RichardY

Member
  • Content count

    1,024
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About RichardY

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    UK
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,854 profile views
  1. http://www.with.org/tao_te_ching_en.pdf This translation sounds more logical to me. Chapter Nineteen Transcend the saint’s teaching and conceal one’s wisdom for potential use, shall benefit the people a hundred fold. Extend kindness to its ultimate and then polish to refine one’s righteousness shall help the people or regain filial piety and compassion. Employ one’s subtle true nature with exquisiteness and extend one’s personal benefit to share with others, shall eliminate robbers and thieves. These three statements are apparent superficial and not sufficient to express the natural “Way” of the great Tao. Hence, this is what people should do: Return to their original true self and embrace the pure “Oneness.” Refrain selfness and diminish worldly desires.
  2. On the flip side I think it's a bit like with Libertarians(replace Stoics) and the NAP(replace Stoa). Stoic quote: Neither fear nor desire. - Seneca.
  3. If a UBI taxes the underlying economic value i.e "The Farm" (But, not it's infrastructural assets, example quality of land & community provided utilities.) . Through a land value tax, Well and good. The environment can only support so many people.... If it taxes economic activity i.e the produce of the farm, total disaster.
  4. @Benn Look into Metaphysics. Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. - Intro to Nicomachean Ethics. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
  5. Depends what a person means by enlightenment, The Buddha talks about many lesser enlightenments. https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/In-the-Buddhas-Words-Audiobook/B01J4IT7E8?qid=1577642251&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=5Q1YJK1SJXGEWBBTW8ZF&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1 To me enlightenment can be either bound, or unbound. Having a Panentheistic model of reality, with includes Pantheism(Unbound). True unity occurs only through love, and differentiates. A false unity would be putting two together in a master/slave relationship. Cybernetic causality(Self-Determinacy) vs Endomorphic causality (Intrinsic Self-Determinacy). Speaking in soothing tones, is playing on the cybernetic causality.
  6. "Truth is the first casualty of War." The USA is a Plutocracy, not a Republic or Democracy.
  7. Demographically and Ethnically, it is what it is. Libertarianism, is rightfully discredited, what comes next should be interesting either way.
  8. Was wondering what people think of Propertarianism? As far as I can tell, it's a reworking of Confucian Legalism. Basically the premise is that because immigrants to the United States overwhelmingly vote Democrat, along with ethnic minority groups and females. The right-wing no longer have a chance of winning future elections, Trump being a last ditched anomaly, by successfully winning "the rust belt". In effect the situation has become polarised. As most of the democratic voters are concentrated in Cities. In the event of a Civil War, predominantly Democrat cities could be cut off and starved to death, hence reducing the voter base. Where as Republicans in the countryside with higher gun ownership and agricultural goods, could remain well supplied. Conversely if the Democrats centralise totalitarian power in Washington DC, by running up the clock in demographics. They could massacre the Right-wing. The idea is that a peaceful solution would be preferred. But, as they reckon the psychology of voters is too ingrained, it will result in mass violence as it has throughout history. The last 70 odd years being a bit of a bubble for peace in the west, if not east. Sort of a repeat of the Spanish Civil War, but with a death count in the tens of millions. I'd prefer rule by "Judges", as unnatural selection, ruling by moral authority and force, stripping out the legislative that contributes to a lot of the conflict. Or, that really some of the states should secede from the Union.
  9. The general gist of psychedelics(along with meditation) is that they decrease brain activity right? Except that the person doesn't die. Or maybe they do, depends on the person I guess. Physically destroying the body, is egotistical, act of the super-ego(social)?
  10. Comes down to cost and convenience, could always buy the book in hard copy later. Unless you're a speed reader from early on, no contest really.
  11. I think for learning languages , Scribd is probably ace, at £9.99 a month. Audible has a better selection of books, and if you get the 24 credit book plan it works out at £4.60 a credit. Not keen on there being no folder system for audible. Better an audio-book habit, than a gaming one.
  12. Morality is adaptive. Amorality, is where moral relativism comes in. No morality, would be the Self taking full control, with all it's destructive and creative expressions. Amorality is breaking the Omerta. Why have morality? Authority.
  13. What is your preference, Reverend? Asian, Roman? That is 2nd century, Reverend. Wasn't it St. Augustine who said, "Make me chaste, O Lord. "But not yet, not yet"? Leland Gaunt - "Needful Things." ------------------------- As for weirdism... I pick ultraweirdism as to the implication of ultimate mathematical laws of physics. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41470-019-00038-z#CR53 For myself, I now give equal subjective probability to three possibilities for what the ultimate mathematical laws of physics may be: (1) Einsteinian realism, which cannot yet be ruled out (Werbos 1973, 1989, 2008), but which needs to confront the very strong evidence for “macroscopic Schrodinger cats (Friedman and Han 2003; Abdi et al. 2016)”, which implies that quantum superposition applies even to macroscopic objects like cats and humans (Nietzsche 1956) and whole planets; (2) multiverse realism, like Deutsch’s initial concept (Deutsch 1997), with or without a modified measurement theory (Werbos 2008, 2013a), with or without a four dimensional version of Fock space (Streater and Wightman 1964); (3) something much weirder, such as cosmos as a random graph (Wolfram 2002), a “digital universe” (Bear 1993) or a kind of vast intrinsic neural network yielding strange but testable “idealist” phenomena like those in the movie Inception. I begin to see ways to do a little serious empirically grounded justice to possibilities in group (3), but there are ever so many different possibilities in group (3) that I view it as more promising to focus our efforts mainly on possibilities (1) and (2) for now. There is a huge difference between our long-term vision (subjective probabilities) of what the ultimate distant mountains might be, and our strategic sense of what we need to learn next in order to find out. In discussing this third set of possibilities, I initially referred to it as “weirdism,” but admitted that the term “ultraweirdism” is more appropriate, since even Einsteinian realism predicts many things which seem weird or impossible to naïve intuition, when we consider theories which allow for macroscopic Schrodinger cats.