Culture is just a shared psychosis :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEPpY3mtekc
Printable View
Culture is just a shared psychosis :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEPpY3mtekc
Many thanks, Marc. Anytime you are ready to reply, would be a good one. :)
Reviewing the past discourses, again, I do suspect that anything short of a full apology to the aggrieved members, may come up short, though.
It takes an incredibly brave man, with oodles of testicular fortitude, to admit failure & to say that most difficult of words - "Sorry". :)
No worries - this is a question of beliefs - an epistemological problem.
I was an aggrieved member - so much so I demanded that all my posts be deleted and my account be removed. I have had no appology. Although it was a very foolish thing to do - arranging for so many posts to be deleted - even i wanted to refer back to them in later months but couldn't. But then at the time I was an extreemly aggrieved member.
It also takes an incredibly brave person to stick to his guns when it comes to his beliefs rather than bow to baseless customs for custom sake. I consider myself a brave person - except when it comes to heights, scorpions, snakes, sharks and spiders :)
If I truly believe that there are two different stars - the morning star and the evening star, Phosphorus and Hesperus, and I argue sincerely that they are two different stars then why should I apologize when later you prove to me they both in fact are just Venus. When you later convince me that they are the same heavenly body being seen on both occasions, the morning and again in the evening, should I apologize? Of course not - I was not deliberately trying to permanently fool you. I simply held a false belief - I was not wrong to hold a belief which till that time seemed sufficiently supported by evidence and argument. I might have been wrong to hold dogmatically to that belief. Sure, perhaps I could apologize for being dogmatic. But what if I didn't realise that dogma is so antisocial and that I was being dogmatic. Again I should not be expected to apologize.
I will never apologize for being me - I am proud of me :)
??????????????????????????????
@ Marc,
You know, I've sometimes found it wise to apologise, even if I considered myself to be totally in the right. This may sound strange & it certainly does not come easily to many of us.
What I generally do is to apologise for my part in creating difficulties for others & for the adverse effect I may have had on them. I try to analyse the situation from the other person's perspective - put myself in their shoes, so to speak.
I have always been able to walk away from these events feeling better about myself & my former adversary. More often than not, I have ended up with a new friend. :)
People don't have to admit (or for there to be any) wrong doing or such, to say they are sorry for how things worked out or to reconise anothers unhappiness. All they are doing is expressing their sorrow that things could have gone better and people are upset.
I would like to say how sorry, genuinely sorry i am about how things have worked out and seem to be still working out. I don't know any of the history of this all and truth be told i'm not interested either, no good comes from going over things you can't change, by all means learn from it, but like a red hot coal it needs to be let go or it will continue to do harm.
Jon :)
But you see DesA - this is exactly the sort of thinking that I am trying to change in the world. I believe it is like me not only trying to convince people that the earth orbits the sun, not the other way round, but also they should be more open to such truths and be less sensitive to ideas that contradict their thinking. Then you come to me and say - I find the best way about this is to just ignore the matter of the earth and sun and rather be sensitive to their feelings on the matter which will also make you happier. I say "No!" you don't get it - I believe they are wrong and I believe they should learn that their sensitivities have absolutely nothing to do with the truth and I in fact will not be happy until that time arrives.
I love the subject of Social Psychology - have read here and there on the subject for years. I have a list of my favourite books on the topic - I can email it if you wish. Come to think of it - here is a great series of brilliant lectures on Social Psychology - about 40 hrs worth by a very articulate lecturer on the topic from UCT Berkley (Robb Willer). I recommend anyone interested in how people think and how such actions and thoughts such as apologizing, forgiving and being thankful effect out minds and body chemistry. Funny thing is nothing in these books and lectures was not already in the books from 500BC to 200BC written by the Greeks - I watched the whole lecture series last December and while watching it I kept thinking "Yeah, I know that - Socrates said that or Plato said that or Aristotle explained that or Epicurus insisted on that etc" - nothing new under the sun as they say :)
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_d...esterid=2009-B
As Socrates said when they tried to get him to appologise at his trial - he was given the choice of either execution or appology. The whole speech he gave is called "The Apology". Socrates stayed true to his beliefs - he drank the hemlock.
You can read Socrates Apology here...
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
My position is derived precisely out of putting myself in the other peoples shoes and thinking "WTF is wrong with these people?"
Exactly the sort of response i expected from you Marc. Just like the Stig on BBC's top gear, technicaly correct but with no emotion and no idea how to deal with human beings. How on earth you profess to write papers on psycology i will never know. Yet again you miss the point, which is :- Many people are upset with you, please apologise for your disgusting actions in the past. If thereafter you continue to post, we as a comunity may accept you back. Think it over, Socates would.
Indeed, I am consistent - aren't I.
If you think I am correct then why do you not apologise?
My emotions are stronger than yours. Everything we do outside of instinctive reflex is done only out of desire. I do what I do because my emotional drive to do so is quite powerful and certain.
Even a person who intends to be entirely rational without any emotional influence can only have such desires because of an associated emotional drive.
Psychology? I do nothing of the sort. I write about the physics of fridge and I do a little analytic philosophy. I do a little conceptual engineering - that is technical philosophy - metaphysics, epistemology and logic - I build arguments to stand on their own merits and properly independent of opinions. I mostly write those technical philosophy articles because I think there are too many people like you in the world. You literally have no idea of what you are talking about. You commit the ad homonym fallacy but at the same time you know so little - so very little - you have no idea of how nonsensical you are.
Wait there - have to fetch some stuff I posted before... here we go. Okay:
The ad homonym move is an argumentative move and a wholly legitimate demonstration of another person's inconsistency. This is also known as the "you too" or "tu quoque" move as opposed to the "tu quoque fallacy" which is identical to the "ad homonym fallacy".
