Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - BillHopkins

1 ... 13 [14] 15 ... 18
196
Interzone / Re: Free Will Is An Illusion
« on: August 10, 2012, 03:45:14 AM »
I'll return once more to say this: there is, though, certainly at least one Free Will - a singular entity, whose consciousness continues to shape and maintain the world.

In essence, it has no personality - it is pure creation, the uncaused first cause, "nothing more" than the concept-machine.  Still, it has a Will to Create, and that is the same Will which permeates all things, pushing the borders of space outwards, setting and maintaining the orbits of the planets, informing humans as to their activities, and so on.

Do you think that an uncasued first cause should be understood as a product of will? If so, why?

It's not an analytic statement. I.e. "an uncaused first cause is a product of will" is not true by virtue of logic or conceptual analysis (i don't think?). So then it must be a statement that is true in virtue of experience. But this is problematic because for something to be true in virtue of experience we must have a class of related observed instances to infer from. But we have no other instances of uncaused first causes, so we have no basis upon which to infer that an uncaused first cause must be a product of will.

But we know that all *caused* causes are not a product of will (or at least we are pretty sure of this from every-day experiences such as hitting billiard balls, throwing things, and all the rest). Maybe we can logically derive the statement 'if something is an uncaused cause, it is a product of will' from the statement 'if something is a caused cause, it is not a product of will'?

We can put 'if something is a caused cause, it is not a product of will' into logical form:

(1) If a then -b (a = something being a caused cause, b = something being a product of will)

So if something is an uncaused cause it will be -a. But from a false antecedent you don't get a false consequent. I.e. it is a formal fallacy to say (if a then b, not a therefore not b). So if we have -a, we don't get --b (ie that it isn't not caused by will - meaning it is caused by will)

Non-wanker sumamry:

1. we cannot infer from experience that an uncaused first cause will be a product of will (for we have no other instances of uncaused first causes to infer from)
2. we can infer from experience than a *caused* forst cause is not the product of will, but from this we cannot derive that an uncaused first cause will be a product of will (this would be to 'deny the antecdent': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)

This just leaves the following possibility:

The statment "an uncaused first cause will be a product of will" is analytic, or true in virtue of the terms used. If this is not true, then an uncaused first cause (if it exists at all! - another debate) could be blind.

I had fun writing this post

197
Interzone / Re: Free Will Is An Illusion
« on: August 10, 2012, 03:32:15 AM »
Does it matter?
It is. Life is. I am. You are.
All of it is an unlikely adventure, and all of it is real.
The only unreal thing is peoples' delusions of grandeur amid actual grandeur.

Does it matter? No, but then it doesn't matter that some people think it matters, does it.

Your 'way of the Tao' is fine, and I take much from this general Eastern standpoint that is in Buddhism as well. 'Life just is'. But you can't it both ways, you can't hold that it all is at it should be, but that people who want to investigate *why* it all is should forget about it. For in doing so, they are part of the world that is and is as it should be. The unlikely adventure!

For that matter you can't use this theory as the basis for any instruction, for the same reason. It's viciously circular. (and, excuse the forwardness of my anticipation, but please don't tell me that my logic is 'profane intellectualism'. It's the same logic that you employ, that everyone who wants to have a conversation in grammatically structured language must employ).

198
Interzone / Re: Intelligence
« on: August 10, 2012, 03:11:00 AM »
Obviously a major portion of nurture is non-brain parts of the body. Neural and vascular health, lipids, things that can help the brain function correctly. All the rest is context: what good is any literature to a successful hunter-gatherer society? This is why Flynn Effect maxes out at a 4-6 point IQ boost; thus nurture can be low as about 7% relevant, with heredity taking the lion's share for determing IQ. Overemphasis on nurture is utterly dismal thinking rooted in moronic feelings of guilt about human inequality.

How, then, do you explain the difference between hunter-gatherer homo sapiens and homo sapiens who have civilisation? We are not genetically different from our stone-age ancestors whose technical knowledge maxed out with the use of spears, rocks and sticks, but we have sent members of our tribe to other celestial bodies. If the genes are the same, then necessarily this means the advancement is due to environmental factors.

We are unique as a species. Other animals and even primates simply have cognitive capities that fit with their habitats and which allow them to function successfully in them, but nothing more. This is the standard understanding of evolution of some trait: it evolves to fit the environment which is static. Human beings, on ther other hand, modify their habitats to scaffold their cognitive abilities, lifting them to new heights. Rich developmental environments, technology, calculators, language, written language (to store longer thoughts and to pass down knowledge so that it deosn't need to be discovered again from scratch), peer-review, thinking tools like induction and deduction... are all cultural scaffolding on cognition.

Now I'm not sure about the role of 'nature vs nurture' in individuals living at one time in rich cognitive environments... but i just want to bring up the important point that environment potentially means a great deal with it comes to the mental capacities of human beings.

I Know there are extensive studies been done with identical twins who have been seperated since birth (i.e. genes are the same but environment is variable). I can't remember the specifics but the general concensus was that genetics was more than a 50 per cent factor.

199
Metal / Re: What seperates good metal from the rest?
« on: August 09, 2012, 03:06:24 AM »
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/08/doom-metal-has-a-dirty-soothing-secret-its-a-lot-like-new-age-music/260582/

This article doesn`t really state anything new and seems nothing more than sensational and pandering to a certain demographic in nature.

Maybe not for DLA readers. But it's new, for 'mainstreem' press, and it's pretty cool to see the idea that metal is about something higher entering a wider arena.

200
Metal / Re: Appreciating Euronymous
« on: August 08, 2012, 09:30:11 AM »
Euronymous had a good function. He encouraged elitism, and a classical approach in metal. He just wasn't a nationalist, so many people who take *one* person's (negative) opinion of him as the gospel truth are probably biased (i.e. the opinion of Varg Vikernes). I would say you have embodied in the rivarly between these two chaps the difference between the Evolian and Nazi view on heirarchy.

Arisocracy of the spirit vs a biological, zoological view.

Also, are we forgetting that V.V. stabbed the guy in the fucking back? Way to man up.

201
Metal / Music is Math
« on: August 08, 2012, 09:24:49 AM »

202
Metal / Re: What seperates good metal from the rest?
« on: August 06, 2012, 01:25:40 PM »
Definetely true

203
Metal / What separates good metal from the rest?
« on: August 06, 2012, 05:00:12 AM »
As recently observed in an article in 'The Atlantic', metal (and even 'brutal' metal like Deicide) shares with New Age music an interest in the trascendant. Readers of the DLA will of course already appreciate this.

However it is a mute point to observe that styles of metal which aren't traditional black or death are concerned with trascendence. Bands like OM, Sunn O))), Drudhk (as described by the article) all evoke meditative, reflective, 'spritual' atmospheres. I do not happen to enjoy OM and Drudhk (I like Sunn O)))), and I think that they do not share the same compositional techniques as old school black and death metal, but nevertheless they, like psychedelic bands, some forms of electronic music etc, are obviously motivated by some sort of desire to get beyond the individualistic and solipsistic themes of rock, pop, rap, R&B etc.

The unique compsotional structure of old school death and black metal I think seperates bands belonging to these genres from bands ike Drudhk and OM, and also perhaps the themes of death and black metal bands puts them a rung up the ladder, literally. It could be argued that although stoner, doom, drone, psychedelic music is concerned with the transcendent in appearance, beneath the surface it's really just escapist psychology. You get high to reverb-laced guitars, and lyrics about ancient temples etc. However, the same argument could be made of death and black metal. Even though the themes are more 'ascetic' (war, death, combat) and thus perhaps more trasncendent than doom, drone, stoner etc (and leaving aside the issue of its compositional uniqueness), you can cite countless examples of fans of this music being completely introverted, detached individuals who are hiding away in their medieval fantasy worlds and avoiding the battles they should be engaged in today, here and now in the real world. It is a fine line.

Taking a different direction: even if death and black metal do evoke a different variation of the quasi-transcendent themes of a wider variety of music (more 'war-like' or 'ascetic'), the factors which elevate metal, comparatively, then become purely political ones. 'Music X is more transcendent than Music Y because it takes approach 'a' to issues of war, nation and other people as opposed to approach 'b'. This is political or ideological, and the issue hinges on one's conception of what exactly transcedence is (is it the path of action or contemplation, for instance? is it an aristocacy of the spirit, or is it universal compassion? etc)

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/08/doom-metal-has-a-dirty-soothing-secret-its-a-lot-like-new-age-music/260582/


204
Metal / What seperates metal from some other music?
« on: August 06, 2012, 04:32:45 AM »
As recently observed in an article in 'The Atlantic', metal (and even 'brutal' metal like Deicide) shares with New Age music an interest in the trascendant. Readers of the DLA will of course already appreciate this.

However it is a mute point to observe that styles of metal which aren't traditional black or death are concerned with trascendence. Bands like OM, Sunn O))), Drudhk (as described by the article) all evoke meditative, reflective, 'spritual' atmospheres. I do not happen to enjoy OM and Drudhk (I like Sunn O)))), and I think that they do not share the same compositional techniques as old school black and death metal, but nevertheless they, like psychedelic bands, some forms of electronic music etc, are obviously motivated by some sort of desire to get beyond the individualistic and solipsistic themes of rock, pop, rap, R&B etc.

