All hail Posty,mc postface.... fascist dictator of an evolved socio-philosophical republic!
Where do we sign up?
Do we bring our own doughnuts and espresso, or will these be provided?

Some countries who have actually tried it have had better, if not perfect, results. — Pattern-chaser

There are too many decrepits in America for it NOT to eventually evolve into a socialist state.

Freedom is wasted on Americans, like youth is wasted on the young.

M

Agreed Socialism is the best state. However the beauty that is America is that it preserves and attempts to foster the attributes of freedom before those of dependence.

If it is still around in 100 years, the best society will be 'American' or at least the perfect society will be dreamed up, or invented in America, but probably manufactured somewhere else, more cheaply.

M

There is also the social/individual balance, where the left give a little more emphasis to society while the right concentrate more on individual freedom. — Pattern-chaser

Yes indeed, however for every dollar invested into 'socialism' another dollar will be required to ameliorate the 'dependence-effect' caused by the preceding dollar.

Social welfare is essential but it creates wasters and dependents. Medical care is essential, but increased availability creates more need for it. (read Ivan Ilyich: Medical Nemesis)

Socialism is essential and is the best solution to social problems (compare Ireland or New Zealand's social function to that in the US), However I still believe in the 'American Dream'; the only problem with that dream is the fact that Henry David Thoreau was the only man in America who had a sound knowledge of what that dream actually is.

M

Pacifism can be as violent as aggression. All that is being debated here is the private meaning applied, or presumed to belong to particular nouns.

Save philosophy: Kill the noun.

M

It appears to me that the left right divide is an illusion. It is simply a line that separates those who think that wealth should be shared to a greater degree, from those who think it should be shared to a lesser degree.

The fascist and or the democrat seem to get it right when both insist that there is no need and or philosophical basis for its 'private or personal accumulation'.

Philosophy is the only wealth that counts, at least thats what all the wise men and women have told us, again and again and again and again......

People are stupid and materialism seems the most sensible way to accommodate them/us.

M

Well, I am a Piglet. So, maybe that helps. :blush: — Posty McPostface

Yes we will have to wait until you grow up into a fully fledged fascist pig (like myself).

Then, the bacon loving hounds will find you.

M

Well, if you eliminate the warmongering, the idolatry or cult of the leader, and all those nasty things that Nazism was associated with, you're left with a fairly liberal and likable ideology. Yes? — Posty McPostface

Only the teachers pet could get away with that one! If that were to come offa my keyboard the hounds would be yelping already!

M

There is nothing wrong with fascism, if it is done right!

What did Zizek say about the Nazi's; the problem with them, was not that they went too far, but rather that 'they did not go far enough'. I think what he meant was, that they did not go the philosophical distance that would have allowed them to 'hate the hatred'.

Of course he is being his usual inflammatory self here, but there are things that should be hated, and fascism is the perfect vehicle for directed hatred. For example unless the world becomes ecologically and environmentally fascist, very very soon. There is a good argument that asserts that we are all doomed as a consequence of the democratic and capitalist 'ownership' of the current environmental 'issue'.

Arguably democratic-capitalism, contains its own fascism. It has its own built in set of edicts... fashion, materialism, pointless accumulation of material superfluity, both parents, to be working, status anxiety... and so on and on.

If one considers how capitalism has perverted 'women's rights' and has them working AND being mothers, one can see how democracy is just as fascist as fascism. If one considers the genocide that is effected by consumption and materialism: obesity, drug use, diabetes, suicide etc,... democracy arguably and observably contains more 'fascism' and more genocide than the Nazi's could have dreamed of. It (democracy/capitalism) also contains the potential for the end of humanity through ongoing ecological collapse.

Bring on the evolution of a 'new' and better Fascism (perhaps thats what Trump represents)... Any philosophers out there willing to start a club and get the ball rolling?


M

Yes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the Conscious experience of Red is in the final stage of the Visual process. — SteveKlinko

What I find interesting here is not so much the reply in respect of the process 'seeing the colour red'

but rather the hyper-enthusiasm for the existing paradigm. I like the use of the word 'determined' to explain both the determination or fixed nature of the idea of a'neural' generation of consciousness, and the determined nature of aspects of our thinking.

