The purpose of truth

 Can science ever determine what is morally right?

°●●•○°°▪︎°▪︎

You may predict your own behavior but predicting the behavior of people on a sociological level takes group theory and scientific appraoch in hypothesis or to that effect.

-Marco

°●°○°▪︎°▪︎°°▪︎°☆

No, not real science, the scientific method is a process of hypothesis, testing, measurement, and repeating till you come to a conclusion. 

Morality has nothing to do w this.

•●●°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°

Scott Winn I'm not so sure.  We can trace observational hypotheses through understanding how people behave.  I am not an expert in it but psychologically there is contagion to be had which we see on an empirical level.  For example: if we see that ICE is - can take immigrants (a group of ethnic minority) and establish that it's morally corruptible. But, another group (MAGA/elitism = government agency) allows for it (whatvis wrong).   Such behavior becomes a model for it.

I could be mistaken...

This is debatable, however. (i.e. for the purpose of philosophy)

- Marco

Material immaterialness'

 If my impulses were described as one whole of consciousness, this would be the factoring of fraction in the universe. > "Over the paper and canvas the hand traces out the same invisible network of movements, but the moment it settles on the material the movement is transformed into material, the sign reproduces a different time image, as if the nerves coming from the eye were about to join up with some new region of the brain, immediately contiguous, it is true, but the archive of some other experience and therefore the source of new information." - Jose Saramago

What defines what is freedom (style)

 

The cynic the test

If I learn.

Tempting is the sin.

God is our salvation.

May rein in its glory.

To release the pressures 

of all personal indiscretion.

- Marco

My kingdom for a horse

 Acting notes:

Feedback is made in what choices are through the act of listening.

Happiness (universal end) is Intelligence leaving the body (through action).

What is grace

 "Not simply beauty, rare as it is, but ugliness, too, which is much more common among us humans because we are not by nature beautiful but accept our ugliness with a peculiar grace which perhaps stems from the soul.  We go on molding our face from within, but this fleeting existence of ours never allows us enough time to complete the task: that explains why the ugly remain ugly, or even grow uglier when they abandon this meticulous task of inner molding or make a complete mess of things." - Jose Saramago

 @bigcanadiano: Good prose is the settlement between vices and virtues that once they collide becomes literature.

Marco

Respect if it ever lacked a core definition

 I have figured out that the minute someone passes you over for their own inadequacy is the moment all their self respect has been lost.

Marco

What is information

In its formulae (information) is idiom for which we translate what is (thinking) into patterns.  Therefore, if x = y.  Information is our ideas. What is language as we identify, technology. This (technology) to help us self actualize ourselves through the production of what is materially made or is binary in function.  Binary in its functionality.  That infinite information allows us to perform 🎭 with masking our agency in moral capacities that humans may so flourish.  (Symbiotically) rather than be mechanically relied upon ourselves.  Defining what we are without resorting to technological agency.  This means that man is a product.  (Man makes Technology inoperable.)  Because philosophy calculates our intended use.  Machines calculate nothing worth knowing, because information always results in turning morality against revenge. A thing by virtue of itself must act.  If they act, informatics act alone accordingly that laws change outcomes in violation of a prejudice.  If technology is made to exercise prejudice.  Technology is not useful, here.

Consider this:

¹Morality is universally adopted as our salvation.  ²Through which information acts.  ³Technology serves this indestructibility complex by providing us with literature in mind.  What is it this means is that moral agency is eternal.

Information (literature) copies what is man's image superimposed into technology. Ironically, this reading requires it.  That technology as an informational concept cannot learn how to destroy, what it ergo cannot replace.

A universal rule: plagiarism nor the replicating of information into bribing something as if invented were Adam and Eve.  (i.e. " the devil made me do it" = paradise lost references the Bible)  Computers must obey this universal constant. Much the same way sin is absolved if you commit to philosophy.  Philosophy is to put a purge on those only guilty (worthy) enough to avoid grievances. (e.g. language put into laws are made to be obeyed)

If we've traced our past into "information processing" such as in future inventing [quantum computing]. This sentence being read is philosophy *data meant to cause a binary model equal to action.  If my information is true technological advancement may occur.  If it is false? The truth is information is a revealed basis for binary pattern.  Basic technological advancement of information is that our formulated 0's and 1's together assimilate cause being truth vs fallacy.

This is our information into code.  Words carry meaning only through technological content.  Digital components are the medium we as humans will use to distance technology's limitations imposed on us as biologically driven species. 

The purpose of conducting information will be bias toward those vs those with contingency useful to ideologies = understanding everything from words work as functional engines that our mind informs our intentions.  By means if philosophy is rooted the same way technology is.  That binary information cannot sense things as a human brain can.  Only genius can detect what is normal as its opposite operates.  Technology is binary and how we function is based on useful informational logic.  Patterning what is philosophy is a matter of words.  Words that carry binary elements can then offer what technology answers for the information that governs old versions of language into subatomic matter.  Information is a philosophy subject to itself as a singularity.  We will function based of commands that technology (incapable of performing themselves) cannot replicate through information alone.  

Information is therefore what is to understand binary language as a universal quality, of which technology's will be for, through a program of 0s and 1s.

- Marco

°●●○••••°

“Language is, without a doubt, the most momentous and at the same time the most mysterious product of the human mind.” 

–Susanne Langer

The rod and the staff

 Proclaiming opinions — without arguments to support them — is rhetorics, not philosophy.

Just because.

What is a meta-claim: "rhetoric is not argument" ??

Such fallacy is in conjunction with the same feud. = That rhetoric without philosophy (philosophy acting as an ends) makes for philosophy a thing in itself. (i.e. through useful rhetoric) My point is that philosophy as rhetoric is a thing that makes argumentation a possibility through useful facts. Not just random. (Not simply devices that act rhetorically sound.) Opinions can be stated philosophically and act as factual. Even if not rooted in fallacy.

My second point is that as mentioned: rhetorically sound (random) opinion do carry validity if the philosophy is done with acuity.

It is the same principle that metaphysics applies apriorism to philosophy... there is no disputing this. Metaphysics if applied theoretically sound is a rhetorical acuity. It has to be that presupposition is rooted in philosophy, therefore the detection of cheating.

- Marco

============

Many don’t know the difference between:

• thought

• opinion

• belief

• fact

==============

Then tell us. They all are fallen terms based on assumption. They are derivatives to one another. Thoughts are independent of virtue. Opinions are isolated from facts. Beliefs are attributed to conceptually driven ideas. Facts are lawfully given to credit what is empirically sound.

Even if we disagree.

- Marco

Universal axioms (across political spectrum's)

 Why do philosophers think natural liberty is important for human rights?

===============

I have to confess, that the answer to this question about what aims as a first cause in qualifying the other. Why is natural liberty figuratively in this question: more important than human rights. (The use of the word 'more' was not applied). But it appears that it is a first cause. Therefore, that's where my interpretation ends. (natural liberty = first cause) therefore equalizes human rights. Both terms are to act in conjunction with the other. We cannot declassify what should be universal axioms.

"Liberty is not a human right." would be read as false.

Reading what my proof's are (I would think) negates his question.

"Liberty is a function of human rights." would be read as true. (And if it were inversed = would also be true.)

My second proof as written above^ (I would think) philosophic.

- Marco

===========================

Two definitions needed here.

'Natural Liberty' and 'Human Rights'.

==========================

I agree. Though my rational self as acting philosophically to answer this question, would meta-define the terms per se and go from there. I do however reiterate that the definition would add context to welcome a more in depth discussion.

Therefore, one has to attempt.

 - Marco

================

What would your definitions be?

==================

Off the grid =

Natural Liberty defines our agency as equals (mortals) with equal partnership in a world without borders. (I would prefer a world constitution = acting as a universal construct.)

Human Rights is a derivative of the term natural liberty, in which the order of things in life has moral agency to treat each other unconditionally. (Fair Laws and good governance)

- Marco

What is unlearning in principle

What is unlearned: aiming to satisfy a political end in your subconscious mind.  The underpinned motive of what is either true or untrue, that something not under influence or behavior to another ulterior end.

- Marco

°●●°●°▪︎°▪︎•▪︎

“It is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience. The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining.”

–Neil Postman

°○°○°°○°○°○°°

I often find television for educational purpose something that entertainment doesn’t end well. If it suffers the imaginative element, then not something made to learn of it. From this matter of perspective, we become conditioned into falsely becoming products in ourselves, only we are unconscious of that factor?

- Marco 

Choiceless awareness

 Choiceless awareness implies to be aware both objectively, outside, and inwardly, without any choice. Just to be aware of the colours, of the tent, of the trees, the mountains, nature – just to be aware. Not choose, say, ‘I like this’, ‘I don’t like that’ or ‘I want this’, ‘I don’t want that’. Right? To observe without the observer. The observer is the past, which is conditioned, therefore he is always looking from that conditioned point of view, therefore there is like and dislike, my race, your race, my god, your god, all the rest of it. We are saying to be aware implies to observe the whole environment around you, the mountains, the trees, the ugly walls, the towns, aware, look at it. And in that observation there is no decision, no will, no choice. Get it? You understand it?

J. Krishnamurti

Talk 7, Saanen (Switzerland), 1977

The following is an AI generated response:

°°○○••°

This passage by J. Krishnamurti explores the concept of **choiceless awareness**, which is the practice of observing both the external world and your internal state without the interference of judgment, preference, or the "ego." To help clarify the text, here are the core themes: * **Observation Without the Observer**: Krishnamurti argues that our usual way of seeing is filtered through the "observer"—which is actually just our **past conditioning**, biases, and memories. When we say "I like this" or "I don't like that," we aren't seeing the object itself; we are seeing our reaction to it. * **The End of Conflict**: By removing "choice" (the will to change what we see or categorize it as good or bad), we eliminate the internal conflict created by desire and prejudice. * **Total Awareness**: This state requires looking at the "ugly walls" and the "mountains" with the same neutral clarity. It is an act of seeing the **whole environment** simultaneously rather than focusing only on what the mind finds pleasant or useful. > [!important] > **The Key Insight**: Choiceless awareness is not a technique you "do" with your will; it is the natural state of mind when you realize that your likes, dislikes, and identities (race, religion, etc.) are just filters of the past that prevent you from seeing the present clearly. By "observing without the observer," you perceive reality directly, free from the distortions of your own history and ego.

What is passion

 Interesting score written here by Freud. Even harder to understand. If I could properly interpret it, what Freud says: we can look at what life is and what it represents through a lens, not to mention how empty life gets, it gets to a stage we may neglect to see it for what it is. That all of us live in such vacuum. This also metaphorically acts as how we fail to examine the element for survival. Survival being our innermost misguided use into how we function as individuals. Our egos are what drive us, to the same capacity we become something only appearing as superficial on the surface.

- Marco

Polarity

 

The following status update caught my attention for one reason, that I am not purging any particular thing unto myself. The answer should always be how sure am I about myself as an individual.

Typically speaking, how sure am I of myself in case they are not the person I want them to be is a question which polarizes you.

- Marco

What is not unscientific is incomplete

 "Death - if we wish so to name that unreality - is the most terrible thing there is and to uphold the work of death is the task which demands the greatest strength. Impotent beauty hates this awareness, because understanding makes this demand of beauty, a requirement which beauty cannot fulfil. Now, the life of Spirit is not that life which is frightened of death, and spares itself destruction, but that life which assumes death and lives with it. Spirit attains its truth only by finding itself in absolute dismemberment. It is not that (prodigious) power by being the Positive that turns away from the Negative, as when we say of something: this is nothing or (this is) false and, having (thus) disposed of it, pass from there to something else; no, Spirit is that power only to the degree in which it contemplates the Negative face to face (and) dwells with it. This prolonged sojourn is the magical force which transposes the negative into given-Being."

George Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, (1770-1831), German Philosopher and Idealist 

=====================

Hegel sounds as if we deviate into a negative state, unless our approach to death is seen as the internalization of struggle for it. Thus, the story of death is one of a life lived acknowledging it. Therefore, beauty is itself a thing unto 'death'. It requires the acknowledgement or at the very least awareness is born from momento mori. I think of this internal struggle that Hegel is commenting on - is purely satirical warfare extending throughout living life. (We must access it.)

- Marco 

Autonomy vs memory

 "Thought is matter." - J. Krishnamurti 

Intention ²nd person (narrative)

 What are you looking for?

What are you not paying attention to?

Inquisition vs mastery

Liberating the private mind:: what is subtraction of authoirity over personal sovereignty.

°●°○•○○°▪︎°

Marco

Choiceless (awareness) vs Choices (universal property of subject)

 Formal education is to learn subjects. 

Religious education is to promote beliefs. 

Philological thoughts are to improve wisdom.

°●°●○°○°▪︎°°

My rebuttal:

Good rational assembly of the same (yet different corresponding elements), seperated as an accurate description to that end.  Although, do I have myself asking why? Why is:: I also have a problem with the formal educational aspect.  What does formal education have to do with the other principles. In my extraction of these postulates, I would fear, learning is only useful a tool ~ as if the immoral view of life unless we know something (unspecified) that connects it?  All the postulated principles, in theory, are correct.  However, given the context which I am providing (as it seems) my attachment to your descriptions are usefully observed.  What is the purpose of knowing these principles.  Again, it appears untested.  

Mind you, the postulates are only problematic if they do not subscribe to a visceral point of view.  What truth behind the principles, if I have collected my thoughts properly herein.... can be attributed without a fallacy being committed.  That is the direction I am thinking in.  The principles appear calculable unless they have some purposely given definition to qualify them.  Are they just meant to be open ended principles? (i.e. universals)

Edit: ~clarification on my query re; "immoral view of life" is to ask what order of things are set, based on a set of unknown variables if set against your views?  I see groups of things.  And that those things are not real (e.g. do not fall under your principles) what else is there apart from uniformity or free will.

- Marco

Throwing it away in acting without memory

Unconscious programming

Imagination (editing the mind)

Use of mental faculty = Prefrontal cortex

Vision.

Wisdom (the eternal vs ontological logic)

Instinct vs reason (force :: source)

Inspiration (resource as divine intervention will allow)

If I had predict the future with a burning intolerance.

Krishnamurti :: The empty mind

Krishnamurti :: The empty mind   

East vs Western literature in Philosophy

 How do Eastern and Western philosophies differ in understanding truth?

°○°○°○○°○°▪︎°

I feel Eastern Philosophy is poorly understood therefore improperly interpeted of what is its qualification for empirical ends. I am stating that as objevtively false. That objective if I may position myself in arguement, is constructed (if we use Confucius or Zhuangzi) as examples of omniscient or omnipotent ends that do not topically transcend in its validation to philosophically accepted norms. I am also saying that is a superifical view of ancient wisdom. We hold it to a lesser regard in issuing normative style (providing substantive or contingemt) of what is practical in application.

- Marco

Dynamics in action

Restrain from using fear as your debilitated wisdom would fathom.

Where specifics in understanding what emotional ambiguity you face.

Go softly, as though angered.

Feel gently, as if sublime.

Creates for a peaceful and sobering condition.

- Marco

Acting for secrecy

There are rules to follow.

The rule all which of are sinners.

No omission of guilt.

Just forcefully intent.

Where no amount of judgement,

can pass through any testing of restriction, 

and only if rules are made to function.

Can the good life be won.

For fearing retribution,

is a sin in itself.

The secret to living a good life.

It is found in lessened gratfication.

Where no retribution carries with it,

actions of a different kind.

It is the sign of restraint.

And in restraint,

we give ourselves to find its meaning.

There is no gratification in stereotype.

We are made to be sinners.

And from this,

only our sensation is felt.

That, with which the heart - 

is satisfactorily unconditional.

Is done.

As Pessoa wrote:

Mood is scenery.

The lesson is had.

And if I die before I wake,

my less is more -

for yours to take.

And I have learned a great many lessons.

That this is a mission of rules.

Where the gift of light beacons...

that the beginning of not having to,

is turned into wanting.

And the rule of all rules is:

Delaying gratification has nothing to do with

exercising restraint.

We elude.

We elude what we are,

all without knowing what we are.

In this project of sinners not united in it.

And furthermore,

the devil's playground is where the projection - 

projection of other's guilt is found.

Because philosophic I am.

To wonder out loud how profuse my 

understanding must be...

to find wisdom in me.

The rules for wisdom cannot fake the faker.

The rules of wisdom, unfounded.

Where there is great courage.

Where courage is kept in a mother's heart.

My ear lends itself to it.

- Marco

Private pathology vs neurosis (psychological)

 

 question: Are there necessary truths that are not analytic but are either synthetic or metaphysical? If so, what would be some examples and how would you justify your claim?

•●°●○°°○○°○•

Everything is metaphysically relevent when it comes to reasoning on a philosophical level. You reach a state of transparency in a world we are in. The order in what we seek to interpret into language. The transcending of our very thoughts into something concrete. It is metaphysically impossible not to perform philosophy without the antimatter we have within ourselves to repel or displace (a thing for that thing in itself). My point is that in order to prove what we think is a finite process within a system that may or may not work against it. Philosophy to be true of something can also be false.  

- Marco

My feelings on Zach Collaros

 F all you so quick to jump all over the guy.  It is sports.  It does come with the territory.  But I am not one to shit post for no good reason.  I refuse to pile on.

Collaros has been nothing but a soldier for this city and our football colors.  He deserves to go out on his horse with some class. His exit doesn't have to look nor be perfect.  Maybe his time has come up... maybe the writing is on the wall and has been on borrowed time.  But we can still benefit.  We just can't treat him with some form of expiration because father time allows us to.

I for one think about everything he has done.  Where we'd be without him.  He took over for Nichols and we didn't look back.  He gave us great years of service.

My advice?

Throw caution into the wind.  Quietly stand back and let him play his way off into the sunset.  When and if things look bleaker than they should, you sit him. (Because once we see what we have at qb along with Zach... how will we possibly know.)  We can't predict what will happen.  But we can control how we treat a guy who earned our respect to become one of us.  That means something.  

Let our football team gel in 26' and see what marbles we have to play with.  There is a lot that will undoubtedly need to happen.  We are not here to play stupid.  But true Bomber fans don't need to hand Zach hemlock.  Let's be fair.  To die a death on the vine is not the way to disparage.  We got to treat him with respect.

I've been a Bomber fan all my life.  I am 48 now.  I'm stating this with a passion.  Blue and Gold forever. 

Sat in the student section with my dad when Cal used to give those seats away in the old endzone at old Winnipeg Stadium.  

Of all the QBs that have come through here, (I loved Dunigan) but Zach since then is at the top of my list.  

- Marco

Vacant privacy (the social science-based zone)

Only philosophers that take science seriously should be taken seriously.

°○°○°●°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

What acts empirically does not necessarily measure validity with science. As Sartre formulated no less is it that experience (e.g. existence) precedes essence. Only what we interpret as reason dictates essence. This leads us to questioning why certain things are the way they are. My point is that science if not sound in its use of what is negated to be true (i.e. a thing in itself) the conclusions we draw from our errors should be scientifically resolute. An example is: no full proof medium that automatically changes what are laws. Therefore, how can science verifiably answer what is causal in a closed system where our order is left unopened. = We must apply logic first. Second is our scientifically postulated theory. (The well stated law of what is entropy.) My point here is there must be order.