The unique compsotional structure of old school death and black metal I think seperates bands belonging to these genres from bands ike Drudhk and OM, and also perhaps the themes of death and black metal bands puts them a rung up the ladder, literally. It could be argued that although stoner, doom, drone, psychedelic music is concerned with the transcendent in appearance, beneath the surface it's really just escapist psychology. You get high to reverb-laced guitars, and lyrics about ancient temples etc. However, the same argument could be made of death and black metal. Even though the themes are more 'realist' (war, death, combat) than doom, drone, stoner etc (and leaving aside the issue of its compositional uniqueness), you can cite countless examples of fans of this music being completely introverted, detached individuals who are hiding away in their medieval fantasy worlds and avoiding the battles they should be engaged in today, here and now in the real world. It is a fine line.

Taking a different direction: even if death and black metal do evoke a different variation of the quasi-transcendent themes of a wider variety of music (more 'war-like' or 'ascetic'), the factors which elevate metal, comparatively, then become purely political ones. 'Music X is more transcendent than Music Y because it takes approach 'a' to issues of war, nation and other people as opposed to approach 'b'. This is political and so the issue hinges on one's conception of what exactly transcedence is (is it the path of action or contemplation, for instance? is it an aristocacy of the spirit, or is it universal compassion? etc)

The most objective factor seperating old school black and death metal from other quasi-transcendent music, then, is its compsitional structure.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/08/doom-metal-has-a-dirty-soothing-secret-its-a-lot-like-new-age-music/260582/


205
Interzone / The Ascent of Man (Jakob Bronowski)
« on: August 01, 2012, 03:55:39 AM »
Part 1: Lower than the Angels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QetE6WvBFY&feature=related

Part 2: Harvesting the Seasons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZjSiHtaNdM

Part 3: The Grain in the Stone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ADBHMs79k

Part 4: Hidden Structure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpeRQNQOTeA

Part 5: Music of the Spheres
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENM8u47zsI

Part 6: The Starry Messenger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb8fKBZlKmU

Part 7: The Majestic Clockwork
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdS8OTffEDg

Part 8: The Drive for Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC29cMM74Aw

Part 9: The Ladder of Creation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOtQFRv_si4

Part 10: World Within World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EXe_op8MkI

Part 11: Knowledge or Certainty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqOfqBoafTc

Part 12: Generation Upon Generation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_mdQevkKM4

Part 13: The Long Childhood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gurfaxLlrrg

206
Interzone / Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
« on: July 28, 2012, 04:54:30 AM »
It appears science is in serious trouble. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

As some thought from antiquity would have it, declension goes from Being to being and finally to nothingness as starlight from a sun past the planets and out into cold deep space, or water from a wellspring to delta to deep sea. Science still has no handle on this ancient understanding save for perhaps the Second Law of Thermodynamics if it were applicable to all existence.

This statement is rediculous. Science has as much of a handle on this 'ancient understanding' as you do. I.e. it is a hypothesis. It may or may not be true (you can't know for sure). However it is one that science cannot test, because science is, low and behold, empirical and you can't observe Being going to being and fanally to nothingness, as that would include the observer.

So you're basically saying something like: "Ha! suck shit science, you can't test something that can't be tested! Got you there!". As far as *entertaining the proposition* "Being to being and finally to nothingness as starlight from a sun past the planets and out into cold deep space, or water from a wellspring to delta to deep sea", science can entertain it, as a thought, just as well as you can. It just can't prove it or disprove it due to the nature of its own methodology. But like I said, you can't either, so please get down of your high horse, to be crude.

It is an empty proposition, valuable for its artistic/poetic content, at most.

207
Interzone / Re: Intellectually stimulating websites
« on: July 28, 2012, 04:48:59 AM »
fucking:

alternativeright.com! This is probably the most centralised resource for radical conservativism

208
Interzone / Books on organic culture vs liberalism please
« on: July 19, 2012, 06:13:11 AM »
More specifically, books that get right in to the categorical distinction between

1. 'organic', self-organising culture, and
2. the top-down managerial state.

These books will ideally go into the empirical or at least philosophical (logical) connection between 1 and 2, namely the rise in 2 when 1 is on the decline. They will also ideally be in the field of politics, sociology or political philosophy (i.e. written by real academics). Thanking you.

209
Interzone / Re: Post-Modernism
« on: June 01, 2012, 12:45:37 AM »
He's a smart guy that paints a very vivid picture of reality, but it is not the only picture. He also seems to have an underlying cynical/pessimistic worldview and is preoccupied with suicide from a long way back but he's a interesting case nonetheless.

Has anyone read 'Infinite Jest' and is it worth looking into?

I'm reading 'The Pale King' at the moment, my local bookstore didn't have Infinite Jest.

210
Will to Power is Nietzsche's God, in your take on his works.

Not exactly. The will to power is Nietzsche's ontology. When the nature of this ontology is understood it makes the reason why one venerates the particular kind of God (or moral/art/ideal) that he does intelligable.

I know what you mean though, the will to power is the ultimate reality for Nietzsche. Kant's 'noumenal realm'.

1 ... 13 [14] 15 ... 18