Film datum

The film is soundtracked by three of Michl’s own songs. However, the artist makes it a point to say that the primary focus of Datum is the film itself, not the music. “I always looked at if if I was going to do a visual, it would be the visual first and the music second. Ovogodišnje, dvadeset sedmo izdanje Festivala evropskog filma Palić, biće održano u novom terminu od 12. do 18. septembra, u skladu sa merama Vlade Republike Srbije i Kriznog štaba za suzbijanje zarazne bolesti Covid-19 o organizaciji događaja u kulturi, najavili su organizatori. Festivalski ... Film veteran Kevin Smith thinks this is a good thing, saying, 'I think what they're doing is smart. This is a cheap movie, it's $55 million. This is a cheap movie, it's $55 million. Photographic film is made from strips or plastic film coated with a gelatin emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide crystals. When exposed to light through the camera's lens, the emulsion undergoes a slight chemical change, capturing latent images on the film's surface that can be chemically developed into printed images. Songbird ein Film von Adam Mason mit K.J. Apa, Sofia Carson. Inhaltsangabe: Zwei Jahre nach dem Ausbruch der Corona-Pandemie schlägt ein neues, noch schlimmeres Virus zu und fängt an zu mutieren. Directed by Sam Mendes. With Dean-Charles Chapman, George MacKay, Daniel Mays, Colin Firth. April 6th, 1917. As a regiment assembles to wage war deep in enemy territory, two soldiers are assigned to race against time and deliver a message that will stop 1,600 men from walking straight into a deadly trap. Premiere: Michl Gets Surreal In New Short Film 'Datum' The elusive indie artist talks to VMAN about creating the fashion-forward short film and the hometown it was inspired by. The elusive indie artist talks to VMAN about creating the fashion-forward short film and the hometown it was inspired by. April 25, 2018. Oscars Best Picture Winners Best Picture Winners Golden Globes Emmys STARmeter Awards San Diego Comic-Con New York Comic-Con Sundance Film Festival Toronto Int'l Film Festival Awards Central Festival Central All Events The Tribeca Film Festival, presented by AT&T, brings visionaries and diverse audiences together to celebrate storytelling in all its forms, including film, TV, VR, gaming, music, and online work. Founded by Robert De Niro and Jane Rosenthal, the Festival champions emerging and established voices through premieres, exhibitions, talks, and live performances. The Movie Database (TMDb) is a popular, user editable database for movies and TV shows.

OBLIGATORY FILLER MATERIAL – ESCAPE FROM STALAG SULTANATE, Part 4

2020.09.27 17:43 Rocknocker OBLIGATORY FILLER MATERIAL – ESCAPE FROM STALAG SULTANATE, Part 4

Continuing…
SKREEEEEK!
SKRONNNNNK!
“SQUEEEeeeeeeeeEEEEE...!*
“Nah, ya’ borgus frap! To the left!” I shout.
“We’re facing the same fucking direction, so same fucking left.” I reiterate.
“OK, the other left then. Back about 2 meters…” I growl, exasperatedly.
SKKKKKKKKKKREEEEK! EEEGAH!
“OK, now just drop the sonuvabitch.” I command in a loud, steady un-Presbyterian voice.
KABLONG! fagroon…kubble…kubble…
“Perfect!” As I give the ‘OK, you meathead’ salute, one finger at a time.
“There. Marvelous. You can leave now. Yes, you may take your forklift with you.” I insist.
SHEESH.
So, now we have a rusty, old Maersk 20 foot shipping container blocking our villa’s carport.
Open ‘er up, have a look.
No contraband.
Frankly, I’m vaguely disappointed.
Some foreign bugs, properly dead. A quick sweep with the propane-powered pressure washer and tomorrow, the guys arrive to start schlepping our stuff.
One step closer to exiting the Stalag.
Still waiting on a report from Rack and Ruin.
But we have our container for our ‘personal effects’.
Esme walks out to our courtyard and looks over the situation.
“Let me guess... Going straight, right, or left was beyond their ken?” she asks and hands me a cold beer that she had found hiding in the back of my fridge.
“Chinese beer? Oh! Velly nice.” I chuckle as I drain the liter by half.
“That’s wascist!” Esme chuckles and helps herself to one of the Ukrainian beers she also found in my fridge.
See, we have several fridges around the villa.
The big one, for food and the like, is in the ground floor kitchen.
Then we have slightly smaller ones in each of the other three kitchens we have on the other various floors.
Then, due to a contractor’s inadvertent and irresolvable mistake, I have my massive, stainless steel drinks fridge downstairs, just off the alcove to our open-concept majlis.
Most would call that a living room.
My fridge doubles as a cigar humidor (instead of a vegetable crisper), glass chiller, wine rack (reds only), drinks station, and beer icer-downer.
My fridge has been suffering from a depauperate population of both cigars and liquoriferous delights of late, thanks in part to all the COVID-connected craziness.
Thanks to Mishka and his black market confederates, we’ve solved, at least temporarily, the cigars quandary.
Esme has been going through our villa, into rooms seldom visited and into storage areas even more unfrequented and lonely.
She has discovered a long-forgotten treasure trove of potent potables we had stashed for long-past parties, infrequent celebrations, the occasional in-house staycation booze-up, super-typhoon, or recovery from a particularly vexatious and nasty contract in a, particularly vexatious and nasty locale.
Long story short…(ha), my fridge had regained its usual turgor and boasted beer from over a dozen countries, dangerous, seething polychromatic liquors from six or twenty-two others, and other unidentifiable drinkables from just outside the Outer Rim; where Imperial Forces wouldn’t even bother to venture much less examine.
“Marvelous!” I exclaim to Esme as I hold her in a crushing one-armed bear hug.
I puffed on a vintage Arturo Fuente Opus X BBMF cigar and was partaking of a cold Yorshch, comprised of Polish Pre-Wall-Fall Buffalo Grass Vodka and New Zealand Steinlager.
Yes, the one-liter bottle size.
What else?
Anyways, I had the guys delivering the 20’ container leave the front dogs down and the rear dogs extended. That gave the container a tail-to-front gradient of approximately 20. Just enough for me to get the propane-powered pressure washer into the container and let the effluvia drain out the front, down the street and unto who knows where in a place that has absolutely no idea Climate Engineering exists as it’s applied to urban conurbations.
I fire up a fine Zuban cigar, push-prime the pilot on the propane-powered pressure washer, attach the hose, and fire up the recalcitrant little beast.

After fixing all the leaks in the system that hasn’t been used in over 5 years, I get it purring like a well-oiled kitten (now there’s an image) and venture into the back of the container.
After grappling with the 250 psi(g) pressure washer and only getting smacked in the head twice by the custom-built Power Wand!, I begin hosing off the debris accumulated from hundreds if not thousands of trips on the high seas. It was a weird odor, that of propane exhaust, my cigar, and all the schmoo and such now being peeled off the metal walls and being sent to the land of evanescent wind and spirits.
Of course, when there’s water of any depth present in this desert nibbana; the local critters try, with unflinching determination, to make certain they get their fill.
Now, I don’t mind the vinegaroons, camel spiders, or whiptail scorpions; but I draw the line at Saw Scaled Vipers.
I mean, that last batch is just plain ornery.
Plus, their bite can prove fatal to non-ethanol fueled organisms; such as Esme.
Therefore, I have to ask, in a most straightforward, ill-mannered, and direct manner, that they must take their leave of the area.
Immediately.
If a good shot of the propane-powered power washer isn’t enough to dissuade them, then a couple of loads of birdshot from my .44 Magnum usually suffices.
Plus, as a bonus, it gives the Egyptian Buzzards something for lunch.
Such handsome little neodinosaurs.
Flappy-flap.
Anyways, I’m hosing out the 20-footer and getting slightly giddy from the fumes as it appears this container spent some time over in northern South America. The propane-powered pressure water effluent is now a milky white. I do believe we have some remnants of a batch of Peruvian Marching Powder that resided for a longish time right here in this very strongbox.
Or it’s anthrax. Either way, I’m feeling a bit on the more-than-usually-loopy-side.
After kicking the final saw-scaled viper to the curb, I make certain the doors to the big metal box are propped open so they can dry during the 500 C night.
I toss in a couple of smoke grenades which I’ve wired to cans of Pif Paf Bug-be-Gone. The snakes and mice hate the smell of the mercaptans in the Pif Paf as well and I hope, by morning, the smell will have dissipated.
Really doesn’t matter, as everything is going to be packed in bubble wrap, cardboard, or metal boxes and sealed in the house with tough, shipping-grade vinyl wrap before they hit the container.
I return to the villa, strip, toss the smelly work clothes in the wash and wander upstairs for a shower. Since our water chiller croaked right around the time the first wave of COVID hit, we have no water chiller for the shower.
Taking a shower any time other than right at first light or well after sunset is a clear invitation to second-degree burns, steam injuries, and bubbling flesh.
Happily, Es had some other ideas, so that I was well insulated from the possibility of a skin-bubblingly hot water shower. An hour or two later, it was almost positively tolerable.
The next day, over bagels and coffee, we’re waiting for one Chettur Goyal, the moving crew chief, and English speaker. He and his crew of Eastern Expatriates start to show up to begin packing up and trundling out all the kit we’ve determined that without which, we certainly cannot live.
We decided that a couple of his team, depending on English skills, will work with Esme on the ground floor level of our villa.
Our house has been described as being decorated in a style called “Early Museum”.
Well, when you’ve lived on over five continents for the last 35 or so years, you tend to generate some eclectic collections.
We’ve developed an easy tag-out method for our perhaps less than 100% literate friends doing the schlepping for us. Green tag means pack the cabinet and everything contained within. Red tag, everything stays, as Esme and I have already cleared the internals and sorted them by desirability. A yellow tag means as Chettur, Rock, or Esme after all the green tagged furniture and bits and pieces have been packed; will make decisions on what goes and what stays, if anything.
In all truth, we probably have a couple of 40-foot containers-worth of material; definitely, if we decided to take Es’s Land Rover and/or my Isuzu Trooper.
Alas, they’re being donated to the American School.
Neither Esme nor I have the time, inclination, nor patience to put them up on the local “Used Car” board only to deal with shifty locals or whiny expats lusting after our wheels.
The former one will waste your time and finally strike a deal, only to show up on the fateful day 2,000 or 3,000 rials short.
“It’s all I have, sahib.” They’ll say.
They know full well you’re on your way out and don’t have time to waste telling them to ‘get fucked’. Besides, doing that might bring a visit from the Royal Ostrich Pluckers. So, usually, the expat gives in just to get rid of the fucking vehicle.
With the other expats, particularly the Eastern variety, pulling a sobbing, snuffling, wailing scene as you’re trying to get everything packed and into the container; is also most unwelcome.
They’ll try and wheedle and cheese a deal. Ridiculous for you, splendid for them, in the hopes you’d rather just get the fuck out of Dodge and the hell with the car, where are the fucking plane tickets?
Either one is a monumental pain in the ass.
So, donated to the American School they are. We receive thanks, a receipt, and a healthy deduction on our next-years taxes.
But I still miss that Trooper.
Fuel-injected V-8 with little pollution control crapola. M8274-S 10K WARN-winch upfront on the huge bespoke Bull Bars. Massive Hankook all-terrain tires. Custom 11-speed transmission. Skid plates where skid plates should be, transmission intercooler, and holy fuck, wait…
I run after the tow truck driver just before he drops his vehicle into “Tow: low”.
I retrieve a Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistol I won in a poker game from one of the several secret compartments I had personally TIG-welded into, onto, and under my erstwhile vehicle.
I have the tow truck driver sit tight and smoke one of my cigars as I go through the vehicle, trying to remember where I had placed all the ’secret stash’ hidey-holes.
I found several knives I had thought were lost or stolen, a couple of small caliber handguns, some very dusty ammunition, a Ziploc measure of Mexican agricultural pharmaceuticals for the treatment of my chronic back pain, a box of blasting caps, and a small electronic detonator I’d completely forgotten about; batteries totally corroded and weepy of alkalinic shmoo.
I also found those half-dozen large ampules of Ketamine and hypo I kept in case I found a horse or ox or Utahraptor in obvious distress during my travels.
Anyways.
Wouldn’t that be fun on American School Driver’s Education day when one of these compartments popped open and a .25 caliber snub-nose dropped into the lap of the novice driver?
Well, in my defense…I’ve been busy lately.
Ahem.
Anyways.
Back to packing.
Es was going to take care of watching over and answering questions down on the ground floor.
I decided it would be best for me to go up to my office/lab and direct the packing of some of the more esoteric items I had living with me up on the third floor.
“OK, Mr. Chettur, I don’t know how well your charges speak English, but I want you to translate for me verbatim.” I asked.
“Yes sir. I can do that for you.” Chettur replied.
“OK, guys. Gather around. Comfy? Good. Now, this is my office and laboratory. I’ve taken to dismantling and packing of some of the more delicate instruments as far as I can. Yes, you may smoke up here; hell, I do and am. But if I find one cigarette or whatever the hell those nasty things are butts on the floor or packed in with some cargo, well, I’m sure you can all get along just fine with one working kneecap.”
I waited until that was translated and for the horrifying looks to subside.
“OK, now we’re on the same page. If you drop, smash, or destroy anything, well, kneecaps aren’t everything my friends.” I said.
Again the looks of horror.
“Now, guys. This is just my way of impressing upon you that some of this stuff here is very, very delicate. Some of it’s very old and parts are probably not available. Some of these things are very, very heavy and that could take out a kneecap or scrotum easily by themselves as well; if ONE IS NOT CAREFUL!. We green?”
“Green?” Chettur asked.
“Yeah. Green. हरा (hara). Green as in ‘go’ because we’re on the same page and we understand each other explicitly. Green as in the color of the grass that’ll cover you if you fuck up with my stuff. Green as in You diggin’ me, Beaumont?
“AH. Ha. Hara. Green. Yes. We understand.” Chettur smiled finally getting the crux of my gist, noting the motion toward which I’ve drifted.
“No, you might Chettur, but the rest of this crowd? Please interrogate and explain.” I asked.
After some bad noise and a promise they could help themselves to anything in the kitchen fridge, an agreement was sorted. Extra care and damn the time clock. We’ve got a huge job in front of us and if it takes 4 days instead of two, so be it. I’ve got a lot of kit I’ve accumulated over the years, and most of it’s irreplaceable.
“OK, now we’re all nice and green, let me take this time to quickly go over what you’ll be packing and transporting for me. I already have a list of the material for which I want special transport insurance. But, beforehand; let’s have a smoke, go get a coffee, tea, or whatever, and get back here all nice, refreshed, and attentive in 10 minutes. Shall we? We green, gentlemen?” I ask.
“HARA!” was heard, as well as “Akhdir, as I had a few had Arabic language skills. All I know was ‘Jebel Ackdar’ means ‘Green Mountain’, so I guess that will suffice.
I lit a new Cohiba #9 Oscuro cigar and made note of the strategically placed ashtrays around my lab and office.
I dropped an extinguished Lucifer into one of these ashtrays and pointed to the receptacle.
Chettur knew I meant for his charges to follow suit. It’s a bit bothersome moving furniture with only one functioning kneecap.
I toured quickly with Chettur and gave him the highlights.
He was amply impressed.
I asked him to convey that same sense of wonder to his charges.
A few ticks later and the crew had returned, obviously mistaking my fridge for the kitchen fridge. Instead of juices and water bottles, there were bottles, cans, and bags of beer.
“OK by me,” I said, reminding everyone of the less than two functional kneecap penalties if anything’s ruined.
“OK,” I say before we begin, “Most of this will not mean anything to most of you guys, but as I explained to your boss, these are delicate scientific instruments. Treat them as if they are made of very heavy and easily fucked-up glass.”
They all nodded and got the idea.
“OK, gents, follow me” I motioned to pile number one in my lab.
“This”, I said, pointing to the bits and pieces before them, “Belongs to my eldest daughter. It is a Russian telescope; oddly enough from Magnitogorsk, Russia. It is a Stargate-500p syn-scan 508mm (20”) f/4 parabolic truss tube computerized go-to Dobsonian telescope and I don’t understand what the fuck all that was any more than you do. I do know it, in total, with clock drive and tripod weighs in at around 125 kilos. So, let’s be very careful here.”
They all looked, goggled a bit at the intricacies of the instrument, and chattered among themselves.
“Next on the parade is one of my reasons to live. It is my JEOL JSM-7000F Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope, and I’m one of the very, very few private citizens to own a working one. I’ve had this for years, and it’s taken me all that time to accumulate all the cryogenic and vacuum equipment as well as the gold evaporator and carbon sputter coaters. Just for grins, an elemental aluminum stub to which I affix a specimen costs $950 each.”
They all jabber and recoil in shock at the costs.
“Of course, I didn’t spend that kind of money on them, but it gives you an indication as to the expense of this particular piece of scientific equipment. It’s insured for over US$1 cool million. At least, that’s what I place on replacement cost. Handle accordingly.” I smile.
They all smile agreeably.
OK”, I continue, “Next up is my trinocular polarizing petrographic microscope. It’s an Olympus Microscopes BX51 Pol-Polarizing with BF/DF and Trinocular Head, refitted with custom-made Zeiss optics. As you might imagine, it’s old, and one of a kind. It’s also got a lot of glass, mechanicals, and other parts that are easily broken. I would be most unhappy if something happened to it or any of the peripheral equipment you see here. Green?”
“HARA!” was the answer.
They were actually getting good at this.
Then I pointed out my 9 Halliburton aluminum camera cases. These were chock full of Canon, Nikon, Zenit, Rubinar, Kyiv, and Smena 35-millimeter camera equipment. Lenses, power winders, a FS 122 PhotoSniper, flash equipment, both digital and film. They were already armor-plated, but I wanted these characters to take it easy on this stuff as well.
Next, we went into my petrology/lap (lapidary) lab.
Aside from all the rock saws, tumblers, wax stations, and assorted petrological equipment, I had everything necessary to create thin sections. That is slices of rock affixed to glass slides anywhere from 30 µm (= 0.03 mm) to 10 µm (= 0.01 mm).
Included in that were my lap table and vibratory lap polisher.
My lap table was a hunk of cold-rolled and hardened tool steel, some 3 centimeters in thickness, 1 meter wide and 3 meters long. Luckily, it broke down into 1-meter sections, each about 215 kilos in mass.
It had to be that heavy as the surface was hand-polished to an unevenness of perhaps a thousand of a millimeter across not only the connections but from one end of the table to the other. I spent days and days going over this table getting it as close to ultimate horizontalness as possible. The weight also helped to dampen vibrations.
The flatness tolerance defines a zone between two parallel planes within which a surface must lie. Since flatness is applied to an individual surface, this tolerance does not need to be related to a datum. Flatness is usually used on a surface associated with a size dimension, acting as a refinement to the size requirement to ensure proper function of a part or to promote even wear.
I was aiming to get flatness to less than one one-thousandth of a millimeter over a piece of steel three meters by one meter by three centimeters in thickness.
Most said that was impossible. However, the more I worked at it, the more Rick Sanchez and his moody grandkid dropped by for a look and a few cold ones. When his grandkid almost refused to leave because he was reveling in the flatness of my table, I knew I was nearly there.
Still, there was much consternation a the weight of the individual sections and the fact we’re about 10 meters above ground level.
No matter, I sealed the deal by showing them my hydraulic-pneumatic suspended 6.5 cm (2.55”) thick, heat-treated, Rockwall 66 hardness, 1.2 meters (3.93’) diameter Vibra-lap.
It is another piece of heavy steel kit that polishes rocks flatter than flat by gyratory, Earth independent, shimmying; similar to this, but larger and heavier.
It was driven by a smallish 220 VAC electric motor and was covered with various degrees of diamond dust and mineral oil. An already flat hunk of rock was set down on the Vibra-lap, it switched on and the huge mass of the lap table began to vibrate, but at very low hertz, or cycles per second.
It was all accumulative, as the longer you left the Vibra-lap run, the finer and finer these vibrations got and the flatter and flatter the rock face you were polishing became; down to thousands of a millimeter difference over the face of a sample.
That’s a bit of the problem. The hunk of steel that makes up the working surface of the machine weighs in at about 340 kilos
Or around 912 pounds for the American crowd.
There was a bit of an inconvenience when I decided to assist in its initial removal and moving.
True, it’s a heavy piece of kit; one who’s relocation should be attempted only by three strong men and a boy.
Well…
Viswarupa thought Chakravarti had it. Chakravarti thought Madhavacharta had it. Madhavacharta thought that I had it.
And therein lies the problem.
The lap plate was let go of by three of the four characters moving it.
I was the last to let go.
The plate hit the marble floor.
Luckily, it was insulated from the total impact by the fingers of my left hand.
Luckily.
My middle finger and ring finger of my left hand are already artificial, titanium-tungsten-osmiridium alloy, and were just fine.
My index finger, also artificial, was out of the line of contact.
The well, little pinkie finger of my left hand was not so lucky.
It got sort of, well, mashed.
“Oh, fuck.” I noted.
I’m no stranger to manual injuries.
Yep, that pinkie finger is hosed. Busted in at least 3 or four places.
But, no matter. No time for a hospital or doctor, especially during these strange times.
I have Esme retrieve one of the many finger splints we keep around for just such an occasion. With a liberal application of gauze, surgical, and duct tape, we’re back in action.
In case you were wondering, yes, it stung a bit. However, my left hand is so fuckered from burns, scarring, and the like, it wasn’t debilitating. In fact, I was off growling at the movers within a half hour.
Continuing:
There was a bit of an almost instant insurrection when I noted this piece was, in fact, one-piece and needed to be schlepped to the container as is; just let me mop off the blood.
“OK, cool out,” I said and opened a door to the outside balcony.
I had installed a gin pole and electrically-operated crane for just such an emergency. It could handle about 2 metric tons, so the lap table and the Vibra-lap posed no problem.
OK, a little problem. They still had to manhandle the thing out the door and onto the bloody balcony. Then, once on the ground, into the container.
But hey, that’s why they were making the big money.
Right?
But of course.
Several days, and a significant dent in my fridge’s state of turgor later, the 20-foot container was nearly full. Now since shipping via container relies on volume rather than weight, we made certain all of our heaviest kit was packed throughout the container, instead of being stuffed in one end or the other, or one corner or the other.
Still, it required a second crane, a larger one, to lift our container onto the flatbed semi that was going to overland this for us to Dubai,. Then onto a container ship and finally to New Jersey, if we were unlucky, or Chicago, if our luck held out.
Then, once through US customs, it would be trucked to my eldest daughter’s place in central West Kansanebraskistan. Then we’d all have a grand reunion as my youngest and her latest paramour trundle down from Baja Canada to become repatriated with the gear we’ve been holding for them for the past 8 or 12 years.
Like Christmas in December; we hoped out container appeared sometime in November.
The jury's still out. Kind words and goods thoughts appreciated.
But first, we had to make the agonizing decisions of what went and what stayed. Remember, there’s no coming back for us; this was the final exit out of the Sultanate, and as things stood, we’re leaving a shitload of machinery, electronics, and furniture behind.
Virtually all my electronics, such as televisions, stereo, and such were 220 VAC.
The US is 110 VAC.
In my experience with voltage inverters, they simply prolong the departure phase. They are not clean enough, nor fast enough to prevent fuzzing, frosting, and frying of delicate electronics. I have to replace all the motors on my petrology equipment and SEM with equivalent 110 VAC devices when we return home.
The same goes for most all my small hand tools. All 220 VAC. Easier just to replace them when we get home than drag them halfway around the world. But I’ll still miss my Dremel sets, electric beaver (German wood carver…a gift from my Mother-in-law), and some of the big electrical motors I got for a song that ran my larger rock saws.
As for home electronics, we left the 75” television. Simply no room and truth be told, we weren’t’ watching that much TV anymore. We left the WiFi gizmo, modems, and other Internet goofiness as we’d get that for free at University.
But the furniture.
The furniture.
Pure volume.
Keep the dining room table and six chairs or take two china cabinets and everything within them?
Keep the gabbro TV stand, which takes up a fair amount of room and weighs some 220 kilos, or take the bedroom suite?
Esme and I wrangled with decisions like this for weeks.
Finally, after a lot of give and take and some tearful decisions, we got everything absolutely necessary into the 20-foot container.
Luckily, I dropped a few of my things with some military buddies out in Thumrait who were about to rotate back. We found enough room for Esme’s two hand-built Rosewood cabinets and her living room coffee table made from an old Omani window.
Still, we were leaving a shitload of expensive furniture and gobs of household bits and pieces.
Wouldn’t be the first time, though. And it’s taken time, but we realize we either ship it and essentially pay for it again, or leave it, buy new and enjoy the new furniture and old memories.
But it’s still a pain in the ass to do, no matter what the logic.
So, we finally got everything packed into the container that we’re going to ship. The few bits-n-bobs like clothes, my computer, and some other unleavables were coming with us in our luggage once Rack and Ruin figure a way for us out of this place.
So, the first crane couldn’t lift the container because of the mass. So, we had to wait on a second crane. Of course, the lorry sent to transport our kit to Dubai was then, of course, too small; so we had to wait on another more robust prime mover.
The old fridge took a serious dent during all the waiting.
To be continued…
submitted by Rocknocker to Rocknocker [link] [comments]


