Wisdom, madness and Diogenes masturbating en publique
We can read the following about Diogenes :
"Diogenes maintained that all the artificial growths of society were incompatible with happiness and that morality implies a return to the simplicity of nature. So great was his austerity and simplicity that the Stoics would later claim him to be a wise man or "sophos" "
Dear D seemed a wise man indeed, and even Alexander the Great was eager to meet him. When Alexander asked him what he wished for (he could choose from his material wealth anything he liked) he asked Alexander politely to step aside as he blocked the Sun shining on him. Alexander said that if he was someone else he would like to be Diogenes. To which Diogenes replied that if he was someone else, he'd like to be Diogenes.
Diogenes is known to have looked for a honest man in Athens, walking around in broad daylight with a lantern! His house was a broken amphora, and his only possesions were a bowl to eat from, old dirty nickers, and a dusty cloth for clothes. He masturbated en publique, comparing it with rubbing your stomach to relieve hunger... Once he even gave his bowl away to a poor kid he saw eating from a piece of bread. Dunno if he did the same with his smelly undercloth (upper pants, in his case).
Behold the Diogenes syndrome:
"Diogenes syndrome is a disorder characterized by self-neglect, domestic squalor, apathy, compulsive hoarding of garbage and more importantly lack of shame. The syndrome does not refer to the intelligence or the philosophies of Diogenes but rather refers to the way Diogenes lived."
Was Diogenes mad as well as wise? Are these two classifications, these two labels interchangeable? It seems the case for Diogenes, though his love for the natural being seems wise. Is the modern Diogenes the tramp, wandering fancy free with pussins and flies zooming around his head? I can't help it that @Agent Smith springs to mind...
"Diogenes maintained that all the artificial growths of society were incompatible with happiness and that morality implies a return to the simplicity of nature. So great was his austerity and simplicity that the Stoics would later claim him to be a wise man or "sophos" "
Dear D seemed a wise man indeed, and even Alexander the Great was eager to meet him. When Alexander asked him what he wished for (he could choose from his material wealth anything he liked) he asked Alexander politely to step aside as he blocked the Sun shining on him. Alexander said that if he was someone else he would like to be Diogenes. To which Diogenes replied that if he was someone else, he'd like to be Diogenes.
Diogenes is known to have looked for a honest man in Athens, walking around in broad daylight with a lantern! His house was a broken amphora, and his only possesions were a bowl to eat from, old dirty nickers, and a dusty cloth for clothes. He masturbated en publique, comparing it with rubbing your stomach to relieve hunger... Once he even gave his bowl away to a poor kid he saw eating from a piece of bread. Dunno if he did the same with his smelly undercloth (upper pants, in his case).
Behold the Diogenes syndrome:
"Diogenes syndrome is a disorder characterized by self-neglect, domestic squalor, apathy, compulsive hoarding of garbage and more importantly lack of shame. The syndrome does not refer to the intelligence or the philosophies of Diogenes but rather refers to the way Diogenes lived."
Was Diogenes mad as well as wise? Are these two classifications, these two labels interchangeable? It seems the case for Diogenes, though his love for the natural being seems wise. Is the modern Diogenes the tramp, wandering fancy free with pussins and flies zooming around his head? I can't help it that @Agent Smith springs to mind...
Comments (96)
Charities and foodbanks should not be needed and only exist because of economic imbalance.
This must be stopped. In my socialist/humanist future, Diogenes would thrive.
Alexander would probably be serving life in a high-security jail.
Be careful about any insults (with humorous intent) you make towards @Agent Smith. If he is true to his character, he can send one of his many matrix replicants to take possession of your wife and then goodness knows what he as she, might do to you! :scream:
Diogenes Paradox:
If you neglect one side of your body, you have (contralateral) brain damage!
If you neglect both sides of your body à la Diogenes, your brain is perfectly fine! You're in fact considered a sage.
:chin:
So it was actually Alexander being mad? I don't think Diogenes needed mental health care actually! And he certainly would have refused.
Agent Smith, in my humble opinion, is a wise person. With a touch of madness. :grin:
Dogs are, as per Cynics (dogs)
1. Indifferent to customs, norms, laws (shit & pee anywhere, eat anything, sex in the open, and so on)
2. Discerning (can instantly tell friend from foe, a skill that's vital to survival)
That's all I can recall. Damn, I just read the Wiki page what? about 5 minutes ago.
