Welcome to the club. — Manuel

:grin:

A good laugh to be sure, but tell me on more sober reflection that the proof by necessity is not as good or better than any other. — tim wood

That which is, was not always, before it came to be. Was it necessity that it came to be, or just easy, lazy or chosen? Was there another way? I'm not sure. I wasn't there. But by it's own tenets, it seems to me, the burden should be upon it, not me, to prove it is as good or better than any other. Indeed, if it's so great, it might show me any other. So far all I'm seeing is it. If it were to assume that burden, we can hope that it won't choose straw men, or weak proofs that it would easily defeat. I would hope it would find an alternative to defeat itself. If it fails in that, then it would be a despot.

A sharp knife needs a hard stone upon which to hone itself. So far all I see is a knife that is getting duller by the day. Tell me, necessity, what have you lifted and overcome to be what you are, capable of carrying us? Show me the heavy lifting you have done. Show me what you have done to bring us closer to, and not further from what it is that we seek: truth.

In short, that it's a good proof, as well as being to date the only decent proof. — tim wood

I've lost my train of thought. Is the "good proof" necessity? And if so, is that the necessity of 200k years of community, or the "necessity" of the recent aberration of greed? I'm confusing "logic" with "necessary proofs", and "necessity" and "what is" and "they way things are." Different things in my mind.

I suppose I should have started with questions. But I'm trying to fix a broken hot tub (1st world problem), I'm doing what's easy, lazy, and chosen. :lol:

Sometime later, alien Mary learned that humans had found out about what she had done. She read what they said about her, and discerned they had anthropomorphized her because she had used logic in her research. “See, even advanced aliens use logic!” they said. “See, even blind aliens can learn to see!” they said.

She scratched her head and wondered if logic had been used to create vision in the first place, or if it was merely relegated to explanation after the fact. She discerned that the logic both she and humans had used was merely explanatory. She discerned that vision itself had come into existence without the aid of logic.

She then applied her considerable intellect toward accomplishing what she had done, obtaining vision, but without the use of logic; and she created in herself vision as it had originally been done, sans logic. She succeeded, and then realized how primitive humans are, in anthropomorphizing their intellectual superiors. She thought of Jesus, agreed with herself that she must be right, shrugged her shoulders, jumped back on her space ship and left.

Speeding off through space, further away from humans, she recalled that she had always known how to achieve vision without logic, just as humans had done. She realized that she and her type had always been able to see. She wondered if something about humans had dumbed her down to the human way of thinking about things? If something about humans, or maybe even logic, had suspended her memory of the way things really are? She wondered how she had been so blind when studying humans?

With enough distance from humanity, her old self began to reassert itself. She then rested in comfort knowing that an explanation will never come close to that which is explained. She realized she had gone too far up the river, into the heart of darkness, aligning herself with the blind. She also noticed the irony: when “civilized” humans had gone too far up the river, into the heart of what they mistakenly perceived as darkness, they actually got closer to the truth, to that which they had tried and failed to explain, to reality, to unobstructed vision, like the vision she had always had.

“Civilized” humans, the explanation of logic had proven, are an aberration. What they used to be, before civilization, before explanation, before logic, was closer to what she and her advanced species are now. Hmmm, she thought: perhaps their original sin was trying to explain instead of being?

Everyone should go up the river at least once in their life.

Or in other words: if we don't change the current political system we will over the long run create a species of psychopaths. — FalseIdentity

:up:

The government should round up all the anti-tax people, steel all their property, sell it to those who don't whine like little puppies, put them on trains and take them to forced labor camps and make them work. You know, so they learn a lesson about hyperbole. And how good they had it when they had to pay for all the services they received, but which they took for granted with their childish entitlement mentality and their petulant refusal to take responsibility for their own actions.

Or, we could just go back to the 90% marginal tax rate that we had when America was at her peak. We could even have a butt-load of exemptions when private sector largess was spent on things that helped here, in America.

