So let us pick-up from where we left off over on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] thread.
From the metaphysical let us see how it applies to the physical for there can be no disharmony here without exposing a possible error in reasoning. The mental model, in this case a world view, must be complete, or as complete, perfect (absolute) as possible.
First positions as these are derived from what has been said about metaphysical matters.
The male/female dichotomy is no more than the division between the mental and the physical or the spiritual and the corporeal. This separation is not arbitrary for it is rooted in each sexual type's role and methodology.
The female must tolerate, accept, nurture, integrate to fulfill her reproductive calling. She must harmonize, read psychologies so as to position herself, cooperate, immerse herself within the herd, the whole.
Just from this we can see both why female psychologies are preferred within social structures, particularly as these grow larger and larger, and why females are so committed, loyal and submissive to authority, social norms and God.
A man must create order a woman must submit to the highest form of it. The male must challenge, usurp, separate so as to overpower. He must think outside the box if he is to find a way to control it.
From these it follows: Liberal: feminine psychology. Conservative: masculine psychology.
On this point let us look back to the metaphysics I propose. Immediately we are struck by a reversal of roles or concepts inverses.
If chaos is the norm and continuing change is a given then the liberal is really a conservative for (s)he is trying to maintain the status quo...and the conservative with his drive to create order is really the rebel, the progressive the revolutionary; he wants to arrest change. We can see which is the more difficult task...is creating more difficult or is destroying and returning all as it was?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
One more issue to take into consideration...if entropy is increasing and the arrow of time, is pointed towards absolute chaos, producing this conceptualization of past<>present<>future then does it not follow that the past is looking back towards a period of more order?
Let us forget the "present" as some abstraction, like the "here" and "now" which implies an absolute static state which is a total fabrication and proceed. Do we not look back towards the Big Bang, if you will, when we speak about the universe?
Therefore, does it now not make more sense as to why liberals or "progressives" wish to forget or dismiss or reinvent the past whereas the conservatives, the Traditionalists, are nostalgic often idealizing the more immediate past?
Given this what is nihilism?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Has this girl read my essay?! We should see this as evidence of what she says about boys and video games: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The resident Nietzsche worshiper, Sauwelios , goes to great lengths to apologize, in his signature, for his choice of the swastika as his symbol. Truly a castrated Übermensch. He does not even have the courage to stand for his own ideals without apologizing the the myriads he wishes to be a part of....the herd towards which he offers excuses. Sad indeed.
How does the elimination of the family promote this leveling? We should explore the role family played in ancient pagan civilizations, particularly in ancient Greece. Why was the mother the heart of the family, whereas the father was the head? Why did women play the role of passing down traditions, teaching their children, especially their daughters, the methods of doing everything from cooking to sewing? Why is the family doomed because they have been "emancipated" from their own sexual role?
It has to do with heterogeneous and homogeneous social structures. Heterogeneity necessitates a leveling down; down to the least or lowest common denominator. Is this not why promiscuity reigns and all behave and think as animals: materialism, hedonism, dumbing-down, rampant simplicity and stupidity, regurgitation as intelligence etc.
So let us pick-up from where we left off over on the Open Challenge thread.
From the metaphysical let us see how it applies to the physical for there can be no disharmony here without exposing a possible error in reasoning.
The mental model, in this case a world view, must be complete, or as complete, perfect (absolute) as possible.
First positions as these are derived from what has been said about metaphysical matters.
OK.
Quote :
The male/female dichotomy is no more than the division between the mental and the physical or the spiritual and the corporeal. This separation is not arbitrary for it is rooted in each sexual type's role and methodology.
I presume you mean spiritual and corporeal in a figurative sense.
I would say females are more primitive and physical in some ways, less in others. For example, females tend to be more sociable than men. Men tend to be better at understanding and manipulating physical objects. Sociability evolved later and is more advanced, more sophisticated than.. dexterity, well maybe not. Sociability is concerned with other minds, so it seems higher on the totem pool than physical technology and dexterity. Also, women tend to be more emotional than males, for whatever reason, and emotions are a higher faculty, in the sense that they evolved later than the appetites and the senses, and coordination, and are less physical, so women seem to have this advantage in addition to sociability. However, men tend to be more rational, and are also more introverted, more inwardly. I would say neither one is more highly advanced, women can be quite spiritual in their own way. Rather I would say niggers are more physical than whites. So perhaps we should be differentiating between niggers and Caucasians, rather than Caucasian women and men.
Quote :
The female must tolerate, accept, nurture, integrate to fulfill her reproductive calling. She must harmonize, read psychologies so as to position herself, cooperate, immerse herself within the herd, the whole.
And how is this more physical? Are not snakes far more or only concerned with themselves, and not the good of their species and even their own families? How is collectivism and mimicry less highly evolved? Do snakes, frogs and fish copy each other, do they have culture, do they preserve their experiences and pass down information to the next generation? How are women more physical for being concerned about the whole, and copying data, and passing down traditions, and maintaining culture? It seems to me, neither females, nor males are more primitive in this regard. Males tend to be the innovators, I would tend to agree with you there, but regurgitating information is just as important as collecting it and making discoveries, and learning how the universe works and how to manipulate it, society requires both ingenuity and copying.
Quote :
Just from this we can see both why female psychologies are preferred within social structures, particularly as these grow larger and larger, and why females are so committed, loyal and submissive to authority, social norms and God.
