• Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to reinstate tens of thousands of fired federal employees across six agencies, calling their terminations “unlawful.”

    U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Trump administration must immediately reinstate all of the probationary employees it fired from the departments of Defense, Treasury, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Veterans Affairs.

    The mass firings of federal workers were a “sham” effort by the Office of Personnel Management ― the human resources agency of the federal government ― to skirt laws in order to drastically reduce the size of the federal workforce, Alsup said. ....

    The White House has already signaled it will appeal the ruling.

    “A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch. The President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch — singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President’s agenda,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.
    Judge Orders Trump To Reinstate Thousands of Fired Employees At 6 Agencies

    This is another example of the use of amorphous terms such as 'The President's Agenda' to rationalise actions that Federal Judges have found illegal and unconstitutional on various grounds. Here, what has happened is that the Federal OPM (Office of Personnel Management) database was used by DOGE to send a mass email to thousands of employees firing them on the grounds of 'performance', when no review of performance had been taken into account. Furthermore the Judge ruled that the OPM is itself not the hiring or firing agency for these positions, which is properly the agencies themselves:

    More than 5,000 probationary employees who were fired from the Department of Agriculture got their jobs back last week, after a government employee oversight board found they were illegally terminated. The decision by that panel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, came after it had restored the jobs of six federal employees at other agencies who had been similarly and haphazardly fired by the Trump administration.

    Both of those decisions came down after Alsup ruled earlier this month that OPM had no authority to direct federal agencies to fire their employees — something it had been doing for weeks — and that its actions likely were illegal. That ruling led to OPM abruptly walking back its directive to agencies to fire people, and instead contorting its previous guidance to suggest it had been up to agencies all along to fire people.

    and

    In several instances, the President has scrambled to rehire federal employees he had just fired ― not because of a court order, but because it turns out we need experts on things like nuclear weapons, bird flu and park management.

    Last week, more than 180 probationary employees who were fired from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were reinstated.

    In an email with the subject line, “Read this e-mail immediately,” these dozens of previously fired CDC workers were told they could return to work “after further review and consideration.”

    “We apologize for any disruption that this may have caused,” read the email.

    These cases, and the Venezualan expatriation flights, are the real frontlne of the confrontation between Trump and the Judiciary. It's perfecly obvious that Trump views the law and the judiciary as impediments to his imperial will and as sources of irritation and frustration on those grounds.

    21-pol-on-politics-newsletter-chainsaw-topitem-cwtf-jumbo-v2.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp
    'The Doctor Will See You Now'
  • Do you wish you never existed?
    'Wishing for non-existence' is nihilism. It's very common, but it solves nothing. The causes of existence are deep and cannot be wished away.
  • Epistemic Stances and Rational Obligation - Parts One and Two
    Pincock distinguishes Franklin’s epistemic stance from another one that Franklin might have taken. He might have said, “I’m disposed to claim to know L when I have this kind of evidence. It’s just what I do, or what seems best to me; others may do differently.” For Pincock, this wouldn’t give Franklin reasons for his claim that L. Pincock asks us to imagine how this “non-theoretical” Franklin would respond to a challenge to his claim about L: He has nothing at his disposal that would count as a reason for others to adopt, so he would have to be silent in the face of his challengers. The actual Franklin, though, scientific realist that he was, can reply with an account that involves how evidence is connected to knowledge claims.J

    There is an unstated allegory lurking behind this example, or so it seems to me. Here the effect of an electrical impulse on the key is an allegory for scientific explanation in general which relies on reasoning to the best explanation. The best explanation for the particular observation in this case is the effect of lightning on the key. This is a very specific situation with an identifiable causal sequence. It seems to me that the alternative presented by the 'non-realist' Franklin would be more typical of a more general, or a less specific, type of problem. An example would be instrumentalism in atomic physics. As is well known, instrumentalism keeps shtum about what kind of entity is being measured by observation (wave or particle?) Consequently it doesn't offer a thesis about the ultimate nature of what is being observed, only that 'this kind of observation produces this measurement outcome'. In this context, the anti-realist attitude that 'we can't really account for why we get this outcome' is quite reasonable. You could say that it leaves the question open (which is also a commendable scientific attitude in my view). By conflating pragmatic coherence with rational obligation, Pincock oversimplifies the range of legitimate epistemic responses. Instrumentalism, for instance, operates within a perfectly coherent rational framework yet explicitly avoids metaphysical commitments—a stance that clearly avoids the "pragmatic incoherence" Pincock accuses voluntarists of.
  • Epistemic Stances and Rational Obligation - Parts One and Two
    Once the interpretation of terms like "fact" or "evidence" become dependent on an epistemic stance, we have to look for an interpretative truth that is outside the stance itself. How do we find it?J

