Find of the day

[Skybird]

Alan Greenspan, 1966: "Gold and economic freedom"


Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited.
(...)
The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
full text: http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html

[Aktungbby]

Just to stay on thread: from todays paper! I was going to post it but your topic beat me to it!:salute::D http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/07/18/millions-in-booty-from-california-gold-rush-recovered-from-ss-central-america/ (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/07/18/millions-in-booty-from-california-gold-rush-recovered-from-ss-central-america/) http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn-latino/lifestyle/660/371/gold%20shipwreck.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

[Tribesman]

full text: http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html



Buy gold sell silver, sell gold buy silver.
Buy Randian voodoo ideology.

[Aktungbby]

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/william-jennings-bryan-cross-of-gold-speech-july-8-1896.php (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/william-jennings-bryan-cross-of-gold-speech-july-8-1896.php) :/\\!! In conclusion: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." :shifty: :hmmm:

[Catfish]

Buy gold sell silver, sell gold buy silver.
Buy Randian voodoo ideology.


After having read the book (why oh god why) i wonder how this pointless and fantasy piece of sh.. can influence or 'inspire' anyone with a clear mind or any empathy. This 'philosophy' must be the wet dream of all fascists and locust apitalism :dead:

[Tribesman]

After having read the book (why oh god why) i wonder how this pointless and fantasy piece of sh.. can influence or 'inspire' anyone with a clear mind or any empathy. This 'philosophy' must be the wet dream of all fascists and locust apitalism :dead:

That's the thing with ideologies, they require a mind that is not clear.
They all have their "oh yes that's it " moment but fall apart on the "but then, but how about, what if and hold on that don't work at all" moments.
People who swallow the ideology have a mind that is clouded by the "oh yes" moment and can not only get no further but don't wish to get any further as they are happy in the cloud of deluded bliss they wallow in.

[AndyJWest]

Yeah - shiny rocks are the answer to all the world's problems. They must be. They're rocks. And they're shiny...

[Skybird]

Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841: Self-Reliance


There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried. Not for nothing one face, one character, one fact, makes much impression on him, and another none. This sculpture in the memory is not without preestablished harmony. The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify of that particular ray. We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents. It may be safely trusted as proportionate and of good issues, so it be faithfully imparted, but God will not have his work made manifest by cowards. A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best; but what he has said or done otherwise, shall give him no peace. It is a deliverance which does not deliver. In the attempt his genius deserts him; no muse befriends; no invention, no hope.
(...)
Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.
Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways. If malice and vanity wear the coat of philanthropy, shall that pass? If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbadoes, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest: have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home.' Rough and graceless would be such greeting, but truth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it, — else it is none. The doctrine of hatred must be preached as the counteraction of the doctrine of love when that pules and whines. I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me. I would write on the lintels of the door-post, Whim. I hope it is somewhat better than whim at last, but we cannot spend the day in explanation. Expect me not to show cause why I seek or why I exclude company. Then, again, do not tell me, as a good man did to-day, of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity I am bought and sold; for them I will go to prison, if need be; but your miscellaneous popular charities; the education at college of fools; the building of meeting-houses to the vain end to which many now stand; alms to sots; and the thousandfold Relief Societies; — though I confess with shame I sometimes succumb and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar which by and by I shall have the manhood to withhold.
(...)
Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another, you have only an extemporaneous, half possession. That which each can do best, none but his Maker can teach him. No man yet knows what it is, nor can, till that person has exhibited it. Where is the master who could have taught Shakspeare? Where is the master who could have instructed Franklin, or Washington, or Bacon, or Newton? Every great man is a unique. The Scipionism of Scipio is precisely that part he could not borrow. Shakspeare will never be made by the study of Shakspeare. Do that which is assigned you, and you cannot hope too much or dare too much. There is at this moment for you an utterance brave and grand as that of the colossal chisel of Phidias, or trowel of the Egyptians, or the pen of Moses, or Dante, but different from all these. Not possibly will the soul all rich, all eloquent, with thousand-cloven tongue, deign to repeat itself; but if you can hear what these patriarchs say, surely you can reply to them in the same pitch of voice; for the ear and the tongue are two organs of one nature. Abide in the simple and noble regions of thy life, obey thy heart, and thou shalt reproduce the Foreworld again.


http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm

[Tribesman]

Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say 'I think,' 'I am,' but quotes some saint or sage.
So Hoppe Popper Rand Fjordman Rothbard Greenspan Breivik Rockwell Geller....any other saints or sages you wish to quote?:rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

Subscribed.

[Skybird]

Beethoven: Piano Concerto 5, movement 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfEK_8KFwI0

Reading the comments you see that it is not fully clear who pianist and orchestra were. All I can say is it is a stunning recording due to its atypical slow pace - most recordings almost race through this piece to show how fast the pianist can play. But the slow pace models the fragile beauty of this piece by almost forcing the listener to pay attention to sequences of notes/tones that often escape his attention if being played faster.

Our modern world accelerates more and more. Classic music from the past nowadays gets played 30-40% faster than like it was intended by the composer at the time he was living, a known phenomenon in music history. What this pianist does is he deccelerates it again - and it is as if all world around becomes wide and open again.

What is this beauty that touches us from outside? What is it that gets touched by it in our inside?

[Sailor Steve]

Nice link, and nice summation. I'm not sure I agree about the speed, but that's what music is for. We judge it on how it affects us, and it affects us differently. Thanks for sharing that. :sunny:

[Oberon]

I must admit I've noticed a difference in speeds in how people play Beethovens Symphony no 7 movement 2 in Allegretto. I prefer the slightly slower version, as heard in 'The Kings Speech'.

Faster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLmo5fIV_rQ

Slower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J12zprD7V1k

There's not a great deal in it, but I sometimes pick up on these things.

[Skybird]

Sandy Springs, Georgia - The city that outsourced everything

http://my.firedoglake.com/freemarketlibertarian/2011/04/16/sandy-springs-georgia-the-city-that-outsourced-everything/

Keep the taxes where they have been raised. Local cities/regions then NEED to compete, and perform better, to attract tax payers.

[Tribesman]

Keep the taxes where they have been raised
Coventry is nowhere near Georgia. I suppose Cranbury Boston and San Francisco are quite a bit closer than Britain, but it certainly isn't keeping the tax money in Georgia.

