Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 117 times


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 06:02 AM by hornum
reply to post by Xtraeme



Fantastic Post S&F!!!



reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 10:39 AM by GideonHM
reply to post by rufusdrak



Or you sit in chairs all day, staring at the walls and nothing else.

What a horrible fate. No purpose leads to what I can only call living death.

No thanks...


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:01 PM by PriamsPride
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted



You do not seem to understand the purpose of philosophy. While it is true that philosophers talk about searching for truth or whatever, the best ones realize that whether philosophers agree depends upon what language they are speaking. Human experience certainly has similarities and our very ability to communicate is the act of expressing these similarities.

There are many people who suffer from the vices you describe, Ironbutterfly, but the best ones realize that there is a very distinct purpose and benefit to doing philosophiy: achieving clarity of thought. We express ourselves to each other, but we also express ourselves to ourselves. The philosopher thinks so that he can understand, not so that he can know. Understanding cannot be communicated. The doing which you describe is the act which immediately follows the thinking.

Global consensus is not an accurate method to judge the worth of philosophy.


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 06:19 PM by ironbutterflyrusted
reply to post by PriamsPride



I quite agree...sorry to appear so brash with a subject that is indeed close to my own heart...I have been lost in metaphysics for a long time.I suppose it has taught me to seek out the most precise questions.

At this moment in time we need to stop thinking so much and trying to articulate our ideas on how to create a system that can take care of every possible eventuality and control it, realizing that we have already adequately covered the answers we need for the job in hand.


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 07:19 PM by thricearound
Okay..So one thing just comes to my mind- since your grand theory revolves (literally lol) around scarcity, what happens if your last exigency is that of nothingness? You know, it reminds me of Mckenna's novelty-theory...He was an ethnobotanic sociologist and by that I mean stoner. He argued that certain points of time bring about peaks of human innovation and that the intervals in which this events of innovation occur shorten over time, which is a way of mapping the singularity of human development (every 18 months your pc gets crappier by a degree of two to the power of months passed from a reference date divided by 18)
He said that the end of the mayans' calendar's current cycle would coincide with *every* human concept or idea occuring at once..A Singularity event so to say.
However (there's a discussion about this somewhere, a very collaborative and entertaining one) there should be one scarcity left inachieved and I don't know if this has found mention in your theory since I am too ..*limited* to grasp the hole extent of your argument and couldn't remember all of what I have tried to read so far.
I guess the point is- you have your equation which you base on the nature of scarcity as defined by Sartre, right? So you have your two parameters I think it was (exigency and good or whatever) and you map the ratio onto a plane as the sides of a triangle....(Einheitskreis is a funny word in german to describe this)
So your ratio of exigency and good if I'm not mistaken goes around 360 degrees...or otherwise two PI length for the history of the universe and then you explained when humans become omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent alas the very gods they imagined which is another way to say humanity reaches a technological singularity (see novelty theory) in which all natural exigency vanishes and only the psychological motors remain...So you detailed three stages as to how everything might carry on then, but you said I think in the thread about the physical god which you linked to that one state remains inachievable, which is basically the past because it is unalterable but which might also the point of "turning back the clock" to???? So what happens to nothingness? I mean you postulated "scarcity of something nececitates its existence" but how does this account for nothingness or non-existence? Would negating your postulation imply a state of non-existence of everything (the thread I mentioned way back explained this statement to be a metaphysical impossibility) alas nothingness reder itself abundant? I don't know wether that's even logical to say...I should better read Gödel, Escher, Bach again on this one!!! Wait, I haven't!!! Oh Gosh this is just way too much to think about...You do the math please!

But nevertheless....
Your thread is awesome!!! I've read quite a lot about tripping on various psychedelics but this is so truely inspirational, it is far beyond what people would usually be able to "open their minds" to, if you know what I'm saying.

A great as$-kissing kudos to you!


