This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
@Cred I’m not persuaded you’ve engaged with my points deeply enough yet to warrant further response. The convergence constraint remains unanswered. If I weren’t tied up with other people’s work I’d engage more, but that’s the crunch point. I genuinely wish you well with the project.
-
Just going to completely ignore what the thread is about? Socialist amnesia?
-
I would never pay to volunteer beyond basic admin fees like paying the service which links you up with people in need of volunteers. Generally paying to volunteer sounds quite exploitative unless they are offering significant value. I met many people in SE Asia who were volunteering without needing to pay. Typically the setup is you volunteer your time for free and they provide accommodation and food.
-
You literally don't know what socialist means.
-
Indeed complete bullshit. Nobody gave a damn about Van Gogh during his lifetime. The general public, other artists, they thought his work was crap. It was a master marketing scheme by his sister-in-law when he was dead after she inherited his paintings. Ever since then the values have sky rocketed. And the public conform to it. The reality is that Van Gogh was a pretty rubbish artist now seen as a total master of art. Nonsense. And conformity
-
Interesting point, but he still ended up a pawn in that whole game, riding it to fame and wealth. Becoming famous for telling the establishment to fuck themselves is still the same sort of game. Warhol's "art" still ended up highly overrated and overvalued.
-
Got it.
-
Cireeric replied to Husseinisdoingfine's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
It is really hard to make sense of all of this. There are so many informations bubbling up and it is pretty hard to decipher whats a legible source and what not. It will probably take years to decode all of this. Also at the same time I think the timing of flooding the world with all this right now might also be strategic in a larger play. -
It is the impulse and drive themselves, prior to any willful action. You are breathing now.
-
No, I'm not using AI for writing and when I do, I will disclose it. (Yes, my hands indeed hurt from all the typing) The reason how I can be so productive is because I currently invest all my energy into this. This also functions as an experiment on ontomodal alignment.
-
To be fair Leo has helped me immensly . But leo has also caused me a lot of harm . Its a mixed bag
-
@oOo I agree with most of what you're saying. But it seems like there are some misunderstandings. (Also I have realized some of these issues myself and fixed them by now) The most important thing to realize is that ontomodality is not a psychology model anymore. So when you say "what your model describes is just a manifestation of physical reality" then I say, physical reality is just a manifestation of what my model describes (both statements are true depending on the lens). The reason why you believe that physical reality is the source of every structure is because it's true for you. It is important to note that I'm not saying you're deluded, that you have to see it like me and that your observations are not relevant, which they are since I want my model to be true regardless of the lens. So I'm encouraging you to keep critiquing ontomodality from the holotaxonic perspective. The Problem with essence When I'm using the word existence, I don't mean essence. My model does not pose there is existence outside the now. It seems to be a blend of ontology and phenomenology: While ontology asks "what exists" and phenomenology asks "how is reality appearing in the now" while ignoring existence (epoché), my model seems to ask how existence itself appears in the now. Since I'm not a formally educated philosopher, I don't know if this is novel or even makes sense from the academic perspective, but I am planning to figure it out. I hope you can see now that my methodology is entirely different from that of a medical student. The problem with stability I completely moved away from the claim that it is inherently special, how I chose the different modes. I think it's cool that the ones that I chose each point to some unique existing metaphysical theory (which makes analyzing them a lot easier). I also moved away from the claim, that unimodality is somehow more stable or better or more enlightened than polymodality for that reason. I look at ontomodality from the perspective of linear algebra. First a simple example to make it easier for people who are rusty on linear algebra: If you want three directions (that are invertible) to traverse all 3d space, all you need to ensure, is that they don't lie on a plane, since then you can only traverse the 2d space of that plane. This means they need to be linearly independent. The big metaphysical idea the model is based upon, is that human existence can be described by something like an N-dimensional vector space. (I don't know what N is. It might very well not be 6). What linear algebra now tells us, is that it does not matter which N vectors you choose, as long as they're linearly independent. Because if they are, you will still be able to span the entire N-dimensional vector space with them. (It is important to note that linear algebra show up in a lot of places) Now, the most elegant way to do this is to normalize them (make them equal (to one)) and to make them orthogonal. Now applied to the model, this means that each of the modes "should not have any component of each of the other modes" and that they should all have equal emphasis. For example if I would throw "language sensitive" in the mix, it would not expand the current vector space with one additional dimension, since language is semiotaxonic. This means that taxonic, semionic and language-mode (Logonic or whatever) are not linearly independent. This is why this is such a language game (and yes, it also happens to be a lot of fun). My theory is that we already have a set of vectors that span the vector space of human existence, which is the set of all words that have ever been invented but that the number N is much smaller than the number of all words because they are not all orthogonal to each other, obviously. Interestingly, this is similar to how word embedding works in large language models. Without learning about LLMs, these insights would have not been inaccessible to me. My goal is to investigate this space and find at least one elegant enough way to span those N dimensions. (I need to find a cooler name for that number like O/Ω) Some questions are still open: Does this even make any sense to bring linear algebra into this How do you prove that the modes are linearly independent How do you normalize/equalize the modes Here is a short by 3blue1brown that might clear up the idea of viewing language as a vector space:
-
@Cred Also, are you using AI to write your posts? If so, ease up on that and disclose it when you do. Just a heads-up.