[Skybird]

The Individual and the Crowd I:
Gustav Le Bon, 1895 - The Psychology of Revolutions



THE PSYCHOLOGY OF REVOLUTIONARY CROWDS


General Characteristics of the Crowd
Whatever their origin, revolutions do not produce their full effects until they have penetrated the soul of the multitude. They therefore represent a consequence of the psychology of crowds.


Although I have studied collective psychology at length in another volume, I must here recall its principal laws.


Man, as part of a multitude, is a very different being from the same man as an isolated individual. His conscious individuality vanishes in the unconscious personality of the crowd.


Material contact is not absolutely necessary to produce in the individual the mentality of the crowd. Passions and sentiments, provoked by certain events, are often sufficient to create it.


The collective mind, momentarily formed, represents a very special kind of aggregate. Its chief peculiarity is that it is entirely dominated by unconscious elements, and is subject to a peculiar collective logic.


Among the other characteristics of crowds, we must note their infinite credulity and exaggerated sensibility, their shortsightedness, and their incapacity to respond to the influences of reason. Affirmation, contagion, repetition, and prestige constitute almost the only means of persuading them. Reality and experience have no effect upon them. The multitude will admit anything; nothing is impossible in the eyes of the crowd.


By reason of the extreme sensibility of crowds, their sentiments, good or bad, are always exaggerated. This exaggeration increases still further in times of revolution. The least excitement will then lead them to act with the utmost fury. Their credulity, so great even in the normal state, is still further increased; the most improbable statements are accepted. Arthur Young relates that when he visited the springs near Clermont, at the time of the French Revolution, his guide was stopped by the people, who were persuaded that he had come by Order of the Queen to mine and blow up the town. The most horrible tales concerning the Royal Family were circulated, depicting it as a nest of ghouls and vampires.


These various characteristics show that man in the crowd descends to a very low degree in the scale of civilization. He becomes a savage, with all a savage's faults and qualities, with all his momentary violence, enthusiasm, and heroism. In the intellectual domain a crowd is always inferior to the isolated unit. In the moral and sentimental domain it may be his superior. A crowd will commit a crime as readily as an act of abnegation.


Personal characteristics vanish in the crowd, which exerts an extraordinary influence upon the individuals which form it. The miser becomes generous, the skeptic a believer, the honest man a criminal, the coward a hero. Examples of such transformations abounded during the great Revolution.
As part of a jury or a parliament, the collective man renders verdicts or passes laws of which he would never have dreamed in his isolated condition.


One of the most notable consequences of the influence of a collectivity upon the individuals who compose it is the unification of their sentiments and wills. This psychological unity confers a remarkable force upon crowds.
The formation of such a mental unity results chiefly from the fact that in a crowd gestures and actions are extremely contagious. Acclamations of hatred, fury, or love are immediately approved and repeated.


What is the origin of these common sentiments, this common will? They are propagated by contagion, but a point of departure is necessary before this contagion can take effect. Without a leader the crowd is an amorphous entity incapable of action.


A knowledge of the laws relating to the psychology of crowds is indispensable to the interpretation of the elements of our Revolution, and to a comprehension of the conduct of revolutionary assemblies, and the singular transformations of the individuals who form part of them. Pushed by the unconscious forces of the collective soul, they more often than not say what they did not intend, and vote what they would not have wished to vote.


Although the laws of collective psychology have sometimes been divined instinctively by superior statesmen, the majority of Governments have not understood and do not understand them because they do not understand that so many of them have fallen so easily.


PSYCHOLOGICAL ILLUSIONS RESPECTING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION


Illusions respecting Primitive Man, the Return to a State of Nature, and the Psychology of People


We have already repeated, and shall again repeat, that the errors of a doctrine do not hinder its propagation, so that all we have to consider here is its influence upon men's minds.
But although the criticism of erroneous doctrines is seldom of practical utility, it is extremely interesting from a psychological point of view. The philosopher who wishes to understand the working of men's minds should always carefully consider the illusions which they live with. Never, perhaps, in the course of history have these illusions appeared so profound and so numerous as during the Revolution.


One of the most prominent was the singular conception of the nature of our first ancestors and primitive societies. Anthropology not having as yet revealed the conditions of our remoter forbears, men supposed, being influenced by the legends of the Bible, that they had issued perfect from the hands of the Creator. The first societies were models which were afterwards ruined by civilization, but to which mankind must return. The return to the state of nature was very soon the general cry. "The fundamental principle of all morality, of which I have treated in my writings," said Rousseau, "is that man is a being naturally good, loving justice and order."


Modern science, by determining, from the surviving remnants, the conditions of life of our first ancestors, has long ago shown the error of this doctrine. Primitive man has become an ignorant and ferocious brute, as ignorant as the modern savage of goodness, morality, and pity. Governed only by his instinctive impulses, he throws himself on his prey when hunger drives him from his cave, and falls upon his enemy the moment he is aroused by hatred. Reason, not being born, could have no hold over his instincts.


The aim of civilization, contrary to all revolutionary intentions, has been not to return to the state of nature but to escape from it. It was precisely because the Jacobins led mankind back to the primitive condition by destroying all the social restraints without which no civilization can exist that they transformed a political society into a barbarian horde.
The ideas of these theorists concerning the nature of man were about as valuable as those of a Roman general concerning the power of omens. Yet their influence as motives of action was considerable. The Convention was always inspired by such ideas.


The errors concerning our primitive ancestors were excusable enough, since before modern discoveries had shown us the real conditions of their existence these were absolutely unknown. But the absolute ignorance of human psychology displayed by the men of the Revolution is far less easy to understand.


It would really seem as though the philosophers and writers of the eighteenth century must have been totally deficient in the smallest faculty of observation. They lived amidst their contemporaries without seeing them and without understanding them. Above all, they had not a suspicion of the true nature of the popular mind. The man of the people always appeared to them in the likeness of the chimerical model created by their dreams. As ignorant of psychology as of the teachings of history, they considered the plebeian man as naturally good, affectionate, grateful, and always ready to listen to reason.


The speeches delivered by members of the Assembly show how profound were these illusions. When the peasants began to burn the chateaux they were greatly astonished, and addressed them in sentimental, harangues, praying them to cease, in order not to "give pain to their good king" and adjured them "to surprise him by their virtues."