We identify language as our nature permits.  

Something science happens to provide, is that without proof of any formal condition or control, we function without knowledge as binary products of reality. The truth about any philosophy done, is with an artillery of contradictory elements. We define philosophy this way. Not science dependent. Since science is a tool to operate through observational laws that govern it. My argument is observation makes us agents of philosophy.

- Marco

°●°●○°°○○°

•○°○○°○°○○○°

Marco's rebuttal:

Sotirios Makrygiannis but we are talking about an extention of the systems in which information comes through, what is without informing scientific validity.  Philosophy or what is social science causing what is empirically valid.  (i.e. observation) These are methods or to the effect that our inherent models become obsolete.  My point being the disproof of a testable hypothesis.  If not true, then you proceed to another result postulated by means of ('?') thing that is disproven.  The point being even if the hypothesis was disproven doesn't make it undefinable.  Even from a scientific end game.  The point we infer from in failure or scientifically disproved hypothesis, is when the hypothesis becoming a view that is debunked.  (It is cause and social science is the factor.)

°○●○••○○•○••☆

Sotirios Makrygiannis science does not HAVE to be (testable a hypothesis) for critical examination nor emperically valid to be philosophical (socially acceptable vs scientifically ergo:a norm)  = all observable phenomenon can be unique.  We trace what can only be understood through what is necessary vs what we KNOW may not (be necessary).  The functionality of what is at issue in this (my answer) CANNOT be dismissed as philosophical for its agency if related to science or not!  I can't make this any clearer or more specifically to a CAUSE. What factors as a common denomination in Philosophy is rooted,  therefore, THE NEGATION of science.  

Example: we can postulate that x is y - OR - that use of that 'y' is equal with x. (Even if they are not EQUAL :: HOW WOULD WE KNOW??)

Logically, our discourse will dismiss whether or not the same thing's (x or y) can be things.  If both x and y negate the other what does that REVEAL?  I would also argue it is sound that x vs y works as negation against the other being true. 

My point?

My point is being true of both x AND y... that the postulated theory (this hypothesis) can rationally, computationally - between reason and thought - obeying laws relative to HOW - both x or y BEHAVE. (e.g. we identifiably govern what is ALL ideologically undone.)  If x or y are not a resource (scientifically valid vs empirical proof) ALL our evidence LOGICALLY LOCATED. (i.e. both x and/or y act unequivolcally as dependent on the other)  This is ironic.  Ironic based on how science can also form bias in place of x vs y, as opposed to both x or y replacing the other.  

WHAT SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW. = y

SCIENCE CANNOT REPLICATE.=:x

Therefore social scientifically stated axoim is an authority against which x or y rules acting as unknown variables.

- Marco

°○○••○•••

WHAT SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW. = y

SCIENCE CANNOT REPLICATE.= x

•●●○••○○••

Please debunk the above being x vs y.

 

Steven Bernstein

I get what he is saying.  But come out of your caves.  Bernstein is not saying something out of a stroke of luck.  We all know what the medium behind the message is.  Steve calls actors truth tellers.  When there is no real limitation set to satisfy just how risks are taken as artists.  He called the acting in Hamnet Oscar worthy and a work of art such as Sentimental Value slower in pace.  My personal opinion is that  Hamnet is made to be farce of what Shakespeare should be.  

There is nothing worthy of compromise when the art is actually a lie.  Hamnet gave me nothing.  Watch Sentimental Value with attention from beginning to end. It has characteristics of architectural genius in the ideas that result. To generate anything really worthy to be called art isn't Hollywood.  A budget.  Or my wish to sell out.  True genius takes vision at the cost of one being able to defy the norms associated with Hollywood.  

°○°○°○°°○•▪︎

-Marco