Karl

The countries constantly talk about 'trade negotiations', 'free trade agreements' and 'alliances'. It's always going to be years of hard negotiations, lots of meetings and flag waving, when all that's needed is a simple letter/ contract agreeing on totally free trading between the countries- takes ten minutes on the phone and a signed agreement in the post. Wether it's EU, WTO or any other grouping, the reality is that we aren't negotiating anything like a free trade agreement.

None of the states actually have full sovereignty Brian. It's a sham. Peter Hitchins mentions it on the video about the history of the EU and how there was an experiment conducted by Germany ? To remove sovereignty but leave a kind of notional sovereign shell. So the EU flag has parity, except in cases in which the EU has footed the bill for the advertising/PR and then it reserves the right to be the sole flag and symbol.

We are part of the universe, not the universe itself. The universe exists, we exist, we are conscious of ourselves and the universe in which we are both included and self identified. We cannot look out for the universe, we can only look out for ourselves. The universe is and we are only part of that.

Know thyself and be thyself. For me it's the virtues - existence, independence, production, justice, integrity, pride and honesty. Go your own way, follow those virtues, don't live by the permission of other men. It doesn't matter if you do not succeed in achieving greatness, just do your best by those virtues and be happy in yourself. A self contained, unrestrained, incorruptible beacon of self in which you can feel proud of that accomplishment in and of itself. Be the best that you can be, excel using those principles. No need to be charming, but it is certainly worth being polite, enthusiastic, measured and kind whilst adhering to those principles. I think you can only truly inspire if that inspiration is principled. If it is a integral part of who you are. One thing that struck me about inspirational people was that they stuck to their principles and refused to compromise no matter what. Sometimes this meant they were very unpopular-often violently unpopular-but by refusing to compromise they eventually won through. It does not mean that this is always true, but it's invariably the attributes of the winners. The losers always compromise their principles out of fear.

There is some very trick equipment around these days. I came across a company building artificial ears one atom at a time in order to copy the exact skin detail and texture.

I don't think Vulcans approve of dangerous sports do they ?

Because it works. I'm sure that a multi axis digital milling machine is a brilliant piece of advanced machinery, but it's based on a chisel. I find I'm competent with a chisel, the multi axis machine only adds complexity even if it does the same job faster. Hierachy of logic ;-) nice try batman but I'm not biting.

It is not a two tier hierarchy because in any given moment anyone is free to use reason and to use it badly, or well. That is the power of independent thought and our relationship as existent beings in an existent universe. We have free choice over what we can do, but there are absolutes which we cannot change. Aristotlian logic is just a tool of organised methodological cognition, it isn't a philosophy in itself. You are judging by your own philosophical understanding and arriving at an invalid conclusion. Your conclusion is unsound because your premesis are incorrect. You have made the assumption that my philosophy is based around Aristotlian logic, which it isn't. I've repeated numerous times that Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. These are axiomatic twins of which one is the corollary of the other. Wilber is a mystic, but he is a sophisticated mystic. He would not fall for such a banale mysticism as Christian fundementality because it easy to disprove. He won't deny logic or reason because he knows that would mean he could hold no philosophy at all, but he attempts to jack them down his colour scale as merely primal faculties that are a part of some greater wilberian truth. This stuff appeals to intellectuals, the cleverer you are, the better it works.

Plato had a caste system that did not require a God. The system he advocates already exists despite God. The English class system didn't require it. The intellectual/political system doesn't require it. There are no hierarchies in thought. You either use reason effectively, or you do not. If your philosophy does not include reason as the premier determinate of human survival then it must logically accede to some other method. There are two; one says that true knowledge is only available through religion/mystic practice and is intrinsically derived-that you must do nothing except to practice/prayer/still the mind and this knowledge will come to you. The other says that there are no absolutes, that everything is in the process of change and therefore reason has no place. That one just does whatever seems correct by intuition, whim or emotion and if that doesn't work, then try something else. One thing is not any better than another thing. The world is a pragmatic place. Wilber combines these two alternates. He advocates that sacrifice to others is not the way forward-as it woukd with Kant/Hegel-that instead, others must be sacrificed-metaphorically-for the superman to gain his hierarchical position. This is the philosophy you advocate-you say so explicitly. Wilber uses the Eastern mystic order as the pathway to attainment that's all that differs from pure Neitzcshian philosophy. This is really the philosophy of Nazi Germany and the blond Superman- except, instead of sacrificing self to state, the sacrifice is state to self. You become God in your own play, but you don't call it God, but some hierarchical colour of thinking which proves this attainment of superiority over others. God does not ordain it, but you do through the philosophical keyhole.