Le Bon is seen as the founder crowd psychology (Massenpsychologie)as an object of research and analysis. He is famous for his book "Psychologie des foules", and it is rumoured that Goebbels always carried a copy of that book with him. The book until today is seen as one of the most fundamental standard works on the psychology of crowds, a mandatory reading on the matter. Le Bon showed that the merging with crowds and collectives always comes at the cost of loosing sense of individuality, and loosing the ability to independently judge, form opinions, and a weakening of sense for personal responsibility. When merging with crowds, the individual man loses several hierarchical levels on the ladder of cultural evolution, and turns back to his needs-driven animalistic past. His sense of realism fades, what is impossible suddenly becomes imagined to be possible after the spirit of the crowd had taken over the control of his thinking.


What said Emerson ^ ? Man, if wanting to be hu-man indeed, needs to be a non-conformist.

[Skybird]

Andrej Tarkowski, 1978/79 - Stalker (Pool-Sequence)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQYrR4Stos4

In the face of the inescapable transience of being, all human creation and culture is just symbols, reflecting shadows of the past that is gone.

Nevertheless, the movie is not pessimistic, but surprisingly optimistic in its ending. Its just that it does not jump into the eye with fanfares and fireworks, and a reason to live is not to be had for free. A meaning of life might be there - but who says it does not come at a cost?

***
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment.
A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment.
There will be nothing else to do, and nothing else to pursue.
Live being true to the single purpose of the moment.”

Yamamoto Tsunemoto: Book of the Samurai (Hagakure)
***

[Skybird]

The Individual and the Crowd II:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1943/44 - I loved this People


"Stupidity is a more dangerous foe of the good than evil is. It is possible to protest against evil, to expose oneself, and at times it can be prevented by force. Evil always carries in itself the gern of a substitute for it, in that it leaves behind at least a feeling of uneasiness in men. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor force can accomplish anythin here; reasons are of no avail; facts that contradict one's own prejudices simply do not need to be believed -- in such cases the stupid person even becomes critical -- and if they are unavoidable, the can simply be shoved aside as insignificant, isolated cases.

In this the stupid person, in contrast to an evil one, is completely satisfied with himself. Indeed he even becomes dangerous in that he is easily inclined to assume the offensive. Thus more care must be shown in dealing with a stupid person than with an evil one. We shall never again seek to convince a stupid person with reasons; it is senseless and dangerous. In order to know how to deal with stupidity we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is not essentially an intellectual defect but a human one. There are intellectually quite able men who are stupid, and intellectually very dull men who are anything but stupid. In certain specific situations we make this discovery to our astonishment. In this connection one has less the impression that stupidity is an inborn defect than that under certain circumstances men are made stupid, or perhaps let themselves be made stupid.

We observe, moreover, that men who live secluded and alone show this defect less often than men and groups of men who are inclined or fated to sociability. Thus stupidity seems to be less a psychological problem than a sociological one. It is a particular form of the effect of historical circumstances on man, a psychological phenomenon that accompanies specific external relationships. On closer view it is seen that every strong outward development of power, whether of a political or of a religious nature, smites a large portion of mankind with stupidity. Yes, this has precisely the appearance of a sociological-psychological law. The power of one man needs the stupidity of another. In this it does not turn out that specific -- and thus perhaps intellectual -- human concerns suddenly are spoiled or go awry, but that under the overpowering impression of the development of power, man is robbed of his inner independence, and theat he now -- more or less unconsciously -- renounces any attempt to find his own relation to the situation that has developed.

The fact that a stupid person is often stubborn should not deceive anyone into thinking that he is independent. In conversation with him it is felt that you are not dealing with the person himself, but with cliches, slogans, etc., that have gained dominance over him. He is under a spell, he is blinded, he is misused, mishandled in his own being. Thus having become a will-less instrument the stupid person becomes capable of all evil, and at the same time incapable of recognizing it as evil. Here lies the danger of the diabolical abuse. In this way men can be destroyed forever.

But it is here that it also becomes quite clear that iti is not instruction but only liberation that can overcome stupidity. In this connection we must first realizae that a genuine inner liberation is possible in most cases only after external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must renounce all attempts to convince the stupid. In this state of affairs lies the reason why under such circumstance it is useless to seek to know what 'the people' are really thinking, and why this question is so superfluous for the one who thinks and acts responsibly -- only however, under the given circumstances. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Ps. 111:10) says that the inner liberation of man to responsible life before God is the only real conquest of stupidity.

Furthermore, these thoughts about stupidity have this element of comfort, that they by no means permit one to regard the majority of men as stupid under all circumstances. It will really depend on whether those in power can expect more from stupidity or from the inner independence and intelligence of men."

[Tribesman]

The fact that a stupid person is often stubborn should not deceive anyone into thinking that he is independent. In conversation with him it is felt that you are not dealing with the person himself, but with cliches, slogans, etc., that have gained dominance over him. He is under a spell, he is blinded, he is misused, mishandled in his own being. Thus having become a will-less instrument the stupid person becomes capable of all evil, and at the same time incapable of recognizing it as evil. Here lies the danger of the diabolical abuse. In this way men can be destroyed forever.

Can we have one of your regular slogans please?

[Skybird]

John Locke, 1689 - Second Treatise of Government


(...)

CHAPTER. II.
OF THE STATE OF NATURE.

Sect. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

Sect. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,
The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1.

Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Sect. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

Sect. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.
(...)

CHAPTER. III.
OF THE STATE OF WAR.

Sect. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sect. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

Sect. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

Sect. 19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another. Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho' he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.
(...)

CHAPTER. IV.
OF SLAVERY.

Sect. 22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.

Sect. 23. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.

Sect. 24. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive: for, if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases, as long as the compact endures: for, as has been said, no man can, by agreement, pass over to another that which he hath not in himself, a power over his own life.
(...)

CHAPTER. V.
OF PROPERTY.

Sect. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.
(...)

CHAPTER. VII.
OF POLITICAL OR CIVIL SOCIETY.

Sect. 78. Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho' it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves.

Sect. 79. For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained by those that got them, till they are able to shift and provide for themselves. This rule, which the infinite wise maker hath set to the works of his hands, we find the inferior creatures steadily obey. In those viviparous animals which feed on grass, the conjunction between male and female lasts no longer than the very act of copulation; because the teat of the dam being sufficient to nourish the young, till it be able to feed on grass, the male only begets, but concerns not himself for the female or young, to whose sustenance he can contribute nothing. But in beasts of prey the conjunction lasts longer: because the dam not being able well to subsist herself, and nourish her numerous off-spring by her own prey alone, a more laborious, as well as more dangerous way of living, than by feeding on grass, the assistance of the male is necessary to the maintenance of their common family, which cannot subsist till they are able to prey for themselves, but by the joint care of male and female. The same is to be observed in all birds, (except some domestic ones, where plenty of food excuses the cock from feeding, and taking care of the young brood) whose young needing food in the nest, the cock and hen continue mates, till the young are able to use their wing, and provide for themselves.

