[ckaihatsu]

Sorry, did I just mess up your cult's membership rolls for the current fiscal year?


= D

[QatzelOk]

Are you *really* recommending a Planet-of-the-Apes-like social existence / reality for all of humanity -- ? Experientialism -- ?

I'm not recommending anything. I am just exploring ideas in search of the truth.

The truth is the truth. What humans do with it is for another thread.

What did Darwin recommend?

“What then, are the nonscientific reasons that have fostered the resurgence of biological determinism? They range, I believe, from pedestrian pursuits of high royalties for best sellers to pernicious attempts to reintroduce racism as respectable science. Their common denominator must lie in our current malaise.

How satisfying it is to fob off the responsibility for war and violence upon our presumably carnivorous ancestors. How convenient to blame the poor and the hungry for their own condition – lest we be forced to blame our economic system or our government for an abject failure to secure a decent life for all people. And how convenient an argument for those who control government and, by the way, provide the money that science requires for its very existence.” – Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin

Notice that he remarks that *the poor* and *carnivorous ancestors* are treated like GERMS by our germ-seeking modern culture. As if the entire point of history and sociology... is to isolate scapegoats to smear in order to protect the status quo.

For the unfairly rich, the status quo is perfect, and any revisions to it are GERMS.

And "biological determinism" is a way of smearing the non-rich as being *burdened with a germ.*

[ckaihatsu]

Are you *really* recommending a Planet-of-the-Apes-like social existence / reality for all of humanity -- ? Experientialism -- ?

I'm not recommending anything. I am just exploring ideas in search of the truth.

The truth is the truth. What humans do with it is for another thread.

You've been rejecting modernity and modern implements to *a fault* -- the *corollary* of such a wholesale blanket dismissiveness is a rejection of *writing*, and even *cognition* / planning, which leaves you to be a spontaneist *experientialist*.

You've been consistently indicating a life-mode that's indistinguishable from that of animals in the wild -- as though all of human history has been entirely *regrettable* and *disposable*. It's *problematic*.

[QatzelOk]

You've been rejecting modernity and modern implements to *a fault* -- the *corollary* of such a wholesale blanket dismissiveness is a rejection of *writing*, and even *cognition* / planning, which leaves you to be a spontaneist *experientialist*.

You've been consistently indicating a life-mode that's indistinguishable from that of animals in the wild -- as though all of human history has been entirely *regrettable* and *disposable*. It's *problematic*.

If you go back and replace all mentions of "you" with the more accurate "this thread," then you will have a better picture of its narrative angle.

(*IE. "This thread has been rejecting modernity and modern implements... This thread seems to be pointing towards a life-mode that is indistinguishable from (other) animals... etc.)

I am not the subject of this thread. The past and future of humanity is.

Germ theory is potentially suicidal for our species and many others. This is many orders of magnitude more important than what I say or how I say it.

Hughes's germ phobia revealed in psychological autopsy



Howard Hughes--the billionaire aviator, motion-picture producer and business tycoon--spent most of his life trying to avoid germs. Toward the end of his life, he lay naked in bed in darkened hotel rooms in what he considered a germ-free zone. He wore tissue boxes on his feet to protect them. And he burned his clothing if someone near him became ill...

One of the richest men on the planet... his life destroyed by Machiavellianism applied to germs

[ckaihatsu]

Imperialism and colonialism

The contemporary, post-colonial world system of nation-states (with interdependent politics and economies) was preceded by the European imperial system of economic and settler colonies in which "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states, and often in the form of an empire, [was] based on domination and subordination."[17] In the imperialist world system, political and economic affairs were fragmented, and the discrete empires "provided for most of their own needs ... [and disseminated] their influence solely through conquest [empire] or the threat of conquest [hegemony]."[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy)#Imperialism_and_colonialism

[QatzelOk]

"the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states, and often in the form of an empire, [was] based on domination and subordination."[17]

Domination and subordination of germs... can always be justified. They're germs, after all, the lowest form of life imaginable.

Hating germs is as easy as hating death, or hating hate.

If you can associate a tribe, a nation, a culture, or a class with "germs!", you can encourage your docile slaves to kill them mercilessly.

Racism is built out of Germ Theory. All scapegoating is.

[QatzelOk]

In an essay on the Global Elite, James Alexander blames *the myth of progress* for many of humanity's worst atrocities over the last 700 years:

1. Through all ages there has been a balance of spirituality and secularity. In our modernity, secularity is dominant. There is only this world.

2. For three or so centuries we have believed that this world is getting better and should get better. This is the ‘myth of progress’.

He is saying that real spirituality dies during the modern period, and is replaced by a radical, totalitarian materialism that justifies itself by saying that "stuff" is making the earth a better place.

Progress... can be loosely defined as "the killing of entire families of germs?" or "the sense that the number or types of germs has been reduced?"

[ckaihatsu]

"stuff" is [not] making the earth a better place.

So *all* stuff is not making the earth a better place?

Should everyone watch the opening scene of Wall-E again? (grin)

Did we ever draw that line as to what extents of *tool-use* are *acceptable* -- ? Anything beyond stuck-in-the-moment animalistic experientialism is 'artificial' to you, and will have to be let-go, *forever-more*.

Just can't sign onto *Tarzan*, braw. (grin)


---

Progress... can be loosely defined as "the killing of entire families of germs?" or "the sense that the number or types of germs has been reduced?"

This is practically your *tagline* now.

You're trying to indicate the-leader-of-the-pack, or the-guy-who-tells-you-what's-for-dinner. Fishing expedition? True-crime fan? (grin)

Noun

X factor (plural X factors)

(idiomatic) An unknown or hard-to-define influence; a factor with unknown or unforeseeable consequences.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/X_factor

[QatzelOk]

So *all* stuff is not making the earth a better place?

To know if any of our stuff is making the earth a better place, you'd have to ask the earth, and not me.

This is practically your *tagline* now.

My TaglineTM has changed every few months, just like my signatures do. I'm not a one-hit wonder.


"If you hate germs, you hate your real self as well."

A taxonomy of *germ-killer* synonyms

Germ killing

Amour propre
Virtue Signalling
Progress
Status-seeker
Gnosticism
Purity
Reputation


Of these, amour propre is the most useful in this thread. Jean-Jacques Rousseau compares amour propre (the fake reputation of modern reputation-builders) to the amour de soi (the acceptance of being a human animal in a germ-filled environment) of the First Nations.

Other words for "amour propre" are listed in the article as: self-love, self-esteem, ego, vanity.

But real self-esteem is contained in amour de soi because it's based on who and what you really are, and not a santized, germ-killing version of your self.

[ckaihatsu]

So *all* stuff is not making the earth a better place?

To know if any of our stuff is making the earth a better place, you'd have to ask the earth, and not me.

I guess at *this* point I'd like to ask for a *definition*, if you will -- what's your definition of 'artificial' -- ? Thanks in advance.


---

A taxonomy of *germ-killer* synonyms

Germ killing

Amour propre
Virtue Signalling
Progress
Status-seeker
Gnosticism
Purity
Reputation


Of these, amour propre is the most useful in this thread. Jean-Jacques Rousseau compares amour propre (the fake reputation of modern reputation-builders) to the amour de soi (the acceptance of being a human animal in a germ-filled environment) of the First Nations.

Other words for "amour propre" are listed in the article as: self-love, self-esteem, ego, vanity.

But real self-esteem is contained in amour de soi because it's based on who and what you really are, and not a santized, germ-killing version of your self.

You're sounding increasingly *insular*, Qatzel -- self-identity with and within larger society is a *real thing*, due simply to the inevitable social interactions.

Rousseau also saw the *upside*, contrary to your *own* doggedly untiring efforts at being glass-half-empty about technology usage, and even individual social *agency*:

Rousseau thought that amour-propre was subject to corruption, thereby causing vice and misery. But in addition, by guiding us to seek others' approval and recognition, amour-propre can contribute positively to virtue.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amour-propre

I'll add:

Of course, it might be said that the Individualism generated under conditions of private property is not always, or even as a rule, of a fine or wonderful type, and that the poor, if they have not culture and charm, have still many virtues. Both these statements would be quite true. The possession of private property is very often extremely demoralising, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why Socialism wants to get rid of the institution.

The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/

---


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

Personality is a very mysterious thing. A man cannot always be estimated by what he does. He may keep the law, and yet be worthless. He may break the law, and yet be fine. He may be bad, without ever doing anything bad. He may commit a sin against society, and yet realise through that sin his true perfection.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/

[QatzelOk]

I guess at *this* point I'd like to ask for a *definition*, if you will -- what's your definition of 'artificial' -- ? Thanks in advance.

1. humanly contrived (see contrive sense 1b) often on a natural model : man-made
- an artificial limb
- artificial diamonds
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial

I like this definition because it suggests that artificial things are not just man-made, but they are an imitation of something real. So steroids (artificial male hormones) or chainsaws (artificial hands with long fingernails) both fit this definition. As does the TV soap opera genre (artificial social life, artificial friends, artificial emotional responses, etc.).

You're sounding increasingly *insular*, Qatzel -- self-identity with and within larger society is a *real thing*, due simply to the inevitable social interactions.

Rousseau also saw the *upside*, contrary to your *own* doggedly untiring efforts at being glass-half-empty about technology usage, and even individual social *agency*:

Rousseau based a lot of his observations on social behaviorism on the differences between Europeans like himself, and the First Nations of Canada, who were the subject of a lot of discussion in France when he wrote The Social Contract in 1762. The Acadians - friends and partners of the First Nations - were ethnic-cleansed in 1755, so there were many half-breed refugees (my family wound up in Saint Malo) running around coastal cities of France in the 1760s.

He died in 1778, so he missed the genocide of the hundreds of First Nations who were living "amour de soi" that he had written positively about. So he didn't necessarily notice that amour-propre actually KILLS amour de soi - by the same process that automobiles kill off cycling and walking. His knowledge of natural human behavior was innovative but incomplete.

Also, a lot of his writing and philosophy was limited by *the trends and obsessions of the Enlightenment*, which is now, thankfully, over:
ie. "How to kill germs more effectively" (progress),
and "How to get buy-in for germ-killing campaigns" (toleration, fraternity).

***

Also, the expression *glass half-empty or half-full* reveals an obession with the marketing and consumtion of products, especially alcoholic beverages and cola drinks.

Language-use has been rigged to get us to consume more useless products - the *germ* that is being killed with this idiomatic expression is "low profit margins for beverage distributors."

[ckaihatsu]

1. humanly contrived (see contrive sense 1b) often on a natural model : man-made
- an artificial limb
- artificial diamonds
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial

I like this definition because it suggests that artificial things are not just man-made, but they are an imitation of something real. So steroids (artificial male hormones) or chainsaws (artificial hands with long fingernails) both fit this definition. As does the TV soap opera genre (artificial social life, artificial friends, artificial emotional responses, etc.).

Okay, thanks.

Allow me this -- if someone / people wanted to be *self-expressive*, and they picked up some 'materials' from nature, like sticks and mud, and proceeded to 'draw' something, etc., would this 'art' be considered 'natural', or 'artificial'?

Would it be socially acceptable for someone to *pursue* better-sticks, and better-pigments, or would that be 'too artificial' in-and-of-itself? Is that whole *process* of art-creation to be considered as socially 'valid' -- and also what-about the *products* of such, the 'artworks' that *others*, further-afield, may want to see for themselves -- necessitating curation and the 'artificiality' of the art item itself, say a large flat rock with some kind of discernable imagery on it.

What about the *progress* of art -- could that be a 'thing', and how many people / 'personnel' may dedicate themselves, or major portions of their lives, to the *history* of such 'developments' / 'events' of production of art-items?

Is it *artificial* yet?

[ckaihatsu]

Rousseau based a lot of his observations on social behaviorism on the differences between Europeans like himself, and the First Nations of Canada, who were the subject of a lot of discussion in France when he wrote The Social Contract in 1762. The Acadians - friends and partners of the First Nations - were ethnic-cleansed in 1755, so there were many half-breed refugees (my family wound up in Saint Malo) running around coastal cities of France in the 1760s.

He died in 1778, so he missed the genocide of the hundreds of First Nations who were living "amour de soi" that he had written positively about. So he didn't necessarily notice that amour-propre actually KILLS amour de soi -

Okay, thanks for sharing. 'Interesting' about your family, for the better and also within the context of colonization. That's more than a footnote in history -- !

Rousseau was an *idealist*, and it's fun for *anyone* to philosophize like that, but it's also a *threshold*. What *is* one's objective empirical relationship to *power* -- in *those* days being that of the lord and sovereign. Today it's about *capital*.

