Former conspiracy believer here

[Belz...]

Unfortunately, at least in the US, the corporation is actually given status as a individual just a like person, and thus given the ability to move freely in pursuit of it's self interest.

Hopefully, it's also held responsible like a person.

 

[Nick227]

I'm a philosophy and art history doctoral candidate, so you can't outskirt me with nonsense here, Nick.

If the NWO actually exists, then it exists objectively. To suggest otherwise suggests you understand neither objectivity nor subjectivity.

Hi Volatile,

Nice to hear from you. I am not trying to outskirt you with nonsense. Please point out to me where I am doing that so I can learn more. I'm interested.

As to your point that if something exists it does so objectively, I put it to you that this is not the case. For a start you cannot demonstrate that "you" exist! By this I do not mean that the body, feelings, thoughts, observations and beliefs of Volatile do not exist, rather that you cannot demonstrate objectively that these things have possession. You cannot demonstrate limited selfhood. It is an assumption. Unless you can prove me wrong I will take it that you will from now on desist from referring to yourself in the first person, as clearly, by your logic, there is no such entity.

Yourself aside, my case with the NWO, or whatever you wish to call them is that they could exist at a level beyond the perception of the five senses, in a manner that objectivity cannot penetrate.

Objectivity is a tool we learn to pick up and use.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

It's difficult to attempt to explain something that's nonsensical.

Hi Belz,

Close your eyes. Become aware of your inner world. Do you begin to observe thoughts passing through your mind? Do you become aware of the experience that these are your thoughts? This phenomenom is what's usually known as identification. There are thoughts. Then there's the experience of them being my thoughts.

Now try and understand this process objectively. Difficult, huh? It's very difficult because the assumptions that objectivity proceeds from render it relatively inoperable in this domain.

That's what I said. Philosophical nonsense.

I'm just giving an example of something that objectivity can't do. It's just a tool, it's not good for every situation. What's happened in our world is that too many people believe that the things objectivity can't do aren't worth doing, or don't exist.

You're creating concepts that probably don't exist and using them to support your own conclusions.

I'm trying to point out the limited operating parameters of objectivity.

What ? How ? Those "illuminati", you speak of, how can they do anything without doing it in the real world, the objective world ? And if they do, then what they do potentially leaves evidence that we CAN study objectively.

You might see a pattern of activity.

Again, please explain how that works.

By pushing objectivity as the only tool that's valid, and ridiculing anything else, it means you can occupy a space and influence people unseen. Look a little at the modern history of science. Isaac Newton, to many the father of modern science - totally into objectivity? Hardly. He was obsessed with Alchemy! It was his life's passion. He developed the Theory of Gravity from the work of a 2nd century Alexandrian alchemist! Boyle, Bacon, Newton, these guys were all totally into subjective science. But the org that they set up - the Royal Society - would become the agency by which subjective science was ridiculed. I'm not saying that necessarily happened on purpose. I don't know. But there was time when people were really into subjective sciences and then it changed. Not because there was anything wrong with them. We just went in a different direction. I love objectivity, but it would be nicer if people could appreciate that it's not the whole story.

I find them quite amusing, myself. Especially the Beatles one.

What's that one? Sounds good.

Are you a psychologist, Nick ? Because I expect you to be in way over your head, here.

I'm qualified in Humaniversity Psychology and do work as a therapist. Actually I manage a personal growth centre in England, but still do therapist stuff.

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

Wow. Don't ever try to psychanalyse someone again. Stick to other things.

I think you mean psychoanalyze. It's obvious that you only reply because your ego is preventing you from doing other things that would be more productive. You might as well embrace it...since it would appear you have little to add to the conversation besides short sentences that serve no purpose.

Once, actually. You're making stuff up, now.

So you didn't bring it up several times recently?

That's a nice attempt at a tu quoque, but it won't work.

You replied again so obviously it worked.

That sounds like a derailing, to me.

Or it could be a question.

My point was that environmentalism was a luxury.

I would say a nesscessity at this point.