-
If you think about it, Andy Warhol was giving the finger to the fine arts crew. The critics and moment. The hype. By using their own medium against them; creating performative art and shoving it in their faces. He recognised the farse and hype 🙃
-
I think the Eastern countries were right to join NATO - anyone would have considering the history. Unfortunately no matter how democratic or lawful a countries decision may be - great powers have a red line - which is to not allow other great powers who are seen as rivals that openly want to contain them - park up right next to them either by land (Russia) or sea (China). Just as the Cuban missile crisis was understandably acted upon by the US. If Venezuela had started stationing Russian/Chinese missiles pointed at the US or started creating deep military interoperability (de-fact NATO style as with Ukraine) - US would be totally understandable for acting upon that - even if it would be morally and lawfully illegitimate and bloody. The issue wasn't Eastern Europe's fear but was in joining a alliance where the leaders incentives differ. The US seeks primacy of the globe, containing the rise of any challengers to it (Wolfowitz doctrine) - their logic is imperial unipolarity. Mainland Europe's logic (if not imperial) would rationally be seeking to accommodate and co-exist with a nuclear neighbor within a shared security architecture - which geography will never allow you to escape, so it only makes sense to co-exist. Europe is and has been trapped between Russian security logic and Atlantic hegemonic logic. The Atlanticist empire's of Britain, then passing the baton onto the US - were built off dominating the sea's (trade routes, chokepoints) and finance (reserve currency). Any continental integration happening outside of that control threatens their primacy - including Eurasian integration. That logic has been so institutionally embedded due to the dominance of the prior British Empire, then the subsequent US empire, that the continent has atrophied it's own strategic thinking relating to whats in its own interest ie don't hitch your ride to one power totally but rather play powers off each other and remain neutral to gain leverage. See who does this well - Turkey, India, Pakistan (between China/US). See the result of not doing it well - Ukraine, Europe. That logic now has its own inertia and is now reflexive - even Epstein is blamed as a Russian honeypot operation lol despite all evidence to the contrary. Europe's sovereignty has been constrained militarily (NATO-US), economically (US finance and corporations), and energetically (Nord Stream - US LNG dependence rendering them industrially un-competitive). Continental drift towards Eurasian integration has been geopolitically cock blocked and Europe is further tied to the Atlanticist imperial orbit. Only now with the most blatant actions from the US now has Europe rubbing their eyes awake to the need of hedging against that domination, subjugation and humiliation. The US post WW2 literally backed and installed dictators via coups (school of the Americas). It didn't support democracy by principle - it worked with authoritarians when it suited its interest and toppled democratically elected leaders when it didn't (UK-US coup of Mossadeg in Iran 1953). That lead to the revolution and Ayotallah which Western imperialism is still targeting today. The West supports Gulf Monarchs till today too. The ongoing struggle since WW2 has really been about preventing any independent power center / pole outside Atlantic control - including of Europe itself being one. Geopolitics start to make sense from this lens. It's been talked about since centuries - Mackinder's world island theory, Spykman's Rimland theory, Brezinksi's great chessboard. ''Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.'' Hence why Iran-Russia-China are boogeymen - they share the worlds largest landmass and don't want to bend the knee to that primacy. Hence why Israel was strategically seen as a beneficial outpost and frontier state (from Britain till the US) - occupying space on that same land. Biden said Israel is the best investment - and investments require a return on that investment. That return is not for the national interest but for imperial interest. Hence Greenland's importance - with Artic sea routes opening up trade outside Atlanticist control that would benefit integrating Europe to Asia. That results in Europe gaining future leverage and increased autonomy away from the US orbit - which pre-empts