Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Sokar Auditor | joined 11 March 2006 | 119 posts


Any suggesations posted 11 March 2006 in Literature DiscussionAny suggesations by Sokar, Auditor

First off I would like to say hello, I know I should be doing so in the other thread, but I suppose if there is no bio, there is no need to create a thread. I am not so much of a fantasy fan, but the Prince of Nothing (the first two books, the third one is not out here yet) has been something exceptional. To be honest, I have never read any fiction going such deep into the human psychie.

I need some suggestions on fiction which are pretty much like The Prince of Nothing, there are none I know of, especially as I have never been a fan of fantasy. I have tried the Lord of the Rings and some similar books, but they do not interest me in the same way. So for those who do have a broad knowledge of books, could someone suggest something for me to read? Maybe by knowing what interests me you will have a better judgment: I am very much interested in Human thoughts, the "roots of thought" (in the first of the books) has made me ponder for a couple of weeks. Philosophy is one of my late passions, yet not one of contsruction, such as Plato or Marx, but those on "analysis" of man, Foucault, Nietzsche, and Gurdjieff, which I read only briefly..

Maybe I should have made a short bio, but still.. Someone any ideas of what fiction I should get my hands on to? view post


What philosopher suits you most? posted 11 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat philosopher suits you most? by Sokar, Auditor

An odd list indeed, then again I suppose you just mention philosophers you are aquainted with. From the list I would choose Schoppenhaur, though truely, how can Kant surpass Hegel? view post


Is Education the Magic Bullet? posted 11 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionIs Education the Magic Bullet? by Sokar, Auditor

I just schemed through long posts given, so I cannot say much on the contents of arguments given so far. It is, however, always interesting to point out that culture, in my view and that of some scholars I can't name (I never really care who writes, more of what is written) is a mere invention. In fact it is an invention from the West, which in return has ignited the further acceptance of the word. Culture is nothing more than value of traditions, fear of unaccustomed. The admired cultures of the past, such as the Ancient Greek for instance, did not even know what culture was, they did not have a term for such. They did not perceive themselves as being a culture. It is thus wrong, in my view, to separate culture from traditional value, it makes, in fact, no sense doing so.

As it goes for education as a solution, I would agree. Though I do not see it as an ultime solution. There will only be a higher limit of hatered. To bring up an example: Soviet Union. During its existance there was no differentiation of "culture" between the states, as is opposite at this time. The Muslims of Azerbaijan were in no way different, nor did they feel different from Orthodox of Russia. True, religion played a very limited role, nontheless, the differentian was only on their practice of tradition, without any of them being superiour to the other. As we see now, there is a strong change in the ex-Soviet states, religion has become the division and personally I think this results from a change in education.
A more vivid example: Nazi Germany. The education of superiourity had brought the hatred, whereas now, the European States limit their hatred through education. view post


Any suggesations posted 12 March 2006 in Literature DiscussionAny suggesations by Sokar, Auditor

Thanks a lot.. I would appreciate more suggestions, though for now I have my hands full with these... view post


Critique this phrase posted 12 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionCritique this phrase by Sokar, Auditor

I would say that the statement is fully correct, however, taking Fantasy in its broadest possible meaning. Fantasy is not merely a story telling, for me it is the myths of the past, the Gods, the Ancestors and whoever else you have from the surreal world. After all it is these that have ignited the fantasy of today. By including these types of fantasy, I would say that fantasy can indeed be, and has been, a medium of desires and fears.
This does not, however, mean that proletariat is the only one using this medium, I would even say that it is the bourgeois, until recently, that has used the medium. Fantasy has been, in my opinion, the law, which in whatever society, is created for the sole protection of the bourgeois first, and only after as the protection of the mass. This is a different descussion though.

To the other point stated out, I would not agree that there has been a blur between the bourgeois and the proletariat, I would call it a shift, but only in economic perspective. view post


Truth, Lies posted 12 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionTruth, Lies by Sokar, Auditor

Interesting to see a connection between truth and morality of this Dr Stokman.. What one conceives as truth must go hand in hand with his moral conceptions. Thus, as morality has no definite value, the same can be said of truth.

