Is dilution better?

Forums: Members, Community, Philforum
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is dilution better?

This is to Robert and many who may be concerned about this merging. Philosophy has always be a catchall word utilized by those who seem compelled to find answers to those questions relating us that have seemed to elude us about who we are, why we are here, where we are going, when the beginning was and if there is an end to it all.

Stemming from the axiom/adage "?The Truth cannot be denied"? prior to this merging our (members of the Philosophyforum.com) were making progress in answering those questions.

Such thinkers are rare in number as many came to observe and find answers from us; those members who were at home in that domain. Much of what was discussed there was, if it rang true would have been passed on. This is a fact of the universe. Always has been and always will be.

Much of our past has been diluted and broadened to the point that if anyone truly wanted to know an answer finding a place that would answer a question was impossible in and of itself and why "?philosophy"? has always been used as a catch all; not an item on a very long list such is what you can observe when you visit the home page here. It's in the last column second from the top.

What I would offer here is that "?home page' be a page similar to that of the Philforum that showed rather quickly the topics being discussed rather than a page of so many topics to discuss.

Why? As I said those who ask those universal questions are indeed few in number and their obsession to find answers is not popular among the vast majority of the people who reside on this beautiful orb space. Most are too absorbed in this reality and don't have a clue as to the overall picture and are resolved to just exist and survive in the status quo.

If we do place priority positioning on "?page 1" those topics that are being discussed, this will allow more of these naive and innocent folk to better understand what is actually going on and why they are so entrapped in this reality.

In the movie "?Class Action"? a diversionary tactic that was used in that movie was dilution personified in which those who did not want the truth to come out, flooded their antagonist with truck loads of "?stuff"? that amounted to looking for a needle in a haystack in hopes that they would just "?give up"?. It was in there somewhere; finding it was the problem.

Perhaps "?Able2know"? is still going through a formatting process? I don't know that. If it is then let this be a suggestion. If this is a true merger and not a ploy to dilute, then we must formulate them to continue to strive for that truth and bring those naive and innocent minds into the fold to help them too better understand this world we all call home. Let OUR homepage get to the points that are being discussed immediately rather than most of websites that are just catchalls for a lot of STUFF for so many to choose from.

Sincerely,
William

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 2,024 • Replies: 15

[+3] - djjd62 - 06/10/2010i likes me some philosophizing now and again just the other day i was contemplating, is you is, or is you ain't my baby anybody have any thoughts

So why do you think ANY topic has 'priority' on the menu?

Get in alphabetical order, like the rest of us.

2 Replies

@sullyfish6,

what william was trying to say is that on the philo forum we knew that anyone showing up there had philosophy as their main goal, where as here it has been diluted. Not everyone here is for philosophy and some that are will struggle to find the discussions they were privy to over on the other forum. So he feels that the philosophical discussions will now take a back seat to other topics which makes all the philosophers lost and scattered once again.

1 Reply

@sullyfish6,

sullyfish6 wrote:

So why do you think ANY topic has 'priority' on the menu?
Get in alphabetical order, like the rest of us.

Please forgive me if I did not explain it well enough for you. And K, I wasn't "?trying"? to say anything. I didn't stttttuttteerrrr, ha! I was merely referring to the catchall home page and first impressions.

It took a long time to develop the philforum into the domain it is. Numbers are not significant to me if they are just numbers and those who own these forums are just interested in attracting many to their domain.

The categories there we just and anyone could discuss anything they could think up. No matter what? How to make spinach dip, if you like.
Having so many categories, up front on a home page, will result in a site like "?GAIA"? that has millions of members. If you have never observed that sight/site, then I suggest you visit it and observe what it has become. It will take months to just go though their categories and "?sites"?. It's just another "mini-internet".

As I noted perhaps there are some modifications still in process here behind the scenes as this merger is still in transition.

I don't know Robert that well and can only hope he has good intentions. He rarely participated in the philforum after he purchased it. Neither did the "?mods"? he brought with him; so it's difficult know what Robert's intentions are and his reasoning. Let's see when the transition of all that was there arrives to here. If it all does? I hope the philforum as it was is still as it was two days ago.................................just in case this "?merger' is to delude and dilute.

Sullyfish, I hope this helped. The only tome out there that is in alphabetical order and unabridged is the dictionary of English persuasion. Ever picked up on of those lately?

William

2 Replies

@William,

Quote:

so it's difficult know what Robert's intentions are and his reasoning.

Per RG, it wasn't by choice - there were serious issues that had to be addressed immediately.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
so it's difficult know what Robert's intentions are and his reasoning.

Per RG, it wasn't by choice - there were serious issues that had to be addressed immediately.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks,

William

0 Replies

@William,

Robert explains on this thread -

http://able2know.org/topic/145673-1

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Philosophy is a state of mind. Science was originally 'natural philosophy' and it became a full fledged discipline because it was firmly based in observed data and principles of logic whereas philosophy tended to be more ephemeral not being tied to the physical world but just operating in the realm of thoughts and floating ideas and principles. Rumors, gossips and speculation would fit in philosophy as it operates on ideas however, beacause of the lack of logic, proper principles and minimal data they are just water cooler material. From one idea or thought you could develop innumerable thoughts and ideas which are not being tied to anything. The only thing giving it credence would be logic and some operating principle. Therefore those who are not specifically philosophical in nature do have a point of view which may be valid though narrowly focussed as it would be based on personal experience, knowledge of the sciences and engineering which are based on data and logic.

