Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 181. (Read 647054 times)

...

The above is a necessary conversation.

I look for opinions & other writings on what Jesus meant, but in the end, yes, it comes down to each of us seeking Him in our closet.  No intermediaries.  Those who *may* have better or more insight are worth reading (thanks CoinCube), but the key is honest hard internal work reaching out to our Creator.

Matthew 5 - 7 is probably the core of Christian thought.  It is worth extensive reading, thought and meditation.

After reading this, I think you will conclude my health is indeed improving. The brain fog is lifting. I am almost back to being mentally the @Anonymint of 2013 yore that originally captured some of your interest (when you were still a borderline atheist if I am not mistaken?).

Btw, it seems eating the seeds of the Papaya fruit has done something to drastically improve the recovery of my liver and gut health post the anti-TB regimen. Makes me dizzy and flying in cloud after digesting them, but that fades after a couple of hours. The rest of the time the benefits are outstanding thus far.


Because I argued morals (as so defined to be absolute truths) do not exist, because there are no observable absolute truths. If morals do exist, only an omniscient God knows what they are. Not any human interpretations. Any such omniscient God can only communicate directly with the believer about this, not through middlemen. Even Jesus spoke about this and praying in your closet directly to God for the synagogues are for those who want to be adulated as believers.


You incorrectly applied logic. If A is true and B is not A, does not make B false.


And thus this does not follow. I said live in society, not attempt to destroy a society. How can someone rationally live in a society that they are trying to destroy.

You’re ostensibly presuming that humans have to be fearful of an unobservable absolute truth in order to become rational, which to me is incredulously illogical and irrational on the face of it. Why would anyone be rational if they’re being irrational by believing in implausibility of absolute truth (as already elaborated in my prior posts in this discussion with you).


Indeed some tribes might still mutilate female clitoris and sacrifice each other at the altar and it is none of our fscking business!

Feel free to offer them your ideas, but if you think you have the absolute truth and they are wrong, then in my philosophy you’re evil because you’ve tried to elevate yourself to be an omniscient God and the judge of humans. (Because again we can’t observe universal/absolute truths in order to verify them)

That does not mean you should not try to offer ideas to them about how certain beliefs are self-destructive. As long as you don’t preach it as an absolute truth that they are commanded to obey. The use of fear doesn’t employ the rational prefrontal cortex. Quoting from my 2013 blog post:


I agree our struggle to communicate could be seen as a necessary learning process, thus complementary (not complimentary).

Well I hope so, but I do wonder if you could slide into being a zealot. But I must admit, having never interacted with you verbally, perhaps I’m reading more between the lines than is really there. I’m also antagonized by those who judge with biases, absolute truths, and incoherent comprehension, but not in a way that I need to prove something to every single case (at least not any more). Just want to get my philosophy solidified and communicated well.

You got that precisely transposed. My worldview is not evil, but I might be evil because I’m only human.




You passed judgement before confirming whether your demonizing interpretations were coherent and correct. You could have instead stated your interpretations and asked for clarifications before stating your demonizing conclusions.

Your careless haste could possibly be construed to exemplify your underlying motive to make demonizing conclusions.

The above are factual and non-slanderous (not even disrespectful) conclusions, not subject to any interpretation. The “could possibly be construed” is not an absolute statement, thus the statement is factual.

You’re engaging a 30+ year programmer in the area of logic — which is thus my speciality. God help you, lol.  


It is a heresy to tell people they need an authority to tell the readers how to interpret what Jesus meant. Jesus communicates directly to the reader.

Once again this is yet another example of trying to organize and force people to a monolithic orthodoxy (belief system). The Bible is supposed to mean different things to different readers.

It is okay to discuss ideas, but not from an authoritative/canonical stance, because no human’s interpretation can be absolute truth.

I think you have not yet grasped that I am trying to avoid the megadeath that comes from the slippery slope of zealots who think they have some absolutely justified ends that justifies the means. You probably think you will never personally become a Zionist, Crusader, or other ideologues who burned humans at on the stake (as the Zionist Mossad did at 9/11), but how could you be sure when you self-profess that you promulgate the concept of absolute truth?