May I know to which black-and-white comparison you're refering to ?

You already know, so no.

None of what you mention eliminates inequality.

Who said anything about eliminating inequality. We are talking about empowering people to act for themselves so that the world isn't AS unequal as it presently is.

Syntax, you're contradicting yourself. Everybody <> a shrewd few.

I'd disagree if I knew what you meant by <>....

Again, nice dodge...blah blah

Thanks.

Lost on you, obviously.

Yes, obviously.

Oops. Typos. "Call" was the word. Now what was yours ?

A mockery.

I think you're forgetting the discussion as it goes.

Actually I think it is you who has forgotten. I was posting about things pertainent to the immediate discussion. All you have done is dissect my posts with 5 word sentences for the last two days without offering any idea's of your own. If all you want to do is nit pick, and whine, and attempt to incite argumentation go to another thread. If you want to contribute to the discussion then do so...and I will thank you for it.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Nick:

Yourself aside, my case with the NWO, or whatever you wish to call them is that they could exist at a level beyond the perception of the five senses, in a manner that objectivity cannot penetrate.

In what manner are you refering though? How do you mean "beyond the 5 senses"?

 

[Belz...]

Yourself aside, my case with the NWO, or whatever you wish to call them is that they could exist at a level beyond the perception of the five senses, in a manner that objectivity cannot penetrate.

So they are like Historian's Bigfoot ? They exist across dimensions ? Again, how convenient !

Close your eyes. Become aware of your inner world.

I wasn't aware I had one.

Do you begin to observe thoughts passing through your mind?

I don't need to close my eyes for that.

Do you become aware of the experience that these are your thoughts?

As opposed to being someone else's ? Yes. But these "thoughts" are manifestations of brain functions. They don't "feel" any different from any other perception, even the thing that perceives, itself.

This phenomenom is what's usually known as identification. There are thoughts. Then there's the experience of them being my thoughts.

Again, we're into philosophy, now.

Now try and understand this process objectively. Difficult, huh?

Actually, pretty easy. It's a shame you don't, but it doesn't mean the whole world becomes weird because of it.

I'm just giving an example of something that objectivity can't do.

Of course I can. And once science gets there we'll actually have an explanation for the phenomenon, itself.

It's just a tool, it's not good for every situation.

Even if I were to concede your point, which I clearly don't, I would still disagree with you here because, aside from this "identification" problem, everything ELSE is still objectively observable.

By pushing objectivity as the only tool that's valid, and ridiculing anything else, it means you can occupy a space and influence people unseen.

Again, I don't see how. Nobody exists "beyond" the realm of the physical.

Isaac Newton, to many the father of modern science - totally into objectivity? Hardly. He was obsessed with Alchemy! It was his life's passion.

Woah, there. I don't think you know what "objectivity" means, after all. The pursuit of Alchemy is an empirical one. That's why we eventually gave it up.

But the org that they set up - the Royal Society - would become the agency by which subjective science was ridiculed.

Sooo... ?

What's that one? Sounds good.

Paul died in 1967 and was replaced by a look-alike.

I'm qualified in Humaniversity Psychology and do work as a therapist.

I will never consult you and I will actively discourage anyone from entertaining professional relations with you. Shrinks are supposed to help people, not confuse them with nonsense.

 

[Stout]

Unfortunately, at least in the US, the corporation is actually given status as a individual just a like person, and thus given the ability to move freely in pursuit of it's self interest.

Syntax..I was thinking more in consideration of third world living and working conditions, but if we're going to apply this to the US then I have to ask.

Isn't there state mandated minimum wage legislation in place in the US? or is it a federal thing ? I've read in few places about illegal immigrants getting paid less than US citizens and I'm wondering how a corporation that would pay illegals less could actually get away it.

I'm talking "real" jobs here, not any sort of under the table stuff.

Likewise with environmental concerns. Aren't there state/federal regulations that these corporations have to adhere to ? And if they violate those regulations, isn't it the role of government to step in and take action.

