How to win the war of life ?

Peatful

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
3,582
Second Christian SCAM of my topic. No, seriously it's nice but I can't force myself to believe in an imaginary friend, it looks like a last resort.
I understand.
Much love to you on your journey.
 

redsun

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
3,013
Hello, I am an 18 year old man, excuse me in advance if my message is confusing enough, I do not really know how to properly write my thought, especially since I am not an English speaker, I think it is the whole that counts but good.
Something's wrong with me, and probably always has been. Like an hour ago, I got ready to have sex with a transexual, of course me as a submissive (I won't give details). In the end, I chickened out after masturbating, but this is not the only extreme paraphilia that I have developed (others like incest fantasies for example).
I am not normally anything other than purely heterosexual but I am systematically led to go to the extreme, to the most forbidden practices, to have more dopamine / pleasure, a bit like some fat person who will systematically choose dairy flavors / caramel against fragrances for sweet and fruity, because it is "more pleasing" I myself had this tendency during my youth.
I am also apathetic, I rationally see no point in facing the problems and stresses of life when you can just be dead, and not suffer from absolutely nothing. In fact the only things that keep me from committing suicide are mainly the fear of hurting my family and the pain, my life comes down to constantly brooding while walking and listening to music, playing sports, and possibly revising my run if the laziness is not too great.
I think I have asperger's syndrome, I literally have all the syndromes, to which we can add some neuroses due to my shitty life. Not only have I never been able to have a friend and even less a girl friend (never kissed a girl, if only on the cheek, outside the family) and as a general rule to create links with whoever it is. if not possibly my parents. (especially my mother)
My childhood, from elementary school to the beginning of high school, was literally constant stress / anxiety with, sometimes for a change, huge spikes of stress / anxiety, humiliations from entering primary school , separation from my parents which took place so that I had cried to the point of bleeding from the nose, permanent loneliness in college (in fact no, I had "friends" who were unbearable and whom I frequented so as not to being alone, I had no friends), regularly seeing my mother cry for whatever reasons, stress from school, girls making lists of boys where I was last because of my weight, etc. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
The only comforting moments were when I was at my house and there was nothing I could do except wallow in the couch and fatten myself up on the computer.
It didn't last because I lost a lot of weight (and I'm still very thin now), but I developed eating disorders in high school, I went to the gym 6 times a week, eating at most 2000: 2500kcal per day to "not gain weight", I ended up becoming thin and I had binge eating attacks, which lasted several months. Even today I probably do not eat enough calories because of the lack of time and money.
All this to say that if my situation has drastically improved on the surface, I have the impression of being inside more "rotten" than I have ever been.
I put this message on this forum because I like it although it is frequented by VERY intelligent people, I just want to know if some of you would have had similar experiences, or simply have leads in general (experiences , books). I'm starting to get quite desperate to be faced with learned helplessness.
I tried to consume more calories but it is a cost and it mostly seems to give me benefits of gas, increase my brain fog.
I add that many members of my family have had similar problems or even worse, besides my father seems quite hypothyroid and low in testerosterone, mother has hashimoto. The problem is probably partly genetic (unfortunately)
Thanks for reading.

Hypothyroidism and low testosterone is not genetic. It is a result of food, lifestyle, lack of nutrition, sleep. You problem is clearly learned helplessness which also led you to develop this nihilism. Trust me when I say a majority of teenage males have at least for a short time been in such a low place like you are (including me). The key is to accept yourself and forgive yourself for not being perfect and forgive the world and everyone around you for not being perfect. This world is filled with tragedy but its also filled with much happiness and fulfillment as well. You just need to put yourself in the right position health wise so your mental state can change.

I don't know what calories are going to do alone. Calories are barely half the picture in regards to improving testosterone. Let me make it clear that it is testosterone that is what is going to make it possible for you to help yourself. Androgens give men the power (energy), the will (desire), and the resolve to follow through on their goals... Whatever they are. You need to increase ATP generation, lower serotonin, and raise testosterone in order to start the process of fixing your broken mental state.

A whole foods diet high in animal products and healthy carbs (white rice, potatoes, fruits) is the basis. Animal foods like red meat, eggs, dairy are vital for good health and androgens. Oysters are a very nutrient dense, healing food for the mind, is rich in many vital minerals for men (zinc, iron, copper) which will improve your mood and outlook immensely. I also recommend taking extra B-vitamins which will help reduce serotonin and raise androgens along with the other things you are doing.

Action depends on the health and vigor of the body and if you lack that you will be stuck in a rut and develop and adapt mindsets that validate the unhealthy state you are in.
 

mariantos

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2021
Messages
483
I understand.
Much love to you on your journey.

You are full of love. May the Lord keep you in His care!


It is obvious that this boy needs love, a purpose, because he misses them completely!

I was as proud as this individual and the Lord struck me to the ground!

People were trying to guide me to the Lord, and I was making fun of them and the Lord.
I thought I was smart and I trusted people's philosophies like he thinks he's smart and does the same things!

He is willing to receive any "food" advice, but if he has twice rejected the warm encouragement then:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matthew 7:6
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
227
Thank you for taking the time to give a long answer like this. When it comes to food, my main problem is that a lot of peaty foods don't cause a problem or just aren't appetizing.

I don't like sugar very much, unless it is mixed with something bitter (coffee or cocoa) or diluted (watery and / or not very sweet fruits like lack, orange and especially bananas, are very starchy).

Sweeteners predominantly in fructose (acasia honey or very liquid mield as a rule, agave syrup, fructose powder ...) are very bad and disgusting to the taste.

Orange juice and milk are the two drinks that give me the most mucus, especially orange juice, a tall glass and I have to go to the sink to spit out big glaviots full of mucus.

I also seem to have seen in several studies that milk increases the blood levels of estrogen, finally it tends to give me diarrhea.

Massa harina cannot be found in France, oysters are too expensive, the liver tastes unbearable ...

My perfect dish would usually be a large bowl of pasta or rice with leafy greens and very fatty meat. The animal fat is satisfactory and without respecting any nutritional rules I would have no problem consuming it raw, without anything else, beef tallow, or pork rind ...

Anyway, going back to what you were saying at the beginning, I don't understand how comparing sex to food is "telling", I just want to say that both are pleasures (although I m 'mad about eating or not) and that they can be alienated and sidetracked by third party issues and have the new goal of getting as much dopamine as possible in an instant. Yes honestly I remember healthy people in school naturally going for fruit while fat / life victims (without nastiness) tended to turn to more calorie dense sources. I also see it in a number of people around me with the same problems (overweight, fatigue ...)

I don't know what makes you say that I am specifically vitamin D deficient, especially since I often walk outside, but you must surely know more than me to make it jump out at you like this.

Finally, I prefer to avoid spending money on laboratory tests (without prescription, therefore not reimbursed, especially since I do not have doctors because I have just moved to a new city), I had however a balance sheet about a year ago which had not indicated anything in particular, apart from rather weak platelets.
again, you are not listening :)
 
OP
ValeryZeSpanich
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
80
Location
Madrid and Paris
You are full of love. May the Lord keep you in His care!


It is obvious that this boy needs love, a purpose, because he misses them completely!

I was as proud as this individual and the Lord struck me to the ground!

People were trying to guide me to the Lord, and I was making fun of them and the Lord.
I thought I was smart and I trusted people's philosophies like he thinks he's smart and does the same things!

He is willing to receive any "food" advice, but if he has twice rejected the warm encouragement then:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matthew 7:6
Many say "feel" god but it looks more like a mental gimnastic, the same thing for all spiritualities in fact, Abrahamic religions or not. God could do any action no matter how benign to prove his existence, such as breaking a glass in my room, but "oddly" God seems quite silent, as Pascal said.
Right now the only "religion" that seems rational to me seems to be Buddhism, if we stop at philosophy and forget things like karma, reincarnation, the gods ...
 