    It requires a philosophical stance that doesn’t axiomatically take the human situation as an end in and of itself, and so is not so solely beholden to the aims of instrumental reason. In other words philosophy that questions existence against a broader context. It must be concerned with what matters, Tillich’s ‘questions of ultimate concern.’ Of course one must not then be so vain as to believe that such an unconditional imperative be the subject of merely propositional knowledge (for the reasons Wittgenstein gives.) And that sounds rather like a belief, doesn't it?

    As for realism and anti-realism, I'm generally an advocate for the latter, but I find the peremptory description of 'anti-realist' unsatisfactory. For me, it signifies a stance which recognises the unavoidable subjectivity of judgement, even in the most apparently objective of cases. (This was the main subject of discussion in the thread on Sebastian Rödl.) Anyway, an antirealist may be perfectly realistic in the pragmatic sense of observing conventions, obeying laws, and so on. An anti-realist doesn't necessarily think that s/he can leap from heights and not be affected by gravity. Antirealism simply points out the fact that scientific judgement is always reliant on conditions and exclusions (i.e. the selection of what exactly is the subject of analysis). Even the most universally-applicable of scientific principles pertain to a specific set of phenomena. So drawing conclusions from them about 'the nature of reality' in a more general or philosophical sense, is precisely where realism begins to blur into scientism.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    Therefore, although I benefit from social security, I am appalled at Trumpsk heavy-handed axing. Yet, I must admit that something must be done to keep the nation solvent.Gnomon

    But it also needs to be made clear that Trump has no intention of balancing the budget. Yes, Trump-Musk will take the chainsaw to many government programs and agencies, but his tax cuts are so deep that they will more than offset any savings. The inexorable trend under the plutocracy will be dismantling welfare programs AND reducing taxes. It's plain who will benefit from that.

    Meanwhile:


    A federal judge on Tuesday found that Elon Musk and the White House's Department of Government Efficiency likely violated the Constitution when they unilaterally acted to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development.

    U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in favor of a group of more than two dozen unnamed current and former USAID employees and contractors who had challenged the efforts to shutter USAID, which were mounted by DOGE and Musk, a senior White House adviser who President Trump has said is the leader of the task force.

    Chuang granted in part their request for a preliminary injunction and said in a 68-page decision that DOGE and Musk likely violated the Constitution's Appointments Clause and separation of powers.

    He ordered Musk and task force employees to reinstate access to email, payment and other electronic systems to all current USAID employees and personal services contractors. The judge also prevented DOGE and Musk from taking any action relating to the shutdown of USAID, including placing employees on administrative leave, firing USAID workers, closing its buildings, bureaus or offices, and deleting the contents of its websites or collections.
    Judge finds Elon Musk and DOGE's shutdown of USAID likely unconstitutional

    A related judgement says that many DOGE firings were illegal:

    A federal judge ruled Thursday that the mass firing of federal employees was an “unlawful” directive by the Office of Personnel Management.

    U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered several agencies to “immediately” reinstate all fired probationary employees. Those agencies included the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as the Departments of Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Agriculture. That would also restore numbers at the Internal Revenue Service, which falls under the helm of the Treasury Department and has been hit hard by job cuts in recent weeks.

    In a hearing leading up to the decision, Alsup torched the Trump administration’s decision not to submit OPM director Chad Ezell for questioning as a “sham,” and accused the White House’s effort to cast the firings as performance failures as “a gimmick.”

    “It is sad, a sad day, when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said, according to Politico’s Kyle Cheney.

