are me

So I'm tending my fruit, tending my fruit
Ah, you've got to have a hobby
A man must have a shed to keep him sane
To keep him sane, to keep him sane, to keep him sane
Oh, the wife can't complain

To keep him sane, to keep him sane
Yeah, keeps him sane, yeah, to keep him sane
To keep him sane, yeah, it keeps him sane
To keep him sane

I totally understand.

My wife looks at what I'm doing here in PF and her reactions are usually as follows.

"Why are you bothering replying to this obvious idiot? It's only gonna irritate you more."
"I know you think that sounds great, but I sort think... well... 'duh' isn't it just bleeding obvious?"
"Seriously... you had to explain that?"
"Are you finally done answering questions no one cared to ask?"

Then again she's happy I do this insanity mostly outside of her circle of friends.

I think my big issue in dealing with conversations in the real world are the constant appeals to emotions. This really gets to be so damned annoying... ironically to the point I'll get emotional about them making such an appeal. That never goes well. ;)

Anyway... in this little world of rants and ravings online, if someone is making a post that's the philosophical equivalent to a 'dutch oven' I have the choice to simply avoid the post, as well as the poster of the brain fart in a jar. In the real world you kind of have to nod your head and keep up a pretense. I suck at that skill.

One thing that the internet has brought amongst us is loneliness. I think this is why most people want to be writers, we want to write in order to be heard. We want to find an audience, someone to listen to us, someone to relate to us. — Konkai

I find this to be a bit odd.

If I want to be lonely all I need to do is attend an event that my sister hosts or attends. These are usually events with a large number of people with whom I have absolutely no affinity whatsoever.

On the other hand I can look for groups or entertainment options on the internet. I can find things that are by and large 'a niche' and pursue these interests much further than I can in my everyday experiences.

Personal examples are...

- I follow Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese baseball. In fact, I ended up being on Twitter... not to Tweet, but to stream baseball games from Taiwan for free. In Facebook I'm in a few groups that chat about the ups and downs of this game and specifically to the games in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. I'm actually in contact with a couple of professional players via the internet.

I live in a land (Austria) were very few are aware of baseball and if they follow any of it this will be limited to US MLB. Here the sports of focus are Fussball, Formula 1, Skiing and Tennis. Where skiing is occasionally interesting, the other 3 are a complete and utter bore for me. When group coversation center around these topics I feel totally isolated and indeed lonely.

- My music interests are not mainstream. I find many options for these interests and the ability to expand these interests.

The general music taste here just isn't my thing. As I'm over 50 and the folks I know tend to be age appropriate, they seem to be locked into a very specific genre from the past. Quite a bit of the genre is a mainstream that didn't appeal back in the day and it does so even less now.

- I 'enjoy' reading philosophical(ish) dialog, but don't really care for books (being dyslexic). I can easily find communities that are intriguing and even from time to time I'll venture a reply. In addition to this, I've had contact with leading figures in philosophy and science... regarding their work as well as fun topics. I just recently discussed kittens with a leading Astrophysicist. That was hysterical. ;)

Most conversations I have in real life simply have little or no depth and are rarely of my interest. (I find few things in life more boring that having to talk endlessly about how people earn a wage.) It's not that the topics or the people involved are shallow, but rather most folks become long bored with a topic at the point for me where it begins to have signs of developing into an interesting topic.

Additionally if I do speak in public about what's up with me or my interests I can see the boredom on the faces of others, who simply asked me something to be 'polite', but in truth have no interest in my topics or really my well being.

- Another major problem of engaging with folks is that many Austrians smoke (a lot!) and in social setting beer is king. I hate smoke. It makes me feel ill for days after the breathing it. When in such a setting it is unavoidable and even in 'non-smoking areas' (where you still smell the smoke) these folks have to excuse themselves every 30 minutes or so and disappear outside to smoke for 10 to 15 minutes. Subsequently they end up forming into a private clique making interaction very difficult. If you don't drink beer with them... well... they treat you like air. One might as well be invisible (or simply not present at all), so no matter if humans are in the room with you, if you don't drink this rusty piss water you do not exist.

When engaging with people over the internet I have never once had to breath in or drink something I don't care to in the course of a dialog.