I am not going to change the paradigm because the paradigm is 'determined' in both senses of the word determined. Those wedded to the paradigm are IMOP following their own determined nature... as my own objections to the paradigm are following their own determined and fixed nature.

Regardless of the paradigm, let us consider the weakness of the 'neural' argument, not so much in an effort to convince, but more in an effort to focus upon the 'determined' nature of the argument. In this sense my reply is both on AND somewhat off topic.

The colour red.

There is unquestionable evidence for the process of photons of light of a particular wavelength, leaving a material object and striking the human retina. The interaction between retina and light causes a nerve impulse to travel from the retina along neurons in the form of an action potential. This series of action potentials arrives at the 'color center' in the occipital lobe of the brain and more neurons are potentiated thus giving rise to a stimulus that consciousness constructs or informs is a certain 'redness'.

The example cited here as an explanation for consciousness brings nothing to the table and does not refer in any way to 'consciousness'. The above pathway refers to a stimulus and is the same material process that causes an amoeba to react to light... however it is carted out time and time again as the explanation of consciousness.

This would be strange if it was not entirely determined.

M

Vast scales the formula is perfect management or death.

There are no absolutes in nature, outside of nature ITSELF there are no perfections and as we humans exist within nature, imperfect management of all managed systems is the norm. Failure in the management of nuclear weapons, constantly occurs thankfully so far without vast consequence. The most recent failure in nuclear weapons management was the election of Donald Trump and his tweets/ conversations about the size of his nuclear 'button'. The election of a moron to a position of authority over the US nuclear arsenal, is an example of imperfect management.

Management systems within nature require such imperfections if they are to evolve with nature in her totality.

Your notion of death is equally problematic, death of the entire human species is not a definite outcome of nuclear war,. Human existence would not have been possible without the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Human 'knowledge' does not become more of a threat because it is expanding, that is an oxymoronic suggestion, if human knowledge were truly expanding, then by definition the threat to human existence (caused by human beings) would be decreasing rather than increasing.

The increasing threats posed to humanity, by humanity itself should be evidence enough to prove that knowledge is not currently expanding it is contracting. Knowledge is changing but it is not increasing or expanding; it is instead diminishing with our dependence upon technology. This dependence removes us from nature and makes us less knowledgeable of nature, and less aware of our effect upon the natural system(s) that sustains us. Our contracting knowledge in respect of nature, renders ecological collapse an inevitability.

Technology and capitalism shield mankind from knowledge of the ecological and humanitarian effect of the transaction and or the consumptive act. They accomplish this by destroying or engineering the contraction of knowledge through an encouraged and engineered dependence upon technology.

Capitalism is entirely dependent upon a possible 'knowledge expansion' of the few (the capitalist owners of technology), and the contraction of knowledge within the majority of humans that make up 'the market'. However once again the knowledge expansion of capitalist technocrats comes at their willingness to sacrifice philosophical knowledge (the knowledge of consequence for example)

If the human subject is to be wooed into the consumptive act, particularly if he/she is to be manipulated into buying product that is in unnecessary, he must be rendered LESS knowledgeable. Either he must become unable to make the product himself, or he must loose the knowledge that allowed him to survive without the product, and he/she must loose the moral knowledge of the consequence(s) of the consumptive act. Capitalism and the market is entirely dependent upon knowledge contraction.

M

Is the premise here of a 'knowledge explosion' valid? I think not. The equation of knowledge and food is also unsound as food is physical and has physical consequence whereas knowledge is non physical.

To assert there has been an increase in knowledge with time would presume that old knowledge is preserved whilst new knowledge is added. This does not make sense. Technology reduces the need for knowledge and arguably knowledge decreases with technology. 200 years ago the average man had the knowledge to construct his own dwelling, had to travel without maps, had to cure his ills with herbs, grow his own food and quite often make his own music and food and entertainment... Etc.

Today the average man has most of these tasks accomplished for him without his having to think about them.

Technology and the loss of cultural knowledge through globalisation, might easily argue for an intellectual contraction rather than a knowledge explosion.