early geostrategic positioning to maintain primacy. Hence Venezuela, a country in the US hemisphere trading outside of the US dollar (reserve currency) needing to be disciplined whilst signalling to other countries not to defect from the financial system that upholds their dominance. BRICS neutralises Atlantic imperial primacy via finance (non dollar settlement) and trade (land based belt and road). This is the ongoing battle and the great game at play. Not so much authoritarian vs democracy. On Authoritarianism vs Democracy Invoking communism no longer holds so ''authoritarian vs democracy'' becomes the new story. But it’s less about regime type and more about alignment - which certain regime types (democratic) are easier to penetrate and coerce into alignment. Communism was for sure a systemic ideological threat because it threatened private capital interests. It's good that communism failed because its genuinely flawed. The issue is that neo-liberalism is too and one ideology failed whilst the other remained to hollow out its own countries leading to financialized feudalism and reactionary populism / authoritarianism. Yeltsin who oversaw the wind down of communist USSR did neo-liberal shock therapy that had terrible results and brought us Putin to hard fistedly stabilise things. Any system that totalizes a particular logic sucks - whether it’s communal logic or capital logic. China is striking a balance today somewhat by using capitalist mechanisms for socialist ends, run by a centralized meritocratic state. The thing with the West using the ''authoritarian vs democracy'' argument is that liberal democracy is treated as a beginning state that needs to be imposed (ironic) or promoted for development to happen, rather than as a end state that comes after survival and stability are secured - something the West had plenty of time to do via colonization that externalized authoritarian violence and coercion so that they could domestically indulge in universalism pluralism. They had the geopolitical luxury of doing so. Liberalising requires surplus, which require stability, which requires at least some coercive capacity to begin with. The West went through internal repression, elite consolidation and coercive state building - externalized much violence through empire, then domestically liberalized. They had slack to do so - which no longer exists for late developers in a post-colonial world. Countries start to deal with human rights and liberal values once they have the conditions for it after securing the human right of survival and stability. The West's very own actions get in the way, sabotaging that sequence. Intervention by empire used to be justified by the “white mans burden” and is now laundered through “democracy promotion”. The same countries being “helped” get judged by countries that themselves went through and are at the end of that developmental sequence.
- Today
-
Additionally some artist were performing a completely different role; Andy Warhol for instance. His work was a calling to all the art and creativity that lies within design and marketing. He painted things like the Campbell soup can to highlight 'This is art. Work & creativity went into this' precisely as a revolt against the fine arts movement. Because they would not recognise an expert typeface songwriter, or the designer behind the Campbell soup can, as an artist. He fundamentally disagreed with their narrow view of 'art'. This was in part a personal vandetta, as he faced this discrimination in his early career. Much of his work was a statement highlighting the creativity and art behind everyday items. Many people covet art, and artists, without even recognising what they did. Why they did it. And how.
-
Indeed - I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your premise. It is the trend-following effect that comes after that I would consider the group think/hype. Similar to following a style trend originating from a couture fashion runway. Avante garde tends to mean, within the art world, new or experimental ideas in art. What breaks the precedent. Pioneering. It is hard to generate something new without it being slapped with 'avante garde'. The finer distinction would be differentiating the artist, their craft & skill from the movement itself. The hype and elevation to legendary status some of the bigger names receive. Removed from the simple craft itself. There are many artists of greater skill within movements that were simply never recognised as much as some of the famous names.
-
@Joseph Maynor comments are turned off in your video. can you turn comments on in your youtube video. also are you an INTJ
-
Yes, but why does that happen? It's a marketing effect. In order to become famous and build a hype movement requires that you do something outrageous and controversial. That's why fine art has this toxic obsession with being avant-garde. This is actually a sneaky form of survival. You have to be avant-garde to make it big in the fine art world. Otherwise there's no hype behind your work. Fine art is a social contagion. It's the old school social media. You gotta go viral to be a somebody. In order to create a really popular video game or movie, you also have to pioneer some new style. Something that makes people stop and look. It doesn't have to be good per se, it just has to make people stop and look. Connor McGregor mastered this self-promotion self-hype cycle in the UFC. That's why he became the most famous and highest paid UFC fighter. Is Connor McGregor the best fighter? No! He's totally over-hyped. But he created a social contagion around himself. He created that fantasy and enough people believe it that it starts to look real.
-
I’m feeling down. I just want to lie on the bed. That’s not what’s happening - I’m actually doing quite a bit. Energy is flowing. But I don’t feel well mentally. I watched this crazy movie on Monday which is currently in theaters: Marty Supreme. I think I’ve never been so stressed while watching a movie lol. It was a fucking wild ride. The breakup is proceeding. We’re still living together until the end of April when our lease is finished. We’re on good terms. Pain is coming up. In two weeks, I’ll be travelling to live for a week in the city I plan to move to after April. I’ll be living in two different places, actually. All for the sake of testing the „vibe” there. Seeing what I like and dislike. It’s still a short time, but I sense it’s enough. I know that city a fair bit anyway - I’ve been there many times, even lived there as a child. I’m looking for a new job with better pay. That’s ongoing. Sometimes I don’t want to wake up in the morning.
-
Day 4 not so good again. i don't like my boss. he's not very specific about the tasks he wants me to do, isn't specific when i ask questions, either...then acts disappointed when something doesn't work the way he'd envisioned it. he sent me to a copy shop and gave unclear instructions about what he wanted printed and how. i walked through the cold, got there, dealt with unwelcoming shop owners for an hour, and knew i had to make some decisions without getting detailed feedback, but i also didn't want to return empty-handed....stressful. then i came back and my boss wasn't happy. i know in the past i would have made this failure about my self-worth....i don't take it seriously now, but i am upset with my boss and kind of think it's his fault he's not giving clearer instructions. that makes it really hard for me to do what he wants. so i don't necessarily feel bad about myself right now....just bad for myself, and a little frustrated and unhappy at work. whatev....i'll be gone by the end of next week, so i really don't care as long as i get a nice entry for my cv. and that's only fair if i spent 50 hours working for him for free, dealing with nasty shop owners and tediously drawing up excel sheets and everything.
-
Bjorn K Holmstrom replied to enchanted's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Yes, if we call this anything related to socialism, the media immune system will kill it. The 20th-century ideological triggers are too strong. The solution is to instead of framing this as Ideology, framing it as civilizational risk management. Systemic resilience and anti-fragility makes people listen, as opposed to redistribution. We can perhaps 'bore' the system into submission, using the language of insurance, accounting, and engineering to install a system that generates justice and regeneration as a byproduct. We can't wait for a philosopher king to save us, the protocol must lead. We don't need a benevolent billionaire to run it, we need a working pilot (a seed). Instead of convincing the global media, demonstrate proof of concept. If one region adopts the protocol and suddenly has measurably lower crime, better food security, and higher community wellbeing scores, the demonstration effect begins, making the neighbors jealous enough to follow. -
tvaeli replied to tvaeli's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
LaegnaAIBasics/NewIdeas/speedupslowdown.md at main · tambetvali/LaegnaAIBasics - this is the introduction to all 3 resources on topic of how to make AI understand long- and short term, yin and yang: exponential-linear uniform dimensionality -
But I think its flawed to re-categorise them as building the USSR. The USSR at its core was a imperial political project that had shared economic integration (command economy directed from Russia), military (unified command under the Red Army), and ideology (communism). Any presence in ex empire regions doesn't automatically mean making that same empire there - it can simply be exercising influence which all powers do. The distinction between influence and imperialism is intent and coercion - not just presence of bases, troops, economic links. Intent (imperial accumulation or security preservation) + legitimacy (coerced or not) are helpful in understanding. Russia invading Ukraine for example is clearly illegitimate (morally and lawfully), yet strategically understandable from a security standpoint / buffer state logic where a red line was crossed and acted upon. Same with Georgia, Crimea. The Black Sea is like a strategic throat for Russia (warm water access) which would land lock them if taken out through encirclement and containment (as the US has said it wants to do and has done in action). Crimea (Sevastopol) is existential for them - which is why it was taken immediately after Maidan. Georgia is also at the underbelly of Russia and on the Black Sea. They flirted with NATO ascension at the 2008 Bucharest summit - after which Russia launched. Moldova is a frozen leftover and the least justifiable or understandable (security wise) position for Russia to hold. It's only possible value is its proximity to Odessa and to complicate NATO encroachment through there presence there - but it definitely isn't existential. Even the existence of asymmetry or dependency isn't by itself imperial. Strong larger powers naturally create dependency with those they deal with - asymmetries will always exist - just like is happening with China Russia or for example with Pakistan relying on China heavily for its military equipment. What would make China imperial in both cases would be where that arrangement is enforced or coerced by credible punishment or the threat of it for defection ie violent force, sanctions, de-stabilisation and intervention. That is the case with Europe or other countries wanting to play outside the US system by trading outside it (non-dollar settlement). As the title says - internal. No state willingly gives up or allows secession. Britain with Northern Ireland, Spain with Catalonia, US wouldn't allow it either without a fight. China clamped down on Xinjiang for the same reason - their were also Islamist elements designated as terrorists by the West itself (spillover from a radicalized Middle Eastern region). The method was inhumane yes - but they didn't bomb the region as the West did trying to deal with Islamists. Russia had a bloody war to maintain Chechnya also - brutal. The first one was actually launched under Yeltsin who was Western aligned and seen as democratically elected / legitimate. He was literally dissolving the USSR - so why Chechnya? Because it wasn't seen as a separate satellite state but Russia proper - which would be like giving up a room in your own house and lead to a domino affect of others also seceding - which is why states prevent secession to begin with. The world could keep breaking up into ethnic / tribal states till we have a 1000 nations on the planet - including Balochistan in Pakistan for example. Former colonial regions where ex colonial powers used armed force externally = not necessarily colonialism either if seen from the same lens (legitimacy and coercion). In all the cases listed Russia / China / Turkey in (Africa/ME) were invited by the host state and their presence is seen as legitimate and non-coercive. No invasion or intervention is happening - only influence of great - middle powers. The reason France's influence is eroding in Africa and being replaced by them is because they were never initially invited (colonial) and their presence remains as a colonial residue losing legitimacy. They aren't expanding empire but aren't dismantling the neo-colonial architecture such as the CFA Franc system either. Western powers tend to intervene in the economic / political system of countries (with no security logic for doing so that would deem their actions non-imperial). They, along with their institutions (IMF, World Bank) come with strings attached and moral finger wagging of how things should be conducted to favor Western interests and corporations. When countries deny this market access on favorable terms they are couped or invaded (Venezuela). The others are transactional and pragmatic ie non-interventionist. Russia basically provides security as as service - opportunistic security contracting in volatile regions. For example in Sudan's case they were called in by the state (SAF) - as the state collapsed into civil war they hedged and withdrew. The rebels on other hand are supported by UAE (Western ally) who only started to get criticized when they got too much heat. In fact they have created a axis of secessionists in the region which is why the region is angry at them. Ironic that the most Western / Zionist aligned state is acting in the same divide and conquer manner as its partners. Countries constantly trade arms and do drills / exercises together - doesn't mean anything in relation to imperial empire building. China provides Ukraine drones / components which are used against its very own ally Russia. Again - transactional not ideological.
-
Salvijus replied to Husseinisdoingfine's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
"President Zelensky invited Abramović to be an ambassador for Ukraine, specifically to help with projects for children, such as rebuilding schools.” you can google this. Marina Abramović is openly a satanist and children in Ukraine are being trafficed every day. Two reporters that spoke about it died 'by accident' This is the person in charge of 'helping' children A video of a whistleblower exploding:
