Myron

Most posts here are a reaction to philosophies which have come down to us through a modern (premodern?) lense; we are entities navigating some kind of reality, and there are abstruse facts—people should understand them, because they are self-evident, however hidden.

In one's limited opinion, there is no way to understand any fact without direct perception. We have become evolved to accept 'seemingness' above actuality. We tend toward the 'right way' not because it is the right way, but because it seems to be so. Seemingness rules over truth, or the 'good', should they be synonymous (truth=good).

Because we live in an increasingly objectified culture, one where people immediately share and spread their intimations about a perception of 'my life is thusly, therego life', it becomes increasingly necessary to abstract and pull back. No, life is not about accomplishments and travel (which is the single token of existence in contemporary life). It is about the negotiation with truth.

But why do we do or perform this? The performance of philosophical norms has to do with the negation of illustrative patterns, such as hubris, illusions, and pride. People tend toward performance, rather than living a truth—which means truth is merely the performance of abstruse negations. In essence, portraying the philosophical pattern is a means of negation, or elimination of a certain kind of obligation. I am happy. Look and see. The end.

Instead of supplying proof of happiness, or satisfaction, they supply a photo imitating such a construct. There is a performance, like a stage-actor, for a camera, which will indicate to the world they have seemingly advanced into some kind of obscure destiny.

All of this needs to be avoided entirely. The spirit of life is not hidden, or behind a wall of unattainable—if performable—content moderation, but under the skin; raw, impassioned joy which cannot be captured or contained by 'sharing'. It has nothing to do with Hegel or Kant. It has no bounds, and its infinite pleasure cannot be expressed.

However, and instead, we seek toward imitation and performance. Even in academic pursuit, one is simply attempting to project their grasp of theories. In a perpetual chain of wording, of jargon, of imitation. The seemingness of 'knowing stuff'.

Truth cannot be grasped theoretically, it is a lived experience, which builds actual character, and supplies life with its inherent meaning, though it cannot be expressed.

Remembering when one graduated high school, in the year 2000, looking around and wondering why we all still looked like adolescents. It felt weird. Remembered attending high school graduation for elder cousin's, long before, and thinking they looked like soldiers, like men and women.

But accepted, it was probably 'perspectival' (a word which the built-in dictionary of this phone refuses to accept). One was merely incapable of seeing their own advanced physical form, due to some perpetual 'nowness', or reflection defection—just can't see it in oneself.

But later one went and looked and compared high school graduation photos of people from the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, even 1990's, and compared and contrasted. And though there were obviously people endowed with eternal youth, the average face in the photos kept getting younger (on average). By the time the 2000's came, the average high school graduate appeared, physically, to be in the 8th grade (all things considered).

Society had slowly moved to infantile dimensions. Kids were being coddled to the point of non-advancement, though maybe not intellectually (in terms of academic laws of advancement). Something wasn't adding up.

The average person graduating high school with a common core of capacities believes they have succeeded, but have they? If we keep lowering the bar? Not simply based on test performance, but actually intellectual integration with human life.

And then it hit. One was the first generation to become victims of the 'standardized testing' curriculum. We weren't quite there yet as a society, but soon (and thinking of one's niece and nephew's generation) all of academic life revolves around testing—not only to gauge achievement—but also to acquire funding.

As we slip deeper into this model of education, where kids (and now adults) are believers (academic religionists) in their own advancement based on multiple choice answers to preconcieved and easily studied answers, are we not simply getting dumber?

We can't know. Because we're getting dumber. Smarter at tests, maybe. But dumber at life.

Most people think they deeply believe things, and that there is some kind of ultimate truth which cannot be negotiated. One comes to see themselves as an extension of a shared identity within a given ethical, moral, and theological/philosophical construct. People believe themselves to be superior to others who almost believe exactly the same thing as them, but not quite, they didn't 'get there'.

It's extremely exhausting, and so you have to go to war with these people, time and time again, because they are deeply self-centered and passive-aggressive. Or aggressively passive-aggressive (backhanded(.

Because there is a flow. There's just this fliw, and things are obstructing the flow, as if they can make the stream reverse course by swimming against it.

It also helps if you have a Messianic, apocalyptic conception. Jesus didn't believe in a Messiah, he thought he was one (or he was, whatever, however you see it is fine). That's way less offensive than believing in one. Either you are or aren't the Messiah. Otherwise, please stop it.

The other aspect is cruelty. People these days always talk about 'harm', which could be anything, properly defined, but real cruelty doesn't really need to be defined. People don't like that. So when someone wants to blow up your country because of it, don't be surprised.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/43837434

AI won't replace you, your self-righteousness will.

I was highered at a friend's IT company because of the big Microsoft Windows 11 upgrade, which meant any PC on a 7th Gen or older Intel chip would not upgrade, and would therefore be incompatible with future security patches compliant with FTC legal framework.

Therefore I spent a year or more building new computers (not from scratch, but assembly level work to save our company money on the roleout), then imaging, upgrading, and installing basic software which made them network compatible.

It evolved into implication-level installations, on-site. Each level of the job meant an increase in onesown knowledge-base, but nothing like the computer wizards working upstairs (so to speak [at home]), with degrees in computer science and long lunch breaks.

Eventually, having implemented most of these products, our job resolved into installations of printers, plugging monitors in whose hdmi cables had slid out, and various other ground-level, field tech work which couldn't be physically done by the wizards upstairs (at home).

The other day a GM came to me while I was verifying a printer had an ancient fax machine plugged in (which was not our domain, at the end of the day), and begged me to come and look at his computer which wasn't screensharing to his 55-inch tv anymore (even though his laptop did, and other nearby pc's could).

The upstairs people wanted me to install a new pc. But I did a simple Google search and one suggestion was to reinstall the display driver. Which I did, and that solved it.

Everyone upstairs (at home) was shocked. That had never occurred to them in all their wisdom. They had so much experience and knowledge that it had never occurred to them to do a simple Google search.

Amen. AI-men.

That's why you lose your job. Not because AI is better, but because you are so self-righteous sitting at home in cheetos dust you cant even do a basic Google search on your smartphone.

Stop complaining.

The first thing to remember is, there are few if any examples in history of a largely materially-served nation suddenly succumbing to a mass theological revolution. The people's of the Gulf region are highly educated, econo.ically prosperous people who largely import their workers and others who are of the 'oppressed class'; but they do this work, like Mexicans and other in America, to escape an even worse situation, and simultaneously support loved ones in their homecountry.

Due to the War on Terror, there has been little incentive for the recent generation to become Islamic fundamentals, and those who remain so also have to weigh recent gains and losses, such as in Syria, or conversely Yemen, and elsewhere, as their numbers and archaic ideals become less embraced while economic opportunities have increased. It is simply less attractive to follow fundamental values—even as we see a sharp decline in religious vigor in the American 'Bible Belt'; it seems horrible and threatening, but is numerically less expansive than ever before. Blame technology or simple human intelligence expanding. Your choice.

There is a mythology of Iranian superintelligence emerging, which credits a terrorist regime with some kind of power born of its fundamentalism which simply planned so far ahead, and was so sophisticated, that it could never actually be toppled. It is here where we bow to various pundits who are magical thinkers, because it is fun.

Every dying regime has a last hurrah. Let's say 30 years (something roughly equivalent to Stalin's death extending to 1989). Khomeini died in 1989, and so it has been roughly as long for the Iranians. If you went back in time (and still) people gave the Soviets much more credit than they deserved. Totalitarianism has a short timeline. Do your own research.

Finally, the idea that dysfunction around the Gulf will bring an end to the West is surely dramatic thinking. If anything, the high functionality of the Gulf region is owed to the West, and partially drew energy away from the West. Explain then how its demise hurts the West rather than drags more investment into it? There would be pains for sure, but the vast amount of geological wealth that lies elsewhere would be soon tapped, and the world would go on. But agreed, it would make a good novel if that didn't happen.

If Ethan Hawk doesn't win best actor for his performance in Blue Moon, I'm giving up on love and everything holy. Here's why.

This was a humiliating and triumphant portrayal of a man who history would never point to as defining in any way. But this kind of man is integral to out way of being. Further, he is completely benign—he hurts no one in his wake of love and understanding.

Mr.Hawk had nothing to gain by portraying himself in this manner. Other than being spectacularly written, this is not an attractive role, it exposes a darkness and ability to inhabit such. It is a life-goal type role, one which an actor would only accept after a lifetime of success. It is a swan song.

Best actor, as an Oscar, has always gone to the wealthier player, the guy who has shown his nuts, his talent, over years—not for a few pictures. It is an achievement award, not a decision abou who did the best job this one time (which is the best actress award).

We must give this year's award to the m I st skilled, most dedicated, and consistent actor who has shown over time, over countless ugly years, they are a true 'best actor'. Given the opportunity ti accept and portray such an inauspicious charachter—almost every line, for countless bars...please.

Please.

The 20th century was a period of theological impunity. The destructive influence of religion was given vast sway. It was tolerated.

Moving into the 21st century, the end is nigh. Nobody cares if you believe in a religion. Nobody cares if you follow and participate in that religion, but what will not be tolerated is social sterilization of natural human processes—like women having an equal part in society, or persecution of gays and lesbians (who would rather just be left alone).

This rational equalization of women seems like a nothing-burger in most of the West, but it has not been merged with equal enthusiasm in much of the world.

This will end. Beginning in Iran. It is an incorrect assumption many cultures have, but it is intolerable.

Further, gays and lesbians who just want to live a normal life, who prosper and function in society in ordinary ways, should never be persecuted, by anyone, anywhere.

We are building a new world where the standard is freedom and love. Love means you have limits, but freedom means you cannot be tied down to overly-exerted governments.

Finally, as our AI domination comes to oppose our human rights and general freedom, we must always oppose this fundamentalism of an entirely new sort.

Simply squashing religious intolerance does not free us. The greater struggle will be human-led algorithms which seek to limit and dismantle our collective power. We must never submit to Billionaire authoritarianism via technology for the sake of 'progress'.

We will soon have a new enemy to conquer.

The world should evolve into Spheres of influence. The two great powers will remain China and the US. You can virtually draw a diagonal line across the world map.

However, subpower should resume. Israel should control the historical Levant, regardless of historical powers. Saudi should be allowed to take control, ultimately, of its Arab brother states, including north Africa, except Egypt, which should be resolved into Europe, which should utilize ancient control of its borders.

Russia will be given control of itself and the Caucasus, including some of its normal terrain, excluding European terrain, but will remain in the Chinese territories of influence.

Central Africa will go as it will, but South Africa will remain American, along with its allies of the region.

Brazil and Argentina will remain in Chinese territories, but the rest of South America and Central America, will be US territory.

The rest of North America belongs to the US, including Canada and Greenland, though Greenland control can continue to consider itself European.

Once the US enters Iran, via every foreseeable measure, to crush and eliminate its presumed caliphate, the immediate goal must be to liberate women.

Any counterveiling force must be moderate towards women's rights.

Ultimately, after defeating Iran and deeply and suggestively weakening the Russian reaction (which will no doubt eliminate Putin), the US and its partners (if there are any left [because they are weakened idiots, mostly]) must guarantee the rights of women and minorities, including sexual minorities (which doesn't require a great deal of effort, it's simply law).

The world then splits into 'Spheres of influence. .we can discuss these in a later post.

We don't want Tuekmenistan and Azerbaijan to revolve, resolving toward an Iranian War. What can we do to pacify and take these governments into our influence, once the Iranian war occurs?

The idea is that Russia will attack, via its closest allies to Iran. The bordering nations.

Because the last country which cannot be controlled, and remains a threat to the Israeli stronghold, is Iran (the last country our of them all to remain rogue), owing to our 'Spheres of Influence' global agreement, they must be butchered.

Just as you butcher cows and pigs, and what have you—you don't even care about that.

The obvious idea is to lift them up. Economically—steal them from their unwelcome overlords, the Russians.

This will help in our war against Iranian-Russian attempts toward world power.

God bless us all. May we fare well against this ultimate foe, Russia, in its last gasp toward Dominance.

It is a very formidable, yet weakened foe.

They cannot possibly confront us one three fronts.

The world is afraid to flex its muscle. An international canopy of objecters to the regime in control of Iran must unite and take definitive action. The final war must occur.

Likely war with Iran will draw in Russia. Iran will be supported by China, though they would not become boots-on-the-ground involved.

The war against Russia must occur. The leader known as Putin must be eliminated. He cannot afford to win a war on two fronts.

This will require added pressure in Ukraine. Then the clean sweep of Iran, which should not include civilian targets, should run its course.

There will be some kind of battle upon its horizons, the Russian border, which is friendly Turkenistan. Perhaps Azerbaijan. Which will be swift victories.

Then will come regime change in Iran. Out battle will commence. We must not allow the victor to be friendly to the caliphate. They must be crushed. A full Iranian revolution will then commence.

When the winner is decided, they must immediately be greeted by American representatives. They must be convenient and subservient to American needs. But not fully corrupted by our power.

The last stage will require economic infusement. The new ruling power will require our support, which we must provide. The Iranian people are a great people, and an ancient people, who deserve our guidance and remission—we must allow their own people to decide (provided they are progressive to an agreeable extent) the future of their own lands.

You're a bunch of solipsistic morons. We used to be out on the streets. There was literally nothing to fight for but you.

You proved to be superficial as$holes.

What was the point? We wanted a better world for who? No idea.