Given that most of its functions are obsolete and superfluous — CuddlyHedgehog

No, I won't give you that.

why do humans feel the need to perpetuate it? — CuddlyHedgehog

Stability, and also if something works, no need to change it.

The world just is regular - or not, as the case may be. Which makes it hard for a Humean to make sense of a miracle. — SophistiCat

In other words, nothing whatsoever could count as a miracle for Hume. Even if I raised people from the dead, it would be taken as the world being irregular.

But even if we take a more hospitable approach by assuming the reality of the laws of nature, we then have to tackle those. What is a law of nature? It can't just be a precise specification of what actually happens, because no matter what happens, it could be specified, and that specification could be said to be a law. Thus, any purported miracle could be accommodated in a law that makes room for that miracle. — SophistiCat

Exactly, which is one reason why "laws of nature" are an incoherent concept, as I've previously argued.

So the circumstances matter. — unenlightened

Sure.

OTOH, if you could do it on a regular basis, I'd think it was conditioned by your skill in flipping, or in some sleight of hand. — unenlightened

What if I could, on a regular basis, cure certain forms of cancer just using my mind? Would you call that a miracle?

Turning water into wine down the pub on Saturday night to impress your mates doesn't count as a miracle merely as inexplicable, but doing it at a wedding feast in the moment of crisis does. — unenlightened

Why do you think moral significance is important for something to count as a miracle? Maybe I just walk on water to impress my friends, is that any less miraculous than if I, say, walked on water to save someone from drowning? If so, how come?

2k
I'd like to follow Hume down his rabbit hole a bit. Elsewhere, in his sceptical discussion of causation, he notes that the laws of nature are derived from past experience of regularities, and, though he doesn't put it this way, descriptive rather than prescriptive. He concludes that there can be nothing in the laws of nature that dictate the future; this is the problem of induction that I like to summarise as 'you can't get a will be from a has been'.

Accordingly, in looking at the past, one is looking at nature, and in noticing regularities one is calling them laws. So in noticing irregularities in the past one says, either there is a regularity that we haven't penetrated yet because it is complicated, or else that there is no regularity, and we have randomness.

As to the future, there is nothing that can possibly be a violation of the laws of nature because there is no law (derived from the past) that can tell us that the future will be like the past.

And as to the past, there is nothing that can possibly be a violation of nature, because if there is a violation, then that is not the law as the regularity is not regular.

None of which is to deny that weird shit might have happened, and weird shit might happen in the future. So it's not, as it turns out very helpful, because in ruling out miracles, nothing whatsoever is ruled out. — unenlightened

Yes, exactly. This was precisely my point but you have phrased it much more clearly than I was able to, so thank you for that. The problem is precisely that both Hume and St. Augustine (through the quotes posted in this thread) were obfuscating the issue by not properly defining their terms, such as in effect, they weren't saying anything at all.

However, one can take another view, and find another definition. Let us say instead, that the laws of nature describe the orderly succession of events, such that the present is conditioned by the past. Now if the laws of nature are complete, and the succession is entirely orderly, then if, the big bang then I write this post. That is, initial conditions + physics determine history.

But that is an old-fashioned notion, because randomness seems to be built in. And randomness in radioactive decay, for example, seems to be unconditioned by the past. — unenlightened

Yes, I agree. The miraculous and supernatural represent precisely the entrance of the unconditioned as seen within the realm of the conditioned, the realm of time and space. The created world seems to represent the unity of the unconditioned through the forms of space and time. Analogically, as things are at the macro scale, so are they at the micro. And as things are in the past, so are they in the future.

It is difficult, because if it is not conditioned by the past, it would appear to be random - I'm not entirely sure if there is a way of telling, and if there is in principle no way of our distinguishing the non-random unconditioned event from the random event, then there is no way of answering the question of whether there are miracles or not. — unenlightened

Yes - as Blaise Pascal said, there is sufficient light for those who wish to believe, and sufficient darkness for those who wish to disbelieve. I will say this though - the untrained eye is not capable to distinguish with certainty a miracle from a random event. If I say I'm going to flip a coin 20 times and 20 times in a row get tails, and I do it, someone could always claim that it was random if they so wish. The possibility is always there. One requires understanding in order to truly discern this matter.

