careful goys, the forum is run by one of G-d's chosen people

@Abaris said in Stop the hubris.:

Humble yourself and start taking thyroid.

Still 👍

I drink caffeine and monch like a horse. Yet to try thyroid in isolation.

@Sugar Taking time to read (old hardcover editions of) his books would be more personally (and thus collectively) valuable than seeking out hot takes and quotes. Internet culture is anti-intellectual in this regard and kills peoples attention spans. People look for summaries and impressions rather than going on an intellectual walk with the author themselves through a patient reading of their own words.

@Norwegian-Mugabe said in Eugenics: Playing God:

God is the ultimate eugenicist.

5ee0b740-dfbb-456f-ad5d-81a3ea21227b-healthy-seed-poster-1930s.jpg
4fba6501-6146-4242-829e-d8207c6aa33a-youre-probably-a-eugenicist-v0-eehXxErKjXn9lWlS9KrlMCa6eCuWHKHq2R7U9bVHZmY.webp
2f648a80-65f5-4e2f-af89-d05fd9117fb1-1883.jpg

Nature takes care of this.
Not man. Not evil.

Why are you so angry with Him?
(Rhetorical)

@Peatly 😰 Oh yikes. Thx

@questforhealth Masculine men have to do good to feel good. Their role in life is to protect, provide for, and cherish women, children and animals. For feminine women it’s the opposite. They have to feel good to do good.

But we have too many “peter pan” men who never grew up and fail to recognize that only insecure, previously abused and damaged women will tolerate an ungiving, uncherishing man.

Of course it’s not just men who are mixed up, most women were never taught to value themselves and set boundaries. So they overgive to men and then get resentful.

@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:

@Creuset you can make up the concept of collectivism, but there are only individuals. There is only me. I can be fairly certain of my own existence, but not of yours. There really is no "we."

I would tend to think that collectivism is a heuristic and not a concept. However, I wouldn't say that your definition of individuality/individuals "there is only me" is a concept either, you're describing a subjective felt sense and some kind of solipsism which is also a heuristic.

@Ruben said in Free Will:

@Truth I get your point, but the question I have still remains I guess. God would be outside of time and who knows what that means exactly. The fact that god would be able to know our actions, wouldn't mean we did not use our authentic agency to decide what to do.

Not just that he knows our actions, in the idea that a "god" would know all our feelings/thoughts/actions, past, present, future, and also that he would have all the powers including the power to let happen or stop each of our feelings/thoughts/actions, in this idea, it is in contradiction with the idea of free will (I do not imply god or free will exist/do not exist).

@Ruben said in Free Will:

@Truth The question of free will, I think, is ultimately the question of is our agency real or a dillusion. Meaning are we merely observers of a dream like state, or are we actively involved in making choices and have influence in outcomes. The fact that the past and present can influence the future isn't the same as that the future always deterministically follow, as is the believe of Sir Roger Penrose. I like to involve ray's ideas into it more, because his view on energy has some real value. The real question could be asked a different way as wel; can our consciousness actively order the chaos of possibilities that lies in the future? The ordering agency of our consciousness seems to make sense, if you look at quantum machenics (latest nobel prize winners etc). I just don't really understand what materialists mean with free will being an illusion, because I really can't understand what they would classify as free will then.

I know what you mean, I share a different way of looking at it, the consideration of free will as real or an illusion, is determined by a feeling, a feeling influenced by our energetic state, an energetic state influenced by our environment (food, sun, people we interact with...etc) rather than the effect of our thinking, our thinking is mostly the manifestation of our energetic state.

I suggest that what's more important on this subject, is to observe what this idea of real or illusory free will is associated with, if it's associated with a higher degree of energy, well-being, relaxation, exellent, if it's not the best thing is to thrive for another energetic state.

For example, the idea that free will is illusory, and that we are only the effects of the causes that precede us and the environmental factors present, can be associated with a lower degree of guilt, regret, remorse, and we can think that we are doing the best we can at each moment in our current state in this given environment, in which case it's positively associated, and in other cases this idea of illusory free will may be associated with a higher degree of impotency, lesser freedom, lesser energy.

The highest or lowest energetic feeling associated with the state we are in when we have this idea of real or illusory free will, determines if this state and idea are desirable and optimal, whether free will in theory is real or illusory doesn't matter in itself

@Karl-Kronstadt He was not super into fringe politics especially later in life, but I would be surprised if he wasn't aware of the various Larouchite ops.

@Nabokov Both have to be true. If it wasn't for Ray's will to life, which I think of as THE will to life, which he so naively possesses and which he has to so naively possess lest he would not be able to penetrate the question of biology so directly, higher life could not be pursued in the first. Everything else is superfluous. And Ray understood hierarchy, biological hierarchy of bodies of cells and of states of bodies, he understood subordination and cooperation and competition because they are part of the same self-ordering process, whether in the body of an organism or in a nation.

Also, there's a difference between the retard argument of 'genetic determinism', as used by modern medicine, which is fundamentally an anti-Nietzschean denial of the will, and true 'biological determinism', in the sense that all rational thought stems from the BODY and the question of inheritance is as important to an organism as the question of the biological effects of its own environment like how Nietzsche writes about. This is all in accordance to Ray's thought. But the question is whether something exists priori to the will to health. To make yourself healthy, you must already be healthy at the bottom of your nature.