Btw, I was indeed asking you to not pass judgement, because you are not the judge, and only make statements of material fact. That is what Matthew 7 means. Cast the plank of wood out of our own eyes before looking for the speck of dust in someone else’s. Who is above sin? The point is to try to work towards harmonious and fair and accurate mutual understanding. And this is the dilemma of claiming absolute truth. It turns you a human into a judge of other humans. Which is evil and the Bible condemns it in numerous verses. Even in 1 Samuel 8 and in the 10 Commandments, the Lord is demanding that we form our relationship directly with him and no middlemen. No charlatans who think they possess the truth. This is the necessary humbleness I was referring to. Which must admit we can not have the absolute truth.

Where does he talk about Bitcoin though? No offense, but all of this research is on fiat currency which is doomed to fail.

ESR has not replied. I hope he perhaps he has finally gotten the point about his hypocrisy:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7660#comment-1902810

I think that is the first time someone has successfully slapped him back down. And I really was not trying to be disrespectful. He is the one slandering Armstrong[1] and not providing any data to show that the Confederate soldiers were slave owners. They were predominately not. We Southerners were[still are!] fighting against an INVADING army for our way of life and to not be subjugated by the Yankees in the North. It just so happened that slavery was ongoing on the plantations but that was not necessarily something that every Southerner agreed with. It was just the economic conditions of that era. It is very foolish to make the ideological BS conclusions that he did and I hope realizes that now.

The culture of the South is still sufficiently distinct that the breakup of the USA is coming. Armstrong’s predictions will be vindicated yet again and ESR will continue to look like a washed up genius whose unable to predict the future as presciently as Armstrong because of ESR’s ideologically biased analysis versus Armstrong‘s objective computerized machine learning on huge historical and current data sets.

[1] Indeed Armstrong does often have typos and even thought typos, but he is writing several blog posts per day and ESR a blog post every few days or weeks. Armstrong (similar to myself) is not renown for his writing skills, but rather for the insights and research he provides.

You argued that there was "Nothing morally wrong with stealing" but that you would prefer to live in a society where it was not allowed and legal.

This leads to the logical conclusion that we can and should steal as long as we can get away with it and not get caught get either via clever misdirection or finding loopholes in the law.

This also leads to the logical necessity of an all powerful and ever growing state to increasingly monitor and observe its citizens ensuring compliance with an ever growing law.


You also stated that there is nothing morally wrong with theft and presumably murder as well. At best these are simply local social norms under your system with no inherent meaning or significance.

It is your own worldview that if actually applied would impinge on you either directly via crimes committed against you or indirectly via the state.


I will take that as a compliment. If it makes you feel better the feeling is not mutual. I do think your worldview facilitates evil but I do not think you are evil.


It is not false but true to the best of my understanding and wisdom.

In the past I have seen you refer to Matthew 7:1 as a prohibition against judgement.

This is one of the most commonly misunderstood verses of the Bible. I believe you would benefit from reading this commentary on the true meaning of this verse.

http://thediscerningsheep.blogspot.com/2014/12/matthew-71-most-misunderstood-bible.html?m=1

Logic fail. Try again to read what I wrote and correctly comprehend it.

I stated that I would not want to live in a society that did not punish such actions and doubted whether one could find a society that would tolerate them.

I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these aren’t ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.

You’re trying to demonize my thoughts, because your always moralizing everything, which I vehemently dislike about you. Instead of attempting to understand my analysis with an open mind, you’re approaching it with an ideological bias, wherein you hope to prove that my philosophy is inconsistent and your moralism is consistent, but you have lost that debate already whether you fail to recognize it, is not my problem.


Correct. It can only lead to outcomes which deceive society and prevent society from acting rationally, because there is no check-and-balance (no feedback loop) of observable reality to test whether absolute/universal truths are actually true and functioning.


