Karl

Well you should know what's coming next LOL All men are immortal Nikolai is a man Nikolai is immortal Now, go prove it. Non of those primes us seem correct in my experience but I'm prepared to be persuaded. We find a good, high bridge, you jump off and I examine you at the end to check what you said was true. That's fair enough. When are you up for that ? I'm free all week. I can't stand the sight of blood so you had better not be kidding. :-)

How can he say anything at all, if its all an illusion ? I would ignore him completely as that appears to be what he thinks is true anyway. He's not here and I'm not here so I can insult him, punch him, spit in his face and screw his wife and he won't be able to do a thing.

Now you are at it. How do you mean energy /light flows ? I can perceive light perfectly well otherwise I would be stumbling around in the dark. I can perceive the results of energy flows but I can't see them.

I don't need to. I only require proof of what is real. All men are mortal Buddah is a man Buddah is mortal. If I can discover evidence that persuades me that all men are not mortal, or some men are immortal then that changes the paradigm. However a vision isn't an immortal, it's just a vision. We can then make the inductive leap because we know people have dreams and hallucinations. These are common and so it isn't beyond the wit of man to conclude that people are seeing hallucinations.

Because it is defined and known as current reality. A thing is a thing. Existence exists and A is A. Blind faith is exactly what you are holding out as reality. The church did the same thing by creating a priori premesis and putting logic before grammar so no one got the chance to question it. Your idealist is using words and thus concepts he holds to be true. He is using premesis. He is basing is reasoning on logic, but saying logic isn't real. Surely I've said it sufficient times now ? The idealist has counted himself out of further discussion. We are all using grammar even the idealist, but he wants to write his in disappearing ink. As such no conclusion can be possible where no premises exist.

AYPers have experiences they describe as Kundalini and people tell them is Kundalini ......but-go figure-no one knows what Kundalini is. All the rest are reporting seeing dead people. If they were real, then we would all see them.

The idealist is basing his reasoning on reasoning, then saying that reasoning doesn't exist. It's a sleight of hand. How can you discuss a concept such as 'concept is an illusion' if you are saying all concepts are an illusion. A and not A

It can certainly be real to you, but nobody else. You cannot have cognisance of something which is just a feeling. If you are prepared to throw a concept out then you must be prepared to define it. Kundalini to Apech might mean a whole bag of different feelings to the ones you have.

My view on this is that we have succumbed to cowardice and irrationality. I cannot unilaterally change things, only myself. If I had to pick what I believe to be the problem I see it as Governments. We have abdicated all our rights and received privileges in return. We gave away freedom for security and allowed states/governments to control us out of fear of something worse. We were so frightened that some warlord or other would rise up to murder and loot us, that unwittingly we allowed one to voluntarily exist. Now we reason that the one we have is better than the one we could get instead. 'Better the devil you know' quite literally. This has meant we have multiple warlords all under state protection. They can do what they like with impunity because we allowed it to happen. I see the need for governance, but not government and we can do away with states completely and institute proper private property ownership with the requisite laws and force to protect it. Beyond sending that message like a lighthouse-on a personal level I can do very little more except protect self and family as best I can in the face of tyranny.

Isn't it obvious ? The idealist is using the stolen concept fallacy. You cannot hold a concept if you declare all concepts are false. It's then impossible to hold any position at all.

Well you spoke, so it can be spoken of, but you have failed to define it. It's just a version of the Kings new clothes that you are offering. If it was real you can define it. If all you get is a patch of fog then it's a floating concept and should be excluded from consciousness until it is defined. Floating concepts will multiply out until reality becomes anything you think it is. Then, one day reality will come crashing in.

I can witness change as it proceeds from positional and temporal memory. A thing A moves a distance B in a period of time C. I can hold those perceptions as concepts, so even an object moving too rapidly to follow can be known to have moved. I don't know what you are meaning by 'moment' being 'clunky'. Neither do I understand 'deep annihilation' or 'Armageddon' except for the biblical references. You seem to have veered off into the wistfully poetic.

Not to mention the scary drummers nightmare the infamous Zappa 'black page'. Here performed by two great drummers. I've seen Bozzio at a drum clinic. http://youtu.be/NjpZihqVY-g

Concrete things are objects of direct sense perception. You are one of the objects of your own perception. Time and space are concretes. It's only when we integrate higher concepts where things break down and this is precisely what this vision advocates applying to common sense reality. So, we can only perceive a few trees but we can hold the concept of a forest. We can conceptualise changes to the forest over time and space. We can know the forest grows, dies, expands, shrinks. If we can't define define a tree then we can't define a forest of trees. First perceive the tree.

Now that sounds like bull crap if you excuse the language. We have just talked about controlling definitions and creating concepts. Anything that is unknowable is inadmissible in an argument. All that is being said is that you feel it is true. Divine reality ? What's that ? What is absolute reality and what avenues can it be known through ? What is inner bliss ? What is Father in heaven ? You have asked me enough questions so now it's my turn to switch on the interrogation lamps. If this stuff is real and concrete then let's have it properly defined up front and openly.

Perceptually. It is an anxiom that existence exists. No words are needed for that to happen. You can see and touch a tree even if you have no words for it. The idealist philosopher is controlling the definition of experience. The world is not changing at such a rapid pace and we can combine time/space in the definitions and concepts to allow elasticity. We don't perceive a newborn baby one moment and then are totally confused by the emergence of a toddler. We don't get baffled by something moving such as a falling raindrop.

That's a very deep rabbit hole and not one that is entirely new to me. These groups aren't all pulling in one direction though. It isn't a team effort. Indeed my current book-fictional- attempts to show how individual ambitions coalesce into disparate groups with similar aims and can just as easily break apart. The black and white version is the NWO/illuminati but it seems to me that there are many NWO group sets with entirely different ideologies and agendas. If individuals within these groups see the possibility of furthering their own aims by working with a rival group then they will slide across regardless of ideology. It's easy to pick sides, but I'm concluding as I get older that all we can do is watch our own backs and those of our direct family. I have the feeling that supporting any movement you either become a pawn of someone's ambition or you become what you most despise.

It's a representation of existing concretes. We hold an immense number of concepts which are interlinked.

Good summation.

The integration of two abstractions with similar characteristics.

No. I wouldn't define it that way.

You've been doing research I see :-) Firstly I'm certainly not an expert in human cognition, so how we relate and form links internally is beyond my ability to explain. Get that out of the way early. There is a branch of modern thinking (which is really old thinking) which posits it is the words themselves that create concretes and not the other way around which is unsound. Secondly, existence exists, a is a this is an axiom. With that ground prepared we can then talk about the Trivium method as it pertains to words, or more correctly grammar. This is represented as: grammar --> logic --> rhetoric. The key to the input is definitions. Before any logic can be applied the definitions must be solid to the best of the ability to do so. It is the definition that is often hijacked to create corrupted concepts "he who controls the definition, controls the argument". In critical thinking it's important to understand this to be the case. Definitions and concepts can be weaponised and used to control the way people think. Even the promotion of the Trivium itself must be challenged starting with that first axiom. Instead of reading books and listening to all other second hand information it's necessary to evaluate every bit of grammar first, before subjecting it to logical reasoning. It's like inspecting parts carefully before assembling a component. One of the ways the church controlled people was the use of the classical trivium. This was the use of apriori definitions which were to be accepted by everybody without question. Logic was put prior to grammar which is a corruption as the mind doesn't work that way. It was a sleight of hand. In effect it put the 'why' of a thing first. In NLP we were taught to use this frame all the time. Presentations always began with the 'why' and then the 'what'. It means certain presuppositions, definitions and concepts are controlled. The what that follows is then predetermined by the logic. As Milton Erickson often said 'artfully vague'. In other words bypass the usual learning sequence by design. Add confusion (a confused mind is easily manipulated) re order the learning process, use long rambling sentences that go nowhere in which commands are embedded. We even used an adaption of Patanjali's yoga sutra to achieve the 'trainer state'.

That's clear enough, but for a long time the USSR has had world domination through communism as its aim. This state murdered, tortured, worked to death and starved many millions of its own people-many were ethnic. Western states are no angels either, but let's not pretend the USSR are an innocent party-even today in the UK we have the springing up of socialist movements from political parties, feminist and environmental groups which are ignoring the real story of the failed communist ideology. We have Western state vs Eastern states but not people against people.

I would pretty much agree with all of that if you are calling globalist-government-corporate chimera then we have the same definitions. Equally though, these chimeras have been readily accepted by those in power within Russia in a similar way to what happened in Greece prior to joining the EU. The sarcasm was in response to an argument that contained no concrete facts beyond conjecture. I'm still none the wiser to who these consultants were, who they were working for, or how they worked ? Maybe that would have been a better place to have started. I think, ultimately it's an interesting question-not one that gets asked very often beyond the fact that communism failed-and you seem to have broadened it out and filled in the blanks that were missing in the original post. There wasn't any need to have withdrawn your post, it was valid.

Well you are conflating several terms so it becomes difficult to produce a coherent argument when you have already come to a conclusion based on that conflation. Capitalism in its unsullied form is simply the voluntary transaction of trading, or barter. So, it's organic in form and we have been practising for ever. It doesn't matter if that exchange is carried out across borders and natural barriers, it's still the same activity. That activity definitely doesn't need experts, its second nature to us. We have to distinguish between that natural form of capitalism and the sort you refer to as 'global'. Usually that refers to corporate or mercantilist businesses. Some of these are relatively benign despite getting a bad press. Walmart for instance is a corporate entity that is generally not The recipient of Government privilege. However banks and central banks aren't benign-particular Goldman Sachs and, as you mentioned 'other' consultants closely related to these goons. Now the question which must be asked therefore is what were these consultants doing in a sovereign country in the first place ? Who was it that brought them over and for what purpose ? They had to have been invited by Russians to advise them and they must have brought investment and expertise to those Russians that owned or intended to own sizeable portfolios of productive wealth and other assets. They wanted there own Wall Street and their own corporate giants just like ultra wealthy US owners. So there are facts to these things. Someone is filling their pockets full of cash and finding ways of getting into power on the back of state/government privilege and that's a world wide problem. There is no conspiracy as such, that's just what's happening. What was the book by the way ?