Defense budget = $7t over ten years. AOC/Sanders asking for $3.5T over ten years. Defense budget compared to the rest of the world? Look it up.

The money to pay for socialism is there, and then some. In fact, we are socialist, in part, as is every other 1st world country/ally. Hell, the U.S. military, the best in the world, is the most socialist institution we have. See what socialism can do?

I see logic as a simple tool that can be used to accomplish certain things. Like a gun. But, like a gun, it can give a false sense of security, and it can become a fetish.

I see no harm in a disciple continuing his work. He need not go back to the beginning and recheck the fundamental principles that got him where he is.

But somebody should.

And he should remain humble and remember that he dangles upon a flimsy reed. Otherwise, something may arise and he might not see it because he can't see. Or, even worse, it will be what he sees simply because he saw it when and where he saw it, excluding what and where and when it could have been had he not seen it, or had he seen it with different eyes.

The person who goes back to check the work should go with the goal of refuting it. Otherwise, we have another disciple confirming bias. I went back to refute and, interestingly, I used principles of logic. I found the king has no cloths. He's still king, but he ain't all that. And he can be dethroned unless we believe him when he says he can't.

The thing to keep an eye on is this reconciliation bill. Looks like the Manchin and other Republicans are doing their best to destroy it— in which case we won’t have a livable planet for much longer anyway. — Xtrix

I think it's time to do what the Republicans did and throw it all on the table. I think the progressive D's should hold their ground, sink the reconciliation bill, sink the infrastructure bill, and not raise the debt limit in December. Let it all come crashing down. Let the conservative Democrats blame the moderate and progressive Democrats. Let the progressive and moderate Democrats blame the conservative Democrats. Let the Democrats blame the Republicans. Let the Republicans blame the Democrats. Let those worthless whores in the media get their apocalyptical wet dream and throw gas on the flames while giving oxygen to "both sides."

Manchin, Sinema, McConnel, Cruz, those stupid Republican governors, and all the other assholes can suck wind and rule over a burning pile of shit.

I better hope I don't get what I pray for. Because it would hurt those I love. But I had to vent.

By A, I meant any object. So any object must be limited to what it is. — litewave

That was what I was thinking before I remembered that A, to me, means All. I should have re-stated for you what I said earlier in this thread about A. But X would have worked with my understanding of what logic provides.

But if A stands for all objects, what else is there in addition to all objects? — litewave

As I stated earlier in this thread, I try to steer away from the word "things", singularly, or as a suffix. My reasoning is set forth in that post and I'll not repeat it here. However, the same analysis applies to the word "objects." All stands for All, whether object or non-object. Otherwise, it could not be All, now could it? It covers things and not things, or nothing, if you will. It covers presence and absence. It is and is not.

So not-A is nothing (no object) and it can't be identical to A because A is something (objects) — litewave

That would be true for X, for a logician, but All is not so constrained (and it is constrained; both, at the same time).

I'm not a God fan, in the traditional sense, but it can be illustrative. When talking to a "believer" I ask, if god is all powerful, can he not be not all powerful if he wants? It's the same for All. It's not All if it's missing the absence of itself. Compare: Everything can be everything without being nothing. Whereas nothing can be nothing without being anything. Therein lies the distinction between All and everything and nothing. So, logic, by so constraining itself to either/or, is akin to a God that is incapable of being anything other than a God. That's some weak tea and no real God. Like All would be if it did not account for the absence of itself: not really All.

I'm tired and cede the floor for the evening.

Is this objective definition of A = A not self-evident to you? — litewave

It can be (see below). Anyway, 2 points of order:

1. I had anticipated the subjectivity aspect with my second post, above. So, asked and answered;

2. You asked me what I thought A = A means. I mistakenly answered your question assuming X, not A. And I answered as I thought logic would answer, not me. So let me clarify. For me, A means All. Thus, A = A means to me that A not only = A, but it also = -A. In other words, All is not only All but it must necessarily account for (=) the absence of itself. Otherwise, it could not be All.