X3CyO

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
512
Location
Hawaii
"How can you tell people that you want them to be around, but just don't want to hang out?"
I understand ah ah, even if I personally have rather the opposite problem, I want to get out but I can not create links, I do not know what to talk about or how to have a feealing with people, or I feel like I'm pretending.
It's like being vinegar or fat in water, no matter how hard we mix it, it always ends up dissociating, in one way or another (the way being what separates us if I have understood your message correctly)

Otherwise, I approve the rest of your post, it reminds me of when I was small and naive, I wanted to be engineers and I said to myself, I imagined (daydreaming all my life, today rumination has taken its place, at least in large part) that when I grew up everything would improve, that I would have a large salary etc. thanks to my precocity, that justified my deeply liberal political ideologies (at 10/12 years old yes).
I have always had an important material comfort, yet I realized, by dint of ruminating on life, that it never made me happy, then that I am put to question almost everything that seemed to me to have material origin importance.
We try hard to resist, and not to do creepy things like I was going to do serious as that, I was talking for example of the trans or other weird stuff), but it's hard when you have no support, which is more in a world more and more selfish. In my high school, I quickly got a reputation as a "fascist" because I don't want to let other people die / degenerate. I remember an English class where we had to applaud a trans who made her comming out, she had already spoken the year before about taking testosterone. But yes it's me, the guy who doesn't talk at the back of the class, the "bad guy" because I don't wish someone to go crazy by destroying their hormonal system.
It is only one anectode among other
Word.

You're growing up during a harder time than I did too. Way more brainwashing. At least back then, it was low-level and in the background. Now it's straight in our faces. Pornography doesn't help either, as it stretches fantasies to fill the gap between insanity and reality in relatively healthy people who are just bored.

People are reverting to monkeys.


There are not many groups of people that promote thinking differently and having discourse rather than yelling them down. Revealing people's cognitive dissonance and helping them to improve their thinking methodology.


I also have the problem of not being able to create links either. I'd rather talk in-depth about subjects rather than who is fighting who on TV, or surface-level howdy doo. Metaphysics, Psychology, Economics, Biology. People just want to watch Netflix... and it's easy to get pulled into it with an addictive personality.

There are people like us out there. Not as easy to reach as those on the internet. Definitely.

All I can recommend is to continue to be opinionated, and avoid all the time sinks people try to suck us into. Being alone is a great tool in building your resistance to the influence of the outside. It's bad to be completely disconnected, but it's also skill when coupled with discipline which can be learned by studying our psychology, physiology, and biology.

Reading things like philosophy will help to keep you sane if you have an interest, or perhaps economics. I'm reading both now so I'm inclined to recommend Emmanual Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Find people to teach, debate with, and continue to stay opinionated and understanding would be my recommendation: Even if it's just online. (Which I'm doing of course as well, and am inclined to believe is best.)
 

LLight

Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,411
Otherwise, I approve the rest of your post, it reminds me of when I was small and naive, I wanted to be engineers and I said to myself, I imagined (daydreaming all my life, today rumination has taken its place, at least in large part) that when I grew up everything would improve, that I would have a large salary etc. thanks to my precocity, that justified my deeply liberal political ideologies (at 10/12 years old yes).

What are you studying right now?

"Classes préparatoires" and engineering school can give you an analytical mind and general scientific knowledge (I'm not saying that it's the only way of course), which coupled with your critical mind (otherwise you wouldn't be on the Ray Peat forum I guess ?) will put you on a good path to live an independent life.
 
OP
ValeryZeSpanich
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
80
Location
Madrid and Paris
Word.

You're growing up during a harder time than I did too. Way more brainwashing. At least back then, it was low-level and in the background. Now it's straight in our faces. Pornography doesn't help either, as it stretches fantasies to fill the gap between insanity and reality in relatively healthy people who are just bored.

People are reverting to monkeys.


There are not many groups of people that promote thinking differently and having discourse rather than yelling them down. Revealing people's cognitive dissonance and helping them to improve their thinking methodology.


I also have the problem of not being able to create links either. I'd rather talk in-depth about subjects rather than who is fighting who on TV, or surface-level howdy doo. Metaphysics, Psychology, Economics, Biology. People just want to watch Netflix... and it's easy to get pulled into it with an addictive personality.

There are people like us out there. Not as easy to reach as those on the internet. Definitely.

All I can recommend is to continue to be opinionated, and avoid all the time sinks people try to suck us into. Being alone is a great tool in building your resistance to the influence of the outside. It's bad to be completely disconnected, but it's also skill when coupled with discipline which can be learned by studying our psychology, physiology, and biology.

Reading things like philosophy will help to keep you sane if you have an interest, or perhaps economics. I'm reading both now so I'm inclined to recommend Emmanual Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Find people to teach, debate with, and continue to stay opinionated and understanding would be my recommendation: Even if it's just online. (Which I'm doing of course as well, and am inclined to believe is best.)
a priori these are not people with whom I tend to agree, in particular Kant (I don't know Adam)
But I will try to take an interest in it :):
 
OP
ValeryZeSpanich
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
80
Location
Madrid and Paris
What are you studying right now?

"Classes préparatoires" and engineering school can give you an analytical mind and general scientific knowledge (I'm not saying that it's the only way of course), which coupled with your critical mind (otherwise you wouldn't be on the Ray Peat forum I guess ?) will put you on a good path to live an independent life.
I am in the first year of medical school, and I am not sure yet which branch I want to go, maybe phamacie.
 

X3CyO

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
512
Location
Hawaii
a priori these are not people with whom I tend to agree, in particular Kant (I don't know Adam)
But I will try to take an interest in it :):
Thats interesting!

Why do you not agree with Kant?


Adam smith is a great economist who spent a large chunk of his life philosophizing and studying economies and societies from what I understand so far. A few of the theories that we have here in America today apparently come from him.

Congratulations on your success in getting into medical school.
 
OP
ValeryZeSpanich
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
80
Location
Madrid and Paris
Thats interesting!

Why do you not agree with Kant?


Adam smith is a great economist who spent a large chunk of his life philosophizing and studying economies and societies from what I understand so far. A few of the theories that we have here in America today apparently come from him.

Congratulations on your success in getting into medical school.
I don't know Adam Smith well, so I can't really comment on it in depth, but he seems to be one of the great figures of economic liberalism. I have an absolutely deterministic worldview and consider myself politically as a Marxist, so I inevitably have a negative a priori about personalities like Adam Smith (if that's what I think). As for Kant, it is on the program of the philosophy course in France, at the end of high school. I do not agree AT ALL with his principle of categorical imperative because what he considers to be imperatives is arbitrary (like the orders of any religion in fact), it seems to me that he justified these imperatives for example by the reflex to help a person, which would be an “altruistic” act and therefore at the heart of a “higher moral law”, which is of course false because one saves a person to fundamentally satisfy the injunction of our mirror neurons, we save because it "makes us happy", so it's egoistic like, I think, any action that prompts us to act.
 