However, are society also requires a great deal more innovation than it did before, so perhaps males can excel int his area. I'm not sure why females tend to do better in this society, part of it has to do with what you say about females doing better in large groups of humans, as they're more sociable, polite, mild mannered, interdependent, although like I say, our society is very progressive, innovative, and males can excel in this department. Perhaps women are merely emancipating themselves, and they have felt repressed for such a long time, so there is this need within them to compete with men, to equal or surpass them, where as men have grown complacent overtime. Perhaps it has something to do with this humanist idea that we're all equal, affirmative action, and government catering towards females more to make this myth a reality. Perhaps we're being feminized because females are easier to control, and the government is taking on the role of the male, and the dwindling middle and lower classes the female, where as God was the masculine power before, now the state is, or increasing is. Yes it could be a combination of factors, but women do seem to be rising in power.
Quote :
A man must create order a woman must submit to the highest form of it. The male must challenge, usurp, separate so as to overpower. He must think outside the box if he is to find a way to control it.
From these it follows: Liberal: feminine psychology. Conservative: masculine psychology.
On this point let us look back to the metaphysics I propose. Immediately we are struck by a reversal of roles or concepts inverses.
If chaos is the norm and continuing change is a given then the liberal is really a conservative for (s)he is trying to maintain the status quo...and the conservative with his drive to create order is really the rebel, the progressive the revolutionary; he wants to arrest change. We can see which is the more difficult task...is creating more difficult or is destroying and returning all as it was?
But are males not the innovators?
Than you're saying that those who maintain culture exactly as it is are the progressives, and those who change culture are the conservatives, as change is the norm, and stagnation is abnormal and revolutionary? But then females with their talents for mimicry and regurgitation ought to be the greatest conservatives and males the greatest liberals, as males have been responsible for nearly all changes in society.
I think you confuse liberalism, or change, with disorder. Change can be orderly or disorderly, I wouldn't necessarily equate interactivity with disorder. Well, in a way I see your point, interactivity is inherently, by definition disorder, but the nonetheless it can lead to greater order, change is a kind of disorder, but one that can sometimes lead to more order, for example a car was a change for society, but it lead to more order, not less. Interactivity is a form of disorder, where as inactivity is a form of order, but there are other forms, for example cubes and spheres are a kind of order, where as amorphous blobs are chaotic. These have to do with shape, as opposed to movement, movement and shapelessness - chaos, no movement and shape - order. Also attractive movement is more orderly, where as repulsive movement seems more chaotic.
One more issue to take into consideration...if entropy is increasing and the arrow of time, is pointed towards absolute chaos, producing this conceptualization of past<>present<>future then does it not follow that the past is looking back towards a period of more order?
You mean the universe is getting sparser and colder, because of the big bang? Coldness is a form order, inactivity is order, so in one sense the big freeze will create more order. Sparsity, bits and pieces of matter scattered throughout the universe is more disordered, so in that sense the big freeze is more disorderly, the big freeze can be looked at in two ways.
If absolute chaos is inevitable, than it seems to me there's less point in rebelling. If, however, it may be possible to reverse things, at lest partially, than this will give people more hope in the universe, and more reason to fight. If our planet and life is doomed, humans will still go on, but perhaps with less fervor, less zeal and passion, knowing for certain all is doomed.
Or maybe you mean to say that chaos is easier to generate than order, so 9 times out of 10, interaction will result in more chaos, not less. Of course, order is more likely to produce order than chaos, just as chaos more likely to produce itself.
Quote :
Let us forget the "present" as some abstraction, like the "here" and "now" which implies an absolute static state which is a total fabrication and proceed. Do we not look back towards the Big Bang, if you will, when we speak about the universe?
Therefore, does it now not make more sense as to why liberals or "progressives" wish to forget or dismiss or reinvent the past whereas the conservatives, the Traditionalists, are nostalgic often idealizing the more immediate past?
Given this what is nihilism?
The big bang is shit, it is not God, it is hostile to life, I prefer a big freeze death to a big bang death, I like the cold, I like being cold and alone, I don't want to be smudged together with a bunch of matter and people, I like my space, my distinctness.
I'm not sure the big bang happened, maybe it is a myth. I mean, tens of billions of years ago, who knows what the fuck happened. That's just the best theory the scientists say they have so far, but I choose not to buy it, I haven't seen enough evidence, though I haven't done enough research on it to form a solid opinion, I've been more interested in human origins than cosmology.
The observational evidence seems to indicate that every object or most objects in the universe are moving away from the earth, meaning the earth was at the center of the big bang, or, they jump to, everything is expanding from everything from that, or there's something wrong with their observational evidence. I don't know how you can logically infer, well, there's no way we could be at the center of the universe, therefore if everything seems to be moving away from us, then everything from every point of view must be moving away from each everything. How do you make that logical leap I don't know. Perhaps we are at the center of the universe, if that's what the data shows, then that is equally possible, if not at the center than near it, but that contradicts their assumptions, so that cannot be, because that means we might be special, and we can't be special, because that would mean the Catholic church could be right, and they can't be right, or we can't even entertain that possibility, so no. I don't know, i haven't studied enough to form a solid opinion, but this whole big bang things smells like a wad of shit to me. Yes, perhaps the big bang exists, and we stayed at the dead center of the universe, while everything moved away from us, or perhaps earth possesses a subtle repulsion factor, that pushes objects away from it, and we are the only thing in the known universe to possess this energy, and in time, the earth will become isolated from everything. Yes, give the data that is more plausible than the big bang, but even more likely than any of this is there' probably something wrong with the data, and the universe really isn't expanding from us, or from everything else, the data is faulty.
