On the Tyranny of the Majority in posting on a Left-leaning forum:

[Moonbeam]

Interesting.

Almost up there with "gammon" being first employed as a term for a certain kind of (middle-aged, white) right-wing man, by Charles Dickens. Took well over a century for it to become a mainstream usage. Funny how these terms exist for a long time before suddenly blowing up and then becoming unbearably commonplace.

I'm still annoyed at how 'political correctness' displaced the traditional 'ideological soundness'.

I know what you mean. I find it so so annoying when people use 'not up to computer conventions' for 'politically incorrect' or 'too damn lazy to read'.

 

[woolfe9998]

What gets me is how they keep inventing new buzzwords to denote their enemies. Then they overuse those words till it makes your ears bleed. When they ran out of mileage with "Political Correctness" they came up with "Wokeness" as a new way to denounce the same thing (i.e. anything that conflicts with the interests of the Right).

Though partly I blame US liberals. Seems as if they are the ones who coin these terms, which the right then immediately grabs and runs with.

Wokeness used to be a description, pejorative or not depending on who is using it, of the left's identity politics. Now they use it to refer to any position of the left. If a TV program contains discussion of climate change, that is now "woke." They are broadening its definition to where it is becoming meaningless.

 

[cytg111]

Do you honestly not realise how egotistical that comment is?

Moons damage is that he thinks that when everybody else looks in the mirror they see his reflection too. That of course and a massive Jesus savior complex. He is trapped in the house of mirrors. Outlook not so good.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do you honestly not realise how egotistical that comment is?

How so? Did you possibly imagine that I was able to face myself by choice, that it was some wonderful gift unique to me that granted me some measure of self understanding. I am a fucking accident. I got run down by grace. My sense of it, however, is that the grace train runs down people who walk a road of despair. It isn't something that happens to egotists full of self contentment. I think what you see isn't ego or humility. It's honesty, I neither humbly nor egotistically submit. What I do realize, however, is how I will be taken by those who have concern for how they will fit in socially, people worried about how they will be made or broken by what other people think of them and try to apply that to me. Sorry but there is some slight difference between being egotistical had having some small measure of self respect.

It was through no special gift of my own that I see what I see, but I do know what I see and am willing to affirm it as seeing something.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wokeness used to be a description, pejorative or not depending on who is using it, of the left's identity politics. Now they use it to refer to any position of the left. If a TV program contains discussion of climate change, that is now "woke." They are broadening its definition to where it is becoming meaningless.

It doesn't need meaning as long as it can be uttered to hurt. The Woke vs the Deplorables.

"Let me pass on to you my feelings that I am the worst of the worst."

 

[pmv]

I know what you mean. I find it so so annoying when people use 'not up to computer conventions' for 'politically incorrect' or 'too damn lazy to read'.

Not "Not up to computer conventions", just rude and entitled, expecting others to do the work to decode what you are trying to say but can't be bothered to say in an intelligible fashion. But, no, everyone _else_ is lazy for not wanting to do the work for you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moons damage is that he thinks that when everybody else looks in the mirror they see his reflection too. That of course and a massive Jesus savior complex. He is trapped in the house of mirrors. Outlook not so good.

My my, if you aren't trying to practicing VooDoo. That's really scary......Outlook not so good.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not "Not up to computer conventions", just rude and entitled, expecting others to do the work to decode what you are trying to say but can't be bothered to say in an intelligible fashion. But, no, everyone _else_ is lazy for not wanting to do the work for you.

Nobody feels others are rude when they are not offended. Nobody is offended who does not already harbor self doubt that the words of others can trigger. Nobody calls another unintelligible unaware of the negative implications via having been called stupid themselves. Nobody calls someone lazy who has not themselves been called a bum. I am sorry these things have happened to you. Forgive me if this need you have to port that over to me are seen for what they are.

 

[Pohemi]

I'll await it going PLONK again, and your, "I know you are but what am I?" response.