X3CyO

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
512
Location
Hawaii
I don't know Adam Smith well, so I can't really comment on it in depth, but he seems to be one of the great figures of economic liberalism. I have an absolutely deterministic worldview and consider myself politically as a Marxist, so I inevitably have a negative a priori about personalities like Adam Smith (if that's what I think). As for Kant, it is on the program of the philosophy course in France, at the end of high school. I do not agree AT ALL with his principle of categorical imperative because what he considers to be imperatives is arbitrary (like the orders of any religion in fact), it seems to me that he justified these imperatives for example by the reflex to help a person, which would be an “altruistic” act and therefore at the heart of a “higher moral law”, which is of course false because one saves a person to fundamentally satisfy the injunction of our mirror neurons, we save because it "makes us happy", so it's egoistic like, I think, any action that prompts us to act.
Ok. I'm going to write down some short definitions. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
1.a classical Marxism: a style of socio-economic analysis through historical materialism; the concept that historical changes in social structures are there result of material/technology attainment/advancement versus ideals.
b. Post Marxism:
"history is not only determined by the mode of production but also by consciousness and will."
2. Economic Liberalism: supports the individualist market economy, and private property in the means of production. Opposing government intervention in the market when it inhibits free trade and open competition, but supports government intervention to protect property rights, and resolve market failures.


I'm making a leap of faith since I haven't been in school for a while.

Can you not believe both? I believe material and technology are important to achieve ideals, which is enabled when open trade is allowed, said material and technology can be exchanged, post marxism - > kantian ethics.
In terms of having things is more important than Ideals, yes. The hierarchy of needs must be fulfilled. Duty as in Kantian ethics continues to exist regardless of if you have fulfilled said needs or not though. Will go into that:



3. Deterministic world view: Determinism: All that happens is inevitable; its opposite being free-will
4. Categorical imperative: a central concept in deontological philosophy:
"a categorical imperative is an unconditional law-like command, formulated so as to be fit for adoption by a being which by its very nature deals in universals." -Kant's Imperative ~ The Imaginative Conservative

  1. act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
    1. universal law: tested for sufficiency: "what if everybody did that?"
      1. if the result is good, good.
      2. if the result is bad, it cannot be a universal law.
  2. So act that you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.
  3. …every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a lawmaking member in the universal kingdom of ends.
5. skimmed through Kantian ethics: Goodness of action is decided by intention; in order to intend a good action, a rational agent must possess goodwill to do the action; the reason why we go on to do a good action is the result of a sense of obligation<Moral duty>.
"...virtues are not gained, but maintained."


What he considers to be imperatives is arbitrary (like the orders of any religion in fact).
What does he consider to be imperatives? I only have been able to find the rules to follow above to determine what can be.


"one saves a person to fundamentally satisfy the injunction of our mirror neurons, we save because it "makes us happy", so it's egoistic like, I think, any action that prompts us to act.

I disagree. People save people for many reasons; not only because it makes them happy, but can also be done because it provides people a sense of duty that can provide a purpose to their life. Not all doctors/nurses/ambulance techs care about all their patients, but they save them because it's their job. They may have found their purpose from the happiness originally induced by saving someone, or the idea of doing that, perhaps.

"Satisfy our mirror neurons." I'd like to hear more on that.
 
OP
ValeryZeSpanich
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
80
Location
Madrid and Paris
Ok. I'm going to write down some short definitions. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
1.a classical Marxism: a style of socio-economic analysis through historical materialism; the concept that historical changes in social structures are there result of material/technology attainment/advancement versus ideals.
b. Post Marxism:
"history is not only determined by the mode of production but also by consciousness and will."
2. Economic Liberalism: supports the individualist market economy, and private property in the means of production. Opposing government intervention in the market when it inhibits free trade and open competition, but supports government intervention to protect property rights, and resolve market failures.


I'm making a leap of faith since I haven't been in school for a while.

Can you not believe both? I believe material and technology are important to achieve ideals, which is enabled when open trade is allowed, said material and technology can be exchanged, post marxism - > kantian ethics.
In terms of having things is more important than Ideals, yes. The hierarchy of needs must be fulfilled. Duty as in Kantian ethics continues to exist regardless of if you have fulfilled said needs or not though. Will go into that:



3. Deterministic world view: Determinism: All that happens is inevitable; its opposite being free-will
4. Categorical imperative: a central concept in deontological philosophy:
« Un impératif catégorique est un ordre inconditionnel semblable à une loi, formulé de manière à être propre à être adopté par un être qui, par sa nature même, traite d'universaux. - L'impératif de Kant ~ Le conservateur imaginatif

  1. n'agissez que selon cette maxime par laquelle vous pouvez en même temps vouloir qu'elle devienne une loi universelle.
    1. loi universelle : testée pour la suffisance : « et si tout le monde faisait ça ?
      1. si le résultat est bon, tant mieux.
      2. si le résultat est mauvais, ce ne peut être une loi universelle.
  2. Faites donc en sorte que vous utilisiez l'humanité, dans votre propre personne comme dans celle de toute autre, toujours en même temps comme une fin, jamais simplement comme un moyen.
  3. … tout être rationnel doit agir ainsi comme s'il était par sa maxime toujours un membre législateur dans le royaume universel des fins.
5. survolé l'éthique kantienne : la bonté de l' action se décide par l'intention ; afin d'avoir l'intention d'une bonne action, un agent rationnel doit posséder la bonne volonté de faire l'action ; la raison pour laquelle nous continuons à faire une bonne action est le résultat d'un sentiment d'obligation<Devoir moral>.
"... les vertus ne sont pas acquises, mais maintenues."


Ce qu'il considère comme des impératifs est arbitraire (comme les ordres de toute religion en fait).
Que considère-t-il comme des impératifs ? Je n'ai pu trouver que les règles à suivre ci-dessus pour déterminer ce qui peut l'être.


"on sauve une personne pour satisfaire fondamentalement l'injonction de nos neurones miroirs, on sauve parce que ça "nous rend heureux", donc c'est égoïste comme, je pense, toute action qui nous pousse à agir.

Je ne suis pas d'accord. Les gens sauvent des gens pour de nombreuses raisons ; non seulement parce que cela les rend heureux, mais cela peut aussi être fait parce que cela donne aux gens un sens du devoir qui peut donner un but à leur vie. Tous les médecins/infirmières/techniciens ambulanciers ne se soucient pas de tous leurs patients, mais ils les sauvent parce que c'est leur travail. Ils ont peut-être trouvé leur but dans le bonheur induit à l'origine en sauvant quelqu'un, ou dans l'idée de le faire, peut-être.

« Satisfaire nos neurones miroirs. » J'aimerais en savoir plus là-dessus.
Ok. I'm going to write down some short definitions. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
1.a classical Marxism: a style of socio-economic analysis through historical materialism; the concept that historical changes in social structures are there result of material/technology attainment/advancement versus ideals.
b. Post Marxism:
"history is not only determined by the mode of production but also by consciousness and will."
2. Economic Liberalism: supports the individualist market economy, and private property in the means of production. Opposing government intervention in the market when it inhibits free trade and open competition, but supports government intervention to protect property rights, and resolve market failures.


I'm making a leap of faith since I haven't been in school for a while.

Can you not believe both? I believe material and technology are important to achieve ideals, which is enabled when open trade is allowed, said material and technology can be exchanged, post marxism - > kantian ethics.
In terms of having things is more important than Ideals, yes. The hierarchy of needs must be fulfilled. Duty as in Kantian ethics continues to exist regardless of if you have fulfilled said needs or not though. Will go into that:



3. Deterministic world view: Determinism: All that happens is inevitable; its opposite being free-will
4. Categorical imperative: a central concept in deontological philosophy:
"a categorical imperative is an unconditional law-like command, formulated so as to be fit for adoption by a being which by its very nature deals in universals." -Kant's Imperative ~ The Imaginative Conservative

  1. act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
    1. universal law: tested for sufficiency: "what if everybody did that?"
      1. if the result is good, good.
      2. if the result is bad, it cannot be a universal law.
  2. So act that you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.
  3. …every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a lawmaking member in the universal kingdom of ends.
5. skimmed through Kantian ethics: Goodness of action is decided by intention; in order to intend a good action, a rational agent must possess goodwill to do the action; the reason why we go on to do a good action is the result of a sense of obligation<Moral duty>.
"...virtues are not gained, but maintained."