He was highly critical of Plato and his ways (abstractions). I'm most intrigued by how Plato responded by calling Diogenes "Socrates gone mad!" :chin: I like this format. So, is Nicolai A. Vasiliev (paraconsistent logic) Aristotle/Gottlob Frege (classical logic) gone mad? It's a novel way to look at philosophy and philosophers!
The Diogenes Plan is characterised by freedom from personal vanity, simplicity in home arrangements, refusal to indulge in displays of emotion, commitment to recycling and saving energy and most importantly indifference to being mocked for any of the above.
But, as usual, we avoid this level of self-reflection by calling him ‘mad’ or ‘dog’. Not really human. It’s a coping mechanism. That way, we can continue pretending that our particular brand of ‘civilised humanity’ is the only way to be, and that the world and people are ordered and predictable.
It seems we’re a little slow on the uptake...
What do you think of the very old story about the King who was much loved by his subjects?
An enemy poisoned the main water well the subjects drank from and they all went mad after they drank the water.
The people now saw their King in a new light. They hated him, overthrew him, and they kicked him out of the city.
In the dead of night, the deposed King reached the poisoned water well and drank deeply.
The next day, the people celebrated the return of their beloved King.
Misery loves company eh!
Quoting Agent Smith
:lol: All who offend thee may perish! Don't f*** with the replicants, that's what I say!
Alexander the b****** was not mad but he was an evil butcher. He went mad in the end, I think, as most 'conquerers' do.
Quoting Hillary
Most people in the madhouse are very definite about just how sane they are.
Just like the alcoholic that 'can handle it,' and knows what they are doing.
I remember a wee Spanish fella who said to me.
'If crazies and alkies and junkies etc no want no help then we no give them no help!
They all die quicker, problem solved!'
Suffice to say, I disagreed with him. :smile:
But our particular brand of what is considered 'civilised behaviour,' changes from village to village all the way to nation to nation. We don't have the same guidelines of civility as the ancient Sumerians or the more recent Victorians. I am not ready to advocate for men and women to masturbate, if they choose to, in public, on the buses and trains, on their way to the office, are you?
I didn't get it!
:sad:
:grin:
It speaks to the situation that many people face. If the world around you goes mad. Can you maintain your own sanity and still fight for what you believe is a better future for all or do you just take the more comfortable route and join the rest of the mad b*******!
rampant theism/autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies/ cults of celebrity/cults of personality/ nefarious individuals can be very very hard to combat. They can f*** you up and those you love. They can make you suffer in ways we can hardly imagine. Is it not much easier to drink their poison, join them and gain from those they abuse. Or will you fight????
:scream:
:snicker: :snicker:
Horror films that dramatise the supernatural have little impact on me. I always imagine the cameraman and the makeup artist. 'We need more red splurges on his face' or 'perhaps if we got some butcher meat and stuck it to his face, he would look scarier,' :rofl:
In the second clip, yeah, shit happens! The human race needs to keep struggling for survival. Evolution through natural selection has not stopped.
I am reminded of a scene from Carl Sagan's film Contact. I searched for it on youtube but to no avail.
Ellie as a child, can't get to the heart pills in time to save her father. The usual moronic local priest speaks to her at the funeral of her father and he tries to comfort her by suggesting that she pray to god and receive its solace. She utters the brilliant words 'should have kept some pills in the downstairs kitchen.'
Ain't it the truth! Well done Carl! Good writing!
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting![/quote]
You're on the right track! Keep going!
I have the same experience with scifi movies promoting weird fantasies of a faraway future in which super intelligent cuboids fly silently over an Earth manipulated to fit the cube... :lol:
Yeah, Jody Foster, the typical female atheist! The film has made a critical mistake...
:up: Don't lose heart, keep faith in the human race!!!
To err is human, to forgive is ........... also human!
Kali Yuga! :chin:
Yes, but in the meantime it showed scientific woowoo. Which is forgivable...
And behold, the alien beings show themselves in the shape of daddy. A scary type with white hair who blows up the capsule is introduced to warn us against the irrationality of anti-science. Dangerous! They terrorize! Why shouldn't gods be able to offer solace? But the worst of all, Sagan didn't learn basic science which he so worships! Again, like Dawkins, a scientist who is a bad physicist. Trying to compensate by being atheist! :starstruck:
Had to google that one!