Sect. 80. And herein I think lies the chief, if not the only reason, why the male and female in mankind are tied to a longer conjunction than other creatures, viz. because the female is capable of conceiving, and de facto is commonly with child again, and brings forth too a new birth, long before the former is out of a dependency for support on his parents help, and able to shift for himself, and has all the assistance is due to him from his parents: whereby the father, who is bound to take care for those he hath begot, is under an obligation to continue in conjugal society with the same woman longer than other creatures, whose young being able to subsist of themselves, before the time of procreation returns again, the conjugal bond dissolves of itself, and they are at liberty, till Hymen at his usual anniversary season summons them again to chuse new mates. Wherein one cannot but admire the wisdom of the great Creator, who having given to man foresight, and an ability to lay up for the future, as well as to supply the present necessity, hath made it necessary, that society of man and wife should be more lasting, than of male and female amongst other creatures; that so their industry might be encouraged, and their interest better united, to make provision and lay up goods for their common issue, which uncertain mixture, or easy and frequent solutions of conjugal society would mightily disturb.
(...)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm

[Sailor Steve]

John Locke - founder not only of the Enlightenment but prime mover of the thinking behind the Amercian Revolution. I'm surprised to find that I have the temerity to actually disagree with some of his points, but still I have always considered his writing to be required reading. That said, to my shame I've never actually read him. Thanks for the link. It lead to others.

[Skybird]

Edvard Grieg - Solvejg's Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8AD75_sNJM

I know not much about classical singing, and names to watch out for there. But this is a famous and very beautiful song that I have heard often before - and when listening to this woman performing it, it was immediately clear to me after three lines sung that she was the perfect interpreter for this piece. Maybe it is because Norwegian is her native tongue, maybe it is her unpretentious singing, doing just what she is there fore: singing, and no show and no overdone emotional interpreting - just sing the song, and that's it. Whatever her secret is - she does it right. I love it.

[Aktungbby]

Thanks greatly for that post! Marita Solberg is Norwegian but has been a principal opera singer at the Württenergische Staatsteater Stuttgart and will or has performed at the Salzburg Festival! http://www.belcantoglobalarts.com/solbergbio.php (http://www.belcantoglobalarts.com/solbergbio.php) I confess to some bias::up: My Norwegian music college in Minnesota and my daughter sings solo soprano recitals...I can listen to either one all day long..??!:shifty:Ms Solberg performs a great deal in Germany-lucky you!

[Platapus]

Gold is only worth what a person will agree to pay for it.

If I have a gold bar and you have a loaf of bread and I am hungry enough, how much is my gold bar worth?

[Oberon]

Gold is only worth what a person will agree to pay for it.

If I have a gold bar and you have a loaf of bread and I am hungry enough, how much is my gold bar worth?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=212504

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Gold is only worth what a person will agree to pay for it.

If I have a gold bar and you have a loaf of bread and I am hungry enough, how much is my gold bar worth? Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. ~ Publilius Syrus

[Skybird]

- No find today due to flooding. -

[Jimbuna]

My precious find of the day :sunny:

http://s3.postimg.org/lxzk581ar/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

[Tribesman]

My precious find of the day :sunny:

http://s3.postimg.org/lxzk581ar/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
That's no good you want the Walter Hicks 125.

[Platapus]

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. ~ Publilius Syrus


I thought Leonard Nimoy said that. :D

[BrucePartington]

I thought Leonard Nimoy said that. :D
Been playing Civilization IV, have we?:D

[Oberon]

"Beep...Beep...Beep...Beep...Beep...Beep...Beep...B eep"

[BrucePartington]

"Beep...Beep...Beep...Beep...Beep...Beep...Beep...B eep"
I think he was a bit off tone there.

[Skybird]

John Stuart Mill, 1859 - On Liberty


In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.


http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901

What sets Mill apart from many other early thinkers of libertarianism, is that he was aware of that any libertarianism and any liberal tradition would erode its own basis in people's sympathy and thinking, if such a tradition would focus exclusively on the issue of propagating the ideal capitalism alone. He was a prophet there, especially proven right by the role of total and complete meaninglessness libertarian parties nowadays play in Europe. People do not like to be free and self-responsible, they prefer to be fed and nursed and nannied by states and parties from the cradle to the grave, that is far more attractive for most, an they give up freedom all too easily to get that. And America: one can hardly argue that when the Democrats are socialists, the Republicans thus are libertarians. They are not - and not so by a very wide margin.

[Jimbuna]

That's no good you want the Walter Hicks 125.

Looks interesting, I'll try to find that...cheers.

[Tribesman]

Looks interesting, I'll try to find that...cheers.

As far as I know St Austell is the only source, I always pick up a few bottles on the way back from Meva.
It's a much cleaner taste than Woods.
Put it on next years birthday list:up:

http://www.staustellbreweryshop.co.uk/shop/spirits/125-navy-rum/
They don't deliver to Ireland

[Skybird]

"Me and them"

http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-729549-galleryV9-rsyp.jpg

[Skybird]

Laurence J. Peter - The Peter Principle


The Peter Principle is a special case of a ubiquitous observation: Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. This is "The Generalized Peter Principle." There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Peter observed this about humans.

In an organizational structure, the assessment of the potential of an employee for a promotion is often based on their performance in the current job which results eventually in their being promoted to their highest level of competence and potentially then to a role in which they are not competent, referred to as their "level of incompetence". The employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching his or her career's ceiling in an organization.

Peter suggests that "[i]n time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." He coined the term hierarchiology as the social science concerned with the basic principles of hierarchically organized systems in the human society.

He noted that their incompetence may be a result of the skills required being different rather than more difficult; by way of example, an excellent engineer may find that he or she made a poor manager due to a limitation of the interpersonal skills required by a manager to effectively lead a team.

Rather than seeking to promote a talented “super-competent” junior employee, Peter suggested that an incompetent manager may set them up to fail or dismiss them because they will likely "violate the first commandment of hierarchical life with incompetent leadership: [namely that] the hierarchy must be preserved".