    The Trump administration has fired at least 30,000 employees with the help of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE has made a point to target probationary employees still within the first year of their roles. Some of those employees have been called to return, but most are still not working, reported Axios.
    Trump Suffers Huge Loss as Judge Overturns “Unlawful” Mass Firings

    Trump's attitude is, any judge who challenges his executive decrees are troublemakers and radical left lunatics. The judicial challenges to the deportation of Venezualen gang members under a little-used piece of wartime legislation looks like being the litmus test case where it Trump might choose to ignore judicial rulings.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    Don't know if that's true. One of the painful facts about Musk is that he seemed he might have been a genuine business titan, considering how he bootstrapped Tesla into existence and then privatised the space industry. Until around the time of the Twitter purchase when he started to spout obnoxious political opinions, I had thought him someone to admire, along the lines of Gates or Jobs. Alas not. (I have read quite a bit about Tesla, much of its unreal shareprice valuation is based on the promises of driverless cars and robotics, and also Musk's undeniable wow factor. But after his behaviour since the Election, I really can't find anything good to think about him, and Tesla has long since lost any first-mover advantage it might have had.)
  • On eternal oblivion
    I agree. There is a sense in the great traditions that being born is itself a kind of fall. Plato says as much in a number of dialogues. In Buddhist lore, the first link in the chain of dependent origination is ignorance, which is what leads to birth in the human realm (although a human birth is also a unique opportunity to escape the cycle of re-birth.) Many critics of Buddhism (even highly educated critics) view it as nihilistic, in that the Nirvāṇa of the Buddha is said to be the ‘eternal oblivion’ that the OP speaks about. But a close reading of the texts doesn’t suggest that - they say the Tathagatha passes beyond the dualities of existence and non-existence. In any case, the salient point in all of those traditions is that the sense of separateness, the ‘I and mine’, is the real obstacle to realising the ‘supreme identity’ to use Alan Watts’ term.

    Alan Watts says that our apparent individuality is a kind of illusion created by the limitations of perception and conceptual thought. The true nature of reality is an undivided whole in which subject and object, self and world, are not utterly separate but poles in an underlying reality which transcends both. This realization, often associated with enlightenment or awakening, dissolves the artificial boundaries between self and world, leading to liberation from the ego’s illusion of separateness.

    (Although suffice to say, the whole subject has become somewhat cheapened by the commodification of enlightenment, a social trend for which Alan Watts, despite his talents, was regrettably responsible for in some ways. But regardless, the best of Watts’ books are very good on these subjects, as he was able to communicate some very deep ideas in an accessible way. Link).
  • On eternal oblivion
    It’s the myth of the Eternal Return
  • On eternal oblivion
    Sure. The monks don't entertain such doubts.
  • On eternal oblivion
    according to the dialogue (Phaedo) knowledge of the good can only be attained in death if at all.Fooloso4

    I recently watched an interesting documentary on Mt Athos, the Orthodox monastery complex. Towards the end, the head monk re-affirms that final union with God can only be realised at death, and that their life-long residency at the monastery is all by way of 'practicing for death' - exactly as Plato says in Phaedo. Then again, Orthodox Christianity incorporated much of Plato early in their development, hence the designation 'Christian Platonism', which especially characterises Orthodox spirituality.
  • Australian politics
    Murdoch is said to have lost his bid to alter his will in favour of Lachlan. It will be interesting to see what happens after his demise.
  • Is the number pi beyond our grasp?
    Amusing and informative article on NY Times about 'Pi Day'. Gift Link.
  • Australian politics
    Why oh why does Clive Palmer keep appearing with his buckets of money and gormless advertising campaigns? The Australian Trumpets or whatever he's calling himself now is beyond ridiculous. A boil on the arse end of politics.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Unlike what Trump says, Ukraine does have some cards. They’ve agreed with Trump - EXTRA BONUS POINTS - plus they have something the US wants namely rare earths. So Putin now has to weigh up whether to agree to a ceasefire or to keep fighting. If he doesn’t agree then he’s undermining Trump’s peacemaker speil. Let’s see.
  • Contradiction in Kant's Worldview
    But my senses only feel in my visiom of sense. It takes abstract thought coupled withe imagination to think of something or someone not before you in their presence. We know each oher as humans, so then should we treat the body as phenomena or the thing in itselfGregory

    It's important to understand the link between Kant and cognitive science. Scholars recognise that Kant understood, in a way that nobody before him did, the role of the mind in the construction of what we take to be independently real. This is Kant's 'Copernican Revolution in Philosophy' which means that thought doesn't conform with things, but that things conform with thought. 'Kant drew a parallel to the Copernican Revolution in his proposal to think of the objects of experience as conforming to our spatial and temporal forms of intuition and the categories of our understanding, so that we have a priori cognition of those objects.'