Or are you suggestion that corporations are actually above the law.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Syntax..I was thinking more in consideration of third world living and working conditions, but if we're going to apply this to the US then I have to ask.

Ah ha!

Isn't there state mandated minimum wage legislation in place in the US? or is it a federal thing ? I've read in few places about illegal immigrants getting paid less than US citizens and I'm wondering how a corporation that would pay illegals less could actually get away it.

I am pretty sure it's controlled by both. A state can set it's own minimum wage but it can't be lower than the federal one. As far as illegal immigrants, most are general laborers at jobs that americans refuse to do. They are paid less because they can be as they are off the books in most cases.

In the third world as you mentioned in the first part, they are paid less because there is no regulations in place to provide them a wage that is worth a hoot. If there was, the corporation in question wouldn't be likely to do business there.

I'm talking "real" jobs here, not any sort of under the table stuff.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't know for sure. I would imagine it would be a lot more complicated to get a legit job if your an illegal immigrant. In some cases I know that the persons in question are all grouped together in a single dwelling that is paid for by the employer and in exchange they pick up the work load for a legit employer who then credits all the work to a single legal entity for tax purposes, and in exchange they might make 100 bucks a week or less...probably less.

Likewise with environmental concerns. Aren't there state/federal regulations that these corporations have to adhere to ? And if they violate those regulations, isn't it the role of government to step in and take action.

Again, I don't know the details, but I have heard anecdotes that might be a good indicator as to how these things are skirted. In the US you can get by for years by paying the fines issued to you every year. In my home town there is a giant corn plant that launched the county into the top ten of the most polluted counties in the nation. Archer Daniels Midland paid the fines for many years until the state forced them to build a clean air facility. In order to do that that they bought an entire section of town adjacent to the plant, forcing people to relocate from homes (with the help of imminent domain) that they had owned for years, and in exchange, a pittance for the land they sat on. The demolition took over a year, and then the construction took even longer the whole time they were doing nothing about the problem....to this day I don't even think the clean air plant is even running yet, and I not sure they are being fined either.

Where the environmental concerns are really crucial are in the developing world where they can simply dictate what terms they will be able to operate under basically putting them in control of the environmental laws in the region.

Or are you suggestion that corporations are actually above the law.

In some sense you could say that, especially when you compare what they get away with overseas to what they could get away with here. If a road block comes along, why not move some where else?

 

[Nick227]

So they are like Historian's Bigfoot ? They exist across dimensions ? Again, how convenient !

Fair enough. But I'm saying that the presence is substantiable, only not objectively. I'm not trying to simply create a fantasy.

I wasn't aware I had one.



I don't need to close my eyes for that.

OK

As opposed to being someone else's ? Yes.

No! As having possession at all.

But these "thoughts" are manifestations of brain functions. They don't "feel" any different from any other perception, even the thing that perceives, itself.

But where is the experience of the thoughts having possession coming from? The experience that the thoughts are yours?

Again, we're into philosophy, now.

No it's not. I hate philosophy! This is empiricism. Experimentation. You are supremely well placed to totally validate the proposition that objectivity is simply a construct. You don't need to read one book ever! You just need to look.

Actually, pretty easy. It's a shame you don't, but it doesn't mean the whole world becomes weird because of it.

Then explain it. From where does the sense of possession come into thinking?

Of course I can. And once science gets there we'll actually have an explanation for the phenomenon, itself.

Objective science can't get there because objectivity is a construct. In order to even be objective you have to make assumptions. As soon as you start to point this objectivity back towards these assumptions you begin to realise that the "outer world" of objective relationships is actually itself purely a construct.

Even if I were to concede your point, which I clearly don't, I would still disagree with you here because, aside from this "identification" problem, everything ELSE is still objectively observable.

Things are observable anyway, regardless of objectivity. Objectivity just allows the mind to formulate and substantiate propositions of relationships between observable phenomena. You can still do this when you are aware that objectivity proceeds from assumptions. But you will now be aware of the limitations of objectivity, that it is simply a tool we learn to use.