There are methods that organizations can use to mitigate the risk associated with the Peter Principle:

- Refrain from promoting workers based on their current performance without proof of their abilities to succeed in the desired role.
- Provide in-service training for the desired roles for those being considered for promotion.
- Provide a parallel career path for good technical staff, possibly with the offer of additional pay, perks or recognition without requiring promotion to management, similar to a warrant officer in the military.
- Implement an Up or out approach as authorized by the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act for the United States Armed Forces and by manning control policies within the British Army, in which personnel who are not promoted above certain ranks within the fixed number of years are deemed to lack the necessary competence and are likely to be dismissed. Some larger businesses, notably major international management consultancies/accountancy firms including McKinsey, BCG, and Bain use a similar method, or the 'vitality curve' or 'rank and yank' used by GE where employees who are ranked in the bottom 5-10% on performance are likely to be fired.


Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda and Cesare Garofalo used an agent-based modelling approach to simulate the promotion of employees in a system where the Peter Principle is assumed to be true. They found that the best way to improve efficiency in an enterprise is to promote people randomly, or to shortlist the best and the worst performer in a given group, from which the person to be promoted is then selected randomly.For this work, they won the 2010 Ig Nobel Prize in management science.

A similar theory was proposed by Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon series. In his 1996 book, The Dilbert Principle, Adams suggested that "the least smart people are promoted, simply because they’re the ones you don't want doing actual work." In other words people are promoted because of their incompetence in their current role, rather than their competence. Others have suggested the "Peter Principle in reverse," a management strategy of deliberately promoting an employee beyond his or her level of existing competency.
Forerunners

In the 1910s, José Ortega y Gasset suggested that: "All public employees should be demoted to their immediately lower level, as they have been promoted until turning incompetent".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle




That Laurence also had a most original sense of humour that reminds strongly of those quotes you remember from Churchill, can be seen here

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/laurence_j_peter.html
:haha:

[Skybird]

Animated cultural history

An animation that shows the places of birth, moving patterns, and places of death of the 150,000 most influential cultural contributors and remembered persons of the past centuries.

Blue dots are places of birth, red dots are places of death.

Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=231zuH3uMwc

Note the difference between France and Germany: the massive centralization in France where all activity aims and movers towards Paris, and the level of activity covering all of Germany.

America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwmiQ75iW6Y
Going West!


Abstract

The emergent processes driving cultural history are a product of complex interactions among large numbers of individuals, determined by difficult-to-quantify historical conditions. To characterize these processes, we have reconstructed aggregate intellectual mobility over two millennia through the birth and death locations of more than 150,000 notable individuals. The tools of network and complexity theory were then used to identify characteristic statistical patterns and determine the cultural and historical relevance of deviations. The resulting network of locations provides a macroscopic perspective of cultural history, which helps us to retrace cultural narratives of Europe and North America using large-scale visualization and quantitative dynamical tools and to derive historical trends of cultural centers beyond the scope of specific events or narrow time intervals.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6196/558

[Skybird]

Claude Debussy - Claire de Lune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nft7tiy5E-w

The pianist is Francois-Joelle Thiollier. I like Debussy very much and have listened to many different pianists. The overwhelming majority of them play Debussy either way too fast, or with almost kitschig emotional hyperdrive, but with Debussy it is a bit like with Chopin: the music already is emotional the way the composer has set the accents and directions for how to play it - leave it to that and do not add more emotion, else you easily overdo things. Thilloier gets the balance between sober expression and subjective interpretation right, for me he is the reference when it comes to Debussy, and I compare every other pianist to his four albums with Debussy's piano works. Although having won many classical competitions in his younger years, almost nobody knows him, which surprises me until today. For playing Debussy, he is my first choice interpret.

[Skybird]

Dubai Duty Free Shergar Cup in Ascot

http://img.welt.de/img/bilder-des-tages/origs130831750/9769722910-w900-h600/Dubai-Duty-Free-Shergar-Cup-Photoshoot.jpg

[Skybird]

The Tragedy of the Commons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLirNeu-A8I

I mentioned it earlier when quoting Jared Diamond some years ago, but back then did not know the English term for what in German is called "Drama der Allmende".


The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately reduces the resource through over-exploitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-exploitation), temporarily or permanently. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it). This, in turn, causes demand for the resource to increase, which causes the problem to snowball until the resource collapses (even if it retains a capacity to recover).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[Skybird]

Thomas Paine (1791) - The Rights of Man

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/index.htm


Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one
...)
The idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet-laureat.
(...)
I speak an open and disinterested language, dictated by no passion but that of humanity. To me, who have not only refused offers, because I thought them improper, but have declined rewards I might with reputation have accepted, it is no wonder that meanness and imposition appear disgustful. Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
What impresses me in Paine is not always his defence of democracy and condemnation of aristocracy (obviously there are quite some - imo - hyper-idealistic assessments that I do not fully agree with, since I oppose BOTH democracy and feudal state orders), but his absolutely believable attitude of honesty and humane noblesse.

I must find in English some introduction to the ancient Greek views of democracy. That should be an eye-opener nicely contrasting against Paine.

[Skybird]

The beauty of abandoned places

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/lost-place-fotograf-fennema-tales-of-yesteryear-fotostrecke-117190.html

[Skybird]

Maximilian Bode (2012) - Bombs

http://www11.pic-upload.de/12.08.14/16me3vyemflk.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-24227894/1.jpg.html)
http://www11.pic-upload.de/12.08.14/ofrikz57ugwt.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-24227928/2.jpg.html)
http://www11.pic-upload.de/12.08.14/398cav2ah635.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-24227943/3.jpg.html)

[Sailor Steve]

That really puts it into perspective. :dead:

[Aktungbby]

INDEED! especially in view of today's anniversary of the first Russian Hydrogen test: the first Soviet test of a hydrogen bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb), took place on August 12, 1953 and was nicknamed Joe 4 by the Americans. It used a layer-cake design of fission and fusion fuels (uranium 235 and lithium-6 deuteride) and produced a yield of 400 kilotons, mostly from neutron-initiated fission rather than fusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dUIq8gHgc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dUIq8gHgc) Perhaps not a 'true' hydrogen bomb... but 400 kilotons TNT...:hmmm: I wasn't picky at age 2!

[Skybird]

Harold White, 2014 - NASA Warp Drive Concept Spaceship

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zPOxm6r__A

http://www.cosmostv.org/2014/06/nasas-warp-drive-starship-ixs.html

[Skybird]

This one is only for those understanding a little bit of German, sorry, but it is too good and the guy does his job too well as if I want to ignore it completely. Maybe one day somebody will do the subtitles.