No I argue that morals are the absolute truths nonsense you and others promulgate.

Societal norms, laws, culture, and customs, are just that and not morals.



There you go again trying to put words in my mouth that I never wrote. You attempt to demonize my words, but you exhibit a lack of comprehension of my statements.

I clearly stated that anyone is free to have their own beliefs as long as their beliefs do not impinge on me.

You can proclaim all you want, as long as you are not trying to establish that your truths are superior to my beliefs and thereby subjugate me by getting society to act irrationally and adopt your beliefs which are not verifiable.

It is quite simple. I think ideologues are evil. And you’ve done more to convince me of that than anyone else I’ve ever known. I fear or wonder what you may slide into in the future (you presumably have the same thought about me). I often wonder if your a wolf in sheepskin who will pounce one day ramming “I told you” ideological crap down my throat.

I tried in exasperation to establish a mutually respectful dialogue and even perhaps intellectual friendship with you, but your ideological subversion makes it impossible. Unfortunately, the antagonism creeps into every discussion we have.


As brain washing, yes very evil.

It should be taught more as questions about beliefs and logic about how to respect the autonomy of others (which is what part of 10 commandments is about).

If taught as a private relationship with God in each individual’s closet and taught not to impinge their beliefs on others, but rather spread it in the same very humble and not antagonist against non-believers principles, then maybe I can say they are not interested in create an ideological subversion and genuinely interested in the welfare and free will of people.

Even a society which wishes to not emancipate females in order to get more k selection strategy, should not brain wash females with unprovable universal theories as the justification for such subjugation. Rather simply tell them frankly that woman can’t make rational decisions during their fertile years due to hypergamy.

A meaningful relationship with God can only be a very personal thing (maybe even family/clan oriented) any way. All that ideological subversion is antithetical to the cause it purports to achieve.


Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.

Hyperme.sh thank you for answering my questions above let me briefly summarize your answers as I understand them and then give you my thoughts.

1) You argue that the ends justify the means and that any and all actions and crimes can be justified if one can get away with them as the free market and survival of the fittest at work.

2) You argue that the definition of evil is supporting a belief as a universal truth. Thus you define following an ideology or morality as the most amoral thing a person can do.

3) You argue that morals are just the traditions and norms of a particular society nothing more.

I find it interesting that under your code the worst taboo is proclaiming the universal truth of God. The slaver, the murderer, and the thief are all to be praised as successful alpha men as long as they get away with their actions undetected.

In contrast the priest and the rabbi who spend their time in the slums spreading the word of God and warning people against sin are in your world the epitome of evil proclaiming and spreading their "false" belief of a universal truth.

Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.

That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

Lol.

---

If only God is omnipresent, then I have no way to observe or comprehend God’s existence. At best, due the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, I would at best only have aliasing error. The most I can have is a belief.

So in my closet (Matthew 6:5) I might choose to console with my belief, but I wouldn’t feel empowered with sufficient knowledge to tell someone else (or judge) what they MUST believe in order to achieve something. I might as well be speaking out of my ass, rather than make up stupid reasons to justify why my advice doesn’t work for everyone.


I’m delighted you did not make the mistake of using the word ‘belief’ in this second question, because you’re correct that I argued logically for this perspective based on my understanding of the reality of the Universe.

I explained that there‘s no absolute (total ordering) ends, thus there’s no valid justification of means. Moreover, I argued that ideological (i.e. the feigning of absolute truth) ends are foolish.

I understand you’re pointing out that without a moral compass, you believe that civilization will lose a common purpose and that many ills will plague society, such as promiscuity and lack of k selection, or the use of ransomware in order to become wealthy. But the free market deals with that. Societies perish and others thrive. Diversity (greater uncertainty thus higher entropy) provides for resilience. It occurs to me that an absolute truth or morality would not be antifragile, because there would be no alternatives adapted to differing scenarios.

Thus I think ideology and morality are actually the most amoral.