What is interesting to me is that truth and lie are seen as opposite of each other, which I would not agree on. Truth is not necessarily the opposite of lie, especially in connection with both morality and the perception of majority. There is no moral lie and there is no conception of majory in lies. This, in return, shows that lies do have a definite value, probably as lies are more personal, they become a personal burden.

This reminds of the passage from The Darkness That Come Before. I don't have the book at hand, but it shows the difference between being deceived and being ignorant. Being the slave of one and being to slave to the world. And finally the first, being deceived, having a higher impact on the individual, then the second. view post


Drugs posted 12 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Sokar, Auditor

After reading the descussion on autistic people, I could not but think of drugs, especially of Van Gogh who is told to have been drinking two bottles of absint every day. What I mean by drugs are only those that change ones perception, indeed also alcohol. I don't want the descussion to lead to "philosophy of excess", neither to the justful, or unjustful, prohibition. I just want to know what people think of drug usage and the perception one gets.

Personally, I have used quiet some drugs, in fact I still do, living in the Netherlands is very supporting in getting good quality <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->. Through these, I have found myself constantly, of course depending on the drug, being intrigued, to say the least, of human perception of the world. I have solved many problems while being on drugs, though mostly I have forgotten the solution after the effects were over, again depending on drug. I suppose what I want to say is that one stops thinking in a structural formation of the world, while being on drugs, and personally I see it as a wonderful thing.

Comments would especially be appreciated from those who have these &quot;inefficiencies&quot;.... view post


Drugs posted 16 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Sokar, Auditor

Randal -&gt; I am of the opinion that drugs should be used to solve problems. In fact, I would most probably have the same judgemental opinion of a politician using drugs to solve a crisis as anybody else. My point was that drugs give a &quot;new&quot;, maybe better to say different, perspective. And through this perspective you can come to other conclusions, which are, to me personally, much mroe simplified.

It is true that I don't remember most of the solutions I have had, and ideed most of them make little sense once back in &quot;reality&quot;, but when I read some things I have written down while on drugs, I am shocked at how simple some things are, and how much I have thought in directions that are not relevant. Again, maybe it's a personal thing.

Gierra -&gt; Just a question, as I used to draw (just made scetches with a pen or pencil) a long time ago. I have never drawn while on drugs, so I would not know if I would be creative. What strikes me is that your brain is overload while sober. For me it is the other way around. While on drugs I cannot stop thinking, in fact I don't want to stop thinking. So my question is, how is that nuisence? I would imagine it to be a gift, to let your mind wonder off in any direction on the painting. Or does it really depend on the art itself, maybe concentration? view post


ignorance or enlightenment ? posted 16 March 2006 in Philosophy Discussionignorance or enlightenment ? by Sokar, Auditor

We have a saying that goes something like this:

Bless the fool and the smile on his face! view post


Nuclear Power posted 16 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Sokar, Auditor

the unexpected powerful contained explosion, the Z machine released about 80 times the world's entire electrical power usage for a brief fraction of a second


Well there goes the nuclear power being the most efficient, or future of energy supply, arguments.

Next to good literature I read, I also read some crap like Dan Brown and his Bernini Mystery (I think the English title is Angels and Demons, though it makes much less sense). Here in his facts he states the anti-matter, which, he says, has no pollution and has a 100% !!! percent efficiency, compared to nuclear power that has 1.5%. I don't know much about physics and his explanation about it are really vague, and even wrong probably, but if such is possible, I would say we will be having no trouble with enenrgy soon enough... Oh and it also has a high risk, but these are usually irrelevant. view post


Can we really tell history &quot;as it was&quot;? posted 20 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionCan we really tell history &quot;as it was&quot;? by Sokar, Auditor

My father once told my mother: &quot;We do not write history, we undergo it!&quot; (long story to why he said this) By accepting this, the perception of man in and of history is irrelevant, and so is the relation of truth in history. Morality, or mentality as you call it, has little to do with time, they do not evolve, in the sense as becoming higher of value, they merely change in an insignificant manner into either direction.
From this, I would say that history is nothing more than life itself. Through looking into history, one persumes so much has been done and said, that his being is incompareble. Yet, one forgets that all things in history are not written by those actors, merely interpereted by the historian as a groundbreaking action.