Michael Rosenhahn - Solaris als Grundfrage der Philosophie

part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acCPV0VN31Q
part 2:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIKMAPD5Fw
part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ioja3ebfOc
part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9288htuZxI

30 minutes all together.

Skip the first minute, that is just an infantile video show that was not needed at all.

Rosenhahn, with very simple speech and in an elegant way, using the easiest of tools only for demonstration, introduces us to one aspect of the philosophical abyss that hides behinds Andrej Tarkowski's film "Solaris", an old theme of philosphy, the relation between "Sein" and "Bewußtsein= bewußtem Sein", or in other words: the relation between "ideal" and "matter".

It gets pretty fascinating some time later on.

The lecture originally was part of a German DVD release of Solaris from around ten years ago.

From reflections and copies in mirrors over Marx' materialism to Moebius strips - not bad!

[Skybird]

Jamie Harkins - Beach Art

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/jamie-harkins-kunst-am-strand-fotostrecke-117938.html

[Skybird]

Ludwig von Mises (1932) - On the destructionism in socialism

Written in the 19-30s - it could have been as well the early years after the cold war ended, that actual it is.


It is a mistake to think that the lack of success of experiments in Socialism that have been made can help to overcome Socialism. Facts per se can neither prove nor refute anything. Everything is decided by the interpretation and explanation of the facts, by the ideas and the theories.
The man who clings to Socialism will continue to ascribe all the world's evil to private property and to expect salvation from Socialism. Socialists ascribe the failures of Russian Bolshevism to every circumstance except the inadequacy of the system. From the socialist point of view, Capitalism alone is responsible for all the misery the world has had to endure in recent years. Socialists see only what they want to see and are blind to anything that might contradict their theory.


Only ideas can overcome ideas and it is only the ideas of Capitalism and of Liberalism that can overcome Socialism. Only by a battle of ideas can a decision be reached.


Liberalism and Capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.


Even with those of intellectually higher standing, with the few capable of independent reflection, this seems to give Socialism an advantage. With the others, the great masses who are unable to think, the Socialist position is considered unshakable. A speaker who inflames the passions of the masses is supposed to have a better chance of success than one who appeals to their reason. Thus the prospects of Liberalism in the fight with Socialism are accounted very poor.


This pessimistic point of view is completely mistaken in its estimate of the influence which rational and quiet reflection can exercise on the masses. It also exaggerates enormously the importance of the part played by the masses, and consequently mass-psychological elements, in creating and forming the predominant ideas of an epoch.


It is true that the masses do not think. But just for this reason they follow those who do think. The intellectual guidance of humanity belongs to the very few who think for themselves. At first they influence the circle of those capable of grasping and understanding what others have thought; through these intermediaries their ideas reach the masses and there condense themselves into the public opinion of the time. Socialism has not become the ruling idea of our period because the masses first thought out the idea of the socialization of the means of production and then transmitted it to the intellectually higher classes. Even the materialistic conception of history, haunted as it is by "the psyche of the people" as conceived by Romanticism and the historical school of jurisprudence does not risk such an assertion. Of itself the mass psyche has never produced anything but mass crime, devastation, and destruction. Admittedly the idea of Socialism is also in its effects nothing more than destruction, but it is nevertheless an idea. It had to be thought out, and this could only be the work of individual thinkers. Like every other great thought, it has penetrated to the masses only through the intellectual middle class. Neither the people nor the masses were the first socialists. Even today they are agrarian socialist and syndicalist rather than socialist. The first socialists were the intellectuals; they and not the masses are the backbone of Socialism. The power of Socialism too, is like any other power ultimately spiritual; and it finds its support in ideas proceeding from the intellectual leaders, who give them to the people. If the intelligentsia abandoned Socialism its power would end. In the long run the masses cannot withstand the ideas of the leaders. True, individual demagogues may be ready, for the sake of a career and against their better knowledge, to instil into the people ideas which flatter their baser instincts and which are therefore sure to be well received. But in the end, prophets who in their heart know themselves to be false cannot prevail against those filled with the power of sincere conviction. Nothing can corrupt ideas. Neither by money nor by other rewards can one hire men for the fight against ideas.


Human society is an issue of the mind. Social co-operation must first be conceived, then willed, then realized in action. It is ideas that make history, not the "material productive forces," those nebulous and mystical schemata of the materialist conception of history. If we could overcome the idea of Socialism, if humanity could be brought to recognize the social necessity of private ownership in the means of production, then Socialism would have to leave the stage. That is the only thing that counts.


The victory of the socialist idea over the Liberal idea has only come about through the displacement of the social attitude, which has regard to the social function of the single institution and the total effect of the whole social apparatus, by an anti-social attitude, which considers the individual parts of the social mechanism as detached units. Socialism sees the individuals--the hungry, the unemployed, and the rich—and finds fault on that account; Liberalism never forgets the whole and the interdependence of every phenomenon. It knows well enough that private ownership in the means of production is not able to transform the world into a paradise; it has never tried to establish anything beyond the simple fact that the socialist order of society is unrealizable, and therefore less able than Capitalism to promote the well-being of all.


No one has understood Liberalism less than those who have joined its ranks during the recent decades. They have felt themselves obliged to fight excrescences" of Capitalism, thereby taking over without a qualm the characteristic anti-social attitude of the socialists. A social order has no excrescences which can be cut off at will. If a phenomenon results inevitably from a social system based on private ownership in the means of production, no ethical or aesthetic caprice can condemn it. Speculation, for example, which is inherent in all economic action, in a socialistic society as well as any other, cannot be condemned for the form it takes under Capitalism merely because the censor of morals mistakes its social function. Nor have these disciples of Liberalism been any more fortunate in their criticisms of Socialism. They have constantly declared that Socialism is a beautiful and noble ideal towards which one ought to strive were it realizable, but that, alas, it could not be so, because it presupposed human beings more perfect morally than those with whom we have to deal. It is difficult to see how people can decide that Socialism is in any way better than Capitalism unless they can maintain that it functions better as a social system. With the same justification it might be said that a machine constructed on the basis of perpetual motion would be better than one worked according to the given laws of mechanics—if only it could be made to function reliably. If the concept of Socialism contains an error which prevents that system from doing what it is supposed to do, then Socialism cannot be compared with the Capitalist system, for this has proved itself workable. Neither can it be called nobler, more beautiful or more just.
It is true, Socialism cannot be realized, but it is not because it calls for sublime and altruistic beings. One of the things this book set out to prove was that the socialist commonwealth lacks above all one quality which is indispensable for every economic system which does not live from hand to mouth but works with indirect and roundabout methods of production: that is the ability to calculate, and therefore to proceed rationally. Once this has been generally recognized, all socialist ideas must vanish from the minds of reasonable human beings.