    So why is that? It's because our knowledge of the world, even though that is outside us, is constituted by the brain as 'idea' (per Schopenhauer). It's really important to understand what that means. The division between self and world is itself part of what the brain constructs. Easy to say, but hard to discern.
  • Contradiction in Kant's Worldview
    If I think of the Big Bang for example, since there was no consciousness in the space-time reality at that time, to even think about it is to declare that a subjectless object existed once.Gregory

    Yes, such declarations are made, and are supported by empirical evidence.
  • Contradiction in Kant's Worldview
    What about this rock question however: are there rocks in existence when they are never seen?Gregory

    Kant was an empirical realist, from which perspective he would say, 'of course'. But he was also a transcendental idealist, so he would ask you 'what do you mean by "in existence"'? And that's a very difficult question.
  • Contradiction in Kant's Worldview
    What of truth for it's own sake? Why is desire for a knowledge wrong?Gregory

    I think - and I think Kant also thought, although he was not explicit about it - that knowing the truth has a spiritual dimension. There is an insight which generally speaking we ordinarily lack. Whereas today we have access to vast troves of knowledge but whether that imparts or conveys insight is another matter altogether.

    Kant never lost sight of the fact that while modern science is one of humanity's most impressive achievements, we are not just knowers: we are also agents who make choices and hold ourselves responsible for our actions. In addition, we have a peculiar capacity to be affected by beauty, and a strange inextinguishable sense of wonder about the world we find ourselves in. Feelings of awe, an appreciation of beauty, and an ability to make moral choices on the basis of rational deliberation do not constitute knowledge, but this doesn't mean they lack value. On the contrary. But a danger carried by the scientific understanding of the world is that its power... may lead us to undervalue those things that don't count as science.Emrys Westacott

    I often wonder whether there should be such a thing as 'scientific truth'. I question that there is. There are scientific theories, scientifically-validated insights, to be sure. But truth has a quality of aliveness to it, which can't be captured by propositional knowledge.
  • Contradiction in Kant's Worldview
    Can reason never know full truth?Gregory

    I would ask you, what about the human faculties do you think enables them to arrive at an understanding of the true nature of reality? I think the hallmark of Kant is actually his intellectual humility. He is one who dares question what most take for granted.
  • Contradiction in Kant's Worldview
    I know this rock here has existenceGregory

    All due respect, if you wish to study philosophy, this is something that you will need to be able to question. It seems obvious, but then an important part of philosophy is questioning what seems obvious.

    So my question is: was contradiction a necessary part of logic and/or reality in the worldview of Kant?Gregory

    Antinomies are not the same as contradictions. The point of the antinomies of reason is to demonstrate Kant's maxim that 'reason is drawn to posit ideas beyond what it can establish'. Reason provides the ability to ask questions like: does the world have a beginning in time or not? But Kant is saying that even though such questions appear rational, they may be beyond the scope of reason to address. (And notice that even with the huge advances in cosmology since Kant's day, whether the Universe has a beginning or not is still an open question.) Reason has limits, and while we might think we can see beyond it, such claims might turn out to be illusory. He says in the Introduction:

    Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind. It falls into this perplexity without any fault of its own. It begins with principles which it has no choice but to employ in the course of experience, and is thus encouraged to extend them beyond all limits of experience. But it soon becomes aware that, by this means, its enterprise is drawing it into darkness and contradictions from which it can never escape. The battlefield of these endless controversies is called "metaphysics."

    and later in the text:

    We have now not only traversed the region of the pure understanding and carefully surveyed every part of it, but we have also measured it, and assigned to everything therein its proper place. But this land is an island, and enclosed by nature herself within unchangeable limits. It is the land of truth (an attractive word), surrounded by a wide and stormy ocean, the region of illusion, where many a fog-bank, many an iceberg, seems to the mariner, on his voyage of discovery, a new country, and, while constantly deluding him with vain hopes, engages him in dangerous adventures, from which he never can desist, and which yet he never can bring to a termination.
  • Contradiction in Kant's Worldview
    On the distinction between the noumenal and the in-itself. They are distinguished, but the distinction is subtle.