They weren't pragmatic, they were spiritual Mystics (truth is revelation-intrincisism). It's the combination of Wilbers pragmatic, relativism (muscle Mystics) and eastern spiritual mysticism which is the attraction. What's worse is the relativist philosophy he has chosen is one of the worst-in that it pushes the idea of the Neitzcshian (a mystic irrationalism) superman, which can be achieved through mystic states of meditation. It's so obvious-but people want to believe and so they set aside reason as their guide to truth because pragmatism doesn't require it. The Eastern Mystics have a similar philosophy in that knowledge is possible, but not through reason, but by meditation, exercise, abstention and sutra. Aquinas did something similar in Catholicism. The difference was that Aquinas tried to objectively prove the existence of God. He combined mysticism (western style) with Aristotles power of logic. In effect he was trying to prove scientifically and logically that God was relevant and that reason supported that conclusion. Wilbers even produces a helpful chart to gauge ones progress towards superman status. This parellels the eastern Mystics belief in a gradual self improvement and so reinforces it. Nickolai is even beginning to put people into Wilbers coloured boxes and to to see his own place amongst them. This ranking is typical of the Indian Caste system, something that carried well in Platos Greece.

Never. One thing I've learned is to plan for the unlikely as well as the possible. That way you can train to cope with 99.9% of things that come your way. The 0.1% you can't do anything about so no need to worry. Riding a motorcycle at high speeds on public roads is one of the most dangerous activities anyone can undertake. I've had several close shaves, but each one was avoided by proper training; looking far enough ahead, scanning, observation, road positioning, speed, machine control, good machine mechanicals. I also rock climbed, potholed, mountain biked and paraglide for many years without incident just by taking the proper precautions, training for the inevitable and keeping a high degree of awareness at all times. Whenever I have broken the rules, the results were always sufficient for me to learn from the mistake and improve the margin for error. The only thing 'up there' that watches over me is that big mass of grey goo in between my ears. I don't leave it to anyone or anything else.

I'm not as cynical as you ? pardon moi. I like to hear the principles which are, more often than not, hidden by the homogenous political narrative

I don't think so, that statement is very explicit and puts him well outside the establishment clique, of which Cameron is so clearly a toady. There is a potential here for a winding up of the dreadful Tory-lite-Blair party. At least Corbyn for all his Marxist plague of boils has dragged the Blairite wannabe Labour Party away from the establishment clique that served to mould both main parties into a cohesive tool of the crony capitalists such as the Grandees encapsulated by Grant, Shienwald and Wall. Ex diplomats with their fingers deep in corporate US/EU who aim for a New World Order in which they make the rules.

Really excellent statements from Michael Gove-not someone I have ever really warmed to until I read his point of view. Very well reasoned and powerful. This is from a guy who is involved with the engine of the EU and it's aims and objectives: For weeks now I have been wrestling with the most difficult decision of my political life. But taking difficult decisions is what politicians are paid to do. No-one is forced to stand for Parliament, no-one is compelled to become a minister. If you take on those roles, which are great privileges, you also take on big responsibilities. I was encouraged to stand for Parliament by David Cameron and he has given me the opportunity to serve in what I believe is a great, reforming Government. I think he is an outstanding Prime Minister. There is, as far as I can see, only one significant issue on which we have differed. And that is the future of the UK in the European Union. It pains me to have to disagree with the Prime Minister on any issue. My instinct is to support him through good times and bad. But I cannot duck the choice which the Prime Minister has given every one of us. In a few months time we will all have the opportunity to decide whether Britain should stay in the European Union or leave. I believe our country would be freer, fairer and better off outside the EU. And if, at this moment of decision, I didn’t say what I believe I would not be true to my convictions or my country. I don’t want to take anything away from the Prime Minister’s dedicated efforts to get a better deal for Britain. He has negotiated with courage and tenacity. But I think Britain would be stronger outside the EU. My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time. But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out. We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country. I believe that needs to change. And I believe that both the lessons of our past and the shape of the future make the case for change compelling. The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions. Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves. In Britain we established trial by jury in the modern world, we set up the first free parliament, we ensured no-one could be arbitrarily detained at the behest of the Government, we forced our rulers to recognise they ruled by consent not by right, we led the world in abolishing slavery, we established free education for all, national insurance, the National Health Service and a national broadcaster respected across the world. By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders. Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity. Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria. The former head of Interpol says the EU’s internal borders policy is “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe” and Scandinavian nations which once prided themselves on their openness are now turning in on themselves. All of these factors, combined with popular anger at the lack of political accountability, has encouraged extremism, to the extent that far-right parties are stronger across the continent than at any time since the 1930s. The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time. It was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and like other institutions which seemed modern then, from tower blocks to telexes, it is now hopelessly out of date. The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation. It is an analogue union in a digital age. The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people. Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day and an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before. This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres). Individually these rules may be comical. Collectively, and there are tens of thousands of them, they are inimical to creativity, growth and progress. Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases and ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies. As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer. It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told: ‘Yes Minister, I understand, but I’m afraid that’s against EU rules’. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter. But by leaving the EU we can take control. Indeed we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish. Instead of grumbling and complaining about the things we can’t change and growing resentful and bitter, we can shape an optimistic, forward-looking and genuinely internationalist alternative to the path the EU is going down. We can show leadership. Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back, we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve. We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent. We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets. We are the world’s fifth largest economy, with the best armed forces of any nation, more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country. Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone, we have the most attractive capital city on the globe, the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state and a leadership role in NATO and the UN. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule? On the contrary, the reason the EU’s bureaucrats oppose us leaving is they fear that our success outside will only underline the scale of their failure. This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future.