I might love my neighbor, because I like the observable outcomes or my private belief in a God, not because it’s supposed to be some absolute truth about morally correctness which everyone must follow in order for it to be successful.

I personally like the do unto others as you would want them to do to you. This is how I feel about a society that cares for each other, and I think this works only on the local level though not at large scale collectivism. At large scale, there is massive defection the cheaters escape the Dunbar limit of a tribe’s ability to efficiently squelch defection. For example, although I might want to offer free health care to every person, the scammers would find a way to extract profits from my generosity creating a non-meritorious misallocation of capital which can make the outcome uncompetitive.


Someone was doing some ideological shit and justifying the means.


Nothing morally wrong with stealing if its not in support of some lie about absolute truth. However, you might consider if that is the society that you want to live in and whether there even exists a society that wants to accept you. Let’s make sure we have an agreed definition of morals. Morals that are an absolute truth or morals that are just accepted norm of a particular society but do not have the ideological power of being claimed to be absolute truth.


Afaik, Nihilists do not reject ideological (absolute truth or forced imposition of beliefs) pursuits as amoral and differentiate that activity from any other activity w.r.t. to the issue of morality. So I guess you can conclude there’s two absolute truths I’ve arrived at:

1. Universal trend towards maximum entropy.
2. Amorality of absolute truths (other than these two objective ones).

My brief sketch of nihilism is that it is devoid of preference for purpose and meaning. I have not rejected the ability of the individual to choose a meaning or purpose. I’ve only rejected their nonsense of trying to tell me to involve me in their meaning if I do not wish to be, even passing judgement on me and what will happen to me, and thus slippery sliding into being forced to take control over me.


Obviously I’m not arguing that rules, norms, or laws are entirely unnecessary, nor am I arguing that there’s no meaning of existence.

Rather I’m stating that there’s no observable absolute truth about these matters, although one could certainly argue for their experience and knowledge of history and argue why some historical observations should continue, but nothing is observably perpetual in our Universe (and we do not observe in perpetuity nor can we even observe everything in any given iota spacetime slice). I’m arguing for a free market of choices. If some group wants to try to enslave another, if that activity is not the most economic or fruitful, they’re likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. I’m confident the maximum division-of-labor destroys (chattel and I argued eventually Theory of the Firm) slavery, as I had explained in great detail in my past writings which you cited in your Economic Devastation thread, as well as my blog Information is Alive!

The USA Civil War wasn’t really a battle about slavery, because economics was going to take care of that any way, rather it was a battle about consolidating the economies-of-scale of the United States at the time when territorial consolidation was economically valuable (the two major oceans of the earth on each coast and the Mississippi river bisecting North-to-South). And now with the Internet (as you have written about), it is about separating into efficient autonomous locales that foster the maximum division-of-labor.

It’s Just Time.

Hello Hyperme.sh since you have decided to take our friendly banter public I think some background information would help readers understand what we are talking about.

The above private message exchange was sparked by my post of Ben Hunt's essay titled.

Sheep Logic - This Is The Age Of The High-Functioning Sociopath
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.22652426

I actually have little desire for theological debate. So I will instead post some friendly queries.

You report the following beliefs.

1) You reject that notion of an absolute truth. You also categorically state that omniscience is impossible.

2) You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses.

3) Your argue that your belief that actions have observable consequences make your beliefs a separate entity from nihilism.

These are the questions I have for you given your stated positions.

Question 1: God according to all of the major monotheistic religions is omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), and had an an eternal and necessary existence. As you have chosen apriori to believe that there is no absolute truth and that omniscience is impossible how can you reconcile these views with a belief in God, Jesus, or religion of any kind?

Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?

Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil? Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?

Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?

I think its time to sell.. crypto is a safe haven

A bull market in all private assets is well underway, yet people mistake this for a bubble:

I predict ESR will never approve this comment. And thus he will deny the truth about the Civil War. He’s been fed a lot of lies by the revisionist history sources provided to him by the Zionists who organized the Civil War to break down the States Rights and individual sovereignty.