How untenable is the opinion that Socialism must come because social evolution necessarily leads to it, has been shown in earlier sections of this book. The world inclines to Socialism because the great majority of people want it. They want it because they believe that Socialism will guarantee a higher standard of welfare. The loss of this conviction would signify the end of Socialism.
from: L.v.M.: Socialism - An Economic and Sociological Analysis (Die Gemeinwirtschaft. Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus), chapter 35: Overcoming Destrucionism.



A free - and legal! - pdf of the scanned book is available as well as a better-formatted HTML and an .epub version of the book here:


http://mises.org/document/2736/Socialism-An-Economic-and-Sociological-Analysis


English-talking people have it good, they can get almost all of von Mises' main works in English for free.:

http://mises.org/Literature/Author/280/Ludwig-von-Mises

With Germans, it is a bit different, since the German versions are subject of other copyright situations on the German book market.

The more I learned about this man and read by him, the more my admiration and appreciation grew. The whole mess we face today - he saw it coming and explained why it was inevitable to come - already in the 19-30s. EIGHTY YEARS AGO. Having been a defender of the democratic principle for most of his life, in the late years of his life he moved away from that defence and admitted to feel guilty for not having seen earlier to what degree the demcrioatic system necessarily contributes and even leads to these disastrous developments. He said he was naivew for too long, wanting to hope for something better.

It speaks for him that he admitted to this mistake of his, even though he was a bit late. I mention it only to put into relaiton the general undertone in most of his works that sounds like quite a strong defence of the democracies of the West. He wrote these works before he came to insight later in his life, short before his death. And it is the only major flaw you can find in them, as far as I now have waded through just the three main works of his - its quite a monumental work he left behind. There is so much more than just these three key-works (Das Gemeinwesen, Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufmittel, Nationalökonomie).

[Skybird]

2014 - Laniakea: Immeasurable Heaven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo

[Aktungbby]

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GBTSupercluster_nrao_2.jpgTwo views of the Laniakea Supercluster. The outer surface shows the region dominated by Laniakea’s gravity. The streamlines shown in black trace the paths along which galaxies flow as they are pulled closer inside the supercluster. Individual galaxies’ colors distinguish major components within the Laniakea Supercluster: the historical Local Supercluster in green, the Great Attractor region in orange, the Pavo-Indus filament in purple, and structures including the Antlia Wall and Fornax-Eridanus cloud in magenta. KISS: we're 93 million miles from the sun on the outer edge of the Milky Way; on the relative outer edge of the Laniiakea Supercluster (and the Great Attractor):dead:...pays to stay on the edges(and beat the heat) IMHO!! Does god throw dice or are we lucky?:D GREAT FIND O' the DAY!:yeah: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=31466 (http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=31466)

[Skybird]

David Hume (1748) - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding


The mere philosopher is a character, which is commonly but little acceptable in the world, as being supposed to contribute nothing either to the advantage or pleasure of society; while he lives remote from communication with mankind, and is wrapped up in principles and notions equally remote from their comprehension. On the other hand, the mere ignorant is still more despised; nor is any thing deemed a surer sign of an illiberal genius in an age and nation where the sciences flourish, than to be entirely destitute of all relish for those noble entertainments. The most perfect character is supposed to lie between those extremes; retaining an equal ability and taste for books, company, and business; preserving in conversation that discernment and delicacy which arise from polite letters; and in business, that probity and accuracy which are the natural result of a just philosophy. In order to diffuse and cultivate so accomplished a character, nothing can be more useful than compositions of the easy style and manner, which draw not too much from life, require no deep application or retreat to be comprehended, and send back the student among mankind full of noble sentiments and wise precepts, applicable to every exigence of human life. By means of such compositions, virtue becomes amiable, science agreeable, company instructive, and retirement entertaining.


http://sqapo.com/CompleteText-Hume-ConcerningHumanUnderstanding.htm

Cannot claim to have read Hume in any complete work of his, but in many excerpts from various works, always being impressed. I wonder whether there would have been the influx of Kant in Germany without Kant having been affected by the influx of Hume. :) I slowly read my way through the above work currently, since Spring, in no systematic effort, but a lazy approach. Enjoyable.

Hume is one of those famous great Scottish minds, no doubt on that.

[Aktungbby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLgJ7pk0X-s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLgJ7pk0X-s)

[Skybird]

NASA - CME event of 2012

Puts some things into perspective, and shows how fragile and easy to break our technology-craving civilization is.

What happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg3NAdOYp8Q

What could it have meant:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm/


If an asteroid big enough to knock modern civilization back to the 18th century appeared out of deep space and buzzed the Earth-Moon system, the near-miss would be instant worldwide headline news. Two years ago, Earth experienced a close shave just as perilous, but most newspapers didn't mention it. The "impactor" was an extreme solar storm, the most powerful in as much as 150+ years.
"If it had hit, we would still be picking up the pieces," says Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado.


After such an event hits Earth, those who had lived before in primitive circumstances would find it easier to survivive and to fight others than those who only know a world and a fight for survival depending on the tools of hightech civilization. That is true for the individual. That is true for nations.

[Catfish]

Asteroids are the universe's best reminder, that we should forget our ridiculous wars, forbid religious nutheads, send all egomaniacs in jail and finally do some real [sic!] research.

[Aktungbby]

Asteroids are the universe's best reminder, that we should forget our ridiculous wars, forbid religious nutheads, send all egomaniacs in jail and finally do some real [sic!] research.