This list of examples could go on and on, but in my limited experience the internet has been wonderful. I have been afforded the opportunity to connect with people, even if I never see them in my lifetime, in quality relationships that have a depth of meaning far greater than most in person contacts have ever proven to become. I have had the opportunity to meet some of these people when visiting my area and I have to say the meetings have always exceeded my expectations.

The point is, I find with the internet an unlimited supply of intriguing topics and people which whom I can engage in a very meaningful manner. In my everyday life, the number of topics and people are quite limited. If my interests simply don't sync up with those limitation it matters little how many folks surround me in a close proximity I find myself very alone.

It's in the way that you use it... the internet can expand options and present new and engaging things to that one is really never lonely or it can simply highlight that one is lonely, but the cause is not the internet. The cause is yourself.

Now I suppose if one looks at the lives presented on social media and makes the assumption that the lives and times of those posted are indeed the 24/7 lifestyle of these folks, well... that sort of comparison could make anyone feel insignificant and alone. People tend to post the highlights, but life isn't for the most part made of highlights. Perhaps the entire Facebooks, Instgrams, Snap Chats and What'sApps should come with this disclaimer...

These are simply the highlights and not the norm, as:

“Kings and philosophers shit—and so do ladies.”

― Michel de Montaigne

Perhaps the king of rants might shed a bit of light upon what I'm trying to write about in an very roundabout manner:

The current Hollywood super hero films - are they simply a continuation of the Gods theme that has been around for thousands of years? — david plumb

If so, then these current movie gods resemble the Greek, Roman and Norse gods.

At 2:38... probably one of the best laughs I've heard.

SMOOTH... best with the company of la fée verte (in spite of it coming from the Austrian Alps), but keep both ears for the stereo sound. ;)

That's great!

It seems familiar, but I can't remember the band or the track. Reminds me of a bit of Siouxsie Sioux with Soft Cell mixed in, so I guess that's why it seems somehow familiar.

Brilliant cold wave at it's best. This is going to be a new research topic for me. :100: :up:

Yes, but limiting it to an introduction to logic, focus on the first 9 rules of inference, an introduction to common fallacies and possibly branch into common cognitive biases.

I would not introduce any ideologies until they are 16 or (probably) older.

OH... and I have a copy of this one too, but I bought it in Paris in 1979. My first trip to Europe with the High School Art Club.

... then 18 years later, for those who just like songs without lyrics.

Something a bit more recent, but still from the land of beer, pommes frites and chocolate:

If only for this few lines:

"I seem to have a history
At missing the point
At this stuff
Apparently...

Very absentmindedly
I care
But never enough
For you

Time to put the record straight
Time to stop communicating
Please anticipate

I'm trying to comprehend the things I write
And I'm living the lie that I cannot satisfy
Much against everyone's advice
I'm still trying, trying
I'm trying, I'm trying

Faith
Cheated me of everything
But I laughed until
I stopped

Publicly
Very, very openly
I sat alone with my thoughts for... "

Indeed the LP.

One of the few windows to the world where I grew up was a record store that had kind of a 'High Fidelity' vibe that was 40 kilometres away from where I lived. The owner and the guys who worked there had a pipeline to imports. The selection was quite extensive. Most of the people for that niche came from the more urban areas, as they could provide a lower price than in the cities. I was this weird 13 year old who was at the shopping area about twice a month with my family.

As shopping wasn't my thing I simply hung out at that shop for as much as 5 hours. After awhile they simply allowed me to listen to whatever I wanted, which for me was usually anything from far away... mostly Europe and Asia. My first ever purchase there was The Ramones: The Ramones, The B-52's: The B-52's, Devo: Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo!, YMO: Solid State Survives, and XTC: Drums and Wires... it cost me all the money I'd save for the past year. Not too bad for a first time purchase. I still have all of them. (early on my sister would break a record of mine from time to time, so by 15 I discovered quality headphones and that she was an idiot in spite of her becoming school Valedictorian and testing with a 1600 on the SATs, then a perfect score)

I was accepted as one of them and was given a bit of special attention. I was a cyclist and would even ride my bike to the shop 50km there shop an hour and 50km back home as long as it didn't rain.

Dure Limite was an album I bought just before I graduated from High School in 83. It took awhile for it to arrive to the shop, but I bought it on the first day possible... I could drive then.

