I prefer to agree with Bohm because it leaves us somewhere left to go. Bohr is the understanding that there is nothing left to discover no new mode of thinking or perspective will arise it's back to the idea that the sun rotates aorund the earth, all of creation rotates around you and that is final.
I make it sound all wrong when I put it like that. The system back then was set against Smithers And Mr Burns in the favour of Homer, it was difficult to fire anybody and almost impossible to overpay the rich. Eisenhower's 90% income tax rate on the rich wasn't really about increasing tax revenue, it was about preventing industry from paying its bosses and managers too much so that industry invests in equipment and wages instead. This afforded broader society the luxury of the nuclear family.
And you know they say we're dumbing down but this is not true in every sense. That Homer Simpson with the soft and overpaid job for life, that was the good old days.
The struggle is between the nuclear family and cutthroat capitalist and they offer equality in different senses.
The 1950s felt nothing like capitalism there was such a shortage of manpower the entire decade felt much more like social democracy. But in no way does actual capitalism support stability or the prospect of a one-income family, in today's world the position and value of labour has been extremely devalued since the 1950s relatively speaking the working class have never had it so bad in 2019. When Harold Macmillan said "you've never had it so good" he was referring to the fact that anybody in work had a dream life. One household could send one person out to work and that person could spend 6 hours of the working day on the toilet, and yet still be able to provide for his family. That was the 1950s.
To make women like men you’d have to breed them in a particularly direction. In many ways someone like Ayn Rand is the prototype modern “woman” almost indistinguishable from a man, encouraging the Ayn Rand to breed and women who love kids not to will in good time raise the testestorone and brutality of women everywhere.
It’s not as simple as that. Women from India have less problem picking the jobs that pay well, what stands out about the European social democracies particularly is girls will be girls. Remove the sword of Damocles dangling over the workforce and the number of women working part time with children goes up.
In addition to this is the problem women have with female authority, you mustn’t have see how bad women react to a female boss or leader.
The most important thing about diamonds is their use in power tools etc. The hardest of Victorian house bricks dont stand a chance against your diamond core drill with hammer action. If that’s how you think then your happiness will depend far less on others.
Gold is the definition of value for envy’s sake if you believe the most important thing about gold is you can use it in dentistry then envy is a weak motivator for you as an individual. But you’re an exception to the rule.
That’s my chameleon answer to the question although the truth is I can’t decide between blue, brown, green and my secret fancy for the colour purple. It must be in my DNA my dad looks a bit Persian.
Apparently when you tell people your favourite colour is green they respond more positively than they would to any other colour. The colour of universal rapport particularly for women. Men are slightly more likely to actually want you to agree with them, if he likes blue so should you.
In limits. Science isn’t always progress and technology isn’t always beneficial, we should try not to romanticise anything including innovation. You have to judge each case on its merits.
A few families build civilisations that the masses occupy but the default is the caves. Dying at 30 is natural but civilisation will romanticise nature because it doesn’t have to do it anymore until that sentiment becomes self-fulfilled by the worse life for your kids.
Pre-modern or things as they are. It could mean tradition it can mean status-quo what you want is what you’ve had already. Uncurious. The values of the French Revolution are at most tolerated.
Communism is modern in every sense but capitalism. Authentic tradition and religion are opponents of capitalism and they’re smashed by a state which then turns on the working class. This is ideal for capitalism.
Sports, trade and the life based on fun - what the Romans called bread and circus. Consumption, distraction and the spirit of friendly competition under the watch of imperial Washington.
But then maybe not. People grow bored of peace in reality, and they forget what feeds them. And then this happens
If you believe in Cher you'll believe in anything, music for the put upon. A big personality can overcome being average at everything, there's will and there's merit and they're not the same.
Confidence, notoriety and fame are all powers money can't buy. It's more than the money a drug dealer or celebrity has that makes her favour him over the even wealthier man, he will be the most interesting thing she's ever done.
You're doing what you do anyway for some sort of humanitarian reason. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking go socialist because they were not likely to be doing anything else.
Don't talk about religion or politics for a start. You're already dealing with men so frustrated they expect you to thank them for not punching you in the head. Respect.
It needs a capitalist generation to climb up to the higher branches and pluck the fruit and do something wildly radical like grow another tree(diversify the economy).
After that will come a less capitalist generation of never had it so good, a generation of low-hanging fruit. Capitalism lets the low-hanging fruit go to waste which is why the economic problems of the 1930s were(eventually)dealt with by the left, you had goods rotting on the shelf. Are the goods rotting on the shelf or are they not there? This is the question that counts.
They tick all the right boxes except British. I know there’s no real reason to prefer a British girlfriend other saying she “gets” me. Women around the world taught me that.
It flies in the face of a leader or a loving person. What use would a leader be if he only hung around with other leaders? What use is love to people already in love with themselves? What could the word inspiration mean if not for the less driven?
There’s such a thing as complementary opposites in this world. Contrasts that work. I don’t like this like for like everywhere the corporatisation of the human species into compartments based on same function.
Which is the good thing about localism and the bad thing about globalism.
Globalism and the internet allows the sorting of the human race into compartments where real life and proximity forces you to mix with people different. The global autistopia and the great narrowing of cliques into scripted and banal relations. People who are actually inspiring are not the Borg, even Jesus had his moment of doubt and pain and he was the son of god.
ChesneyChrist Forum Posts (7,144)
RE: Bohr vs Bohm
I prefer to agree with Bohm because it leaves us somewhere left to go. Bohr is the understanding that there is nothing left to discover no new mode of thinking or perspective will arise it's back to the idea that the sun rotates aorund the earth, all of creation rotates around you and that is final.