On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 13:22:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Well the concept that no world exists is called Idealism. It's all in
> the mind. Mine alone [solipsism], Gods [monism], or some other
> arrangement. It explains everything but predicts nothing. Like Islam.
> Inshallah. If it is Gods Will. Great, But not very *helpful*.

I like the Epicurean approach, which was probably a concession to the
times. The Gods exist on a planet somewhere but don't give a damn about
humans.

On 07/12/2024 17:33, D wrote:
> The richer we become, the less of a grip socialism has on the lower
> classes.
>
> That is why they are scrambling for new fronts such as the environment
> and immigration (import a new lower class and start again from the 1800:s).

A novel perspective.

Socialism relies on fresh victims to champion (but never actually fix),
their victimhood., If they cease to be victims, why would they support
Socialism?

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 07/12/2024 17:44, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>>> LOL at the "Marxist termites". Wotta drama queen!
>>
>> I guess you are one after all.
>
> You seem to come to conclusions based on little to no evidence.
I think I learnt that from Marxism

>
>>>> Now they control them the inevitable collapse towards anarchy or
>>>> idiocracy begins.
>>>
>>> Are you saying the "go woke go broke" people are anarchists or idiocrats?
>>
>> Idiocrats *and* anarchists
>
> Thank you for that admission.
>
>> And its the Left who are going to get sliced into bacon.
>
> How about centrists like myself?
>
I dount you are a centrist. I suspect you are simply a shade to thee
right of Trotsky

> You sure have a way with violent turns of phrase.
>

I learnt it from the Marxists

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 13:30:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> To do that level of damage requires a bit more than even a high velocity
> .22 can manage. I believe those have a tendency to go straight through.

There has been a good deal of development over the years to get reliable
expansion. Even the .22 LR has seen improvements.

https://www.cci-ammunition.com/uppercut/the-new-defender.html

CCI worked with the FBI spec ballistic gelatin to get reliable expansion.
The rounds don't expand in the more popular clear gelatin so it comes down
to which test more accurately represents the human body. They are a far
cry from .223 rounds but make .22 LR a little more feasible for self
defense.

Even the traditional lever action calibers have seen work to improve their
performance and overcome the restrictions of tubular magazines.

On 07/12/2024 18:45, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 13:22:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Well the concept that no world exists is called Idealism. It's all in
>> the mind. Mine alone [solipsism], Gods [monism], or some other
>> arrangement. It explains everything but predicts nothing. Like Islam.
>> Inshallah. If it is Gods Will. Great, But not very *helpful*.
>
> I like the Epicurean approach, which was probably a concession to the
> times. The Gods exist on a planet somewhere but don't give a damn about
> humans.

Yes.

Humans became aware that Great Forces existed, capable of wiping out
civilisations on a whim. Disease, famine, war - all these struck with
no discernible reason. It must be some bastards of Gods who were clearly
not nice kind people at all. No matter how many offerings you left for
them.

The concept of a god who actually gave a shit was relatively late to the
game, and proved extremely helpful in getting barbarians to play nice
with each other and submit to Roman overlords "you will all get your
rewards in heaven: Don't expect any now".

We just muddle through. Until we don't.

We bemoan the fact that so many people are so stupid, and fail to
envision the utter chaos that would ensue if they were not.

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 11:20:51 +0100, D wrote:

> I tried for a bit, to try and "distill" original buddhism, and although
> it was difficult to find anything specific, my feeling was that original
> buddhism was more about doing, rather than speculating, so heavily
> meditation focused, and not very speculation focused.
>
> Another thing I found out was also that original buddhism was heavily
> adapted to the individual (naturally) where buddha tried to tailor the
> techniques and teachings to the individual he was talking with, and that
> is why it started to diverge over the millennia.

There are many flavors. The original Theravada wasn't speculative.

https://sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits013.htm

Mahayana picked up a lot of Hindu metaphysics and became more ornate. The
Tibetan branch really gets into it. But then it circles back with Ch'an
and Zen to become more stripped down.

Of course in common practice you get the usual mythology and rituals.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 13:43:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The sound of one hand clapping is a phrase that seems to make sense, in
> that you understand all the words, but it points to an impossible or
> meaningless event.
>
> The intention is to guide the student away from a dependence on the
> reality of words to a reality beyond them.