The observational evidence seems to indicate that every object or most objects in the universe are moving away from the earth, meaning the earth was at the center of the big bang, or, they jump to, everything is expanding from everything from that, or there's something wrong with their observational evidence. I don't know how you can logically infer, well, there's no way we could be at the center of the universe, therefore if everything seems to be moving away from us, then everything from every point of view must be moving away from each everything. How do you make that logical leap I don't know. Perhaps we are at the center of the universe, if that's what the data shows, then that is equally possible, if not at the center than near it, but that contradicts their assumptions, so that cannot be, because that means we might be special, and we can't be special, because that would mean the Catholic church could be right, and they can't be right, or we can't even entertain that possibility, so no. I don't know, i haven't studied enough to form a solid opinion, but this whole big bang things smells like a wad of shit to me. Yes, perhaps the big bang exists, and we stayed at the dead center of the universe, while everything moved away from us, or perhaps earth possesses a subtle repulsion factor, that pushes objects away from it, and we are the only thing in the known universe to possess this energy, and in time, the earth will become isolated from everything. Yes, give the data that is more plausible than the big bang, but even more likely than any of this is there' probably something wrong with the data, and the universe really isn't expanding from us, or from everything else, the data is faulty.
Regardless of which galaxy you live in all other galaxies will appear to be moving away from you, this phenomena is not being caused by the velocity or direction of the galaxies but by the presence of dark energy pushing the expansion of space-time. Hence it is the space between the galaxies which is expanding, much like when you bake a cake all the raisins inside appear to move away from each other as the cake expands. Hence it is wrong to think of the Big Bang as an explosion typical of a bomb or something, it was really an expansion of space-time which is continuing to this day, accelerating in fact, fuelled by dark energy.
To me, modernity is based on set of philosophical assumptions or absolutes, ideals.
These ideals pervade just about everything the majority thinks feels and does.
These ideals came about for different reasons, on is they have some actual merit to them, for all their flaws, two I think there's something inherently European about them, which is why they didn't originate elsewhere, three it has to do with certain individuals in the 18th century who wanted to remold Europe into their own vision, and four it has to do with European experience and history.
If modernity had an epistemology, what would that epistemology be?
If it had a metaphysics, what would it be?
A theology, a cosmology, an ethics, a lifestyle, an aesthetic, a political philosophy?
It's getting late so I'm not going to go in depth right now, but I think modernistic epistemology is science, empiricism, this idea that the world can best be understood by experimenting with it and observing it first, than interpreting it and then coming to conclusions about it, rather than the other way 'round. This idea that we should learn more and more about our world, that knowledge is always a good, and that ignorance is suffering, weakness, that we can gain mastery over our world and ourselves by knowing it. Is this not the cornerstone of modernity? Do men and women not value science above other forms of knowledge, such as religion, philosophy, intuition and mysticism? There is a separation between philosophy and state and religion and state, but not between science and state, or mathematics and state, science is highly and universally regarded. We appreciate their methodology of testing hypothesis. We put a certain amount of trust in those who have degrees in universities and go off to explore the world with their instruments, we believe in specialization of knowledge gathering, as opposed to a more individualistic knowing, we prefer the experts figure things out for us, and then we learn from them. So it is science and specialism, trusting those who supposedly observe and learn about the world, as opposed to shamans and soothsayers or diviners or individual experience and knowledge and understanding.
Our metaphysics is that there are natural laws that govern the universe, and these laws are absolute, and man can learn about them and use them to predict the world. The universe is not random, it is determined, however this may not apply when dealing with complex and intelligent lifeforms such as ourselves, who may possess a degree of free will (whatever the fuck that is). Most people think the universe is orderly, although always changing, that we can at least find the laws that govern change, that is not completely random and meaningless.
Our collective theology is mixed, but most people are indifferent to the supernatural, we live in the most atheistic times we have ever lived in in recorded history. Modern man is an agnostic, an atheist and an apatheist. Even there are many theists (oh, btw, when I speak of modern man I speak primarily of Europeans and Americans), even they are not that interested in God and religion, God is no longer at the center of most peoples world. Most theists are borderline apatheists.
Our cosmology is dictated to us by modern science.
Our ethics are based in inherent dignity, equality and value of all human beings, that all of us are special and unique in our own way, and that no one should be tortured and abused, but that certain individuals should be locked up so as to prevent them from abusing others, and as a form of punishment, but that they should not be tortured or starved to death. Some people talk about positive human rights, some talk of negative human rights, but few speak as though we do not have rights, or that rights are relative, most people think rights are absolute and objective, either given to us by God, or the idea that they're some kind of natural law, something existing somewhat independently of biology and society, something that is discovered. In our society, we are taught that even retards have value, no matter how dumb, how retarded or malevolent you are, you still have value, and that we have the free will to do and become virtually anything that we desire, and that those who contribute highly to society through great works of achievement in art, science or literature, shall be rewarded and reciprocated with great fame and fortune, and with a sense of satisfaction for helping to make the world a better place. We are also taught to believe that animals have rights too, thought these aren't as emphasized as much as human rights, naturally, that certain sexual practices like homosexuality, adultery and promiscuity are of no consequence and anyone's business but.. etc etc, you see where I'm going with this shit. These are the morals and values of society, or at least what people profess to believe, or are taught to believe. Freedom, democracy, rule of law, positive and negative rights, feminism, no racism, globalism, multiculturalism, progress, science, secularism, humanism, transhumanism, environmentalism, these are the dominate ideologies of our day.
