No Self

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    594

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by No Self

  2. Posted

    How to bash science on the internet:

    1) Go to device with nanoscale CPU that utilises quantum mechanics for manufacture and silicon semiconductor chemistry to function

    2) Connect to A/C electricity as invented by Nikola Tesla

    3) Switch on screen using light-emitting diode electroluminescence. 

    4) Connect to vast computing infrastructure system called the internet using transceivers in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    5) Talk about how science is full of shit. Success!

  3. Posted

    3 hours ago, Rilles said:

    Take for example, flat earth, is it possible... probably not... Am i gonna waste 100s of hours debunking that shit? Hell no.

    The Ancient Greeks first established that the Earth was round by watching ships sail into the distance. They observed that the bottom of the ships disappeared from view first. And by comparing the angles of shadows cast by sticks placed into the Earth in different locations, they also established the size of the planet with over 90% accuracy!

    As for the seeming contradiction of mockery and fear, the best historical example was a man who was laughed at for the spectacle of his rambling conspiracy theories about Jews taking over the world. Then he became the most powerful man in the world and it stopped being funny.

  6. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Keyhole said:

    I have an acquaintance whose mother is in the same situation and I really feel for you.  Have you been able to visit her due to the coronavirus shut down?

    Thanks for your thoughts. :)
    Since I last posted, she has passed away; 2 days ago to be precise. I didn't get to see her as Melbourne is in lockdown, but I have felt almost no grief. Just glad that she is free of a body-mind past its use-by date! Must be an ecstatic experience of liberation to drop a body like that.

  7. Posted

    On 10/15/2020 at 1:25 PM, Byun Sean said:

    Suggestion from my mother:  Maybe your selfishness in relationships comes from a place of scarcity of something? Scarcity of affection? Feeling like you can never get enough of something? It may come from somewhere. Maybe you can trace it back to childhood or something like that.

    That can happen, but generally it results in a bottomless pit of desire. Like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it. I would not even attempt to solve the problem at the superficial level by giving the body-mind what it supposedly wants.

  10. Posted

    @Rilles You are correct. Hitler was a vegetarian at least. They say he used to preach about the horrors of slaughterhouses to his dinner guests. Yet he then made slaughterhouses for humans.

    Nazism was associated with astrology and the ideas about Aryan superiority have been regarded as pseudoscience, which New Age is also notorious for promoting. Both also share the extreme projection and suppression of a dark shadow as an ego defense measure, combined with self-glorifying propaganda. And the lack of grounding in reality fogging the distinction between fantasy and fact. (Clearly all this is a 'fool's gold' strategy to cope with underlying pain.)

    One thoughtful article I was reading pointed out that New Age is a lightweight spirituality for people who want the feel-good antics and lovey-dovey stuff without the heavy lifting. It also has a history of moving from one superficial trend to the next without ever committing to anything long-term.

    Love & light to all my Aryan brothers.

  11. Posted

    @Opo  Maybe the studies are flawed by relying on self-reporting. But from anecdotes I have seen, many conservatives are wealthier on average and are not burdened by any sense of empathy for the suffering in the world. Traditionalism is an effective formula for stable relationships, and everything is going their way in the world.

    The claim was that they are 'happier', not 'happy'. Big difference.

  12. Posted

    19 minutes ago, Scholar said:

    The lack of constraint gives us freedom,  yet constraint was the only thing that kept us rational. We have abandoned the swimming aids and are now confronted with having to swim all on our own.

    Good points. I've wondered this as well. So much of human activity has consisted of trying to fix the world without fixing our underlying unconsciousness.

    I never foresaw New Age and Nazism fusing as they have. Yet they have an important aspect in common: trying to discard troubled old ways of being, only to jump out of the frying pan of the ego and into the fire.

  13. Posted

    26 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

    I think it's weird that conservatives generally aren't really fighting for a better environment, because preserving/conserving a better environment/nature should be a very high priority if you want to be conservative about your country. 

    It has been said that if environmentalism is pitched to conservatives as restoring the ecology of the past, they are more likely to tolerate it.

    But many factors work in the opposite direction, like a simple-minded opposition to needing to feel any personal responsibility for a catastrophic scientific consensus on the environment versus believing in Santa-Jesus fixing everything and sending all the liberals to hell. Or the fact that there's a sense of safety in numbers with their own conveniently self-serving world view, even if the enemy they are temporarily defeating is reality itself.

  14. Posted

    Conservatives are often regarded as happier with their lives and the world.

    This can be viewed positively in that they inadvertently accept what is, in Eckhart's words. This also relates to spiritual teachings that encourage trust in a higher good, a bigger picture of assured outcomes, or those that state that the world is a perfect device so long as the devils of fear don't tempt us to view it with condemnation.

    Or this syndrome can be viewed more harshly as a product of a conservative just world bias where we assume that less fortunate beings deserve what they get, hence eliminating all need for respect, care, sympathy or empathy. (And effectively putting people who can't afford health care, disenfranchised ethnic minorities, animals whose forests get bulldozed, species going extinct, etc. all in the same vast category of 'ha-ha, not my problem'.)

  17. Posted

    11 hours ago, commie said:

    But climate change is all about uncertainty! There is no certainty about how bad the problem is and therefore what preventive measures would be proportionate. From the first, the main rationale for action has always been based on uncertainty (specifically, on the risk of extremely serious outcomes).

    I think your aversion to mental gymnastics is leading you to use language unskillfully ("evil", "real", "equivalent" and so forth).

    Your point is well taken.

    Climate change is not a good example as the scientific consensus relies on research so complex that the average punter has no hope of understanding it. Scientists recommend reducing carbon emissions, and renewable energy is generally cheaper as well. Assuming this is true, the only argument in favour of our politicians propping up the fossil fuel industry is reliant on apathy, greed, corruption and/or ignorance.

    We need a basic education in critical thinking to avoid the false equivalencies in the OP. If someone claims Hillary is a lizard, the burden of proof is on them. If I claim Santa Claus is on my roof right now, you should not believe me until I provide evidence, and that evidence has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny by skeptics. Unfortunately, the Facebook mindset is "You can't prove that the world ISN'T flat." This leads to a breakdown of commonsense and the badly divided political culture of modern times.

    Society has a long history of mocking people with outlandish ideas, some of which then turn out to be correct. Robert Goddard invented the liquid fueled rocket, but was laughed at by his fellow Americans for claiming it had the potential to reach space. Decades later, the 1969 moon landing became America's most prized historical achievement and nobody is laughing anymore. Yet it has to be this was in order to shield ourselves from bullshit artists and lunatics, who outnumber genuine innovators a thousandfold.

  19. Posted

    The problem is in assuming that a New Ager who claims that unicorns are real and a scientist who claims the theory of evolution is real are equivalent. Even a toddler would be able to see the absurdity in this, though not an adult social media user, apparently.

    Nazi Germany made the same mistake. Their claim of Aryan genetic superiority was 'pseudoscience' and based more on using psychological self-deception to blur the line between fantasy and reality. And no, it didn't end well. Except we are doing it in relation to even more serious issues, like climate change.

    Calling upon arguments like ancient Greek Skepticism or other mental gymnastics is well and good. The bottom line is that we as a society will have to go through the natural consequences of our choices, just as we did in the 20th century.

  23. Posted

    2 hours ago, Thestarguitarist14 said:

    Human beings are all predators.  I don’t care how nice you are.  We pray on each all the time.  

    It's important to distinguish between normal unconscious behaviours, including the social structures intended to channel human selfishness towards peaceful coexistence (capitalism, markets, governments, democracy), and true masters. Who did the Buddha, or Jesus, or Ramana Maharshi prey upon?

  24. Posted

    Human group behaviour reminds us that we are not separate from the animal kingdom except in an enlightened state, and even then we are one with it.

    Humans may share over 98% of DNA with chimpanzees, who also form mobs which may attack a lone male of the same species for no reason, or engage in needless tribal conflict. Presumably they also have the dynamics of an alpha dominating a group and so on.

    Another factor is that society's conventions and laws necessitate suppressing a lot of human nature, which will then seek an outlet. Alcohol's regressive effect on the brain helps bring this out.

    PS. I do not want to sound anti-fun, or on some sort of high ground. If nobody is being harmed, it's better to have an outlet than to suppress endlessly.

  25. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Opo said:

    I would make it necessary for the psychiatrist to approve it. 

    Maybe you also have to sign up for it and wait let's say a month, so it's not a mood swing. 

    That would be great.

    Currently in Victoria, it's necessary to have an advanced disease leading to an expected death within 6-12 months, then to go through a multi-pronged request process. Progress will likely happen incrementally.

    It will be a huge leap to make this available for the elderly and even for middle-aged people experiencing heavy suffering, but there is hope given that even a few years ago, all forms of voluntary euthanasia were completely off the cards.