Well Lum, I cant say we agreed on much, but I do miss chewtoys. And if you want personal advice about balancing your own checkbook, Beyond would be good advice, but for an entire economy, he lacks the needed empathy to understand why you cant simply say " it works for me". I cant argue that it wont work, but at to what cost to others?

 

He also still thinks losing an election is robbery because he didn't win.

 

Really?

 

How am I a "dick". If life was monochromatic economically like Beyond likes to falsely believe, then why are we in this mess? And just like an all powerful Ayn Rand mentality, you win and that is what works, even when it fucks other people over.

So as long as we do what the Koch brothers tell us to do without question, everything will be ok.

 

Gotcha, might makes right, and I do agree, in evolution it can and does work, but please don't blow smoke up my ass and try to sell me that equates to morality.

These views are a hearsay. If I "have" them, then it is merely by proxy and not by personal investigation. I don't remember in detail, but I think I have defended them more than I have the right for. In retrospect, I shouldn't have lifted a finger for them. Not that it makes any difference on your part. 

For example, I have a lot of positive, undeniable experience with acupuncture, but virtually none with homeopathy, so I should defend the former and not the latter. I remain open on the question of homeopathy, especially when it comes to memory of liquids. Of course, I don't understand and I don't have time to study it, so I must assume an annoying position of agnostic. I've been through enough of weird shit to make lots of things possible, I just don't know if these particular things are possible. Not all I "believe" I "believe" equally, I have an ecosystem of ideas, some are tall as trees, some are just undergrowth, unless watered by evidence. Sai Baba and some other stuff is more like the undergrowth, in shade of some greater trees which are the actual cause why I consider them possible. As an INTP/INFP, I always keep as many possibilities open as possible. Doesn't mean I am totally convinced.

And by the way, I've been through more weird shit recently. The whole year has been weird. I am doing some exotic forms of meditation and it is quite demanding. I meditate for years and recently I have reached a stage that can be dangerous, mentally and physically. This stage is known and I can avoid the danger, but it was a very close call nonetheless. All kind of such results, good or bad, does not make me more "skeptical" as you understand the word. There is some weird and powerful stuff around and within us and it works, if you spend some years on it, it works enough to be potentially dangerous.  I would not be surprised if Sai Baba or some other people were much better at this discipline than me.

 

Well, I think Beyond is right with the elections, there was been some scandalous tampering and persecution when Ron Paul was a candidate against Mitt Romney.Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about If he is some kind of Libertarian anarcho-capitalist guy, I can help him to see a very different point of view, which will be as enriching for him as was learning the ancap ideas for me. Ancap is probably not what is going to happen in the future, due to technological development that will make a small-scale single venture impossible. But America could use a lot of Austrian school right now. 

 

Beyond was very kind to me and I think we could keep such a discussion very civil and productive. But you'd have to make me a quick briefing on the situation of you two.

 

Thanks! Vdaka! Prepac ze som tu dlho nebol. 

 

Is this what I think it is? You're arguing about economics? Damn, this is a serious matter. Guess what I've been doing all summer. I think I've got all the arguments pretty well put down, but the other side often has a very serious and worrisome flaw. A flaw, as Alan Greenspan would put it, about the way we think the reality works. It is a very worrisome psychological phenomenon, a specialized way of thinking which may result in a blind spot. Such a person can be very kind and intelligent in all aspects of life, but when it comes to the topic of this particular blind spot, his IQ drops to half, without him even realizing it. Such a person then will not make basic inductive steps and will need to be explained basic facts of science and social life, which he would otherwise realize automatically, should a topic be different. I have seen this on too many very intelligent and kind people for it to be coincidence. 

I think it's something deep stuck in neurology and basically, I think this is what determines if a person is right-wing or left-wing, even total anarchists. If you listen to most stuff by Stefan Molyneux, it's genuine and ingenious, commonsense and very kind and moral, he's the guy who made me believe that non-violent parenting is possible. But when Stefan debates Peter Joseph, he turns into a... there's no better way to put it, a fascist and a demagogue. I do not think this is emotional bias or fundamentalism, this is something much, much deeper and unconscious. One aspect it always has in all the people is a very literal thinking. He starts thinking with parts of brain that can't handle metaphors or figures of speech or points larger than half a sentence. It is very easy to miss but you can spot it, if you learn to look for it. Look, here is Stefan in his brilliant and moral mode, and here he is in the fascist demagogue mode, here and here. You'll see comments like "intellectually incapable of system analysis", I think that's neurologically relevant. Molyneux is capable of system analysis, of this system, but somehow it doesn't work with him when his own system is on trial.
Peter Joseph thinks he is the demagogue for real, but I don't. I think this is a genuine neurological thing that he is doing totally unconsciously, without realizing it. I have this opinion because I was a walking black hole of blind spots like that. Not in what you think, but in the area of emotions and relationships and how other people see me and what they think about me. The most important, everyday stuff, it ruined me a couple of friendships and cooled down several other ones. And hunting down the blind spots is very, very difficult and painful and ruined quite a lot of my health. Molyneux is in for hell of an ugly surprise if he ever becomes self-aware enough. I've been through this and I can't really think bad of him, I don't think he's really in control of this particular brain area. It's so deeply unconscious he does not even have a cognitive dissonance. It's the endless conflicts with apparently good and intelligent other people that crack us open from the outside, we never see it coming from the inside.

Is this the problem you've got with Beyond Saving?  

 

yes, brian, really.  this is so typically you.  this is your fuckin' problem.  you don't see the trees for the woods.  you completely missed my fuckin' point and started grinding your ideological ax for the umpteenth time.

get this: no matter how lofty your ideals are, actions speak louder.  i don't care how callous beyond's theoretical views might or might not be, let's look at the practical situation:

YOU greeted luminon with some asshole bullshit, calling him your "chew toy" and badmouthing the guy that helped him out with real, practical help when he needed it.

BEYOND gave luminon real assistance finishing his thesis, i'm sure without any financial remuneration (oh that evil libertarian!).  evidently, you got butthurt over luminon recognizing this on a public forum, so you engaged in the badmouthing i mentioned above, completely unprovoked (except perhaps in your own mind).

so, again i ask you, who was the empathetic one in this situation?  who?  if you can't answer without mentioning ayn rand or the koch brothers or american partisan politics, just don't bother trying to answer.  the question has nothing to do with such things.  not all of life's questions can be answered in washington.  in fact, pretty much none of them are, and that goes regardless of whether bama or dubya sits in the fuckin' oval office.