The koans are criticized and being meaningless riddles. otoh you have
Heidegger trying to talk about things that can't be talked about with
neologisms.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 17:57:36 +0100, D wrote:

> For me, the tetrapharmakon is as good a treatment as any! =)

Try Nagarjuna's tetralemma. His Mūlamadhyamakakārikā[ is good for a
little mind bending.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/12/2024 10:20, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:09:11 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't even go there. Natural and I had very lively discussions on
>>>> that theme.  But yes, I'm in the camp of the people who accept the
>>>> real world as a fact, and that without humans, there's no ethics,
>>>> math, true or false.
>>>
>>> Buddhism has the concept of two truths, conventional and ultimate.
>>> Conventionally I went out this morning to feed two cats.
>>> Ultimately 'cat' is a construct I imposed and there aren't two of
>>> anything.
>>>
>>> https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/heart_sutra.pdf
>>>
>>> Nietzsche condensed into a couple of hundred Chinese ideograms...
>>
>> Buddha seems to have been far ahead of his time. I really like his
>> position on god, that instead of speculating, they should "shut up
>> and meditate". ;)
>>
> There are states of mind that can be achieved that clarify why
> people started talking about gods and spirits and other realms in the
> first place.

Some portion of the "why" for gods and spirits can also be seen from
the Arthur C. Clarke quote:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic".

To proto-humans, living in caves, with predators at every turn,
something like the lightning from a thunderstorm would seem to be an
"unimaginably advanced technology" and so appear as "magic" and in
order to try to "explain" its existence it becomes easy to pass it off
as some "sky spirit" that is "unhappy" with what Grog did earlier
today. Let that continue for a millenia and you get all the modern
'sky spirits' that continue to be followed by many today.

We, today, understand lightning as just a huge static electricity
discharge. But that understanding rests on a lot of "shoulders of
giants" along the way to the scientific discoverys necessary to
understand why it occurs.

On 2024-12-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 02:30, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-12-06, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I was recovering from a tumour operation at that point and was on
>>> seriously concrete butt plugging pain relief.
>>>
>>> I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And unbeknownst to
>>> me Natures best laxative...
>>
>> Interesting. I've found that peanut butter acts as a mild laxative,
>> at least for me. This is a Good Thing - I love peanut butter.
>> I had a knee replacement yesterday, so I'll get to test it.
>
> Oh gawd. I hope it works out. I hate to say it, but IME around 50% of
> knee operations fail.
>
> Sometimes fatally

Sepsis is always bad news. But there are a lot of measures being
taken to avoid this.

I think things are a lot better nowadays. Our local hospital seems
to have it down to a science, and I've heard far more success stories
than failures.

As for me, I'm on my second day after the procedure. I'm kicking back
and relaxing, and doing those stretching exercises to get things back
to normal. It'll take a while. Painkillers help.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 07/12/2024 19:16, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 13:43:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> The sound of one hand clapping is a phrase that seems to make sense, in
>> that you understand all the words, but it points to an impossible or
>> meaningless event.
>>
>> The intention is to guide the student away from a dependence on the
>> reality of words to a reality beyond them.
>
> The koans are criticized and being meaningless riddles. otoh you have
> Heidegger trying to talk about things that can't be talked about with
> neologisms.

Heidegger was a total asshole. I think everything he said can probably
safely be ignored.

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 07/12/2024 19:21, Rich wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/12/2024 10:20, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:09:11 +0100, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't even go there. Natural and I had very lively discussions on
>>>>> that theme.  But yes, I'm in the camp of the people who accept the
>>>>> real world as a fact, and that without humans, there's no ethics,
>>>>> math, true or false.
>>>>
>>>> Buddhism has the concept of two truths, conventional and ultimate.
>>>> Conventionally I went out this morning to feed two cats.
>>>> Ultimately 'cat' is a construct I imposed and there aren't two of
>>>> anything.
>>>>
>>>> https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/heart_sutra.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Nietzsche condensed into a couple of hundred Chinese ideograms...
>>>
>>> Buddha seems to have been far ahead of his time. I really like his
>>> position on god, that instead of speculating, they should "shut up
>>> and meditate". ;)
>>>
>> There are states of mind that can be achieved that clarify why
>> people started talking about gods and spirits and other realms in the
>> first place.
>
> Some portion of the "why" for gods and spirits can also be seen from
> the Arthur C. Clarke quote:
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic".
>
> To proto-humans, living in caves, with predators at every turn,
> something like the lightning from a thunderstorm would seem to be an
> "unimaginably advanced technology" and so appear as "magic" and in
> order to try to "explain" its existence it becomes easy to pass it off
> as some "sky spirit" that is "unhappy" with what Grog did earlier
> today. Let that continue for a millenia and you get all the modern
> 'sky spirits' that continue to be followed by many today.
>
> We, today, understand lightning as just a huge static electricity
> discharge. But that understanding rests on a lot of "shoulders of
> giants" along the way to the scientific discoverys necessary to
> understand why it occurs.
>
Absolutely, but I meant a bit more than that. There was a guy - probably
still is - who considered that all religions were descendants of
shamanism. And shamanism itself was an attempt to shrug off what we
would call the normal states of mind and investigate other ones,
typically interpreted as the realms of spirit, encounters with the Great
Spirit or the Dream Time.

