[mansoor_h_khan]

Injin, on 21 February 2011 - 04:47 PM, said:

Ah, i've actually got that book, it's a very good read.

The answer to the question I do not know. Me, I am fully here.

Edit - I will say this as an ex hypnotist for hire, your conscious mind decides very little.

So, you don't think of the west as being more and more left minded (in McGhilchrist sense) as time has gone on?

You basically disagree with him. correct?

Mansoor

[Injin]

mansoor_h_khan, on 21 February 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

So, you don't think of the west as being more and more left minded (in McGhilchrist sense) as time has gone on?

You basically disagree with him. correct?

Mansoor

Yep.

The west has become more and more dissosiated as time has passed. Most people are in trances most of the time. Most of the rationality has gone from popular culture at this point as well.

[mansoor_h_khan]

Injin, on 21 February 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

Yep.

The west has become more and more dissosiated as time has passed. Most people are in trances most of the time. Most of the rationality has gone from popular culture at this point as well.

what is the remedy?

Mansoor

[Injin]

mansoor_h_khan, on 21 February 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

what is the remedy?

Mansoor

Philosophy.

[mansoor_h_khan]

Injin, on 21 February 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

Philosophy.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Can you please drop names here? or you only trust your own experience only?

Mansoor

[scepticus]

mansoor_h_khan, on 21 February 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

So, you don't think of the west as being more and more left minded (in McGhilchrist sense) as time has gone on?

You basically disagree with him. correct?

Mansoor

Injin is, according to my observations of him over a long period of time, an example of an individual suffering from an excess of left hemisphere activity, almost to the point of schizophrenia.

Such an individual is dominated by the left hemisphere which is why he excels at making complex semantic argumentation and espouses such a certainty about the nature of 'reality'**. In fact what he is espousing is the symbolic reality created in his left half, which appears to have gone unchecked by the other half for quite some time. McGhilchrist likens schizophrenia to a kind of hyper conscious, hyper-rationalism - existence almost entirely in an abstract symbolic reality, which ironically, is totally removed from actual reality.

I have also never encountered anyone with quite such an extreme denial of the existence of basic social phenomena, which also speaks to a right-side deficit.

Now I may be extremely wide of the mark here and there are many other explanations I am sure but the symptoms displayed certainly fit the description given by McGhilchrist.

** I'm aware of course that the same accusation would be laid by some against me as well

[Injin]

scepticus, on 21 February 2011 - 05:51 PM, said:

Injin is, according to my observations of him over a long period of time, an example of an individual suffering from an excess of left hemisphere activity, almost to the point of schizophrenia.

Such an individual is dominated by the left hemisphere which is why he excels at making complex semantic argumentation and espouses such a certainty about the nature of 'reality'**. In fact what he is espousing is the symbolic reality created in his left half, which appears to have gone unchecked by the other half for quite some time. McGhilchrist likens schizophrenia to a kind of hyper conscious, hyper-rationalism - existence almost entirely in an abstract symbolic reality, which ironically, is totally removed from actual reality.

I have also never encountered anyone with quite such an extreme denial of the existence of basic social phenomena, which also speaks to a right-side deficit.

But they don't actually exist, do they?

It's all very well going on about how my brain my or may not work, but if my statements are true then I'm not the defective one, am I? And they are true, as you know.

In any event you are bass ackward, I start from direct sense experience and reject stuff that I can't find within it, whereas the norm is to overlay sensory experience with socially approved fictions and chop bits off that don't fit.

Quote

Now I may be extremely wide of the mark here and there are many other explanations I am sure but the symptoms displayed certainly fit the description given by McGhilchrist.

** I'm aware of course that the same accusation would be laid by some against me as well

McGilchrist is trying the determinists route of excusing personal horror. His book is fascinating, but his conclusion is set in stone before he embarks, if you read the deep structure it's why he wrote the book to start with.

Alice Miller is much more relevent.

http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm

[Fully Detached]

lol - I've been meaning to reply to this thread for days, but since it's fairly quiet down in this forum I figured there was no rush. And then I see an Injin led nine page epic this evening. I feel proud to have provided a platform for this

jonb, on 21 February 2011 - 12:04 AM, said:

You are £1 up, but the borrower is £1 down, so the interest payment is not creating new money.

Where new money is created is when the £10 you lent out is spent by the borrower, and is deposited in the banking system again, creating another £10 available to lend out in addition to the £10 you already have deposited.

But aside from the multiplier effect, the interest payment on my £10 still results in an extra £1, no? Albeit that it is money borrowed from the future labour of the borrower, there is still an additional £1 that has to chase a return in the future? Forget the multiplier effect for a moment - the money supply is growing constantly (in this example in ever smaller increments), and this means an ever growing supply of capital chasing a return - therefore an ever growing increase in the amount of debt required to produce a return?

In that simple example, you would probably have a reasonable ratio of new capital : lost capital due to default. So maybe the money supply would not grow continuously, and might even retain some semblance of balance. Until you introduce fractional reserve as you point out above, at which point the growth becomes exponential.

Injin, on 21 February 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:

When the money is offered to the banker he should announce that the money is already his. In not doing so is the fraud perpetrated.

Quite. Nicely put.

[scepticus]

Injin, on 21 February 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

But they don't actually exist, do they?

It's all very well going on about how my brain my or may not work, but if my statements are true then I'm not the defective one, am I? And they are true, as you know.

No my dear boy. You have merely constructed an internally consistent abstract picture of the world. You confused (due to the absence for whatever reason of certain key inhibitory functions in your brain), the internal consistency of a limited yet self-consistent logical construct with wider truth.

What your mind has become stuck in is a loop of self referential proof.

You ought nevertheless to be able to see the possibility I outline by accepting the fact that one self consistent logical argument may be contained within another of wider scope, also self consistent but ultimately explaining more than the inner one.

I'm not sure who you went to for advice or what the advice was but at least we have established you can take advice.

So take my advice, and break that loop, because its sending you crazy.

[Injin]

scepticus, on 21 February 2011 - 09:46 PM, said:

No my dear boy. You have merely constructed an internally consistent abstract picture of the world. You confused (due to the absence for whatever reason of certain key inhibitory functions in your brain), the internal consistency of a limited yet self-consistent logical construct with wider truth.

Nope. I've taken some concepts and then gone out and used the good old scientific method on them, i.e. i've gone and looked.

Quote

What your mind has become stuck in is a loop of self referential proof.

No, i9've gone outside and asked, checked. verified. That's the difference in my position. GO and check yourself. it's easy to do and I am 100% certain you'll get the same result.

Quote

You ought nevertheless to be able to see the possibility I outline by accepting the fact that one self consistent logical argument may be contained within another of wider scope, also self consistent but ultimately explaining more than the inner one.

I'm not sure who you went to for advice or what the advice was but at least we have established you can take advice.

So take my advice, and break that loop, because its sending you crazy.

Take my advice, and check. Because then you will realise that you are crazy.

[scepticus]

Injin, on 21 February 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

Nope. I've taken some concepts and then gone out and used the good old scientific method on them, i.e. i've gone and looked.

well we have both done that and come to alternative conclusions.

The difference between us is you have looked with half your brain and therefore come to a definitive (within your own mind) conclusion of very limited scope and applicability while I have looked with my whole brain and come to something more widely applicable but more ambiguous.

[Injin]

scepticus, on 21 February 2011 - 10:22 PM, said:

well we have both done that and come to alternative conclusions.

The difference between us is you have looked with half your brain and therefore come to a definitive (within your own mind) conclusion of very limited scope and applicability while I have looked with my whole brain and come to something more widely applicable but more ambiguous.

ok, so you've gone and checked (to take one example) that countries, towns etc exist and foudn some evidence for them?

Glowing blue lines, perhaps?

[jonb]

Fully Detached, on 21 February 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

But aside from the multiplier effect, the interest payment on my £10 still results in an extra £1, no? Albeit that it is money borrowed from the future labour of the borrower, there is still an additional £1 that has to chase a return in the future? Forget the multiplier effect for a moment - the money supply is growing constantly (in this example in ever smaller increments), and this means an ever growing supply of capital chasing a return - therefore an ever growing increase in the amount of debt required to produce a return?

No, it is just a simple transfer of wealth from borrower to lender. No extra money is created. You might chose to lend it back to him, in which case you get the multiplier effect, unless of course the money was withdrawn from the banking system to pay the interest to you.

Incidentally, you could have the same multiplier effect by lending direct to the borrower without going through the bank.

[BobBobson]

scepticus, on 21 February 2011 - 05:51 PM, said:

Injin is, according to my observations of him over a long period of time, an example of an individual suffering from an excess of left hemisphere activity, almost to the point of schizophrenia.

Such an individual is dominated by the left hemisphere which is why he excels at making complex semantic argumentation and espouses such a certainty about the nature of 'reality'**. In fact what he is espousing is the symbolic reality created in his left half, which appears to have gone unchecked by the other half for quite some time. McGhilchrist likens schizophrenia to a kind of hyper conscious, hyper-rationalism - existence almost entirely in an abstract symbolic reality, which ironically, is totally removed from actual reality.

If that explains why he acts as though he is totally clued up and knows all the answers, but in reality is just a slavering at the mouth ranter and raver, then I concur with the above theory.

Fully Detached, on 21 February 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

lol - I've been meaning to reply to this thread for days, but since it's fairly quiet down in this forum I figured there was no rush. And then I see an Injin led nine page epic this evening. I feel proud to have provided a platform for this

I think the thread would be better with all the ******** between injin and Mahnoor 'vollig ausgelöscht!' Both of them together have vandalised a thread that asked some very pertinent questions with a few pertinent answers being provided. but now any sense/wisdom has been lost amongst the mounds of tat.

This post has been edited by Retardstic: 22 February 2011 - 12:37 AM

[Injin]

jonb, on 22 February 2011 - 12:17 AM, said:

No, it is just a simple transfer of wealth from borrower to lender. No extra money is created. You might chose to lend it back to him, in which case you get the multiplier effect, unless of course the money was withdrawn from the banking system to pay the interest to you.

Incidentally, you could have the same multiplier effect by lending direct to the borrower without going through the bank.

You only get the multiplier effect if you accept the money back from some source without telling that source it's already your money. i.e. You lend dave a marked fiver, he gives it to john in exchange for some fags (for example), john hands it to you to look after - and at that point you are supposed to announce it's already your fiver. Dave still needs to pay for his fags, but no longer needs to repay the fiver.

This can be done deliberately or by accident, ofc.

And all this is simply because you can't borrow something and act like the owner of what ytou have borrowed. Or another way, you can't give someone something to do with what they will and also claim it's still yours.