    Ding an sich (Thing-in-itself): This refers to 'the object' (or: world) as it would exist independently of or outside perception. We can never know things-in-themselves directly because our knowledge is constructed on the basis of space, time, and the categories of understanding. As the 'in itself' has not by definition been made subject to those, then we can't know of it.

    Noumenon: This is a more abstract term, referring to an object as it would be known if we had a kind of intellectual intuition beyond sensory experience. The original meaning is 'object of nous' (where 'nous' is translated as 'intellect'). So the noumenon is a purely intelligible object that does not appear in sensory experience. But as knowledge is bound to depend on sensible experience ('concepts without percepts are empty') then the noumenal is not an object of knowledge. Kant allows noumenon as a limiting concept (negative noumenon), marking the boundary of the known, but denies that the noumenal can be known positively.

    Even though it's a subtle distinction, it's significant.
  • Contradiction in Kant's Worldview
    Schopenhauer invokes the antinomies of reason in respect of evolution:

    the law of causality and the treatment and investigation of nature which is based upon it, lead us necessarily to the conclusion that, in time, each more highly organised state of matter has succeeded a cruder state: so that the lower animals existed before men, fishes before land animals, plants before fishes, and the unorganised before all that is organised; that, consequently, the original mass had to pass through a long series of changes before the first eye could be opened. And yet, the existence of this whole world remains ever dependent upon the first eye that opened, even if it were that of an insect. For such an eye is a necessary condition of the possibility of knowledge, and the whole world exists only in and for knowledge, and without it is not even thinkable. The world is entirely idea, and as such demands the knowing subject as the supporter of its existence. This long course of time itself, filled with innumerable changes, through which matter rose from form to form till at last the first percipient creature appeared —this whole time itself is only thinkable in the identity of a consciousness whose succession of ideas, whose form of knowing it is, and apart from which, it loses all meaning and is nothing at all.

    Thus we see, on the one hand, the existence of the whole world necessarily dependent upon the first conscious being, however undeveloped it may be; on the other hand, this conscious being just as necessarily entirely dependent upon a long chain of causes and effects which have preceded it, and in which it itself appears as a small link. These two contradictory points of view, to each of which we are led with the same necessity, we might again call an antinomy in our faculty of knowledge… The necessary contradiction which at last presents itself to us here, finds its solution in the fact that, to use Kant’s phraseology, time, space, and causality do not belong to the thing-in-itself, but only to its phenomena, of which they are the form; which in my language means this: The objective world, the world as idea, is not the only side of the world, but merely its outward side; and it has an entirely different side—the side of its inmost nature—its kernel—the thing-in-itself… But the world as idea… only appears with the opening of the first eye. Without this medium of knowledge it cannot be, and therefore it was not before it. But without that eye, that is to say, outside of knowledge, there was also no before, no time. Thus time has no beginning, but all beginning is in time.
    How Schopenhauer's Idealism Began with the First Eye Opening

    Bolds added

    Kant's great idea: that science is the science of appearances, and that appearance always entails the subject for whom it is appearance.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Her (i.e. America’s) greatest enemy at the moment is the U.S.Punshhh

    Not surprising when a secessionist is put into the Oval Office. America has elected an enemy of the state to lead the state. He’ll work on destroying the state under the pretence of reforming it. Oddly, many people can’t see this.

    It will be interesting to see how Putin plays the ball that is ostensibly now in his court. If this discussion succeeds in persuading Putin to temporarily cease fighting and firing weapons into Ukraine then it might have traction. But I would be very surprised.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    So, never mind that Trump's hare-brained tarrif wars are tanking the share market. Never mind that his war on US Aid is greatly excacerbating the worldwide spread of tuberculosis. Never mind that he's trampling civil liberties and constitutional norms. What's really important, is trying to help out that 'great patriot', who is doing so much to 'make America great', by doing an advertisement for Tesla on the White House lawn. The world's richest man, who possesses more wealth than almost everyone else in the USA combined, can sure use a bit of Presidential philanthropy himself. Never mind complaints about once again debasing the office of the President for crass commercial ends.
  • Everything is ironic?
    From the article ‘the most potent examples of irony emerge from scenarios in which objects and the expected meaning in their context appear perpendicular to the more immediate meaning of that context.’