From Wikipedia:
"The Kali Yuga, in Hinduism, is the fourth and worst of the four yugas (world ages) in a Yuga Cycle, preceded by Dvapara Yuga and followed by the next cycle's Krita (Satya) Yuga. It is believed to be the present age, which is full of conflict and sin."
Hinduism! The biggest of the polytheistic movements. More fairy story BS to me!
Of no more value than the Viking pantheon headed by Odin or the Greek pantheon headed by Zeus.
Stories for the fearties and those who need the woo woo in their lives.
Bread and butter people, manna from the nonexistent heaven for the SCIgodians to thrive upon!
Sounds like you are happy to drink deeply from the poisoned well and become exactly like the SCIgodians! That intro offer will always be there, just for you!
"World Population by Religion
About 85% of the world's people identify with a religion."
Which means: woowoo accepted!
:fire:
[quote=Twilight of the Idols]The disappointed man speaks.— I sought great human beings, I never found anything but the apes of their ideal.[/quote]
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the Music."
:death: :flower:
He was a wandering ascetic. They were a constant feature of ancient cultures, they still exist in India to this day. The early Buddhist scriptures refer to 'dog duty ascetics' who apparently used to dwell with packs of dogs. They're obviously on the fringes, 'liminal', in anthropological terminology - on the outside of culture and society. As such, they represent a connection with the 'primordial', the unconditioned, or Nature.
doesn't Nietszche makes an obvious reference to Diogenes in the Parable of the Madman? Actually a bit of digging reveals that 'Diogenes Laertiades’ was how Nietzsche signed himself in a letter to a friend in his late 20s: ‘son of Laertius’, or literally ‘sprung from Laertius’, i.e. from Diogenes Laertius, so it seems certain.
Right - I think the OP mislead me, or rather I have confused the two 'Diogenes'. Although the image of 'wandering the streets with a lamp' associated with Diogenes, is very similar to Nietszche's 'parable'.
This is fair and accurate.
Even animals would prefer cleanliness, unless they're ill of some malady. Cats definitely show health by how clean they keep themselves. You'll know it when they're not feeling well, or they're neglected -- they'd also stop grooming themselves. Dogs prefer clean environment -- they don't shit where they eat.
Public bath facilities were one of the best contributions of the ancients to the world.
And still, how close the Kali Yuga is to the truth... Closer than any science and it's "objective" division of time in billions of lightyears, the emergence of Earth in a primordial solar system, the assigning of periods in evolution, and the mere blink of an eye existence of people on the cosmic scale.
About 85% of the world's people identify with a religion."
Which means: woowoo accepted![/quote]
You know what, this clearly shows that people don't know themselves all too well. Being religious isn't just a matter of being brought up in a faith, following its traditions, celebrating the relevant festivals, etc. If I were to ever claim to be a believer, I'd need to act/behave in ways that, at the very least, indicate I endorse the truth of an afterlife. I shouldn't be :cry: at a funeral, nor should I express any sympathy for wars, genocide, and so on unless...deep down we know we're all going to hell! :chin:
Yeah, after two and a half years without having touched water I have gained some extra weight. The flies around my head attack the pussie crawling through the collected dirt between my filthy long hair and beard. Even the dog won't approach me anymore...
Apparently more like one of the greatest vectors of disease in the ancient world (well Rome at least), since they apparently were not cleaned and the water replaced often enough
I like the old adage, "There are lies, damned lies and then statistics!"
You can often project stats any way you like.
I don't remember taking part in this survey, do you?
85% of the people they asked and who exactly did they ask.
If you ask someone in an Islamic country if they believe in god. Do you think they would be brave enough to say no?
Even if your chosen stat is accurate, to me it just confirms the depressing fact that you can still dupe most humans some of the time.
But I advise people to be very skeptical about the genuine PREDICTIVE POWER of such 'undulating' systems you describe. Sure, 'ups and down' just like water waves, projected onto the human concepts
of good times and bad times. Joseph and his dream of fat cows and thin cows. We are currently going through conflict and sin in today's world. But remember the current media system is a sensationalist system. They have little interest in reporting any good news, even though there is plenty of it.
There has never been a time in human existence when there was no conflict or 'subjective' sin.
I see systems like ying/yang etc as manna for the 'let's predict the future,' game/way to make a living.