It’s sad to see the rationality/objectivity of a man with a very high IQ be destroyed by propaganda which he can’t distinguish from facts.


Surprisingly ESR did publish the comment and I replied challenging him to maintain his CREDibility:

---

I’m starting to realize why I prefer the self-deprecating, badass Linus Torvalds to the politically correct hack ESR:


And by pandering to the popular notion that the guy is vile, he obscures that it is purely a free market outcome that women demand vile men. He enables continued ignorance while protecting himself by couching his essay in some politically correct speech.

It’s similar to what the Trilema dude wrote about the Core devs. Politicizing instead of focusing on doing important work or analysis.

Making sure he jumps on the side of political correctness by declaring the man vile whilst simultaneously declaring himself virtuous yet recognizing that its just human nature both from the standpoint of the way women and men operate in certain settings of power structure and especially in a decadent society which fosters such. Unnecessary moralizing pandering to the tyranny of the mob power vacuum while judging a man for being the sort of jerk women want (i.e. that the free market of human nature demands) yet placing himself on a quicksand pedestal of political correctness, whilst implicitly encouraging the decadence by pandering to political correctness.

James A. Donald explained more scientifically without the leftist bullshit:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/in-defense-of-hugh-hefner/

The entire point is that if we succumb to peer pressure and appeasing the majority, then we lose our own objectivity and relevance.

I do not want ESR as a role model having to constantly worry about his pandering and how he (mis)judges even history due to his self-important ideological bias:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/role-models/



(In due respect, some of Eric’s code such as gif and gpsd apparently widely used)

P.S. on politics vs. research:

Btw, not that it changes the point of what other people perceive to be offensive to their own politics, my pursuit is not politics because I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do or leverage the collective to do so. I am doing research on (e.g. WTC, Zionists, theology, etc) and challenging others to also do so.

I am not pandering to any constituency.

Idea was to work on yours not eos. He chose eos because he had 200 million reasons for it. Chasing paper i guess was his decision.

Remember I told you (@sidhujag) I was not interested in being involved with Dan’s EOS.

Here are the gory details and that is an important read because it also provides some relevance to Bitcoin and our ecosystem in general.

---

He is saying that if we end the year above that 25,648, then the bull market headed towards 38,000+ is underway. Whereas, we still have the possibility of a SLINGSHOT dive down first, and that critical support is at 20,000. If we were to break below 20,000, then his SLINGSHOT theory would be void and we would be in a bear market.

So what he is saying is the we are waiting either for the SLINGSHOT dive down to maybe as low as 20,000, else we will simply just start rising without a dive down.

But the timing can delay into next year.

More complete explanations are given to subscribers.

Armstrong is very bullish on DJIA over next few years. Should go to 38,000+ as there will be an international capital stampede out of Europe into the US dollar. The Catalonia separatist movement election may be the catalyst. We are still waiting for the catalyst in Europe. A strong wind could blow over the entire banking system in Europe. The ECB is bankrupt.

Long-term LEAPs on the DJIA would be a “no brainer” if we get that SLINGSHOT dive down. Presuming you do not fear capital controls in the USA that steal your investments.

Anyone here -- can help decipher below paragraph?



 
Are we looking at correction in DOW and than sky rocket up after weak hands taken out?   


Thank you in Advance.

Well he discovered the cycle by noticing trends in history before he realised he was looking at an actual mathematically precise global cycle. What you're saying is kind of like saying the number Pi itself is arbitrary. You're entering into the realm of asking why the universe is constructed in ways that continually manifest out of mathematical constants like the number Pi. If you're asking specifically why it's Pi * 1000, and not Pi * 10000 or Pi * 100, the answer to that is that the cycle is fractal. If you continuously multiply or divide the timespan of 3141 days by pi you will get more numbers that he has found correlating trends for as well (approximate 8.6 year cycles within 27 year cycles within 86 year cycles, etc.) If you appreciate the fact that the universe is cyclical and fractal in it's very nature, the idea that the collective activity and behaviour of the entire human race would manifest itself in a pattern doesn't really seem that far fetched.

No he was just the excuse.

The truth about who created Bitcoin and why.

IMO, y’all might be interpreting his statement as more encompassing than his presumed thought process. My thought is the reality is probably more nuanced. Also he presumably does not have access to all the information such as some of the details below.

I do not know how anyone could reasonably argue that he is not correct about that governments will use their taxing and regulatory powers.

I interpret that he means we will not have a mainstream cryptocurrency that enables people to escape with “black money”. He agrees that decentralized ledger technology will be part of the monetary future. However the interpretation that he is claiming that no decentralized ledgers created by the free market will survive, is a bit extreme as well (whether he meant that or whether the interpretation is too extreme). Seems to me that he is at most referring only to cryptocurrency, not to other applications of decentralized ledgers. I presume he is thinking is about a cryptocurrency that would enable evasion of taxation and AML regulatory control. Whereas, apparently utility tokens are not in his radar at the moment. Also I presume he does has not delved sufficiently into the theory that Bitcoin was created by the Zionists and Bitcoin MUST BECOME ENTIRELY CENTRALIZED as per its premeditated design. Recent research has modelled that there is no way to alter Satoshi’s design such that proof-of-work can remain incentives compatible as transaction fees rise and block reward declines. It is a fundamental design goal that Bitcoin is ultimately centralized (as it appears it was designed this way and none of the forks can fix this). Thus a theory that Bitcoin is and will be controlled by the Zionists so in this respect Armstrong will end up being incorrect, unless the Zionists decide to destroy Bitcoin (since the theory is they already might control it). My theory has remained since 2013 that Bitcoin was created to disintermediate the nation-states to drive civilization toward a world government reserve currency. We can clearly see that (even including the forks of) Bitcoin can never scale decentralized (unlike my own decentralized ledger design which in theory can), and thus Bitcoin will become only a reserve currency and not a decentralized, non-fractional-reserve transactional currency (recent revelations show that Lightning Networks and side-chains are insolubly flawed and can’t ever be secure).

@sidhujag, its difficult for me to find a way to say this without being condescending, which is not my intention. Rather I’m just trying to avoid an inefficient dialogue wherein we haven’t really put in the highly detailed discussion necessary to avoid cognitive dissonance. I have observed your succinct post quips in this thread, there appear to be gaps in your understanding the technological and economics theory issues when you comment on decentralized ledger issues such as those in the prior paragraph. It’s a massive amount of information and detail that even I sometimes forget some key details. So please do not respond with some quip about the above technological issues, because it’s frustrating for me to read something from you wherein I see errors or incompleteness but I do not have the time to get into a long debate with you. It is a deep discussion and I can’t have it right now. You’re smart and we can learn if given access to all the information.

This is very important because I have been studying this problem in my analysis of how to avoid issuing a token as a security.

Bottom line is that if you have any money for which you have no legit paper trail where all taxes and regulatory requirements were met, this is “black money” and the governments of the world are going to make it very difficult to launder that money and bring it back into their financial system. Since they control all the means of industrial production and they control the masses, the presumably we will not be able to easily employ such “black money” in the brick & mortar (physical) economy.

The cryptocurrency investment that will make you a $multi-millionaire will be the one that the masses are not afraid to use and which is not breaking laws. We can do a lot of really wonderful accomplishments with decentralized ledgers without breaking laws.

We disintermediate government not by breaking their laws, but by making government irrelevant while being 100% legal. We paradigm shift them in a way they can not react to. Securties and AML laws are already on the books worldwide and ready for use. We will not succeed to subvert those laws directly. But we can for example subvert them indirectly, because for example there is no way the government is going to force users to track and report every nanotransaction.

Much better to move yourself to a jurisdiction that does not tax you, than to try to snub the law and suffer dearly for it.

---

Ive said many times he doesnt know what hes talking about on most subjects. He is only good for his long term macro wave theory. Dont read into his other stuff unless you wanna lose money.