Ilya Startsev

bluecherry: Think of space as flowing through you. Since it will always flow like that, it is inherent to you. You are inseparable from context as well. The location is not bound, if that's what you meant. Imagine that a proton is a football ball in the center of a football stadium. An electron in the atom is as far from the proton as the first row in that stadium. Don't forget that everything consists of atoms, and thus it's mostly, and paradoxically, empty space. Material particles come into existence from quantum fluctuations of energy in vacuum. Vacuum is physical by the quantum model of physics. Sorry, I posted it previously before I read your post. If it bothers you, just ignore the top portion. Society is currently our goal, but it's not the only goal. You remind me of Dana Scully Dr. Sheldrake took this into account and his experiments have been checked by other scientists to be conclusive that there is scientifically unknown behavior of dogs a priory expecting their owners when those arrive at randomly selected times. What's more interesting is that Dr. Sheldrake believes that scientists may themselves psychically influence results of their experiments without even believing in psychic abilities. He talks about it in The Science Delusion. I have been doing just that. I do not censure any knowledge. It's just I am more interested in esoteric one.

We must have the law of identity, but it is imcomplete, just as Western thinking is incomplete without Eastern (contextual) thinking, humankind is incomplete without people from both hemispheres. Objectivist oligarchy works with ideal people, who are very few and far between. Russian oligarchy today is not the best place. There needs to be a democracy. Globalization is about accepting all people, even those who are unable to work and create value. All people can be used in a society, either as producers or users, supporters or managers. Some interesting quotes: Tony Blair: "We are the party of the individual because we are the party of community. It is Social-ism." Tony Wright: "It is a socialist party in a sense that it stands for a conception of society and community and people owing obligations to each other and stands for [...] that core belief about giving everybody in society access to things that society can offer. This is the core idea." This is not doubletalking; it's dialectics. This is as much contradiction as there can be between an individual and society, individualism and collectivism. "Socialism will not die, but it will surely change into something else." "The impulse that drives people towards left--the desire to control, meddle and interfere--" is also a freedom. It just needs moderation. "Socialism is an economic democracy." Ok, so the movie proved that socialism is not the answer, but what is a global society going to be? It's supposed to be some lingering form of society. What we should do is support movements that have been called "anti-globalization" or "globalization from below," and care for, as Chomsky stated, "the rights of people, not private power systems" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalism). Eduard Bernstein and Samuel Gompers were right, but Marxism was their soil. Also, society is not the ultimate goal. Here is the complete model with important missing elements (that socialistic countries ignored) where my imagination leads: Particle--Void Atom--Field Molecule--Lattice Cell--State Tissue--Pulse Organ--Aura Body--Environment Society--Nature Race--World Sphere--System Star--Nebula Hole--Cosmos Source--Vacuum Multiverse--Ratium Omniverse--Limits APEIRON Sphere is a communication network reaching beyond worlds. Ratium is virtual space (not cybernetic). Limits is absolutely filled space, or space without time. APEIRON is the whole model, that is - indifferent awareness.

Humankind would have been nothing without those men who tried. Ok, Repairman, let's backtrack. I am anti-liar too. My problem is that I am gullible, so I cannot tell if someone is lying. I do not understand why anyone would invent elaborate intentional lies if I'm not paying for them. I also have an extensive imagination, but I use it to connect ideas to reality, not separate things and make them conflict. I hope that having imagination is not a sin with you. So, let me differentiate then between something that might have carried my imagination too far away and something that is more or less objective as it was presented. In light of this, consider nature's consciousness and unusual engines as my imagination. Just let go of them - I won't mention them again, since they do not add to my arguments anyway. If I do not present sufficient (by your standards) evidence for it, then it's probably my imagination. Aristotle was mistaken in physics. Do you consider his first law to be the Ultimate Truth?

Ignoring all the unintentional hate, getting back on track, statements a) "Man must live for the state" and b ) "I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" have, depending on how one looks at them: 1) a) living only for society, but not for oneself; and b ) living for oneself but not for others, or 2) a) living for oneself in order to live for society; and b ) living for oneself and intending to favorably impact society.