You can substitute "God" for All (A) if you are are a believer.

What do you think it means, that A = A? — litewave

P.S. Gentlemen would also agree that it does not rely upon us to agree, acknowledge, or perceive it to be it.

What do you think it means, that A = A? — litewave

I think A = A is a gentlemen's agreement that a thing must be limited to what we say it is, and no more, no less, and no different.

You might as well write a negation of your whole post and it wouldn't make any difference to you, so why did you even bother? — litewave

I was kind of hoping someone would prove that A = A and that A does not = -A. You know, with something more than "Well, dummy, it's self-evident!" Or "Well, dummy, you can't prove a negative!" And etc. I was hoping it was you because you can apparently explain yourself without a bunch of equations/calculations that are over my head. I can't read math so well.

I neither know nor think I know; but I do pretend to know without pretense of knowing. And not.

And if it sounds religious, then the grounds for rejecting it are self-evident. — Wayfarer

:rofl: I want to say "funny, but true." But I'm afraid someone will jump on me for saying something is true. :yikes:

↪James Riley
Well, I still don't understand what you meant by "yes and no".

But for some reason you have answered just "no" here:

No;
— James Riley — litewave

I explained it to you twice. I can say yes and no (and actually believe it!) while you are bound to the two-valued orientation, dualistic thinking, the either/or, the black/white dichotomy that logic (your God?) binds you to, apparently with your consent. Not only that, but you pretend to know what you don't know. I can pretend, but have no pretense to truth. You pretend and have all the pretense in the world, without having first carried your burden of proof. Don't worry about it. You are in good company. The best minds in the world, that logic has to offer, agree with you. And I am but a fool. It's cool. You know, I don't.

What does the answer "yes and no" mean? You have asserted a truth (it is still there if you scroll a few posts up), so why not just answer "no"? — litewave

". . . I've been assuming you've understood the "yes and no." The fact that we are all engaged in a gentlemen's agreement does not mean we are. The fact that we agree a club is a club and that a bonk on the head hurts does not mean it is or does. Mankind is notorious for choosing what is easy and what works and what appeals to his confirmation bias. But that doesn't speak to truth.

In other words, when I say A = A and A = -A, you can't can ignore the fact that I just said A = A and focus only on the fact that I just said A = -A. But actually, you can. You just did. And you have been. So, while you may not disagree with me that A = A; and you may only disagree with me that A = -A, I can acknowledge the possibility of both. You can't. (Well, you could, but you don't, unless you do. Do you?)

Is it true that you don't pretend to truths? — litewave

Yes and no.
— James Riley

The answer is no, because you have claimed something as true (when you said that you don't pretend to truths). — litewave

No; the answer is yes and no, precisely because I lack your pretense.

Is it true that you don't pretend to truths? — litewave

Yes and no. I was just thinking that if you followed me around on this site you could easily find examples where I took positions, asserted truths, etc. But I've been assuming you've understood the "yes and no." The fact that we are all engaged in a gentlemen's agreement does not mean we are. The fact that we agree a club is a club and that a bonk on the head hurts does not mean it is or does. Mankind is notorious for choosing what is easy and what works and what appeals to his confirmation bias. But that doesn't speak to truth.

In other words, when I say A = A and A = -A, you can't can ignore the fact that I just said A = A and focus only on the fact that I just said A = -A. But actually, you can. You just did. And you have been. So, while you may not disagree with me that A = A; and you may only disagree with me that A = -A, I can acknowledge the possibility of both. You can't. (Well, you could, but you don't, unless you do. Do you?)

:party:

Is it self-evident to you that it is your subjective perception? — litewave

No. Perception is not self-evident. I'm not sure any "thing" or no "thing" is self-evident. If something were self-evident then you'd think it would be subject to lesser proofs. You know, non-anecdotal proofs.