Use of hypnotic drumming, psychedelic herbs and fungi and so on was all
part of it. And what they found there, became the substance of religious
myths. Watered down sanitised and popularised for reasons of social
control and cohesion.

And the things such as lightning were, they concluded, from that place.
Another realm where great forces played out.

The same realm that now contains 'natural laws' - these are precisely
what they called gods and spirits, as you say. What Kant called 'the
noumenal world' - the realm of causes, as opposed to effects, which is
the phenomenal world.
So the idea of a 'separate realm' where 'causes live' persists today.
Although we commonly mash it into the material world as if the
existence of 'gravity' were equivalent to the existence of a hamburger.

Instead of one being data and the other metadata...

--
Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
– Will Durant

On 07/12/2024 19:34, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2024 02:30, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-12-06, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was recovering from a tumour operation at that point and was on
>>>> seriously concrete butt plugging pain relief.
>>>>
>>>> I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And unbeknownst to
>>>> me Natures best laxative...
>>>
>>> Interesting. I've found that peanut butter acts as a mild laxative,
>>> at least for me. This is a Good Thing - I love peanut butter.
>>> I had a knee replacement yesterday, so I'll get to test it.
>>
>> Oh gawd. I hope it works out. I hate to say it, but IME around 50% of
>> knee operations fail.
>>
>> Sometimes fatally
>
> Sepsis is always bad news. But there are a lot of measures being
> taken to avoid this.
>
> I think things are a lot better nowadays. Our local hospital seems
> to have it down to a science, and I've heard far more success stories
> than failures.
>
Well my horror stories are from the early noughties and 20teens...

Stuff does progress fast. Back in the day when I asked 'what are the
long term effects of this chemotherapy the nurse had the decency to say
'no one knows:its only been with us for about 12 years, but its raised
the 5 year survival rate from 60% to 97%'

That was around 15 years ago...

> As for me, I'm on my second day after the procedure. I'm kicking back
> and relaxing, and doing those stretching exercises to get things back
> to normal. It'll take a while. Painkillers help.
>
Painkillers are sometimes mandatory. Even if just to let you sleep.

I am faced with possibly a year or more of physio from the last
operation to try and turn my left bicep from a bit of wet string back
into muscles.

Now that the nerves are almost working again.

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 2024-12-07, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> And that teacher is turning out students, much like the MSCE students,

I hear that there are now additional certifications beyond MSCE and MSCD:

MSCC - Microsoft Certified Crashers
MSCB - Microsoft Certified Buyers

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 2024-12-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> We don't know the right answers, we have to experiment. And some
> experiments end in failure. Communism ended in failure.
>
> But why then are we so keen to reintroduce it?

Because democracy is also ending in failure.

There's probably a good essay someone could write around the concept
of the Final Vote. That's when a democratic society decides to vote
away their freedom and install a dictator.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 2024-12-07, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 13:22:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Well the concept that no world exists is called Idealism. It's all in
>> the mind. Mine alone [solipsism], Gods [monism], or some other
>> arrangement. It explains everything but predicts nothing. Like Islam.
>> Inshallah. If it is Gods Will. Great, But not very *helpful*.
>
> I like the Epicurean approach, which was probably a concession to the
> times. The Gods exist on a planet somewhere but don't give a damn about
> humans.