2020.09.21 23:38 nice_fungi [UPDATE] Trennung nach langer Beziehung [lang+]

Alter Post
Es ist keine zwei Wochen her, da war ich tierisch gekränkt, weil mit meiner Ex noch etwas lief und ich von ihr nur verlangt hatte, dass sie ehrlich mit mir ist, falls sie mit jemand anderen etwas anfangen möchte. Es war leider zuviel verlangt, und ich musste aus ihr rauspulen, dass sie für ihren Arbeitskollegen Gefühle entwickelt. Sie hatte mir nicht erzählt dass er Single ist; das war eine Neuigkeit - und schwupps, waren sie zusammen. 10 Tage vorher hatten wir noch den intensivsten Sex, den wir wohl je zusammen hatten. Sie wusste ca. eine Woche, dass er Single ist. Die beiden arbeiteten schon seit 3 Jahren zusammen und haben viele gemeinsame Interessen bei unzähligen Kaffeepausen entdeckt und ganz ehrlich: Ich hab mich für meine Ex gefreut. Der Neue passt glaube ich wirklich besser zu ihr, als ich.
Kommen wir aber zu den Neuerungen seit meinem letzten Post.
Wir haben am Donnerstag, dem 03.09. telefoniert. Es war sehr emotional. Ihr hat es wahnsinnig Leid getan, dass sie mich mit ihrem Verhalten so verletzt hat. Wir waren beide am Heulen am Telefon.
Wir haben zusammen eine Wohnung, in der sie zur Zeit alleine lebt, mit unserem Kater. Ich bin für mein Abschlusspraktikum 4 Stunden entfernt. Die Wohnung ist gefüllt mit meinen, ihren und unseren Sachen. Ich habe ihr gesagt, dass es mir lieb wäre, wenn sie sich in Zukunft bei Ihm (dem Neuen) treffen. er hat auch eine eigene Wohnung, ne halbe Stunde oder so entfernt. Sie sagte, dass sei gaarkein problem und ist selbstverständlich. Trotzdem hatte ich nochmal gesagt, dass es mir vor allem mega gegen Strich gehen würde, wenn jemand anderes in unserem Bett schläft. Im Einklang mit dem vorherigen Versprechen hat sie zugestimmt, dass das eklig ist und auf keinen Fall jemand in das Bett kommt. Die Matratze hatte ich 2016 für 600€ gekauft und ich sollte sie auch zum Umzug mitnehmen. Soweit, so gut. Sie hat sich ersichtlich gezeigt, war lieb zu mir und einer Trennung im Guten stand nichts im Wege. Trotzdem wollte ich gerne Abstand haben, weil ich noch eine emotionale Bindung zu ihr hatte, die vor allem durch die gemeinsamen, intensiven Wochenenden aufgeflammt ist, da eben diese Zuneigung mir in den letzten 5.5 Jahren gefehlt hat.
Fast forward zu Mittwoch, dem 09.09. Ich musste wieder in unsere Wohnung kommen, um meine Abschlussarbeit abzugeben und um einen Klempner zu empfangen, den Sie nicht alleine empfangen will. Ursprünglich hatte ich Tickets bis zum sonntag gebucht, damit wir viel Zeit zusammen haben. Da sie in der Zwischenzeit nen Neuen hatte, habe ich ein neues Ticket für Freitag gebucht.
Am Mittwochabend hatte ich sie nochmals auf die vergangene Situation angesprochen und sie hat zum Ausdruck gegeben, wie Leid es ihr tut. Wir haben beide viel geweint, uns in den Arm genommen und waren lieb zueinander. Wir haben noch einen Film angefangen, haben ein ihr Lieblingsbier zusammen getrunken, dass ich ihr von meinem Praktikumsort mitgebracht habe und einen angenehmen Abend verbracht. Als ich mich alleine ins Bett gelegen hab haben wir noch im Schlafzimmer gesprochen. Sie sagte auch, es sei komisch, nicht zusammen in diesem Bett zu sein (Sie schlief auf der Couch). Wir haben uns nochmal fest umarmt, geweint und sie sagte "Was machen wir hier?". Die ganze Situation war einfach Mist. Sie will mich nicht verletzen, ich will dass sie glücklich sein kann, bla bla.
Am nächsten Tag habe ich meine Abschlussarbeit weiter bearbeitet. Morgens habe ich ihr Kaffee ans Sofa gebracht und mit ihr gequatscht. Als sie abends nach Hause kam, habe ich spontan, unter Tränen zu ihr gesagt, dass es mir Leid tut, dass sie nicht bei ihrem Neuen sein kann, weil ich ja nur für zwei Tage da bin und erwartet habe, dass sie mit mir ein bisschen Zeit verbringt. ich wollte nur das Beste für sie... wir haben abends den Film zuende geschaut und ich habe weiter an der Arbeit gesessen. Sie hat zu mir gesagt, ich kann ruhig mit auf die Couch kommen, wenn ich schlafen gehe. Fand ich super lieb :)
Dann kam Freitag, der 11.09.. Abgabetermin für meine Arbeit. Ich musste sie morgens zur Arbeit fahren, weil ich das Auto tagsüber brauchte. Sie sagte, ich soll ihr neues VR-Spiel am PC ausprobieren, wenn ich nach Hause komme. Für Freitag abend, nachdem ich weg bin, hat sie sich auch ihre Freundin "Dominique" wieder eingeladen zum VR Spielen. Die war auch am Tag nach unserem emotionalen Telefonat, Freitag dem 04.09. bei ihr zum Spielen.
Ich also nach Hause, ihren PC angemacht und wollte spielen. Da ich für sie aber noch eine Mail vorbereiten wollte, mit vielen Bildern von der Zeit zusammen, habe ich auf den Ordner auf ihrem Desktop geklickt: Bilder. Dann den Ordnern 2020. Viele Bilder von uns, von mir, von ihr, von unserem Kater. Viele, super hübsche Selfies von ihr, die ich nie gesehen hatte. Unten angekommen, habe ich eine Gänsehaut bekommen: Ich habe zuerst nur das Kopfkissen erkannt - und eine Person, die mit unserem Kater im Bett liegt. Ihr neuer. "??!" Rechtsklick, Datum, 05.09. Das war der Morgen, nach dem VR-Spieleabend mit "Dominique". Ich war völlig fassungslos. Was sehe ich hier? Ist das Datum falsch zugeordnet? Nein, es steht sogar im Dateinamen. aufgenommen um 10 Uhr morgens. Ich wusste nicht mehr, wohin mit mir. Meine Mutter angerufen, eine andere Freundin angerufen... Natürlich konnten die mir nicht direkt helfen. Ich weiss garnicht mehr, was sie überhaupt dazu gesagt haben. Dann habe ich sogar ihre Mutter angerufen. Die hat auch zu mir gesagt "Ich wüsste nicht, dass ihr Neuer beim Spieleabend da war. Vielleicht ist er ja morgens gekommen?". Sie meinte auch, dass sie ihrer Tochter natürlich sagen muss, dass ich dieses Bild gesehen habe. Ich hatte dafür Verständnis. Wir haben noch kurz telefoniert. Nach dem Auflegen, wusste ich nicht, was ich noch machen soll. Die Person, die mir im Leben am wichtigsten war, hat mich scheinbar belogen, und das nicht nur ein bisschen. Der Witz ist, ich habe sie noch gefragt, ob ihr Neuer damit klarkommt, dass er nicht in die Wohnung soll. "Ja, findet er nicht toll, aber er kanns verstehen und akzeptiert es".
Meine Optionen waren, sie zu konfrontieren, oder in ihren Messenger zu schauen, um mir Gewissheit zu verschaffen. Wegen der schwere der Lüge habe ich mich entschieden, selber herauszufinden was los ist. Ich habe ihren Nachrichtenverlauf geöffnet und nur kurz hochgescrollt. "Freu mich schon dich morgen wieder zu sehen" (Oder so ähnlich) - "Ja, wir lassen Dominique einfach wieder spielen, haha".
Mir wurde richtig übel. Ich habe auf den Tisch gehauen, ich habe geschrien, geheult, Wasserflaschen durch die Wohnung getreten.
Mit meinen Eltern habe ich auch telefoniert. Sie haben ihr Mitleid zum Ausdruck gegeben und mir gesagt, dass ich mich aber nicht von meiner Wut leiten lassen soll. Ich war von der ganzen Wohnung nur noch angewidert. Ich hätte gerne viel kaputt gemacht, aber wusste insgeheim selber, dass das nichts bringt. Sie haben mir gesagt, dass ich die ganze Sache am besten so ruhig wie möglich über die Bühne bringen soll.
Nach dem Telefonat ploppten Benachrichtungen auf dem PC meiner Ex auf. Ihr Neuer hatte ihr geschrieben. Die Vorschau: "Oh nee" "oh fuck"
Die Neugier hat die Überhand gewonnen und ich habe nachgeschaut. Sie: "Er hat das Bild gesehen. Er wird mich umbringen"
Er: "Was machst du jetzt?"
Sie: "Ich werde lügen."
In dem Moment bin ich ausgerastet und habe so doll auf den Tisch gehauen, dass mir heute noch die Hand weh tut. Wie kann man so scheisse sein. Ich habe den PC ausgemacht, weil ich nichts mehr davon sehen wollte.
Sie hat mich dann versucht auf dem Handy zu erreichen. Ich habe ihr gesagt, dass wir zuhause über das Bild sprechen können.
Als ich sie von der Arbeit abgeholt habe, hat sie auf dem Weg nach hause schon die ganze Zeit an ihren Fingernägeln rumgepult. Es war so offensichtlich.
Irgendwann musste ich anfangen. "War er also an dem Spieleabend auch da?"
"Ja, er ist später auch noch gekommen"
"Und, sollte er heute auch wieder kommen?"
"Nein"
"Lügst du mich an?"
"Nein"
"LÜGST DU MICH AN?" (Zu diesem Zeitpunkt mich ich auch schon echt aggressiv gefahren. Ich war so auf 180)
"Ja es war geplant, aber ich glaub ich will es nicht mehr"
Es hätte verhältnismässig ruhig weitergehen können, wenn sie sich nicht versucht hätte, bei der Wohnung angekommen, so scheisse rauszureden.
"Ich weiss, dass es egal ist was andere dazu sagen und ich die Verantwortung dafür übernehmen muss, aber andere haben mir halt gesagt, es wäre schon ok wenn der Neue abends dazukommt und hier schläft."
Wieso sagt man das überhaupt, wenn man in der Einleitung des Satzes schon sagt, dass es egal ist???
Das hat mich irrsinnig wütend gemacht. Ich habe sie beschimpft ohne Ende. Man muss ihr zugute kommen lassen, dass sie es fast ausnahmslos über sich ergehen lassen hat. Aber auch die nächsten Versuche, sich zu rechtfertigen, waren nicht besser.
"Du hattest ja gesagt, dass du nicht genau wissen willst was wir so machen" (Diese Ausdrucksweise hatte ich am vortag benutzt. Davor wollte ich einfach nur keinen Kontakt.) - Und was ist das für ein beschissener Grund??! Immerhin hat sie mehrmals gesagt, dass sie weiss wie scheisse die Aktion war, und dass sie sich schlecht fühlt.
Dementsprechend habe ich sie weiter beschmipft. Seid versichert, ich habe sie nicht einmal angerührt. Während sie in der Küche war, habe ich Kissen gegen eine Wand geworfen, dass war das gewaltvollste.
Ich habe ihr auch irgendwann gesagt, dass ich die Nachrichten zwischen Ihr und Ihm von den letzten Stunden gelesen hatte. Sie hat sich dann erst zurückgezogen und ist duschen gegangen mit der Aussage "ich brauch mal eben einen Moment". Habe ich ihr gelassen. Habe auch gesagt "Zieh jetzt hier nicht die Opferkarte". Hat sie tatsächlich nicht, kam danach aber mit der Nummer "Man muss das differenziert betrachten: Ich übernehme Verantwortung für das was ich gemacht habe, aber du musst auch dafür Verantwortung übernehmen". Ich habe ihr klarmachen wollen, dass alle Gründe in ihre Nachrichten zu schauen von ihr kamen und der Vertrauensbruch jegliche andere Option ausradiert hat.
Richtig akzeptiert hat sies glaub ich nicht.
Am Wochenende hatte ich sie angerufen, ihr gesagt, dass sie mir 200€ für die Matratze geben soll und sie sich ruhig in der Wohnung treffen können. Hätte sie mich danach gefragt, hätte ichs wohl auch vorher akzeptiert. Sie hat mich gelobt, dass das ganz gross von mir sei. Hat gefragt, ob sie irgendwas machen kann, damits mir besser geht. Ich wusste nichts. Dann meinte sie, dass sie auch mit mir nochmal wegen der Chats reden wollte. Da habe ich sie dann unterbrochen und gesagt, wenn sie mir was gutes tun will, dann nicht diese Diskussion mit mir führen.
Jetzt sind wir eine Woche vor der Wohnungsübergabe. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass sie mir gegenüber keine Reue zeigen wird, sondern eher die kalte Schulter, als wäre ich jetzt der Böse. Da habe ich echt keinen Bock drauf. Zum Glück ists bald um. Donnerstag fahre ich zur Wohnung, wir streichen und räumen aus, dann wird die Wohnung abgegeben. Wenn was interessantes passiert, gibts vielleicht einen letzten Post.
Respekt wenn du dir mein Geschwafel bis hier durchgelesen hast. Ich hoffe, es war halbwegs unterhaltsam.
Frage an euch: Was haltet ihr vom Schnüffeln in ihren Nachrichten in diesem Fall? Seid ruhig ehrlich. Gute Nacht euch allen.
PS: Wäre die Situation umgekehrt gewesen, hätte ich mich von ihr verprügeln lassen, solange sie keine Waffen dafür benutzt. Was muss man für ein abgefuckter Mensch sein, um da nicht vor Scham zu versinken.
submitted by nice_fungi to einfach_posten [link] [comments]


2020.08.01 19:03 baurax Gerade mal Dampf ablassen

Tag auch. Muss mir das gerade mal von der Seele schreiben. Ist keine Tirade, seht es mehr als Tagebucheintrag oder so, mir egal.
Was ist das für ein beschissenes Jahr bisher? Unglaublich, eine Misere jagt die nächste und jetzt hier mal in "kurz" meine eigene, ganz persönliche.
Anfang des Jahres dachte ich, wie so viele andere vermutlich auch, dass dieses Jahr bestimmt supertoll wird. Hmhm.. Genau.
Bin Student und genau wie meine Exfreundin (ja, genau - das ist einer von DIESER Sorte Faden). Hatten beide ein sehr stressiges Semester hinter uns gebracht, in dem wir den einen oder anderen Streit geführt hatten. Kurz nach Weihnachten allerdings waren wir beide noch der Auffassung, dass sich unsere Beziehung doch sehr gut gefangen hat und in eine sehr positive Richtung weiterentwickelt. Waren zu dem Zeitpunkt 1,5 Jahre zusammen.
Dann im Februar folgt die nächste Prüfungsphase. Wobei ihre immer ein wenig früher anfängt und dementsprechend auch zu Ende geht als meine. Sie fährt also zu ihren Eltern in den Heimat und lässt mich damit dann für meine letzten Prüfungen alleine. Hat mir damals nichts ausgemacht, hab ihr ihre Freizeit gegönnt und wir haben ja eh schon viel "aufeinander rumgehangen".
Sie fährt also weg. Dann kommt der März. Und was kommt da noch? Corona-Lockdown, richtig. Kurz bevor die Scheiße so richtig am Dampfen war, hatte ich mich dazu entschieden, zu meinen Eltern zu fahren, um wenigstens ein wenig Sozialkontakt zu haben und nicht alleine in meiner WG zu verschimmeln, da meine Mitbewohner ebenfalls die Flucht nach hause angetreten hatten.
Ende März hatte ich sie seit knapp 1,5 Monaten nicht mehr gesehen. Beim Schreiben und Telefonieren mit ihr fiel mir immer mehr auf, dass sie distanzierter, fast schon kühler wirkte als sonst. (Der Klassiker)
Auf die Frage, was los sei, platzt die Bombe: "Ich weiß momentan nicht mehr, wie ich zu Dir stehe. Ich vermisse Dich nicht." Da traf mich dann fast der sprichwörtliche Schlag. Hatten wir uns nicht vorher noch gefreut, wie es sich entwickelt? Offenbar war für sie unsere Beziehung immer mehr zu einem Teufelskreis aus "Streit über immer wieder dieselben Themen, Versöhnung, Versprechen und Rückfall" geworden.
"Supi", dachte ich mir, "wieso fällt mir sowas nie auf?" (Am Ende muss ich gestehen, dass ich wirklich manchmal schwer von kp bin, sie aber mindestens genau so schlecht darin, sich mir und anderen Menschen mitzuteilen).
Wir beschlossen, "das Gespräch" auf einen Zeitpunkt zu vertagen, an dem wir uns wiedersehen würden, was ungefähr zwei Wochen später sein sollte. Mitte April, denn dann wäre Corona bestimmt soweit entspannter. (hahahaha) Das Datum war auch abgemacht. Die folgenden zwei Wochen waren für mich und wohl auch für sie die Hölle: So tun, als sei alles i.O. aber gleichzeitig bloß nichts romantisches oder trauriges kommunizieren. Alles klar. "Wieso lass ich darauf ein?!" - hätte ich sagen sollen. Aber ich bin ein hoffnungslos klammernder Typ und wollte sie nicht verlieren, lol.
Vorspulen: Tag X.
Ich war vorher extra noch einkaufen, wir wollten kochen und danach einen Film gucken. Dieser Abend war sowas von mies. Kalte Schulter ist gar kein Ausdruck dafür. Haben beide auch kaum was runterbekommen. Danach dann die alles entscheidenden 2 Stunden mit "dem Gespräch"... Ich erspare Euch das mal. Kennt jeder: "Wieso? Weshalb? Warum?"... verzweifelte Verhandlungsversuche und blabla.
Am Ende muss ich sagen, dass es wirklich besser so war, wie es dann gelaufen ist. Denn auf Krampf versuchen jemanden von Liebe zu überzeugen funktioniert nicht.
Die kommenden Wochen ging es mir derbe beschissen. Natürlich. War ja auch zu erwarten. Viel Heulen, viel Nichtstun, viel Masturbation, viel Junkfood. Will darüber auch gar nicht viel schreiben.
------------------------------------
Habe dann angefangen wieder mehr Sport zu machen und mich auf mein Studium meine Arbeit konzentriert.
Als ich dann Ende Juni dachte, es ginge wieder ein wenig bergauf und dass ich vielleicht eventuell ganz bestimmt bereit wäre, jemand neues kennenzulernen, kam ich auf die grandiose Idee mir eine x-beliebige Datingapp zu installieren. Nach ca. einer Woche kam es dann sogar tatsächlich zu einem Treffen mit einer jungen Frau, die mich ziemlich mit ihrer Art geflasht hat, weil sie so ganz anders war, als meine Ex. Wir waren ziemlich schnell auf derselben Welle und konnten ungezwungen miteinander über alles reden. Ich war ziemlich verknallt.
Das zweite Treffen war dann auch direkt bei ihr zuhause, wo wir zusammen kochten. Beim Abschied hab ich dann hin- und herüberlegt, ob ich sie küssen sollte oder nicht. Habs gelassen und kurze Zeit später bereut... Und ihr das so geschrieben. "Weil absolute und offensive Ehrlichkeit immer schon irgendwie mein Ding waren", dachte ich mir. (muss selber gerade ein wenig lachen und Kotze runterschlucken). Beim Abschicken dieser Nachricht wurde mir heiß und kalt. Alles-oder-nichts.
Ihre Reaktion war überraschend positiv. Ihr gefiel meine Schüchternheit aber auch, dass ich so ehrlich war. Beim dritten Treffen, wieder bei ihr, kam es dann zum Kuss: von ihr ausgehend. Jackpot!
Könnte jetzt schreiben, dass dann alles super gelaufen ist in der nächsten Zeit. Aber ne. Das Schicksal wollte es nicht so. Wir trafen uns in der kommenden Woche noch 4 mal bei ihr. Küssen, Petting, Kuscheln, beieinander schlafen. Kein Sex. Das wollte sie nicht vor einer festen Beziehung. War mir recht, wollten ja beide nichts überstürzen. (pffff) Währenddessen beichtete sie mir, dass sie ebenfalls erst seit ca. einem Monat von ihrem vorherigen Freund getrennt gewesen sei.
Schlussendlich ging ihr deshalb alles ein wenig zu schnell und als ich ihr dann gestand, dass ich ziemlich verliebt in sie wäre (nach nicht mal 2 Wochen, super Idee), gab das der Geschichte den Todesstoß. Sie war verwirrt, überfordert von meinen Gefühlen und sie hat zugemacht.
Retrospektiv betrachtet war es besser so. Denn wir haben beide etwas von unserem Expartner auf den jeweils anderen projiziert und das wäre dementsprechend sowieso früher oder später zerbrochen. Dann lieber früher.
Nun ja... Und jetzt hab ich zweimal ein gebrochenes Herz. Wobei das zweite Mal nur eine halbgare Wiederholung des ersten Mals gewesen ist. Das war zwar nicht meine erste Trennung aber sowas tut immer übelst weh.
------------------------------------
Mittlerweile bin ich damit quasi im 4. Monat. Habe mir vorgenommen, bis spätestens Ende des Jahres niemanden mehr an mich heran zu lassen bzw. nicht aktiv zu suchen. Ich will nicht nochmal verletzt werden bzw. schon gar nicht jemanden verletzen. Corona kommt mir da fast schon gelegen. Hab ich wenigstens eine Ausrede (für mich selbst).
Mir ist selber aufgefallen, wie sehr ich mich und mein Lebensglück von der Existenz einer Partnerin bzw. von der Anerkennung/Zuneigung anderer Menschen abhängig gemacht habe und wohl immer noch mache.
Ich möchte jetzt lernen, alleine glücklich zu sein und mich selbst kennenlernen. Um es kurz zu sagen: Ich bin seit meinem 16. Lebensjahr (werde bald 25) nie länger als 3 Monate Single gewesen. Ich war nie wirklich alleine.
Mir ist meine Exfreundin vorherige Woche begegnet. Hat mich nicht gesehen aber ich dafür sie. Wenigstens war sie da nicht im Arm von einem neuen Typen. Habe keine Ahnung, wie es ihr momentan geht, nach der Trennung wirkte sie ein wenig erleichtert. Ich wünsche ihr alles Glück der Welt aber ich will mich nicht mehr mit ihr befassen. Kann ich nicht, tut zu sehr weh.Ich muss deshalb aber seitdem wieder sehr oft an sie denken... Trauerphasen können sich offenbar wiederholen, sogar mehrmals am Tag - hab ich gelesen.
Versuche mich jetzt mit Lernen für Klausuren und Yoga und Meditation (ja tatsächlich) abzulenken aber obwohl ich 3 Mitbewohner habe und regelmäßig mit Freunden skype oder ab und zu jemanden von denen treffe, ich mit meiner Familie schreibe und deshalb gar nicht alleine bin - ich fühl mich so scheiße einsam momentan.
Tja, Dinge vorhaben und mit dem Kopf mit aller Kraft versuchen, seine Laune wieder zu verbessern usw. bringt alles sehr wenig, wenn das Herz einem trotzdem immer wieder einen Strich durch die Rechnung macht.
"Zeit hilft." - ha, wird mal langsam Zeit dafür. Ich bin sowas von ungeduldig. (Und vermutlich zu streng mit mir selbst und echt weinerlich.)
Cheers!
submitted by baurax to de [link] [comments]


2020.07.29 22:54 davyslife Mijn doel is 55kg Afvallen!

