Strictlylogical

Members
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Strictlylogical

  1. My wife went through a phase, when she was about 23-24 during which she had an intense and visceral urge to have a baby... was drawn almost with a kind of yearning.. to every baby she saw... we finally had a baby close to 10 years later. Those could have been voluntary chosen rational urges... or she may have temporarily and involuntarily transformed into an animal of sorts... like a Weremother or something.
  2. You should send this to philosophy and/or science of mind journals. Get it published and peer reviewed. You'll be famous, and win a Nobel prize.
  3. You have it backwards and your fabrications, straw men, mischaracterizations, and intellectual dishonesty are so blatantly on display that it beggars comprehension. On occasion I would confuse your evasions and twisting of other’s words as honest mistake, but now, I just don’t buy that anymore, but it perplexes me. Do you think it’s impressing anyone? Do you think you are learning, growing, or refining your learning by faking to hash it out with discussions? Do you think you are winning some kind of competition, earning golden stars in some universal ledger by fake debating people? Why pretend to try to have a conversation you are not actually willing to have? I have no illusions that you would deign to answer anything close to honestly, and be willing to listen, think, and fully engage with intellectual objectivity. Know that I had hoped to have and would have valued having a real conversation with the person you could have and should have been. Your concept of man is an overblown cardboard cutout, that you would openly admit to ignoring essential and universal characteristics because they are “lower” than others shows clearly how polluted your process of thought by your subjectivity. I suggest you reconsider, elsewise you will never fully understand what you are, and accordingly never know what you should do. Good luck.
  4. I agree. I would go on to imagine the following. By the time birds are adults they are quite familiar with things they pick up or manipulate with their beaks, insects, nuts, pebbles, leaves, straw, sticks, grass etc... they’ve seen piles of them, perhaps seen others making piles... and perhaps having never had the urge to do so previously, one spring a bird sees a particularly interesting crook between a branch and a tree trunk... it’s dark and empty and enticing... irresistibly so. An urging to perch there... multiple times reinforces itself and then another urge is born... to fill it, yes with... with.. sticks, and straw and grass after finding straw, grass and bits of string the urge to fill that place.... make a space in the middle... all play out as an incremental process of contextual reproductive urging and discovery. Who here would claim in a sort of Blue Lagoon scenario, that in a completely different way but quite analogously, two completely innocent and ignorant adolescents having no knowledge about how certain things work would not end up discovering it, in a similar incremental contextually urged human process.
  5. I didn’t say humans have bird instincts, I merely note that your so called logic you use to refute any and all instinct in humans is premised on an assumption that instincts we observe in animals should be experienced in a certain way when you have no idea how instinct is experienced by the animals you accept have them. What basis could you possibly have to posit that humans should experience, something you claim we absolutely do not experience, namely instinct, in a particular manner, namely, as knowledge instead of an urge, feeling, or impulse? In any case, my comment regarding the paucity of your concept of man, as in incomplete rather than in low esteem, still stands, and does so irrespective of whether man has instincts or not.
  6. What makes you think instinct has anything to do with knowledge or thought? Speaking of projection... you project onto animals and the instinct guiding them with your unique human capacity of rational thought. There is no reason to think any human or animal experiences instinct as knowledge or thought. As for distaste... you think some aspects about the nature of humans are not high enough to include in your concept of human... making it impossible for you to make decisions about what a man should do if it has anything to do with his lower nature... but man is man... and what he should do is contingent on the entirety of the reality of his nature.
  7. You seem to be fighting against the idea instinct is the primary guide to action or its final arbiter, but I don’t think anyone is making that claim. I think you tend to deny the significant impact of instinct on human function and experience, on our minds and bodies, even our feelings and thoughts, because you find certain things about what a human is, to be distasteful. You ignore those things about the nature of man which you find distasteful... at your peril. For to think about what man is and what he should do you cannot use a concept of man which fails to accept the reality of his entire nature, not if you wish to know or to live.
  8. Why is consideration of a digestive system relevant in determining what a man should do?
  9. ??? So... does the fact that he has a particular kind of digestive system and metabolism come into consideration or not?
  10. Don't get hung up worrying about the pertinence... it's a simple question you can think about and answer straightforwardly and honestly. As an alternative how about: When determining whether a man "should" eat fast food (say greasy burgers), for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day of the week, or in fact should not do so, does the fact that he has a particular kind of digestive system and metabolism (which happens to be specific and different from that of some other animals which are not rational) come into consideration, or does such determining whether he should do so only depend on the facts that he is rational and the general fact that he is also an animal?
  11. Is there "the principle behind anthony"? Something about how a conversation just stops... when there is only silence in response to some question ... a something about the point at which there is no longer any reply? Perhaps... But I would rather that there were no such principle, and that we could continue having a conversation.
  12. When determining how a man "should" descend a tree so as to avoid injury, does the fact that he has four limbs and no tail (as opposed to some other animals, which are not rational, who do), come into consideration, or does such a consideration only depend on the fact that he is rational?