Please, provide a substitute that is rational and does not conflict with available evidence.

Is this a stupid physicist/mystic, whose positions you do not respect?

I know that I should now end the discussion with you than look stupid and continue tolerating your attacks on my integrity. I know that you hate theosophy as well, but here is a quote from them: "There is no religion higher than truth." Do you see how it relates to our discussion here? Do not calcify your monopoly on truth. Neither science nor religion has a complete hold on it. If Objectivism is neither science nor religion, then it should be a more flexible world-view. Otherwise, it's dangerous because it would lead to stagnation and, ultimately, self-destruction.

Repairman: No, but they discovered that we may be wrong about Nature and our World in general. This is reason enough to believe that there can be something more to Nature that we haven't realized before. I choose to believe that it's conscious, but there is no evidence for it, and I did not say it in order to talk in detail about this topic. Besides, you took it way out of context (I didn't plan to discuss it then, just as I did not plan to discuss it now with you.) I do not understand why you keep bringing it up. Does it bother you so much? Plants have no bodies or organs, and thus, please, do not put them together with bees and other animals. These are different categories and levels we are talking about. You grouped them in order to create this mess on purpose? You like to see me on the defensive? If you are provoked like this, I am sure you will start evading and talking in too general terms. If you do not want to accept what I tell you about our Nature, then please end the discussion about it. I came here to discuss Society with you. Nature can be discussed on other forums, such as those on climate change/anti-environmentalism. I am sure they have better arguments against my view than the ones you are (not) sharing here. If you are an anti-environmentalist, please share your views. If not, then ignore our possible disagreements and let's move on. I don't want to argue about Nature with you unless you are an anti-environmentalist.

Ah, Repairman, how you make me laugh sometimes. Thank you for your humor. First, let me define that exoteric means "mainstream," esoteric means "known to few." This is one of major divisions in our world. There are exoteric and esoteric sciences, religions, and even world-views. I am not calling myself an expert on exoteric stuff, but I am surely close to being an expert on esoteric stuff, having studied it throughout my life. If you are only interested in exoteric evidence, well, I can only recommend you to get it from open-minded scientists who take all evidence with a grain of salt. Just like in religion, doubt is essential to all of our evolving views of reality.

I guess it would be conscious of its environment more than of itself. A school of fish, a hive of bees, and others, though, can be considered "societies." Pride comes with an identity of being a human, but it can be overcome. We can learn a lot from other animals and how they interact with each other and their environments. I can count to a lot more, but you will ignore it anyway.

We cannot prove it, but only believe in it. Nature is on a level above us, just like Society in which you do not believe! Why are you jumping ahead? Let's get to Society first, before we destroy our Nature. If you feel so smart, tell me what is in the core of the planet? Give me factual evidence, proven theories and no evasions. Has anyone seen what's inside our planet? Let me tell you one fact: the deepest we ever got underground was during the "horrible" U.S.S.R. (whom we also have to thank for the invention of multistage rockets, so humankind could fly into space) - The Kola Superdeep Borehole. It's depth is 40,230 ft. Do you know what they found there? They found temperatures and mineral formations that completely contradicted the scientific views of Earth's core without even touching upon the fact of what could be underneath.