To make it simpler, here is Nietzsche: &quot;There are no facts, only interpretations!&quot;

Aldorian -&gt; Could you maybe elaborate on your &quot;theory&quot; of how history should be? view post


Prince of Nothing Film posted 01 April 2006 in Off-Topic DiscussionPrince of Nothing Film by Sokar, Auditor

Quote: &quot;Da-krul&quot;:un71ecy0
My pick is none, becasue everyone would fuck it up. It's better left too just books.[/quote:un71ecy0]

I totally agree.. I wouldn't know of any book that has become a better movie. Moreover, the Prince of Nothing would not fit the general public, and most of it's brilliance would be lost! view post


Dan Brown posted 01 April 2006 in Literature DiscussionDan Brown by Sokar, Auditor

I can't believe that someone reading the Prince of Nothing could actually enjoy Dan Brown.. Surely, there is controversy to the Church's actions, but he justified it. I remember some passage: &quot;Langdon knew that the modern Church would never do something like that any more&quot; describing hiring assassins to kill somebody. I read it, and forgot it.

He makes little sense in his storylines: the typical American Dream movie. There is always a bimbo and it turns out perfect. Another fragment:
His life is in danger, he is asked by Sofie to run with her and he answers: &quot;Only if you call me Robert!&quot;, not Mr. Langdon. ??? She finds her family and they drink soup. Where does he get all of this CRAP!

There is a lawsuit against him for the Da Vinci Code, if I understood correctly, it is because he stole the story of the sacred feminine. So his book is useless, in fact it is not even his book.

The only thing these books are good for is wasting your time... Ok I admit that the symbology part interested me as well, but that is really that. If you read one of his books, you can forget the others (well I read the two mentioned, but I suppose that the others will have nothing more to add) view post


Dan Brown posted 01 April 2006 in Literature DiscussionDan Brown by Sokar, Auditor

Sorry, I see I have been taken over by rage when reading the first post, without actually readign the responses, there is the same conclusion anyway... view post


Che Guevara posted 07 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

For me he was a hero.... view post


Transhumanism and Genetic Engineering posted 07 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Sokar, Auditor

The problem with the shift this debate has taken is that it limits itself to the Western world.

First off, capitalism in the West is different from that elsewhere. In fact, capitalism in US is different from the one in EU. And we also have the international institutions which again operate differently. Just as example you gave, in EU part-time workers do get benefits, they are as much a worker as full-time workers (at least according to EU Law, I suppose in practice there will be some differences, but they would still get the benefits!)

Second, genetic modification elsewhere in the world will not bring about (or increase) this gap between the rich and poor. I believe there it will in fact decrease. The simple reason here is the advancement of technology, creation of new methods of production etc.
Take the example of currently used GMO's, they have increased the food production in sofar as to be able to provide the whole world population. I don't remember the exact situation, but in some African (or South American) country after the intoduction of GMO's over 2 million people were saved. Of course, the capitalist pigs made the GM crops in such a way as to be grown only once.

Yet, I beleive that this barrier will soon end and once production is not the main purpose, thus survival itself has been overcome, genetic modification of humans will not occur. The &quot;culture&quot; (though I have this term, I don't know a better one at this moment) will not allow them to change there bodies, no matter what the benefit.

It is thus, for me at least, irrelevant whether the West will to the point (if ever) of modifying themselves genetically. That will not change anything in global terms. view post


Che Guevara posted 07 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Name one bad thing he did? view post


Transhumanism and Genetic Engineering posted 07 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Sokar, Auditor

Interesting point you make.. not for profit but safety?? I would doubt that, but it could be true... Something I personally think.

As it goes for EU, it does allow 17 GMO's that are used in foodstuffs, but it does not allow the actual growth of genetically modified crops.