What he considers to be imperatives is arbitrary (like the orders of any religion in fact).
What does he consider to be imperatives? I only have been able to find the rules to follow above to determine what can be.


"one saves a person to fundamentally satisfy the injunction of our mirror neurons, we save because it "makes us happy", so it's egoistic like, I think, any action that prompts us to act.

I disagree. People save people for many reasons; not only because it makes them happy, but can also be done because it provides people a sense of duty that can provide a purpose to their life. Not all doctors/nurses/ambulance techs care about all their patients, but they save them because it's their job. They may have found their purpose from the happiness originally induced by saving someone, or the idea of doing that, perhaps.

"Satisfy our mirror neurons." I'd like to hear more on that.
By "Marxist" I meant that I was politically a communist but also and above all in line with the worldview of Marx, and of the majority of socialist movements in general. Determinism (principle that things happen purely and simply by the logic of causse to effect) is at the heart of socialist ideology, if you recognize that a person is what he is because of elements of which he is not. has no control, that is to say EVERYTHING (genetics as a genetic ear), then this removes, at least to a certain extent, the logic of merit and legitimizes the intervention of the state. If you were president and you had an obese population stuffed with junk food and prone to loneliness, mental problems, health problems and in good standing a multitude of problems feeding each other by feedback loops hellish. would you let all this part of the population perish because "they deserve it, they just had to make an effort and try to get rich by listening to the drop shipping training of the young handsome millionaire kid who can advertise on ytb" . No you will intervene I believe, the global distribution of wealth is currently to the advantage of the West, the average Westerner manages to live "comfortably" in her liberal society because it is based on the exploitation of the third world. I think anyone with a little common sense would avoid explaining to third world slaves that they are miserable because “they didn't take any risks to become an entrepreneur you know” as a lot of people say. Westerners who believe themselves to be courageous because they have become rich by giving up their job, or by moving, or any pseudo sacrifice by forgetting their enormous starting privileges. And I clarify that I say all this being 180 degrees to be an SJW or even "progressive" as a rule, I am not at all for the guilt, but I am realistic) To return to Kant, it seems to me that it is declared “not to lie” as an imperative, I could be wrong. When you act out of empathy, it's an injunction from your mirror neurons and the act of intervening gives you pleasure, or at least relief, it's selfish because otherwise you wouldn't care ( you don't pay attention to the animal's suffering when you eat a steak, and if you thought about it you just think "that's life", it's not just far-sighted hypocrisy. from the heart ”as the vegans rehash, because even if you kill the animal yourself, you do it because you have not decided to create a relationship with it, it is a farm animal not a companion, so you kill it). The sense of obligation obeys the same logic in a perhaps more subtle way, you feel obligated to do some action whatever because doing it brings you gain (money, recognition of others, recognition towards you even etc etc etc) while not doing so will put you into a state of stress. the cases there is in interest and everything is played out in the head, the idea of categorical imperative which falls from the sky is a religious vision of things. Again I am not a total deconstructivist, I just attribute to the moral a purely and simply pragmatic origin, a way of managing the human population to help man transcend what is most primary in him to create civilization from the sublimation of his creative / sexual energy. Here again I do not see how a liberal society can end well given that it tends to increase the inequalities of wealth and in general to handicap a certain number of people to satisfy their "pyramid of Maslow", when I see the state. American and Chinese society, countries of the Far East, and ultra-liberal countries in general, this tends to consolidate my position.
Sorry for the long post and any mistakes (I use Google translate most of the time, especially for long texts) :pompous:
 

X3CyO

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
512
Location
Hawaii
Sorry for the long post and any mistakes (I use Google translate most of the time, especially for long texts) :pompous:

No problem. I like long posts haha. I can break them up anyways.

By "Marxist" I meant that I was politically a communist but also and above all in line with the worldview of Marx, and of the majority of socialist movements in general.
Determinism (principle that things happen purely and simply by the logic of causse to effect) is at the heart of socialist ideology, if you recognize that a person is what he is because of elements of which he is not. has no control, that is to say EVERYTHING (genetics as a genetic ear), then this removes, at least to a certain extent, the logic of merit and legitimizes the intervention of the state.
I believe that you can have merit while also believing in determinism: the selection of the range of which merit you choose from, and how in-depth, however, is just more highly controlled based on your surroundings, and level of guidance/education provided; yes. I believe everyone should audit themselves as time passes to make sure they are doing the best they can for themselves and other people based on their circumstances.

I do also believe it is possible to pick virtues that limit oneself in sticky situations, and that just is a part of life: a consistent re-evaluation. Particularly if for whatever reason, the environment randomly changes based on circumstance.

If you believe in destiny rather than free will, I propose a different way of thinking: Destiny is what has already happened, and cannot be changed. Free will is the play within our possible range of destinies in the future, but there is no true future destiny that can be determined. There is, however, only one destiny to be lived.

Free will going forward, and destiny looking back is what I call it.
If you were president and you had an obese population stuffed with junk food and prone to loneliness, mental problems, health problems and in good standing a multitude of problems feeding each other by feedback loops hellish. would you let all this part of the population perish because "they deserve it, they just had to make an effort and try to get rich by listening to the drop shipping training of the young handsome millionaire kid who can advertise on ytb" . No you will intervene I believe, the global distribution of wealth is currently to the advantage of the West, the average Westerner manages to live "comfortably" in her liberal society because it is based on the exploitation of the third world.
This is where things like BSV as I've stated gain their importance: as a feedback loop with implications to the people on top by providing accurate, honest information, where people who use the system are perpetuating said honesty and accurate information. Like how the nervous system works for the brain. Without it, we have no sense of what's going on.

Yes, merit can align with this thought of a sense of intervening. You could consider me spreading the things I know and trying to provide support of others' pursuit of knowledge in my free time as a part of my duty at the sacrifice of lives on the other side of the world due to past political circumstances which I had no control over.

edit: small tangent: However, neither can I control that I am a minority, nor that two of the races I'm made of were decimated to near nothing, and received no compensation. We can't do anything about those things. There are no misunderstandings in history because there is no accurate context with which to view these things. BSV changes this by allowing all history to be written, and the common lawyer to become a historian and to fight for different corresponding reparations in the future to even the playing field.

Yes, I also do disagree with private property to a small extent in the future, because it doesn't allow autonomy within a system for everyone to become successful if not having or using the correct tools with knowledge gained from free time/education, but I believe when there were more options available, yes, it made more sense to help build communities which required hierarchy because we didn't have the technology that we have now: BSV.
I think anyone with a little common sense would avoid explaining to third world slaves that they are miserable because “they didn't take any risks to become an entrepreneur you know” as a lot of people say.
Yes. I agree. But I will also say that these people are poor because of their government, and possible local circumstances involved with gangs, drugs, and illegal methods of making money because they have the option. If there was an audited way to ensure crime could actually not happen on an economic level, then the politics must change in order for the people to survive using a legal environment; trade opens up, and kicking the little guy down when they have a better product becomes less and less possible. As a result, the bottom-line improves, which is why I advocate for Trump temporarily to finish the economic cycle we've started through adam smith, and then restarting things using the honesty system rather than the forceful reorganization of the power structures, and forcing everyone to comply when we have a freedom of choice question that simply needs to be answered: unlocked by our newfound access to a new technology: BSV.
Westerners who believe themselves to be courageous because they have become rich by giving up their job, or by moving, or any pseudo sacrifice by forgetting their enormous starting privileges. And I clarify that I say all this being 180 degrees to be an SJW or even "progressive" as a rule, I am not at all for the guilt, but I am realistic) To return to Kant, it seems to me that it is declared “not to lie” as an imperative, I could be wrong.
I agree. As for the "not to lie", I agree as an ideal, but not as practical in poor, typically illogical, unfair places. With BSV, this can change as stated above.