In terms of lifestyle, well, let's talk about how people actually live rather than what they believe. Most people are glutinous, they eat garbage, junk food, lots of man made foods, they spend a lot of time on the internet, they work hard, long hours, they strive to make more money, so they can spend, buy a house, start a family, take trips to different parts of the world, people eat out a lot, they take lots of medications, a lot of people don't marry, they get divorced, families are becoming smaller, much smaller.
So, what does this all amount to, is this part of some hyperfeminism Satyr speaks of, I doubt it. If I were to sum up modernity in one word, I would say it is humanism, humanism is the dominant ideology, all ideas and ideals, from science, to progress, from democracy and human rights, to the dwindling of religion, to freedom, it's this idea that each human being is special, unique, divine, and that if we all work together, we can make a more peaceful, harmonious, freer society with high quality of life for every man, woman, child and nigger, that we can boldly go where no man has gone before, that we can build this technological utopia on earth, filled with gadgets and amazing technologies, and fun, and pleasure without repercussions, and gays, niggers and retards can all come along and join the party. This is the essence of modernism, of this vision enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke and Francis Bacon wanted to bring to fruition, and now it is hear, though there are many, many unanticipated problems. It is these problems that have caused some to look for alternatives to modernity, and Satyr is one of these men, and I am another.
Regardless of which galaxy you live in all other galaxies will appear to be moving away from you,
How do you know this, have you been to other galaxies?
Quote :
this phenomena is not being caused by the velocity or direction of the galaxies but by the presence of dark energy pushing the expansion of space-time.
Dark energy, what energy is light? Energy is a process, not a piece of matter you can see, it is matter in motion, and the potential for matter to cause other matter to move.
Quote :
Hence it is the space between the galaxies which is expanding, much like when you bake a cake all the raisins inside appear to move away from each other as the cake expands. Hence it is wrong to think of the Big Bang as an explosion typical of a bomb or something, it was really an expansion of space-time which is continuing to this day, accelerating in fact, fuelled by dark energy.
An energy that increases space is not an energy, whatever it is, it should not be called energy, as energy is matter in motion, this is space in motion, or not even in motion, but space increasing. What do we really know about this multiplication of space? Perhaps the multiplication began 100 years ago, and will begin dividing or decreasing in another 100 years?
Or perhaps earth is at the center of the universe, or near the center. Of course, the odds of us being at the center are extremely low, but then, mathematically, the odds of us being at the edge or anywhere else in the universe are extremely low, why not the center, it is no less probable that we would exist at or near the center than any other place in the universe. Perhaps the scientists have an agenda for interpreting this phenomena in a certain way, a way in accordance with their paradigm and the universe is a Godless one. But what is this significance of center, does center mean we are special? That is another human convention, I don't see why they skipped over the possibility that we are at or near the center, and since that is what the data shows, it seems we may very well be at the center.
Last edited by eyesinthedark on Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:41 am; edited 1 time in total
If you want to understand modernity, it is the idea that man is God. At some point in our history, european man turned their back on the notion of God and his son and his spirit, and began believe we could deliver on all the promised God failed to make good. Perhaps it was the black plague that did it, we began to lose our faith in God, but like a drug addict, we sought a quick substitute to avoid the withdraw effects from our losing our previous faith. So we turned to ourselves, and the religion of Lucifer, and to gnosticism, and freemasonry, and science. We turned to ancient Rome and Greece as well for inspiration, however the Greeks didn't worship themselves like we do today, although they were very wordly, we somehow deified the natural, and that is what secular humanism is, it is finding the qualities of the divine in ourselves, in our potential to evolve, master our destiny and the destiny of the universe. The Greeks and Romans never worshiped man they way we do, we took their sentiments and amplified them a thousand times. It seems man has become more and more dissatisfied with his lot here as time goes on, whether he seeks to change things in the natural, or for an escape into the supernatural. It is this rebellion, this hatred of nature, that secular humanism and Christianity have in common, and Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. Hatred of nature, discontentment. What, European man, if this is all there is, what will we do then?
Last edited by eyesinthedark on Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:53 am; edited 1 time in total
hasn't it always been like this? only difference in the past, mortality rates were higher due to lack of modern medicine. as for relative retards or malevolence, that always existed too. as for gays, it doesn't mean they don't contribute in their own way and there were eunuchs or those who just choose to not procreate, past and present.
hey cran, i posted more in my post above yours, why don't you take a look at it and tell me what you don't like about it.