Sounds like 21st-century oligarchs.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 07/12/2024 19:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> We don't know the right answers, we have to experiment. And some
>> experiments end in failure. Communism ended in failure.
>>
>> But why then are we so keen to reintroduce it?
>
> Because democracy is also ending in failure.
>
> There's probably a good essay someone could write around the concept
> of the Final Vote. That's when a democratic society decides to vote
> away their freedom and install a dictator.
>
The Iron law of Oligarchy.

Democracy isn't failing so much as elected representatives dislike the
insecurity and work to subvert it.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 07/12/2024 19:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-07, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 13:22:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Well the concept that no world exists is called Idealism. It's all in
>>> the mind. Mine alone [solipsism], Gods [monism], or some other
>>> arrangement. It explains everything but predicts nothing. Like Islam.
>>> Inshallah. If it is Gods Will. Great, But not very *helpful*.
>>
>> I like the Epicurean approach, which was probably a concession to the
>> times. The Gods exist on a planet somewhere but don't give a damn about
>> humans.
>
> Sounds like 21st-century oligarchs.
>
Life imitates art.

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 16:39, D wrote:
>> So therefore, metaphysics doesn't really exist, except as thought forms to
>> make us feel better (if we need that), in which case it's just a bunch of
>> nice stories.
>
> Well you are starting to make clear a completely metaphysical position here.
>
> What do you mean by 'really exist' ?

With not exist, I mean s an unprovable, ideal reality separate from the
material world. As existing, I mean as a pattern of electrons in a brain.
So depending on what you prefer, either yes or no.

> Do a persons hurt feelings 'really exist'? Or are they just pulling your
> strings?

See above. They exist as electrons in a brain.

> Metaphysics is the study of the assumptions we make about everything in order
> to be able to describe and manipulate things.
>
> If your metaphysics and your language doesn't have room for the 50 kinds of
> snow that some arctic cultures can claim exists, do those types of snow exist
> for you? No. Do they exist at all? Arguable. It's just 'snow'.
>
> It is clear you have no idea what metaphysics means and are confusing it with
> mysticism and religion.

Nope. It depends on the person I am talking with. With some it is
mysticism and religion, with some, such as you, it is thought patterns. I
have no quarrel with thought patterns, based on electrons. I have enormous
quarrel with mysticist platonists.

Please refrain from telling me what I am confusing it with. I'd much
rather you asked me or probe further. I find it annoying when you
attribute things to me, and I think that is probably why our previous
discussion escalated.

> Sure, religion is a form of metaphysics, but *so is science*.

No, science is a method. It is far, far from religion. I do not share your
opinion or definition here.

> Religion is the study of a world that includes a supernatural component.
> Science is the study of one that does not.

I disagree. Religions are fairy tales. Science is a method and a process.
Not a study. We simply disagree about definitions here. I suggest we drop
it.

Religion: The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers,
regarded as creating and governing the universe.

Science is defined as the pursuit and application of knowledge and
understanding of the natural and social world through a systematic
methodology based on evidence.

Those are my definitions, and I disagree with yours. So if you are arguing
from different definitions, we will never agree. I think that's pretty
obvious.

> The question of whether or not there is a supernatural component is proved by
> neither. In the end you assume what you assume, have faith in it and proceed
> to collect $200 and avoid going to jail, so to speak.

It is not something that needs to be proven. By definition, anything
outside the world, cannot be proven inside the world, and hence is
inherently nonsensical, like one of my examples of metaphysics above.
The real world, and all in it, has been proven by G.E. Moore. We have already
been over this, we disagreed violently, and I will _not_ waste my time repeating
the exact same discussion.

> I have no intrinsic problem with 'materialism' apart from the fact that like
> religion, it is a remarkably narrow and exclusive view and wholly
> unsatisfactory in the limit, and like religion, insists it is the One True
> Fact.

I disagree, per the above. I think materialism is the most honest, and
inclusive position we have. It is also a rich position, and one that is
constantly expanding, to include more and more. Religion, as per my
definition, is again nonsense, apart from the pragmatic interpretation of
if it helps you, or the materialistic interpretation (like metaphysics) as
thought patterns in the brain, and at the end of the day, electrons.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 16:42, D wrote:
>> The thing is... should we ever prove any of it, which is not done, it will
>> all just be added to our concept of the "material world" (caveat emptor,
>> and definitions aside) and expand it and enrich our model of it.
>
> That is your credo - your religion.
> I do not ascribe to it.

