Karl

That sounds about right. This is all that nutter Kants fault for introducing floating philosophy. Funnily enough it was visible in album covers of the 70s. Roger Deans work is a good example and I noticed it creeping into scifi books where fiction was replaced by fantasy. The authors no longer grounded their work on extensions of objective reality, it was just a free for all of demons, swords and ray guns. In Star Wars it was combined into a light sabre- a better metaphor could not have been constructed.

What does that mean ? It's fine if no one asks what the definition of spiritual and visible is. An analogy is an internally held concept so that's a truism. Equating two things is what an analogy does, but they have to be real things or no analogy is possible, it becomes a gargle. A parable is an earthly story with an earthly meaning. No wonder people are so hopelessly mixed up. When you begin adding nuclear reactors to cake to give it higher energy, then clouds and feathers to make it lighter. Poetic subjectivism doesn't mix with objective reality. Dreams don't mix with our waking state. What is 'inward affinity between the the natural and spiritual order'? It's nonsense. Does natural mean objective reality, or some type of natural like the difference between synthetic water and natural water ? See how idiotic it is. A thing is a thing. 'Spiritual' gets bandied about without definition. To some it's heaven, ringing bells, to others worship, prayer, silence. It's undefined. I say it's simply conscious awareness.

Not only that, but words transform over time. For instance 'boy' was once an abusive term which is now considered acceptable for a male child. Thinking about the word changes over the centuries in Hebrew, then Latin, then English-Some of it I suspect even older than 2000 years-makes the head spin. Take Shakespeare-how many know what a bodkin is today ? I think these ancient texts are all but useless as philosophic entities unless they can be read in their original firm and in context. Straight logic carries through as does mathematical and scientific theory, but much of the rest was cobbled together to suit those who preached it, at the time they were preaching.

I can't reply to all of that. You are integrating concepts that are wildly differing. Quantum physics and economics don't fit together. Economics is based on a number of a priori laws. You are mixing subjectivism with objectivism. Religion and hard sciences as if they readily dove tail, but they don't. We would have to discuss corporates and property rights because you have it in your head that it's just bad juju. The state has created laws which give precedence for business over people. This is the wrong way to employ 'property rights'. Those that plunder resources without a care to the additional environmental costs reflected on people's living standards should be paying for it. The market system is rigged by the state through corporations who now control the political means directly. Pollution and damage has become an acceptable cost. What I am proposing would mean proper allocation of resources. I can speak about this at length from a practical point of view, but if you stick to mixing Tao, chaos theory and quantum mechanics into the mix we will be on such uncertain ground, it will prove impossible to discuss anything. You are quite clearly extremely intelligent, but you have too many floating concepts that need tying down. It's nice to be a theorist, but it just isn't practical. I would suggest that you become acquainted with the a priori nature of Austrian economics beginning with Mises human action-it's an imposing and complex tome which I struggled to get through, but looking at your work I suspect it would be child's play. This would give some grounding on economic theory and is diametrically opposed to the current Keynesian corporate state economics that is proving so poor in relation the environmental damage-it's here that I see you are most concerned and so that should be the starting point,

Interesting-the articles I've read must be behind the times. Doesn't alter the basic tenant of my post though. If we want to save animals from extinction, the very best way is private ownership of land and wildlife combined with commercialised hunting. It's strange to say, but the fewer the animals, the greater the value of poaching and the greater will be the temptation to do so, therefore the faster the extinction. Private owners are far more careful to ensure the animals aren't over hunted. If they lose their stock, then they lose their livelihoods. Despite the money poured into protecting rare animals, the result has not been successful. These animals will die out in spite of tight security and the illegality of hunting.

Create harmony, that's why we have free will. We can fail or soar. It's entirely our choice.

Actually in the America the Indians hunted many species to the point of extinction. I haven't studied Africa but I would assume the same. The government of the U.S. Forbade land ownership to settlers and Indians alike. It is only when people own the resource that the care and nurture it. Take any garden compared to any public space. People do not tend to abuse ownership-that isn't a universal generalisation, but it's pretty close. Those that own resource as entrepreneurs are very careful to manage their property. It was only when Iceland semi-privatised fishing rights that fish stocks increased. Instead of multiples of trawlers hunting to extinction on common fishing grounds, the owner/ fishermen defended and managed their patch of sea in order that they could maximise the resource sustainably. It is because the government of Africa refuse to let native people and immigrants farm the land, that we have poverty, shanti towns and conflict. When things deteriorate that way then the Government becomes dependent on outside aid and the native people are ever willing to engage in risky activities which the government will turn a blind eye. Let those who wish to homestead the land do so. They will create a sustainable resource, low impact, low pollution and contribute to increases in overall living standards for everyone. Damage to the environment will fall, poverty and disease disappear and conflicts end.

I do hate Pandas ;-) I think that it's very difficult to explain to anyone. I'm not 'unemotional' and neither is it the case that 'I don't care'. Everything appears in objective understanding and that includes emotion. Where it's relevant it is employed for that purpose. This doesn't make for remoteness, absolutely the opposite, it allows a greater depth of interaction and care than previously possible. It's the irrational elements that are excluded. Instead of reasoning getting all twisted up with emotion, it has become two distinct streams. Reasoning doesn't fight against, and screw up, the emotional response "I shouldn't feel like this, I need to be like that". It's not possible to 'pretend' rationality or blissful ambivalence. You cannot do so with the emotions running riot, or the reasoning powers remaining immature. It's like a house in which children and parents are continually feuding. The outcome is wasted energy, exhaustion, unhappiness and suffering. So, it's possible to employ pure creative and empathetic emotion within the gaze of rationality. Reason and logic doesn't try and interfere and takes a back seat to watch the events unfolding, so that the emotion can be very pure and unrestricted-when needed it steps back in. The mind operates as it was meant to operate. I've been on the other side. I've been depressed to the point of considering suicide. I swung between over excited happiness and the dark depths of manic depression, even verging on the point of alcoholism for a while. Everything was mixed up and confused. It wasn't a great place. So when you say what is the point of life, I can now genuinely say-reality/everything, unrestricted and undiluted perfection.

I have several beef heart albums-safe as milk, TMR, mirror man, clear spot and blue jeans. Extensive and eclectic music collection both vinyl and CD.

The 'smoking is healthy' lot. That's terrible. It's just got to be true then. How could anyone doubt it. It's a pity those pesky facts get in the way. Legions of things go extinct every day. It's called evolution. However, wild game. Instead of legalising hunting and letting Africans own the private land and farm the animals, the state/government have decided on huge tracts of land in state ownership with a few hundred badly paid gamekeepers as protection. In a poor country where native Africans cannot own the land it means that the wild game represents an enormous income. It's inevitable that poaching will occur. The reason the buffalo almost died out was that the Indians/hunters were not able to own land. It became a race to hunt as many of the buffalo before others did. Conversely, the cow-a very similar animal-thrives in farms across the USA because it is in the financial interests of land owning farmers to manage the stock sustainably.

We are in the middle of summer 12 degrees and had the heating on for the last few days. Global cooling I reckon. If it gets much colder it's back into winter coats.

Zappa :-) Dig out Sheik yer booty tonight. Maybe some beefheart to finish with.

I was trying-impossible though it is-to illustrate why objective reality is a necessity and not some adage. I don't believe you can hold a concrete concept if the ground on which the concept must be laid is in constant liquidity. It's like trying to build a house directly on a river, absolutely nothing holds up. Subjectivist begin moving to a half way house at some stage because even morals are-for them-highly liquid. There can be no notion of it being wrong to steal or murder. It's all just produced out of the aether of consciousness anyway so nothing can be held as solid. For my own part I can't see much point in continuing to add anything further. Subjectivist will simply see anyone showing them objective reality as being in their subjective conscious creation. I would make more progress talking to a rock :-)

Why would I try and point to ideas ? Ideas are objective realities to the person that has them, but they aren't objective realities to anyone else. While we are at it, you just used an objective encyclopaedia with objective definitions. What Im looking for is a completely subjective description. One that contains no objects. As words are also objective, you now have a further task. The conclusion is that it's impossible. It's impossible to hold any concept, discuss any concept. All you have is an indistinct feeling inside which may or may not represent a swan, because that feeling itself is subjective. It cannot be conceptualised. Even I have a feeling cannot be adequately treated.

I don't believe you because I don't believe the magazine called science-which is currently anything but. The earths climate has been as hot as Venus and as cold as Neptune in its history. Climate Scientology is bunkum. So far every model has been completely wrong.

Singing and bird are objective realities, I can point to bird and instances of singing. That leaves spirit. Define spirit.

Incorrect. You change your definitions as you gain more understanding and experience. At the beginning of life you define a human as a child paints one. Salt might be first described as the thing added to dinner to improve the taste, then salts are bases and acids, then chemically defined compositions. A swan might at first be white, then it's seen as black. This does not alter the swan as an existent and a genus of bird, genus of animals, genus of living organism. We can define all things as living organisms if you wish, then out to all things existent in the universe and so a swan becomes one of those things. People who don't grasp logic think that logic is rigid. If a swan is defined X then logic has failed when some variant arrives. They assume this must be subjective logic. However, this is really further up the tree. You must use logic reasoning to make or hold any concept. It is as necessary as consciousness is. Subjectivity on tells you what you feel about a certain object, not what the object is. Reason and logic are just better tools than subjective emotion for grasping the universe. So, now, one for you. Please define entirely subjectively a swan.

Precisely the conversation I was having with Nickolai on the other forum. I wrote a book which was an opinion. I had never been to the place I wanted to go to. It was half a journey and was indeterminate in the sense of correct direction. Now I refute my own work, although I see that opinion was part of the overall process, it has no real direction. It was not wrong or right, good or bad. It was simply a statement in time, bound by those experiences. Knowledge though is not a memory map of how to get some place, or do some task. That is defined as a skill. Knowledge is knowing how to know which direction one must go.

You are very interesting. I always thought that on the AYP forum, but more so now. You have the heart of a poet but your reasoning is all over the place. Its cantankerous, exciting, chaotic stuff and very passionate. Mostly wrong but flashes of insight like a lighthouse beaming across the water, or a pulsar beaming its signature. Bright then dark. What happens on the dark side of the moon TI - I see you live there. :-)

Oh yes, where does that place everybody else if the USA is the most prosperous nation ! The evil will come to the shire. Even Hobbits aren't safe despite the distance. I don't know Rosie the riveter ? Link

I do not doubt that those hands are offered genuinely. I thank those who offer them. You say 'rants' on logic and science. The very word 'rant' is entirely descriptive of subjectivity. You had the feeling science/logic was right. I do not have any such feelings. I do not see logic as an appendage, it is just human reason. It is hard to debate 'science' as this is a methodology. It can be equally in error as poor science, as can poor logic. I'm only an adequate logician. Adequate in the sense that it is sufficient. I'm not interested in solving complex logic puzzles. I am not a scientist, so I'm not seeking to solve the many riddles of nature-fascinating though they are. How can you 'extricate yourself' from yourself ? Find that one. Science and logic you have used impropriterly. You had made them a part of your false ego, the coat of personality that wraps around the bearer. I have no false ego, I have no use for one, I love reality, direct and naked. Logic is my shield, truth is my sword.

How are you arguing Ananda ? What are you using to produce your arguments ? Haven't you used reason to establish what you think is real ? Aren't these concepts which you hold through reason as concrete realities. Can you have subjective subjectivism ? You are arguing with me right now that this is reality for you, if it were not, then you would hold nothing as true. The sensory data has to be checked for reality. It doesn't matter if you see red, blue or ultra violet. Reality still exists, because it exists despite your consciousness. Is the chair you are sitting on any less than a real chair if you suddenly discover yourself blinded ? Does it matter if you think it's soft, hard, comfortable, or uncomfortable, warm, cold, blue or black ? No. You are trying to discover reality through subjectives. This is why the guru says " the sweetness of the Apple is not in the apple". Be the apple sweet or sour to one or the other, this is not the apple, this is your subjective perception of its taste. You don't go around an orchard pointing at apples and randomly describing them as sweet or sour. The apples exist, then you bite and taste one.

You're kidding right ? The U.S. gave up on full spread free market, competitive capitalism around 1900. It's why the USA is dying economically, socially and productively. Anytime you see a country or people sinking into moral and financial turpitude, then the suspect is always the same. Free and competitive individualism has been given over to restricted, corruptive collectivism. Your government feed you with the somatic illusion of prosperity whilst frightening you with a series of hobgoblins for the purposes of you becoming utterly reliant on them for what they tell you is prosperity and security. Then they feed a load of gobbledygook about rugged individualism, can do attitude, folks, the American people, the exceptional nation and ego swallows it hook, line and sinker. That is not to say that Americans aren't natural individualists, or that they are not self reliant, but it's all packaged in a nice heart shaped box wrapped in barbed wire. You are a commodity for the owners. If you believe you are free, are not reliant and all the rest, then so much the better. You couldn't get much better than to watch the YouTube of George Carlin talking about education. It's very pithy. He tells it like it is. People laugh because he is a comedian, but underneath the form of a joke maker is a very serious thinker.

Senses are senses, consciousness is consciousness. How can you NOT know what reality is ? That is precisely the point. You are talking about subjective interpretations of reality, how you 'feel' about reality, reality is existent despite what feelings you have about it. If we go down a street together and I point to a car and say 'blue' and you say "no, it's red" and then we keep on down the street of cars pointing to various colours and disagreeing then we shall see at the end of the street that we just have different names for the same colours. Your blue is my red, green is pink, etc. in no sense do we disagree with reality and neither do we really disagree on anything but the formal naming of colours.

You are making an assumption that logic is somehow unnatural. Yet you use it every day. Should I say to you that your emotions are a game constructed with rules that define sadness, guilt, happiness, joy ? Formal logic is like the gym for the reasoning muscles. If you don't work them, then it becomes flabby and useless. If you prefer to work on your subjective emotional muscle it is easier. We were born crying. Have you ever wondered why so many people today are addicted to entertainment and have such short attention spans they struggle to get through the words of an advert. They just want to know that this will make the 'feel' better in some way. More attractive, happier, fitter, healthier. If I say "living wage" then what do you hear ? What subjective emotions and feelings does it stir. If I tell you it means "compulsory unemployment" then that is not what you want to hear, even though it means exactly that. You will reject the unpleasant and cling to the subjective. A living wage sounds a nice thing to have and what can be wrong with nice things ?