Daily Film Blog 07.05.2012 Chad Timtim

.I said, We should stop rgiarrneang the pictures on the walls and redesigning the plumbing in an effort to make the place better in our PRESENT in the belief we have some competence and capacity to confer some benefit upon the future by our ill thought out improvements.History has simply shown improvements to the present necessarily confer a detriment upon the future because of the overwhelming complexity of reality, all alternatives being wholly incapable of being thought through by human reason.I further stated and will re-emphasize, We are being categorically immoral whenever we gamble the future by our actions. It is a categorical moral statement because such detriments as arise from these gambles create a cumulative debasement of the future.My wife and I visited Niagara Falls two years ago. If you ever get there, or you have been there, perhaps you should consider all the improvements made to the place.I know you are timid of these moral arguments, as you avoid them, but this is the gist of what I am driving at. Morality is not relative. It is precise and can and must prioritise all our reason and logic, less these should fail due to a lack of due heed to Categorical Knowledge.Your final argument in this line of reasoning is that, [...] as long as I’m not absolutely convinced collapse is inevitable, it only makes sense to work to avert or at least mitigate it. You have ignored every bit of my argument when you make such a statement. You seem to be saying, or so I hear you say, this is just how I feel, (regardless of the moral deficit of my judgment here).Still, if what you want to do can be done without any gamble to the future, go for it with my philosophic blessings. But, Hail Mary passes are simply immoral, where everyene dies, and even a simple running play is likely only to make matters worse.As for my bent here to accomplish your stated goal to prevent the collapse whenever it may ultimately manifest itself beyond its sure rumbling and grinding annoyance we see today, I have previously suggested exposing the pragmatic liars who say we must make a choice quickly, and also by exposing empirical science as a fraud for its benefit for humanity.This is the most moral course, as well as the only reasonable or logical course given the downside of increasing the speed of an ever worsening deterioration of the prospects for humanity.The pragmatists and the empiricists are both P.T. Barnums with a song and something to sell us. Their reason and logic are not cogent for these are not moral. This is my well tested and well proven assertion that is provided in my work, that for logic or reason to be cogent, it MUST be moral.It is no wonder so many have difficulty with my views. No one before me ever said logic and reason must be moral for these to be cogent.The reason this knowledge has not been given to us before this time like that is because no one had discovered Kant’s Catgeorical Imperative before 2006, when I discovered it. Again:The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.That is one of a very few categorically true statements. By understanding it well, you can glimpse Categorical Knowledge and thereby entirely alter all reason and logic refining it toward real truth.I will come back to your notions about what can be done, and how to go about it, regardless of whether or not you are convinced the collapse is inevitable, and your humanitarian need to go to the rescue..3) As I’ve said, the things I and many others here promote (e.g., reducing population growth, addressing economic growth) really aren’t science. You would have a few dissenters among social scientists and economists about what is or is not a science. Generally, almost everything is empirical science today, and as I have said, I have gone to great pains to provide a proof that all empirical science is merely a religion.One of the major assertions of my work is that empirical science must stand upon its historic merits compared to other religions. For due to my (soon enough to be) immortal work empirical science no longer has any philosophic basis to assert any (primitive/modern) superiority over other religions. I have unequivocally proved, science is but another religion, and at that, one most akin to witchcraft.This is a very tough hill to climb, the notion that empirical science is but another religion. But the view from there is quite spectacular. You can see Paradise from there on a clear day. (It is likely a mirage because of human nature, but the view in that direction is indeed quite lovely. For one thing I would restore Niagara Falls to its Seventeenth Century splendor.)Back to what is science.From one perspective economics can be described as a science of efficiency. It is still today wrongly heralded as a great boon for humanity. The almost universal belief is that economic growth is magic.The defeat of economics in the arena of truth arrives not too late when we realize every increase in efficiency for its benefit to humanity arrives still born as a net negative at our doorstep as another package from the stork, (over population,) more science, (dangerous knowledge sets humanity is incapable of surviving,) and a more tenuously supported human population (due to increased complexity in culture and society.)You have asserted you are for population control, but your assertion comes with no recommended actions for the solution, or none anyway that could even approach the time honored methods of war, murder, starvation and pestilence.In my work I have encouraged stigmatizing mothers (who hold the keys to the birthing machines) who have more than a child or two. Nancy Pelosi is a good target here. She is roughly my age, and had five children. I know the education she received, and I honestly do not understand where she got off the boat. You must call a pig a pig, and if you have to spit in their faces to get their attention, then you spit in their faces. Nancy Pelosi is simply a pig and a horrible role model for youth.Finally you come up with this, We have opinions based on evidence as we assess it. You then go on to assert I am conceited, which is certainly true, so I take no offense by your noting it. I am in excellent company. When I am dead it will be a fair statement to say, he was conceited. And when I am long dead, it will still be true to say he held a very high opinion of his opinions. (The sting of such an accusation dissipates quickly, doesn’t it?)Behind your assertion, and further exemplied by your closing remarks is this implicit notion that you hold a relative reality to be the only truthful reality.Let me help you dispel that notion.Philosophy holds itself out as the pinnacle and at the apogee of all human knowledge. From the view expressed by the most able philosophers we find quite astounding statements that blend across broad swathes of other human knowledge.So, let me share with you something about relativity .While there are many facits of reality that are relative to other facets of reality, and those relative to yet other facets of reality again and again, until the whole of reality demonstrates to us quite convincingly that we can know nothing if we do not know everything, in the final analysis, there is only one reality. And it is not relative to anything.So we should not take our relative notions to mean we cannot rule out what is not reality.Don Robertson, The American Philosopher