I'll remind that social-identity is also social *agency* of a sort, *depending*, of course. 'Polite society' was also the then-historically-progressive *bourgeoisie*, albeit benefitting immensely from colonization and later *imperialism*.

by the same process that automobiles kill off cycling and walking. His knowledge of natural human behavior was innovative but incomplete.

Also, a lot of his writing and philosophy was limited by *the trends and obsessions of the Enlightenment*, which is now, thankfully, over:
ie. "How to kill germs more effectively" (progress),
and "How to get buy-in for germ-killing campaigns" (toleration, fraternity).

***

Also, the expression *glass half-empty or half-full* reveals an obession with the marketing and consumtion of products, especially alcoholic beverages and cola drinks.

Language-use has been rigged to get us to consume more useless products - the *germ* that is being killed with this idiomatic expression is "low profit margins for beverage distributors."

No, you're definitely off-on-a-tangent. 'Glass-half-empty-glass-half-full' can't really be expressed in any other quick, convenient way, because it *is* about a particular, customized situation (like the U.S. presidential election results, perhaps) that could be viewed either *positively*, or *negatively*, or *both* (for any given 50/50 split).

Your cynicism regarding 'progress' -- of any sort -- is troubling and problematic.

[QatzelOk]

Okay, thanks.

Allow me this -- if someone / people wanted to be *self-expressive*, and they picked up some 'materials' from nature, like sticks and mud, and proceeded to 'draw' something, etc., would this 'art' be considered 'natural', or 'artificial'?
...
Is it *artificial* yet?

This question is very close to my heart because I like to build 'sand cities' on the beach. Thing is, they get washed away with the tide or river flow. Nonetheless, I've been warned by Beach Guardians that a too-deep moat can create hazards for people walking in their bare feet. So I keep the moats shallow and don't use any sharp objects as decorative elements.

...social-identity is also social *agency* of a sort, *depending*, of course. 'Polite society' was also the then-historically-progressive *bourgeoisie*, albeit benefitting immensely from colonization and later *imperialism*

And today's poltically correct and woke social classes... are completely dependent on their child-killing cars and racist foreign policies... in order to acquire the resources to live out their *dreams of Progress.*

No, you're definitely off-on-a-tangent. 'Glass-half-empty-glass-half-full' can't really be expressed in any other quick, convenient way, because it *is* about a particular, customized situation (like the U.S. presidential election results, perhaps) that could be viewed either *positively*, or *negatively*, or *both* (for any given 50/50 split).

Your cynicism regarding 'progress' -- of any sort -- is troubling and problematic.

Idiomatic expressions say a lot about the culture where that language originated. And a half-empty glass (of liquor) is a really depressing 'germ' if you need to get drunk to forget how miserable technology and all its germ-killing scams have made you.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, thanks.

Allow me this -- if someone / people wanted to be *self-expressive*, and they picked up some 'materials' from nature, like sticks and mud, and proceeded to 'draw' something, etc., would this 'art' be considered 'natural', or 'artificial'?

Is it *artificial* yet?

This question is very close to my heart because I like to build 'sand cities' on the beach. Thing is, they get washed away with the tide or river flow. Nonetheless, I've been warned by Beach Guardians that a too-deep moat can create hazards for people walking in their bare feet. So I keep the moats shallow and don't use any sharp objects as decorative elements.

Sure -- you can address only *your own* activities, but the point here is about *tool-use*.

Would you take exception to someone who used 'tools', from nature, to be personally self-expressive, and to create 'art' -- ?

...social-identity is also social *agency* of a sort, *depending*, of course. 'Polite society' was also the then-historically-progressive *bourgeoisie*, albeit benefitting immensely from colonization and later *imperialism*

And today's poltically correct and woke social classes... are completely dependent on their child-killing cars and racist foreign policies... in order to acquire the resources to live out their *dreams of Progress.*

No argument -- politics, then, either has to go 'through' the bourgeois hegemonic class, or else has to be *outside* of that ruling-class control. Workers have an inherent interest in their own collective *independence* from the bosses.

No, you're definitely off-on-a-tangent. 'Glass-half-empty-glass-half-full' can't really be expressed in any other quick, convenient way, because it *is* about a particular, customized situation (like the U.S. presidential election results, perhaps) that could be viewed either *positively*, or *negatively*, or *both* (for any given 50/50 split).

Your cynicism regarding 'progress' -- of any sort -- is troubling and problematic.