0 Replies

i likes me some philosophizing now and again

just the other day i was contemplating, is you is, or is you ain't my baby

anybody have any thoughts

0 Replies

@William,

Where philosophy could really help is to classify and group ideas and thoughts. For example, Adam Smith the great economist who wrote the Wealth of Nations, came up with the ideas of specialization of labor and free market whereby suppliers and buyers could determine the true price of any good using the supply and demand curves. Based on this concept he advocated a laissez faire system where the market determines everything. The specialization of labor does wonders for production but it also means regulation i.e. a tradesman or professional needs certification. Certification is regulation. Otherwise you could end up with hack jobs, fly-by-night abortions, scammers, snake oil salesmen, etc. dominating the market. So there is a contradiction of 'free market' with no regulation and 'specialization of labor'. The unregulated environment that GWB created resulted in the Financial Meltdown where Wall Street sharks defrauded other banks and stockholders. Regulation is needed in a free market.

1 Reply

O' Babylon dragging the righteous into the philosophical diaspora, will there ever be a gathering?

That was a summation for drama's sake

0 Replies

@William,

The start page shows a sub category "philosophy" and when you click on it,
all topics tagged as "philosophy" will show. You can create your own niche
there and only deal with subjects related to philosophy.

Certainly you might get some input from the regulars here on a2k,
but it will be subject related and on topic. Therefore, I would not call it
"dilution" it's more of an expansion.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

Where philosophy could really help is to classify and group ideas and thoughts. For example, Adam Smith the great economist who wrote the Wealth of Nations, came up with the ideas of specialization of labor and free market whereby suppliers and buyers could determine the true price of any good using the supply and demand curves.

Hello talk, I think if you consider "?one supplier"? and "?one market"? and all participating in those structures economics as we have always known would allow us to reach that equillibrium of which all is based. When you divide them you create the haves and the have nots that create envy and animosity. People know what they need and should have to demand nothing. That has been an illusion all along. They don't demand, the are tempted to want more that they need thereby creating competition.

We have certain resources and if we could know, the Earth is in perfect balanced in the distribution of those resources. Human kind it's most valuable resource and is the developer of those resources and the distributor and the consumer. When we begin to value those resources based on rarity or scarcity we create imbalance, inequity and we give birth to iniquity. Inequities twin brother. The problems those two evil twins have caused and the blood that has been wasted are far too many to address here.

talk72000 wrote:

Based on this concept he advocated a laissez faire system where the market determines everything.

This is a guess but I doubt that one in 10 million humans that reside on this planet have even heard that term, much less know what it means.

The following from Answers.com:

Quote:

Laissez Faire-Policy dictating a minimum of governmental interference in the economic affairs of individuals and society. It was promoted by the physiocrats and strongly supported by Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. Widely accepted in the 19th century, laissez-faire assumed that the individual who pursues his own desires contributes most successfully to society as a whole. The function of the state is to maintain order and avoid interfering with individual initiative. The popularity of the laissez-faire doctrine waned in the late 19th century, when it proved inadequate to deal with the social and economic problems caused by industrialization. See also classical economics.[End Quote]

Governmental Interference? Sure as long as you have more than one government each with their own rules and regulations. It would be much different if we had one structure developing, distributing and consuming equally. Can't be done, you might say; If I might differ, IT MUST BE DONE!!!!!!! Our survival depends on our striving to reach that equillibrium and as long as we place erroneous value on rarity, life as we know it will continue to decay from all the waste the current structure that has always been producing continues. "?Charge what the market will bear"?; "?Survival of the Fittest"? and "?Planned Obsolescence"? have been wrong from first conception. Those are creations of the "?haves"? rationalizing their ill gotten thrones. Perhaps when we are neck deep in extraneous crap struggling for breathe, then maybe we might seek to find a better way to utilize our resources.

Talk, when you create a machine to replace a man; you lessen the man. I'm all for reduced labor as the next guy and if all were participating in that labor whether it be mental or physical, equitably, I am sure you will see those nasty twins cease to be. No rules. People don't have to be commanded. It's a part of our innate program to "do". We want "to do". We are dynamic! Static sucks. Something about "idle hands and workshop comes to mind", ha!

William

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

i am not sure i found any start page...is that like a home page? where is it?
sorry if i sound incredibly stupid, i am only believably stupid....

1 Reply

@salima,

salima wrote:

i am not sure i found any start page...is that like a home page? where is it?
sorry if i sound incredibly stupid, i am only believably stupid....

Hello, Salima, look at the very bottom of this page. There you will find the "Home Page".
William

0 Replies

@William,

It is best to illustrate economics with math. demand is really what people want to buy. Here is an illustration of a demand curve.

http://www.netmba.com/images/econ/micro/demand/curve/demandcurve.gif

http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/demand/curve/

A supply and demand curve where the price is determined by the market.

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/DemandSupply/Figure4.5.gif

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/DemandSupply/SupEtDemand.html

You are mixing up arbitrary rules and regulations with proper regulation.
Imagine there were no universities. There would be no degrees or certification that one has graduated from college or has a philosophy degree. Without certificates anyone could call oneself a philosopher or a doctor. Would you go to a person who hangs out a shingle that declares he/she is a medical doctor without proof or one who is certified as a doctor by the proper authorities. The arguments against regulations are wrong and deliberately done by business interests who use red herrings such as arbitrary or even archaic rules being identified as regulation. For example, there has to be minimum rules for traffic control or there is chaos. Rules are a reality of life when we live in a society. We must compromise so all the most important rights are maintained. Living in a society provides us safety and various other needs. If one feels the rules are not for him/her it could lead that person to becoming a hermit.

0 Replies

Is dilution better?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know