As for your questions and comments here, the answer is no, it hasn't always been like this, we didn't always believe in human rights, there were times when men thought they were nothing but slaves for the Gods (see ancient Babylon and mesoamerica). our unique modern worldview produced a unique civilization.
to tell you the honest truth i don't like niggers. i don't mind some mulattos, especially the more white ones, but most negros are disgusting to me, i hate their vibe, their attitude, their personalities such. Their dumb, childlike, goofy, they can't be serious or deep for one second, I actually prefer Asians to negros, I think we have much more in common. Anyway, my post wasn't so much about race this time, look deeper. But yes, modernity does spiritualize humanity, and this is how judeochristianity has carried over into modern times. This eliminates race, sex, and fundamental differences between individuals.
if you want to understand european man, more than just being intelligent, if you want to understand our soul, and what gave rise both to catholicism and the enlightement- it is world hate, the essence of european society is hatred of the way things are, and that, more than our intelligence, since asians seem to be a tad more intelligent than us (though also more servile) is what lead to the renaissance, it was this disgust, this contempt for nature, we wanted to build over it, to destroy it, dominate it, it is this hell bent, devil may care attitude that makes us who we are, asians don't have it, white people are a black hole, hate hate hate. i'm not sure what made us this way. perhaps it was the ice age and how it nearly destroyed us, that is so fresh in our ancestral memories.
as for blacks, we can agree to disagree. i've met blacks who are very emotionally deep and which i appreciate (of course not all of them and it's not a quality that's exclusive to them) and i've met mulattoes who were shallow. as for dumb, childlike and goofy; levity is good sometimes.
i think the major issues with 'modernity' though not totally exclusive to our time, is the bombardment of information overload as well as the very automaton fast-paced of living with the resultant stress and feeling loss of deeper meaning or that we can't take a breather/peace.
that being said, all the good is there as well, you just have to find it or your particular niche.
part of this hate comes from superior intelligence and the courage to look upon things as they truly are.. crap. Look how happy niggers and down syndrome folk are, dumb animals are happy most of the time, because they have no concept of impermanence, things are only bad for them if they are immediately so, but with whites, and also with Japanese, there is this underlying sorrow, this melancholy, this deep, intuitive knowledge that all things pass, and that is the source of our strength and our weakness, our potential for creation as well as destruction. We are a blessing and a curse, either we will make the world a better place to live in (at least for ourselves), or we'll fuck it up for everyone, and set the clock back 500 million years (I'm guessing the latter). A true european can't be satisfied with reality, when Schopenhauer accepted things as they are, not being a humanist like Voltaire, Rousseau, Marx and Nietzsche, nor a christian, he was overcome with feelings of sorrow and despair, and that is the natural state of the european, the Jew and Japanese man (and your people to a lesser extent). i believe the Japanese call it- mono no aware.
i doubt most people are actually satisfied with how things are, exactly, or ever was. as for feeling melancholy due to the deep intuitive knowing that all things pass, i think that's relative to the individual, not race. some can't even verbalize this but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't experience it either. having the power to change it or control it to a lesser or greater extent is another matter. also, just because someone acts shallow or happy, doesn't mean they are. maybe they are just making the best of it and no one knows what they are really feeling, thinking or have experienced or especially when one is alone (not bombarded with distractions or immediate responsiblities) to contemplate.
Last edited by cranapple on Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:23 am; edited 1 time in total
for instance, think about all the things that are most important to you. that is usually your loved ones and friends and the quality of your relationshps with them. if that was gone, all the material things in life are meaningless or trivial. they pale in comparison to what is most precious or what you are really living for. material comfort is important and necessary but it's just a tool. we are organic and need love, companionship and friendship. i think this is the source of most people's happiness. when one sacrifices what is most important buying into empty ego/status ambition, we are feeling something amiss. we have deluded ourselves or been deceived. the 'what does it matter if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul' is apt.
but then again, it could go far the other direction and become less organic and not feel. that would solve that problem. i guess you could just jump in with both feet.
How do you know this, have you been to other galaxies?
This is ascertained through measurement of the Doppler shift and computer modelling.
Quote :
Dark energy, what energy is light? Energy is a process, not a piece of matter you can see, it is matter in motion, and the potential for matter to cause other matter to move.
It's called dark energy because it does not interact electromagnetically with normal matter, only gravitationally.
Quote :
An energy that increases space is not an energy, whatever it is, it should not be called energy, as energy is matter in motion, this is space in motion, or not even in motion, but space increasing. What do we really know about this multiplication of space? Perhaps the multiplication began 100 years ago, and will begin dividing or decreasing in another 100 years?
The vacuum of space has a certain amount of energy even when devoid of matter.
Quote :
Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously,[3] and scalar fields such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar fields that are constant in space are usually also included in the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is physically equivalent to vacuum energy. Scalar fields which do change in space can be difficult to distinguish from a cosmological constant because the change may be extremely slow.
Quote :
Or perhaps earth is at the center of the universe, or near the center. Of course, the odds of us being at the center are extremely low, but then, mathematically, the odds of us being at the edge or anywhere else in the universe are extremely low, why not the center, it is no less probable that we would exist at or near the center than any other place in the universe. Perhaps the scientists have an agenda for interpreting this phenomena in a certain way, a way in accordance with their paradigm and the universe is a Godless one. But what is this significance of center, does center mean we are special? That is another human convention, I don't see why they skipped over the possibility that we are at or near the center, and since that is what the data shows, it seems we may very well be at the center.
Quote :
The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space. Horizons
We exist on this planet that just happens to be capable of supporting life. Most of the universe seems cold, dark and hostile to life as we know it. Some of it is to hot to support life. When temperature significantly increases or decreases from our norm, life perishes. We inhabit this golden mean, making life possible, but it still must struggle to maintain itself, as our environment only affords us the opportunity to survive, we must courageously seize this opportunity and even then, we may perish.