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect..

Your position is not logical. To state that consciousness is the effect and neural activity the cause makes no sense if we are to consider the human subject objectively. If indeed consciousness is caused by neural activity then one must ask what is the instigation of this "neural activity'. Here you might reply it is the 'subconscious' is consciousness-unknown or you will tell me it is caused by god, or by nature or random chaos or some such, all are euphemistic. Or you might tell me that neural activity is a causa sui.

Consciousness is the cause and neural activity is the determined effect. This sequence is both logically and empirically valid and merely requires us to consider consciousness as a valid ex-homino exogenous entity/force with ex-homino activity that is observable in the context of physics and or quantum mechanics.

Great

I will open a new discussion re same.

I don't wish to trouble you with the hassle of supervising my ideas.

If the moderators disapprove of the content and take it down again... I am studious enough to get the proverbial message.

M

Well, wouldn't a more constructive approach be to try to rewrite the OP to make it more obviously philosophical? — Baden

Sure.

If you would kindly return the discussion I would be glad to comply and render the OP more 'obviously philosophical'.

:)

M

In the discussion I make the point that Trump exemplifies some of the worst aspects of the human psyche, via his intellectual primitivism. I stated in the discussion OP that I 'like' Trump because he exposes the truth of the myth of our collective intellectual evolution.

Ie the darker side of Trump, the consequence of his existence and occupation of the Presidency.... as opposed to the simple stone throwing at the consequence of his 'acts', (the ongoing 'theme' of the existing discussion)

These are the points being addressed by the 'new' discussion. There is also the question \as to whether Trump's racism sexism and anti immigrant stance etc, reflect the private views of many anti-trumpists, who ostensibly like to 'have a go' at the relatively easy target of his acts, as opposed to the primitive and generally animalistic nature of the man's thought.

This is a different subject than that which is under discussion/siege on the current thread. Streetlight closed the thread because he did not like it, or felt threatened by it. Either way the reaction is pretty much the same as Trump and his wall.

M

I don't know what your specific suggestion is here, but we moderate on the basis of the guidelines and there's also the check and balance of the mod forum. — Baden

I don't wish to open an old sore however my post in respect of 'The naked truth of Trump' was closed/shifted/deleted by Streetlight in respect of his own (arguably Trumpist) opinion as to its content. He has made that clear. Quotations available.

There are several problems with the Trump debate being confined to the single topic 'Donald Trump'.

In the first place the thread is some 1.2k long and therefore anyone wishing to explore another aspect of the issue is 'compelled' to be cognizant of 1.2k of previous posts, this is impossible. And nowhere on the forum does the precedent exist that for example all Shopenhauer posts should be deleted and shftied to a single Shopenhauer discussion. There is neither a guideline nor a precedent for this. It is just 'intellectual thuggery' pure and simple. (quotations available)

Secondly the notion that there is only one place to talk about the Trump issue (and arguably one kind of Trump discussion) is not only ludicrous, but is contradicted by the presence of another Trump post "what will muller find". Therefore the notion that my Trump discussion was moved in respect of some guideline is at best unreasonable.

The suggestion that one of the biggest 'philosophical' issues of this century (Trump-ism) should be corralled into one thread as a consequence of a guideline is neither reasonable nor logical nor true. The current Donald Trump discussion confines the Trump issue to a particular and very limited philosophical horizon, hence my attempt to start a new discussion.

My discussion was transferred because Streetlight did not like its contents, and interestingly his actions confirm the content of the original post, in that there is a bit of Trump in almost everyone.


As for 'suggestions'

I get the impressions that suggestions, are like resistance to the Borg.

'Futile'


M

Ah Posty... have you been on Malibu Beach, working on the tan?

Much has been going on (and going off) the forum in your absence... you might have to do a little reading of the foregoing, to join in the fun, much of which is contained in the thread "bannings" and the recently 'closed' threads.

M

If you wish the issues on the playground and the immanent risk to Posty's health to be addressed in the context of the parental analogy, you would be best advised to first ask yourself:

Who's yo daddy now!