Sorry - hence Augustine’s saying. — Wayfarer

It is Augustine's saying that is the obfuscation. He is hiding the obfuscation in the word "nature", which remains undefined, and almost impossible to clearly articulate.

Yeah, and that 'acting' hasn't changed in the slightest, which is why I am against the notion that there is any real progress. — Coldlight

True - I would say that in terms of the collective, there is virtually no progress in the long run. In the short term, we do sometimes see progress from one historical era to another, but that progress does not last, and is ultimately erased. We also see regress - it is like a pendulum swinging back and forth around the same point of equilibrium.

But I do think that progress is possible for individuals. It is possible for an individual to make progress and become outstanding. That way is always open, but it is not historical.

I agree with mysteries and miracles being always within life. After recognising that fact, it is more about working with one's own unconscious mind. Specific language use can also help with that, but generally things like dreams, visions, intuition have the possibility of uncovering what was unseen for us before. The experience is very individual, which is why it requires individual effort and insight. — Coldlight

I agree with you, this is an individual journey that no one else can make for you. Exploring the unconscious, bringing the light of consciousness into that realm is absolutely necessary in order to achieve spiritual growth. As Jung said, the roots of the tree must reach to the depths of hell for the trunk to reach to the heavens. It is not possible to grow spiritually without undoing the mechanism - and it is a mechanism, that's what the unconscious is - that we are subject to.

To use a Freudian framework, it might be that that's where the unconscious mind was directed, and so that became the centre of the spiritual. — Coldlight

I would say that the unconscious is created by ourselves, through the act of repression. When something gets repressed, it gets thrown under the rug of consciousness. But the repression is never complete, that is why what was thrown in the depths of consciousness reemerges in various forms, and uncannily makes itself felt, whether it is through dreams, visions, or otherwise. Man tries to escape from his darkness by repressing it and pretending it does not exist, but this is no escape, it merely makes the process more hidden, and lodges it deeper within oneself.

Anything can get repressed into the unconscious - it is a spiritual process in nature. But once something is repressed into the unconscious, it ceases to be spiritual, and becomes a mechanism. Doing over and over the same thing, without knowing that you are doing it - that is the unconscious. It is actually the same as being a robot - really a mechanism. The unconscious is what usually pulls people's strings, and they think they are free.

To me, unconscious and spiritual are closely linked. — Coldlight

To a certain extent I agree with this, but I would say that the unconscious and the spiritual are not the same thing. If I may say so, the unconscious is the mechanisation of the spiritual, when the spiritual turns into a mere shadow of its former self, and loses its life & vitality.

To relate it to the important movements in history, it could well be the case that the collective unconscious worked in that well and was directed by the spiritual. — Coldlight

Yes, I agree with this. Historical movements are either consciously driven, in which case the ones responsible for it are aware of what they are doing (at least to some extent) and are consciously looking to influence and guide the collective unconscious or in an era of darkness, it is completely unconsciously driven, such that even the leaders know not what they are doing (like today). For example, take the Nazi's - the reason they were so successful is because they tapped into the collective unconscious of the Germans and permitted free expression to it - and they did so consciously. What the Germans were afraid to express, because it was not nice, because it wasn't good & decent, etc. the Nazi's awakened and gave it permission, encouraged it, to make itself felt. Any world-historical movement must be in line with the unconscious because it requires the mass movement and action of vast numbers of people. And remember, the unconscious drives most people without their knowledge. So it is virtually impossible to get masses to act by appealing merely to their consciousness - to reach into their depths, one must appeal to what they have repressed, to what they keep hidden, to their own repressed spirituality. Then the masses are literarily transformed into puppets.

It is one reason why scientism in a way is a blessing in disguise. To go back to the Biblical analogy, the Tree of Knowledge leads to death, and the ones who have Knowledge will be prevented by the Cherubim with the flaming sword from reaching the Tree of Life. And this is for their own sake, for if they reached it, all chaos would break loose.