Not much better than astrology/tarot cards/reading palms, tea leaves or chicken entrails.
I remember an expose of a particular charleton who gave audiences, messages from dead loved ones.
He actually had a whole team of researchers who would find out as much as they could about targeted audience members. They targeted based on credit card bookings. They found out names and addresses and would visit houses and look through windows with powerful lenses. Audience members were astounded at how much the performing con man knew about individual audience members.
He made a lot of money before the undercover reporter exposed him.
So if I predict that the Russian system, The Chinese system, The American system will all fall.
Then I will probably be proved correct. All systems change over time, eventually.
I'll use everything against you! "Sustained!".
"Then Woowoo should be allowed to base life on your honor!"
I'm not impressed at all by such predictive systems. They simply view the regularity of events over time and use such regularity to make predictions that are highly likely due to regularity.
Did the Kali Yuga posit gravity or atoms or quarks or the speed of light being constant?
Who is using what against who?
I am appealing to your rationale.
I am trying to convince you that you will have a more fulfilling life if you combat
mental schisms such as polytheism using every erg of determined energy you can.
Base your life on woo woo and you will never defeat the likelihood of
falling in love with a pigeon or wrapping your lips around a car exhaust.
I understand the curio of the venerated lunatic genius but I think there
are far better ways to live and be.
It's quite sad in my opinion that so many good thinkers surrender to woo woo and
hope against hope that they will receive a sign from the nonexistent supernatural.
That must be quite frustrating.
How do you account for my 'happy, fulfilled' godless life?
Do you not believe that I am a happy, contented person for the vast majority of moments in time as they pass?
[quote=Carneades.org]...And stay skeptical.[/quote]
If it's not a sinusoidal function what is it then?
How can I account for your life? It's quite simple. We live in two different worlds. Who says there is only one? My world is one with gods, yours one without. Now who is right? Both!
:fire:
I agree with what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point. Diogenes wasn’t advocating the behaviour itself, I think he was aiming to increase awareness, to challenge the ignorant and exclusive nature of a ‘civil’ life. This was performance art in an era of low literacy - a living, breathing critique of social behaviour which made it into written folklore. It was an opportunity for philosophical self-reflection, not to advocate a change in the law to enable people to masturbate in public, but to confront the public ‘self’ with the private ‘self’.
Just now read your comment, and I like it very much! Challenging the custom standard behaviors, ideas, theories, is something I liked my whole life. Which brought me into considerable difficulties... Being bipolar, as so nicely labeled by our psychologists, makes the situation even worse, cause in a "manic episode" most inhibitions subside to give way to the big buzz of the fantastic high you find yourself in. Masturbating in public is something on my bucket list still...
I love Australian philosopher Roman Krznaric (Chris nar ic), one of the founders of the Empathy Museum. And the anarchistic epistemology of Feyerabend is a welcome diversion from the strict standards. For good reason he is labeled "the clown of the philosophy of science": Anything goes! A crazy though? Maybe, but surely closer to reality than standards. Which is mainly Popper (most scientists subscribe to his idea of science, based on falsification) but more recent philosophers, like Ian Hacking (who wrote, BTW, in a critique on the third print on Against Method that he had never seen it before that in three subsequent print of a book, three different books were written, and even the covers are different!) and Pickering (Constructing Quarks) blow a fresh cooling wind into the steamy hot classroom! Call them mad, clowns, dogs, maladapted, maladjusted, offline, abnormal, etc. but this labeling is, as you wisely suggested, is just the labeling of fellow men in their attempt to defend their own standards.
Nor am I about your predictions of a future with transpeople, people who live 300 years, or people who space away to other planets. It's an impressive picture you paint, but a lot of woowoo is involved, and it draws attention away from matters that really matter.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Well, I advocate for storing many useful apps in your mental toolbox and healthy skeptisism is a useful app in my opinion but I was not suggesting you become like Carneades and become as he is described in from wiki, as:
" perhaps the most prominent head of the Skeptical Academy in ancient Greece."
What is the 'It' you are referring to as 'sinusoidal?' Human life experience? The ebb and flow of that which humans label good and bad times? A mathematical waveform which for you, marries with the suggestions put forward by the Hindu yugas?
If you are suggesting such a regularity is the main dictate in life then I disagree as science has a great deal of evidence that although there certainly are dictated regularities, they can at any time be altered temporarily or permanently by error/anomaly/mutation etc.
That's not the question. How can the godless be in the mainstream, happy and live fulfilled productive meaningful lives? How can any member of the godless groups make the world a little bit of a better place due to their existence and their efforts and actions whilst utterly rejecting the god posit?
These gods are utterly powerless. Atheists prove every day that you don't need them AT ALL to live a good life. Theism is supposed to be needed by humans to live properly. So how come all atheists are not having a terrible life?
Well, we probably agree in the main then. I don't wish to ban the maverick artist or to prevent individuals who wish to point out the hypocrisy of what some people act like and claim they believe in and practice in public and what they actually act like, do believe in, and do practice in private, but Its how you go about such protestations that matter within a particular village, city or nation.
A politician who watches porn in the house of commons should not keep his job as an MP by claiming that he was merely making a statement of art or that he was making a point about those people who watch porn privately but don't admit to doing so publically.
If Diogenes masturbated in public in front of strangers then it's correct that he be arrested and charged with some public affray infringement, regardless of any claims he might make about art statements or stands against societal hypocrisies. If he is found to be mentally compromised then he should not be charged with anything but should receive the mental health assistance he needs.
Such situations must be measured against the realpolitik of the time and place they happen.
Predictions based on science are not woo woo. Predictions based on belief in the supernatural are woo woo because their source is woo woo. Science predictions are based on projecting evidence already established by empirical evidence, if they are not, then such claimed scientific hypotheses are normally rejected for being nonscientific.
So the question is:
Quoting universeness
They obviously can! I nowhere denied that. Like I said, if you are happy in denying them or believe they are fantasies like Santa, Satan, the evil devil, or bat-, super, or the SemiTorus Guy, then you are happy. But as you know I think I found a cosmology, which until now has withstand all critique (even my own!), apart from one detail to be fixed. So, now I know the fundamental makeup, there is only one means to give a reason for that material to exist and return the wonder to life and the universe which science had taken from it.
Quoting universeness
I can't see why that could not be the case.
Quoting universeness
But they have the power of creation. Which humans lack (creating matter from nothing).
Quoting universeness
I don't need them too. Not at all. They just offer closure and return the lost wonder. Universal life is just a temporary divine material version of the eternal heavenly life. And because they made it, we should be careful with nature (heaven kinda looks like the pristine state of nature, untouched by mankind). And yes, there it is: the moral!
But how does he hurt people by doing that in public? What harm is done, apart maybe from cleaning up eventual sperm shot at public chairs in the doctor's waiting room. It might be entertaining in fact! Especially in a boring waiting room. Or pedagogical even.
I think you’re still missing the point. There’s obviously a part of us that is keen to isolate someone who behaves in this way as something ‘other’ than this ‘self’ we present to the world, something that should be hidden away, denied, excluded, or repaired. How we respond to behaviour such as this says a lot about our self-awareness and integrity. It’s telling that you’ve used a politician as your example - a public figure who represents us - we react strongly against our public representative behaving in a way we’d prefer to keep private.
But this doesn’t settle the questions that Diogenes is presenting. What, precisely, is wrong with masturbating in public that is not wrong in private? I get that ‘society’ as a structure of civil order makes this distinction and is expected to reprimand him, but what is it that ‘disturbs our peace’? Why am I so keen to distinguish him from my ‘self’? It’s interesting how keenly we tend to align our ‘selves’ with ‘societal order’ on the behaviour of others.
Okay that, too. That's a separate issue though. If there was a way to keep them regularly clean, then they should work.
The irony is that they built the most impressive architecture in the world -- water ducts, coliseum, palaces, government buildings, etc.
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting![/quote]
So, public onanism was simply Diogenes asking a question (on social norms)?
[quote=Plato]Diogenes is Socrates gone mad.[/quote]
Reminds me of so-called divine madmen (theia mania).
Take The Socratic Method (mental masturbation), take it up/down (can't tell) a notch and you end up with The Diogenes Method (physical masturbation)!
:chin:
Which is much more interesting than the 'background interference sound'/white noise you make with your last sentence in the above quote. In my opinion, your T.o.E speaks positively about you, your polytheism does not.
All you can do is find those who agree with your theism (like the SCIgodians!!). Perhaps Mr Harari is the best it's ever going to get.
Quoting Hillary
This just confirms my earlier thoughts about 'why you surrender to woo woo.'
