What would happen to a modern(ish) country is every power plant, bridge, and water treatment plant were destroyed inside a one week period?
The US could certainly do this. But it might not be advisable.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
There's two definitions of "necessary." One delineates a requirement the other an inevitability. You're sort of waffling between the two, or somehow, don't see a distinction between the two.
I forced your hand and picked one. The one implying requirement; because, the person you were responding to was using that form.
What if you stopped talking like Deepak Chopra?
It's dude using AI. He occasionally breaks character and posts like a normal human.
It's not AI, he likes semantics, me too usually.
Which AI can adapt to perceivable inspiration on the fly? AI is based on regurgitating suggested information to tempt users to ignore adaptation.
PROMPT: "You are a recent college graduate who is still entirely up his own ass. Go fucking sperg out in a forum."
Yea.. cool. Thanks, Obama.
Definition implies division (de) of finite (finit) within action (ion) aka division of finite (life) within action (inception towards death).
What's the opposite of necessary? Dispensable aka necessity (inception towards death) enabling division (life) aka the necessary process of dying making each life within dispensable.
tl;dr...There can be only one need (nature) for any want (being) within.
Delineation implies from origin towards outcome aka linear motion. Requirement implies the inquiring mind responding to being (life) moved from origin (inception) towards outcome (death).
Inevitability implies outcome orientation by ones inquiring mind, while ignoring origin. Inevitability implies avoidance of response-ability aka ignoring origin for outcome.
Avoidance tempts one into confrontation against another, hence into a circular conflict (confront vs avoid) while ignoring linear delineation (inception towards death) of being (life).
Choice (life) operates IN-BETWEEN balance (inception/death)...inclining to one of two sides imbalances choice.
Notice that while alive...one cannot perceive ones inception or death. Nature offers SIGHT...few suggest SIDE to tempt many to lose former within conflict for latter.
Distinction implies apart from ONE another...two implies ONE ignoring apartheid by counting together ONE + ONE.
How does nature inspire being to count together? How could a being count together without nature setting apart first?
Manually (manus; hand) picked one by choice. Only within balance can there be choice, and only the force of motion generates balance (momentum) for choice (matter).
There's a natural force dividing each being from one another, before a being can choose to artificially force each others hand.
Person aka per sonos (by sound) implies flowing sound forming instrument (mind structured within).
I try to describe how nature works...you describe artificial responses among beings within nature.
Implication (if/then) implies delineation. Reason (vs) implies circular confinement...if one chooses a side.
Any influencer suggesting information distracts form (life) from flow (inception towards death). Holding onto any suggested information (form) distorts perceivable inspiration (flow).
Free will of choice needs to resist the wanted temptation to hold onto suggested information; definition; meaning; denotation; explanation; interpretation; connotation; illustration; translation; terminology; semantics; exegesis etc.
Why? Because holding onto binds free will of choice.
People attach meaning to words.
Go read some Heidegger or something.
This is extremely borish.
a) A person uses free will of choice to attach self (singular) to a people (plural)...attachment restricts free will of choice. Few suggest artificial pluralism to distract many from natural singularity.
There can be only one.
b) Attaching implies synthesis (putting together)...to put anything together requires each thing to be divided apart (analysis) from one another.
Few invert natural analysis with artificial synthesis to shape attachment among many called "consensus".
c) Meaning implies a measure taken by ones mind from what the mind of another suggested. Being implies all perceivable moving through each ones perception...a being cannot hold onto perceivable without ignoring that all moves.
Meaning implies possession...being implies potential within procession. Few suggest meaning to burden the potential of many with possession.
d) Sound generates in-stru-ment (mind structured within)...only after that can an instrument shape a word, which represents spell-craft.
Words are shaped by LETTERS aka by ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape words. You represent the letter of any word others are shaping for you to use for communication.
Sound cannot be described by words without distracting instrument (perception) from natural (perceivable) with artificial (suggested).
Nature divides being...few suggest words to distract many from division with labels attached to mind.
a) DASEIN aka DA (there) SEIN (being) implies a beings perception of perceivable differentiation from one another as here (me) and there (you).
The issue...if a being labels "here" and "there", then it ignores the ongoing motion which divides each temporary being from one another.
If motion implies singularity, then each single unit of matter within cannot be "here" or "there"....only in-between aka as above/so below.
From a different perspective...if form (life) within flow (inception towards death), then simultaneous perception of living/dying from in-between. If ones mind attaches "here" to living and "there" to dying, then one mentally ignores physical procession.
b) "Heidegger's magnum opus, Being and Time (1927), is widely considered one of the most significant works of modern philosophy."
"This question (of being), he believed, had been neglected or obscured throughout the history of Western philosophy"
Who defines his work as significant philosophy, while ignoring him describing philosophy as neglected and obscured? Where does the signal come from...perceivable or suggested?
Heidegger's DASEIN implies one thing (sein) among (da) another thing (dort)...a separation from one another. Something aka "sum of things" implies a unification together.
Few suggest unification (synthesis) to distract many from separation (analysis).
IS implies versus ISN'T...that conflict of reason represents mental confinement. You holding onto one extreme while fighting the other...makes whatever I describe from outside seem borish.
FREE will of choice will be perceived as uncultivated by a mind bound to extremes. Why does analyzing this doesn't feel borish to me?