Karl

Groundhog Day - it's your Birthday today as well as yesterday ? We'll have a lovely Birthday today as well.

Even if that were all true-which it isn't-who are you to decide ? I say to all who would initiate force-first use it upon yourself. Stop using resources yourself. Stop consuming right now. If that's the value you have, if that is your moral code then your duty to yourself is to apply it to yourself. Ah but morals are 'arbitrary' is what you tell me. Therefore there are no morals to apply to anything including childbirth and resource consumption either. So you can keep on consuming and so can everybody else because morality is arbitrary. Isn't that your stance ? Every person who consumes must first produce. That is the law which governs life. If you cannot produce, then you cannot consume and hence you will die. Humans are not viruses, they must think, choose and reason to survive. They are not simply locusts on a field, they are growers of the crops. Our problems are caused by the belief that 'something must be done' that someone must decide what's best. The problems we have are through political management. In microcosm this is why China starved under Mao. The application of force by a population that demands it, results in pollution, starvation, waste and eventually death. All that is required is for a Government to be responsible to prevent the initiation of force. We have had quite enough of Governments who initiate it.

Morality, in objectivist philosophy is predicated on your choice to value your own life. Thus by your own life all values and actions are judged by you. So one must choose to hold ones life as a value, choose to learn to sustain it and choose to discover the values it requires and the virtues to practice. Morality is a code of values accepted by choice for one reason-survival. Therefore they are principles that define how to sustain and nourish human life. They shape each mans character and life course. It should be clear that good and evil are not arbitrary, but neither are they intrinsic. They must be objectively chosen. I learned this before I ever saw it written objectively. I knew I had a strong moral code which must be consistently applied. Then I saw it written "be the change you wish to see in the world". So, in order to end violence you must first stop promoting violence. You cannot hold something as true and then contradict it by your thoughts. So, if you begin with the thought 'I value my life' then, by contradicting your own moral code, you contradict the basis of on which all your moral codes were predicated. If you understand what I'm saying, you will flower. You will realise you can know right and wrong by your own chosen code. That it is based on your choice to value your own life as a primary. That it is YOU who must choose, not the state, not God, not some ancient book or slate. The responsibility is with you alone, not a Government, not wise men, not high IQ geniuses. It cannot be morals by proxy, it all returns to you and therefore you must not evade that responsibility or you make your own life worthless. This is, as I said, objectivist philosophy. It does not lay down a code to follow, it says you can and must choose for yourself what you will do, what values you will hold, what virtues are needed to obtain those values. You can be a moral man, or an immoral one, but that choice is yours alone.

Not that old Malthusian myth. Malthus was discredited because his theories failed. Population expansion is in decline globally. In the West population itself is declining. Every person born must produce to consume. If every person on the world stood together the area covered would be about the size of Zanzibar. There is enough space for every man, woman and child to have 5 acres of space, yet, most prefer to live in highly concentrated cities. We are not running out of resources, we grow more food than the world could eat. It is the political environment that is the issue not lack of food. The scarcest resource on the planet is human Labour- that's why slavery was so popular. Hence larger populations are better, particularly if we should have a global epidemic, or other natural disaster. Beyond all that. Initiating force against another person is morally wrong. It's as simple as that. Policing violent men to prevent the initiation of force, does not mean that he can now decide its OK to initiate force himself. That's the attitude of a tyrant. To consider that force justified when the facts do not reveal a population problem is plain stupid. Hence, despite his IQ he is a stupid man.

It's not entirely the right description, but a man who thinks he knows what's best for everyone and is prepared to use force to ensure that happens, is not a wise man. He sees life only in terms of his knowledge of policing violent men, 'shit kickers' I believe was the term he used. He also advocates the use of forced population control. That was enough for me. Stupid and dangerous.

An IQ of 210 and still stupid. Which goes to show why IQ tests are a waste of time.

Happy birthday Junko. Have a lovely day.