By the time the closed for good in 1984 I had a collection of just over 300 imports and rare pressings, mostly blind purchases or after listening to a single song. Needless to say I wasn't popular for my musical taste where I grew up, which might go to explain why I left over a quarter of a century ago and have never missed it whatsoever. (Although I college I did a student radio show called 'songs you wished you never heard'... of which most came from my private collection.)

As you said:

Songs are us. — Olivier5

Pretty much all of my development came via a long list of imports and music of which I couldn't even understand the lyrics, but no matter. All in all not to bad for a redneck hick from what is now deep in the heart of Trumplandia.

Anyway... something nice from Finland, deep or not:



Up and down and all the way around
Until there's one thing left
And you'll get to the middle of it
So what do you want?
What do you want?

Another one last chance for you to run fast
Another one last chance
In the faraway corner
Of the world
World

We make all the difference
We are all that matters
Just like an apple around its core
But it will finally happen
We'll get old
And wonder if it should feel like we were reborn

So up and down and all the way around
Until there's one thing left
And you'll get to the middle of it
So what do you want?
What do you want?

Had I fought in a war without you, I'm sure
I would be dust and bones
In a faraway corner
Of the world
World

We made all the difference
We were all that mattered
Just like an apple around its core
Then it finally happened
We got old

So up and down and all the way around
Until there's one thing left
And you'll get to the middle of it
So what do you want?
What do you want?

Another one last chance for you to run fast
Another one last chance
In the faraway corner
Of the world
World

But then it finally happened
We got old
And wondered if it should feel like we were reborn

Up and down and all the way around
It's always up and down and all the way around
Another up and down and all the way around
Another one last chance, another way around
It's always up and down and all the way around
Until there's one thing left and you'll get to the middle of it
So what do you want?
What do you want?

Believe it or not this 'North American redneck' has an American Import copy of 'Dure Limite'.

I just saw Kraftwerk last year. Excellent concert!

That's just super!

I love this sort of thing, but I fear it really isn't exactly 'deep', but I don't mind.

I'm nearly inspired to post something from Iceland, as I picked up my old import album collection and have a great 'one off' in it.

Tappi Tíkarrass - Bítið Fast Í Vítið. I bought it in a 99 cent sale rack in the USA back in 1984. It's nearly mint... now an auction value of $1500, but I'll never sell it.

I feel what's deep here is this gave us Björk.

You just made my day! (and my wife will probably want to kill you)

For me Belgium is a hot bed for music I love that I feel no one I know has ever heard of, but hey... I've heard of them. ;)

Thanks again!

I posted a Mashup with Led Zeppelin in the other music thread (to anger the purists probably), but I do have one more that I find to be brilliant...

... as the risk of this becoming the next Rick Rolling:

Clearly one of the best things and clearly one of the worst things I've ever heard in my entire life...

... how to be brilliant and stupid that the same time, but I simply love this song:

My version had the same conviction, but the comic element of simply the wrong accent through and through... like this version:

I apologize for this, but I love this song so much in spite of still no knowing what is being said:

BRILLIANT!!!

Oh, how I wish I was a polyglot, but I do have moxie.

True Story:

This doesn't belong in this section, but once in a Karaoke bar in Paris, (yes I found one!) after singing a few songs in English, receiving mixed reviews (so to say), I was asked if I could sing something in French.

As I knew next to no French outside of a few terms about food resulting from me having been a waiter and movement due to me taking a couple of Ballet classes, both decades earlier, I said:

"well... I know sort of one song, but how do I say it 'pardon my French, but this works for me".

Then I sang the following (possibly an unofficial French/Belgian National Anthem) phonetically having no idea what the words meant other than the title (translated to: this works for me) with lots of non-sarcastic applause and ending with me never having to pay for a drink in that bar again. It's not because they kicked me out, as two years later I came back and was requested by the owner himself to do it again.