    It’s pretty close to what I said.
  • Everything is ironic?
    Or am I just severely overthinkingDarkneos

    No, I think you’re on the right track. It’s a little like humor or explaining a joke - if you have to explain why a joke is funny then it’s not funny. And there are those - this includes a particular type of American - on whom ‘irony is lost’, who can’t see the irony of something. In which cases it’s pointless to try and explain why it’s ironic.

    I suppose that both irony and a humor (at least not slapstick humor) both rely on cognitive dissonance, a kind of double meaning, a mismatch between what was expected and what actually happened.
  • Everything is ironic?
    I have many arguments in this forum as to whether humans are categorically different to other animals. Most say they’re not, but ironically that’s something only a human could say.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    That's not what this AP article indicatesfrank

    It ‘indicates’ that most of the 80,000 workers were offered $25,000 to quit their jobs.

    Poor Elon! Must be just awful for him. When all he’s doing is trying to help out!
  • On eternal oblivion
    'You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the ocean in a drop' ~ Rumi
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Now they're coming for public medicine:

    WASHINGTON — Most of the 80,000 federal workers responsible for researching diseases, inspecting food and administering Medicare and Medicaid under the auspices of the Health and Human Services Department were emailed an offer to leave their job for as much as a $25,000 payment as part of President Donald Trump’s government cuts.

    The workers have until 5 p.m. on Friday to submit a response for the so-called voluntary separation offer. The email was sent to staff across the department, which includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and the National Institutes of Health as well as the Food and Drug Administration, both in Maryland.

    The mass email went out to a “broad population of HHS employees,” landing in their inboxes days before agency heads are due to offer plans for shrinking their workforces. HHS is one of the government’s costliest federal agencies, with an annual budget of about $1.7 trillion that is mostly spent on health care coverage for millions of people enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid.

    There was no immediate comment Sunday from HHS.
    AP

    Doesn't it matter to anyone that Trump is attacking and dissolving essential government services from within? Will it matter when people start dying and disease outbreaks begin to occur? Can't Americans see what is being done to their country?
  • Mooks & Midriffs
    We’ve all been influenced by propaganda — from the news to education— but the advisement industry is a particularly effective and often overlooked source of indoctrination. In my view it’s as potent as Fox News or going to church.Mikie

    Agree. I think nowadays everyone is tremendously over-stimulated by media and advertising. Two of my grandchildren are boys, 3 and 6. They're totally zoned in to Netflix, although their parents limit the amount of time they can spend with it. But the older one will take the control to skip the boring bits, and replay the good bits, of any number of hyperactively animated movies. Consequently their minds are all over the place, they have very short attention spans and get bored very easily. But we're all like that nowadays. I'm like it! 'Consumerism' relies on stimulating wants, the more the better, and getting consumers habituated to mass-produced goods. Vast fortunes are made on it.

    That video is geoblocked here in AU, but I've long been aware of critiques of a similar kind. Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud, is the godfather of all this. The media analysis, Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan, were also wise to it. But with hypermedia and smart devices, it has grown absolutely exponentially.

    Speaking of Church, I wonder if the so-called charismatic evangelical churches, with bands and lightshows and the like - are simply the result of applying these cultural forms to so-called 'religion'. That, combined with the so called 'prosperity gospel', which worships consumerist materialism as a manifestation of the holy spirit.

    Maybe the Amish are on to something ;-)
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Now we read that Trump has started to attack the CHIPS act, which is aimed at boosting US self-reliance in advanced chip manufacturing. It has strong bipartisan support and has been seen as successful on both sides of the aisle.

    So far, the Commerce Department has signed contracts to grant more than $36 billion in federal subsidies under the CHIPS Act. Samsung, Intel, Micron, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, known as TSMC, and others in response have pledged to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. chip-making facilities …

    In late February, Michael Grimes, a senior official at the Department of Commerce and former investment banker at Morgan Stanley, conducted brief interviews with employees of the CHIPS Program Office, which oversees the grants.