Woah, there. I don't think you know what "objectivity" means, after all. The pursuit of Alchemy is an empirical one. That's why we eventually gave it up.

The strictly metallurgical interpretation of Alchemy is purely allegorical. It is not about transforming lead into gold, though this may be achievable as a side effect. It is about transforming the human vessel into a deathless vesture which can exist a multiple layers of existence, not solely physical.

It's empiric, but it's largely subjective because you are working on yourself, and in a manner for which objectivity, for the most part, is no use.

As a point of interest, this whole thing about objectivity being just a construct is really the first part of the Work! Putrefaction, blackness, the journey into the unconscious, crucifixion, the descent into the realm of the dead - Heat the metal that ye might find the prima materia!

Paul died in 1967 and was replaced by a look-alike.

They should have replaced him with someone who wasn't such a twat.

I will never consult you and I will actively discourage anyone from entertaining professional relations with you. Shrinks are supposed to help people, not confuse them with nonsense.

Well, I wasn't aware we were having a session. I haven't got my therapist hat on. I'm just debating.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

I think you mean psychoanalyze.

Indeed, thanks. I never know how to write that one.

It's obvious that you only reply because your ego is preventing you from doing other things that would be more productive.

Again, please do something else rather than fancy yourself a psychologist (unless you already are one, in which case I suggest you switch professions.) "It's obvious" comments about things you can't possibly know make you look foolish.

The only reason I keep replying to you is because I don't tend to drop out from conversations unless the conversation's over.

Besides, knowing you, if I did give up you'd claim "victory" in your silly little game. And bursting people's bubbles in my job as a skeptic!

So you didn't bring it up several times recently?

Nope.

You replied again so obviously it worked.

So you're admitting to using logical fallacies to further your argument ? You should've called yourself Eusebius.

Or it could be a question.

Nah, I think it's a derailing.

I would say a nesscessity at this point.

I agree, completely. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, when people are trying to get enough food for their families, they don't tend to care about the trees they're knocking down.

You already know, so no.

Typical. I'm asking you to explain to me why you say I see things in black-and-white, and you refuse to answer.

It's reminescent of the old "well, if you don't know, I won't tell you", which is easily the most ridiculous answer you can possibly give to someone, and it indicates that you don't have the answer, at all.

Who said anything about eliminating inequality. We are talking about empowering people to act for themselves so that the world isn't AS unequal as it presently is.

No, you said it would help maintain equality.

I'd disagree if I knew what you meant by <>....

"Does not equal".

Thanks.

Next time you modify the portions you quote, I will be reporting you for breaching your membership agreement. And no, it isn't about whining, because personally I don't care if you do it. It's just that it's not "legal", here, and thus we follow the rules.

A mockery.

Obviously. Why would I expect someone like you to argue seriously ?

Who can't let go of the conversation because of their ego, now ?

I was posting about things pertainent to the immediate discussion. All you have done is dissect my posts with 5 word sentences for the last two days without offering any idea's of your own.

You'd rather I said the same thing using 50-word sentences ? I just don't get you.

If all you want to do is nit pick

Yes, because the devil's in the details.

and whine

Whine ? Oh, no. I'm quite happy when I reply to your posts.

and attempt to incite argumentation go to another thread.

So... you debate in a skeptics forum and expect no argumentation ?

If you want to contribute to the discussion then do so...and I will thank you for it.

What discussion ? The OP was about a former CTist turned skeptic. Now it's a free-for-all. I only asked you how your example helped against inequality (is that even a word). And so, we're here.

 

[Belz...]

Fair enough. But I'm saying that the presence is substantiable, only not objectively. I'm not trying to simply create a fantasy.

Then please explain how something can be substantiable non-objectively.

No! As having possession at all.

Then I guess I still don't understand.

But where is the experience of the thoughts having possession coming from? The experience that the thoughts are yours?

I think you're over-analysing this. The way I "feel" this is quite mundane.

You are supremely well placed to totally validate the proposition that objectivity is simply a construct. You don't need to read one book ever! You just need to look.

Sorry, the only thing I see as a "construct" is the fabled "mind", quite simply a result of biological mechanisms and it shows blatantly. The "real" world is obviously "real" because it doesn't fit the alternative theories, such as solipsism.

Objective science can't get there because objectivity is a construct.

Circular reasoning. You haven't shown this to be true, yet.

[...] you begin to realise that the "outer world" of objective relationships is actually itself purely a construct.

As I said before, it's the other way around.

Things are observable anyway, regardless of objectivity. Objectivity just allows the mind to formulate and substantiate propositions of relationships between observable phenomena.

Ugh. I think we're arguing over this because we're using different definitions of the same word. You're using objectivity as opposed to subjectivity (i.e. the mind). I'm using this definition of "objective":

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

From dictionary.com.

It is about transforming the human vessel into a deathless vesture which can exist a multiple layers of existence, not solely physical.

Yeah, that's why we gave it up. It's nonsense.

They should have replaced him with someone who wasn't such a twat.

Ouch!

Well, I wasn't aware we were having a session. I haven't got my therapist hat on. I'm just debating.

Then please stop trying to tell me what I think.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Again, please do something else rather than fancy yourself a psychologist (unless you already are one, in which case I suggest you switch professions.) "It's obvious" comments about things you can't possibly know make you look foolish.

I know what you post in this thread, and it speaks volumes on it's own.

The only reason I keep replying to you is because I don't tend to drop out from conversations unless the conversation's over.

It has been over for a few pages...no thanks to you.

Besides, knowing you, if I did give up you'd claim "victory" in your silly little game. And bursting people's bubbles in my job as a skeptic!

This is your third reference to this being a competition.

Nope.

3 times now.

So you're admitting to using logical fallacies to further your argument ? You should've called yourself Eusebius.

Maybe.

Nah, I think it's a derailing.

It was actually just a question.

I agree, completely. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, when people are trying to get enough food for their families, they don't tend to care about the trees they're knocking down.

No they don't, but we weren't talking about that. We were talking about industrial pollution from unregulated overseas factories....at least I was.

Typical. I'm asking you to explain to me why you say I see things in black-and-white, and you refuse to answer.

Typical or no, you already know the answer.

It's reminescent of the old "well, if you don't know, I won't tell you", which is easily the most ridiculous answer you can possibly give to someone, and it indicates that you don't have the answer, at all.

Sort of...your constant use of this or that situations in your arguments is what led me to the conclusion in question.

No, you said it would help maintain equality.

Yeah...and....how does that mean everything will be equal like you seem to think I was implying. We are talking about conserving human rights outside of economics here, and it would help maintain them for sure.

Next time you modify the portions you quote, I will be reporting you for breaching your membership agreement. And no, it isn't about whining, because personally I don't care if you do it. It's just that it's not "legal", here, and thus we follow the rules.

Sure DAD...thanks for the warning. I hope you have some kleenex. There appears to be something on your nose.

Obviously. Why would I expect someone like you to argue seriously ?

Some one like me? Whats "like me" supposed to mean here, after you just complained about me psychoanalyzing you.?

Who can't let go of the conversation because of their ego, now ?

I will respond to your answers no matter what. It has nothing to do with ego, and everything to do with standing up for yourself in the face of the BS your slinging left and right.

You'd rather I said the same thing using 50-word sentences ? I just don't get you.

I''d rather you made/had a point instead of an annoying commentary.

Yes, because the devil's in the details.

You talk about details and speak in generalities. You can't even ask a specific question even when I implore you too multiple times.

So... you debate in a skeptics forum and expect no argumentation ?

Debate...sure...childish displays like yours...please...

 

[Nick227]

Then please explain how something can be substantiable non-objectively.

Hi Belz,

When there's no way of measuring something objectively, only subjectively. If a doctor asks you if it hurts when he pushes here, only you can say. He can't measure it. This is subjective evidence.

Then I guess I still don't understand.

That's OK.

I think you're over-analysing this. The way I "feel" this is quite mundane.

But it's the whole basis of objectivity. If you didn't experience this sense of "I" there wouldn't be any objectivity. And yet it's an transitory phenomenom. There's no objective evidence for it. No way that science can get in there and explain it. It's deeper in than objectivity can penetrate. Objectivity is like Windows XP, a GUI. Indentification with thought is deeper down. Metaphorically, it's in the boot-up sequence. Without it you can't get objectivity to function.

Sorry, the only thing I see as a "construct" is the fabled "mind", quite simply a result of biological mechanisms and it shows blatantly. The "real" world is obviously "real" because it doesn't fit the alternative theories, such as solipsism.

It's totally real. But the mind's attempts to interpret phenomena and hypothesise relationships between phenomena is laid on top. The keyboard is real, the monitor is real, the hand is real, the muscles moving are real, the thoughts moving are real. The whole deal is real. But the notion that any of this has possession, that anyone is doing it, is a construct - an unsubstantiable hypothesis.

Circular reasoning. You haven't shown this to be true, yet.

I can't demonstrate it to you. I can only point you to doing so yourself. Anyone can do it. But they have to want to know the truth.

Ugh. I think we're arguing over this because we're using different definitions of the same word. You're using objectivity as opposed to subjectivity (i.e. the mind). I'm using this definition of "objective":

The definitions are the same. Without a sense of limited selfhood you can't define things objectively.

Yeah, that's why we gave it up. It's nonsense.

You don't find it even remotely interesting that the finest minds of the age were all totally into Alchemy? Isaac Newton, check his cv, dude. It is quite impressive. Francis Bacon? Robert Boyle? The Illuminati were those who had completed the Alchemical Work.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

I know what you post in this thread, and it speaks volumes on it's own.

It has been over for a few pages...no thanks to you.

What you've just said is that I had nothing to do with it.

This is your third reference to this being a competition.

Yeah, because it seems that way. You're, AGAIN, trolling.

3 times now.

"Nope" isn't brining up something. You're making stuff up. Again.

No they don't, but we weren't talking about that. We were talking about industrial pollution from unregulated overseas factories....at least I was.

Well, it's a fact that people need to be regulated. Unfortunately.

Typical or no, you already know the answer.

No, I don't. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question.

Sure DAD...thanks for the warning. I hope you have some kleenex. There appears to be something on your nose.

I just knew you'd spew something childish like this.

Some one like me? Whats "like me" supposed to mean here, after you just complained about me psychoanalyzing you.?

You really don't understand anything, do you ?

I meant "truthers".

I will respond to your answers no matter what. It has nothing to do with ego, and everything to do with standing up for yourself in the face of the BS your slinging left and right.

No, I think you just want the last word. Guess what ? You've got it.

 

[Belz...]

When there's no way of measuring something objectively, only subjectively. If a doctor asks you if it hurts when he pushes here, only you can say. He can't measure it. This is subjective evidence.

Err... no. The doctor sure CAN measure it objectively, because PAIN is something that registers when you're scanning a brain.

If you didn't experience this sense of "I" there wouldn't be any objectivity.

Which is moot, because how can I NOT experience a sense of "I" ?

And yet it's an transitory phenomenom. There's no objective evidence for it.

There's plenty of objective evidence for the subjective.

It's totally real. But the mind's attempts to interpret phenomena and hypothesise relationships between phenomena is laid on top. The keyboard is real, the monitor is real, the hand is real, the muscles moving are real, the thoughts moving are real. The whole deal is real. But the notion that any of this has possession, that anyone is doing it, is a construct - an unsubstantiable hypothesis.

Again, I'm not sure you know what you're saying, but I'll give you one last chance to explain it to me.

I can't demonstrate it to you. I can only point you to doing so yourself. Anyone can do it. But they have to want to know the truth.

That's very convenient. You can't show anything you're saying to be true. It's just rhetoric.

The definitions are the same. Without a sense of limited selfhood you can't define things objectively.

You don't find it even remotely interesting that the finest minds of the age were all totally into Alchemy?

Interesting, yes. Relevant, no.

 

[thesyntaxera]

What you've just said is that I had nothing to do with it.

The second you started posting quips instead of things that were relevant is when the current discussion ended it's relevance. So, yes what I said means you.

Yeah, because it seems that way. You're, AGAIN, trolling.

Trolling or no, you did reference this being a competition at least 3 times, directing the comments at me as if this were some kind of game I am playing. Usually, not always, but usually people project their own faults on others in times like these....it's not really hard to do the math.

"Nope" isn't brining up something. You're making stuff up. Again.

Denial doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

No, I don't. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question.

You honestly can't conceive of how improving social conditions for the exploited by providing them the same basic rights we take for granted would help maintain equality in the grander sense? If I haven't answered it is because I was granting you at least minimum amount of comprehension ability...so one more time...

If a person is enabled to be at least socially equal to everyone else, and has a certain amount of agency(free choice) that endows them with the ability to be economically and socially mobile according to their whims then the onus would truly fall on the individual to succeed or fail. It benefits equality because the affected humans would be enabled to press for more rights and liberties...gaining more agency, and more economic and social mobility with each victory. Right now, affected persons are disadvantaged by the inevitabilities of capitalism...for instance the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few...what is ironic and sad is that if more people were enabled by fair pay rather than pennies on the dollar, and decent living standards rather than squalor they would ultimately be more productive and thus the whole global market would be affected in a positive way for everyone...meaning more capital to be gained for all.

Ever hear the phrase, a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

I think it applies here greatly.

I just knew you'd spew something childish like this.

Thats probably why you wrote it.

You really don't understand anything, do you ?

Absolutely nothing.

No, I think you just want the last word. Guess what ? You've got it.

What an assumption to make.

 

[PixyMisa]

And why do I get the impression that no one else is reading this thread ?

Sorry, I've been busy at work the past few days.

Back now, and wading through the... last couple of pages.

 

[PixyMisa]

Fair enough. But I'm saying that the presence is substantiable, only not objectively. I'm not trying to simply create a fantasy.

Nick, if it's not objectively substantiable, then it is a fantasy. That's pretty much the definition of the word.

No it's not. I hate philosophy! This is empiricism. Experimentation. You are supremely well placed to totally validate the proposition that objectivity is simply a construct. You don't need to read one book ever! You just need to look.

I look. There appears to be a world. And if I don't believe that it is real, it kills me. Objectivity 1, Subjectivity 0.

Objective science can't get there because objectivity is a construct. In order to even be objective you have to make assumptions. As soon as you start to point this objectivity back towards these assumptions you begin to realise that the "outer world" of objective relationships is actually itself purely a construct.

Nope. Wrong. Objectivity, as in, the belief that everything we experience has a basis in a common objective reality, is a construct. So you can say that objectivity as a school of thought is a construct - as is subjectivity or solipsism or anything else you might thing. But that doesn't make the external world a construct.

Things are observable anyway, regardless of objectivity. Objectivity just allows the mind to formulate and substantiate propositions of relationships between observable phenomena. You can still do this when you are aware that objectivity proceeds from assumptions. But you will now be aware of the limitations of objectivity, that it is simply a tool we learn to use.

Wrong again. Objectivity proceeds from an assumption, yes. But the only limit that puts on objectivity is that it inherently can't prove or disprove that assumption. The only limit.

The strictly metallurgical interpretation of Alchemy is purely allegorical. It is not about transforming lead into gold, though this may be achievable as a side effect. It is about transforming the human vessel into a deathless vesture which can exist a multiple layers of existence, not solely physical.

So, complete nonsense then.

 

[PixyMisa]

When there's no way of measuring something objectively, only subjectively. If a doctor asks you if it hurts when he pushes here, only you can say. He can't measure it. This is subjective evidence.

Pain is a purely physical process, Nick. We know how nerves work, we know how nerves are mapped to different parts of the brain. We can observe the nerves firing and the resultant brain activity, using techniques such as FMRI. The subjective experience of pain is... subjective. It's still a purely physical process, because all subjective experience is purely physical processes. We can observe and measure these processes; we can even initiate them using tools like transcranial magnetic stimulation.

But it's the whole basis of objectivity. If you didn't experience this sense of "I" there wouldn't be any objectivity. And yet it's an transitory phenomenom. There's no objective evidence for it. No way that science can get in there and explain it. It's deeper in than objectivity can penetrate. Objectivity is like Windows XP, a GUI. Indentification with thought is deeper down. Metaphorically, it's in the boot-up sequence. Without it you can't get objectivity to function.

None of that made any sense.

It's totally real. But the mind's attempts to interpret phenomena and hypothesise relationships between phenomena is laid on top. The keyboard is real, the monitor is real, the hand is real, the muscles moving are real, the thoughts moving are real. The whole deal is real. But the notion that any of this has possession, that anyone is doing it, is a construct - an unsubstantiable hypothesis.

This barely makes sense. Thoughts are real. I ascribe my thoughts to a person - me - because that is how we define a person. It's not unsubstantiable at all; it's substantiated behaviourally. That is, objectively.

Which is rather the point. The subjective is merely a subset of the objective.

The definitions are the same. Without a sense of limited selfhood you can't define things objectively.

Not a sense, an assumption. The asolipsistic assumption.

You don't find it even remotely interesting that the finest minds of the age were all totally into Alchemy? Isaac Newton, check his cv, dude. It is quite impressive.

Newton was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived, but he lived at the dawn of science. It wasn't so obvious at the time, as it is today, that alchemy is entirely nonsensical.

Francis Bacon? Robert Boyle? The Illuminati were those who had completed the Alchemical Work.

And if this Work actually worked, there would be evidence of it actually... doing something. There isn't, because it doesn't.

 

[PixyMisa]

You honestly can't conceive of how improving social conditions for the exploited by providing them the same basic rights we take for granted would help maintain equality in the grander sense? If I haven't answered it is because I was granting you at least minimum amount of comprehension ability...so one more time...

But here's the thing: You can't provide basic rights. Basic rights are inherent. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of association. Freedom of assembly. Equality under the law.

You can't provide those. You can provide, oh, mandatory paid holidays, precisely because those aren't a right.

And if those inherent human rights aren't being infringed, then everyone is equal in the grander sense. They're merely unequal in the trivial sense.

If a person is enabled to be at least socially equal to everyone else

Which means what?

and has a certain amount of agency(free choice) that endows them with the ability to be economically and socially mobile according to their whims

Freedom of trade of goods and services; freedom of capital.

then the onus would truly fall on the individual to succeed or fail.

Indeed.

It benefits equality because the affected humans would be enabled to press for more rights and liberties...

What more rights? Really, what more rights? There are innate rights; they apply to everyone, equally. So, what more rights?

gaining more agency, and more economic and social mobility with each victory.

How? What?

Right now, affected persons are disadvantaged by the inevitabilities of capitalism...

That's the inevitability of freedom. Sorry, but the only way around it is to give up that freedom.

for instance the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few...

Which is hardly a development confined to capitalism.

what is ironic and sad is that if more people were enabled by fair pay rather than pennies on the dollar, and decent living standards rather than squalor they would ultimately be more productive and thus the whole global market would be affected in a positive way for everyone...meaning more capital to be gained for all.

Perhaps. Perhaps. And indeed, I believe you are correct.

And if you try to mandate this by law, the end result is not necessarily what you wanted. Raising the minimum wage causes increases in unemployment and inflation. Try to mandate those by law as well, and the outcome will not be pretty.

Russia. China. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Hungary. Albania. Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia. Romania. Ukraine. Vietnam. Laos. Cambodia. North Korea. Cuba.

Thanks, but no. I'll keep my freedom of speech; you can have the mandatory paid holidays.