bluecherry: Ok, it's in the same way as what I am doing. How is my philosophy beneficial to my life right now? It's not, since it does not earn me any money, which I am supposed to be earning, right? Well, but it is beneficial for the future of humankind whether I will live then or not. And besides, I love it, and these philosophies make me happy. So, look at it this way: it's both selfish and not selfish. I disagree, but "I will defend to the death your right to say it." First, as I mentioned earlier, space is inherent to a thing and inseparable from it. Second, look at an atom of hydrogen, for example. What it consists of is mostly empty space that we consider to be a part of the atom. Besides, what's nothing, vacuum, void? We do not know. You may be right that vacuum is actually made of "stuff" that we haven't found materialized in our reality yet. Do you want me to show your my whole model, so maybe you will see it clearer? Let me give you an example from my life. It always takes me no less than 1 hour 30 minutes to get to my university classroom. One day, by a mistaken judgement, I started from home late half an hour. Here is what I did: throughout the trip I concentrated and focused to the best of my ability to get to my university as fast as possible, so I weren't late to class. I relentlessly fought against my doubts by "knowing" that I will get there on time. I set realistic (for my imagined potential ability) limit: get to school in 1 hour or less, and I believed in it faithfully like if I had already reached my goal. I materialized it by driving faster. Notice that the physical side of things--e.g., driving faster--is not the only driving force of the stretching of a moment, since your intent for a specific result and your conscious ability to focus on it play just as important roles in you reaching this goal. The traffic and traffic lights worked to my advantage as I saw reality submit to my conscious will. Guess what happened? Yes, I reached my classroom in less than 1 hour. I called it a miracle in class knowing that it's not. It's how we create our realities if we really want to. Perhaps. Like I said, read Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion or A New Science of Life for a general outline of his experiments and results, or maybe check out his other books, like The Sense of Being Stared At, Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Seven experiments that could change the world, etc. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is a distinguished biologist from Oxford University, and he also studied philosophy of science at Harvard University. I talked to him about his morphic fields and he agreed that they can be the same as electromagnetic fields, but different than how most scientists view them today.

No, because if I were aware of a translation, I would have posted it in the beginning of our discussion. Nicky: Your illusory view of reality is no greater than mine.

Ok, this video influenced the first expression I uttered on the topic. It's in Russian. It looks credible to me. However, you may be right that it is fake. Now, it's a question of belief either way.

bluecherry: It's hard to pinpoint for me; it all depends on a situation. For all the "extreme" things that you mentioned, I do not really have a stance on them, since I do not know enough about them. Abolitionism, however, I thought was against slavery. The fact of breaking up - yes. But there was social evolution involved, and it fits Marxist theory of history. I was thinking more of professional communes. There needs to be enough resources and energy for all in order to avoid conflicts, though, so alternative and self-sustaining sources of energy will have to be tapped. Don't take it too close to heart. I was thinking about corrupt individuals and some criminals. Having too many enemies is a sign that one is not trying to find a common ground with people, not coming to terms with others. There must be a reason why people hate one. To improve oneself is to grow out of ignorance. The standard for judgement will then be one's breadth of experience, knowledge, wisdom, and other valuable traits. Donations to a charity and creation of vaccines can be neither selfish nor not-selfish. "Nothing" will be the overlapping space where such thing exists as well as emptiness in the thing. But this is in addition to what I was saying earlier, namely, that everything consists of an extreme thing and its opposite thing because everything is an extreme opposite to nothing. Neither one of her "natures" of existence matches my view. Like I said, Rand only saw the world in black and white, in an extreme rather than moderate view. First, Objectivist perception of consciousness is bodily (i.e., consciousness that has no other materialization besides an individual body). This is subject #1. Environment responds (or not) to actions of subject #1, whether it's physical force or nonphysical manipulation, e.g., the stretching of a moment. Hence Environment is subject #2. Notice that I do not discuss interactions between subject 1s, but if these interactions lead to a symbiosis with subject 2s, I am all for that. First, these intentions are inseparable from our consciousness. Second, they are not purely bodily, that is, they are the forms of our behavior that we create throughout our lives as imprints (think in a time continuum here). We cannot talk about exoteric evidence since traditional science haven't figured out nonphysical (i.e., physically non-localized) fields. Such fields are called informational, morphic, or nonthermal, and there is plenty of lesser known literature that looks at them. You may want to search Kirlian photography, A.S.Presman's analysis of electromagnetic fields, or morphogenetic fields theory. How can we have this if people do not believe in telepathy? Although there is evidence for it in works of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. Repairman: If, for a human, pride and consciousness are the same thing, then it does not work for other life forms that you mentioned. They are more conscious of their "societies."

Are you implying an intent to lie on my part? You are wrong. I simply choose to believe it. There are people who are driving electric cars and not paying for gas. Do you doubt that they exist?