When you act out of empathy, it's an injunction from your mirror neurons and the act of intervening gives you pleasure, or at least relief, it's selfish because otherwise you wouldn't care ( you don't pay attention to the animal's suffering when you eat a steak, and if you thought about it you just think "that's life", it's not just far-sighted hypocrisy. from the heart ”as the vegans rehash, because even if you kill the animal yourself, you do it because you have not decided to create a relationship with it, it is a farm animal not a companion, so you kill it).
Yes, we take care of others and care about others because we are selfish because feedback is through the self.

The sense of obligation obeys the same logic in a perhaps more subtle way, you feel obligated to do some action whatever because doing it brings you gain (money, recognition of others, recognition towards you even etc etc etc) while not doing so will put you into a state of stress. the cases there is in interest and everything is played out in the head, the idea of categorical imperative which falls from the sky is a religious vision of things.
I look at it as clearing gaps in our base programming: We do good things because we want to, but when we don't feel like doing good things, we still do them because of duty: which is really just long-term gain for the individual and society rather than just only acting on feeling. We feel all the time, but we don't always act on them because of knowledge, and self-control via experience, or interpreting a similar experience, and circumstance.

It is based in religion, which all successful cultures have, I think it pulls all the stuff away from its core and exposes it for what it is in its rawest form: a tool for understanding.
Again I am not a total deconstructivist, I just attribute to the moral a purely and simply pragmatic origin, a way of managing the human population to help man transcend what is most primary in him to create civilization from the sublimation of his creative / sexual energy.
deconstructionism: a theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings.


Can you explain more on this? I'm not very good with the more esoteric language; Not sure if it's just the translation technology or my misunderstanding.
Here again I do not see how a liberal society can end well given that it tends to increase the inequalities of wealth and in general to handicap a certain number of people to satisfy their "pyramid of Maslow", when I see the state. American and Chinese society, countries of the Far East, and ultra-liberal countries in general, this tends to consolidate my position.

I agree. In order for capitalism to exist, the wealthy must capitalize on margin: the total amount of transactions, and size of transactions while providing a more sophisticated, and hopefully proprietary product. The larger the margin, the more is hypothetically being taken away from someone else earlier in the chain. Thats not due to capitalism itself though. That is actually politics, I'd argue, which is abused in some places because of the need to adapt to poor conditions; ie. the inability to have freedom of trade, and true free-market capitalism. BSV enables this, and as such, I think we can enter end-capitalism where margin becomes minimal, but innovation is at its highest, fulfilling the majority of everyone's hierarchy of needs.

I think the fulfillment of the hierarchy of needs is required to innovate, and it's our duty as people who live in better conditions, yes, to continue to give back to people who are in need, but not through money, but through the improved methodology of politics, and access to education, and means to pursue said education through an improved, audited community.

The main problem with capitalism, and conservatism, is that it takes too long for the long-term best solution to come to fruition, and people need results now. The only thing that bridges this gap throughout history, yes, is technology, and materials.


I think the current solution if we don't use BSV to the people at the top, is to just kill off the "extra people", and force something similar into power in order to continue our evolution of society, but instead of free will, under the control of our governments, because we couldn't figure things out ourselves.

Why? Because it requires time, and more people to understand the concepts, spread the word, and hope people will choose freedom rather than short-term greed due to misunderstanding, and/or said impatience.
 
Last edited:
OP
ValeryZeSpanich
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
80
Location
Madrid and Paris
I believe that you can have merit while also believing in determinism: the selection of the range of which merit you choose from, and how in-depth, however, is just more highly controlled based on your surroundings, and level of guidance/education provided; yes. I believe everyone should audit themselves as time passes to make sure they are doing the best they can for themselves and other people based on their circumstances.

I do also believe it is possible to pick virtues that limit oneself in sticky situations, and that just is a part of life: a consistent re-evaluation. Particularly if for whatever reason, the environment randomly improves based on circumstance.

If you believe in destiny rather than free will, I propose a different way of thinking: Destiny is what has already happened, and cannot be changed. Free will is the play within our possible range of destinies in the future, but there is no true future destiny that can be determined.
1 + 1 = 2, not 3 nor 4 nor 99999999.
As a balloon moves on the ground according to the forces exerted on it (kick, gravity, wind ...), you commit actions according to your neuronal functioning. You drink a glass of orange juice because your brain (among other things) has been programmed in such a way, either because of your genetics or your epigenetics, that you crave orange juice in this situation / this context. This will not be the case for another person because you are not the same entity with the same functioning. Generally, the notion of choice is an illusion, like that of time, if you had a super calculator capable of recreating the big bang in a perfectly exact way, you would see on your screen the creation of the solar system, the earth, the civilizations. , the same religions with the same symbols, the same people, the same events etc and in the end you even on the ray peat forum to write on my subject, without any difference. Because everything happens in a logical / coherent way according to the laws of physics, there is no such thing as chance and any decision making based on chance is in fact based on some (determined) variables. You talk about cryptocurrencies, you have to know a bit about computers, you have to know that to give a random number, computers apply formulas to any variable, such as the temperature of the processor for example.
So fate exists, it's the most rational to think about
This is where things like BSV as I've stated gain their importance: as a feedback loop with implications to the people on top by providing accurate, honest information, where people who use the system are perpetuating said honesty and accurate information.

Yes, merit can align with this thought of a sense of intervening. You could consider me spreading the things I know and trying to provide support others' pursuit of knowledge in my free time as a part of my duty at the sacrifice of lives on the other side of the world due to past political circumstances which I had no control over.

Yes, I also do disagree with private property to a small extent in the future, because it doesn't allow autonomy within a system for everyone to become successful if not having or using the correct tools with knowledge gained from free time/education, but I believe when there were more options available, yes, it made more sense to help build communities which required hierarchy because we didn't have the technology that we have now: BSV.`
I don't know if I understood correctly. But there is no question of duty or "to be nice", people in positions of strength, of higher economic status, should plead for a more egalitarian society to prevent social chaos. It's purely pragmatic
Yes. I agree. But I will also say that these people are poor because of their government, and possible local circumstances involved with gangs, drugs, and illegal methods of making money because they have the option. If there was an audited way to ensure crime could actually not happen on an economic level, then the politics must change in order for the people to survive using a legal environment; trade opens up, and kicking the little guy down when they have a better product becomes less and less possible. As a result, the bottom-line improves, which is why I advocate for Trump temporarily to finish the economic cycle we've started through adam smith, and then restarting things using the honesty system rather than the forceful reorganization of the power structures, and forcing everyone to comply when we have a freedom of choice question that simply needs to be answered: unlocked by our newfound access to a new technology: BSV.
It is a little more difficult to do than to say to enter a liberal "honest" economic system. The "economic crime" is not specific to organized crime, lobby's and big fish as a rule, the scam steals it and other behaviors / vices of the type are present in all the population. Without being mean, it seems a bit like a mental gymnastics far enough from reality, even utopian.
I agree. As for the "not to lie", I agree as an ideal, but not as practical in poor, typically illogical, unfair places. With BSV, this can change as stated above.
Yes, we take care of others and care about others because we are selfish because feedback is through the self.
I look at it as clearing gaps in our base programming: We do good things because we want to, but when we don't feel like doing good things, we still do them because of duty: which is really just long-term gain for the individual and society rather than just only acting on feeling. We feel all the time, but we don't always act on them because of knowledge, and self-control via experience, or interpreting a similar experience, and circumstance.