YOUR gods really are 'fake plugs' for the parts of the origin story YOUR struggles with physics currently can't answer. You are merely a 'gods of the gaps' facilitator.
What a naive posting. Most men will beat you up, some will beat you very badly if you act like that in front of those they feel protective towards. You sound completely self-indulgent. Your life has no more significance than anyone elses. You can't just do what you want when you share space with everyone else. If you can decide to do as you like in the doctor's office then other people in the same office at the time can do as they want and beat you up. If anything goes then the doctor can decide not to help you.
Do you think it's only your behaviour that matters?
The point is, I don't need no plug anymore i struggled with physics over 15 years now, even dreamt about it. The physics ain't the problem anymore. The big question then: became, what's the reason for that material to be there? Where did it come from? And that was answered in a vivid dream, in which I saw them tinkering to find the needed material contents. The people gods delivered their part...
Your scigodians offer no physical cosmology. Specially for you:
Scigod!
Dunno. Why people have such difficulty with sex in public? I can remember kissing a girlfriend in a public swimming pool once. A lady was offended because of it. She asked us not to do it in public. It was that it was an elderly lady... I absolutely wouldn't mind it if people procreated in public. We're an animal species! Why are people offended by it? What's the big deal about sex? It's an expression of love!
The question is, why? How do I offend?
I don't think I am missing the point, I may be missing your point.
Quoting Possibility
So based on what you have typed above, I didn't miss your point at all, I fully understand it.
The masturbation point is an example of many such behaviours that most people prefer to happen in private than in public. Its not a question of 'correct behavior' or 'incorrect behaviour' is a question of 'acceptable or unacceptable behavior within the scenario offered.'
From you having a loud chat on your mobile phone while others are trying to watch a show to someone peeing into an empty bottle at the dinner table.The behaviour Diogenes is suggesting is that of a self-indulgent pig. A human dog who will shit right in front of you in the street is just that, a human dog.
The dogs behaviour is not wrong just like masturbation is not wrong but human society is idiosyncratic and nuanced and employs rules of engagement and rules of decorum.
War crimes are based on bad behaviour, aren't they!
In war you kill your enemy, would Diogenes agree that rules like the Geneva conventions are valid or would he advocate for 'all extreme behaviour is fair in war?'
I don't think Diogenes was making a deep point of significance here, perhaps you do?
Do you advocate for an 'anything goes,' society? If you do then I disagree with you and Diogenes.
If you don't then we agree. If you think we should be less 'chiselled' in how we apply any 'rules of decent public behaviour' and make the effort to understand the problems the individual human involved is having, then I also agree. I don't advocate for an absolutely zero-tolerance, sledgehammer approach where all rule-breakers are just disposed of with extreme prejudice.
So, as I said. Your physics fell short, so, in your frustration, you turned to the woo woo in your dreams.
Quoting Hillary
Do you accept that people like the personal smells they produce but they don't like the smells other people produce. Perhaps that simple example will help you understand.
Would you like to watch your mother and father having sex in public?
Quoting Hillary
So if you were having a meal with your wife and some of her family, in a restaurant to celebrate her birthday and the next table of 6 men, right next to you all started masturbating loudly, perhaps even helping each other. Would that be a nice night out for you?
A rock band called Scigod. :lol:
I suppose I should have expected that my chosen name was already used!
Again, precisely the point that I do understand the physics makes me pose woowoo. That's the only last reason, the closure. So it's my knowledge, not a gap in it, that makes me see, and the dream, of course.
Then this is where we strongly disagree! I think your physics failed to provide you with your last reason and the frustration of that made you surrender to BS woo woo. I recommend you continue your struggle with your 'last reason,' as your current answer is completely wrong and will be utterly rejected by the science community, now and forever.
Dunno. If I were in the mood I might even join in. I like women as well as men! My wife would disagree, naturally. And probably the restaurant owner too.
"Mayo on your french fries, gentlemen?"
"No thanks, we brought our own! We have to shake the container first pretty firmly though!"
"Ah, I see. Need some help?"
"No, but maybe you can bring some extra fries!"
:lol:
Like that, physics never can offer a reason. My cosmology provides an explanation for dark energy, mass, matter-antimatter, the nature of particles and space, a following up of big bangs, particle families, dark matter, the existence of a mirror universe, time and pre inflation era. What more is there to explain? You can, as in the many worlds woowoo in the string landscape, or the MWI, include the universe in a larger picture, but that merely shifts the problem. Like that you push the solution farther and farther away. I know you have taken the woowoo of many worlds for granted, as propagated by the upper priests, but they offer you the same woowoo as the gods.
It shows again your "but in the future...(fill in all you wish for)" attitude. I have a final physical explanation. It doesn't need extra physics to explain it again! Now what?
Self indulgent? Yes, I agree. But does that make him a ‘pig’ or a ‘dog’? Well, that’s your opinion. He’s still human - ‘human dog’ is a contradiction in terms. Which is it?
And you’re still not addressing the difference between public and private except in terms of personal, affected preference. So, society’s rules of engagement and decorum are based on the majority’s affected relation to ‘behaviour within the scenario offered’. This is why homosexuality has been excluded as inhuman and ‘cancelled’ or forced into hiding for so long... but that’s perfectly acceptable, right? Homosexuality is not wrong, but human society has ‘rules of decorum’...
No, I’m NOT suggesting that you’re advocating the cancelling of public demonstrations of homosexuality - I’m just drawing attention to the societal process of determining what is ‘acceptable or unacceptable behaviour’, which Diogenes was questioning. It’s difficult enough to discuss these topics even now, but there were no opportunities for Diogenes to ask these questions in such a way as they could be understood - abstract discussions on reasoning such as Plato devised were insufficient - because it’s about acknowledging affect, feelings, and relation to quality or values as crucial aspects of reasoning.
The point is that we judge the behaviour of others based on certain ‘rules of decorum’ that lack objective rationality - so how can we claim righteousness? How do we critique the accuracy of moral or aesthetic judgement?
Quoting universeness
In Diogenes’ time, there was no such notion as ‘war crimes’ or ‘fairness in war’. I think he might question why certain behaviour such as killing your enemy is considered ‘fair’ in war but not in the marketplace.
Pig and dog are merely emotive comparisons. Humans who eat like pigs in public or shit like dogs in public are valid comparisons. Human dog is therefore not a contradiction in terms, it is an emotive projection. Even theists merge humans and animals to invent deities.
Quoting Possibility
You have just given an example of how societal priorities/emphasis flex and change over time and due to 'cultural/political' movements. Homosexuals in the UK for example are treated much more like equals than they ever have in the past. Such changes do not mean that there should be no difference at all between how someone might behave in private compared to public.
Quoting Possibility
I understand that but there have been and there still are many many groups who live under quite different social rules than I do. From the Amish to hippy style communes to city folks compared to redneck hillbillies. Diogenes was described as a cynic. He sounded a bit misanthropic to me based on my limited knowledge of him. I am sure he would have found fault in all human systems even with the quite 'relaxed' epicurean communes. I think Diogenes was understood as he is cited as one of the influences on the development of stoicism. I think cynicism does have value as an aspect of reasoning.
Quoting Possibility
I think there are some human behaviours that we do as a species objectively or almost universally find repugnant such as paedophilia. But I don't think there are that many. Even amongst my own local group of friends, there will be different reactions to particular realtime events.
Two men kissing in the street In the town center I still find difficult. Some of my male friends will react much more aggressively to something like that than I would. Others would have less difficulty than I.
I agree that it's important to keep your own personal feelings of 'righteous offence,' in check.
Mob mentality is very dangerous, so is inflaming mob mentality for the hell of it. Many humans get badly hurt or killed in such clashes. So I agree that we do have to keep talking freely about such issues of what 'socially acceptable behaviour' means when you try to frame it objectively.
Most of it remains locally and even nationally nuanced however and individually subjective on a case by case basis.
I am not an instant 'my way or I will get violent,' person but I also won't accept that I have to accept someone masturbating in front of me without my consent. I am capable of violence if I am forced into something I am very unhappy with.
Quoting Possibility
There may have been no legislation for such but there certainly were many notions of acceptable and unacceptable behavour in war. Refusing to fight for example or running away or betraying your side etc.
Alexander the butcher killed the Persian officers who killed Darius as his rules were 'only a king can kill a king.' An English commander during the battle of Stanford bridge apologised to the enormous Viking who was holding the bridge almost single-handedly. He was eventually speared from underneath.
The whole chivalric system, samurai system and many many other such systems are all based on do's and dont's in war. How are these different from 'socially acceptable behaviours' based on the cultural tenets of the groups involved?'