Idiomatic expressions say a lot about the culture where that language originated. And a half-empty glass (of liquor) is a really depressing 'germ' if you need to get drunk to forget how miserable technology and all its germ-killing scams have made you.

That's wildly *presumptuous* of you -- I'm neither trying-to-escape, *nor* am I 'miserable' because of technology.

If the production of 'art' changes over time then it *may* be said to have its own kind of 'progress', a 'progress' that *may* be attributable in part to *technological* developments, as for sports, too, as in tennis.

Or -- if you like -- how about those who look up at the *stars* in the night sky?

Would theorizing over the 'creation of the universe' / cosmology, be considered to be 'natural', or 'artificial' -- ?

[QatzelOk]

Sure -- you can address only *your own* activities, but the point here is about *tool-use*.

Would you take exception to someone who used 'tools', from nature, to be personally self-expressive, and to create 'art' -- ?

It doesn't matter if "I" would take exception. As I wrote earlier, the beach patrol had told me not to dig too deeply (in expressing my art) because this can cause physical harm to other humans (and other animals).

What "I" would take exception to... is irrelevant. I'm just another ignorant animal, like you and everyone else.

That's wildly *presumptuous* of you -- I'm neither trying-to-escape, *nor* am I 'miserable' because of technology.

Your or my level of misery is irrelevant. We maintain a positive outlook through hyper-consumption of travel, cars, and many other resource-destroying squeaky toys.

Would theorizing over the 'creation of the universe' / cosmology, be considered to be 'natural', or 'artificial' -- ?

Wild animals howl at the moon, so I assume that there are *manifestations of wonder* that are natural.

On the other hand, using literacy to lie and say that your own relatives created the universe... is highly artificial. Try howling instead.

[ckaihatsu]

Would you take exception to someone who used 'tools', from nature, to be personally self-expressive, and to create 'art' -- ?

It doesn't matter if "I" would take exception. As I wrote earlier, the beach patrol had told me not to dig too deeply (in expressing my art) because this can cause physical harm to other humans (and other animals).

What "I" would take exception to... is irrelevant. I'm just another ignorant animal, like you and everyone else.

I'm going to have to ask you to please stop doing this -- if you're going to reply, as you're doing here, then at least *speak for yourself*.

You don't seem to have a grasp on what's 'naturally made', and on what's 'artificial'. The distinction is important because you're squarely against anything that's 'artificial', yet you won't bother to *define* the distinction.

I'd like to know where you'd conceivably 'draw-the-line', since tools *might* be used for innocuous individual art-production, however rudimentary. Would you object to someone using 'tools' from nature for the sake of their own art-production?

[QatzelOk]

I'm going to have to ask you to please stop doing this -- if you're going to reply, as you're doing here, then at least *speak for yourself*.

Or, I can "speak for my people." The important thing you are reminding me to do is to "remain selfish at all times." This is because, ever since modernity, anything that isn't "selfish" is considered some kind of germ from antiquity. It's impossible for moderns to express anything other than selfishness or they risk being accused of "carrying the germs from the past."

You don't seem to have a grasp on what's 'naturally made', and on what's 'artificial'. The distinction is important because you're squarely against anything that's 'artificial', yet you won't bother to *define* the distinction.

Actually, this thread is questionning whether the human propensity for germ-killing is healthy or not. The exact definition of a particular English word will not stop this process, nor is it the most important point that has been made.

The sand-city example was enough to respond to this minor point of yours, but it seems like you've latched onto it like some lysol-welding cleaning lady who has spotted mold in the corner of a bathroom wall.

Moderns don't just kill germs, they constantly look for germs and exclude any other way of interacting with their environment.



Gotcha!

Pawned!

Checkmate!

So long, sucker!

These are all the happy, triumphant words of germ-killers. But haven't the germ-killers of the OK Corral missed all the interlocking complexity of life by focussing too much on the "germ-killing" aspect of modern life?

[ckaihatsu]

We're just talking *past* each other at this point.

I'll summarize that if you can't even *distinguish* humanity from all organic life, then there's no way to distinguish 'socially-acceptable', from 'non-socially-acceptable'.

For *you* it has something to do with the threshold of 'artificial'. *Your* default seems to be asking everyone to always be 'in-the-moment', and animalistically, experientially *spontaneous*.