Finally, I don't think the term cheap (technology) fits to your meaning, at least if I got it correctly. The reason for technology to remain in the West, is dominance, and while dominant, there is no need for further spreading this technological advancement. See it from AIDS perspective.. There was no care about the virus until it spread itself to the West, the reason for concern about the virus is not the poor Africans, but the ignorant Westerners, thus care about AIDS is evident only in preservation of the self dominance. (though this in a way, of course, proves me wrong in the initial point) view post


hobbies? posted 07 April 2006 in Off-Topic Discussionhobbies? by Sokar, Auditor

I love spending time with my only loyal friend Glen Moray, or in better times Chivas Regal, in complete solitude.. On occasion my other two friends, Foucault and Nietzsche, pop up.
I suppose true hobby is addictive...

Besides that I play guitar (rock, not metal)
Recently I started running again, just to keep in shape. view post


Poll: What would you be in prince of nothing? posted 07 April 2006 in Off-Topic DiscussionPoll: What would you be in prince of nothing? by Sokar, Auditor

Nobody wondered what it would be like to be Mog-Pharau? I did...

In the first book I like Achamina, the mandate schoolman was something I would identify with. In the second one, it schifted to Scylvendi as well. I don't have the third one yet, but hopefully I will get it soon...

PS Scylvendi are the animals within the human form.. they are us without the masks... At least this is how I perceived them, don't know if the author was thinking of the same when he wrote the book. view post


what do you do posted 07 April 2006 in Off-Topic Discussionwhat do you do by Sokar, Auditor

I just study, I don't have any plans of work in the near future, but I do have plans for after... I wouldn't mind to teach as well though, seems like the best job one can have, with all the holidays you get and you have time to actually continue your &quot;study&quot; after (knowledge is just another passion worth the sacrifice of life) view post


Che Guevara posted 09 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

I am not going to descuss communism with people who don't understand the basic idea of it.

But just to critique your obscure phrases in a simple way, why don't you read the context he wrote/said that in and then tell me if what he wrote/said was actually wrong. Every sentence can be critised outside of its context. view post


Transhumanism and Genetic Engineering posted 09 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Sokar, Auditor

Since I have nothing to add to the comments you make (as I understood them from the international point of view, but in a way they do apply to both) I'll just say what my brother keeps on saying when it comes to dangers of technology:

Do you think the inventors of a car would actually introduce it to the market if they knew how many people die from a car accident each year? view post


Che Guevara posted 10 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Entropic_existence -&gt; &quot;Unfortunately human nature has prevented true marxism from ever being achieved as a government style.&quot;

I would never accept human nature as an argument, human nature is created through history. Greed and jelousy (which you are probably referring to) cannot be justified as human nature, most closely a common human trait, yet not one that is absolute and cannot be overcome through change of society. Of course this change should remain consistent.

&quot;Some places have gotten close but they've never passed the dictator stage.&quot;

It is impossible to overcome a form of dictatorial stage in any form of society. The international relations of states will simply not allow this to happen. If you look into a history of US you will find plenty of dictatorial rules applied on the population, keeping in mind the international relations.

&quot;I don't think it is likely to work anytime soon, not on large scales anyway.&quot;

Granted, marxism cannot work on a large scale, but I dare you to find any form of government that can. We don't have democracy, it's the same lie. The mere fact of existence of a bureaucracy is enough proof for this.

Peter -&gt; For somebody who studied marxism, you sure have a strange form of criticism. You should remember the endless struggle of classes, this is an ongoing process (actually one of the few critiques that can be applied to Marxism in general). The comments on Che hold no stance, not on Marxism nor on himself. Besides, the context you should see Che in, in my initial comment, was not the speech. For one who studies sociology you should have understood what speeches are and what their essence is.

Even so, your interpretation of his speech is not correct. He does advocate war, but he sees it as the only means of following the course that is desired by the state and by the population, instead that one desired by the US. Whether he is right or wrong is not for you, nor me for that matter, to decide, but for the Cuban people, those who actually are dependant on the course taken.

I would agree with you on one minor point, he does advocate war by populist means, no doubt that he was one. But in order to succeed in this there is a need for sentiment from the people, and if this sentiment exists, then you cannot &quot;morally condemn&quot; him. This only proves that people share his view, even if he is a populist. I cannot find a single word in his speech where he invents an evil in order to justify the wars (which actually US did).