Not if you're William the Conqueror and need Devine inspiration!:D from the Bayeux Tapestry; comet detail(Haley's actually) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Comete_Tapisserie_Bayeux.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comete_Tapisserie_Bayeux.jpg) from the panel http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/images/bay07a.jpg "We now know that the comet-star in the sky was Halley's Comet making one of its 76-year cyclical appearances. In the Tapestry, an attendant rushes to tell Harold of the celestial happening as he sits upon his throne. The comet appears at the upper left. The portrayal acquires a sense of foreboding as empty long boats appear below the scene. These no doubt presage the invasion fleet William will employ to cross the Channel. The Tapestry implies that the appearance of the comet expresses God's wrath at Harold for breaking his oath to William and assuming the throne. Retribution will be found in the invasion fleet." NORSE GÖTTERDÄMMERUNG BBY:rock:...move over Siegfried!:03:

[Skybird]

Hans-Herrmann Hoppe (2014) - Logical Beauty

http://www.mises.org/daily/6494/The-Logical-Beauty-of-Libertarianism


Democratic state government systematically promotes egalitarianism and relativism. In the field of human interaction, it leads to the subversion and ultimately disappearance of the idea of eternal and universal principles of justice. Law is swamped and submerged by legislation. In the field of the arts and of aesthetic judgment, democracy leads to the subversion and ultimately disappearance of the notion of beauty and universal standards of beauty. Beauty is swamped and submerged by so-called “modern art.”
(...)
Private property entitles its owner to discriminate: to exclude or include others from his property and to determine the conditions of entry and inclusion. Both inclusion and exclusion have associated costs and benefits for the owner, which he weighs against each other when he makes his decision. In any case, the owner’s decision is motivated by his concern for his property and by reason. His reasoning may turn out correct and he reaches his goal or it may turn out wrong, but in any case, the owner’s is a reasoned decision.
... a libertarian world would be characterized by a far greater variety of different, but internally relatively homogeneous communities, and consequently the range, diversity, and vigor of intellectual discussion in all likelihood would far surpass anything experienced presently or at any time in the past.
(...)
Psychologically matters are different, however. Here, in the realm of psychology we sense that life as a peaceful bum or as a lover of Soviet Realist art is somehow incompatible and at odds with the life of a self-conscious libertarian. When we see such conduct or taste displayed in a professed libertarian, it causes us emotional or aesthetic distress and dissonance. And rightly so, I believe. Because the human experience is characterized by the integrated whole of three abilities: of the recognition of truth, of justice and of beauty. We can distinguish between true and false, we can distinguish right from wrong, and we can distinguish between the beautiful (and perfection) and the ugly (and the imperfect) — and we can speak and reflect on all three notions. A whole and complete human life, then, should not only be truthful and just, it should also be a good life. Maybe not beautiful and perfect, but a life striving toward beauty and perfection. An exemplary, morally and aesthetically uplifting and inspiring life. It is here, where the peaceful bum and the Soviet-Realism-lover are lacking.
(...)
I would only want people to recognize matters for what they truly are. I would want them to recognize taxes as robbery, politicians as thieves, and the entire state apparatus and bureaucracy as a protection racket, a Mafia-like enterprise, only far bigger and more dangerous. In short: I would want them to hate the State. If everyone believed and did this, then, as É. de la Boétie has shown, all power of the state would almost instantly vanish.
(...)

[Skybird]

Wilhelm Röpke - Totalitarianism and liberalism


Most revealing, however, is the observation that all totalitarian movements of our time with absolute clarity have recognized their true antithesis to be in liberalism (=libertarianism), and they never stopped for just one moment to wage bitter war to the finish against it, with violence, libel and slander. Always on the lookout for some success-promising turn, the modern tyrants have - they may be called fascist, Nazi or Communist - tried all the fancy costumes. They assured us that they were socialist or democratic or nationalistic or romantic-corporatist or whatever. Yes, at times they even had the cynicism to provide even Christianity with their reverence.

But they always were wary of never to court liberalism.

---

Besonders aufschlussreich aber ist die Beobachtung, dass alle totalitären Bewegungen unserer Zeit mit sicherem Blick im Liberalismus ihren eigentlichen Gegenpol erkannt und keinen Augenblick aufgehört haben, mit Gewalt, Verleumdung und Beschimpfung gegen ihn Krieg bis aufs Messer zu führen. Auf der ständigen Suche nach irgendeiner Erfolg versprechenden Wendung haben die modernen Tyrannen – mögen sie sich nun faschistisch, nationalsozialistisch oder kommunistisch nennen – alle Maskenkostüme ausprobiert. Sie haben uns versichert, dass sie sozialistisch oder demokratisch oder nationalistisch oder romantisch-korporativistisch oder was sonst immer seien. Ja, sie haben zuzeiten den Zynismus so weit getrieben, dass sie sogar dem Christentum Reverenz erwiesen.

Aber sie haben sich gehütet, jemals dem Liberalismus den Hof zu machen.
Random find. - Röpke was social philosopher and economist. He was one of the pathfinders of the concept of so-called social market economy. Influenced by Menger, von Mises, and the Freiburger Schule, he projected influence himself in the thinking of Ludwig Erhard, the legendary German minister for economy after WWII, usually referred to as the "father of the German economy miracle".

[Skybird]

Why is there anything at all

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

I must criticise that text and author for a fundamental error at the very basic root level already.

It has become a common bad habit in science since some years now to claim that now they can not only explain how things function and how they come into being, but also "why". One of the loudest voices claiming that, is Stephen Hawkings, namely in his latest book.

However, if one examines the above text (or Hawking's "explanation" of the Why), one must realise that although they are pushing theories further and make them more complex or precise or however you want to call it, these theories always refer back to one starting condition or initialising event that got things started. The fallacy that is so popular amongst scientists now is to proclaim that because one explains how that event happened and how things unfolded from there on and what basic characteristics a minimum quantity of "nothingness" has (a void that now gets understood to be instabile at the quantum level and thus creating space-time), this would equal an explanation why these things got started for the first time, or why the most basic quantum of nothingness is instabile and has the quality of creating space-time. They also say that they now have a reasonable idea about what the universe looks like, and why it looks like that (it is a flat ellipsoid, they say). But when there is a claim about a form, that form implies a border, a limit that defines that form (else it would be formless), and beyond that limit that gives the universe a form, there must be something different that is "non-universe", void,. nothingness, "unspeakable something", an I-don't-know-what. To explain the shape of the universe therefore also does not explain why it came into being in the first.

I do not know why this basic misunderstanding becomes so popular in science. Is it self-flattering of the scientific ego that wants to claim the power and prestige to be capable of explaining everything? I prefer to stick with what gets covered by scientific methodology: that science can explain the How. This it can explain with ever growing accuracy, that is the inner essence and nature of the scientific process.

But the initialising Why I fear forever will be a subject that can only be played around with by human mind's fantasy - today, and I assume most likely in all future to come as well.

Maybe it depends on individual temperament whether you take consolation or despair from that uncertainty.