Eiuol: True, and I am not arguing against the law of identity. All I am saying is that there is also a grey area that does not follow the law of identity and that Objectivism does not cover it (even though it may be internally consistent). As in your example, your height either increases as you grow up or decreases as you become old. Hence time-wise even a specific height is not permanent. You can either be consistent or complete, but I believe there is a way to be both. However, it involves faith-logic. So, it's more complex than that. Agreed. Hm, yeah, but I did not mean it literally, since I never experienced this myself. For example, I heard that some couples after passionate sex were aware of each other internally. Completely or greatly? - I don't know the details, just the fact of it. Sex is not my field of experimentation, so I am left to rely on other people's experiences. Repairman: Ok, so Gaia hypothesis for Nature is one. Electromagnetic fields from A.Presman's work for Aura is two. Phytons as paradoxical particles from Shipov's Theory of Physical Vacuum for Void is three. Marxist Global Communism for Society is four. A guess about organelles, DNA structures, and cells resulting from molecular Lattice is five. Considering semi-gaseous state of cells in pulmonary alveolus in lungs for one of cellular States is six. But the main one is the faith part that is in the middle - indifferent awareness. EDIT: There is actually a lot more if you go higher than Society--Nature - eight more levels in total to be exact - but I did not show them because you will not believe in them anyway, so I cut the model short at Society--Nature. That nature is alive? Well, its ecosystems are as intricate and sensitive yet stable as our own bodies. So judging by how we are made and by being alive, we could say the same thing about nature. That's metaphysical thinking for you. Other "silly" theorists say that our planet actually grows in size and that's one of the reasons for continents to separate and "grow apart." From your comments, it looks like you are enjoying yourself living in "the society" that we have right now. You or your world do not need to change, since you do not want it to change.

FYI--free as in "exempt from external authority, interference, restriction." Yes, people who created these engines do not pay anything because there is no way to pay for electricity from ionosphere. So they drive around without paying for gas. I don't have an engine like that available to me. Should I contact those people - probably. Will I? That's my problem now, isn't it?

I don't know how to get it, but why deny that there may be some others who do? I am not interested in it practically, setting up experiments, drawing up blueprints. I simply support all these ideas on an ideological basis. And don't worry about me being financially poor right now. I am going to become a professor, not some john doe in ghetto.

Eiuol: Yes, but now you are looking at it internally through a continuum. There is no 100% smart or 100% stupid person; there is always a mix of two. The same for true and not true, but from different perspectives. You are true right now, but you may change your mind and grasp a different truth instead. From this new perspective on the truth, you may see that your previous truth in the past is both true and not true. Do you see where I am coming from? bluecherry: The same lack of compassion that Rand felt towards her parents. What middle point are they going away from? It was an integrating extreme - an improvenent upon the English monarchy (feudalism -> capitalism). Excellent quote. I think our view of government is in common here. I think that Leninists confused "owned by the people" (society) with "owned by the government." Government is not the whole society, but only its center. We need to make sure that people in their own groups own the resources, monetary funds, etc., and not the government. The government should only control the military (and draft, if necessary), police and fire departments, and courts, and anything else that others do not want to control, like the post office. If someone wants to invest him/herself, then government should allow privatizing it. Power to the people (society), not the government! Only children would not understand the importance of peace. The idea here is being content and with peace with one's environment and society. Being a happy person with a lot of enemies who hate one's guts is not perfection, neither is being in an ignorant state of bliss. The standard is self-improvement in the most general sense. The alleged third option is unnamed and for now taken upon faith(-logic). There is surfacing more and more evidence about our bodies being "wavy," if you will. Our bodies are not continuous in reality. Think of virtual particles from which we are made up. Do those particles exist here and now or not? Neither one: they disappear and appear out of who knows where. I am not saying that this "faith" stuff is always going to be unobjective. In the future we will find more about it, will define it, and it will become a group of objective facts. As of right now, we are still searching for it, but our only intention is our faith that something is there that we do not yet know. I still cannot answer on the question about why do people need faith. I know that you consider it irrational, but maybe you can help me answer on this question in non-negative terms, please. Maybe in its synthesis, but what about the fact that everything consists of opposites for the same reason that everything has the opposite, namely, nothing. Isn't this coherent? Please provide a counterexample. I remember how one of my instructors told me about Locke's absolutely indivisible particle, but what about its context? That would be a spacial opposite besides the ends of time interval in which it exists. If you put it outside of space and time, space and time will still be inherent to it. When you look at the model, comprehending a behavior of an individual in a society as a cell in some state in a body is metaphysical, and talking about the direct contexts of those is dialectical. This is my interpretation of it. Others will explain it differently. But what I heard about the way metaphysics is used from philosophy is, in my mind, the way I showed it to you formulaicly. They may talk about historical metaphysics of Napoleon, for example, by taking Napoleon out of France and putting him into a different context and/or time. Or they can talk about particles taken outside of time. Whenever you look at something by itself and analyze its interactions philosophically it is basically metaphysics. I already talked about it. No one can decide upon this middle ground yet, as far as I know, so it's unknown, but logically known to be there, like this: Body X Environment, where X is the middle of the continuum. It is problematic to define because it is so phenomenological (taken as an event and being so eventful). In other words, it involves an undefined and general concept, such as: "in order to change things one has to work with the nature of stuff." The idea of "sharing" that Eiuol mentioned and also conscious intentions that go beyond a physical body. I choose to believe the interpretations of data gathered by the Global Consciousness Project. There may be other projects and evidence such as this, but I haven't come upon it yet. I choose to believe experiences that some people shared of when they were completely aware of each other's feelings and thoughts to a great extent. Couples that have been married for a long time can also know what the other person wants to say sometimes. You can say that it's coincidence or even a habit, but I believe that they were able to strengthen this connection that I have been talking about.