A sentient race of humans, aware of our own mortality and the mortality of all things, and possessing the biological and cultural memories the ice age, the fall of the Roman empire, the black death, and all the other calamities whites have endured throughout the centuries, in this Europe that is very hostile to our existence, we realized that not even races and species are safe from the passage of time. This filled us with a profound sadness and hatred of our existence.
The Jews also experience this world hate, and thus they created the religions of Judaism and Christianity, to giving meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence, an existence they could no longer find meaning in, as it is. They rejected the world, their prophets created an ideal world that would come be just after the destruction of this horrible, imperfect world in the 'end times'. Europeans adopted this religion and modified to suit their own peculiar temperament, making it more philosophical, mixing it with the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Christianity no doubt contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman empire.
Then, just as European man was coming out of the dark ages, he experienced the black death, and lost his hope and faith in God, for the believer and unbeliever, priest and laymen alike were not safe from it's cold clutches. The spell of Christianity was forever broke, European man began to see things as they were really were, utterly hopeless and pointless from our point of view. So, we looked back to Greece and Rome for answers, we took their halfhearted humanism and ran with it, amplified it, multiplying it times a thousand, putting all our religious fervor, zeal and idealism we formerly reserved for Christianity into, ourselves, into this idea that man, through his unique faculties of reason and his senses (illuminism), and to a lesser extent his emotion and intuition (romanticism) could rebel against an indifferent universe and God who did not care, and emancipate himself from bondage, both from nature and other men, this idea that we could free man from all the troubles and plagues him, that we were a special and unique animal, through the cults of Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, and the philosophers of the enlightenment and romantic periods, we believed we could achievement Godhood and perfection on earth, we no longer had to wait for some remote deity to do it for us, we could find omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence here, now, on earth, by radically transforming our nature and nature, and this is was the origin of modernity.
It is liberalism, progress, humanism. What do Francis Bacon, John Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Marx and Nietzsche all have in common? It is this notion of humanism, though they propose different paths toward it. Now, just as the philosophers of the enlightenment and the romantic rejected Christianity as a lie, some philosophers were beginning to question many fundamental assumptions of the enlightenment, and this lead to the philosophies of existentialism and postmodernism. Also, some conservatives began negatively reacting to the enlightenment. We see existentialism in Schopenhauer, Max Stirner and Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus and the postmodernists, although some of them, like Nietzsche and Sartre, retained their humanism, albeit in radically different ways. Existentialism and conservatism countered humanism and liberalism in many ways, and surprising, we can find both elements embodies in Satyr.
These are the realist philosophies, countering the idealism of Christianity and Humanism.
We exist on this planet that just happens to be capable of supporting life. Most of the universe seems cold, dark and hostile to life as we know it. Some of it is to hot to support life. When temperature significantly increases or decreases from our norm, life perishes. We inhabit this golden mean, making life possible, but it still must struggle to maintain itself, as our environment only affords us the opportunity to survive, we must courageously seize this opportunity and even then, we may perish.
But it's also true that the temperature considered the lowest possible - absolute zero, where entropy reaches its minimum value - is only −273.15° C or 0° Kelvin, whereas the hypothesized upper limit on temperature is the Planck temperature of 1.416785(71)×10^32 Kelvin or 141678999999999999999999999999727° C.
My point - similar to yours - is that we inhabit the narrow range of temperatures between 0°C and 50° C, which is far, far closer to absolute zero than to the upper limit. The golden mean, however, is a liberal conceit. When we look at life on earth we see that what is more primitive and savage is found in hotter climates and is able to tolerate these temperatures better than those beings possessing more intelligence and living further north where it is colder. We find that entropy decreases as temperature decreases, hence the disorder of the jungle giving way to the order of the cool forests and tundra further north.
The energy and matter released in the Big Bang (the Planck temperature) was primordial... primitive. Those first stars were hot and huge, just like the first organisms on Earth were large and elementary. Time and space have worked to cool things down and allow the emergence of a more diverse and delicate range of stars and life.
The cold is our ally, just as it wipes out insects and vermin and bacteria. The average temperature of the universe, some 14 billion years after the Big Bang is now only about 2.75° K. Do you think it only coincidence that it is whites who have unlocked the secrets of how the cosmos functions?
My thoughts led me to conclude that blacks must have a higher body temperature than whites, which has since been proven by medical research:
Quote :
These data support previous findings that blacks have a higher average body temperature than whites. The average difference between blacks and whites was 0. 13°C.
No significant gender-related difference in normal body temperature was found in these healthy elderly white men and women.
The Influence of Gender and Race on Mean Body Temperature in a Population of Healthy Older Adults K Patricia McGann, MD, MSPH; Gail S. Marion, PA-C; D. Lawrence Camp, PhD; John G. Spangler, MD, MPH
You mean the universe is getting sparser and colder, because of the big bang?
Matter is a slower rate of flow, change. It is slower because it has more possibilities, when you think of possibility as space. It has more spatial dimensions, which is more possibility for (inter)acting multi-dimensionally.
It is said that as matter approaches the speed-of-light it stretches into a spaghetti string. A metaphor stating that as it increases its possibilities in one dimension all others decrease.
For me the Big Bang is the nearest point to absolute order. Evidently it is not absolute for this would mean that there would be no existence. Order implies a limited possibility as it entails all possibilities, or nearly so in this case. Therefore it can be understood as being another term for inert, or static or immutable.
Chaos, as I think I mentioned, is another term for randomness or disordered (inter)action. Perhaps Quantum Physics supports this claim as it is the underlying reality to the overlying human interpretation of reality. The mind cannot make sense of it and so it interprets it as void or dark. Increasing entropy means increasing randomness. This is veering towards absolute randomness but never really attaining it. Absolute randomness would be another term for infinite space, or infinite possibility. Ergo near infinite randomness entails the emergence of near absolute order, as the near absolute possibility for it (near infinite space) makes it possible. Therefore the near absolute chaos and the near absolute order are one and the same event, witnessed or understood from a different perspective.
eyesinthedark wrote:
Coldness is a form order, inactivity is order, so in one sense the big freeze will create more order. Sparsity, bits and pieces of matter scattered throughout the universe is more disordered, so in that sense the big freeze is more disorderly, the big freeze can be looked at in two ways.
Therefore absolute inactivity, void, emptiness, is like saying absolute order. Since chaos is increasing towards this "big freeze" what is really occurring is we are moving away and towards the near absolute. Life is produced in the limbo, in the in-between. All absolutes are a cessation to existence.
eyesinthedark wrote:
If absolute chaos is inevitable, than it seems to me there's less point in rebelling. If, however, it may be possible to reverse things, at lest partially, than this will give people more hope in the universe, and more reason to fight. If our planet and life is doomed, humans will still go on, but perhaps with less fervor, less zeal and passion, knowing for certain all is doomed.
We've already said that the absolute is exactly what is absent. There is nowhere any evidence of it. To assume that it is some future possibility is like assuming that it is some primal source or a God. Not only is the assumption not based on anything conceived or experienced but it is an antithesis to the existing.
eyesinthedark wrote:
Or maybe you mean to say that chaos is easier to generate than order, so 9 times out of 10, interaction will result in more chaos, not less. Of course, order is more likely to produce order than chaos, just as chaos more likely to produce itself.
Easier because it is the normal state, a towards chaos, in relation to life, which is a resistance or a towards ordering. Chaos just happens and requires no effort. Take all the metaphors for chaos or disorder or what is called "negative": cold, dark, lifeless, etc. none of them require effort.
eyesinthedark wrote:
I'm not sure the big bang happened, maybe it is a myth. I mean, tens of billions of years ago, who knows what the fuck happened. That's just the best theory the scientists say they have so far, but I choose not to buy it, I haven't seen enough evidence, though I haven't done enough research on it to form a solid opinion, I've been more interested in human origins than cosmology.
the Big bang is a metaphor. It did not happen, it IS happening. It is not a singular event, something out of nothing...it is an ongoing process.
And how is this more physical? Are not snakes far more or only concerned with themselves, and not the good of their species and even their own families? How is collectivism and mimicry less highly evolved? Do snakes, frogs and fish copy each other, do they have culture, do they preserve their experiences and pass down information to the next generation? How are women more physical for being concerned about the whole, and copying data, and passing down traditions, and maintaining culture? It seems to me, neither females, nor males are more primitive in this regard. Males tend to be the innovators, I would tend to agree with you there, but regurgitating information is just as important as collecting it and making discoveries, and learning how the universe works and how to manipulate it, society requires both ingenuity and copying.
Females are sex personified. Nature at its purest. a woman is pragmatic, completely dedicated to the material realm. A female does not question she analyzes so as to better immerse herself in the given. This is why she easily gets swayed by trends and fashions and why she submits to whatever promises, in her judgment, a higher order.
The male is always spiritual...he is a dreamer, one who usurps, challenges goes outside the norms, because he must prove himself worthy. Collectivism dependent on assimilating otherwise free agencies into its premises. A higher order, a masculine one, incorporates the lesser by emasculating or leveling them.
Like when you eat food. You digest, selecting the elements you require to order yourself or to correct attrition upon your ordering, and you defaecate the rest. In other words when you digest an animal you break it down to its basic elements so as to better incorporate it into your own structures.
Consider society or civilization a SuperOrganism. Masculinity would be like a cancer...femininity the correct attitude or material for easy assimilation and integration. If masculinity is a representation of a desire for order, an authority, then a bigger authority would find masculinity undesirable or even threatening.
eyesinthedark wrote:
But are males not the innovators?
Not males per se but the masculine spirit, because biological females also have this, just as biological males also have a feminine side. How masculine one is is defined by how much the masculine spirit dominates within him...or how much it dominates the feminine spirit within him.
So, the masculine spirit having evolved to challenge authority, as part of its sexual role, later developed the challenging spirit behind science and philosophy, as both these disciplines are challenges to the status quo...to want to know is to want to dominate.
For me the Big Bang is the nearest point to absolute order. Evidently it is not absolute for this would mean that there would be no existence. Order implies a limited possibility as it entails all possibilities, or nearly so in this case. Therefore it can be understood as being another term for inert, or static or immutable.
I find it hard to fathom how an environment where the temperature is in excess of trillions of degrees centigrade could be described as 'ordered', and certainly not as static or immutable - that's laughable.
Is the water in a block of ice in a state of greater order than when it has been heated to steam, or lesser?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
For me the Big Bang is the nearest point to absolute order. Evidently it is not absolute for this would mean that there would be no existence. Order implies a limited possibility as it entails all possibilities, or nearly so in this case. Therefore it can be understood as being another term for inert, or static or immutable.