Plotinus got the world of forms from Plato. The philosophers visited the Hindu culture-who had links with the Chinese cultures-and brought back the whole Hindu philosophy applied to Neo Platonism. From this we got organised religion. Jung derived his philosophy from Plato and more succinctly from Kant who got it from Plato. Hence, when Jung looked at Jesus and Buddah he was already looking through exactly the same philosophical lens as that which created the modern religion of Christianity. I've already posted the connection between Jung and Plato in Jungs own words. There are no archetypes anymore than there are atrological character types. It's the same error repeated over in a slightly different way.

I've seen them do it with the tools they had back then, they are incredible stone workers and today their art is nowhere close to their ancestors. Did you know that in Britain when everyone practised archery that the bows they used were so powerful, that a modern archer is unable to pull one ? Did you know that when they managed to build a steam locomotive from scratch in my home town that it took decades even with the advanced equipment we have now. In time that steam technology will become lost, as were the designs, techniques and understanding barely 40 years after we stopped building them. What you have to realise is that the division of labour and specialism for ancient production was well established.

They were very good at construction. I've seen some of the techniques up close and they are technically impressive for a such an ancient civilisation. One day the might ask how the hell we designed and built a passenger plane that could fly twice the speed of sound with 1960s technology-but we did. The reason is mans incredible ingenuity and productive capacity all derived from the faculty of his mind. However, it is not for me to prove there were no Aliens, but for you to prove there were. You are making that assertion.

Yes. I have Memories, Dreams and Reflections which I read fully Several years ago when I was into that kind of thing. I've also read numerous lumps of the drier texts. I was working as a therapist for several years so I have quite a lot of material in that direction. My criticism is purely philosophical. If you subscribe to Kant then you won't have an issue.

Where is the evidence ? The technology, design and techniques were well known. You might as well say Stonehenge was built with the assistance of Aliens or the Empire State Building.

“Nobody has read Plato – you haven’t either. Yet he is one of those who have come closest to the truth.” – C.G. Jung: C.G. Jung Speaking, Princeton University Press 1977 ed., p. 412 And here is Jung’s opinion on Plato, as given in a seminar: “… the origin of consciousness means the origin of values and significance, and you find these concepts so well coined in this early philosophy, because Plato was close to the origin of philosophical consciousness.” – C.G. Jung: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1934-1939, Princeton University Press, 1988 ed. p. 678 Jungs archetypes came from Platos forms and latterly Kant's misguided creations, who first got them from Plato. Hence 'channeling' is appropriate as he was channeling Platos ideology. The Neo platonists (Plotinus) were visitors to many countries including India. They brought back the Eastern philosophies and allowed the beginnings of organised religion to flourish in the West. Wether Buddhism or Christianity, Jung viewed both through the lenses of the very same philosophy. Pyramids were built by humans not Aliens.

This might give you some idea what's going on. This is piece by Liam Fox (conservative) as a result of a talk he had in the USA and what Americans had misunderstood. I think if the USA truly understood the shocking mess we are in they would be concerned that in time they might well come to see a Europe that is no longer an ally, but a worn out multicultural basket case. http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/fox-on-friday-americans-would-never-submit-to-foreign-rule-unlike-us/

Yeah and astronauts built the pyramids ;-) Jung was chanelling Plato and the Neo platonic generation that created modern monotheistic religion from a fusion of East and West. Jung saw archetypes in Christ and Buddah because they were the result of the very same Neo platonic philosophy which Jung followed through their originator-Plato. He was identifying the underlying philosophic components through a lens coloured by the self same philosophies-bingo, he made them fit his marginally altered philosophical ideology. In effect he was begging the question. One good reason we should consign Jung to the dustbin of failure, he lost objectivity and reverted to mysticism instead of hard science.

Nah, Camels, cats and Vincent Black Shadows.

That's secondary and it really means an entire philosophical change to occur in order that we shed mysticism completely. Whilst we agree with portions of it, we can't get rid of it.

I don't think we can have a war on Islam I agree with you on that as its equivalent to 'the war on terror'. We have to go to war with Isis, ISIL, AQ , ANF and anyone supporting them. We had better get to it swiftly and put Europe in a war footing.

I don't think you grasp the proble Zero. It doesn't matter who we have, we aren't in control of anything, the EU is. We are run from Brussels by unelected bureaucrats which essentially means Britains fate is essentially decided by a country such as Romania or Lithuania. What we want is our own country so we can control who comes and goes, who we wish to trade with and how we should conduct defence policy.

Get rid of the EU, close the borders and end the free passage of people. Cut off finance to ISIS by ending all trade with the Saudi states and Turkey (who's president is now acting akin to Hitler). Find and destroy ISIS on the ground in the Middle East-any country that continues funding or supplying fighters to be regarded as an enemy and harsh sanctions imposed. Stop trying to impose democracy and freedom on the Middle East-cease and desist Neo con and corporate action.

I think it is, even though it's-in a sense-a side issue. Europe is incapable of a reasoned response. This is because it isn't and has never been a single country. The result is a response by committee. No country can mount a response if it is run by a bureaucratic comittee in which the members are unelected and represent diverse cultures, wealth and opinions. Instead they simply freeze and let the enemy walk in. They would rather appease than make a decision. Brexit is not leaving Europe, it's strengthening Europe, by removing the problem which is causing the incapacity. This is applicable to both laws, security and wealth generation. The EU cannot ever work, there is no tinkering that will make it so, by the time they get themselves together the EU will be bankrupt, mired in social collapse and likely over run by an invader who walked right through the gates whilst the commissioners were sat around drinking tea and jawing. It will be hard on us to break away because it will entail costs and effort, but it's no different to a young adult leaving its parents. Of course taking responsibility is tough. Of course setting up home, keeping a job, earning a living, staying healthy are suddenly down to the young adult, the parent isn't around to do that, but this is a Net positive for both parent and child. So it will be with the EU which will lose its cosy lunches, grand plans, decorating it's gardens and talking for months. It will suddenly be jerked back into life by seeing that eventually all its children are going to have to leave. It is far harder for ISIS to attack sovereign countries that can react without a mothers meeting. It's far harder to get past border posts and countries that are intent on security and defence. I don't see it as leaving Europe, I see it as the catalyst for making it stronger, safer and wealthier. I see that someone must show the way before it's too late and we have-as an Island-the best opportunity to guide the others. Playtime is over, things are getting worse in all areas, somebody must take the reins.

As yet we haven't seen the organising Jihadhists who are behind the planning, supply and training of the recruits. This is not an ad hoc operation, it's got a sophisticated command/control, financing and logistics structure. Men are taken to training camps outside of Europe and then shipped back here. We have no control over who is coming and going as long as they have European passports. The alleged 400+ Isis fighters who have arrived under cover of the refugees are yet to make an appearance-although I'm under the impression that there are a couple who have already been involved in the attacks ? (Have to check that). Next it appears that the EU parliament wants to open its doors to Turkey, so we might just as well have no borders at all. I have to say, though this is all a concern, it isn't my key reason for leaving which is economic and sovereign. We will always face threats, I just don't think we need to make it easy for the attackers to move about, train and obtain weaponry. However, it has to be weighed in the balance by everyone who is going to put an X in the box on referendum day.

It seems like ISIS ( that's the ISLAMIC state unless anyone was confused about the affiliation with ISLAM) have smuggled 400 plus trained fighters into Europe amongst the refugees. I suspect that each one will recruit several 3 man cells so we might have upwards of 6000 jihadi nutters wandering around the EUs open borders-many of them homegrown Europeans with passports which will allow them to cross into Britain with minimum effort. So, we now have a war with insurgents hidden amongst groups that our Governments are desperately attempting to convince us are totally innocent and unsupportive of the aims of the Muslim brotherhood. Even whilst we have seen TV documentaries with Muslim men and women actively campaigning in support of jihadhis. It is impossible to seperate the bad from the good as it is, yet our masters refuse to do anything to prevent the comings and goings of those who are active and those who support them. The so called intelligence links with Europe have been found to be next to mythical. The intelligence is almost all one way from Britain. The ex MI6 boss believes leaving will significantly strengthen our security. Only the euro police commissioner is calling for us to remain- not a surprise seeing who pays his wages it would be one easy gig he would hate to lose. The only time in recent memory that there was any kind of inter euro/British tie up was when the parents of a young boy were arrested for trying to find medical help abroad which they had been refused in the UK.

They are still at it today. The instrument of choice is a hellfire missile.

Until it reads 80/20 I'm not buying.