I am like Rand. We are philosophers and writers, not engineers or scientists.

Have you realized that there will be no way to charge for that energy, since ionosphere is "free for all" to tap into? And just so you know, the Wyatt archetype does not reflect our reality. People in the oil business want to stay in the oil business; they do not want any alternatives to oil. The same can be said about people in electricity business. This is what ruined Tesla's towers idea, when J.P.Morgan realized that there was no way to make people pay for it.

Eiuol: I choose to believe otherwise. So far I haven't found any conclusive evidence to the contrary. There is one: sex (i.e., the good kind that is love). Ah, but the middle is not a specific state. You see, in the middle, it does not matter what concentrations there are as long as they are equal - it can be 50/50 or 100/100 or 300/300 or 33/33. What happens there is beyond any logic or objective reality. It is the kind of flux that happens in the overlapping portions of the opposing magnetic currents. Only here the inner contracts and the outer expands, but there is some sort of vibration. The important thing here also is that, if you noticed, all of levels are made up of extreme elements in maximum contexts, so they are like their own complete realities. Of course, I could still argue on a phenomenological being of an apple, but it's more interesting to put it this way: our bodies consist not only of lower levels but also of fields, cells, liquids, solids, and gases from our environments. So one can then realize that a body can be 50% its own body and 50% a part of environment (this is in the best case scenario, of course; usually it's imbalanced). Another example is smart--stupid. A person can be called smart and (s)he may really be stupid or even become stupid later on and vice versa. People are not discreet entities throughout time but are "events" that constantly change. Physiologically even our bodies are completely replaced by new cells every seven years. They are not the same bodies that we had before in any way, yet we are stuck believing that they are. I am not saying the western way of thinking is wrong. I am saying that it is incomplete and needs to be integrated with the eastern perspective. Objectivism seems to be the greatest concentration of this western-type of thinking. If you are speaking of mathematics, then keep in mind that our reality is not only inherently mathematical, but mathematics is imposed on our reality just like language structures. It is not a complete view of the world. If our reality is mathematical, then you'd find an actual infinity in it. However, an actual infinity only exists as a mental construct, and it is never found in our physical reality. I am not saying that "True" and "Not True" are subjective, but they are inseparable and must be taken as a single whole. Fragmenting and integrating then becomes a second order of what's right and wrong, but, just so you know, there is a third order of these extremes. However, we still have to reach the second order first. Irrationality is only that which is not yet understood. Never in your lifetime? Or are you not interested in discovering it?