What never gets absorbed is that what I can see in myself you are too convinced at an unconscious level is also true of you. As I said, we only differ in that you have so far in your life not been forced to face yourself. You are blissfully ignorant. You needn't be threaten by me. Wake up requires humility. You are way too sophisticated for that sort of shit, right?

Delivered, as expected.

 

[pmv]

Wokeness used to be a description, pejorative or not depending on who is using it, of the left's identity politics. Now they use it to refer to any position of the left. If a TV program contains discussion of climate change, that is now "woke." They are broadening its definition to where it is becoming meaningless.

Same thing happened with "political correctness". When I heard someone declare that they still liked to drink even though drinking "Isn't politically correct these days", or when someone said that 'smoking pot' was 'politically incorrect', it was pretty clear it had come to mean 'anything somebody somewhere doesn't like'.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Still, even if we consider that coelacanth evolution may have acquired certain myths of inaccuracies suggestion stagnation of evolutionary change, it is believed that fish left the waters some 500 million years ago and the oldest known coelacanth fossil is some 410 million years old. That would imply that with just a 90 million year head start, a common ancestor of coelacanths evolved into us. That would suggest to me that the morphological changes that led to us were far more pronounced than those on the coelacanth lineage giving the myth some sense of rational appeal.

“My aim was simply to point out that evolution can favor the continuances of genetic sameness where environmental influences remain in stasis.”

So you used a wildly unsubstantiated myth to point that out? And you think environmental stasis occurred continuously over the course of at least 400 million years? And you think that a paucity of fossils can determine the true age of the Actinistia order?

 

[Moonbeam]

Same thing happened with "political correctness". When I heard someone declare that they still liked to drink even though drinking "Isn't politically correct these days", or when someone said that 'smoking pot' was 'politically incorrect', it was pretty clear it had come to mean 'anything somebody somewhere doesn't like'.

Wouldn’t it more likely mean ‘typically frowned on’ regardless of one’s personal sentiment?

 

[WelshBloke]

What never gets absorbed is that what I can see in myself you are too convinced at an unconscious level is also true of you. As I said, we only differ in that you have so far in your life not been forced to face yourself. You are blissfully ignorant. You needn't be threaten by me. Wake up requires humility. You are way too sophisticated for that sort of shit, right?

There's a lot of "I think" couched as "this is truth" there.

 

[Moonbeam]

Same thing happened with "political correctness". When I heard someone declare that they still liked to drink even though drinking "Isn't politically correct these days", or when someone said that 'smoking pot' was 'politically incorrect', it was pretty clear it had come to mean 'anything somebody somewhere doesn't like'.

Wouldn’t it more likely mean ‘typically frowned on’ regardless of one’s personal sentiment?

 

[Moonbeam]

There's a lot of "I think" couched as "this is truth" there.

Always. I am trying to present my opinion as to as to what the facts are while also trying not to appear unaware that they are other than my opinions about what the facts are. In my case what I know, my opinion about what I know was acquired by the loss of certainty, the realization that my sacred cows were just baloney.

I learned first hand also that such a loss is accompanied and can occur only painfully as a kind of psychic death. I use words like existential angst or hopelessness and that in that state of loss a realization can occur which I use a word like grace to indicate.

You lose the self that gave you life, comfort and the bliss of self ignorance to ruthless and remorseless self questioning, but you can then experience an awakening to a hidden deeper self within, who you really are.

This creates a paradox. Now you know that your lack of knowing anything is good and you can’t unlearn that fact. You experienced it. That you don’t know anything turns out to be knowing everything you need to know to be, to be a child again.

 

[WelshBloke]

Always. I am trying to present my opinion as to as to what the facts are while also trying not to appear unaware that they are other than my opinions about what the facts are. In my case what I know, my opinion about what I know was acquired by the loss of certainty, the realization that my sacred cows were just baloney.

I learned first hand also that such a loss is accompanied and can occur only painfully as a kind of psychic death. I use words like existential angst or hopelessness and that in that state of loss a realization can occur which I use a word like grace to indicate.