I generally dislike that spiritual, mystical, and supernatural are often portrayed as some sort of medieval magic, and then dismissed right away. — Coldlight

Hence the dismissal of the spiritual is a form of protection in an age lacking wisdom.

Hence Augustine’s question! — Wayfarer

Which question are you referring to?

...asked the philosopher. — Wayfarer

I think it is a very important question because it is in that word that the obfuscation lies - that which gives us the idea that we understand what miracles are.

That matter became life, without divine assistance, and evolved into the many beings of earth, is almost infinitely improbable, and one need look no further for miracles. — Bitter Crank

I do not. — Bitter Crank

These two statements seem to be contradictory. You also seem to agree with my basic position, that life itself is suffused with miracles and the supernatural - at least the active principle of life is.

'Miracles are not against nature but against what we know about nature' ~ St Augustine — Wayfarer

What does "nature" mean?

In truth, I know quite well what laws of nature mean and why you can't define them. Because laws of nature are actually an antiquated and incoherent concept, that was first proposed because the world was conceived as a sort of "society" set up by God, according to some fixed rules, that could not be broken. "Laws of nature" are derived by analogy to "social laws", the only difference being that "laws of nature" cannot be violated by definition since they are set up by God. So if Hume is trying to tell us that if God changed the laws of nature that would not count as a miracle, then he needs to postulate another law of nature that dictates how God will change the laws of nature - and of course then that law must be above God which is incoherent. Hume falls in the other error of at one time conceiving of "laws of nature" to exist without God (conceptually impossible) and others, when it fits him, returning to the natural conception of laws of nature as the laws put in place by a Creator. We cannot speak of "laws of nature" without a law-giver - but if there is a law-giver, then miracles are clearly possible, by Hume's definition. If there is no law giver, then we cannot form the concept of "law of nature" - who would be there to impose a law on nature?!

My view, of course, is that there are no laws of nature whatsoever - and we're dealing merely with an antiquated and incoherent concept. You yourself have not shown the capacity to make heads or tails of this concept - you cannot even define it in fact. So defining miracles in terms of an incoherent concept is a no-go.

"our scientific understanding of the world" a.k.a. "laws of nature" could be wrong — Kitty

So is it your claim that laws of nature can be wrong?

If laws of nature can be wrong, then how is it possible for miracles to be unreasonable, when miracles are precisely violations of laws of nature (ie, when they are wrong)?

If laws of nature cannot be wrong, then you're talking of two things. One is our understanding of laws of nature, and the other is the laws of nature themselves. So "our scientific understanding of the world" goes with the former, clearly. As far as I see, "laws of nature" still remain undefined.

Literally that piece I took a screen shot of, just you darling. — Kitty

I don't see a definition of laws of nature here. I merely see the term being used without any definition whatsoever. But this is what I want to know - I want to know what "laws of nature" mean - what they are, and what we're referring to through that word. Clearly, we're not referring to our scientific understanding of the world, since our scientific understanding of the world could be wrong, as we just established. So what are we referring to when we use the term "law of nature"? What is that?

I have read Hume, and the thing with Hume is that he uses many terms without ever defining what those terms mean, as if they are self-evident. But it's not at all self-evident what a law of nature is. I proposed it's merely a regularity. A regularity can always cease to hold, there are always circumstances where it is different, we have to decide what counts as different, etc. etc. So if a law of nature is merely a regularity, then we have definitely observed miracles.

This is basic in philosophy class. You're interested in topic X? Read some basics on topic X that many great philosophers have already addressed.If you still disagree, then address those weaknesses. Write an elaboration with your own arguments to support your conclusion. Ta-da! — Kitty

Okay, I might agree with regards to the philosophy class, but we're not in a philosophy class here. We're actually in the Lounge of a philosophy forum. I don't mean to continue the discussion if it's not in your interest to have a discussion on this. I don't mind that you want to bring in existing philosophical arguments that have been made by other philosophers - feel absolutely free to respond with exactly what Hume said. What did Hume say that "laws of nature" are? I am ignorant of what he said, so please enlighten me. I'm not interested in his take on miracles, so I'm not going to read the whole essay. Just point me to the part where "laws of nature" are defined, and I will read that please.