No, you don't!
Even if we take your viewpoint of the many-worlds theory as woo woo.
All you offer as an alternative, is the gods woo woo for a 'first cause.'
So, if the choice is between the multiverse, string/Mtheory, the Penrose bounce or some merging of all of these, then I will stick with the physics/cosmology route and you can betray and insult your physics by surrendering to BS theism, if you wish. That just means you are becoming a spent force in physics and we need to rely on others to eventually get to, or nearer to, the truth.
You just join the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy as 'one of those who respectably, tried.'
Well, if you would underdstand the string theory and the bounce and the reason for the MWI you would see that these are BS woowoo's and you fall for the bait. Probably because of the math involved. The DIMP guy doesn't even have his knowledge about simple quarks straight and woowoofs even more. Sounds interesting but his theory is BS all the same.I like it that he tries but his attempt fails, Im sorry to say. An eternal series of big bangs just needs the 7d quantum vacuum with wormhole structure to be created and the bangs follow naturally, exactly as the intention of the gods was and I'm greatful they showed me!
No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs. The DIMP guy and the Mobius strip guy never posited a god to fill in any gaps in their physics however.
The point is, I understand ohysics and they don't. I read some stuff of the DIMP guy and lemme tell you, if you don't know about quarks and basic QM, which he tried to explain by wave crests, than you relaize his intentions are good, but his physics sucks. Just like strings and a CY manifold to fit the forces. The manifold is constructed to project a particukar symmetry in, the SU3)×SU(2)xU(1) symmetry of the SM. The more basic symmetry is SU(3)xSU(3)xU(1). You could readjust the manifold but the flaw of strings is that it poses vibrating strings in a manifold coupled to 4d. And that manifold is just used as a mathematical closet to out the charges and properties of interactions in with no real existence as the make belief, i.e., woowoo. No dark energy, And strings are background dependent, i.e., no real gravity description from a quantum, as the space is alresdy used as inout. And many more. What's your problem with gods in the first place. I think it shows the vanity of man that science explains everything. Because it doesn't. It were the gods who brought it into existence. My cosmological model can account for all cause, until infinite big bangs in the past. But the first reason were the gods. So no gods of the gaps, but gods for a reason. But be free not to see that reality. Stumble on in the dark... :lol:
You forgot to mention the string woowoo. But that's the official woowoo not? By guys who really know it. The only thing the guys like Witten, Strominger, etc. are good at is getting tax money for the woowoo they spend their days thinking on.
You really don't get it. There is no gap.
Yes, but then they first have to understand what my theory is about, wont they? I know what their's is about, and lemme tellya, its woowoo, if you know about fundamental physics. Möbius strips, Klein bottles, and DIMP, have no place in the fundaments of physics. Well, a Möbius strip comes in handy for describing a spinor. It shows how he spinor rotates once after two spatial rotations, thats all. I blow these guys down the table in a minute... But hey, let them wallow in their woowoo: searchers for truth!
You need to convince established physicists of your claims not laypeople.
You are just screaming into the wind meantime.
Provide the links you have to physics sites that demonstrate other physicists agreeing with your hypothesis. Identify your published papers that have been peer-reviewed.
I especially want to see your final sentence that states 'my overall conclusion is that god(s) did it.
You have said in the past that 'you are working on it,' yet you seem to spend a lot of time posting on this site about god woo woo.
You claim you can blow all these physics guys away but where are your links that demonstrate debates you have had with physicists?
Quoting universeness
The question of proof again... :lol:
:lol:
"Alexander, please! You block my Sun!"
In other words, you have no such links and you have no peer-reviewed publishings.
Can you do any better than, 'i'm working on it?'
No! :lol:
Well, at least you are honest about that!
:chin:
That's what Diogenes told Alexander the great, who was an admirer. He came to Diogenes' amphora home to ask him things. "Dear Alexander, please! You putting me in the shade!". Alexander said that if he wasn't Alexander he wanted to be Diogenes. Diogenes said that if was someone else he wanted to be Diogenes. Typical...
Yes. That's why it's strange that the masturbating of dear Diogenes (Deedee, for insider friends) is not accepted, while that of Alexander was regarded as most admirable. And Alexander had a far greater reach even! Likewise, in modern science, scientists masturbating thinking about knowledge to be gained are highly esteemed.