Reuters lets the cat out the bag. Who gives a stuff about immigration and sovereignty when the city is safe. The rest of its just window dressing that will dissolve in the next few months. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-regulations-idUKKCN0VS20O

Ah the bankers like it, Cameron's hedge fund banking chums got a boost.

Your aims are in conflict. That is why you say there are two parts. It's like beginning in the middle of a ball of wool, you neither know where it began, nor can you see any clear future. I was like that for a very long time. A confused mess of what I thought I should be vs what I might be. It leads to a kind of paralysis which had me bumping along hopelessly in order that some kind of direction would suddenly become apparent. Many people don't fret over these things, they just get a job, marry, have a family and get on with life without seeming to care about the big picture-they are absorbed in the the everyday munitae of life and seem completely satisfied. Unfortunately for you I suspect you are a big picture thinker. You are a philosopher struggling to see the truth and your place in the universe. I described it in my book as a 'square peg in a round hole'. The feeling that if only you could cut down the edges you could comfortably fit, but then it's clear that it is quite impossible. I would suggest you begin by finding out where you are. That can be accomplished by finding out from where, when and whom your concepts are derived. You will discover in time that philosophies ancient and modern have been absorbed without comprehension. That these philosophies are at odds with each other and that you instinctively know there is something 'off' with the things you have absorbed. They don't integrate together and you know it, but you can't figure out which bits are wrong, or why.

That's the kind of decision making I like to see. I'm voting out for the same reason really and I would like to see the old establishment older get a good kicking. Not that they will, but at least I get a shoe to their backsides.

It almost went wrong, but in the last few seconds whilst feasting on venison he agreed that if Britain stayed in, then the Germans wouldn't try and move the banking system to Germany. Sauerkraut Merkel scowling delivered a curt nod. "If you fail eengeesh pig dog, it's the firing squad for you, Nein second chances" "Oh thank you, oh thank you my German Mistress" said Cameron, his brow fevered and sweaty as as he fed her a selection of bratwurst and pumpernickel. "Now go tell your clowns what we have agreed. If that bumbling blonde oaf starts any of his churchillian crap I shall send over a couple of my men to change his mind. Vee had ways of making him squeal. You know what I mean don't you" "The Swine head" "Exactly" she replied. When you vote to stay Apech, just remember it was Cameron's deft deal making that swung it for you ;-)

I shall feign surprise

Yes, I believe it's important to the process of good decision making.

Funnily enough, just hot off the press on ZH Prime Minister Cameron is an annoyance for the already struggling EMU. The European Monetary Union faces extreme difficulties, as on one hand further integration of the Euro countries is inevitable and on the other hand, the widespread support for this integration is eroding. In 2011, French President Sarkozy told Cameron:”We’re sick of you criticizing us and telling us what to do. You say you hate the euro, you didn’t want to join, and now you want to interfere in our meetings,”. The EMU countries face a big political problem that is to be solved. Germany and France will never let countries outside the EMU have a say in their affairs as Cameron proposed. The diplomatic words from French Prime Minister Manuel Valls make it all clear to London as he said; “a Brexit is a shock for Europe but still members can not pick and choose rules that suit them”. The UK leaving the European Union will make life easier for Paris and Berlin as Figaro writes: “Brexit? An opportunity for Europe, for France and for Paris” When the UK is outside the European Union Frankfurt and Paris will have more opportunities to crush London as a financial center. London could not miss Merkel’s warning against gains for British banks under ‘Brexit’. If the UK decides to leave, Berlin and Paris will do definitely more than prevent London banks from making any gain; they will do everything to establish Paris or Frankfurt as the financial center of the EMU at London’s expense. With the UK outside the European Union and losing all its influence on the continent, Frankfurt will be able to force its will on euro transactions that are done in London. We have already seen how Washington forced its jurisdiction on European banks. In 2006 European banks were prohibited from making dollar transaction with Cuba, despite the fact that these transactions were regarded as entirely legal in Europe. French, German and Dutch banks were forced to retreat from Cuba and pay hefty fines or else they would have had to leave the US. Frankfurt and Europe can impose similar rules on banks in London and force them to comply or leave the EMU area. Some in London, like top diplomats are already aware of this as Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Sir John Grant and Sir Stephen Wall, warn that rival financial powerhouses, as Paris and Frankfurt, will not be sentimental in seeking to challenge the City’s prominence, if the referendum result is to leave the EU. Sheinwald, Grant and Wall are three of the bureaucrats that have been part of the elite for many years and are the British part of Davos. I have quite a list and many connections that I put together last year. Amazing how the Networks run. As I said, this is about banking and in time it will become clear to more people.

Peter Hitchins 'the Conservative government is the best Government the hedge funds could buy'.

I don't think we would ever consider leaving NATO, although you do have to wonder if NATO is even relevant today.

Not sure you got the sense of it. Brian was being a touch sarcastic and I was agreeing with him.....err I think.