For example - if someone argued that all killing is ethically wrong and that there is nothing unethical about capital punishment then provided you can demonstrate that capital punishment is a form of killing, then, in pointing out the obvious contradiction, you would be making the ad homonym move with legitimacy.
On the other hand, the ad homonym fallacy is committed when an antagonist brings into the discussion an irrelevancy. If someone argued that we should not take seriously the findings of a medical scientist who had researched the beneficial effects of jogging on the cardiovascular system on the grounds that the scientist was overweight and probably could not even run 100 yards then a matter utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand would have been introduced to the discussion. As Jamie Whyte likes to put it "The antagonist might just as well have stated that in Spain it rains mainly on the plains for all it adds to the topic at hand". Because the two claims can be true at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. The one does not contradict the other and nor is the one contrary to the other. In which case the antagonist has merely changed the subject to an irrelevance. I would normally then tell the antagonist that they probably are correct about the claim made about the scientist's personal health but this is not actually the time nor place to discuss such matters and could we rather get back onto the the other very unrelated topic of the benefits of jogging. You see, the scientist was not asking people to take his claims on faith or by testament but instead by analysis of evidence and argument. And anyway his personal fitness does not necessarily detract on its own from any value his testament is ordinarily given.
In short - just because I do not like your personality and you do not like mine it does not mean I am incapable of understanding and explaining yours or you mine. The arguments you put forward or I put forward have to stand on their own merit independent of our own strengths and weaknesses.
In fact one of the greatest theoretical psychological analysts, Jung, had the same personality as me and pissed all his colleagues off big time but still to this day we use his methods. According to Jung's method of typology this is my personality of late:
http://www.typelogic.com/intp.html
No - you are missing the point - please list all these disgusting actions :)
Let's analyse them one by one. I have saved print out to PDF of several of the old discussions and those last discussions before I left. I do not think it appropriate to repost them here but if you insist then I can arrange this :)
It's a little community here now? A little clique like thing? To hang around on this street corner we all have to wear a certain style hood, no belt and blue jeans covering at least our thighs. If you, Sling, have a community I would like smash it a little - shake it a little - and then rebuild in into something a little more respectable.
You haven't changed - Sling - your just as simple as you ever were.
The difference between you and I, Sling, is precisely that I am a thinker and you are not.
Socrates did think it over - read Plato's Apology and Plato's Crito - Socrates chose to drink the hemlock rather than bow to intellectually undeveloped characters like you. Not to spite people like you but to defeat the intellectual nonsense that oozes from the orifices of people like you.
Do you know why they called it the renaissance and the enlightenment? Renaissance means rebirth. Around the 1500's there was a rebirth of Socratic thinking which resulted in our final freedom from the church. Socrates knew he was right and he was willing to die for it. That is my kind of guy :)
If you had read anything of Socrates you would not have said that.
I actually thought this was a good thread about business's failing and someone genuinley giving their side of the story....that is up untill or about when 750Valve jumped in......then its gone all a bit weird (not because of 750..) who reads all this crap being posted? And what relevence does it have here? Obviously some history here between parties. But really...from someone on the outside looking in...WTF!
I keep thinking of this video :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnNhzgcWTk
Hey, desA, that's finally a good post with no words expressing o so much ;)
Well draughted and thought about response. My apologies, i thought you were a dimwit. However you have just proven you are mentally unstable, and i will treat you as such from now on wards. thanks Marc. Apology accepted.
A Leopard can't change it's spots.
i have not enjoyed reading a post as much as this 1 in years, keep it up guys.
[QUOTE
This is how the west got so rich and so very rich that the only reason the east is also somewhat rich is because it has fuel resources made available by means created in the west borne out of a motivation occurring only because of this limited liability mechanism.
QUOTE]
Apologies to pick on your history but you will find it is actually "Fractional reserve banking" that created easily available credit that fueled business expansion in the west.
You may think Fractional reserve banking is off topic but it is not, it the global financial system that we have with us today and the spectre of this financial system we have been born into is controlled by a few powerfull people that effects every one your businesses and employment that is being discussed.
Simply put - The fractional reserve banking system creates money out of nothing and Banks loan money they dont have.
Now heres the rub -
As example just last month the UK Government borrowed 22.5 BILLION pounds, whats to stop the Government borrowing a trillion pounds from the banks...nothing! because this and future governments have these suckers called tax payers and there children and there childrens children to pay it all back...so your children are born into debt when they take there first breath.
There is no Government accountability over borrowing limits (The last Labour government was the worst) and that is what affects the economy now (your business and employment).
Please view this simplfied animation called "Money as deb"t by Paul Grignon (1 0f 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndKlWQfQ_tI
If you dig deeper you will find that the Federal Reserve Bank in the US is not the Government bank, it is a private bank run as a business by unkown individuals?? (Google it).
Same as the Bank of England it is the only registerd business in the UK where the anonimity of the Directors of the B of E is protected by law??
If you aquire knowledge of how banks behave it is nearly enough to convert you to becoming a communist...but they havent got the answers either.
Full reserve banking is the way to go but the anonymous controllers of the banks wont let that happen, they are just far too powerfull for any government to tackle.
He who controls the money supply controls the World.
Have your eyes glazed over yet? :)
No, not at all, I do not mind. My limited knowledge comes from reading this book last year:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crunch-Incom...2964052&sr=8-3
It also explains what it is you talk about. Similarly part 3 of http://www.zeitgeistthefilm.com/ tackles the topic you bring up.
Yes the system we are born into sort of reminds me of the first movie of the Matrix trilogy starring Keanno Reeves, whereby people just go about there daily lives completely ignorant of the fact that they are enslaved.
Google the Bilderberg group and the Rothschilds it only gets worse.