Ok, here goes another of my "rants," as Repairman would say: bluecherry: I probably meant to say familial. All of the following definitions match my understanding of the word: "farthest from the center or middle," "farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction," "exceeding the bounds of moderation," and "going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc." Then I wasn't arguing but simply restating the way I see it. Yes, but I think we should at least try reaching for the awareness of the benefits or other consequences that our actions impose upon others. I think our main difference is in our comprehension of freedom. I believe that there can be an order that allows freedoms for all. However, since the order would benefit all, these freedoms cannot be excessive, such as violence or any kind of destruction of others who are part of such order. There is always give and take with such freedoms. It's like "social contract," where all people follow rules of the road to be free to go wherever they want. There is freedom, and yet there is order in moderation. Peace is greater than happiness. And world peace and unity is greater than all. As I said before, a self is a dynamic, phenomenological entity whose boundaries are stretchable. This self can be mind, soul, consciousness, awareness, etc. An individual body, however, does not work objectively. Unless it is a body of people, such as a society. I am questioning the kind of consciousness our president has. Is he just a body or can he, metaphysically, be considered a body of people? This, of course, only would work if people love him and see him as the center of society. Otherwise, indifference of people for their leader is a defining reason for not living in a society but by yourself. You don't understand dialectics? Well, here is how I see it: dialectics is a methodology to solve problems in opposition to metaphysics. Metaphysics takes a "problem" (conditionally speaking) and puts it into different contexts to find a solution for it. Dialectics takes a "problem" and finds its opposite to see how the two can be integrated, so there can be no conflict. I found a way to integrate both methodologies. Metaphysics for me is like a metaphor, it is never exactly right, but may be approximately right, like "the possible worlds" idea in philosophy. Dialectics on the other hand finds the exact context and sees all entities as dependent on and inseparable from this context. Rand's metaphysics seems to be bound by a single context (what exists exists) of an individual and nature (commanded to be obeyed), but there is no middle ground. This was probably the question that Eiuol had. I actually think that Objectivist ideology becomes pre-Freudian in this light and impossible, since no conscious connections are found. Repairman: You completely ignored 2046's post #83. Please, read it carefully. It is unfortunate that you do not take me seriously not because you think that I am playing you for a fool but because I am actually being serious and putting up my whole life's work on these pages. The same thing I would like to say about Objectivist philosophy. It is sad that Rand learned in the beginning but never after writing her books. And the more she wrote, the more she suffered from her flaws in logic (her "particular method of reasoning or argumentation"). This is 2400 years old. Do you realize how much we have learned since Aristotle? Have you looked into a contemporary textbook on logic? Why do you wish to be stuck with an ideology that never changes and only includes the scientific progress from Aristotle to Newton (read Branden's article on Rand's views, specifically lack thereof, on modern science)? I apologize if I missed something. Please, repeat your criticisms. Do not forget that you missed a lot of what I wrote as well. First of all, it's really hard to judge one's own original ideas, but I will try. I found no criticism on the elements of the model because those elements were completely objective and found on scientific evidence. Now, as for what happens between those elements (read: extremes) is the problem, as you see it, of my philosophy. I call it faith-logic because there is otherwise no way to connect those elements. And Objectivists do not connect them either because Rand opposed dialectics. She created a fragmented view of reality. Think of free radical particles floating around in a system. Do those particles help or do they help destroy the system as if they were cancer? Without unity, there is death, even if the only unity is based on partially objective faith-logic. In case you didn't realize, most people easily misinterpret Objectivism from the start and start hating it right away. They call it hedonistic and materialistic, which it's not, but this is not evident from the first analysis (as some of my comments on We the Living show). I am the kind of individual who finds more and more about Objectivism and tries to reach its truth, even though it may be so hard.

Nicky, does "a motor run by atmospheric electricity" sound mystic to you? Boy, you got your definitions mixed up. Then Nikola Tesla and Edward Leedskalnin were mystics too?