It pretty much seems that way too many classes of people don't know what they're doing. Science is an example of that, too. I think this is where the 'progress' (as much as I dislike the word) doesn't exist. We - psychically - keep committing the same mistakes we were committing centuries, maybe even thousands of years ago. — Coldlight

Indeed. Some people, like Zizek, would say that this sort of "blindness" is constitutive of our (social) reality. For example, the commodity exchange is only possible if we act as if coins really had an intrinsic worth that is different than their physical bodies - but paradoxically, it is our acting so that makes them have such an intrinsic worth in the first place. Because we all - without knowing it - agree that money is valuable and has such and such a worth - that's what actually gives it that worth. Bitcoin illustrates this very well - there is no paper there. Just the tacit social agreement that it is worth this much.

Yeah. It's the same as if it was explained in a poem using colourful language and all sorts of metaphors. It wouldn't shed any more light on the subject. — Coldlight

Yes - that's why I think that mystery, miracles and the supernatural are always within life. The difference is that some sorts of language make us aware that they are mysteries, miracles and supernatural and others conceal this fact from us, and give us the false impression that we understand them.

To go even deeper into this, I have grown quite convinced that the important movements in history have been spiritually driven from the very beginning. Even science itself is ultimately a spiritual force - destructive as it is. And some people have historically tried to take advantage of occult powers - for example, the Nazi's connection with the occult is well-known. Many historians have argued at length that the focus on the Occult was central to the growth & decline of the Nazi regime. Communism is another example of what is ultimately a spiritual ideology - indeed, it is the spiritual roots of communism that allowed it to grow, expand and flourish.

Okay Agustino, you know I like you neff, but this is the last time I respond to something you could and should have read yourself... read Hume (read the thing I linked, it is only 4 pages mate, almost the size of this entire thread...) — Kitty

Well you have told me quite a few times to read Hume, but I'm more interested to have a discussion with you. If you want to base your points on what Hume is saying, fine, I have no issue with that.

I asked you:

What are the "laws of nature"? What does "law of nature" mean? — Agustino

You said:

Our scientific understanding of the world. — Kitty

Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. — Kitty

So naturally, I respond with:

So anything that is a "transgression" of our scientific understanding of the world is a miracle. — Agustino

All I did was replace "laws of nature" with "our scientific understanding of the world".

Now you tell me that that is wrong, and actually laws of nature cannot mean "our scientific understanding of the world". So I will ask you again - what do you (or Hume) believe "laws of nature" to mean? What are "laws of nature"? The bit you referenced makes no mention of such a definition and merely takes it for granted that we know what they are.

Do these scientists even know what they are doing? — Coldlight

Funnily enough, that's what Marx also remarked in Das Kapital: "they do not know it, but they are doing it". For example, people go to school thinking they're building a great future for themselves, but all they're actually doing is making themselves into good workers that can then be enslaved, thus perpetuating a bad future. Marx thought that capitalism is characterised by this "false consciousness" where the participants do not know what they are doing. They think they are doing what's best for them, but actually, they merely contribute to the continuation of their oppression. Science operates much along the same lines. You say:

This time to scientists who will baffle and mesmerise us with their explanations of the world. — Coldlight

So the scientist takes the miracle of generation - of the sperm and the ovum going from a single cell into an organism with different kinds of cells, which do different kind of jobs, and tells us that the DNA contains the information that makes this generative process possible. Then the scientist tells us that the phenomenon is explained. As if I'm more enlightened if I use more technical jargon to describe what we observe... As if that makes it less of a mystery somehow. It is in this sense that the scientist does not know what he is doing. He fails to see that he has, as it were, merely explained the same phenomenon using different words, and has not rendered it any less mysterious, just shifted the mystery. I no longer wonder why the cells split and change function as they do, I now wonder how and why the DNA allows such changes to occur.

Our scientific understanding of the world. — Kitty

So anything that is a "transgression" of our scientific understanding of the world is a miracle. Then I guess light bending around the sun was a miracle the first time it was observed, since it was a transgression of our scientific understanding of the world at the time.

Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. — Kitty

Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. You then continue to ignore Hume's definition, make up your own definition that goes straight against Hume's definitions, then go back to Hume and claim his definition is poor. — Kitty

What are the "laws of nature"? What does "law of nature" mean?

Hume defines a miracle as ‘a violation of the laws of nature’, or more fully, ‘a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity’ (p. 173) — Kitty

A miracle is very difficult to define - alas, I am not much interested in definitions.

The problem with Hume's definitions is that "laws of nature" do not really mean anything. Whatsoever we call a law of nature is just a regularity we have observed. For all intents and purposes, those regularities can change over time. There are no laws of nature above and beyond the regularities themselves. So if the regularities change, that would, according to Hume, be a miracle. Quite a strange definition I think.

Contemporary physics, particularly at the extreme micro- and macro- levels is a much richer source of novelty and strangeness than the impoverished narratives of "miracles" and "the supernatural", which are fuelled largely by superstition and parochialism, rather than the more hard-earned aspects of the imaginative life associated with the former, which are borne of a combination of real intellectual work and theoretical courage. — Baden

Contemporary physics exists with one end in mind, which structures the entire enterprise. I am of course speaking about what Nietzsche called the "will-to-power" or Freud called the "death drive" - in its essence science is man's attempt to force nature to do his bidding. And how is this achieved? It is achieved by destroying matter and turning it into energy, and then rechanneling that energy according to man's will. That's what you do when you burn gas to cook your meal, when you burn petrol to drive your car, or when you use nuclear fission to power your home. The whole enterprise is the exact opposite of a creative endeavour - it kills, in the attempt to control. To understand the flower, science breaks it up - into this and that part, and then proposes a theory to explain how the parts fit together. But once broken, the parts cannot be put back together. The divisive nature of physics obscures - and completely misses - the creative and unitive nature of existence - indeed that which makes physics itself possible in the first place.

So science is useful to calculate - it is useful to mechanise existence - to transform existence into a mechanism, where if you do this, then that will happen, and so on so on. That is, to kill existence. It encourages calculation, but not understanding. Science misses the essence of life. Indeed, modern-day philosophers even admit this, with pride, if one may say so. Just take a cursory glance at Ray Brassier for example. He tells us that "we are already dead" and that "thinking has interests that do not coincide with those of living; indeed, they can and have been pitted against the latter". But Brassier has of course not discovered anything new, despite his firm conviction that he has. All that he has done is merely put into words what already existed, a priori, in man's collective unconscious - that which has been and continues to be repressed, and emerges every now and again - in Nietzsche's "will-to-power", Freud's "death drive", Heidegger's "nihilism", Brassier's "death" and also more concretely in the tremendous destruction that we have just emerged from in the 20th century, today's extreme forms of decadence and promiscuity, rampant environmental destruction and so on. The modern philosopher does not have the intelligence and tremendous energy - the life - to discover anything new - to create - he, like the scientists, can only speak about what is already there.

Remember the story of the Garden of Eden? The two trees? The Tree of Knowledge and The Tree of Life? The Tree of Knowledge is that which brings death, and the Tree of Life is guarded by the Cherubim with the flaming sword, who guards the Tree of Life from every direction such that the one who has Knowledge cannot reach it.

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. — Genesis 3:22-24

Paradoxically, it is only today that the meaning of Genesis becomes clearer and clearer. Science is the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge - that appealing fruit which appears to make one like God, but actually kills them. Indeed, we have reached the point where the death of man is already prefigured by Brassier. Nietzsche prefigured the death of God 150 years ago - now it is the time of man to die. Now, there is no God to protect us or to die for us. Science has killed God, it is only a matter of time before it kills man as well. Because that is its nature - that is the nature of technicality, of calculation - to kill and to destroy in order to control. And science itself blinds man from Life.

Just look at it - open your eyes. It is your life too after all. What is happening? A tremendous lameness, weakness, fatigue has fallen over Western culture. A tremendous lack of bearings, lack of motivation, lack of goals. We can do anything, but paradoxically, that's exactly why we can't do anything. Because we don't know what to do. We lack the courage. We know how to do very well - but what use is that when you don't know what to do? And of course I don't mean you in particular, but we as a culture, as a people.

To create, to live - that takes great energy, tremendous energy. We lack the energy today. Where could we get it from? Today, we just have energy to go to work and slave away for others (usually), then come home, eat, at night be dead tired, can't even have sex with our wives, we have to ask them to get on top and do it... and even when we do, we are tired, sick of it almost. That is why we need to have a golden shower from time to time, to try another woman, to masturbate in public, to have an orgy, to mix alcohol with benzodiazepines, smoke some weed, take some crack - at least, for a few moments we can feel a little bit more alive, a little bit more free. This is who we have become...

With no energy for authentic living, only the inauthentic remains. And science cannot show us the way to reawakening this energy. Science cannot guide us on how to live - it can only close down possibilities. Science has created the atomic bomb, which can cause untold outer destruction. Where is that inner "atomic bomb", which does not destroy, but makes one's soul blossom with life, energy, vigor, strength, confidence, hope, love, etc.?

So, anything of "miracles" or the "supernatural" that can't be at least potentially distilled into theoretical physics can be confidently flushed from consciousness as superfluous to understanding and most probably detrimental to it. — Baden

On the contrary, science has done such great damage to man's collective psyche over the past 400 years, that if this continues, soon there will be no man left. We have greater technical power than ever today, but much less wisdom. We have utterly explored the outer world, but continue to be completely ignorant of the inner world. In fact, science itself has obscured the inner world in its blind quest for power. It has called the inner "subjective" - an epiphenomenon at most - while only the outer is real, fundamental and true. Science itself has attempted and continues to attempt to reduce and force the inner - that epiphenomenon - to be subservient to the outer. You feel depressed? Where is your Prozac? In other words, do not let this inner crap control you - you are the master, just like you are the master of the external world, and you will force it to be as you want it to be, you have control over it. Of course, I forgot to mention that you are also no one, just check out Metzinger's Being No One.

Miracles no — Noble Dust

Why not?

I think the supernatural plays a much larger role even in day-to-day life than most people care to admit (I will not even mention guiding the evolution of history).

OK, well, no, and I expect this to end up about 80% no. What's your prediction? — Baden

60-70% No, I would say.

But there's a lot more believers and conservatives around here than old PF, this is a more balanced community. You probably voted no - why?

That definition would seem to include good magic tricks. — Baden

Let's exclude those and other things that can be determined as fakery.

She is still here.... :roll: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I was always curious about this actually. How do you deal with the parents of your husband/wife? My first girlfriend's parents hated me, so it would have been strange to get married to her - I don't know how one should respond in such cases.

You have an ego whether you like it or not. — TimeLine

Sure.

To say you have no ego is ridiculous. — TimeLine

But where did I say that I have no ego?

It is your reason that you ought to ensure is free from this conditioning, which takes time and a continuous desire to improve. — TimeLine

Yes - and that has nothing to do with psychological analysis, communication, or something similar. It has to do with insight and awareness.

Anxiety is this unconscious, deeper awareness of that truth, of that reality, this emotional response that is prompting us with feelings that we cannot articulate because we have repressed it from consciousness. — TimeLine

Well yes, to a certain extent. What does this have to do with communication though? Communication can itself be the problem - indeed, it is almost the characteristic par excellence of the neurotic to go to someone else to be told what they have to do. The neurotic always seeks reassurance - from the doctor, from the psychologist, from the psychiatrist, from the teacher - etc. This is the disease itself. I am reminded of this clip of Krishnamurti:

You are playing with your mind by choosing not to understand it. — TimeLine

The mind cannot be understood from within the mind - by transcending the mind, the discursive faculties, you also thereby understand them. The identification with the mind and with the ego is the problem.

No. Death isn't funny. — Michael

You British really do take everything so seriously... such stiffs :rofl: - carrot stuck up the :snicker:

How is that funny? — Michael

I don't know man, but I find it sort of funny when powerful people who think they are invincible find out that that's not true. Don't you find it funny? I mean surely, someone got killed, it's not funny in that sense, but the context is funny, at least to me.

This is what happens when you upset the wrong people in government:



:rofl:

If anyone should doubt it, let them consider this latest UK scandal. — unenlightened

That is a scandal? :rofl: Man, people certainly have a lot of time on their hands...

Did Musk commit securities fraud? — Michael

No, but securities fraud isn't the only wrongdoing a CEO can do.

That means at the very least appearing humble and contrite from the beginning, particularly when you know you've broken a law (even one which is usually not prosecuted in the breach). — Baden

I agree.

So who writes the Constitutions? — Pseudonym

The Parliament could write it. But more importantly than that, is that it should be very difficult to change the Constitution once it is written.

I really don't know why he couldn't have seen this coming. I don't even think he was as bad as he was made out to be originally, but he deliberately set out to play up his negatives. For a supposedly smart guy... — Baden

The weird thing about the government that I've realised lately is that... if you upset the wrong people, they will find a reason to put you in jail, and if they don't have one, they will even make one up. Shkreli was thrown in prison for a joke of a reason - securities fraud - because he used money from the pharma business to pay back hedge fund investors - and everyone made money in this transaction, there was no prejudice. Why isn't the government going after Elon Musk, who used Tesla funds to pay for SpaceX costs in 2008? He created a potential prejudice for his investors and acted illegally - if Tesla would have gone bankrupt, then Elon would have been charged with defrauding his investors. But there was no prejudice, and Elon didn't upset the wrong people, so no one bothers.

It is against the law for a CEO or administrator to create a prejudice for the company he runs in his own personal favor. So, say you own 100% of the shares in a company, and you are also CEO. Say you get one of the clients to pay you directly, as a sole trader (for example). Technically, you've done something illegal, since being the CEO or administrator is what allowed you to secure that contract, and yet, in your duty as administrator, you should have secured it for the company, not for you personally. In normal circumstances, nothing happens - because who would report you? But if you get in the wrong books of some people, then you may get in trouble even for something like this, as silly as it is. The law is often crooked.

Interesting Trivia:

A psychological examination of Shkreli performed before his sentencing found that he suffered from generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and an unspecified personality disorder.

As I was saying in another thread, mental illness seems quite common amongst entrepreneurs, despite popular culture about it.

There have been several prominent examples of Balkanites getting hot under their collective casual collars and then getting totally out of hand -- like some archduke merely taking a drive through Sarajevo one fine day, or more recently Yugoslavia disintegrating, and then some dissatisfaction with Kosovo, et al... — Bitter Crank

:lol:

Rotary International does good work, and it's a good networking organization. I would think you would find it beneficial to belong. — Bitter Crank

Maybe - I know a lawyer who is a member there. Thanks for the suggestion.

Your past is not nonsense and forms the fabric of who you are, of your perceptions and how you identify with the world. — TimeLine

No, I am not my past. My past is my ego, and the conditioning of my mind. My true self is beyond all conditioning and all events in time, and cannot be touched by them. Seeing beyond the ego - that is already to be free of the problems of the ego.

If you experience anxiety, there could be a plethora of possible factors that are causally rooted in your past that talk therapy enables you to articulate and indeed you may very well realise that you are being emotional about something for reasons that are irrational, such as inculturation or some childhood experience. — TimeLine

Yes, there probably are. But why would I bother with that, when I can extinguish the problem from its very roots by detaching myself from my conditioning, whatever that conditioning happens to be?

Articulating problems does not solve them. It is awareness into the problems - choiceless awareness as Krishnamurti would say, that discards the so-called problems.

but it is a natural evolution from that that a person should find the courage to reach further still - as the OP is experiencing - to link the network of possible causes. — TimeLine

That is a waste of time, because it is playing the games of the mind. The mind likes to nurture this self-importance and narcissism, and investigate its history, look for causes, say "oh, this is why", etc. as if finding a why will solve the problem. It likes to feel that it has solved problems, only to later find out it has created 10 others. To articulate stuff - to go in the labyrinth of the mind - is already to lose the game. The mind is cunning - it can play with you for your entire life. Escaping the traps of the mind, and going beyond the mind - then you escape whatsoever problems the mind has - they do not concern you anymore.

Taking a holistic approach — TimeLine

I agree about taking a holistic approach.

The reason why mindfulness is successful is because it calms the individual enough to be able to communicate. — TimeLine

I disagree on this. This isn't why mindfulness is successful. Being calm is merely a side effect. It's successful because it is perhaps the only process that puts the body and the mind in a process of self-regulation - there are biological and neurological changes that happen while someone is meditating. This is in addition to aiding someone develop spiritually - spiritual strength itself being one of the key components of mental well-being.

Among the main biological indicators, mindfulness has been shown to reduce oxidative stress, and also help the body repair existent cellular damage. I've spoken with several therapists, some of whom have worked with elite athletes - mindfulness is, according to most of them, the absolute key to self-improvement & performance.

The problem with talk therapy is that it engages the person with their past, and the past is all nonsense. All that matters is the present moment, not silly games of the mind. Mindfulness helps you detach from the silly games of the mind - it doesn't matter anymore that such and such thoughts cross your mind. Your conditioning, from your past, becomes irrelevant. Psychotherapy is all BS, precisely because it is playing games - it is the mind playing games with you. Uhhh this person is obsessed about smoking, because their father didn't let them smoke, or this other man is obsessed about his wife who cheated on him, etc. It doesn't matter - they are all games of the mind, and even if you solve one game, the mind will find another one - because it is just the nature of the mind. That is why people who experience anxiety find that everyday, there is a new problem, a new cause of the anxiety.

You have to stop playing the games of the mind - you have to jump out of the vicious circle. That is not possible, except by meditation. You cannot escape from the mind by the mind - that is the absurdity of talk therapy.

Some researchers, most notably the founders of ACT, have argued that verbal disputation techniques may interfere with psychological distance (which they call “cognitive defusion”). The best way to illustrate this is perhaps by considering the example of Buddhist-style mindfulness meditation. While meditating, if a distracting thought crosses the mind, mindfulness practitioners are taught to view it with detachment and resist the urge to respond to it by analysing its meaning or engaging in an internal dialogue about it. They might view it as if it were like a cloud passing across the sky and “let it go”. Engaging with the thought can simply make it more prominent, even if someone is attempting to challenge or dispute it. One can easily be swept along with the thought this way and lose psychological distance from it.

https://donaldrobertson.name/2013/01/18/cognitive-distancing-in-stoicism/

Not meaning to be disparaging, but I really do think this is psycho-babble. This sort of "talk therapy" kind of approach, let's investigate your past, let's find the "root cause", etc. doesn't have much scientific backing as successful in dealing with depression and/or anxiety.

Whereas practices such as CBT and mindfulness (check out MBSR) do have scientific backing, and have proven their effectiveness. Mindfulness is quite probably the most effective way to combat depression and anxiety, both on a mental and on a biological level. As for more "subtle" forms of anxiety/depression - that's what mindfulness does. Slowly you peel back on the layers, and dissolve deeper & more subtle problems.

This was a great rally!

China votes to allow President Xi Jinping to Rule for Life. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I am aware of that already. But at the moment it's an autocratic rule, not a monarchy. Sort of that "officially" not for life, but "really" for life.

His son, JDR Jr., the one who supervised the Rockefeller fortune after JDR died, and built Rockefeller Center, seemed to feel that his father's history was something of a burden to bear. — Bitter Crank

As I told you before, I have read very little about the descendants of JDR Sr.

But I wouldn't expect you and me to have have the same view of Rockefeller or Carnegie, or various other tycoons. — Bitter Crank

Carnegie & Vanderbilt are different than, say, Rockefeller and Henry Ford. The former were ruthless, and did engage in immoral practices. So we might have the same view about them.

No doubt it is better to become a millionaire on the coat tails of the guy who swindled you out of your business than to be bitter and resentful for eternity. However... that doesn't make the swindler a nice guy in a white hat. — Bitter Crank

This is arguable. Even in court, if there are no damages (but quite the contrary), you usually hardly have a case in economic matters. If your ego was insulted, well, tough luck - you still made more money than you would have otherwise out of it. The truth is that Rockefeller helped stabilise the oil industry & create a reliable & stable output which allowed for further technical development. He was also a very devout Christian his whole life, and always tithed 10% of his income to the Church.