55 kilo verliezen
Hallo Ik ben Davy, 24 jaar en ik heb op dit moment aardig wat overgewicht. De afgelopen 10 jaar ben ik qua gewicht een jojo. Ongeveer rond 2012 was ik veel te zwaar voor mijn leeftijd. Ik ging naar het MBO en ik wist dat ik moest gaan afvallen als ik kans wilde maken op mijn droombaan waarvoor ik naar school ging. Motivatie was er dus genoeg en over een periode van 1,5 jaar verloor ik ruim 35 kilo. Toen ik na mijn opleiding niet door de selectie kwam voor mijn droombaan (niet omdat ik niet fit genoeg was), viel de motivatie om gezond te leven weg. Ik had geen doel meer. Ik leerde vlak daarna wel mijn vriendin kennen. We zijn allebei gek op lekker eten en dat hebben we de afgelopen jaren zeker gedaan. Elke film die we zagen moest een schaal nacho's bij, veel snoep en genieten van het leven. Iets teveel misschien. De kilo's kwamen langzaam terug en we zijn inmiddels 6 jaar later weer terug bij af.
Hoe ga ik het aanpakken? Toen ik in 2012 ging afvallen deed ik dat volledig door gezond te eten en hardlopen. Hardlopen werd een hobby voor me. Ik het begin rende ik 15 minuten, 4 dagen in de week. Toen de kilos eraf vlogen en mijn conditie beter werd begon ik 6 dagen per week hard te lopen voor 1 uur+ ! Ik was best slank en voelde me geweldig! Toch wil ik het nu anders doen. Dit keer ga ik afvallen in de sportschool d.m.v. krachttraining. Ik wil dit keer afvallen, maar ik wil ook spieren opbouwen. Ik wil dit keer eindigen met een slank, maar gespierd lichaam.
Personal trainer Ik ben via Basicfit in contact gekomen met een personal trainer. Ik train inmiddels al bijna anderhalf jaar met hem! Onder zijn coaching was ik al bijna 25 kg kwijt! Echter door omstandigheden ging het helaas even een tijdje niet goed (corona tijd, gyms gesloten, baan kwijt) en ben ik dat bijna weer allemaal aangekomen :( Mijn eigen schuld. De sportscholen zijn echter weer open en motivatie is hoog! We gaan er gewoon weer voor!!! Een personal trainer is niet nodig om af te vallen (ik heb het al eens zonder gedaan), maar het heeft het voor mij wel makkelijker gemaakt! Elke week als we gingen trainen, moet ik mezelf eerst wegen. Dit was voor mij een soort stok achter de deur, omdat ik mezelf en hem niet wilde teleurstellen. Ook had ik iemand die al mijn vragen kon beantwoorden over voeding en natuurlijk krachttraining. Hij heeft mij geleerd hoe ik de apparaten in de sportschool op de juiste manier moet gebruiken. Mijn ervaring met een personal trainer is zeer positief en als je het kan betalen is het zeker een aanrader!
55 kilo Mijn doel is nu 55 kilo te verliezen. Ik heb nog geen datum neergezet waarop ik dit bereikt wil hebben. Ik ga dit plannen met mijn trainer zodat ik op een gezond tempo afval. Ik ga 5 keer per week naar de sportschool en Ik train elke dag een andere spiergroep. Dag 1 doe ik schouders/rug. Dag 2 doe ik benen. Dag 3 doe ik Bovenlichaam. Ik kijk elke dag hoe ik me voel en dat bepaald wat ik train en of ik een rustdag neem.
Dat was beetje mijn story en mijn plannen!
Thanks voor het lezen en tips zijn altijd welkom!
submitted by davyslife to afvallers [link] [comments]


2020.06.18 14:56 derForsty NonCon-GangRape-FanFic von Forsty

Dieser Text ist im Rahmen einer Schreibaufgabe von meiner Herrin entstanden.
Vorgaben waren: -min. 1.000 Worte -NonCon (nicht einvernehmlich) GangRape durch Dämonen -ein Dämon heißt Stefan und der Name muss mehrfach genannt werden
Es ist der erste Text in dieser Form den ich geschrieben habe und RapePlays zählen eigentlich so garnicht zu meinen Fetischen, bitte seid ein wenig nachsichtig.
Und nun zu der Geschichte:
Ich hatte schon lange den Wunsch es umzusetzen und jetzt sollte es wahr werden: Ein okkultistisches Ritual vollziehen. Mir war völlig egal welches, mir lag nur am Herzen es möglichst akkurat nachzustellen. Ich habe mich mit Freundinnen zusammengetan, ein wenig in der 'Ars Goetia' beziehungsweise in dem 'Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis' recherchiert, die nötigen Utensilien für eine Beschwörung besorgt und ein passendes astrologisches Datum sowie eine Uhrzeit errechnet. Es ist mir sogar gelungen über einen Schlachter an Ziegenblut zu kommen und echtes Papyrus aufzutreiben. Als der entsprechende Zeitpunkt näher rückte und ich meinen Teil soweit erfüllt hatte, setzte mein üblicher Pessimismus ein und ich erwartete schon eine Enttäuschung in Form von Nichterscheinen meiner Unterstützerinnen, doch alle waren gleichermaßen interessiert an der Aktion und fanden sich wie verabredet pünktlich bei mir auf dem Dachboden ein. Wir quatschten ein wenig miteinander, besprachen nochmal die einzelnen Schritte, bauten richtung Süden einen kleinen Altar auf dem wir einen Kelch, eine Münze, einen Stab und einen Dolch platzierten, stellten sieben schwarz durchgefärbte Kerzen auf dem Boden auf, streuten einen Salzreis darin aus, malten mit dem Blut eine Sigille in den Kreis und stellten eine Schale mit Graberde in die Mitte, auf der ein Stück Kohle glühte das mit Harzen sowie Kräutern zum räuchern bestreut wurde. Nach den Vorbereitungen begaben wir uns in zuvor abgesprochenen Positionen, leuteten einen Gong und ich begann den Beschwörungstext aufzusagen. Wir wollten es einfach nur der Erfahrung willens tun, niemand hätte damit gerechnet dass irgendwas passiert, höchstens dass wir etwas Euphorie oder Unbehagen empfinden. Aber zur Überraschung aller Beteiligten wurde der leichte Rauchfaden irgendwann plötzlich zu einer beunruhigend dichten Wolke, welche sich unnatürlich wirkend innerhalb des Kreises zu sammeln schien. Panisch stürmte ich hinter den Altar hervor auf die Räucherschale zu um diese zu löschen bevor der Rauch gefährlich werden konnte. Ich dachte mir noch: "Zum Glück ist das kein Film oder so. Ein Ritual plötzlich unterbrechen und den Schutzkreis betreten ist praktisch ein Todesurteil!", als plötzlich eine dünne Nebelwand vom Salzring aufstieg nachdem ich diesen überschritten hatte. Als meine beste Freundin mir zu Hilfe kommen wollte, schien sie von den Schwaden aufgehalten zu werden. Auch ihre Stimme kam nur stark gedämpft durch und die Worte waren absolut unverständlich. Total verwirrt und überfordert von der Situation vergaß ich warum ich überhaupt in den Kreis getreten bin, meine Aufmerksamkeit galt meinen Freunden und dieser Barriere zwischen uns. Es dauerte eine Weile bis ich verstand, dass sie mir aufgeregt zugestikulierten ich solle mich schnell umdrehen. Als ich dies tat, bot sich mir ein unwirkliches Schauspiel: Der Rauch aus der Schale begann sich zu konzentrieren und die Umrisse einer weiblichen Gestalt zu formen, bevor er verschiedene Farben annahm, sich Konturen zu bilden schienen und schlussendlich eine nackte Frau mit pinker Haut sowie zwei Hörnern und drei goldenen Augen in der Mitte des Kreises levitierte. "Oh Hallo mein Süßer, du hast gerufen?", sprach die Gestalt flurtend zu mir. Ich war komplett paralysiert und brachte kein Wort heraus. Die dämonische Frau stieg herab auf den Boden, lief musternd um mich herum und sagte: "Ach wie niedlich schüchtern du bist! Aber du musst auch nicht reden, es gibt nicht allzu viele Gründe eine Sukkubus zu beschwören, ich kann mir denken worum es geht.", bevor sie mit ihren Händen über meine Schultern und Brust strich, woraufhin sich auf einmal meine Kleidung aufzulösen begann. Immernoch perplex und überfordert stammelte ich ich irgendetwas vor mir her und fing an nervös zu zittern, was sie zu amüsieren schien. Sie schnippste mit den Fingern und es erschienen zwei weitere Gestalten hinter ihr. Ein hochgewachsener Mann mit obsidianschwarzer Haut, langen Spitzohren, kurzen weißen Haaren und ebenso weißen Augen ohne Pupillen, und ein Hermaphrodit mit roter Haut, langem rosafarbenen Haar, smaragdgrünen Augen und vier kleinen Hörnern. Wie ich nunmal so bin, war plötzlich meine größte Sorge nicht zu wissen welche Pronomen bei einem Hermaphroditen angemessen sind. Da erhob der männliche Dämon das Wort: "Herrin Abeko, wie können wir dir zu Diensten sein?" "Stefan, Minias, meine lieben, wir haben hier einen kleinen Leckerbissen zu vernaschen." war ihre Antwort darauf. Alle drei grinsten sich erst gegenseitig an, bevor ihre Blicke mir galten und meine Nervosität mir auf den Kreislauf schlug, was mich zum taumeln brachte. Auf ein weiteres Schnipsen von Abeko materialisierte sich aus dem Nichts ein einfacher Klappstuhl in der Mitte des Kreises, zu dem sie mich führte und auf den ich mich setzte. Sie massierte mir meine Schultern und die Aufregung zusammen mit der Nähe zu nackten Körpern ließ mir das Blut in den Schritt schießen. Minias kniete sich vor mich und begann mir einen Blowjob zu geben. Ich spürte wie erst die Spitzen einer gespaltene Zunge meine Eichel umschmeichelten, und sich dann die überraschend lange Zunge um mein Glied wickelte während dieses tiefer in den Hals gezogen zu werden schien. Abeko wandte sich an den dritten Dämon "Stefan, willst du Minias nicht beim verwöhnen unterstützen?" woraufhin sich dieser auch vor mir hinkniete. Minias entließ mich wieder aus ihrseinem Mund und beide begannen damit ihre langen Zungen um meinen Penis zu schlingen um mir etwas zu geben, dass ich nur als extrem feuchten Toungejob beschreiben kann. Abeko streichte mir ein paar Haare aus dem Gesicht und fragte ob es mir gefällt. Ich stammelte nur zögerlich ein unsicheres "J-ja?!?" vor mir her. Plötzlich stieg Abeko über mich, griff in meine Haare, riss meinen Kopf nach hinten und presste ihre Schamlippen gegen meinen Mund. Ich begann sie in dieser unbequemen Stellung zu lecken. Als mein Nacken und Rücken aufgrund der gebeugten Haltung anfing weh zutun, schien auch der Blowjob langsam immer unangenehmer zu werden. Es fühlte sich rau und trocken an, als würde jemand Sand über meine Erektion reiben, nicht mit Zungen entlangfahren. Ich wollte etwas sagen, doch Abeko presste nun meinen Kopf gewaltsam in ihren Schritt. Auf einmal schob sich etwas aus ihren Schamlippen raus in meinen Mund hinein und wuchs bis es an mein Gaumenzäpfchen stieß, was mich reflexartig dazu brachte mit aller Kraft Abeko von mir wegzudrücken und zwischen Husten sowie Würgen nach Luft zu ringen. Noch bevor ich nach dem Schock irgendwie verarbeiten konnte was grade passiert war, schlug mir Abeko mit schwingender Hüfte mehrmals ein riesiges Glied durchs Gesicht. Ich wollte mir die Hände schützend vor dies halten, doch das wurde unterbunden durch Hände die meine Handgelenke griffen und nach hinten zog während sich ein Fuß auf meinem Nacken plazierte. Der schmerzhafte Blowjob endete abrupt, doch zog mir dafür jemand zusätzlich an den Haaren, was mich aufheulen ließ, und man drückte mir die Nase zu. Abeko schob mir langsam ihren Penis in meinen nun offenen Mund und dann immer tiefer in den Rachen hinein. Ich hatte das Gefühl gleichzeitig würgen und schlucken zu müssen. Ein saures brennen stieg meinen Hals auf, welches von einem schmerzhaften Drücken sodann wieder runter gepresst wurde. Ich bekam eine Art Schluckauf, konnte aber keine Luft schnappen. Während ich fühlte wie mir Tränen aus den Augen liefen, sich kalter Schweiß auf meiner Stirn bildete, mein Herz noch schneller wurde und mein Körper unkontrollierbar zu zittern begann, wurde ich fast ohnmächtig. Doch dann zog man meinen Oberkörper nach hinten und den Schwanz aus meinem Hals, wodurch ich kurz Luft schnappen konnte bevor ich mich erbrechen musste. Noch verwirrt durch den Sauerstoffmangel, halb blind durch die Tränen und angeekelt vom Erbrochenen im Bart sowie neben mir, wurde mir der Kopf wieder rumgerissen und das Riessnglied in den Hals gejagt. Doch diesesmal wurde mein Kopf gewaltsam und heftig vor-&zurück geschoben während Abeko ebenfalls rhythmisch mit der Hüfte zustieß und mir brutal den Rachen sowie Hals zerfickte. Speichel floss mir unkontrollierbar in den Bart und lief mir den Hals runter, welcher vor Schmerz langsam taub wurde. Als mein Bewusstsein wieder zu schwinden begann, löste sich der Griff an meinem Kopf, der Fuß wurde von meinem Rücken genommen, meine Arme losgelassen und das Riesenglies aus meinem Rachen gezogen. Wieder konnte ich grade nur ein paar mal einatmen und wurde direkt an den Haaren nach vorne gezogen und damit auf alle Viere gezwungen, noch bevor ich richtig zu Sinnen kommen konnte. Ich röchelte noch einmal, da drang der Schwanz wieder in meinen Mund ein. Ein neuer Schwall Tränen schoss mir aus den Augen und während ich den Würgereflex zu unterdrücken versuchte um das Gefühl des Erstickens etwas hinauszuzögern, hörte ich Abeko plötzlich sagen: "Hey Stefan, das müsste für dich doch ziemlich einladend aussehen", woraufhin mich zwei Hände kräftig an der Hüfte packten und ein großes Gemächt sich trocken zwischen meine Pobacken schob und in meinen ungedehnten Anus eindrang. Ein furchtbarer Schmerz erfüllte meinen kompletten Darm, ich hatte das Gefühl zu platzen und wollte schreien, bekam mit dem Schwanz im Hals aber kaum mehr als ein grunzen zustande. Da begann Abeko laut zu stöhnen. Als sie ihren Penis aus mir rauszog, spürte ich neben den Schmerzen wie mir etwas warmes den Hals runter lief und musste würgen bevor ich nach Luft ringen konnte. Stefans Stöße wurden immer heftiger und die Schmerzen ließen nicht nach. Als ich wieder genug zu Atem kam versuchte ich zu schreien, war aber zu heiser und brachte nur ein Gurgeln hervorgepresst. Nun stöhnte auch Stefan und nach einem letzten gewaltsamen Stoß von dem ich dachte er hätte meine Innereien komplett durchbohrt, füllte sich mein Inneres auch von dieser Körperhälfte mit etwas warmen. Meine Arme gaben nun nach und ich ließ mich einfach nach vorne fallen, doch noch bevor ich flach liegen oder denken konnte, wurde meine Hüfte wieder gepackt und es drang nochmal etwas großes in mich ein. Erneut ein misslungener Schreiversuch meinerseits über den Minias hinweg sprach: "Blut und Sperma sind mir das liebste Gleitgel", und mit wem einzuschlagen schien bevor sier mir auf den Hintern klatschte und schneller zustieß als Stefan. Dieser stand nun vor mir und zog an meinen Haaren, so dass ich mich mit meinen zitternden Armen und trotz der Schmerzen in meinem Arsch hochdrücken musste. Er streckte mir seinen stinkenden Prügel unter die Nase und verlangte von mir ihn sauber zu lecken. Ich war noch total paralysiert und konnte das gehörte sinnmäßig nicht verstehen, da wurde schon wieder an meinem Haar gezogen und meine Nase zugedrückt, was mich zu der Reaktion zwang meinen Mund zu öffnen in den er sofort sein schmieriges Glied schob. Verängstigt und mich an seine Worte erinnernd begann ich es abzulecken und ihm einen zu blasen ohne das Mordsteil wieder an mein Gaumenzäpfchen zu bekommen. Da hörte ich Abeko neben mir: "Ach der Anblick macht mich ja sofort wieder Hart. Stefan rück mal, da ist doch sicherlich Platz für zwei zwischen diesen Lippen!" und mit diesen Worten presste sich eine weitere Eichel an meinen Mund, der ich Einlass gewähren musste als mir erneut die Nase zugehalten wurde. Als zusätzlich zu den Schmerzen die meinen Kopf, Hals, Rücken, Bauch, Darm, Arsch, Arme und Beine erfüllten, noch meine Mundwinkel wehzutun begannen, stöhnte Minias lustvoll: "Oh scheiße ist die Szenerie geil, ich pump das süße Miststück jetzt mal richtig voll!" und ergoss sich in mein Arschloch während mir Stefan und Abeko in den Mund spritzten. Bevor ich irgendwie reagieren konnte wurde mir mit jeweils einer Hand der Mund und die Nase verschlossen sowie von einem anderen paar Händen der Kopf hochgehalten, wodurch ich die eklige schleimige Flüssigkeit schlucken musste. Währenddessen fühlte ich wie mir am Arsch rumgefummelt wurde, aus dem das Sperma von Stefan und Minias zu laufen schien. Als die Hände meine Atemwege wieder frei ließen wollte ich verzweifelt atmen und würgen, doch es schob sich direkt eine schleimbenetzte Hand in meinen Mund. Ich fühlte wieder die Tränendrüse und wie ein pelziges Gefühl sich in meinem Mundraum ausbreitete, begleitet von einem säuerlich fauligen Geschmack. Minias wandte sich an mich und flüsterte in einem zärtlichen Ton zu mir: "Das ist der Saft unserer gemeinsamen Liebe, den musst du probieren!" warauf Abeko zu ihrihm sagt: "Komm, lass uns noch mehr machen, das Schätzchen hier hält sich doch ganz gut!" Mein Sprechorgan war zu wund und mein Geist zu taub um mit der Hand zwischen den Lippen irgendwie wiedersprechen zu können, ich konnte nur still weinen und mir ein baldiges Ende ersehnen. Man ließ meinen Kopf wieder los und ich sackte einfach nur kraftlos zusammen. Ein weiteres Mal wurde ich kräftig an der Hüfte gepackt und man rückte mich in gewünschte Position, bevor es wie befürchtet mit der Analpenetration weiterging. Ich war für einen ganz kurzen Moment erleichtert als ich feststellte, dass mein Anus inzwischen weit genug gedehnt war um es nicht mehr als unbeschreiblich schmerzhaft zu empfinden, doch dies schlug schnell um als ich Abeko "Minias Liebes, beug' dich mal vor, dann passe ich da auch noch rein" sagen hörte. Etwas rieb kurz an meinem Damm und fand dann mit einem Ruck seinen Weg in mich. Ein jammerndes, von Husten unterbrochenes Krächtzen entwich mir als die beiden Glieder sich abwechselnd in mir bewegten und immer tiefer vorzustießen schienen. Als der Husten nachließ und ich unkontrolliert vor Schmerz keuchte, beugte sich Stefan zu mir runter. "Was war das? Du willst noch mehr?" Fragte er? Mein kraftloses "'uh 'uh" zwischen dem Stöhnen wurde natürlich nicht wie gewollt als Verneinung verstanden. Er richtete sich wieder auf, legte seine Hände um meinen Hals und hob mich an. Da ich mich nicht schnell genug mit den Armen abstützte, war kurzzeitig das Gewicht meines Oberkörpers und das des Kopfes auf meiner Kehle konzentriert, was mich reflexartig zum Würgen brachte. Sofort schob Stefan seinen Penis zwischen meine Kiefer bis in meine Luftröhre. Mein ganzer Körper tat nur noch weh, ich konnte dass was mit mir gemacht wurde, kaum noch richtig wahrnehmen. Mein Geist begann abzudriften. Ich bekam noch mit wie die drei wieder in mir kamen. dann zog Stefan mir an den Haaren und zwang mich erneut auf den Boden, drehte mich auf den Rücken bevor er erst meine Beine anhob, so dass mein eigenes Geschlechtsteil über meinem Gesicht baumelte, bevor er sie mit sich mit ihnen zusammen nach vorne beugte und wieder in meinen geschundenen Arsch eindringang, wobei ich das Elend nun direkt vor Augen hatte und das Sperma rausgepresst wurde, welches langsam Damm und Geschlechtsteil entlang lief bevor es mir ins Gesicht tropfte. Ich versuchte mich von der Realität zu lösen, als Minias und Abeko sich neben mich knieten und mir gemeinsam das verschmierte Glied massierten, bis es erigiert war und sie mir einen Handjob geben konnten während sie sich selbst befriedigten. Irgendwann reagierte mein Körper auf die überstimulierung mit einem Orgasmus der mir zusammen mit den der beiden anderen ins bereits vollgetropfte Gesicht schoss. Stefan setzte noch mit einem Analcreampie nach, den er aus mir rauspresste und runterlaufen ließ, bevor er seinen Griff löste und ich mich wimmernd auf dem Boden zusammenkauern konnte.
Stefan beugte sich wieder zu mir runter und strich mir eine klebrige Haarsträhne hinters Ohr während er keck "das Glänzen in deinem Gesicht sagt mir, dass dir diese Erfahrung sehr gefallen haben muss. Von meiner aus können wir das Gerne demnächst wiederholen" in selbiges flüsterte. Dann küsste er meine von Sperma verschmierte Stirn und ohne ein weiteres Wort verschwanden die Dämonen in einer nach Schwefel stinkenden Rauchwolke. Der Bannkreis schien sich mit ihrem Verschwinden gelöst zu haben und meine Freunde eilten mir sogleich zur Hilfe. Ich bat zitternd und weinend darum, mich endlich umbringen zu dürfen, doch meine beste Freundin sagte: "Aber schlimmer kanns jetzt nie mehr kommen!", als eine neue Wolke enstand aus der Stefan, Abeko und Minias mit drei weiteren Dämonen traten. Mit einem Lächeln verkündete Stefan: "Für die nächste Runde haben wir Freunde mitgebracht!" Ich schrie, zwar heiser, doch trotzdem voller Inbrunst.
-Ende-
submitted by derForsty to u/derForsty [link] [comments]


2020.05.28 12:00 Kakacgames Malý krátký trailer na nový film: Dva herci. Trochu jsem skomolil na konci datum, takže pravé datum je 29.5.

Malý krátký trailer na nový film: Dva herci. Trochu jsem skomolil na konci datum, takže pravé datum je 29.5. submitted by Kakacgames to FlyGunCZ [link] [comments]


2020.05.28 11:49 Kakacgames Tady je menší trailer na film ,,Dva herci''. Mejs se ve filmu taky objeví. Na konci jsem datum trochu skomolil, takže platné datum je 29.5.

Tady je menší trailer na film ,,Dva herci''. Mejs se ve filmu taky objeví. Na konci jsem datum trochu skomolil, takže platné datum je 29.5. submitted by Kakacgames to kryplosaurus [link] [comments]


2020.05.24 19:21 Jimohwasiu Goldario

physical mining, gems production lines and adornments retailers from around the globe,

https://preview.redd.it/9dpn9e36wq051.png?width=796&format=png&auto=webp&s=f27d42b4088e5a9a4c16126e66ec64310f7dd119
Hi everybody this time, I am going to give you a short outline of the * Goldario * venture, so read it cautiously, read it apparently, and realize how helpful it is for you later on.

Goldario made a stage for its gems biological system and utilized its budgetary model on the blockchain. This is the tokenization of a current emerald mine, a stone cutting and cleaning plant, an adornments manufacturing plant and a system of retailers. Specifically, along these lines, it permits individuals with lower venture lows and individuals with high total assets or comparable institutional financial specialists. This makes an environment wherein individuals can exploit their situation in the fundamental business, get productive intermittent advantages and profits.

Goldario is the aftereffect of an effective framework business in Brazil. To extend our exercises far and wide, we have created explicit plans and yearning plans that we would like to accomplish through worldwide participation with financial specialists. The essential thought of ​​business is as per the following.

Goldario tries to saddle the intensity of inventive blockchain innovation and supplant the whole ecological cycle: legitimately from metal mining to completed retail items and achievements. Utilizing blockchain, cryptography and keen agreements, it looks to expand trust between the gatherings to the exchange, permitting exchanges to be led in straightforward registers. Moreover, through the mix of cutting edge innovations, for example, AI, AI, enlarged reality, geographic area following, blockchain and keen agreements, Goldario offers budgetary instruments that are unmatched in the conventional money related present reality.

ABOUT GOLDARIO PROJECTS.

Goldario is the principal stage on the planet that tries to change the ecological pattern of mining valuable metals (gold), stones (emeralds), adornments and retail organizations. This monetary instrument is an advanced piece of gold and emerald mines and its own gems creation for the worldwide market.

Our view

We intend to reform the whole eco-style of the adornments business utilizing the most recent advancements, to be specific blockchain, cryptography, keen agreements, AI and Fintech. We endeavor to make a biological system in which it will be simpler for people - both customary buyers and institutional financial specialists - to put resources into organizations that are bolstered by a full environment of valuable metals, stone production lines, adornments and retail, just as keep up security and examining. openings and liquidity.

Our main goal

Goldario endeavors to turn into the world's driving foundation of decision for shoppers and ventures occupied with the gems business. It plans to empower clients to acquire and claim physical mining rights, adornments makers and gems retailers from around the globe, and in this manner make the benefits that underlie the potential help for Goldario tokens (GLD) .

https://preview.redd.it/mmzbikudwq051.png?width=1913&format=png&auto=webp&s=15d6f209af1d9ad42eb6d37f02832efc5a8dea6e
HOW IT WORKS?

● John likewise prescribed selling GLD tokens to one of his companions, Tom, who chose to purchase a one hundred thousand US dollar token. As a commission, he gets a specific level of the sum bought by his companion/referral.

● Now a similar referral is Tom, and afterward different companions, for example, Emma, ​​who made a speculation/buy in the measure of GLD Tokens in the measure of $ 5,000. Consequently, while Emma's buy will allow Tom the option to get a prize, a specific level of the prize will likewise be given to John as the primary connection.

GLD TOKEN FEATURES:

● Scalability.

GLD tokens can process any number of exchange volumes - whenever - without the chance of disappointment or the presence of indications of stoppage. In contrast to the brought together money related structures of uses and installments, there is no single purpose of disappointment, and all exchanges are open and straightforward to the whole network.

● Decentralization.

GLD tokens are decentralized and network possessed. Done on the Ethereum arrange, which ensures the nonattendance of an essential issue of disappointment or bureaucratic control.

● Security.

For advanced and arrange resources, GLD Token uses Ethereum-based proof of work to affirm exchanges, guaranteeing that no programmers or gatecrashers can control any exchanges.

● least expense

GLD tokens will offer charges that are fundamentally lower than other huge online installment frameworks that permit clients to send, get or execute any GLD tokens with insignificant expense.

● Interchangeable

GLD tokens can be handily traded with a pronouncement, for instance, US dollars, euros and pounds. Moreover, it can likewise be reclaimed with different merchandise, for example, valuable stones and gems through the Goldario stage.

● Passive salary

Access automated revenue by buying and holding a GLD token. After a specific time, the salary got from pioneering movement is circulated among the holders of tokens, which are relative to their property.

● Utilities

In contrast to conventional cryptographic forms of money, the expense of which relies upon hypothesis, flexibly and advertise request, GLD tokens are legitimately utilized in the Goldario environment, where they can be traded for metals and valuable stones.

● Simple

exchange trade and move of GLD tokens is as straightforward as sending an email. You should simply download your current ERC20 Token help wallet.

● straightforwardness

The straightforward, irreversible nature of the blockchain gives open access to data whenever, giving a totally straightforward procedure, precise information records and equivalent necessities for everybody.

Promoting STRATEGY

The executives at Goldario accepts that advertising and network advancement assume a significant job in the accomplishment of the stage, particularly in crowdfunding ventures that include non-experts. Arranging a procedure for advancing our task from the absolute first day is significant, and we utilize a multilateral methodology that amplifies constrained assets and utilizations different conventional and non-customary showcasing channels.

Here are a few systems we will utilize:

● extraordinary showcasing words

Sound-related promoting is the point at which one individual notices a particular item or task to someone else and a message is sent. At Goldario, we will offer rewards and promoting efforts to our token individuals and, as a prize, to the individuals who contribute prizes, with GLD tokens who endeavor to accomplish the objective by growing our locale base.

● COMMUNAL OFFERS

One of the most significant parts of a crypto venture is its advancement so that each and every individual who holds it has a spot to spend it. As a stage that legitimately takes part in the creation of metals and valuable stones for gems, Goldario exploits by offering direct utility by tolerating GLD tokens as an installment technique for valuable stones and metals. Furthermore, in our endeavors to make GLD a mass installment and cost-sparing system, our promoting group has directed thorough research and built up the best procedures for individuals from varying backgrounds that are remembered for every single segment datum.

● CRYPTO EXPOS

To pass on our message to potential speculators, brokers and the overall population, we lead data battles the world over and consistently take part in digital currencies and blockchain gatherings. We are supporting a major occasion, and our profoundly proficient promoting group is effectively taking part in this presentation to guarantee the most extreme change of GLD tokens.

● PRESS RELEASE

We likewise normally distribute public statements on different money related news and driving innovation locales. Moreover, we likewise endeavor to impart our venture to driving distributers and authors and along these lines get inclusion for the task.

● STRATEGIC ALLIANCE

We likewise keep on working with significant shippers around the globe who advantage the two gatherings and help increment the receipt of GLD tokens.

● CELEBRITY SUPPORT

To guarantee most extreme open reach, we lead occasions and ads where our GLD tokens are bolstered by eminent VIPs from the music and film businesses.

● Register ICO/IEO site

We additionally endeavor to enlist our mass deals on all driving IEO/ICO locales. This will assist us with arriving at an immediate objective crowd, individuals who are keen on digital currency.


https://preview.redd.it/16iktu96xq051.png?width=533&format=png&auto=webp&s=23946a3988a32a19aa7839cabd534910dee285a3
GLD TOKEN

GLD Token is an ERC20 token utilized on the Ethereum blockchain arrange, which works as a monetary instrument that offers advanced parts for the primary gold and emerald and residential gems creation for the worldwide market. A token can work as a store of qualities, and furthermore permits shared qualities ​​to be traded in a situation without trust dependent on a square chain.

Available to be purchased

The facts demonstrate that Goldario is definitely not a conventional startup since it procured shares in Emerald and the gold mine, possesses a gold creation and cleaning plant and has a committed group devoted to this. In any case, to actualize the Goldario biological system as per the guide and empower network interest in the environment, Goldario will offer introductory coin contributions or mass deals for open support.

Individual TOURS

The primary stage, to be specific the Private Round, will be given to singular merchants, institutional speculators, investors, Indonesian residents and associations occupied with metallurgy and valuable stone creation. During this cycle, a unique instrument for getting extra prizes will be received, the subtleties of which will be distributed on the site https://goldario.com .