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 10:16 PM by QtheQ
There seems to be some resemblances to Hegelian philosophy presented here (I apologies if in fact there are no similarities as I did not engage in anything resembling a careful comparison and contrasting between your philosophy and Hegel's; I'm just mentioning that given my weak understanding of Hegel and quick perusal of your essay I thought I recognized a resemblance).

Reading Hegel however never made a whole lot of sense to me as he presented such a strong emphasis on the role of society as a whole in being a part of some sort of inevitable historical progress to a higher synthesis.
I've always preferred and found more sensible the New England Transcendentalist movement (the Concord group) especially Thoreau. Their philosophy would focus more on personal responsibility in advancing the individual spiritually, morally and intellectually and if done by all the individuals of that society then that society would correspondingly advance as well.

I question Hegel's philosophy and possibly yours as maybe committing the naturalistic fallacy; that is confusing the way things are or will be with how things should be or should become. Just because without destroying ourselves we take as a given that we as a society inevitably move towards some omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent destination doesn't necessarily mean that would be a good thing that we should strive towards.

This does bring up the question, however, of is it possible to do a morally wrong act while knowing that it is wrong to do so? If one is omniscient then one is all knowing and if knowledge of morality is included here, then in order to commit a wrong act and be omniscient then one would be doing something knowing that it is morally wrong. Myself I believe that it is impossible to decide to do something that one believes is morally wrong.

However in your post you seem to be arguing that the inevitable progression in knowledge would be primarily in knowledge of how to manipulate the realm of matter and energy, not necessarily knowledge of how matter and energy should be manipulated. While there has been great advances in the knowledge of science and technology in the over 2600 years since the Pre-Socratic philosophers, I have not seen a corresponding advance in the knowledge of what we should do with that science and technology.

Additionally maybe there is the practical obstacle in the form of the suppression of technologies and knowledge necessary to move towards the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent end. After all much of the threads here on ATS are about how various secret societies and government bureaucracies allegedly keep secret very advanced forms of knowledge and technology from the rest of society.


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 06:44 AM by thricearound
reply to post by QtheQ



Well if you are aware of your own wrong-doing then conscience will make your day...(I guess you CAN comitt "wrong-doing" although you'd have to narrow that down as to what that is and the question is wether you'll feel good with it...Which probably is no, but then there's psychological motors as suppression of memories so you are not aware of your wrong-doing, maybe just like a nazi-officer would execute a dozen Tchechs and not have the empathy to realize even he himself wouldn't want to be at the other end of the gun) But it's a natural exigency so wouldn't it have to be expendable if you truly reach the state of creating Übermensch-like sentiences? Maybe it also turns out there's only one very last option to concider at the peak of a stage n society- so there would be no evil if people (or rather, whatever sentiences might supercede the universe by that time or maybe even do so now already, not taking just us humans into account) if people are left no choice..That means that choice lacks its counterpart/negation...Alas there would have to be one choice that encompasses everything, yet thus one outcome becomes inevitable, so maybe that already is a point of return to the ancient exigencies that you would seek for or its just a singularity (novelty)...That sorta sounds like the Matrix or biblical stories, when people opt for leaving heaven or enslavement..
Gosh what am I even talking about

[edit on 8/11/09 by thricearound]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



Only read this if you are quite young?
  Posted 9 days ago with 71 member flags
The World Is Waiting On You To Liberate Yourself From Ego!
  Posted 5 days ago with 36 member flags
Crazy Sufi Wisdom: The Moon Is More Valuable Than The Sun
  Posted 8 days ago with 25 member flags
The Messages of Animals
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
PEACE To attempt the impossible...
  Posted 4 days ago with 23 member flags
Something I Learned from Looking at my dog in the eye.
  Posted 16 days ago with 17 member flags
Experiment: What would YOU do?
  Posted 15 days ago with 12 member flags
A cry for help....anyone out there?
  Posted 16 days ago with 11 member flags