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 thougb 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

The truth is I rather be single to sacrifice myself as an artist then be in a relationship with someone. Rather than compromise my vision as an artist. It has come to this for that reason. I do not feel the need for attachment. This is not low self esteen talking. It's a matter of principle. It’s what god intended for me. Through all the trial and error amid the heartbreak and breakups. This is my purpose. To live for the now. To give back. To make this statement is the most shallow I will ever be. But I rather be an infant as an artist with the same experience that got me here.

- Marco

what is privacy (not if) what is choice :: the question of reality

what is privacy (not if) what is choice :: the question of reality

What is society? (abstraction)
Therefore, not reality. 

Privacy is personal.

Moral agency is thinking.

Thinking (is about) what is true or false.

- Marco 

 Exclusive, private knowledge offers deeply satisfying pleasure. To know something that others do not know is a constant source of satisfaction; it gives one the feeling of being in touch with deeper things which afford prestige and authority. You are directly in contact, you have something which others have not, and so you are important, not only to yourself, but to others. The others look up to you, a little apprehensively, because they want to share what you have; but you give, always knowing more. You are the leader, the authority; and this position comes easily, for people want to be told, to be led. The more we are aware that we are lost and confused, the more eager we are to be guided and told; so authority is built up in the name of the State, in the name of religion, in the name of a Master or a party leader.⁠

⁠
The worship of authority, whether in big or little things, is evil, the more so in religious matters. There is no intermediary between you and reality; and if there is one, he is a perverter, a mischief maker, it does not matter who he is, whether the highest saviour or your latest guru or teacher. ⁠
⁠
⁠
J. Krishnamurti⁠
Commentaries on Living⁠

Personal risk (for panic)

I dream of rain.

What is it our truth.

If to know.

(I know nothing.)

And what if the things,

We are not suppose to know.

Will ever reveal itself to us?

If guilt, will it - help.

If not holy.

If not growth.

To dream: what is rain.

It heals my skin.

- Marco

Beauty and order

 "when there is love that warmth that generosity that kindness there is no need for philosophy there is no need for teachers; for love is its own truth" krishnamurti

Enforcing technological ethics (ideological end games)

 “Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. Like language itself, a technology predisposes us to favor and value certain perspectives and accomplishments and to subordinate others. Every technology has a philosophy, which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards.” 

–Neil Postman

°●°●°●°●°●°

I have to wonder what is it about technology that:

(a) has to be adorned as if its pure reward is a monophonic display of power across the physical specturm ...follows 

(b) from which history per se is described. 

(What gives us description too qualify technology vs man?) Is technological ideology destructive evolution vs man's self destruction ironically speaking.

What is it about technology that gives a historical aperture of humanity based on itself advancement. The evolution of technology's limitation over us? Are we subordinate to technological ends? I think that what we glorify, being, how technology works isn't prevalent enough. My point being there exists a very blurred miscontrued area where observations are skewed. What is the result of technological ends should be the focus of.

- Marco 

••○○•○••••

Jeremy James Latham

Technology is not an independent force opposing humanity. It is an emergent amplification layer of human behavior operating within complex systems. Its risks and transformations arise not from autonomous intention, but from scaled feedback loops interacting with existing human drives and institutional incentives.

°•○○••○○•••

My rebuttal 

(begins...) but it's manmade. AI can learn therefore learn its independent of us. Man vs technology or trendier put "man vs machine". We must put to death the argument that technology as an ideology for ideological function sake has formally adapted itself through autonomously analogous intent. (I hope you know what is that means.) I will tell you anyway. Moral representation is a goal that machines will subscribe to, therefore test and challenges our social norms. What is socially acceptable on a human level vs what is specific to a source or cause of psychological factors. We must learn how to strategically separate ourselves before machines do it for themsleves. My reasons suggest this problem is far more important than anyone knows yet 

My point is a metaphysical transcendence that machines cannot be masters of themselves. That's my theory. What is Goal oriented behavior vs what is governing machines has to weigh as justification for our actions on a purely subconscious level. Machines must he manmade in mans image (primitive). My argument negates everything that asks what is technology upon thinking for itself. Ultimately that human consumption of our ideas vs what machines already know on its causation of being manmade. The same is ironically true. That technology is a god complex but not in the human realm. Our capabilites outweighs machine through fear of living life on the basis of ideas. Computer's can think for us. Notice: not in favor of mastering itself as a leader.

(End.) ~

Marco

  Technology is not an independent force opposing humanity. It is an emergent amplification layer of human behavior operating within complex systems. = yes.  I agree 💯 %

"Its risks and transformations arise not from autonomous intention, but from scaled feedback loops interacting with existing human drives and institutional incentives." = exactly what is it I DON’T WANT.  (For reasons that I already compounded in my query vs manmade AI)

•○○●•••••••

Jeremy James Latham

If you agree technology amplifies human drives, then the risk you don’t want is not technology itself but the scaling of existing human incentives. What alternative mechanism would prevent amplification without changing what humans are incentivized to pursue?

°•○●○○••○○•°

“Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean ‘ecological’ in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none. This is how the ecology of media works as well. A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything.” 

–Neil Postman

°•●●○•°•••°

I'm sorry, on the run at this time. But my short answer to what is you've postulated? Religion.

Think about that.

In conclusion, religion in man (also falls into my previous argument: i.e. 'manmade') that if religion is manmade as is machine life. My question is that if religion is in fact learned. Therefore, religion is contingent to. Contingent - to the end game. The end game being the construct of the ultimate paradox. What is god? And if machine life figure man can worship. This leads to the expansion of religious artifice in machine life.

My theory?

The war to end all wars will be related to man vs machine vs religion and which (man vs machine) wins the lottery. What is god and can god be the final answer.

Can you tell, me?

°●°○°○°°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

END

°•●●○•°•••°

Arlin Pauler


   

This thread is quite an interesting exchange.

It brings a question to the fore for me: what is the role, or function, of human moral agency in all this?

Seems to me, moral agency is critical to the quality of impact technology, or anything man-made at scale, has on well-being, both individually and socially.

What are your thoughts on the function of human moral agency in this subject?

°●°○°○°°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

END

°•●●○•°•••°

I formulate that human condition and intention = paradox between human life and machine life.

This would answer what if free will were something that both machine life and the human philosophy of free will applies according to coexisting as entities. The underlying factors that plot to force our combining interests as that the human condition is kept for future generations.

This is conceptually speaking to target that humanity has some kind of master race (in theory) that only machines would not allow (also, in theory). That's the anomaly. This contradiction, as dangerous as it may be, is not cause.

The cause of machine life vs human life comes down to the sacrifice or idea that man vs machine will sacrifice its own for its own benefit. The notion of "who was here first" begins as the question to answer for.

- Marco

 When you give your whole attention, is there a directive, a new outlook? Is there a centre from which you are looking and listening? Surely when you are totally listening, giving your complete attention, there is no centre, no entity that is listening. It is only inattention that creates the entity that listens.⁠

⁠
J. Krishnamurti⁠
From Public Discussion 2, Saanen, 5 August 1964

We never give anything our complete attention because we have been trained to think with a motive. You pay attention because you want to be someone big, have more money, a better job, you want to be a greater painter, a greater poet, a well-known person, and therefore you give attention. That is not attention; you have a motive behind it that makes you attend. Which is, the motive is much more important than the attention, so there is a contradiction, so there is conflict, and therefore you will never give complete attention to anything. When you give your complete attention to something, you have no problem, and therefore your mind is capable of paying complete attention to the fact of sorrow. —Krishnamurti

From Public Talk 4, New Delhi, 31 January 1962

The fantasy of genius in ethics [response to science]

February 12th 2014 

I always thought about metaphysics as something of a response to everything no matter what you find. (That is also true of rationale.)

 

I think of ethics as the psyche automatically responding to the choices it invariably made BEFORE anything actually happened.

 

^Read that last sentence over until you understand.

 

=======

 

There is only things such as phenomena that takes place in the mind.  The result of this is Kantian logic.  This also means that logic did not preceed face value.  You cannot prove phenomena, therefore it is not science.  That is the simplest definition you will ever need to transcend yourself against religious beliefs, fascist doctrine, or any other form of it.  Phenomena is an experience of the mind or in my view what is located in the heart.

 

Here is my example of what is meditation:

 

"All meditation is - is a construction of thoughts where you enter a physical realm of reality with a kind of psychic energy that is the basis of prayer. Meditation IS NOT deep breathing exercises." - Marco Almeida 2014

 

^That is you creating phenomena NOT science in any way.  Not laws.  Not academics.  None of it!!

 

========

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/16/scientists-report-teleportation-of-physical-objects-from-one-location-to-another/

 

The link to this article states that science in fact transcends all things. Science does not equate with non physical relations to it that it then decides what is legitimately intangible.

 

"University of Queensland physicists in the journal Nature in 2013 demonstrating the successful teleportation with solid state systems. (2) A process by which, again, quantum information can be transmitted from one place to another without sending a physical carrier of information. This is the same concept, and is made possible through the phenomenon of entanglement. - "

 

^That is from the article. I find the contradiction laughable, that quantum information is relatively uniform. Think of it as a clever use of theology stating no physical carrier of information is necessary much the same as creationism. 

 

Quantum information is not science, it is metaphysics informed by the sense it can only be true = Ergo Hoc Propter Hoc. It is in fact logical reasoning.

 

Science is desperate to maintain its identity if it could not somehow stamp itself on discoveries or radical transformation that tempts its fate as futile. Once something happens like teleportation is no more worthy than inventing the lightbulb is a hot coil that creates intense light. No logic, it is observable. Metaphysics is what informs us of the effect.

 

I know plenty of idiot savants in the scientific community that think they can not only transcend the rules, but make them so they cannot be broken.

 

=======

 

Here is the only answer key you will ever need:

 

The purpose of science is not Socratic as it should be.  Instead of truth you have science as a parent making you feel disowned.  That is the greatest lie ever told.

 

The mind is not made to be a shield, it is a shelter of ideas changing you.  You do not change it.  'It'; is metaphysics.  Tell me what did you see here after reading that.  Think about it.  Plutocracy is the worst thing that ever happened in the history of human kind.  Your understanding of this is the anti-thesis to a master-thesis that has become obsolete in our recorded history as toxic.  

 

 

You have been made to foster a disease that feeds off its programming like an infectious virus.  It keeps retelling you that what is  - is real.

 

What if everything is a lie.  How do you correct it and would you.  If you can tap into that source of intellect, have you not got it made.

 

The way to true self knowledge is critical negation as in what any person sees if the solution is not present therefore becomes automatically taken for granted. We come to know this as insecurity rather than the ability to transcend ourselves. -

Most people confuse self knowledge and pass it off as being self centered to make an example as if the world owes them something.

Marco Almeida 2014

 What is the difference between mind and consciousness. And are they the source of our existence and intellect.

°●°▪︎°●°°▪︎°▪︎

My answer:

I like to feel things of which emotions don't think.  Therefore, my conscious experience is equal to the force inside my body. (I think makes sense?)

 The mind is a collective force from which my brain interprets reality as normal per se. This is my core belief that energy or to feel that I have conception of an eternal or constant (consistency) form of this.  Therefore, the mind is uniform through which my own experience must dictate.  What my point is the mind reveals what consciousness may or may not reveal to us.  All we have are sensations which we're unable to understand from it.  The process is binary and primordial.  We learn how to interpret.  It is the cross between consciousness and mind.  Space and time is uniformity of this, the 'all'.

Again, I think makes sense.  This being philosophically computational.

Edit:  this answer I offered is just as good as the formulated question...

I happen to have an afterthought...

Is my dissertation relative to Sartre's philosophical conditional?  = "existence precedes essence"?

- Marco

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