  13. Anthony, I had initially asked you what the purpose of abstraction was. This answer and the answer to my follow up question focus on what abstraction is. I'm still interested in talking about the purpose of abstraction. Why bother with the process of arriving at the concept? What use is a concept? "What for"? As an aside your answers imply abstraction involves a removal or ignorance of some universal characteristics, i.e. some particular "lesser" or "less significant" "non-relevant" characteristics. How do you pick and choose which universals to keep in the concept? Does your concept of "man" include that he is a kind of mammal with four limbs and no tail? Is that part of man's nature? When thinking about how man could or should climb down a tree, what abstraction do you use to take into account this fact about the nature of man?
  14. What is a "lesser attribute" of an entity. What determines it's removal from a concept? For example, what about a particular apple, what "lesser attribute" is to be removed from the "one", all-embracing concept "apple"?
  15. One possibly major difference between units of money which are themselves units of objective wealth/value and instruments/systems for store and exchange like Crypto, is that for the former you need only know of reality, specifically, human nature and the basic need and or use for the unit of wealth/value independent of any specific person, group of persons, or organization of persons, or systems etc., to know your units have objective value, but for the latter, you need to trust the people who set the system up, the group of people who agree to participate in that system, trust that the system works, both in the abstract/theory and in terms of actual implementation with operating infrastructure (hardware, software, electric grid etc) and will never fail. For the former you depend on your independent knowledge of reality, For the latter you are dependent upon everyone having to do with the currency system, the mechanical/computational system implementing it, and everything that the system itself would depend upon. Whether or not this difference is a big deal to you... I suppose will depend upon your sense of life. [Aside: Physical gold, although ridiculous to carry around, was and has been used at the worst times in history, to circumvent totalitarian rule, and preserve wealth even during the collapse of economies and the effective fallings of civilization itself... such a high benchmark might prove too high in today's world, but at least the alternative should be immune from the eletists/oligarchs, big tech, and big government... perhaps China is a good test-bed for how untouchable Crypto can be... is there a darkweb or an undernet there? I wonder what do they use there as currency on the blackmarket?]
  16. Don't give up because one lawyer dissuaded you. Find another, maybe one who will work on contingency, or another who is strongly interested in justice and/or does pro bono work. There are many free minded legal big hitters who would be interested to see justice in such a case. Do not give up. Reach out and find the others, work together.
  17. This raises a few interesting questions for me. Back in the day (prior to paper fiat currencies), store of wealth/value, exchange of units of that value, the long term and the short term were all in a sort of harmony. At times populations, cultures, and technology were "static" enough over a single lifetime or perhaps even a few generations such that a thing could serve all these purposes: one COULD choose to store wealth long or short term, and exchange value with a single thing, money (e.g. gold coins). Any IOU based on units of that money was as good on an IOU on units of wealth itself. So in essence what was CHOSEN to be exchanged WAS wealth. In today's world we see that the value of financial instruments, currencies, various "mediums" or "mechanisms" of exchange are, as you note, NOT a store of wealth. Modern money functions only a medium of exchange (having itself an eroding value) which is good only for daily, monthly, short term exchanges (that is until we have hyperinflation, and that might be reduce to seconds...) I find it incredibly frustrating that the whole idea of "saving money", especially in the long term, is practically an incoherent idea as such. Modern money, (particularly in our modern economy) is now guaranteed to devalue against reality. [I find it insulting that through inflation, governments essentially force us to gamble with our savings, invest in others "for the good of society" I suppose, because we face continual erosion of wealth if we try simply to save money.] Ships and shoes and sealing wax, haircuts and legal fees... although they change relative to each other according to the market, are all much more expensive in terms of units of "modern money" than say 50 years ago... everything is worth more.. money is worth less. What does that say about the "unit" measure of modern money? I don't see instantaneous and extreme value fluctuations of burgers, lawn mowing services, hair cuts, and vegetables, as measured in the effort and time of productive work which went into them.. as against the effort and time of productive work exchanged (through specialization in a complex network) to purchase them. Why use a unit whose measure is sure to fail at any long term stability? As for an honest person's word, I have no argument with you that there is nothing nonobjective about the IOU in agreements/contracts as such, however, the economic objectivity of that agreement is in part affected by the "units" used to make that agreement. If honorable persons unwittingly contract in units which are subjective in terms of any long term value, I cant help thinking that somehow they have been shortchanged, one or both. So then assuming both parties should not be unwitting... they should price their exchange based on the fact that the medium of exchange IS short term... and IS completely subjective against long term human values... use it nonetheless, and then as soon as possible exchange that "money" for some store of wealth until one needs to convert it back into money for an exchange. So in the end we have to cut what real money previously was into two, and retain only the temporary medium for exchange as a use for that money, and relegate the store of wealth or long term store of value to other things which that money may be exchanged for. I wonder, if the state did not dictate what passes as currency would we now have two main units of money, one short term (unhinged, possibly subject to fluctuation, inflation, deflation, etc.), and one long term (tied to some objective standard)? In that free economy, I would think contracts for anything greater than 10 years should use the second kind of units. So what is the upshot, the final take away, NEVER save your money?.... and in fact, we never should have done so or even thought to do so?
  18. A value to a human being, like shelter, food, art, something which provides you some value from use, possession, etc. or which you could decide to trade, for something of a different kind but which to you has the same or greater value. Something that has value itself, to human flourishing, other than its use solely to trade with others, for OTHER stuff which actually has objective value to humans.
  19. I might be way off base here, but isn't crypto, as such, purely and completely devoid of any objective value? That's not to say it's impossible that it might have some advantages in our current mixed economy (euphemism alert... it's a litany of misdirection and a tyranny of regulation, taxation, and surveillance, a well worn and comfy, increasingly brazenly naked tool of slavery... but I digress)... advantages over our so called "money" which the state guarantees is continually drained of value over time... advantages perhaps on the way toward (or even helping towards) a truly free economy (dream on?) (I hate it when I have to use so many "our"s or "we"s or "us"s... I'm really seeing how overuse of these terms clown-make-ups reality into a kind of infantile parody of the world.. which has become so popular in modern times) BUT once in a truly free economy why should I want to have anything to do with the stuff?
  20. I have often thought of the fundamental asymmetry between Marxist collectivists and classical liberals / radical Capitalism. The former relies on and is rooted in proactive force and cannot countenance the latter in any way, but instead must overthrow it, eradicate it. There can be no harmony with the latter's existence. The latter is pacifist like nothing the hippies would ever have dreamed up, with non-initiation of force at its base. Rather than outlawing collectivism as such (while of course outlawing collectivist use of force) the latter is perfectly harmonious with any voluntary collective. The one leaves no one be, even those who would choose to be left alone. The latter leaves everyone alone and equally leaves them free to choose to live in whatever level of collective promiscuity they wish. The Liberal (Classical) has no place in the Leftist's world view, whereas the Leftist's would have a place in the Liberal's world, only their use of force would be impermissible. This stark contrast, this asymmetry I find fascinating and inspiring, it may be the greatest example of the benevolence of freedom as a foil in the face of naked tyranny and yet it get's little to no attention. Perhaps there are so many who only "group think", who almost always and ever consider themselves, society and government only in terms of "we" (and "them"), and never think of themselves, their lives, and their freedom's in terms of "I" or "me". There is a great mass of lost souls, adult children, so mortally terrified of solitude and independence, ... that they must annihilate any solitary minded person or any ideas of individual liberty. Perhaps those who would be left free and would leave others also to be free are at a disadvantage... or perhaps not? I suppose as long as they are not naive to the naked will to power which possesses the lost cravens who seek oblivion for all, liberty minded persons can survive. But we must be vigilant. Anyway. Why is this asymmetry not more directly spoken of? Why don't Freedom lovers tell the middle-left (non violent progressives), you could organize yourselves in our world, you just cant use guns to threaten us, or anyone?
  21. Sorry, I was almost tempted to repeat myself.
  22. It means, witch hunts against lawyers having particular legal theories based (at least in part) on philosophical or political ideas or beliefs, deprive individuals whose case may depend upon those legal theories, from having any possibility of a fair proceeding before an adjudicator, because strong advocacy for his position has been abrogated. Were law societies in a "free democracy" to require a yearly solemn affirmation in the rightness and propriety of Affirmative Action, how could a lawyer morally represent a citizen who wanted to overturn Affirmative Action law? If law societies in religious states disbarred lawyers who proclaim their support for Rights to Abortions, what happens to that right? and if it were currently illegal, what would happen to the right to challenge the constitutionality of that law if you could not hire a lawyer who would be willing and able to argue your case? Little is as much a threat to the rule of law and democracy as interference with the free practice of law on behalf of citizens wishing to exercise their rights and freedoms before an adjudicator.
  23. Michael, I've noted you have a certain amount of optimism, here as which is repeatedly shown elsewhere and throughout your posts. If I were to imagine we were in Germany, in the early days of Hitler's rise to power, rare proponents of individual rights and free will having a chat over coffee... would it be safe to say you would not have had the same optimism, and for specific reasons? If we were having coffee now... what is to say we are not is a psycho-culturally analogous situation? (I suppose this depends on how much of the true American spirit has atrophied) I'm not sure if its my overly cynical view of the "others" out there in general, or whether I am being fed too much negative information about what appears to be some kind of tipping point... but I cannot see what you see. Why? Why the optimism here and now, when here and now feels and seems so bleak... Hoping to see things more like you!
  24. I'm sure some of you have been updated by YouTube's algorithm on Maricopa county goings on over the last weeks/months, but in case not, I have found this channel informative: https://www.youtube.com/user/scottsdalestudios/videos Good premises!