You ask too much to my prediction skills. Santiago Niño-Becerra, a Spanish economist who appears a lot in the media, sets the climax in 2065. I find that suspiciously accurate. The end of capitalism seems to be a true trend, but trends change unexpectedly in history. — David Mo

I'll check into this, as I have always been a bit intrigued by futurology. Be it Asimov, Huxley, McLuhan, Roddenberry, Orwell, Philip K Dick, Tesla, Sagan even Ralph Nelson Elliott, it has always intrigued me, even if it hasn't convinced me. Santiago Niño-Becerra is one I have heard of, but so far I haven't found any translations. Considering his prediction lands in the year I'd be 100, certainly considered to be an old man by then, I'm curious as to the outlook.

Thank for the tip.

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past". I subscribe to this idea. But I believe that, from what I have seen, the conditions are much stricter than an anarchist soul would like. The problem is to specify them. History is not an exact science. And I am not even a historian. — David Mo

I quite agree with you here, as I have always thought the 'anarchist soul' views life in circles so small it believes it has seen it all. In the end the 'anarchist soul' has a wonderful plan, regardless of context, granting the exact same measure of unlimited freedom that conforms with the limitations of the anarchists priorities, thus the end of the special case they plead is granting the to masses unlimited freedom to absolutely agree.

History is unfortunately something that is constantly 'reinvented'. Not in terms of people going back an erasing things or making up events that weren't there before, but I believe our 'temporal directionality' plays a role in this 'reinvention'. (here is just a brain fart, so I apologize in advance)

We move 'forward' into the future, so the 'present' in which we live always collects new information; thus when these variables are added into the mix of understanding history the interpretation of understanding takes on new meanings... the 'past' becomes something new and different again and again. Not all variables of information have an impact upon the understanding of history we have at a particular moment, as some thing simply do not resonate with our understanding or catch our attention.

Basically as the foundation upon which we currently stand changes, such changes can indeed effect/affect how we understand the past. (I suppose WOKE would be a horrible example of this phenomena)

If the fabric of history has it's perceived understanding changed not only by what we discover as empirical evidence in the past, but also due to the current foundations (filters if interpretation) in the present, it's kind of like trying to solve a Rubik's cube that fights back. This makes a scientific approach to the past very difficult, as the premises are in a state of flux. Eventually this flux makes the premises seem to be only a matter of opinion; thus history cannot be a exact science.

This might explain the ability to have a great tendency toward a consensus of opinion in the sciences and less of a consensus in the 'humanities'.

Somehow I believe that understanding the difference between 'maps and the terrain' could apply. I've never once experienced that a tornado smears the ink on a map, but it does cause great havoc in the terrain. The adjustments necessary for such a detailed mapping would mean we need the ability to specifically predict the problems of tornadoes (and their unpredictable influences upon the terrain), as the conditions are far more complex than the cartographers can take into consideration.

A sick person is only worth when he produces profits for the health industry. In the medieval cities there were mortuaries ("atriums") where the terminally ill were deposited and left to die. (This is not mentioned in Wikipedia ). Old people homes have become "atriums" to eternity now. Arguing with people who deny that "uneconomic" measures are the solution to the coronavirus pandemic, I have heard more than once: "But they don't die from the coronavirus, but because they were sick". In other words, a double reason to let them die: they were old and they were sick. — David Mo

It makes me wonder if the only change that has occurred in recent times is that the pretense of concern for the sick and elderly has been dropped?

Indeed there are cases in which this concern is genuine, but giving the current perception of economics (especially in the USA) such a pretense is a just an obvious hypocrisy.

Europe and Asia are heading into this direction as well, but due to the social economic (what of that remains) it delays this sort of 'you are worth what you produce' perception.

But don't doubt that if a laboratory discovers a vaccine it will sell it to us at three times its real price. Then the coronavirus patients will be valuable. — David Mo

I can check this, as I have quite a few contacts within the field of Pharmaceutical science.

Their insight regarding the perception of Pharmaceutical companies regarding the use of Hemp have been enlightening. (They know this is going to be a huge cash cow, due to the 'Cult of Hemp' viewing it as the ultimate Panacea. All of the Pharmaceutical companies have advanced (un)official trials in motions due to the pending demand. Indeed it might help in a few circumstances, but in truth they would buy this stuff at a high price even if it is not very effective. Doctors will be under pressure from the 'believers' to prescribe Hemp based medicines whether they are the best option or not.)