You lose the self that gave you life, comfort and the bliss of self ignorance to ruthless and remorseless self questioning, but you can then experience an awakening to a hidden deeper self within, who you really are.

This creates a paradox. Now you know that your lack of knowing anything is good and you can’t unlearn that fact. You experienced it. That you don’t know anything turns out to be knowing everything you need to know to be, to be a child again.

Again there's a lot of "this happened to me" being couched as "this is the only way to understanding".

 

[Moonbeam]

“My aim was simply to point out that evolution can favor the continuances of genetic sameness where environmental influences remain in stasis.”

The mistake I made here that you may be hung up on is using the words ‘genetic sameness’ when I should have used morphological sameness. In the first place you have chosen to emphasize morphological differences in various coelacanth types to bolster the notion of genetic diversity, while I have tried to tie the similarities among coelacanth groups to indicate a genetic similarity.


This raises a debated issue among evolutionists. Paleontologists differentiate species based on morphological differences whereas among living organisms species are defined by whether individuals can breed successfully.

So you used a wildly unsubstantiated myth to point that out? And you think environmental stasis occurred continuously over the course of at least 400 million years? And you think that a paucity of fossils can determine the true age of the Actinistia order?

So for the reasons that genetic and morphological differences may not be perfectly analogous, I chose to stress the fact that the morphological change in coelacanths over the known appearance in the fossil record at least 400 million years would imply less genetic differences between ancient and modern examples than between the youngest common ancestor between us and them.



I assume then that the lack of the degree of morphological differences we see in coelacanths modern and ancient compared say to the morphological differences in us and them suggest a greater degree of stasis of environment they have faced compared to us.



Greater stasis does not require perfect stasis. So, this would imply that genetic drift would be a far larger cause of gene differences among coelacanths than change caused by adaption caused by environmental factors. Less change in the environment, less adaptive pressures.


None of this would have to do with how many fossils are known.



My contention then is that the greater the evidence that a lineage can be recognized over vast periods of time, the more likely the genetic material of ancient members to modern ones is likely to be compared to the genetic material of members of groups who must also have ancient relatives to that ancient lineage in question but have only recently differentiated themselves as a distinct group.


The myth that coelacanths living coelacanths are genetically identical to ancient ones is a myth, but the assumption that the retention of morphological similarities to define a lineage over long periods of time implies a greater retention of genetic similarities than for groups with short histories I think is sound.



Don’t fix what ain’t broke.

 

[Moonbeam]

Again there's a lot of "this happened to me" being couched as "this is the only way to understanding".

I described how I came to know I didn’t know. I know I don’t know and that means there is nothing to know. Knowingness is the enemy. You can agree or disagree. But I am not saying that I have the only person who doesn’t know anything or that how I realized that is the only way to do so. Far from it.

But the thing that saved me from black despair was a chance encounter with Zen, people who clearly implied to me they were perfectly fine not believing in what I thought you needed to believe to be happy. They just said that when you come to the end of the line searching for truth, you get two tigers that become a cherry that tastes real good.
So, really, I don’t care how you empty your tea cup, just do it. The Attar of Rose is the gift of thorns.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Since this thread has clearly run its course, let's pivot and talk about the tyranny of gun owners on the rest of the world? That's some actual tyranny and not whatever nonsense moonbeam is whining about now.

 

[WelshBloke]

I described how I came to know I didn’t know.

Yup. That's fine.

I know I don’t know and that means there is nothing to know.

Absolutely not.

Knowingness is the enemy. You can agree or disagree. But I am not saying that I have the only person who doesn’t know anything or that how I realized that is the only way to do so. Far from it.

I can agree or not but it doesn't matter. "Knowingness is the enemy" is your thing. It means nothing when applied to anyone else.

But the thing that saved me from black despair was a chance encounter with Zen, people who clearly implied to me they were perfectly fine not believing in what I thought you needed to believe to be happy. They just said that when you come to the end of the line searching for truth, you get two tigers that become a cherry that tastes real good.
So, really, I don’t care how you empty your tea cup, just do it. The Attar of Rose is the gift of thorns.