Fundamental SALES OF IEO

At this stage, Goldario the executives will furnish clients/financial specialists with the fundamental open deals round, for example mass deals, which will be completed as a component of a dispatch launchpad offer for a specific trade or offered straightforwardly through CRM programming. Token deal exercises will be trailed by an immediate trade of Goldario tokens from their commitments.

TOKENOMICS Token

financial offer - GOLDARIO (ICO token cost: 1.00 USD per token)

● pre-deal

will be executed utilizing shrewd agreements and system addresses, which will be sent with directions by email and might possibly be on the page. Presale is restricted to 100 million tokens.

● token deal

will offer 300 million tokens to people in general as delicate tops. They will be sold under brilliant agreements until each of the 300 million are sold inside 4 months, whichever starts things out. Costs will be set in etheUS dollars. The purchaser will get an ERC20 token toward the finish of the deal or promptly during IEO.

● Minimum increment for pre-deals and deals consolidated

It will cost around 300 million dollars, in front of deals and assessed broadcasting in real time (around 03 million tokens)

● A test of about $ 1 billion. The United States is laden with extraordinary challenges for this undertaking.

Showcasing endeavors will get 90 million tokens, or 30 percent. This is to pay the wages of everybody and organizations that endeavored to make and deal with a business token. 1 percent of these tokens will before long be accessible for trade - these are prize and serious prizes. The staying two percent will be hindered for 3 months after the finish of the deal.

Group SALE INFORMATION
Token distribution ● 5%: sold via block processor
● 15%: distribution of bonuses at BP
● 20%: change in sales
● 10%: sale discount
● 50%: country representatives
Distribution plan ● 60%: direct investment
● 30%: marketing and rebound
● 4%: operation
● 3%: platform development
● 2%: team development
● 1%: founding team
Guide

Goldario has a current foundation in Brazil called G44 SA (CNPJ: 28839840/0001-61) and where it had Emerald Mines (G44 Mineracao (CNPJ: 31975883/0001-89) Cutting Gem stones and cleaning plant, industrial facility made gems , gems retailers VERT Vivant (CNPJ: 34461941/0001-44) and HJOMAA E G44 Mineração (CNPJ: 30,033,381/0001-76). supplies of gold mines with countless stores. Inoex Exchnage (Crypto Trading/Crypto Exchange) (CNPJ : 31 548 911/0001–81) To build up the fundamental framework and extend our activities around the globe, we have created explicit plans and eager guides, which are recorded beneath.

https://preview.redd.it/ewtlrwmsxq051.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=23b0f0dd8ddaa3572b0b7b91f58aa47ac1bdf5f0
** GOLDARIO EXECUTIVE TEAM **

https://preview.redd.it/d1zqabo3yq051.png?width=759&format=png&auto=webp&s=1047faef07948501d21c0a56a9edf84c2c606936
For more data about this venture, see the connection underneath:
SITE: https://www.goldario.com/ WHITEPAPER: http://goldario.com/goldario-white-paper.pdf FACEBOOK: https://web.facebook.com/goldario.token/ Twitter: https: / /twitter.com/GoldarioToken/ TELEGRAM: https://t.me/GoldarioOfficial YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAQofp1GK7_A_3jDY82KzKg/videos

Author: Bitcointalk Username: cryptosignal Bitcointalk profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1564898
submitted by Jimohwasiu to u/Jimohwasiu [link] [comments]


2020.05.21 04:09 Eminemos 8. míle je americký dramatický film z roku 2002. Režisérem filmu je Curtis Hanson. Hlavní role ve filmu ztvárnili Eminem, Mekhi Phifer, Brittany Murphy, Kim Basinger a Taryn Manning. Wikipedie Datum uvedení: 20. března 2003 (Česko) Režisér: Curtis Hanson Premiéra: 8. listopad 2002

8. míle je americký dramatický film z roku 2002. Režisérem filmu je Curtis Hanson. Hlavní role ve filmu ztvárnili Eminem, Mekhi Phifer, Brittany Murphy, Kim Basinger a Taryn Manning. Wikipedie Datum uvedení: 20. března 2003 (Česko) Režisér: Curtis Hanson Premiéra: 8. listopad 2002 submitted by Eminemos to rap [link] [comments]


2020.05.07 22:46 Miller-Blogs DIE ENDGULTIGE METHODE, UM FOLGER AUF INSTAGRAMM ZU GEWINNEN.

Es ist erst vor einem Monat passiert und alles war ein Zufall. Ich habe auf Instagram geschaut, wie ich es ein paar Mal am Tag getan habe, um schone Fotos zu sehen und meine Beitrage zu uberprufen, als ich mehr aus Unbeholfenheit als aus Absicht meinen Finger von links nach rechts auf dem Bildschirm bewegte und an einer anderen Stelle in der Anwendung erschien .
Es ist ein Bildschirm, den ich normalerweise ein wenig haufig besuche, und der uns die Aktivitaten von Dritten zeigt, dh deren Vorlieben…. die angefangen haben zu folgen etc ... Es ist kein Ort, der mich sehr interessiert, obwohl ich es jetzt gemocht habe.
Es war ein Donnerstag um halb eins in der Nacht, als ich von der Kirsche fiel. Ich wei? nicht, ob ich ein verwirrtes oder idiotisches Gesicht hatte.
Er hat gerade Bots entdeckt, obwohl ich zu dieser Zeit Fotograf bin und weder Computer noch Community habe, noch jemals gegoogelt habe, wie ich mehr Follower fur Instagram bekommen kann, wusste ich immer noch nicht einmal, was sie waren.
Eine Freundin musste es mir erklaren, die auch einen Account in diesem sozialen Netzwerk hat, als ich ihr erzahlte, was ich gesehen hatte und was ich immer noch nicht wurdigen konnte.
Und was hatte ich gesehen und ich habe nicht gerade angefangen zu erklaren?
DIE DISKUSSION
Nun, einer meiner Lieblingskuchen, und der gro?e Bewunderung bekundete, einige sehr seltsame Dinge zu tun.
Jede Viertelstunde folgte zehn Profilen und gab abwechselnd 8 Likes. Seltsamerweise anderte sich in der Zeit, in der ich sie beobachtete, ihre Anzahl der Gefolgsleute kaum um ein paar Zahlen nach oben oder unten. Das hei?t ... er muss aufhoren, zehn anderen gleichzeitig und jedes Mal zu folgen.
Aber das war nicht das Auffalligste. Was mich wirklich umgehauen hatte, waren die neuen Profile, die zum Beispiel Folgendes enthielten: ; dass ich jetzt gerade uberpruft habe, dass es aufgerufen wurde, falls Sie es uberprufen mochten: @ innovatorsunite05 und dass es als Avatar ein Foto des unglaublichen Hulk und 0 Veroffentlichungen hat.
Nun, was hat einer der gro?ten Gastro-Influencer des Landes nach dieser Sache getan? Gut , Erhohen Sie exponentiell die Anzahl der Follower auf Instagram .
In den folgenden Tagen besuchte ich fast taglich den beruhmten Bildschirm und stellte fest, dass andere Influencer genau das Gleiche taten. Menschen, die Sie sehr gut kannten, lieben bereits vorausgesetzten spontanen und naturlichen Erfolg. Ja, an dieser Stelle mochte ich klarstellen, dass nicht alle Influencer diese Methoden anwenden "scheinen" in der RRSS mit vielen kas. Das hei?t, es gibt diejenigen, die es tun und die ... NEIN!
Da Instagram nicht mehr chronologisch ist, wendet es einen Algorithmus an, der auswahlt, was wir sehen und was nicht. Instagram's Algorithmus belohnt die Interaktion zwischen Community-Mitgliedern . Je mehr Interaktion ... desto gro?er die Sichtbarkeit und desto gro?er die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Fortschritts.
Die Bots werden gekauft und generieren Sie, was Instagram von Ihnen verlangt, und das macht Sie sichtbarer. interagieren. Und wie funktionieren Bots?
Dan folgt und folgt automatisch, kommentiert automatisch, mag und ermoglicht es Ihnen, Aufgaben zu planen, bei denen alle oder einige der vorherigen Aktionen zum gewunschten Datum und zur gewunschten Uhrzeit kombiniert werden.
Und funktioniert !!
MEIN ABENTEUER UND KOLLATERALE SCHADEN
Als Reporterin in Cuatros „21 Tagen“, Samantha Villar, wurde ich einige Tage lang ein menschlicher Roboter und versuchte, die gleichen Dinge zu tun, die Bots tun, aber manuell. Stoff!!
In drei Tagen habe ich mehr Anhanger gewonnen als im letzten Monat, aber ich habe kaum gegessen und geschlafen. (nur ein Scherz) Wie auch immer, es war ein echter Schmerz im Arsch, wenn ich den Ausdruck akzeptiere.
Ich tat es, als ich mitten im Film auf jemanden in doppelter Akte wartete, im Restaurant, wahrend er zur Kenntnis kam, am Tisch im Haus meiner Schwiegermutter (nur ein Scherz, armes Ding) und demnachst.
Da ich offensichtlich kein Roboter bin, bestand kein Risiko, dass Instagram mich bestraft. Das ist das Risiko, Bots einzustellen. Ihr Konto verschwindet moglicherweise in einem sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Zustand und verliert all die Follower, die beide Geld verdienen, um es zu bekommen. Meine Frequenz und mein Tempo waren nicht so genau wie bei einer Schweizer Uhr, daher war ich unauffalliger als der Top-Bot. Peeero:
- Als ich es mir zur Aufgabe gemacht hatte, Verruckten zu folgen und ohne hinzuschauen, fand ich eine andere private Nachricht, die sich bei mir mit so viel Gefuhl bedankte, dass ich, ich bin ein Mensch, sie nur behalten konnte, anstatt funf Minuten lang den Kick zu geben. Deshalb habe ich meiner Liste der Profile einige andere hinzugefugt, die mich nicht fur das Absolute interessieren.
- Da das gleiche mir acht bis achtzig gab, hatte ich Anfragen an private Profile stellen sollen, das hei?t nicht offentlich, die eine Genehmigung ihres Besitzers erfordern. Als ich die Benachrichtigung erhielt, dass Ihre Anfrage angenommen hat…. Ich war nicht gewissenhaft, ihn mit meinem nicht mehr folgenden Ballast zu verprugeln.
Aus dieser Erfahrung habe ich viel uber das Thema gelesen, weil es auf soziologischer Ebene gro?e Neugier geweckt hat. Zur gleichen Zeit, in der ich mich mit Stolz auf meine 10.000 Follower, die durch Puls gewonnen wurden, aufblahte, sah ich sie bald viel brillanter und prachtiger als die 76.000 von oder die 145.000 von
FAZIT ::
In meinen Lesungen habe ich uberpruft, was:
Roboter erzeugen 51% des Datenverkehrs im Netzwerk , der Rest ... 49% stammen aus menschlichen Handlungen und dies hat Mark Zuckerbergs Haare zu Berge stehen lassen, der das zugibt soziale Netzwerke wurden gebrochen.
Die Essenz von Netzwerken ist verloren gegangen, wo die Interaktion zwischen realen Menschen vorherrschen sollte. Die Arbeit von Bots (vollstandig von Instagram verboten) macht die normale Interaktion einer Person sehr vergleichsweise reduziert und tragt dazu bei, dass normalerweise verwaltete Profile weniger sichtbar erscheinen und es daher schwieriger ist, neue Follower zu finden (ich mochte Sie aber nicht demoralisieren, aber Wenn Sie sich gefragt haben, warum Sie so langsam gewachsen sind, seit Instagram nicht mehr chronologisch ist, haben Sie bereits die Antwort.
Um sichtbar zu bleiben und zu wachsen, mussen Sie zusatzliche Anstrengungen unternehmen und buchstablich live an Ihrem Handy hangen, um Likes zu geben, als gabe es kein Morgen, und dennoch konnen Sie nicht gegen Bots antreten.
Ich mochte wissen, welche Profile Bots verwenden .
Gut ... Woher wissen Sie, welche Profile Bots verwenden? auf Instagram ?
Es ist sehr einfach, folgen Sie einfach diesen Schritten.
- Wahlen Sie eine Zeit, in der in Instragram kaum Verkehr herrscht, z. B. nach Mitternacht oder nach dem Abendessen an einem Sonntag oder nachmittags von vier bis funf Uhr. In diesen Stunden wissen Sie, dass beim Hochladen eines Fotos fast niemand es sehen wird weil es kaum Verkehr gibt. Die Profile programmieren die Aktionen ihrer Bots so, dass sie in diesen Momenten nachtlich und bose ausgefuhrt werden, so dass sie von ihren normalen Anhangern unbemerkt bleiben.
- Gehen Sie zum folgenden Bildschirm. Auf diesen Bildschirm konnen Sie zugreifen, indem Sie den Bildschirm von links nach rechts verschieben, auf dem Sie Ihre Likes und neuen Follower sehen. Wenn Sie oben auf einem Bildschirm nachsehen, steht "Sie" und auf dem anderen "gefolgt".
- Der folgende Bildschirm zeigt die Aktivitat der Profile, denen Sie folgen. Schieben Sie es nach unten und prufen Sie, ob ein Avatar immer wieder angezeigt wird. Schauen Sie sich die Zeit an, die Instagram markiert. Vor 10 Minuten, vor 20 Minuten, vor 30 Minuten.
- Wenn Sie ein Profil sehen, das dieselbe Aktion wiederholt, folgen Sie anderen Profilen oder mogen Sie sie mit einer genauen zeitlichen Trittfrequenz. Dieses Profil interagiert nicht, es ist ein Roboter, den es unter Versto? gegen die Instagram-Richtlinien angeheuert hat:
Grundbedingung nº 15: Sie durfen keine Konten im Service von erstellen nicht autorisierte Mittel , unter anderem die Verwendung automatisierter Gerate, Skripte, Roboter, Tracker, Spinnen oder Schaber. “ - Ein anderes Verhalten, das die Profile zeigt, die sie als Bots verwenden, ist das Betrachten der Fotos, die gefallen haben ... wenn sie eindeutig nicht in Ihrem Interesse sind (z. B. ein Foto, das ein Geschaft mit geschnitzten Nageln in Honk Kong hochladt, oder die Ankundigung eines DJs Auftritt in einem Nachtclub in Texas oder das Geburtstagsfoto Ihres Gro?vaters auf einer ehrenwerten chinesischen Familie mit dem chinesischen Text…) Es gibt auch viele Arten von Fotos von Mannern, die Bodybuilding betreiben.
DIE TRADITIONELLE METHODE.
Ich hinterlasse Ihnen diesen Artikel, der vor langer Zeit von einem Blogger geschrieben und betitelt wurde So erhalten Sie mehr Follower auf Instagram , obwohl ich im Moment ehrlich gesagt nicht wei?, ob sie ihre Philosophie beibehalt oder auf die dunkle Seite gegangen ist, weil die Versuchung fur alle da ist.
Ein guter Benutzername, eine clevere Auswahl an Bildern, ein einziges Thema, ein attraktives und harmonisches Mosaik, die beruhmten Hashtags, Postings zu Spitzenzeiten, naturliche Interaktion….
Das zusatzlich zu einer Analyse der Art der Fotos, die am meisten funktionieren, fur die die UNUM App ist sehr nutzlich, die mir den Schlussel gegeben hat, dass Schokoladenfotos diejenigen sind, auf denen sie am meisten mogen mein Instagram . Die drei am besten bewerteten sind diejenigen, die diesen Beitrag veranschaulichen.
All dies ist der Schlussel zu einer Strategie, die ohne Abweichung von der Legalitat und ohne an unlauteren Wettbewerb grenzt.
submitted by Miller-Blogs to u/Miller-Blogs [link] [comments]


2020.05.07 05:03 sport103 CARLOS HERNÁNDEZ: EIN VENEZUELANISCHES HURRIKAN, DAS DIE LATEINAMERIKANISCHEN MEISTERSCHAFTEN COSTA RICA 2018 SCHUTTELN WIRD

„Ich bin 2016 in COSTA RICA angekommen. Es geht mir sehr gut. Dieses Land hat mir die Moglichkeit gegeben, VENEZUELA weltweit in wichtigen Veranstaltungen zum Aufbau von Korpern zu vertreten.
Ich habe mein Fitness Land aufgrund der Umstande verlassen, die Ihnen allen auf der ganzen Welt bekannt sind. Ich habe das Kostbarste hinter mir gelassen, was Ihr Zuhause und Ihre Familie ist, aber mit der Gewissheit und Integritat, die ich fur mich und meine Chancen besser hatte ZUSATZLICH, UM EIN DIGNIFIZIERTES UND FRIEDLICHES LEBEN GENIESSEN ZU KONNEN. HIER ZU SEIN, HABE ICH EINMAL WIEDER BEKANNT, WAS DAS LEBEN IST, UND dafur bin ich dankbar und habe den Namen COSTA RICA auf HIGH gesetzt. ”
📷
Sehr beredte und schwangere Worte von gro?er Nostalgie, die von diesem erfahrenen Bodybuilding-Champion ausgedruckt werden.
Venezuela war nicht nur der Mutterleib, in dem gro?e Verfechter der Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit des gesamten amerikanischen Kontinents geboren wurden, es gilt auch als Wiege der Sportmeister, von Baseball oder Fu?ball uber Basketball oder Fechten bis hin zu Bodybuilding In allen Sportarten der Welt hat sich ein Venezolaner immer als Teil seiner Elite hervorgetan.
Wir machen die Einschrankung und Erinnerung an die verschiedenen IFBB Pro League, die unsere Nation besitzt, oder an die epischen Eroberungen eines bestimmten Gustavo Badell oder eines bekannten Yaxeni Oriquen, der Frau Olympia 2005 erreicht hat, um nur kurz und pragnant zu erwahnen , einige der Auszeichnungen, die im Rahmen von Bodybuilding von im Land Bol geborenen Personen erhalten wurdenívar, und bestatigen Sie damit, was wir im vorherigen Absatz angegeben haben.
In dieser Reihenfolge der Ideen und in Fortsetzung des Themas der anerkannten Galanterie und Abstammung von Champions, die venezolanische Athleten im internationalen physischen Konstruktivismus genie?en, konnen wir ihnen sagen, dass unser Freund, der Athlet Carlos Alfonso G.óMez Hernández ist kein Unbekannter in diesem sportlichen Erbe und wenn nein, schauen wir uns ihre Erfolgsbilanz an:
* 1. Platz Champion 80 kg Challenge Cup Guariqueño 2013, San Juan de los Morros, Guárico; Venezuela
* 3. Platzieren Sie bis zu 80 kg National Warriors Championship of AnzoáTegui, Venezuela 2013
* 2. Platz, Zweiter Platz 80 kg Cup 6., Open Garden City 2014 Maracay, Venezuela
* 4. Platzieren Sie bis zu 80 kg 7. Tasse., Open Garden City, Maracay 2015
* 2. Platz Platz Laufer bis zu 85 kg Expo Body Cup Caracas, Venezuela 2015
* 1., Championplatz Bis zu 85 kg und absoluter Champion des Costa Rica Cup im April 2017
* 1., Championplatz Mehr als 85 kg Puerto San José Pokal, Marz 2017; Guatemala
* 2. Platz Zweiter uber 85 kg Copa San Juan Sacatepéquez, Juni 2017; Guatemala
* Champion in der Classic Physique Division B und 2., Platz im Bodybuilding Copa Prestige in Mexiko, August 2017
* Zweiter bis zur 90 kg schweren internationalen Meisterschaft in San José, Costa Rica; November 2017
* 3. Platz in 85 Kilo und 4. Platz in der Classic Physique Division B in Mr. Olympia Amateur Sudamerika made in Colombia; Februar 2018
* 5. Platzieren Sie 90 kg in der Mexico Super Show; Juni 2018
Au?ergewohnliche Ehrungen fur unseren venezolanischen Meister. Nachdem wir den Film des Lebens zuruckgespult hatten, befanden wir uns 2012 in Caracas, der Hauptstadt Venezuelas, wo Hernández sah das Licht des Lebens, aber wo er auch als Bodybuilder geboren wurde, und genau an diesem mathematischen Punkt seiner Existenz beschlie?t der Athlet, die Wettkampfarena zu verlassen. So erzahlt uns sein Hauptdarsteller diesen Teil seiner personlichen Geschichte.
📷
„Bis dahin, Mitte 2012, wurde ich motiviert, mein Training ernsthafter zu absolvieren und zu absolvieren. Vielen Dank an diese Start-up-Trainer, die das Potenzial sahen, mich auf die Buhne zu bringen. IM GLEICHEN JAHR 2012 WAR ES MEINE DEBUT IN DEN WETTBEWERBSRENNEN, ES WAR IN DER KLASSISCHEN PHYSIKKATEGORIE IN ANZOÁTEGUI, VENEZUELA IN DER KRIEGERBECHER VON ANZOÁTEGUI, WO ICH SIEBTE WAR, NICHT SCHLECHT FUR DEN ERSTEN SCHRITT AUF DIESEM WEG UND INSBESONDERE, UM DIE UNSICHERHEIT DES ERSTEN MALS ZU BRECHEN.
Wenn Sie mir erlauben, als Erfahrung zu bringen, was dort passiert ist, werde ich Ihnen sagen, dass ich, wie jedes andere Mal, eine Neuigkeit war und fast nicht wusste, wie ich auf der Buhne posieren und herumkommen sollte. Ich war in den ersten Anrufen, aber ich habe es nicht geschafft, zu qualifizieren, aber ich habe immer noch die Erfahrung genossen, was wichtig ist. ”
Das Vorgenannte war der Ursprung, der zum Carlos Hern fuhrteández, das wissen wir jetzt alle.

HEY MAE! PURES LEBEN?

Mit dem sehr originellen und naturlichen Gru?, der in Costa Rica gegeben wird, "Hey mae, ¿pura vida?"Das ist das Aquivalent zu sagen: "Hey, Bruder, ist alles in Ordnung?"Wir haben uns heute an unseren Landsmann gewandt und Carlos Hernandez interviewt, und er antwortet uns ohne zu zogern: "Pura vida Mae" (Alles gut, Bruder).
Installiert in der ersten Reihe im bekannten Fitnessstudio des Vital Fuerte Fitness Centers in San José, Costa Rica, mit unserer Kamera und unserem Rekorder in der Hand geben wir Blei (venezolanischer Expressionismus, was bedeutet "Lass uns was spielen") zu diesem Interview.
Hernández, der gut ausgebildet ist, ist auch sehr berechnend, wenn es ums Sprechen geht, und umrei?t detaillierter seinen Aufenthalt in diesem Tica-Land (Name, mit dem die Eingeborenen Costa Ricas anerkannt werden).
„Ich musste meine Zukunft als Person und als Athlet aufgrund der Umstande in Venezuela uberdenken, und so beschloss ich, den Weg nach Costa Rica zu nehmen. Ich muss sagen, mit gro?er Freude und Dankbarkeit, dass hier in diesem schonen Land die Ticos mich auf eine sehr angenehme und angenehme Weise empfangen haben. ”
📷
Es ist sehr beruhigend, diesen Bruder zu kennen, mehr, wenn wir wissen, dass das Leben in fremden Landern schwierig ist, und mehr aus den ublichen Grunden, aus denen Sie unser Land verlassen haben. Planen Sie definitiv, in Costa Rica Fu? zu fassen?
Im Moment wohne ich hier, aber ich plane, spater nach Europa und in die USA zu expandieren. Fur dieses edle Land und seine Menschen habe ich keine Worte au?er Lob und Dank fur so viel Wertschatzung und Unterstutzung, die es Ihrem Diener gegeben hat.
Wie ist Bodybuilding in Costa Rica?
Dieser Sport boomt im Land, es gibt immer mehr Menschen, die sich auf einen Wettbewerb vorbereiten und darauf, dass diese beruhmten IFBB Pro wie Maggy Cambronero und Alex Cambronero hier in Costa Rica die Lateinamerikameisterschaften durchfuhren . Mit 7 Pro-Karten starkt Bodybuilding und Fitness nicht nur in Costa Rica, sondern in ganz Zentralamerika und der Karibik. Ich gratuliere beiden zu dieser klugen Entscheidung.
Und was halten Sie nach dem aktuellen Stand dieses Gesprachs vom neuen Boom der IFBB Pro League und des NPC?
Diese neue Etappe ist sehr interessant, da sie jedem oder diesem Athleten die Moglichkeit bietet, Profi zu werden und die gro?en Weltbuhnen ohne so viele Hindernisse zu erreichen. Daruber hinaus haben sie heute mehr auf den Respekt und die Bedeutung gegenuber dem Sportler hingewiesen, der die Seele dieses Sports ist.
Was ist das Schonste und Herausragendste am Bodybuilding als Sport?
Fur mich ist das Schone und Wichtige, was Bodybuilding hat, der unglaubliche Korperbau, der erreicht wird, wenn man sich vorbereitet. Daruber hinaus setzt es dem Praktiker die angeborene Kraft frei, sich korperlich, geistig und emotional zu uberwinden, was sich positiv auf das Wohlbefinden des Einzelnen und die Disziplin auswirkt, die zur Erzielung dieser Ergebnisse erzielt wird. Uber jede Auszeichnung oder Trophae hinaus ist dies die wichtigste oder relevanteste.
Bitte erwahnen Sie die Athleten, die Sie in diesem Sport bewundern:
Ich bewundere Mauro Pulido, IFBB Pro Bodybuilding-Athlet aus Venezuela, den aktuellen amerikanischen Champion Classic Physique Olympia von Breon Ansley und die lebende Statue Cedric McMillan Bodybuilding Pro.
Wie warst du als zertifizierter Personal Trainer und Online Coach hier im schonen Costa Rica?
Mir geht es sehr gut, da mein eigenes Team oder Team, das sich uber das Internet auf Wettbewerbe und Beratungen fur Kunden vorbereitet, sehr gut gewachsen ist. Dies alles dank der hervorragenden und uberzeugenden Ergebnisse der Kunden, auf die dann Bezug genommen wird andere Leute. Fur diejenigen, die interessiert sind, sage ich Ihnen, dass ich Ihnen die Links hinterlassen werde, um mich kontaktieren zu konnen, wenn Sie meine Anleitung benotigen oder wenn nicht, konnen Sie mich im Vital Fuerte Fitness Center in San Jos sehené, Costa Rica.
Erzahlen Sie uns von Ihrem nachsten Wettbewerb:
Mein nachster Wettbewerb wird am 27. Oktober 2018 bei den Lateinamerikanischen Meisterschaften hier in Costa Rica sein, wo ich um Procard kampfen werde. Ich werde sicher in der Classic Physique Klasse B fahren und moglicherweise im Bodybuilding bis zu 85 kg antreten.
Wie lauft die Vorbereitung fur diese Veranstaltung?
In dieser Phase ist meine Ernahrung reich an Kohlenhydraten, kombiniert mit einem moderaten Proteinverbrauch; Jede Woche werden methodische Anpassungen der Ernahrung vorgenommen, um Anderungen festzustellen.
Mein Trainingssystem hei?t Muscular Metabolic Circuit (CMM) und ist ein System progressiver Gewichtsbelastungen mit der gleichen Anzahl von Wiederholungen pro Serie. Diese Art des Trainings dient zum Abbau von Muskelfasern, die im Arbeitsbereich eine Hypertrophie auslosen. Ubrigens, ich sage Ihnen, der Schopfer dieses Systems ist meine Trainerin Krisna Estrada, er war derjenige, der diese sehr effektive Trainingsmethode in mir implementiert hat.
Meine Erganzung ist wie folgt:
Auf nuchternen Magen vor Cardio nehme ich Vita Fuerte flussiges L-Carnitin. Ich konsumiere mit meinen Hauptmahlzeiten (CLA). Vor dem Training nehme ich Stickoxid zur Vasodilatation, nach dem Training nehme ich Glutamin und am Ende nehme ich isoliertes Molkeprotein, fett- und zuckerarm. Gott sei Dank ist Vita Fuerte fur meine Nahrungserganzung verantwortlich.
Kumpel, gib uns deine Worte fur alle deine Fans und schlie?lich fur alle Leser:
Meine Worte an alle meine Anhanger und Fans konnen in zwei Satzen zusammengefasst werden:
"Es gibt keinen unfahigen Korper. Wenn dein Geist es schafft, erreicht dein Korper es. "
Der andere ware einer, der von Ihnen allen hoch anerkannt wird:
"Gib niemals auf!".
Carlos, genau in diesem Moment als Hohepunkt dieses angenehmen Gesprachs gebe ich Ihnen die nachsten Zeilen, damit Sie denjenigen, die Sie unterstutzt haben, den richtigen Dank aussprechen konnen.
An dieser Stelle mochte ich vielen Menschen danken, die der Hauptpunkt meiner Karriere waren. An meine Frau Ghiseley Romero, die ein wesentlicher Bestandteil und eine Saule meiner Unterstutzung bei all dem ist.
Dank meiner Trainerin Krisna Estrada aus Venezuela habe ich heute dank ihm diesen hochwertigen Korperbau.
Tausend Segnungen an alle Menschen in Costa Rica, die gewusst haben, wie sie auf die eine oder andere Weise ihre Unterstutzung geben konnen.
Zu meinem Trainingshaus Vitafuerte Fitness Center, das ich zu Recht als House of Champions getauft habe.
An das gesamte Arbeitsteam und Team Vitafuerte sowie an meine Arbeits- und Managementleiter, die mich sehr unterstutzt haben: Francis Castro "La Chama", Fray Jiménez und Jorge Zamora Jiménez.
Endlich zu meinem Haus des Neovital Wellnes Center Muskeltherapien und der Marke, die CR_FIT mich gesehen hat.
Vielen Dank an das gesamte MD Latino-Team fur Ihre Unterstutzung, um dies zu ermoglichen. Gott segne Sie.

EIN KLEINES MEHR UBER CARLOS HERN WISSENÁNDEZ

Name: Carlos Alfonzo G.óMez Hernández
Geburtsort und-datum: Caracas, Venezuela (11.06.88)
Beruf : Internationaler Trainer, Krafttrainingsraum und Personal Trainer auf internationaler Ebene durch den Nationalen Verband fur Bodybuilding in Venezuela; Jahr 2015
Hohe : 1,76
Nebensaison Gewicht: 96 kg
Konkurrierendes Gewicht: 85 kg im Bodybuilding und 83 kg im klassischen Korperbau
Wettbewerbskategorien: Klassischer Korperbau und Bodybuilding
Instagram: Psonaltraining
Facebook Seite : der Trainer Psonaltraining
Email : [email protected]
Wir gingen mit der Befriedigung der erfullten Pflicht und mit dem Stolz zu wissen, dass ein anderer venezolanischer Landsmann weiterhin die Flagge Venezuelas auf dem Hohepunkt des Sportlebens hisst. Bis zum nachsten Mal. Wei?t du was? Gott liebt Sie.
submitted by sport103 to u/sport103 [link] [comments]


2020.05.07 04:57 sport103 CARLOS HERNÁNDEZ: EIN VENEZUELANISCHES HURRIKAN, DAS DIE LATEINAMERIKANISCHEN MEISTERSCHAFTEN COSTA RICA 2018 SCHUTTELN WIRD