Business sells us dreams: nostalgia, triumph (sexual and economic), security, feeling of power... And it actively associates them with brands. Now, football teams, T-shirts, food are not football teams, T-shirts or food, they are BRANDS. And there are a lot of fans who are able to spend their money and energy to buy an all-terrain vehicle, a mobile phone or trainers that they don't need. And if you tell him that he is making a fool of himself, he will hate you for the rest of his life, because he doesn't buy things anymore, but BRANDS. Heard over the loudspeaker of a supermarket: "If you like brands, we have..." Read in Murakami's novels: all the characters can be identified by the brands of clothes they wear, the car they drive...
We are at the beginning of the end of capitalism and the dawn of the corporate system. Which will be worse. I am afraid. — David Mo

I fully agree.

I've had issue with younger folks pointing our that if everyone is wearing 'exclusive brands', there is nothing exclusive about it anymore.

Then again, back in my day (an actual catalysis for me to pursue philosophy), there were a group of young girls all dressed up like their idol Madonna. When asked why they all dress this way, in the midst of a lot of giggles, snarks and 'it's likes... the concluding statement was "we all dress the same to express our individuality'.

This is nothing new, but it did catch my eye at the age of 16.

I had no answers, but was only aware of the phenomena and had questions. Nearly 40 years later I'm at the same place with the only different being the fashions have changed, I have more information and collected data, but basically I have the same unanswered questions and in truth... I wonder why I should bother being concerned.

In any event I have a feeling this uncomfortable comfort of conformity to the unnecessary might be why Murakami never wins a Nobel Prize. (My wife is a huge fan of his work, so I get her take on them as well as listening to the audio books.)

I think we should look more at the dominant trends that have nothing "left" about them. They are essentially conformists. And I say this with regret because we need a more consistent rebellion. — David Mo

Agreed!

No only a consistent rebellion, but a coherent one as well.

Every time I see such a protest (a herd) all I can do is hear this song in my head:

"Come on aboard, I promise you you won't hurt the horse
We treat him well, we feed him well
There's lots of room for you on the bandwagon
The road may be rough, the weather may forget us

But won't we all parade around and sing our songs
A magic kingdom, open-armed
Greet us hello, bravo, name in lights
Passing on the word to fellow passengers and players, passing in
Until you're tired looking at all the flags
And all the banners waving
This is some parade, yesiree Bob
Could we have known?
Yesiree Bob, could we have known?
Look at all the flags and all the banners waving
Open up our arms, a magic kingdom, open-armed and greet us all"



I also wonder how much money the guy who made the official 'Occupy Wall Street' t-shirt made?

It seems to me that Sinclair Lewis was a better social critic than a novelist, but that also has its merit. (I found the dissection of deep America in Main Street very impressive). I haven't read Babbit, but it will have to be done, I suppose. — David Mo

A part of me doubts you need to read it. From what I can glean from your posts you're probably aren't really the target audience.

As you an tell I'm not really a 'good writer'. Not that this matters, but it does paint a context I'm dyslexic. The condition results in (now) occasional 'word salads' resulting in reading becoming a difficult task. The condition wasn't diagnosed until I was 20. How on earth I graduated High School and made it into my 3rd years at a University is a beyond me.

I'm not that well read and unfortunately haven't developed good reading habits. (unlike my wife who usually has 4 books going at the same time... ironically in respect to my dyslexia, our apartment looks like a library)

Audio books and the internet have been my best supports. The internet phenomena of opening multiple windows and reading a bunch of things in short segments simultaneously seem to allow me more time and the ability to read a greater volume before my brain goes to mixing word salads. (I suppose that would qualify me to be an internet Troll?)

No matter... it's part of me and I'm used to it.

You strike me as someone who is well read and not only reads , but retains what is read with the ability to apply critical thinking. Thus my curiosity about your notions.

If I might ask you...

- Seeing that we are probably at the beginning of this capitalist expansion, where do you believe it is heading in the future (near or distance)?

- Do you view it as inevitable or is it something that is possible correctable (provided it actually needs correction)?

You don't need to tell me personal notions regarding the elderly or the sick. Oddly enough such personal details are not really the topic, but rather it seems we are involved in perceptions of 'group thinking', as well as the misconceptions that current innovations in public opinions are actually innovations, but rather cycles of older establish social perceptions re-dressing themselves in modern fashion.