And I respect that. I disagree, it is not a religion, it is a description
of the real world we actually live in, that is reality.

I know you do not ascribe to it. You have not managed to persuade me of
your point, and likewise, I have not persuaded you of my point.

I agree to disgree. Do you? ;)

> Already quantum physics makes the 'material world' some sort of emergent
> property of a natural dice throwing quagmire of sub atomicity. To the point
> where calling it a 'material world' seems a bit impertinent.
>
> I merely say that to consider that the material world is just an emergent
> property of quantum soup *and* human consciousness, is more flexible and
> useful..

Regardless, it is still part of an expanding material world. When I say
material, you need to stop thinking "material" and start thinking about
reality as a totality, that we get to know better and better.

Quantum mechanics can progress, we are all energy, or strings, I really do
not care, because that is just part of our material world, that we explore
through the method and process of science.

It doesn't matter how hard one twists or turns, or looks to quantum
theorists, what ever they find out, will just enlarge our understanding of
the material world, or the universe, or the totality or what ever you want
to call it.

> I don't 'believe it to be 'true' because I cant believe *anything* to be
> true.

That is a self refuting position. Because that statement in itself, would
be a truth you do subscribe to.

> It's models, not turtles, all the way down. Models whose sole justification
> is that they work well enough for us to think them and not die prematurely.

True. But a model does not imply that there is no material world. In fact,
the success of our models is a strong proof of a material world.

> That the models are the transform - the map - of some underlying externality
.... quantum, arguments we've been through before...
> I understand your need for security, but don't let it limit your thinking.

I think that is insulting. Stop ascribing motivations or putting words in
my mouth. If you do not, I will reverse the process, and we will end up
killfiling each other or angrily ignoring each other. I would not like for
that to happen.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 16:50, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2024 20:40, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 18:23:09 +0100, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I once experimented with the concept of agnostic monism, by which I
>>>>>> mean,
>>>>>> a unified underlying construction or explanation of the world (of which
>>>>>> we are a part), but, that we cannot (at the moment, and probably, never
>>>>>> will)
>>>>>> determine the nature of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all water.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense! Ether!
>>>
>>> Its all in the mind.
>>> Whose mind? I cancel that question! MY mind!
>>
>> Or would that be just.... mind? ;)
>
> Ah, that of course is another unprovable metaphysic: Monism. We are all God
> and it's his/our/my imagination at work.
>
> Jolly cute, but ultimately fucking useless.

And that was exactly the joke! ;)

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> I think it can even happen spontaneously, and then there's near death
>> experiences as well.
>>
> The ultimate trauma...

Yes, and boy is it fascinating!

>> That brings me to the thought, since psylocybin and other mushrooms are now
>> starting to become so common, if there's something to be gained by doing it
>> the natural way instead of "shocking" the mind with external drugs?
>>
> Depends on the person. Drugs are supremely violent and the moment or
> revelations may well be too much for people to survive mentally intact...

True. I would very much like to try, but I have madness in the distant family
and I do not want to take any risk of jarring the good, old brain since it might
be latent in me.

> There isn't much point in achieving enlightenment if you are then unable to
> cope with daily life.

This is another interesting thought experiment. We tend to sanctify saints,
saying they are the paragon of humanity. But would all of us becoing saints
really be a good end station for humanity?

If I look at monks and monasteries, they decide (for the love of humanity) to
move away and pray. If you look at saintly figures among the monks (the "rock
stars" of spirituality) they tend to withdraw even more, and the brothers take
care of them.

Now imagine a planet of such people. It does sound as if the human species would
just slowly fade away.

> "Before enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water: After enlightenment
> chopping wood, fetching water"
>
> :-)

True. From where is that quote?

>> The reason I'm thinking about it is that I 've read about underground
>> trip-clinics where people get "hooked" on the spiritual experience of
>> merging with the universe. They want to experience it again and again.
>>
> Bliss junkies.
>
> It inst an escape. They probably gave em fentanyl. They knocked me out with
> that for my last operation. Wow!

Yes, it does sound like junkies. They are only there for the instant effects,
and not for the goal (to find god). I think, but am not sure, that buddha
strongly warned against blissful states, spiritual experiences, esp and so on,
and said "just keep on meditating and do not let yourself be distracted by
that".

