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 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