It's great that you found something that rings your bell, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that your claper might not suit everyone else's bell.
I get that you don't like to be challenged on what was an important mental process for you but other people being different and not needing or having a different process to you doesn't mean they are "unenlightened", it just means they have had different journeys.

 

[Perknose]

Now they use it to refer to any position of the left. If a TV program contains discussion of climate change, that is now "woke."

The 'Pubs love branding, and they're good at it. They're now beating "woke" to death because, sadly, it works. It's like screaming "unlimited shrimp, vote Republican" to their base.

 

[Meghan54]

Do you honestly not realise how egotistical that comment is?

The height of hubris.

 

[Perknose]

Egoless hubris. Quite the concept!

 

[Roger Wilco]

@Moonbeam

So for the reasons that genetic and morphological differences may not be perfectly analogous, I chose to stress the fact that the morphological change in coelacanths over the known appearance in the fossil record at least 400 million years would imply less genetic differences between ancient and modern examples than between the youngest common ancestor between us and them.
I am not talking about humans. I am talking about the potential necessity of genetic diversity, although apparently you were talking about morphological diversity?


I assume then that the lack of the degree of morphological differences we see in coelacanths modern and ancient compared say to the morphological differences in us and them suggest a greater degree of stasis of environment they have faced compared to us.
Not talking about humans man!


Greater stasis does not require perfect stasis. So, this would imply that genetic drift would be a far larger cause of gene differences among coelacanths than change caused by adaption caused by environmental factors. Less change in the environment, less adaptive pressures.
They've survived many mass exctintions, and their meager fossil record exhibits substantial morphological change through that time. Therefore, I think it is plausible that multiple concurrent species existed, and that some of those species died off over time, thus reducing genetic diversity to what we observe today.

Or it could totally not be that. Because we don't have enough data to make any sort of conclusion.

None of this would have to do with how many fossils are known.
Agree to disagree.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup. That's fine.

Absolutely not.

I think you are looking at knowledge differently than I am. One can know a bunch of facts. One can also believe at an unconscious level. I call those unexamined beliefs, unexamined That is the kind of thinking one knows that one does not actually do not know. Such beliefs are tied unconsciously inculcated emotional experiences tied to the notions of good and evil. They lie at the root of dualistic thinking. In English and in the West more generally these ideas seem strange:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Note that I hardly think the experience is unique to Indian metaphysics. I think the experience is the experience of truth and it involves the loss of the awareness of the ego as the self. That is why to not know, to lose attachment to the delusional self as ego is all that is required to know. To know isn't a body of information but a conscious state.

I can agree or not but it doesn't matter. "Knowingness is the enemy" is your thing. It means nothing when applied to anyone else.

It's great that you found something that rings your bell, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that your claper might not suit everyone else's bell.

I get that you don't like to be challenged on what was an important mental process for you but other people being different and not needing or having a different process to you doesn't mean they are "unenlightened", it just means they have had different journeys.

OK, but I just explained that the key part for me isn't that there is only one path, my path. The key is that truth is gained by the process of unlearning by loss of attachment to the delusion of self. It doesn't matter how that happens so long as it does.

That leaves your claim that my claim only applies to me, that it's my thing. You say also that is an important mental process but only for me, that it does not apply or may not be necessary for others. Let me turn that around. How important is it that you believe what you are saying, that there isn't one truth that applies to everybody. Clearly if a person experiences, lets call it enlightenment that instantly dispels all possibility of existential suffering as a conscious state of unity with the universe ensues, will one ever go back and say, you know what, I liked being miserable better that this release from suffering?

So if it is possible to experience a conscious state that happens on the death of the ego, what possible gain would there be for ego gratification that such a conscious state exists because one has experienced it. Whereas, in the case of those who have not experienced such a state, could their egos not be intimidated by the idea they do not know what it is and that furthermore they will have to die to experience it. You can decide.