It would make a lot of sense if that is what he said, and it would also make me
think that in fact, bliss junkies is exactly what they are, and that it might
actually be harmful for them in the long run, even though they run around
feeling bliss all day.

>> Contrast that with a buddhist monk who trained meditation for decades, and
>> then has his realization. He might be a kind and loving man, with enormous
>> compassion, continuing with his meditation and helping people.
>>
> Indeed.
>
>> The young man in the trip-clinic, goes there once a week to get his dose of
>> spirituality.
>>
> Or down the club for a bit of Ecstasy.
>
> There is a reason psychedelics are no longer in vogue. They don't guarantee a
> good time at all. In fact they can deliver a seriously bad one. Hence Ecstasy
> - a cross between an amphetamine and a psychedelic.

I think transpersonal psychology and psychedelic therapy are trying to mitigate
that, and make it for "everyone" by carefully monitoring the process and the
doseages.

>> Is this good or bad? Is there a component that favours one or the other
>> method?
>>
> Depends on the person. I think you need to be very strong to survive any
> drug. But weak people are attracted.

Only one way to find out! ;)

>> I have a business colleague who is afraid of death. He went to an
>> underground clinic and took a trip, and for a week or two afterwards he
>> felt more in tune with the world and more spiritual and even hesitated to
>> kill mosquitoes out of compassion. But then the effect started to wear off
>> as life came back.
>>
> Psychedelics destroy your current world view. You can then find alternative
> ones, or end up with none at all, in a mental institution, but your normal
> one is a deep groove to escape from...its like they are a tool to modify the
> metaphysics. But they are no guarantee the modification will hold.

I think it depends and can be anything from destroying it, shattering your ego,
jarring it, or mildly "nudging" it. Maybe psychological illness is like the
gearbox getting stuck, and the mild jarring, or hit of the drug, might shake it
a bit so it becomes unstuck?

> This is the world we have to live in - unless we are extremely permanently
> 'enlightened'

True. I often think that the reason christianity banned suicide was that life
was so bad in the middle ages, that if people truly believed they would go to
heaven after death, they would all commit suicide, if the church didn't forbid
that way of "hacking the system"! ;)

>> I don't know if it did anything long term, about his fear of death.
>>
>> For me, the tetrapharmakon is as good a treatment as any! =)
>
> "In my life, I have travelled many paths,
> into the bush and out of it
> But I am not anywhere.
> For me there is only the travelling on paths with heart
> On any path with heart
> And their I travel looking breathlessly"
>
> "But how can one know a path with heart?"
>
> "Any fool can know that, the problem is that no one asks the question"

From where is this quote?

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 11:52:04 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> If he proved it, how come there has been so little talk about him in
>> scientific circles?
>
> I feel left out. The Wiki blurb said the Wolfram language was included on
> the Raspberry Pi. As far as I can tell that applied to Raspian but not the
> Raspberry Pi OS. I don't need another rabbit hole anyway.
>

No, it is about his "new physics" (or what ever he called it, don't quite
remember). He took like a year off from his company and decided to rewrite
physics from the ground up, which resulted in a huge tome that he thought
was revolutionary. I have not heard anything from the scientific
community, so that was the background for my question.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

>> Ohh... but that is not "raw" in my book. I do that myself on
>> opensuse and I very seldom use yast. So basically, what you are
>> saying is that it works like... "linux"? ;)
>
> Yes. Slackware is the nearest to just being Linux of all the distros
> (that install Linux, some of the FreeBSD's may be similar). If your
> preference is to edit /etc/resolv.conf to adjust your default name
> server, and edit /etc/init.d to change the default bootup, and so
> forth, it is more what you may be looking for than the others (all of
> which add varing levels a "you are an idiot, here let me hold your hand
> via this custom GUI" system on top).

Sounds great! =)

>> Maybe I should add slackware back to the list then, since what you
>> are saying just sound exactly like how I like to manage my machines!
>> =D
>
> Tis free to download, and you can install it into a VM if you wish to
> 'test out' at first (and don't have a spare machine to devote to
> 'testout').
>
> It also is one of the few left that is systemd free. And instead of
> the SYSV infinite field of symlinks for init, Slackware uses BSD style
> rc.d scripts (actual scripts you can edit). The provenance of SYSV
> sysmlink fields means it also will support those if you want, but the
> default is actual scripts that execute other scripts.

Oh my... it just keeps getting better and better!! How come it hasn't gotten any
attention at all??