The fact that you are a Liberal and Kantian does not mean anything, it creates a dialogue between us two. I never rejected the fact that a dialogue is not possible, I simply noted that your arguments are obscure and my non-willingness to participate in a discussion with people who are brainwashed with the idea of democracy (just as much as those with any &quot;faith&quot; they have, without any reasoning). view post


Poll: What would you be in prince of nothing? posted 10 April 2006 in Off-Topic DiscussionPoll: What would you be in prince of nothing? by Sokar, Auditor

Thus spoke Zarathustra. I hope you are not simply using the name in vain.

But maybe you can also give me some titles, not just the authors. It seems as if the books are academic and not fiction, though it doesn't matter to me.. view post


Che Guevara posted 10 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Let me start with the elitist rule, for bureaucracy is not a rule from the elected elite. Just look the meaning of the word on dictionary.com or something. Bureaucracy by definition means it is not elected. But more importantly, where do you get the idea that we are engaged in decision-making process? More interestingly, should we?

I want to refrain from Marxism, not because iit would be difficult to communicate through the message board, but because it will not bring us anywhere.

Having said this, there is a comment on the notion &quot;people&quot; and the involvement of the Constitution to this. You are right of saying that the long-lasting war was probably not the will of the &quot;people&quot;, but this does not mean that at that stage, where the Cuban people were actually fed up by the US supported dictator, there was no support in resistance and indeed violence towards the ruling crass. That from the whole population, some were indifferent towards the revolution, does not mean that the revolution was unjustified.
To bring the Constitution to it, how does one arrive to have a Constitution and why are there endless amendments (to constitutions in general). What if Y never wanted a constitution in the first place, why does his birth become a burden to the society? Why does Y in this situation have to addapt himself to the traditional ruling system? Moreover, what are fundemental rights? Are they not just as well similar to constitution that limits one's action and even thought?

I do not call you brainwashed for the reason of lack of thought, I do call you that and the vast majority (including myself) brainwashed as our thoughts are not our own. Thougths are a reconstruction of some experience, be it physical mental or whatever else experience. Our research may change, shape or indeed strengthen our thoughts, but in no means they would be ours.

Finally, it is irrelevant to see where arguments come from, the only relevance is what the argument is. Maybe in order to understand the argument there would be a use of knowledge from which angle, but there is no need for such, once the argument is clear (I know I am lacking this ability). view post


Che Guevara posted 11 April 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Entropic_existence -&gt; Generally we are of the same opinion, except n the human nature part and lack of explanation on dictatorial rule from my part.

The mistake you made is saying that Marxism failed because the degree of &quot;human nature&quot; has not been overcome. But you fail to see (or just don't include) two reasons for this:
1. The world as a whole, international scene, thus also pressure from outside. It is arguable how much US influenced the Soviet Union in its course of history, but I would say that without the US, or generally any other international pressure, there would be no need for the leaders to fail their people. Of course the same is true for US, or any other 'superpower'.
2. And as mentioned the consistency. After 80 years of the SU existence, one cannot really change this &quot;human nature&quot;, it would be practically impossible, especially if you keep in mind the hardships of the population due to the international scnene.

By dictatorial rule I actually mean the manipulation. I am talking about the patriot act of the recent for example (though I heard it there are some things happening to chage that). But in general, in the US, there are many similar situation where the population has no say on the things mostly influencing them in the long-run, reason is usually national security. Again, not only US, but any 'superpower' in history has had the same action. This is the reason I say there is no democracy and that it is the same lie. This just as well explains how there is a need for dictator in the international scene.

Peter -&gt; I just remembered, &quot;the majority must obey&quot; part. My critique doesn't make much sense if we disagree on this major issue. view post


truth glistens posted 11 April 2006 in Philosophy Discussiontruth glistens by Sokar, Auditor

I wonder which of the three you belong to? view post


Increased amounts of Guests? posted 11 April 2006 in Off-Topic DiscussionIncreased amounts of Guests? by Sokar, Auditor

The site doesn't seem much slower to me, at least not really noticeble slower. view post


Poll: What would you be in prince of nothing? posted 11 April 2006 in Off-Topic DiscussionPoll: What would you be in prince of nothing? by Sokar, Auditor

Thanks, I will have a look, once I have more time, the studies are killing me, maybe I should hang on internet less... view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown