Log in

No account? Create an account
Rational Discourse's Journal [entries|friends|calendar]
Rational Discourse

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Defective pixel [03 Jan 2010|05:50pm]

There is true expression on panel. But only one pixel is defective. Which one?

register to answer

more puzzles
1 comment|post comment

Can anybody help to find publisher for Poesophy, pleease. [25 Jul 2008|05:51pm]


This  is experimental direction in a science and the literature through merge of poetry and a science (philosophy). This direction did not exist till now in the pure state. Earlier there was a direction in poetry? Philosophical poetry (Empedocl, V. Solovyov, M.Voloshin, I.Brodsky, O.Khajyam, etc.), but did not exist directions in a science of philosophy in rhyfm philosophical gamble. One of representatives of German classical philosophy F.Schelling, named a similar direction didactic poetry.


post comment

Poesophy. part. 2 [25 Jul 2008|05:50pm]




The will is authority above itself,

the authority is will above others.

The will recovers a direction,

and doing the world destiny,

freedom of destiny in the world-

the will inspires in a pressure.

The duty as the center of will -  Good Honour,

freedom as the center of a duty – The good Gospel’s message.

The reason is a duty a measure,

a belief is a freedom’s share,

outside of reason will -belief,

but in reason belief - will.




post comment

Poesophy part.1 [25 Jul 2008|05:48pm]




Time is something an average  between

that the friend the friend is pregnant:

movement and an idea.

The first the last the clothes called time,

dresses in sense.

Temporariness inside of sense - moves,

immovable in sense - It is thought.

I also do the conclusion

that time is think of a seed:

outside of an idea time - movement,

but in an idea movement - time.



post comment

[02 Feb 2005|04:57pm]

Is anybody out there? I found this community be doing research for my Philosophy and Lit class. I invited the class to join too because I think it would be beneficial to have some discussion outside of the class.
post comment

the bigger picture [20 May 2004|09:54am]

[ mood | bored ]

There's a question in computer programming:
Can a program ever be aware of itself?
The general answer to this question is no.
How do we know that we are not someone else's program?
How do we know we are real?
Humans over rate themselves. In reality we are but nothing. I'd love to find out we were part of something bigger.

2 comments|post comment

" WE ARE ALL AMERICANS NOW "....le monde, paris france [20 Oct 2002|11:10pm]
[ mood | apathetic ]

The following headline came from the chauvinist french newspaper headline " Le monde ". We'll fuck the french...there has been no country in the world that has been more of a friend to a nation than the United States has been to france. <--- for more fuckfrance.net...but this not my gripe since i like french food.

What seems to be happening to America, being the last superpower, is that we are continuously willing to go it alone (remember "your with us or against us) is that we are flexing out muscles in response to world terrrorism and our global agenda and not getting much support. What we get is newspaper headlines like this, but if I remember correctly it was the nations of europe that begged us ( france and germany especially) to get involved in the Balkans during Serbia murderous days of ethnic cleansing in bosnia-herzovogina...where our military support especially from the carriers in 5th fleet as well as US 20,000 troops help bring and end to the genocide of muslims...no good deed goes unoticed huh?

To top it off, it was reported in todays new york times, that Austrailian politicans are now in the battle in thier court of public opinion for thier careers due to the latest blast killing 200 aussies in Bali.

Well are we willing to go it alone or not, everyone hates us as it is. The muslim world isnt getting any kinder to us, and they wont to our Allies, because ..."either your with us or against us"...while have put our allies in hard position, what if the united states never got involved in europe in WW II...would we have to awnser to the U.S. constitution or Herr Ashcroft?

3 comments|post comment

[25 Feb 2002|09:30am]

We're witnessing the acid of postmodernism, existentialism, and anti-foundationalism eat away and dissolve the assumptions of our religions and institutions, and we wonder why it's happening. I'll tell you why. Those religions, those institutions, are no longer relevant.

I'm no progressive optimist. I don't assume that this ideological evolution is somehow "better" than the last arbitrary set of assumptions. I merely state the fact that our institutions are presently at odds with our intuition, and we cannot rest until these differences are reconciled. To paraphrase Saul Williams, we must make our souls rhyme with our minds.
5 comments|post comment

The Point of Living [25 Feb 2002|01:15am]

I think part of the flaw of philosophy is that it is a search for the "meaning of life". The "meaning of life" is just a construct. Just because we can name something does not mean that it exists.

I propose that a more meaningful inquiry would be into the "point of living". Why live? Why do anything? This is a question that we can actually examine without throwing a lot of epistemological and metaphysical feces around.

So, I put on the mask of the rationalist paradigm to provide an answer.

The point of living is to exercise options.

The nature of life is that we have choices. I will call these choices options to make clear the parallel between life and utility calculations. I do not want to make this sound cold, so I'll first explain that utility calculations are not a matter of measuring the net-happiness of life (as if such a thing were possible). They are just a way of representing human decisions as decisions of value. After all, isn't that what we humans do? -- make value judgments to determine our decisions?

There is a nice little mathematical theorem that explains why options are never worth less than nothing. Yes, this is trivial: It is always in to your advantage to be able to choose between X and nothing than to only have just nothing to look forward to. Even if X is worth less than nothing in the status quo, the volatility of value (or utility calculations) provides that X might at some point be worth more than nothing.

It is easy to view the sum of options that a person has as having extraordinary value, though I don't mean to go that far with this argument. But on the most basic level, options are the reason for living, the "point of life".
2 comments|post comment

Question: If all language is subjective to its user, can we really say language exists? [30 Jan 2002|02:38pm]

[ mood | lazy ]

This question makes the tacit assumption that when something exists, it must exist objectively. While I personally disbelieve the existence of a subject/object boundary, I can see why language elicits such questions. For example, languages must be learned, and hence obviously exists independent upon our perception. However, language is also defined by usage, hence its subjective nature.

Linguists will argue that there is no such thing as "proper English" due to any language's divergent and usage-dependent nature. A computer's "language" is a set of symbolic syntax in which the combination of small bits of information yield even greater amounts of information when the order itself is processed. Such "languages" are objective and universal (changes occur discretely in version numbers). Human language is similar, but new, slightly different versions are created with each speaker, and uniformity is heavily dependent upon human-human interaction.

(Consider Papua New Guinea, perhaps the most geologically diverse region on Earth. A good day's hike by experienced explorers yields only 3 miles. Most New Guineans have never been more than 10 miles from home in their lifetimes. Of the 6000 languages on Earth, Papua New Guinea is home to 1000 of them.)

Of course, if you want to go the more philosophical route, one may wonder if intangible information like language really exists objectively. I'm in the camp of most analytical philosophers in that simple (atomic) facts yield more complex information via their interactions. For example, the position of two objects is a simple fact, and the distance between the two is a complex one. Take this to the extreme, and you have the existence of extremely complex entities such as language.

Lastly, the role of language is to give a picture of reality, factual or not. Ideally, sentences could boil down to mathematical statements. Unfortunately, the actual usage of language runs more along the lines of "word games" in which ideas are inferred by creative juxtopositions of words (see: Wittgenstein's Philosophical Inquiries). Therefore the logic represented by "language math" can be true, false, paradoxical, contradictory, or nonsense. Most philosophical problems arise from the misuse of language.

I suppose that language acts as a mediator between reality and ideas, the subject and the object. A direct brain-to-brain connection would relay only ideas/feelings, whereas a rigorous mathematical language would be like a computer's language, relaying only previously defined consistent truths.

1 comment|post comment

A Historic Debate on the War on Drugs [08 Jan 2002|01:04pm]

Recently the National Federalist Society and Yale Law School organized a debate about the War on Drugs. The participants were New Mexico's Republican Governor Gary Johnson, who favors the point-of-view of legalization of at least some drugs, and the head of the Drug Enforcement Adminstration, Asa Hutchinson, a distinguished attorney and former member of the Congress from Arkansas.

If you have RealPlayer, you can watch the debate here:


I'm a little under the weather, but if I have the motivation later, I'll post highlights from the debate and my own commentary.
post comment

How Social Security Robs the Poor [07 Jan 2002|12:44pm]

Most people think of the social security (SS) system as a safety net. Few understand the actual process of by which the federal government acts as trustee for the vast sums that move through the system. Check this out:


SS is a Racist and Classist Ponzi SchemeCollapse )
post comment

Where Have All the Liberals Gone? [05 Jan 2002|09:03am]

Where Have All the Liberals Gone?
(A Question for the American School of Liberalism and Liberals)
By Karamazov

�Though I believe in Liberalism, I find it difficult to believe in Liberals.�
-G. K. Chesterton

Why Liberalism and Liberals are so different in the States.Collapse )
2 comments|post comment

A Binary God [03 Jan 2002|11:07pm]

I was discussing with a friend yesterday a theory that I have about the universe: That it's one big binary code. That's it. One big binary string.

Let's examine this theory: It might be appealing to those who believe in a God that we can never concieve of in entirety. If that God (the universe) were just a code for everything, then it could only be contained within itself. And even it could not reveal iself to any unit smaller than itself.

But honestly, I'm not worried about explaining this concept to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious archists...

I'll discuss more the logical and mathematical conceptuality: Is this theory consistent?

Certainly it is. What would there be for it to be inconsistent with? Besides, it reveals Russel's Paradox to be only a descriptive element of "the largest code". It also allows for the concepts of evolution or time as it could be said that our experience of the universe is merely like looking at a single frame of a movie-reel, a single segment of a code too large for the vehicles that are humans to observe.

It also jives with chaos theory and even cosmic anarchy. If there are no fundamental rules of physics, no Grand Unified Theory, then a single code would be quite sufficient without such "rules". Any "rule" would be just a description of some, but not all, set of events. In fact, most people never realize that a Grand Unified Theory fails Russel's Paradox distinctly. If there were some absolute "rule" that could be applied to "the code" or "the universe" or "God" then that would imply an ability to survey the code, which is distinctly impossible via Bertrand Russel's execellent explanation of set-theoretic logic.

What's amusing to me is how this brings me back to thinking about Jesus as the first philosopher to point out to us the lack of "arkies" under God. Perhaps he was a distinctly brilliant logician, merely ahead of his time. How funny that such an archist religion was founded under his name.

This concept also made me think of the movie Pi. What a great film. The theme of course is that looking for God drives a person away from any enjoyment of life. On a lesser level it was probably meant to point out how hard the temptation of knowledge (at least in its archist manifestation) is to set aside. The main character could be seen to have been "born again" to a life free of the archist use of knowledge. I think this has been happening in my own life, slowly but surely, since I was very young. I doubt it happens to many people overnight, but it makes a better film that way.

I also thought about The Matrix. How ironic, the universe may be a binary matrix already, whether or not there is a higher level of control that could be stepped out of. Perhaps we are several matrices deep with a hierarchy of "Gods" reaching to an ultimate end, the grand code and highest level of The Matrix (i.e., the universe).

My almost stream of conscious style may make this a little confusing, but I just wanted to throw it out there for criticism and discussion.
5 comments|post comment

The American Taliban? [03 Dec 2001|12:13pm]

I just saw this story about what looks to be an American who joined the Taliban fighting forces some months ago:


I'd like to focus on this statement made by his mother:

``If he got involved in the Taliban, he must have been brainwashed,'' Marilyn Walker, a home health care worker, said. ``He was isolated. He didn't know a soul in Pakistan. When you're young and impressionable, it's easy to be led by charismatic people.''

I find it truly disturbing that Americans can be so quick to understand how other people's brainwashing works, but be completely ignorant of their own susceptibility. I mean, isn't it possible that the reason Americans support our own government is because they went through the American system of indoctrination at "young and impressionable" ages? I've made this assertion numberous times on LJ and most of the response I get it is akin to "Oh, yeah sure." But as soon as an American joins the opposition after being surrounded by the opposition influence, brainwashing is clearly the answer.

Like Freud said, people usually accept the common neurosis so as not to have to form one of their own.
9 comments|post comment

[26 Nov 2001|03:09pm]

Check out my FAVORITE site:

post comment

Human Progress [25 Nov 2001|02:39pm]

Find Out How Our Species Might Be Dramatically AlteredCollapse )
2 comments|post comment

Christian Anarchy [24 Nov 2001|01:34am]

I would like to post this link for those interested to read and get an idea of what I'm about to write about:

Would Jesus Press This?Collapse )
post comment

[13 Nov 2001|01:15am]

what is intuition? what is the source, how important is it? I am curious about other peoples personal opinions regarding intuition.

this is a question i have recently been interested in, wrote a somewhat speculative article on it here - http://indie-review.com/culture/intuition.html
1 comment|post comment

Presidential address, plus four articles [26 Oct 2001|07:52pm]

Read more...Collapse )
3 comments|post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]