I find it hard to fathom how an environment where the temperature is in excess of trillions of degrees centigrade could be described as 'ordered', and certainly not as static or immutable - that's laughable.
Is the water in a block of ice in a state of greater order than when it has been heated to steam, or lesser?
You are correct. My mistake. I'm tired, just got back from work when I made the post.
Cold, for me, is an absence of energy; therefore it merely indicates a decrease in (inter)activity because there is never a total and complete absence of energy, as this would be an absolute state...in this case an absolute void. Cold is a characteristic of both an approach towards absolute order as it is of an approach towards absolute chaos.
Both absolutes represents a total cessation of (inter)activity; it is the total absence of energy, of movement....and since, for me, activity is existence, it would entail a falling out of existence. So, cold, an absolute kind (as in absolute zero), would be a sign that one is approaching the absolute. Given that this is considered impossible, for me, the absolute anything is nothing more than a projected human construct which remains ambiguous. A tool for comprehending reality....a direction finder. Absolute zero has never been measured, because no matter how low the activity is there is still some there. Human perceptions and human instrumentation can only measure within a certain range. That particles seem to just pop out of nothing, in space, indicates that there is activity where man cannot perceive any or there where it is so low that it escapes human awareness. I think that if man could perceive all (inter)actions the universe would be bathed in light...a slowly diminishing light.
This does not mean that cold is an approach, but only that it would be a characteristic of it. Cold, the everyday kind, is simply a byproduct of (inter)activity. An exchange of energies, or activities.
Cold, like hot, is obviously a relative term, as it only indicates a movement of energy from the superior to the inferior, following the path of least resistance. It is merely an exchange of energies. As this is so, energy begins to become uniformly distributed across the universe, meaning that matter, as a slower rate of flow or a slower rate of activity (energy), would slowly deteriorate, (fragment) thusly depleting the resistance towards absolute chaos. The universe settles upon a uniform distribution of energies, but given that it is also expanding, space (possibility) is increasing (dimensions multiplying), this is accompanied by a lowering of the mean temperature. The fact that possibilities are increasing makes the establishment of probabilities more difficult, and coupled with the speeding up of change, towards chaos, this makes the human mind unable to keep up. It interprets it as black, as void, as dark.
I think this is where it becomes tricky. At some point the expansion would reach a critical stage where it would stop and then gradually reverse itself. This would be the start towards the Big Crunch...which is nothing more than a towards the Big Bang.
As we know, when movement towards a direction increases this decreases all other its dimensions. For example, as matter approaches the speed of light it is stretched into a spaghetti string, metaphorically speaking. This simply means that as the possibilities increase towards one dimension all possibilities in all other dimensions decrease. The spatial dimensions of the process is thinned out, so to speak. To clarify further, matter, or what we call solid, is a congruence of activity which (inter)acts in multiple dimensions, therefore changing slower in all of them. Energy, on the other hand, is (inter)acting more in one dimension and far less in all the others, therefor it is moving, changing, acting towards one direction, in one dimension, and not so much or not at all in all other dimensions. Dimensions, is, of course, space...or possibilities.
In other words as (inter)action increases in one direction all other (inter)actions are decreased to nearly nil.
So, as the movement towards entropy picks up speed the dimensions will stop fragmenting and they will begin to implode. This will continue until the near absolute approach towards near infinite possibilities will simply indicate the Big Bang.
That's the best I can do at the moment. My son took away what small energy I had left. I'm 46 trying to keep up with a 4 tear-old.
I understand modernity to be the hierarchical structuring of phenomena by man. This includes structuring mind, society and the world. A place for everything and everything in its place. Existence is a novel with a plot and a point and it progresses. Post-modernity is the rejection of (but still interacting with) these structures in favour of a more... liquid state of understanding. Though this still implies a hierarchy between paradigms, and though the central plot may have been rejected in favour of a series of mini-narratives there is still an underlying structure to how we interact and order things/phenomena.
Describing the Big Bang as ordered is not a physical description but a metaphysical one. Take the abstract concept of space-time to its extremes: Infinite space and time, spread out along an infinity of planes, or a single spaceless, timeless point with no dimensionality/planes.
The idea of the Big Bang being ordered is to do with the possible states that it could move towards in terms of its extensity, not its intensity. Very simply, in rudimentary euclidean geometry, If you have a single point there is one possible position (or "non-position") that you could "be" (if that point is "existence"). Whereas if there is any extensity to that point then immediately there is more than one possible position to "be", and this extension can continue in more than one dimension.
At the other extreme of ordering in terms of extensity is the idea of an infinite long plane with an infinity of possible positions to "be" on it. So long in fact that it is not long a matter of extending further, and in fact to do so would be impossible. Just as it would be impossible to move on a single point.
That is just a simple model of the universe as some kind of linear plane that has an origin and an end. In reality, I am led to believe that the universe is much more donut shaped and that the way we conceive of things is not necessarily accurate in terms of what is actually happening. It may be that living on Earth and becoming conscious on Earth has only enabled us to think in one possible way.
Anyway, it's all just metaphor for some ineffable feeling of love for a God-type benevolent creature that sits outside of our perception and tickles our existence with beautiful concepts of love and harmony and made things as they are so that we may learn about and look after the world and live in peace forever and ever and ever. Isn't it?
....I think I'm in love with her. 