It is based in religion, which all successful cultures have, I think it pulls all the stuff away from its core and exposes it for what it is in its rawest form: a tool for understanding.

I think this predates religion, it wouldn't surprise me that most animals have some sort of "moral code" in certain circumstances.
deconstructionism: a theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings.


Can you explain more on this? I'm not very good with the more esoteric language; Not sure if it's just the translation technology or my misunderstanding.
Deconstructivism can be used in several contexts, I used it to talk about moral deconstructivism (cynicism)
I agree. In order for capitalism to exist, the wealthy must capitalize on margin: the total amount of transactions, and size of transactions while providing a more sophisticated, and hopefully proprietary product. The larger the margin, the more is hypothetically being taken away from someone else earlier in the chain. Thats not due to capitalism itself though. That is actually politics, I'd argue, which is abused in some places because of the need to adapt to poor conditions; ie. the inability to have freedom of trade, and true free-market capitalism. BSV enables this, and as such, I think we can enter end-capitalism where margin becomes minimal, but innovation is at its highest, fulfilling the majority of everyone's hierarchy of needs.
It is not just a question of money and time. Admitting that production continues to rise to the point of satisfying everyone thanks to innovation (which is again utopian in my eyes), that does not change the fact that economic and social liberalism is stressful in many ways. . You may have purchasing power in this ideal liberal future but that does not change the fact that you will certainly be an employee likely to be fired overnight, or even subject to an intense turnover as in certain sectors of activity. . The fate of an economically liberal society being to ultimately turn to a liberal-libertarian society, you will also be suspected of ending up alone without emotional support (no wife or children).
The United States was built on the myth of individual freedom, the "right to pursue happiness" is in its constitution. The result barely 200 years later is a country that thrives on the misery of the world, with the most obese population in the world, addiction to substances, notably opiates (one wonders why) huge problems of organized crime, racial conflicts (any European would bug if they saw youtube videos like "black daddy eats snacks from other black dads" that I have seen before), extremist sects and religious movements, etc etc etc.
It doesn't matter.
I think the fulfillment of the hierarchy of needs is required to innovate, and it's our duty as people who live in better conditions, yes, to continue to give back to people who are in need, but not through money, but through the improved methodology of politics, and access to education, and means to pursue said education through an improved, audited community.
Indeed, the sharing of information can only be beneficial for society, but we do not eat with knowledge and the sharing of information, to be facilitated, must be at least partly financed by the state if the 'we want to avoid condemning students to a debt (therefore a prison) for a large part of their life. It therefore remains a form of wealth sharing.
The main problem with capitalism, and conservatism, is that it takes too long for the long-term best solution to come to fruition, and people need results now. The only thing that bridges this gap throughout history, yes, is technology, and materials.
The mixture of conservatism / reaction with capitalism is an inconsistent mental gymnastics, often on the part of "right-wing" people who do not want to be socialist "because giving to the poor is a will of lazy and weak people" but are anti ". progress "because" it's also a cuck / soyboy people thing. It is the mirror of the extreme left SJW, but with "" privilege / facsist / patriarchal bla bla bla "instead of" cuck / soyboy / lazy etc ", these are positions based solely on the emotional and / or thoughtless.
Getting back to the topic, I'm not going to dwell on why it's inconsistent, but to give you the first idea that comes to mind, you can't say a person is decadent for some reason (shemale , paraphilia etc etc) which legitimizes an intervention as a consequence, and at the same time explaining that the poor are poor because "it is their fault" (for example by laziness), we find here the opposition between the illusion of choice and acceptance of the reality of the deterministic functioning of our world and the lack of "freedom" that results from it.
I think the current solution if we don't use BSV to the people at the top, is to just kill off the "extra people", and force something similar into power in order to continue our evolution of society, but instead of free will, under the control of our governments, because we couldn't figure things out ourselves.

Why? Because it requires time, and more people to understand the concepts, spread the word, and hope people will choose freedom rather than short-term greed due to misunderstanding, and/or said impatience.
This
 

X3CyO

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
512
Location
Hawaii
1 + 1 = 2, not 3 nor 4 nor 99999999.
As a balloon moves on the ground according to the forces exerted on it (kick, gravity, wind ...), you commit actions according to your neuronal functioning. You drink a glass of orange juice because your brain (among other things) has been programmed in such a way, either because of your genetics or your epigenetics, that you crave orange juice in this situation / this context. This will not be the case for another person because you are not the same entity with the same functioning.
Yes.
Generally, the notion of choice is an illusion, like that of time, if you had a super calculator capable of recreating the big bang in a perfectly exact way, you would see on your screen the creation of the solar system, the earth, the civilizations. , the same religions with the same symbols, the same people, the same events etc and in the end you even on the ray peat forum to write on my subject, without any difference. Because everything happens in a logical / coherent way according to the laws of physics, there is no such thing as chance and any decision making based on chance is in fact based on some (determined) variables.
Yes.
You talk about cryptocurrencies, you have to know a bit about computers, you have to know that to give a random number, computers apply formulas to any variable, such as the temperature of the processor for example.
So fate exists, it's the most rational to think about
Yes.
I'm just saying it cannot yet be calculated, and thus, free will is a better choice we can comprehend and doesn't have to be proven. Whether those choices were pre-determined or not cannot be proved yet. As far as we understand these things, we can manipulate ourselves in the moment to change directions.

I don't believe it is an invalid way of thinking: I just believe things based on proof. Without, I just pick the senses first. I can see why one would be a determinist. If I saw the evidence, which I do believe can one day exist, it still doesn't remove the fact that free will is the exact same thing as destiny. Its just a question of perspective, and that is just semantics: deconstructionist. Different words based on context, same result.
I don't know if I understood correctly. But there is no question of duty or "to be nice", people in positions of strength, of higher economic status, should plead for a more egalitarian society to prevent social chaos. It's purely pragmatic
That's a choice. It is pragmatic, and I agree, but that is duty, and duty, as I define it through the kantian lens in this conversation, is just something that achieves long-term happiness for one's self and the public regardless of how you may feel in the moment: Something that may stem from mirror neurons, and feelings, but we may follow through with regardless of if we feel good about it or not in the moment, because we know that we will feel better about it in the future.

I feel like a lot of the debate is just on timing and context. We stand for the same things overall, just different perspectives with the same result.
It is a little more difficult to do than to say to enter a liberal "honest" economic system. The "economic crime" is not specific to organized crime, lobby's and big fish as a rule, the scam steals it and other behaviors / vices of the type are present in all the population. Without being mean, it seems a bit like a mental gymnastics far enough from reality, even utopian.
^can we go into this more? also, what are the downfall of utopianism? what do you think is required for us to co-exist and be able to travel to other planets without killing each other?

I also disagree that it's not mental gymnastics; it's just technology and very possible, very rapid growth.

sidenote: What technologies do you consider utopian? Regrowing limbs, and organs? Telepathy via implants? Programmable proteins?
I think this predates religion, it wouldn't surprise me that most animals have some sort of "moral code" in certain circumstances.
They do: It's the hierarchy of needs, I'd argue. Even carnivores won't typically just outright kill an animal without intent to eat it.
Herbivores with opportunity will eat other dead animals, etc. Things can be logical as well as emotionally correct.

Deconstructivism can be used in several contexts, I used it to talk about moral deconstructivism (cynicism)
"Again I am not a total deconstructivist, I just attribute to the moral a purely and simply pragmatic origin, a way of managing the human population to help man transcend what is most primary in him to create civilization from the sublimation of his creative / sexual energy." - @BiduleMachin

Wiki: "Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives.[1] A cynic may have a general lack of faith or hope in people motivated by ambition, desire, greed, gratification, materialism, goals, and opinions that a cynic perceives as vain, unobtainable, or ultimately meaningless and therefore deserving of ridicule or admonishment."

I agree with cynicism: I believe people should pursue things for the benefit of society but should receive "material tokens" along the way. When people fall for their own BS though, and are not humbled by the experience, then yes, I also agree with cynicism.

It is not just a question of money and time. Admitting that production continues to rise to the point of satisfying everyone thanks to innovation (which is again utopian in my eyes), that does not change the fact that economic and social liberalism is stressful in many ways.
"I agree. In order for capitalism to exist, the wealthy must capitalize on margin: the total amount of transactions, and size of transactions while providing a more sophisticated, and hopefully proprietary product. The larger the margin, the more is hypothetically being taken away from someone else earlier in the chain. Thats not due to capitalism itself though. That is actually politics, I'd argue, which is abused in some places because of the need to adapt to poor conditions; ie. the inability to have freedom of trade, and true free-market capitalism. BSV enables this, and as such, I think we can enter end-capitalism where margin becomes minimal, but innovation is at its highest, fulfilling the majority of everyone's hierarchy of needs." -@x3cyo

Can I get more elaboration on this point, please?
I'm also confused as to what you mean by "...production continues to rise to the point of satisfying everyone thanks to innovation (which is again utopian in my eyes)..." Is Utopian just delivering things more efficiently to the public? I don't understand what the issue is.

Do you believe we would be more happy and able to meet our needs without technology?
. You may have purchasing power in this ideal liberal future but that does not change the fact that you will certainly be an employee likely to be fired overnight, or even subject to an intense turnover as in certain sectors of activity. . The fate of an economically liberal society being to ultimately turn to a liberal-libertarian society, you will also be suspected of ending up alone without emotional support (no wife or children).
I think this is a stretch. We can't know all the repercussions, but I think we'd have a better chance this way, than just outright giving people money: They need autonomy.

I'd rather be an employee, with the same vision as me, that provides higher and higher positions to work towards, than to have no job at all.

The only reason why I think this is from videos I've watched analyzing EVE online's economics as an example of end phase capitalism (a space video game known for its strong economics.)
The United States was built on the myth of individual freedom, the "right to pursue happiness" is in its constitution. The result barely 200 years later is a country that thrives on the misery of the world, with the most obese population in the world, addiction to substances, notably opiates (one wonders why) huge problems of organized crime, racial conflicts (any European would bug if they saw youtube videos like "black daddy eats snacks from other black dads" that I have seen before), extremist sects and religious movements, etc etc etc.
It doesn't matter.
Yeah, freedom without feedback is cancer. I agree. And also, this freedom was limited originally to specific races. I think this further pushes my point of why we need technology to become more connected to actually understand one another with honest data rather than just a game of telephone.

I don't think technology is required anywhere near to the current degree in a world as it is now if humanity ceased to continue to grow and was run by autonomous people mutually. The problem is that people want more, and then there's the whole cynicism conversation all over again, which is why we have these problems, yes.

Indeed, the sharing of information can only be beneficial for society,
yes
but we do not eat with knowledge and the sharing of information,
I disagree. Without knowledge, and sharing of knowledge, there is no job from which to attain money to purchase food.
to be facilitated, must be at least partly financed by the state if the 'we want to avoid condemning students to a debt (therefore a prison) for a large part of their life. It therefore remains a form of wealth sharing.
We don't need the state to finance the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge is universal.

We do need the states to provide utilities which we use to run the technology to share said knowledge, which we pay for with our taxes though.

Students shouldn't go to school and acquire loans: they should learn what they want from the internet, together in libraries and similar places with tutors, progressively achieving credits in different subjects, and then submit themselves to internships/mentorships.

A degree does not guarantee a job. Having hands-on experience doesn't either. But if businesses are incentivized via tax credits to pay to have said students work for their education, and being paid for it via producing results for a company, then at least we have something a little cheaper to work with than the traditional route.

What about the teachers? They'd just work for companies via the state as agents possibly to provide continuing education and things like that.

I'm not 100% certain. I'm not an economist or a politician.


As for those with loans already without a guaranteed job... I'm not sure. perhaps we all will just carry that debt in the future.

The mixture of conservatism / reaction with capitalism is an inconsistent mental gymnastics, often on the part of "right-wing" people who do not want to be socialist "because giving to the poor is a will of lazy and weak people" but are anti ". progress "because" it's also a cuck / soyboy people thing. It is the mirror of the extreme left SJW, but with "" privilege / facsist / patriarchal bla bla bla "instead of" cuck / soyboy / lazy etc ", these are positions based solely on the emotional and / or thoughtless.
"The main problem with capitalism, and conservatism, is that it takes too long for the long-term best solution to come to fruition, and people need results now. The only thing that bridges this gap throughout history, yes, is technology, and materials." - @X3CyO

Wiki:
Conservatism
is an aesthetic, cultural, social, and political philosophy, which seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions.[1]
In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights.[2]

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

I don't understand what you're saying. Conservatives are not anti-progress, the progress just needs to be built on the traditional fundamentals from which we already have that works and tinkered with rather than outright changing. This progress happens through technological advance, and policy which allows freedom within the market, smaller gov't, and open trade with poorer countries, providing them a means to create wealth and capital within their own homeland.

The problem with the two, is that trickle-down economics doesn't benefit the businesses which pay the people fast enough, and the top .1% who are producing the most amount of money are not ever proportionately taxed as they should be relative to the amount of value generated, (with fewer people being paid, and paying them less,) and thus don't allow us to distribute wealth proportionately within the system to the people who need it most.


It's not an issue of just give people money. It's an issue of we need to provide people their bare needs: food, water, shelter, education. Money doesn't fix anything.
People need to be free to not have to walk to school on foot, read books without food in their stomachs, and be provided opportunities to work to pay the state back.
I agree with providing equity to the disenfranchised rather than equality, but it's not money itself that they need: that's just a symptom of the problem.

Getting back to the topic, I'm not going to dwell on why it's inconsistent, but to give you the first idea that comes to mind, you can't say a person is decadent for some reason (shemale , paraphilia etc etc) which legitimizes an intervention as a consequence, and at the same time explaining that the poor are poor because "it is their fault" (for example by laziness), we find here the opposition between the illusion of choice and acceptance of the reality of the deterministic functioning of our world and the lack of "freedom" that results from it.
Decadent: characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence: marked by decay or decline.

People self indulge all the time: it's when working people give other people who self indulge money, and they use that to continue that habit, that there should be some sort of intervention if that was not what that money was intended for. (Something that BSV allows).

Poor people are poor because of politics, generational, and societal issues, not because it's their fault. I do believe in freedom of choice though, but don't believe it plays as large of a factor as others may believe necessarily.

I think that following peat, teaching people about their bodies, food, the toxic stuff in it, prevention, and removing Hypothyroidism is a large part of restoring autonomy for these people first to reduce misunderstandings between people, resorting to violence, and lessening the sensitivity to all the pains they have to experience in order to survive. Reduction in ego when exposed to challenge, etc.