See, whenever you deny the existence of self-evidence, you invoke it. — litewave

Uh, no, I don't.

Or in other words, whenever you deny the existence of truth, you invoke it. — litewave

No; Unlike God, or logic, I don't pretend to truths, nor do I invoke them.

Or in other words, whenever you deny the principle of identity/non-contradiction, you invoke it. — litewave

? No, I don't.

So, you can't deny it. It's not an option. — litewave

I just did deny it. Does that make you wrong? I mean, you just said I can't do something that I did. You just denied me an option. Hmmm.

Great, what is it about the bureaucracy I do not like? How was the bureaucracy different before adopting the German model? — Athena

Well, before families got together and decided to adopt the German model, families used to run everything. After families adopted the German model, an evil government/bureaucracy arose to subdue them, oppress them, turn them against each other, and milk them like a borrowed cow. Now families, oil companies, CEOs, majority shareholders and other common, salt-of-the-Earth folk suffer; while evil bureaucrats are each worth millions and billions of dollars, setting policy and regulations and forcing to common working oilman to send in all his hard earned money to keep the bureaucrats in the standard of living to which they want to become accustomed.

This is off topic but you do understand what oil has to do with all industrial economies and what military might has to do with controlling oil, right? What does the plutocracy have to do with those realities? — Athena

You got me. You win. The Plutocracy couldn't possibly have anything to do with the economy, oil, or the MIC.

but what do they have to do with our family values and social order? — Athena

Nothing. You got me. You win.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. If you have a problem, blame government.

In a book titled "The Hermeneutics of Original Argument: Demonstration, Dialectic, Rhetoric," P. C. Smith, and a mighty good book too, the author offers as proof the LNC & etc. are true "because they had better be," italics added. Maybe not what's expected, but there it is. — tim wood

:rofl:

Here is what you are saying — Athena

I agree with that quote.

This thread is about social order, and especially about relying on the government for our needs or our families. — Athena

So you want to focus on the symptoms and not the cause. Got it.

I have said in the past our social order was based on family order and independence of government, that this is no longer true. — Athena

And I have stipulated to that.

I do not see your argument as addressing the family matter. — Athena

Because you want to talk symptoms, not cause.

How would you say a plutocracy determines our social order and family values? — Athena

I've beat that horse to death. As already explained, the Plutocracy uses, as a tool, that very government/bureaucracy to do the things that the family and the community used to do. But even then, it only allows that to be done enough to keep the people's focus on government/bureaucracy, bread and circuses, etc. and to keep the pitchforks in the barn, or pointed at each other, or at government/bureaucracy; all while still producing the largess flooding up to them. That is only one aspect. They also own the media, sew division, spread myths about ourselves, etc.

If you don't like government/bureaucracy and what it is doing, that is primarily because you, the family and the community don't control it. As stated, the problem is not big government. The problem is who controls it.

Is it self-evident to you that it sounds religious? — litewave

No. That's my subjective perception.

But without the gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen's agreement would still be there. — litewave

Yes and no. I think that long before "logic" was formalized, Og and Ug agreed that a club is a club and a bonk on the head hurt. But once Ug was dead, I'm not so sure he agreed. Also, what Og and Ug thought was their subjective perception and not necessarily some truth that did not apply to them or which they could not fathom.

What kind of agreement is it then? — litewave

If, without the gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen's agreement would still be there, then it would be a gentlemen's agreement. And not.

Ok, it is something - but only if it is nothing. That's where contradiction gets you. — litewave

The idea that something is self-evident sounds like "Because I said so." It sounds religious. Yeah, religious. Anyway, I try to avoid use of the word "thing", by itself or as a suffix. It's too limiting, because it fails to account for non-things. In the end, I find "A" (i.e. All) as necessarily accounting for the absence of itself. And really, if it didn't, what kind of All would that be? Kind of like "limited infinity" or "limited sovereignty." Which brings us back to God. What kind of god could not render itself, or be, that which we will never or cannot fathom? That would be a real pussy of a god! So, God, like logic, says "Because I said so." It's a gentlemen's agreement, coming and going. Is logic our god? We can't question it? We can't demand that it prove itself?

There is nothing funny about our military spending. — Athena

Nobody is laughing, except the MIC (Plutocracy).

It is economically essential and right now China has far more advanced military technology and is in a position to win a nuclear war. We are seriously vulnerable right now. — Athena

In 2019, the U.S. remained the world's top military spender by far, at about $649 billion. China was second at about $261 billion. So, we are seriously WASTING our money, or someone is blowing smoke up your butt. Can you say MIC?

By the way, where do you think China got all that money? Was it from those American made widgets sold in America by our benevolent Plutocracy?

There is not enough to meet the growing need for assistance, but paying for more is a challenge, — Athena

Yeah, when we piss a trillion down the drain on a POS fighter plane. You're old enough to recall the old bake sale sign.

In the past, we didn't have any of that. Family had to depend on family and charity — Athena

Well, just make sure you keep blaming the government while those who are responsible laugh all the way to themselves.

Ah, ok. In that case you are talking about nothing because a thing that is not identical to itself is nothing. — litewave

Not true. That's like the anecdote: Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, we could, if we wanted to, enter into a gentlemen's agreement that a thing that is not identical to itself is nothing. I mean, since you can't prove it, we kinda sorta have to; if we are going to limit ourselves to reality.

The principles of identity/non-contradiction/excluded middle are not some optional gentlemen's agreement but necessary properties of reality — litewave

They are optional if you are not talking about reality. Regardless, the question I have is, are they proven with lesser proofs than simply saying "self-evident" or "can't prove a negative"?

without which there would be no gentlemen in the first place. — litewave

There are and there aren't.

Or there would but there wouldn't, if that makes sense. — litewave

Bingo! Makes perfect sense to me. And not.

On another thread about stoicism, one "Amity" said to me: "What is your understanding now? Answers to be in essay form. Minimum word count = 200." So, when you asked me to prove that I understood what you said, it came across as you might perceive "big government." Like you, I don't like that. But I also know that my perception of your intent may be just as misunderstood as your perception of why the stipulated dramatic change occurred in our social order.

But a pultocracy does nothing to change family order. — Athena

And that is where we have our fundamental disagreement. See below:

How about this one. — Athena

Better yet, how about this one:

Every single solitary thing you just said (Huxley), and have said (repeatedly), constitutes what those in the medical profession would call a "symptom." I can stipulate to your recitation of all those symptoms all day long. And indeed, I agree with you on virtually all of those symptoms. But I am talking about the CAUSE. To the extent you consider causation at all, you point your finger at big government/bureaucracy. Our fundamental disagreement is on that point. I say that big money is behind the government/bureaucracy, and that the government/bureaucracy is simply a symptom.

I really don't know what else I can say, unless and until you can argue that big money is not the cause. I suppose we could point to fundamental human stupidity, or masochism, or a desire to be subjugated, or whatever, but I haven't heard you cite those or any other reason. All I hear is "big government/bureaucracy", as if those things exist, unfunded, in a vacuum.

Please refer me to where you have paraphrased what I said about everything being controlled by policy instead of by individuals and I will pick up from there. What are the good reasons for changing the powers of government? Why is social security possible today and not in the past? — Athena

When was the change made and why? — Athena

Drop the tone, honey. You are not a professor and I am not your student. You don't give me assignments to prove I know what you are talking about. I've already stipulated to what you are talking about (go look up the word "stipulate"). If you want to play that game, I will ask you to first hand in your assignment: Answer all the questions I've asked you about HOW and WHY those changes that I have stipulated to came about in the first place.

P.S. And if you say "big government" just pulled it out of it's ass like a rabbit out of a hat, or the people wanted it, then you have not understood your lesson.

My interactions with the medical community (not mental health, but doctors, nurses, staff) have been positive to the point where I wonder how they got that way. But I'm glad they did. I think they should be paid for it, too. That way they can keep doing it. Apparently it makes them happy and they are doing good. Win-win for everyone. Many veterinarians are that way too. Day care workers. I suppose shrinks might care too. But you have to breathe, drink, eat and whatnot before all the caring in the world will amount to anything other than an empty sentiment.

Prove it. — Athena

I did. I stipulated to it. Like umpteen times. But apparently not to your satisfaction.

This is where I am going to stop because I see no reason to think you understand the difference between the bureaucratic order we had, that made the individual very important, and the bureaucratic order we have today that crushes individual liberty and power. When this is not understood, nothing else of importance can be understood stood. — Athena

It's probably good that you stop. Because it's apparent that you don't understand that I DO understand what you are saying. You just can't get past your own enthrallment with your education to see that the argument has moved beyond "the difference between the bureaucratic order we had, that made the individual very important, and the bureaucratic order we have today". I have stipulated to all that. DOH! What I'm talking about is HOW that came to be. You blame big government, as if it did all that, sui sponte. I have tried to teach you HOW that came to be but you don't understand. That's cool. Bye.

with the exception of all the bits of it I like :yum: ) — Wayfarer

P.S. I can honestly say that I never saw a single second of The Apprentice. I had no idea what all the hub bub was when he ran for POTUS. I thought he was just another city slicker realtor from NYC. Everyone knew but me. :lol:

with the exception of all the bits of it I like :yum: — Wayfarer

I know, right? And then there's the wife who likes her shows . . . so the box is on now and then.

Not that I want to romanticize the tribe and the clan, but there seems to myself to have been a certain social cohesion which created an environment of shared responsibility, and which is absent from the context of the state, wherein there is no discernible social cohesion, but rather a "shared isolation" and mutual, universal distrust. — Michael Zwingli

Yes, I would likewise not romanticize groups that were perfectly capable of acting in the worst of human nature. But I also think we have an opportunity to throw out the bathwater and keep the baby. The state, due to the size of the population over which it exercises authority, does have some practical distance from our tribal forebears. However, I don't think we've really tried very hard to have a state of us, where we view us as family, looking out for each other. That sounds too touchy-feely for the tough guys, but if there were really any true tough guys left, they could set the tone. It would start with education and ostracization, and making a virtue of necessity. I have a long rant on education but I'm tired. As to the cancel culture (ostracization/consequences) and virtue, we just need to champion grace, gratitude, generosity, strength, courage, and maybe just a touch of species-humbleness. We could exalt those who exhibit those traits and turn away from the those who don't (Trump being an example, but there are a lot of grey men and others).

It's all pipe dreams but it's not unheard of. When I was a kid, the "real man" ideal that little boys aspired to be like was much different from what we see today. Greed turned the point and now the momentum is on the down-swing.

A pragmatist would say that what goes on in the privacy of a doctor's office is not the state's or anyone else's business. End of story.

Or, a pragmatist might say that a human being has sovereign rule over the life, death or health of anyone else who resides within their body. End of story.

All other arguments or debate or legislation or fly-specking or BS about sentience, pain, appearance, heartbeat, rape, incest, age, fatherhood, God, viability, trimesters, conception, genetic infirmity and whatnot is impractical, unrealistic, idealistic.

Trump was manufactured by television. That's where the problem reallly is. — Wayfarer

:100: :up: The question I have is why? I disagree with the right on most things but I know that somewhere in that 70m people there has to be one with honor, honesty and courage. But they didn't float that person. Why? Because television, that's why. And, of course, because the Plutocracy wants division to keep our eyes off of it as it milks the country dry. And our enemies want it because, well, it keeps us off balance so they can go about whatever they are up to without any threat from us.

Giving all the benefit of the doubt possible, and agreeing that the apple cart needed to be tipped, I can't understand why "we" didn't pick a good human being to lead the way.

I've expressed my thought about Liz Cheney before. So let's try another tack. Why for heavens sake would a guy like Crenshaw not avail himself of the opportunity to stand up on his hind legs and bitch-slap Trump, then run for POTUS? No. Instead he sucks up to him and bows down to a base that he could turn toward himself if he had the integrity to try. The guy was a SEAL, for crying out loud. There is no way a guy like bonespurs Trump would last 5 seconds if some guy with Republican macho cred called him out. Oh well, it's their bed. Hopefully we won't have to sleep in it.

Soros and the Koch brothers are only the beginning. — Michael Zwingli

You are right: they are only the beginning. The real players are grey men. (See Exxon, Chevron, Goldman, etc.)

If such people do have as much influence as you suggest, though, whose fault is that? — Michael Zwingli

It's their fault.

Is it not the fault of we the electorate, who continue to reelect the same politicians that allow themselves to be influenced, and their votes to be bought? — Michael Zwingli

No, it's not. As stated to Athena, money does not equal speech; money equals being heard. We only hear what money wants us to hear. Gerrymandering, laws that favor the two-party system (lesser of two evils), voting restrictions, hatred/division, the so-called "fourth estate", all that and more stands in the way of doing what's right.

we cannot blame them for seeking to exert themselves in realizing their will. — Michael Zwingli

I certainly can, and do. To quote Spider Man, "With great power comes great responsibility." In some indigenous communities, the counter-intuitive case of the person giving away the most somehow continued to have the most. A great warrior returns with more buffalo than anyone else and he gives it all away to those who can't hunt. Somehow he keeps stumbling on largess and keeps giving. Broad shoulders, lifting, carrying, working hard for the sake of work, philanthropy in silence, without recognition, doing the right thing when no one is watching, honor, integrity, dignity, community, grace, gratefulness. I *think* those are the old "family values", "community values" we sought. We better make a virtue of necessity or we are doomed. Giving a pass to those who stand on the shoulders of everyone else, who never saw a boot-strap in their life, is not in accord with what I think should be our values.

We all want to see our individual wills done, do we not? — Michael Zwingli

We might indeed, if our collective wills have not been and cannot be expressed. Hell yeah! Every man for himself! We too can be like them, if only we do what they tell us, support them, and step on others on the way up.

If we as an electorate do not do that, then whose fault is the continuing situation regarding political influence? — Michael Zwingli

It's the fault of those who make government their bitch to the exclusion of those they divide and separate from a viable franchise.

I fear you are right about the relation between death and truth. Truth might well be that what one gets when one finally stops to use "stolen life energy" to power ones brain (aka thinking). But even if we can't find ultimate truths in this discussion - and we know it - I am reliefed to know that I am at least not alone with my doubts. — FalseIdentity

It's also interesting to note the inquisitors oft repeated phrase: "Every question we answer opens up a multitude of new questions."

That means to me that, if history is any teacher, 1. there is and never will be any end in sight; 2. the more we continue in the direction we are going, the further we get from the truth; 3. there will not be a tipping point where we start closing in; 4. we best go back in the other direction, to the beginning, and attack the fundamental premise(s) that we agreed upon (and the questions we ignored) before we set out; 5. we best go back in the other direction, to the beginning, and make sure we took the right track on our way out.

When I try to do all that with my weak and non-scientific mind, I find that where All = A, then A = A and A = -A. That does, of course, violate logic, and it may very well mean that my mind is so open that my brains fell out; but I think "A" is pretty dispositive of all questions that anyone could have. The answer is always yes, and no, and things we can't fathom.

But it is fun to watch the logician and the physicist struggle; and I do wish them luck.