I've heard about devuan and antix, but how come none of those guys went to
slckware to escape their systemd problems?

>>> And for that one, the install script asks you for the details as
>>> part of the install, so if you give the correct data at that time
>>> (same data you'd poke into the Ubuntu GUI configurator) then you
>>> don't even need to edit /etc/resolv.conf.
>>>
>>> There's an old quote that came about from the net long ago:
>>>
>>> Learn Ubuntu and you learn Ubuntu, learn Slackware and you learn Linux.
>>
>> I'm happy I started as early with linux as I did. I teach the config
>> file way to my students, and am furious when I learned that the
>> teacher who got the job after me, taught the students how to manage
>> linux with _only_ the GUI tools. Revolting! Also causing them to
>> miss out a lot about how the system actually works, and how it was
>> design to work. =(
>
> And that teacher is turning out students, much like the MSCE students,
> who only "know Ubuntu" (assuming they used Ubuntu) and the "Ubuntu way"
> and if tossed into a "non Ubuntu" system, become lost, because they
> really did not learn how things worked behind the "lipstick on a pig
> GUI".

Yep, this is the sad truth. I, together with 2 colleagues, give a cloud course
that's after the linux course, and we do hard core terminal work in that course.
We've discovered that since they have a monkey as the linux teacher, we have to
start from scratch in that course, thus losing valuable time. =(

I will pray hard, that I manage to get back the linux course next autumn. That
way I can prepare them properly and teach them what the terminal, files,
scripting, and text files is all about! =)

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 17:24, D wrote:
>> It would hardly be the first time in human history that we go through some
>> kind of dark age, only to come out of it and eventually pick up speed
>> towards new highs.
>>
>> I think perhaps the future consists of multi-polar, virtual communities,
>> hiding in plain sight. The wokists do their thing, crash a society or two,
>> get thrown out, things start to improve, until the next group comes along,
>> generating an anti-group and so on.
>
> A quick glance at the 'iron law of oligarchy' is revealing.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Thank you, very interesting. I think in todays world, if you widen the
concept of oligarchy to mean the "political class" is not far off the
mark. We have politicians who have never been anything else, and the
political office sometimes (or the job at least) is going from father to
son for generations.

I have often suggested that democracy should be reformed, so that you are
only allowed one term of office in the public sector, and that's it. In
addition to that, the salary of the job should be the average of the
country, and should have as a requirement to speak english and have an
academic degree.

The idea is to rule out stupid people, to stop people from accumulating a
network and power base from hanging around the public sector for decades,
and to ban people who are in it for the money.

I also like the greek way of assigning offices by lottery, and (if we
insist on taxes) that only people who pay into the system, have any say
about the system.

I predict that no current politician would ever dream of changing the
system in that way. ;)

>>
>> Meanwhile, in cyberspace, all the cool kids gather, learn, help each other
>> out.
>>
> Or get cancelled because their views represent a threat to the established
> elites.

Ohh... you are talking about the internet! I'm talking about the freenet!
;)

Jokes aside, the regular internet is more or less dead, and is just a tool
for crowd control.

I find it fascinating that small slivers of freedom exist such as usenet,
mastodon and private mailinglists and chat servers.

>> Of course, since we have about 190+ countries or so, some will be more
>> successful than others, and the interesting thing there is if they will be
>> pressured by the failing ones to submit and share their wealth or if they
>> will manage to somehow stay independent. I think the size of them would
>> determine the outcome. Monaco and Liechtenstein have been able to survive
>> longer than some modern european democracies, so it is not impossible,
>> although difficult.
>
> One of the great reasons I dislike the European Union is precisely because it
> seeks to impose, by force, a monolithic 'European culture' whereas in times
> of crisis, the last thing you want is to be on a ship with no watertight
> doors - if the ship gets holed, down we all go.

This is true! Let a 100 governance system blossom, and let's see which
ones are successful. My bet is on the market being the most ingenious and
best system of managing scarce resources, ever invented. So far, it seems
to be in the lead. ;)

> We don't know the right answers, we have to experiment. And some experiments
> end in failure. Communism ended in failure.
>
> But why then are we so keen to reintroduce it?

Don't ask me. It is one of the tragedies of our current day and age. Maybe
Milei will manage to pull a miracle out of Argentina and show the world
what it has forgotten? That markets and liberty works.