You do bring up an idea though: we can provide people money directly if we can audit where that money is going, and are ensuring it is properly spent or invested from the state to an individual. Perhaps that may be a future gov't job to support people getting back on their feet temporarily in conjunction with what was mentioned in response to your prior statement.
 
OP
ValeryZeSpanich
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
80
Location
Madrid and Paris
Yes.

Yes.

Yes.
I'm just saying it cannot yet be calculated, and thus, free will is a better choice we can comprehend and doesn't have to be proven. Whether those choices were pre-determined or not cannot be proved yet. As far as we understand these things, we can manipulate ourselves in the moment to change directions.

I don't believe it is an invalid way of thinking: I just believe things based on proof. Without, I just pick the senses first. I can see why one would be a determinist. If I saw the evidence, which I do believe can one day exist, it still doesn't remove the fact that free will is the exact same thing as destiny. Its just a question of perspective, and that is just semantics: deconstructionist. Different words based on context, same result.

That's a choice. It is pragmatic, and I agree, but that is duty, and duty, as I define it through the kantian lens in this conversation, is just something that achieves long-term happiness for one's self and the public regardless of how you may feel in the moment: Something that may stem from mirror neurons, and feelings, but we may follow through with regardless of if we feel good about it or not in the moment, because we know that we will feel better about it in the future.

I feel like a lot of the debate is just on timing and context. We stand for the same things overall, just different perspectives with the same result.

^can we go into this more? also, what are the downfall of utopianism? what do you think is required for us to co-exist and be able to travel to other planets without killing each other?

I also disagree that it's not mental gymnastics; it's just technology and very possible, very rapid growth.

sidenote: What technologies do you consider utopian? Regrowing limbs, and organs? Telepathy via implants? Programmable proteins?

They do: It's the hierarchy of needs, I'd argue. Even carnivores won't typically just outright kill an animal without intent to eat it.
Herbivores with opportunity will eat other dead animals, etc. Things can be logical as well as emotionally correct.


"Again I am not a total deconstructivist, I just attribute to the moral a purely and simply pragmatic origin, a way of managing the human population to help man transcend what is most primary in him to create civilization from the sublimation of his creative / sexual energy." - @BiduleMachin

Wiki: "Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives.[1] A cynic may have a general lack of faith or hope in people motivated by ambition, desire, greed, gratification, materialism, goals, and opinions that a cynic perceives as vain, unobtainable, or ultimately meaningless and therefore deserving of ridicule or admonishment."

I agree with cynicism: I believe people should pursue things for the benefit of society but should receive "material tokens" along the way. When people fall for their own BS though, and are not humbled by the experience, then yes, I also agree with cynicism.


"I agree. In order for capitalism to exist, the wealthy must capitalize on margin: the total amount of transactions, and size of transactions while providing a more sophisticated, and hopefully proprietary product. The larger the margin, the more is hypothetically being taken away from someone else earlier in the chain. Thats not due to capitalism itself though. That is actually politics, I'd argue, which is abused in some places because of the need to adapt to poor conditions; ie. the inability to have freedom of trade, and true free-market capitalism. BSV enables this, and as such, I think we can enter end-capitalism where margin becomes minimal, but innovation is at its highest, fulfilling the majority of everyone's hierarchy of needs." -@x3cyo

Can I get more elaboration on this point, please?
I'm also confused as to what you mean by "...production continues to rise to the point of satisfying everyone thanks to innovation (which is again utopian in my eyes)..." Is Utopian just delivering things more efficiently to the public? I don't understand what the issue is.

Do you believe we would be more happy and able to meet our needs without technology?

I think this is a stretch. We can't know all the repercussions, but I think we'd have a better chance this way, than just outright giving people money: They need autonomy.

I'd rather be an employee, with the same vision as me, that provides higher and higher positions to work towards, than to have no job at all.

The only reason why I think this is from videos I've watched analyzing EVE online's economics as an example of end phase capitalism (a space video game known for its strong economics.)

Yeah, freedom without feedback is cancer. I agree. And also, this freedom was limited originally to specific races. I think this further pushes my point of why we need technology to become more connected to actually understand one another with honest data rather than just a game of telephone.

I don't think technology is required anywhere near to the current degree in a world as it is now if humanity ceased to continue to grow and was run by autonomous people mutually. The problem is that people want more, and then there's the whole cynicism conversation all over again, which is why we have these problems, yes.


yes

I disagree. Without knowledge, and sharing of knowledge, there is no job from which to attain money to purchase food.

We don't need the state to finance the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge is universal.

We do need the states to provide utilities which we use to run the technology to share said knowledge, which we pay for with our taxes though.

Students shouldn't go to school and acquire loans: they should learn what they want from the internet, together in libraries and similar places with tutors, progressively achieving credits in different subjects, and then submit themselves to internships/mentorships.

A degree does not guarantee a job. Having hands-on experience doesn't either. But if businesses are incentivized via tax credits to pay to have said students work for their education, and being paid for it via producing results for a company, then at least we have something a little cheaper to work with than the traditional route.

What about the teachers? They'd just work for companies via the state as agents possibly to provide continuing education and things like that.

I'm not 100% certain. I'm not an economist or a politician.


As for those with loans already without a guaranteed job... I'm not sure. perhaps we all will just carry that debt in the future.


"The main problem with capitalism, and conservatism, is that it takes too long for the long-term best solution to come to fruition, and people need results now. The only thing that bridges this gap throughout history, yes, is technology, and materials." - @X3CyO

Wiki:
Conservatism
is an aesthetic, cultural, social, and political philosophy, which seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions.[1]
In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights.[2]

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

I don't understand what you're saying. Conservatives are not anti-progress, the progress just needs to be built on the traditional fundamentals from which we already have that works and tinkered with rather than outright changing. This progress happens through technological advance, and policy which allows freedom within the market, smaller gov't, and open trade with poorer countries, providing them a means to create wealth and capital within their own homeland.

The problem with the two, is that trickle-down economics doesn't benefit the businesses which pay the people fast enough, and the top .1% who are producing the most amount of money are not ever proportionately taxed as they should be relative to the amount of value generated, (with fewer people being paid, and paying them less,) and thus don't allow us to distribute wealth proportionately within the system to the people who need it most.


It's not an issue of just give people money. It's an issue of we need to provide people their bare needs: food, water, shelter, education. Money doesn't fix anything.
People need to be free to not have to walk to school on foot, read books without food in their stomachs, and be provided opportunities to work to pay the state back.
I agree with providing equity to the disenfranchised rather than equality, but it's not money itself that they need: that's just a symptom of the problem.


Decadent: characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence: marked by decay or decline.

People self indulge all the time: it's when working people give other people who self indulge money, and they use that to continue that habit, that there should be some sort of intervention if that was not what that money was intended for. (Something that BSV allows).

Poor people are poor because of politics, generational, and societal issues, not because it's their fault. I do believe in freedom of choice though, but don't believe it plays as large of a factor as others may believe necessarily.

I think that following peat, teaching people about their bodies, food, the toxic stuff in it, prevention, and removing Hypothyroidism is a large part of restoring autonomy for these people first to reduce misunderstandings between people, resorting to violence, and lessening the sensitivity to all the pains they have to experience in order to survive. Reduction in ego when exposed to challenge, etc.



You do bring up an idea though: we can provide people money directly if we can audit where that money is going, and are ensuring it is properly spent or invested from the state to an individual. Perhaps that may be a future gov't job to support people getting back on their feet temporarily in conjunction with what was mentioned in response to your prior statement.
I will get back to you in about a week, I prefer to give a minimal constructed response to your response but at the moment I am a little depressed and really lazy to do anything, especially giving answers that require too much reflect.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom