In the West an understanding of self as a body dictates the kinds of questions you ask about the “causes” of “disease”. If we begin with “suffering man”… there is no compelling reason to think that suffering is a disease that needs to be treated or cured. The interpretation of the meaning of suffering is varied. When we explore the “caus…
In the West an understanding of self as a body dictates the kinds of questions you ask about the “causes” of “disease”. If we begin with “suffering man”… there is no compelling reason to think that suffering is a disease that needs to be treated or cured. The interpretation of the meaning of suffering is varied. When we explore the “causes”, it becomes clear that the choice of the cause rests on something else what we call “worldview” as well was what we are trying to do. Our methods are subordinated to something else.
There are such concepts as semantic vagueness and epistemic vagueness aka uncertainty. You adequately demonstrated why AI will fail where a wise man will prevail.
I will take that as an insult, and I will not pay back in kind. In my hopinion (a myx of hope and opinion, not a typo) you do a great service by informing the public that diseases are not what they think they are, and although there is so much censorship your are poisoning the machine by writing.
It is not an insult. It is an observation. The system is impervious to attacks because there are few people left who are not parts of the system. Coupled with a particular education of all literate people into disassociating from the suffering physical body into system or statical understanding of discreet autonomous self, there is little hope anyone can be saved, healed, or cured of anything at this point.
In the West an understanding of self as a body dictates the kinds of questions you ask about the “causes” of “disease”. If we begin with “suffering man”… there is no compelling reason to think that suffering is a disease that needs to be treated or cured. The interpretation of the meaning of suffering is varied. When we explore the “causes”, it becomes clear that the choice of the cause rests on something else what we call “worldview” as well was what we are trying to do. Our methods are subordinated to something else.
I understand now: you are a Buddhist.
Sorry, I think Buddhism is bull shit, literally and figuratively.
Where you are going I cannot follow.
Thank you very much for speaking with me, even in your difficult to understand responses.
There are such concepts as semantic vagueness and epistemic vagueness aka uncertainty. You adequately demonstrated why AI will fail where a wise man will prevail.
I will take that as an insult, and I will not pay back in kind. In my hopinion (a myx of hope and opinion, not a typo) you do a great service by informing the public that diseases are not what they think they are, and although there is so much censorship your are poisoning the machine by writing.
I like your substack, keep attacking the system!
It is not an insult. It is an observation. The system is impervious to attacks because there are few people left who are not parts of the system. Coupled with a particular education of all literate people into disassociating from the suffering physical body into system or statical understanding of discreet autonomous self, there is little hope anyone can be saved, healed, or cured of anything at this point.
You're rivaling Professor Briggs in doomness factor.
Who would have thought that no-disease is a more gloomy concept than diseases all the time everywhere!
You said it. Yes. It is essentially true.