The unsavory word 'bitch' is usually applied to the end of the question, but I am rather sensitive to slurs, so I shall leave it confined to the semi-colon.

M

This is an interesting thread. There is a lot of academic metaphor, which is also somewhat relevant in the context of recently suppressed ideas pertaining to formal educational processes.

I would have assumed that we are all 'students' of philosophy.

However since the distinction has been made and some are admittedly 'students' and some are not, one might assume from much of the foregoing that moderation on the forum is conducted by the non-students, or simply the 'wise ones'. I don't mean to be flippant here, however if one is to exercise the authority to deem a particular idea or proposal immature, deficient or un-philosophical, and deal it a non-negotiable death blow; all users of the form (students and wise-ones), should have the freedom to question the credentials of the 'wise-one' who has effectively silenced the idea.

Therefore it is not unfair to ask, what are the credentials of the moderator? And who is moderating the moderators?

If these questions are not asked (preferably they are asked by the wise-ones themselves rather than obstreperous 'students'), we run the risk of something of a cabal forming, where self professed 'wise-ones' need only obtain entry to the cabal in order to impose their own world view upon a particular forum via the suppression of ideas or individuals that they simply disagree with.

Moderation is thankless and essential, however, by definition it should be conducted with moderation and equanimity and upon the basis of a credential of some kind (formal or informal), a credential other than the fact that the suppressed idea is simply not-liked.

Certainly if an idea or statement has the potential to cause harm or hurt it should be immediately removed, however if it's only crime is that it hurts the preconceptions or fixed convictions of the 'wise-one', we should be very careful as the forum then runs the risk of becoming confined to the arena of the 'wise-ones'. If this were to become the case the 'wise-ones' might well become the inquisition.

M

I doubt if he will take comfort from my support. I have no interest in him or his feelings per se. Some of his philosophy is quite beautiful and profound. (I doubt I am alone in an admiration for his writing and his thought).

I accept the decision (I have no choice), and the decision to shift/ban/close my last two discussions. But I do wish to register the point that decisions to moderate in some cases (my own included) seem harsh and (IMOP) motivated by personality rather than a deference to Philosophies old and new.

I'll leave it at that, and try to confine my philosophy to the 'rules'; which will mean that for better or for worse, one will read a lot less of my thought.

Doubtless this shall make some happy.

Once again thanks for keeping the wagon on the road.

M

:(

Perhaps the indefinite nature of the ban might be considered, at an administrative level?

Minds change, and people mellow.

All good philosophers are ultimately banned, tis the holy grail.

M

apologies I am referring to the appeal of such bans

Is there an opportunity to appeal against a 'banning' and are such bans permanent? — Marcus de Brun


If you had read the guidelines, you would know the answer to that question. Please go and read them. — Baden

"Bans:

Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned.

The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you. "


The question in respect of the opportunity for an appeal is not contained here. Is it somewhere else to be found. Or will you perhaps do me the honour of an explanation?

I don't mean to bang on about it, but I do love internetstranger and wish to appeal upon his behalf.

He/she would probably vomit at the thought of my doing so.

Perhaps I might sponsor him/her and take ownership of any future offense he might generate?

M

Needs must.

A thankless job, but I fear for the babies, not so much for the dirty water.

:)

M

Apologies

I have always had difficulties with guides and lines. Good ideas invariably tend to break them.

Internetstranger RIP

But I fear we are the loosers,
no doubt he/she would concur.

M

Although there appears to be no opportunity to reply when a discussion has been summarily shut down.

Is there an opportunity to appeal against a 'banning' and are such bans permanent?

I would like to appeal on behalf of internet stranger who has recently been banned.

And it would be useful for me as I feel my own ban is immanent?

"all opinions are equal but some are more equal than others"
and all of that..


M

No of course not, any more than educating people about war fosters violence, or educating them about drugs fosters drug addiction, or educating them about corruption fosters corruption, or educating them about colonialism fosters colonialism, and on and on. — Baden

You have missed the point here, in that the racism that is fostered by formal processes is a sublimated racism. IE it is not overtly obvious and as such it must be identified by the philosopher before it can be examined by the technologist.

Education for the most part must be 'entertaining' if it is to engage. History is precisely his- story as it is taught in schools. Simple chronologies of dates and occurrences will not educate students, stories educate and race is not a story, but is treated as such.

Incidentally the primary author of this question has been banned. Is this a temporary or permanent thing? The subject suffers much by his/her absence?

Might it be possible to make an appeal upon his behalf?

M

"]Maybe, but no one on this forum is getting your message because of the way you're presenting it."

Is it the way the idea is being presented? Possibly....

However the fact that my idea(s) (and others) are being silenced, is probably the more reasonable answer.

I ask the moderator to confirm my point, and go with the unveiled Trumpism. The sore has been opened.

Shut the dialogue down,

BUILD THE DAM WALL!

NOW

It is this same 'intellectual process' that elected the 'man' in the first place.

M

The point here is that the deletion/move in question is not 'moderating', but rather something else, a form of intellectual self preservation.

The 'dare' is directed towards the intellectual- preservation, in the vain hope that it might overcome itself ... which interestingly was the very point of the deleted/moved thread.

The deletion/move has effectively proven the point which refers to.. the unseen Trump within us all (some more than others)

The Don would be proud of some of the current dictates, and silencing of thought and speech, 'right here right now'.

If the thread is not put back up.

I am most happy with this one as the same initial point is being iterated in a real and practical sense.

M

If it is as badly composed as you assert, why not put it back up, and see the proof of your 'opinion' in the lack of interest it generates.

Moderatorship and anger do not mix well.

I see now quite clearly why its contents are so frightful to you.

Prove your point and put it back up... let philosophy decide....., if you dare.

There is but a snowball's chance.

M

For the record, I merged your 'Naked Truth' thread into the Trump thread as an alternative to straight up deleting it, which is, as a thread, what it deserved. — StreetlightX

This type of language and thought is arguably 'Trumpian' in its essence, and I can see why you found the 'naked truth' post personally offensive, but one should not let personal emotion get in the way of philosophy. IMOP in deleting/merging my post you have affirmed the painful nature of its content.

I think it would be fair to state that in moving the discussion you effectively deleted it, and this was done because you have a 'personal' problem with the content, which you insist belongs in another thread (despite the fact that you did not transfer the content itself).

Your ostensible point for moving the thread (effectively deleting it) was that it pertains to Donald Trump, when in fact it does NOT pertain to Trump, but rather what we think or don't think of Trump on a deeper 'subconscious' level, and how the horror that is Trump might be reflective of universal horrors within the human psyche.

It appears to me that you do not like this idea and have decided to shut it down. Because it seems invalid to you. This puts philosophy under threat.

If my post is indeed simply invalid, then let it stand, put it back up and let the idea die of its own accord rather than kill it because you personally don't like it. We are here for Philosophy, let the philosophy decide. If others agree with you, the post will disappear through lack of interest. Surely we should be moderating offense, and not thought itself.

There is another discussion that is on-going and it is called 'What will Muller find? This discussion might easily be merged with the Donald Trump thread under the same logic, but this has not occurred.

M

I suspect I am soon to be banned also.

But before the inevitable, there is an opportunity to consider if something a bit severe is going on?

For the sake of old philosophy?

M

Internetstranger has tendered me his share of 'insults' and I have enjoyed all of them. He has called me stupid and in a certain sense he is quite correct.

Regardless of his 'insults' he is (IMOP) one of the most most enlightened and erudite authors on the forum, and his thought (outside of insults), is competent and profound. It would be a loss to this forum if he were to take his 'wisdom' (and insults) elsewhere.

Nietzsche can be most insulting to the gentle soul. Chomsky finds Zizek 'insulting' or entirely unreasonable or lacking in philosophical content.

Indeed like all of us he can be offensive, and when the offense contains a potential to cause real hurt to another, he should be silenced. However his philosophy is insightful and valuable, as yours quite often is, and my own aspires to be.

To silence an opinion on the basis that the idea lacks philosophical content to a particular self, is perhaps a little unfair, and un-philosophical. Particularly when the individual in question has shown himself to be both erudite and philosophical.

If the idea has no merit or no content it will be ignored by others and need not be 'shut down'.

Perhaps a moderator 'caution' or warning or a moderator demand for justification, would be a fairer way of dealing with issues rather than the castration of the thought itself?

M

P.S: Knowing a quark from a boson might turn out to be invaluable though; mastery over gravity (or other elementary forces and quantum particles) could be a game-changer for human success and survival. — VagabondSpectre

Is this simply the evolved version of the notion that we can save ourselves from technology through the application of more, newer, better technology.

A cure for the cancer with some more cancer?

Salvation from consumption by the consumptive act itself?

If so, this is an old and somewhat self serving notion that has been around since technology itself, and it has thus far proven itself to be entirely the delusional propaganda of the capitalist technocrat.

M

Recently I started a discussion entitled 'Trump the Naked truth'. This was closed and transferred into a different thread called 'Donald Trump'. The intention of my discussion was and is to contrast the form of the existing 'Donald Trump' discussion.

Importantly the content of my Post concerned a different view of the Trump issue, than that which is under discussion in the Donald Trump thread.

I feel my initial point was unfairly silenced. Whereas if simply left alone it will disappear due to lack of interest.

Internet Stranger's most recent post was 'closed' because it was deemed to lack philosophical content. His post contained a very important point which I have opened as a new discussion on the subject of education and racism and educating racism.

Again I don't wish to sound truculent or offend the Moderators whom I firmly believe are doing (on the whole) a great and unappreciated job, however alternative thinking (outside the box) should not become the enemy of Philosophy.

But my question is simpler. Apparently will is in tension with reason; i.e., not reason. I take free will for granted and can adduce my own arguments in favor of its existence. (Along the lines of, do I wear white socks or black socks today.) But the Greeks, not so much. And Luther, not on your nelly! — tim wood

'A tension with reason' ?

'will' and 'reason' do not appear 'tensioned' but they are it seams points at which some thing undergoes a transition from: cosmic to natural to human. No more than the child has a tension with his/her adolescent or mature form. The 'will' is temporally antecedent to or perhaps contemporaneous with the 'thought', and subsequent reasoning or the 'thinking', which precedes the doing, and appears to come after the 'arrival' of the will. The relationship between 'will' and 'reason' appears entirely temporal and natural, it seems to have a temporal flow, that is applied by consciousness.

Nietzsche writes : "A thought comes when it will, not when I will"

If we consider this assertion carefully I think it points to the historicity of thought itself. In more modern parlance one might assert that instinctual imperative precedes thought and determines the general form of thought, a functional 'reasoning' is subsequently applied to this deeper imperative, and thought seems to be the consequence. The quality of the thought is dependent upon that of the reasoning, but neither 'need' to get the interpretation of the initiating instinct or 'will' correct in toto. Nature seems to revel in misinterpretation in order to produce variance. The correct interpretation of 'will' by the individual may well be the purest form of intelligence as it more correctly correlates with the source of subsequent thought?

The functional reasoning is purely subjective-logic towards the end of satisfying the initial instinctual imperative. In this sense a more modern interpretation of 'will' might be 'instinctual imperative'. These are and may well be continually misunderstood by reason. (Human intelligence or reason may well be in its infancy in this regard)

This definition of 'will' might then be confined to a 'natural function' in the sense that instinctual imperatives are derivations out of of the natural order, and they simply direct the animal towards the satisfaction of Natural as opposed to personal objectives (there is no 'point' to sex for example).

What is important then is to as what is the 'objective(s)' that nature is compelling us towards vis the experience of will? An ultimate form of the evolving Universe?

Anaxagoras may have come close to a notion of 'will' in his concept of 'nous'

Schopenhauer has effectively excluded the notion that you 'might choose your socks' from the concept of a 'freedom' of the will. One cannot effectively assume a freedom of will simply because one thinks about the choice of socks prior to the deed of putting one on, or leaving it in the drawer.

M

Streetlight has cast the most effective stone.

The 'wall' is built and old philosophy will not be coming to the party.

M

Ah.. the herd assembles, stones in hand, let us wait for philosophy to arrive.

She is slow because she is old, but be patient she is on her way.

M