Then again... that might be wrong as well, but if I'm wrong, well... I learn something new.

Keep the input coming and thanks for making the reflect. (in truth... I think that is the real intention behind philosophy... thanks!)

... I took advantage of it in my own projects without waiting someone to confirm it is a useful solution. — KerimF

I don't argue or debate because I didn't meet yet one mature person who thinks he may be wrong in whatever he believes is true and/or real... — KerimF

I have really nothing to add, but it makes for a great punch line in and of itself, even if nothing goes over your head.

Sorry if I didn't understand well your point. — KerimF

WOW!

If I have to explain it... well...

... that might explain it.

There are cases in which folks become so full of themselves that there really isn't room for much else.

Anyway... my initial comments were directed to Jack, but I will leave this for the fun of it.

Yes, God intentionally creates beings, also as humans (not just microbes and viruses) to play bad roles against me. — KerimF

The 'me' of metaphysics... no matter how much happens in the universe... it's all about 'me'.

It should be called 'ME'physics.

OH... the humility! ;)

So for now I just point to the Biblical notion of the unpardonable sin, asking if any others have ever been thrown into philosophical torture over this? — Jack Cummins

A long time back I had a short bout with this sort of torture.

It's difficult to believe but up until 33 years ago I was on my way to become a Christian Apologist.

Our University had debates over 'god issues' as a practice for philosophy majors to work on skills in debating. I sucked at debate for the most part (still suck at it), but was a sort of 'one trick pony' in defending god's existence.

In one of the open debates this was the issue at hand and on the counterpoint of my point were two Freshmen who we're worse at debate than I was, so I (knowing this was an exercise in debate) flipped the script and made an effort to help them with their criticism of my positions. Probably for the first time ever I had to pay attention to the counter position and actually debated myself out of my own belief. It was funny to watch as I used two different voices in the debate against myself... it added a comic element to the rather schizophrenia nature of the debate with myself.

Funny thing was my professors were concerned about me having a possible existential meltdown as a result. Truth is it was just like flipping a switch... no more... no less.

Considering my active debate with myself was over 90 minutes... YIKES!... I don't really want to give you a manuscript. Most of it was basic and rather boring.

Anyway...

I've kind of reach the point in terms of trying to understand the logic in this sort of metaphysics and don't bother trying to understand it anymore.

If I look at the story narrative itself...

A god intentionally creates beings to be imperfect, then subsequently blames and holds accountable the imperfectly created beings for the imperfections that same god intentionally placed into them?

How stupid is that?

If there's any 'unpardonable sin', it was made by the god itself.

There is no sin except stupidity. - Oscar Wilde

XTC began more in New Wave and a bit of 70's post-punk bridging into psychedelic pop and art rock ended with a symphony orchestra.

This band has probably, for better or worse, been a major player in the 'soundtrack of my life'.

Making Plans for Nigel (1979) probably was their first big breakthrough, but honestly they never really bother with a breakthrough.



Generals and Majors (1980) put them on the dance floor.



Senses Working Overtime (1982) brought more attention to their lyrics as being less pop and more 'philosophicalish'.



Dear God (1987) made them quite the controversy.



Mayor of Simpleton (1989) is basically my life in an nutshell to that point in time; thus my persona.



EDIT:

I grew up in a very small town in rural Virginia (population less than 100). Country music, family values, Evangelical Christianity, conservative politics and hardliner Patriotism were the norms of my life.

Much like this:



I lived for import records finding ways to get to the only record store some 40 kilometers away from my home. XTC, The Cure, The Jam, The Damned, Killing Joke, The Vapors, Tubeway Army and Gary Newman, as well as Devo, B-52's, The Ramones, Bad Brains, Oingo Boingo are bands that tainted my upbringing and allowed me to in some way overcome it.

hmm...

“A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.”

― Ludwig Wittgenstein

If jokes, why not pop music?

My poor understanding of philosophy came largely via pop music. My dyslexia made me not a reader, but instead a listener. Overcoming the dyslexia and learning another language was probably my only accomplishment worthy of noting.

I believe that Europe as well as the rest of the world needs to place a travel ban for the 'Typhoid Mary of Stupidity' immediately.