    In interactions some described as “demeaning,” Mr. Grimes asked employees to justify their intellect by providing test results from the SAT or an IQ test, said four people familiar with the evaluations. Some were asked to do math problems, like calculate the value of four to the fourth power or long division.

    Last week, the Commerce Department laid off 40 of the CHIPS office employees, nearly a third of the entire team, these people said. ~ NYT

    And why is Trump saying ‘it’s a horrible thing’? Because Biden passed it, and it’s a success. In typical Trump style, any success attributable to his perceived foes must be destroyed, no matter the cost to the country or to business.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    the youtube isn't accessible from herejorndoe

    Ah, interesting. It’s a current US 60 Minutes feature, I guess it’s geoblocked where you are. I won’t post any more of same.
  • Australian politics
    One of the paradoxes of current culture, although far more obvious in the US, is that fact that on the one hand, we are so ready to expect government to address and solve problems for us, but then hating government for all the ways it fails to do so and wanting to punish them for it. Resulting in the continual swings against the incumbents (and in the American case, voting for a candidate whose entire platform is destroying government.) ‘There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief’.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    60 Minutes on Trump’s Illegal Firings of Inspectors General.
  • On eternal oblivion
    Only that all this might be for real, and that at my age, it is a prospect that is beginning to gnaw at me.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    ...with tornado season looming, our access to valuable weather information is under threat. The U.S. government‘s stellar weather information service is being torn apart and likely sold for parts as Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency implement another destructive chapter of the Project 2025 playbook: experienced scientists fired, senior meteorologists forced into retirement, broken radars left unrepaired, weather forecasting balloons not launched, and leases for vital forecasting units canceled. The loss of expertise is profound, and the impact will be widespread. We’ll all be less safe, the economy will suffer and, yes, those popular weather apps could miss the next big storm.The Contrarian
  • On eternal oblivion
    So Indian religion is an elaborate confabulation from the yearning for justice? Fine - as Lennon sang, whatever gets you through the night, it's alright.Banno


    There's a book by an analytical philosopher, Mark Johnston (Princeton, from memory) - Surviving Death. He attempts to stay firmly within the naturalist lane.

    Johnston’s argument challenges the Cartesian idea that an enduring ego or soul is required for meaningful survival. He proposes instead that re-birth could consist in the continuation of one’s moral concerns and commitments in future personas. He confronts the common Western objection: If I don’t persist as a distinct person, how can that future person be me? He argues that this objection rests on a mistaken notion of identity fixed, rather than recognizing identity as a dynamic pattern of values, intentions, and relationships. Johnston’s account connects survival to the persistence of what we care about. This echoes Buddhist ethics, where moral causation is the primary thread linking past and future lives. His focus on love, moral concern, and relational continuity offers a powerful secular counterpart to Buddhist teachings on compassionate action as a means of transcending the egoic self.
    gives meaning to the idea of survival without postulating a supernatural soul.
  • On eternal oblivion
    Inclined to agree. But most will mistake consciousness for one's own conscious self-awareness, which is but the tip of a very large iceberg.

    That "aggregate of material elements" is the very source of value.Banno

    In Buddhist philosophy the five skandha are the aggregates of

    1. Name and form (Rūpa)
    2. Feelings or sensations (Vedanā)
    3. Perceptions/Cognition (Saṃjñā, saññā, samjfia or sanjna)
    4. Mental formations, volition, habits, or fabrications. (Saṅkhāra, samskarah, or saṃskāra). ...
    5. Consciousness awareness (Vijnana, vijfianam or Vinanna) (ref)

    All of which are said to be empty of own-being, i.e. not possessing their own causal principle, and therefore incapable of providing anything of lasting value, being impermanent, devoid of self, and unsatisfying.

    From our point of view, they must be of value, as there is nothing else, nothing beyond. But from the Buddhist perspective, the reason this is seen as nihilistic is the implication that at death, the deeds of the most heinous criminal and those of the most altruistic philanthropist are all equally negated as there are no consequences for them (although of course there are consequences for others).

    But then I'm also reminded of these aphorisms, with which you're no doubt familiar.

    The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value—and if there were, it would be of no value.

    If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental.

    What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.

    It must lie outside the world.
  • On eternal oblivion
    What about those centuries when you could change your prospects in the afterlife by getting with the winning team?Paine

    I'm not sure if you're being serious.