„Ich bin 2016 in COSTA RICA angekommen. Es geht mir sehr gut. Dieses Land hat mir die Moglichkeit gegeben, VENEZUELA weltweit in wichtigen Veranstaltungen zum Aufbau von Korpern zu vertreten.
Ich habe mein Fitness Land aufgrund der Umstande verlassen, die Ihnen allen auf der ganzen Welt bekannt sind. Ich habe das Kostbarste hinter mir gelassen, was Ihr Zuhause und Ihre Familie ist, aber mit der Gewissheit und Integritat, die ich fur mich und meine Chancen besser hatte ZUSATZLICH, UM EIN DIGNIFIZIERTES UND FRIEDLICHES LEBEN GENIESSEN ZU KONNEN. HIER ZU SEIN, HABE ICH EINMAL WIEDER BEKANNT, WAS DAS LEBEN IST, UND dafur bin ich dankbar und habe den Namen COSTA RICA auf HIGH gesetzt. ”
📷
Sehr beredte und schwangere Worte von gro?er Nostalgie, die von diesem erfahrenen Bodybuilding-Champion ausgedruckt werden.
Venezuela war nicht nur der Mutterleib, in dem gro?e Verfechter der Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit des gesamten amerikanischen Kontinents geboren wurden, es gilt auch als Wiege der Sportmeister, von Baseball oder Fu?ball uber Basketball oder Fechten bis hin zu Bodybuilding In allen Sportarten der Welt hat sich ein Venezolaner immer als Teil seiner Elite hervorgetan.
Wir machen die Einschrankung und Erinnerung an die verschiedenen IFBB Pro League, die unsere Nation besitzt, oder an die epischen Eroberungen eines bestimmten Gustavo Badell oder eines bekannten Yaxeni Oriquen, der Frau Olympia 2005 erreicht hat, um nur kurz und pragnant zu erwahnen , einige der Auszeichnungen, die im Rahmen von Bodybuilding von im Land Bol geborenen Personen erhalten wurdenívar, und bestatigen Sie damit, was wir im vorherigen Absatz angegeben haben.
In dieser Reihenfolge der Ideen und in Fortsetzung des Themas der anerkannten Galanterie und Abstammung von Champions, die venezolanische Athleten im internationalen physischen Konstruktivismus genie?en, konnen wir ihnen sagen, dass unser Freund, der Athlet Carlos Alfonso G.óMez Hernández ist kein Unbekannter in diesem sportlichen Erbe und wenn nein, schauen wir uns ihre Erfolgsbilanz an:
* 1. Platz Champion 80 kg Challenge Cup Guariqueño 2013, San Juan de los Morros, Guárico; Venezuela
* 3. Platzieren Sie bis zu 80 kg National Warriors Championship of AnzoáTegui, Venezuela 2013
* 2. Platz, Zweiter Platz 80 kg Cup 6., Open Garden City 2014 Maracay, Venezuela
* 4. Platzieren Sie bis zu 80 kg 7. Tasse., Open Garden City, Maracay 2015
* 2. Platz Platz Laufer bis zu 85 kg Expo Body Cup Caracas, Venezuela 2015
* 1., Championplatz Bis zu 85 kg und absoluter Champion des Costa Rica Cup im April 2017
* 1., Championplatz Mehr als 85 kg Puerto San José Pokal, Marz 2017; Guatemala
* 2. Platz Zweiter uber 85 kg Copa San Juan Sacatepéquez, Juni 2017; Guatemala
* Champion in der Classic Physique Division B und 2., Platz im Bodybuilding Copa Prestige in Mexiko, August 2017
* Zweiter bis zur 90 kg schweren internationalen Meisterschaft in San José, Costa Rica; November 2017
* 3. Platz in 85 Kilo und 4. Platz in der Classic Physique Division B in Mr. Olympia Amateur Sudamerika made in Colombia; Februar 2018
* 5. Platzieren Sie 90 kg in der Mexico Super Show; Juni 2018
Au?ergewohnliche Ehrungen fur unseren venezolanischen Meister. Nachdem wir den Film des Lebens zuruckgespult hatten, befanden wir uns 2012 in Caracas, der Hauptstadt Venezuelas, wo Hernández sah das Licht des Lebens, aber wo er auch als Bodybuilder geboren wurde, und genau an diesem mathematischen Punkt seiner Existenz beschlie?t der Athlet, die Wettkampfarena zu verlassen. So erzahlt uns sein Hauptdarsteller diesen Teil seiner personlichen Geschichte.
📷
„Bis dahin, Mitte 2012, wurde ich motiviert, mein Training ernsthafter zu absolvieren und zu absolvieren. Vielen Dank an diese Start-up-Trainer, die das Potenzial sahen, mich auf die Buhne zu bringen. IM GLEICHEN JAHR 2012 WAR ES MEINE DEBUT IN DEN WETTBEWERBSRENNEN, ES WAR IN DER KLASSISCHEN PHYSIKKATEGORIE IN ANZOÁTEGUI, VENEZUELA IN DER KRIEGERBECHER VON ANZOÁTEGUI, WO ICH SIEBTE WAR, NICHT SCHLECHT FUR DEN ERSTEN SCHRITT AUF DIESEM WEG UND INSBESONDERE, UM DIE UNSICHERHEIT DES ERSTEN MALS ZU BRECHEN.
Wenn Sie mir erlauben, als Erfahrung zu bringen, was dort passiert ist, werde ich Ihnen sagen, dass ich, wie jedes andere Mal, eine Neuigkeit war und fast nicht wusste, wie ich auf der Buhne posieren und herumkommen sollte. Ich war in den ersten Anrufen, aber ich habe es nicht geschafft, zu qualifizieren, aber ich habe immer noch die Erfahrung genossen, was wichtig ist. ”
Das Vorgenannte war der Ursprung, der zum Carlos Hern fuhrteández, das wissen wir jetzt alle.

HEY MAE! PURES LEBEN?

Mit dem sehr originellen und naturlichen Gru?, der in Costa Rica gegeben wird, "Hey mae, ¿pura vida?"Das ist das Aquivalent zu sagen: "Hey, Bruder, ist alles in Ordnung?"Wir haben uns heute an unseren Landsmann gewandt und Carlos Hernandez interviewt, und er antwortet uns ohne zu zogern: "Pura vida Mae" (Alles gut, Bruder).
Installiert in der ersten Reihe im bekannten Fitnessstudio des Vital Fuerte Fitness Centers in San José, Costa Rica, mit unserer Kamera und unserem Rekorder in der Hand geben wir Blei (venezolanischer Expressionismus, was bedeutet "Lass uns was spielen") zu diesem Interview.
Hernández, der gut ausgebildet ist, ist auch sehr berechnend, wenn es ums Sprechen geht, und umrei?t detaillierter seinen Aufenthalt in diesem Tica-Land (Name, mit dem die Eingeborenen Costa Ricas anerkannt werden).
„Ich musste meine Zukunft als Person und als Athlet aufgrund der Umstande in Venezuela uberdenken, und so beschloss ich, den Weg nach Costa Rica zu nehmen. Ich muss sagen, mit gro?er Freude und Dankbarkeit, dass hier in diesem schonen Land die Ticos mich auf eine sehr angenehme und angenehme Weise empfangen haben. ”
📷
Es ist sehr beruhigend, diesen Bruder zu kennen, mehr, wenn wir wissen, dass das Leben in fremden Landern schwierig ist, und mehr aus den ublichen Grunden, aus denen Sie unser Land verlassen haben. Planen Sie definitiv, in Costa Rica Fu? zu fassen?
Im Moment wohne ich hier, aber ich plane, spater nach Europa und in die USA zu expandieren. Fur dieses edle Land und seine Menschen habe ich keine Worte au?er Lob und Dank fur so viel Wertschatzung und Unterstutzung, die es Ihrem Diener gegeben hat.
Wie ist Bodybuilding in Costa Rica?
Dieser Sport boomt im Land, es gibt immer mehr Menschen, die sich auf einen Wettbewerb vorbereiten und darauf, dass diese beruhmten IFBB Pro wie Maggy Cambronero und Alex Cambronero hier in Costa Rica die Lateinamerikameisterschaften durchfuhren . Mit 7 Pro-Karten starkt Bodybuilding und Fitness nicht nur in Costa Rica, sondern in ganz Zentralamerika und der Karibik. Ich gratuliere beiden zu dieser klugen Entscheidung.
Und was halten Sie nach dem aktuellen Stand dieses Gesprachs vom neuen Boom der IFBB Pro League und des NPC?
Diese neue Etappe ist sehr interessant, da sie jedem oder diesem Athleten die Moglichkeit bietet, Profi zu werden und die gro?en Weltbuhnen ohne so viele Hindernisse zu erreichen. Daruber hinaus haben sie heute mehr auf den Respekt und die Bedeutung gegenuber dem Sportler hingewiesen, der die Seele dieses Sports ist.
Was ist das Schonste und Herausragendste am Bodybuilding als Sport?
Fur mich ist das Schone und Wichtige, was Bodybuilding hat, der unglaubliche Korperbau, der erreicht wird, wenn man sich vorbereitet. Daruber hinaus setzt es dem Praktiker die angeborene Kraft frei, sich korperlich, geistig und emotional zu uberwinden, was sich positiv auf das Wohlbefinden des Einzelnen und die Disziplin auswirkt, die zur Erzielung dieser Ergebnisse erzielt wird. Uber jede Auszeichnung oder Trophae hinaus ist dies die wichtigste oder relevanteste.
Bitte erwahnen Sie die Athleten, die Sie in diesem Sport bewundern:
Ich bewundere Mauro Pulido, IFBB Pro Bodybuilding-Athlet aus Venezuela, den aktuellen amerikanischen Champion Classic Physique Olympia von Breon Ansley und die lebende Statue Cedric McMillan Bodybuilding Pro.
Wie warst du als zertifizierter Personal Trainer und Online Coach hier im schonen Costa Rica?
Mir geht es sehr gut, da mein eigenes Team oder Team, das sich uber das Internet auf Wettbewerbe und Beratungen fur Kunden vorbereitet, sehr gut gewachsen ist. Dies alles dank der hervorragenden und uberzeugenden Ergebnisse der Kunden, auf die dann Bezug genommen wird andere Leute. Fur diejenigen, die interessiert sind, sage ich Ihnen, dass ich Ihnen die Links hinterlassen werde, um mich kontaktieren zu konnen, wenn Sie meine Anleitung benotigen oder wenn nicht, konnen Sie mich im Vital Fuerte Fitness Center in San Jos sehené, Costa Rica.
Erzahlen Sie uns von Ihrem nachsten Wettbewerb:
Mein nachster Wettbewerb wird am 27. Oktober 2018 bei den Lateinamerikanischen Meisterschaften hier in Costa Rica sein, wo ich um Procard kampfen werde. Ich werde sicher in der Classic Physique Klasse B fahren und moglicherweise im Bodybuilding bis zu 85 kg antreten.
Wie lauft die Vorbereitung fur diese Veranstaltung?
In dieser Phase ist meine Ernahrung reich an Kohlenhydraten, kombiniert mit einem moderaten Proteinverbrauch; Jede Woche werden methodische Anpassungen der Ernahrung vorgenommen, um Anderungen festzustellen.
Mein Trainingssystem hei?t Muscular Metabolic Circuit (CMM) und ist ein System progressiver Gewichtsbelastungen mit der gleichen Anzahl von Wiederholungen pro Serie. Diese Art des Trainings dient zum Abbau von Muskelfasern, die im Arbeitsbereich eine Hypertrophie auslosen. Ubrigens, ich sage Ihnen, der Schopfer dieses Systems ist meine Trainerin Krisna Estrada, er war derjenige, der diese sehr effektive Trainingsmethode in mir implementiert hat.
Meine Erganzung ist wie folgt:
Auf nuchternen Magen vor Cardio nehme ich Vita Fuerte flussiges L-Carnitin. Ich konsumiere mit meinen Hauptmahlzeiten (CLA). Vor dem Training nehme ich Stickoxid zur Vasodilatation, nach dem Training nehme ich Glutamin und am Ende nehme ich isoliertes Molkeprotein, fett- und zuckerarm. Gott sei Dank ist Vita Fuerte fur meine Nahrungserganzung verantwortlich.
Kumpel, gib uns deine Worte fur alle deine Fans und schlie?lich fur alle Leser:
Meine Worte an alle meine Anhanger und Fans konnen in zwei Satzen zusammengefasst werden:
"Es gibt keinen unfahigen Korper. Wenn dein Geist es schafft, erreicht dein Korper es. "
Der andere ware einer, der von Ihnen allen hoch anerkannt wird:
"Gib niemals auf!".
Carlos, genau in diesem Moment als Hohepunkt dieses angenehmen Gesprachs gebe ich Ihnen die nachsten Zeilen, damit Sie denjenigen, die Sie unterstutzt haben, den richtigen Dank aussprechen konnen.
An dieser Stelle mochte ich vielen Menschen danken, die der Hauptpunkt meiner Karriere waren. An meine Frau Ghiseley Romero, die ein wesentlicher Bestandteil und eine Saule meiner Unterstutzung bei all dem ist.
Dank meiner Trainerin Krisna Estrada aus Venezuela habe ich heute dank ihm diesen hochwertigen Korperbau.
Tausend Segnungen an alle Menschen in Costa Rica, die gewusst haben, wie sie auf die eine oder andere Weise ihre Unterstutzung geben konnen.
Zu meinem Trainingshaus Vitafuerte Fitness Center, das ich zu Recht als House of Champions getauft habe.
An das gesamte Arbeitsteam und Team Vitafuerte sowie an meine Arbeits- und Managementleiter, die mich sehr unterstutzt haben: Francis Castro "La Chama", Fray Jiménez und Jorge Zamora Jiménez.
Endlich zu meinem Haus des Neovital Wellnes Center Muskeltherapien und der Marke, die CR_FIT mich gesehen hat.
Vielen Dank an das gesamte MD Latino-Team fur Ihre Unterstutzung, um dies zu ermoglichen. Gott segne Sie.

EIN KLEINES MEHR UBER CARLOS HERN WISSENÁNDEZ

Name: Carlos Alfonzo G.óMez Hernández
Geburtsort und-datum: Caracas, Venezuela (11.06.88)
Beruf : Internationaler Trainer, Krafttrainingsraum und Personal Trainer auf internationaler Ebene durch den Nationalen Verband fur Bodybuilding in Venezuela; Jahr 2015
Hohe : 1,76
Nebensaison Gewicht: 96 kg
Konkurrierendes Gewicht: 85 kg im Bodybuilding und 83 kg im klassischen Korperbau
Wettbewerbskategorien: Klassischer Korperbau und Bodybuilding
Instagram: Psonaltraining
Facebook Seite : der Trainer Psonaltraining
Email : [email protected]
Wir gingen mit der Befriedigung der erfullten Pflicht und mit dem Stolz zu wissen, dass ein anderer venezolanischer Landsmann weiterhin die Flagge Venezuelas auf dem Hohepunkt des Sportlebens hisst. Bis zum nachsten Mal. Wei?t du was? Gott liebt Sie.
submitted by sport103 to u/sport103 [link] [comments]


2020.02.08 06:54 Disputabilis_Opinio Swinburne's Conceivability Argument for Cartesian Substance Dualism Is Sound

Swinburne’s Conceivability Argument for Cartesian Substance Dualism
In a recent book Richard Swinburne has proved the existence of the soul, deductively, through an amended version of Descartes’ Conceivability Argument. What follows is a summary of that amended argument.
1. Introduction
Many people have the reaction to Descartes’ original “Conceivability” Argument1 that it is not possible to reach important conclusions about human nature based on what we can conceive. All the great discoveries about the nature of the physical world made by science in the last five hundred years have been the result of scientists doing experiments and making observations to test theories formulated with the aid of technical terms and difficult mathematics. How could we reach a profound conclusion about human nature, as Descartes purports to have done, by a short argument which relies on no results of experiments and uses no difficult mathematics?
That is an understandable but mistaken reaction. Although there is much in Descartes argument about what he can conceive, it has as a premise a fundamental datum of experience: “I thought.” All that the subsequent argument does is draw out what is entailed by this. Descartes, that is, draws attention to something totally different from the publicly observable events which have been the concern of all the successful science of the last five hundred years. This is our own conscious awareness— something of which we can be more certain than about anything else.2
Moreover, all science relies on deducing consequences from scientific theories and so what is entailed by scientific theories. Let L represent Newton’s laws. Let P represent a prediction about the location of Mars at a certain time. L entails P if and only if L and not-P is a contradiction. So all science, and indeed all deductive reasoning about anything at all, presupposes the validity of our modal intuitions—intuitions about what is and what is not conceivable. And so there is nothing in the least unscientific about deriving conclusions from a foundational datum of experience of which all of us have infallible knowledge.
2. Definition of Key Terms
Any philosophical argument which aims to reach clear and definite conclusions must first define its key terms
2.1 Persons, Conscious Events and Substances
I shall understand persons as beings in whom occur conscious events of certain kinds—occurrent thoughts, moral beliefs, the ability to use simple logical reasoning. I shall understand a conscious event as an event of which the being in whom it occurs is aware. And I shall understand by substance a component of the world—a particular object or collection of objects.
2.2 Properties: Intrinsic and Relational, Essential and Nonessential
All substances have properties and properties may be intrinsic or relational. An intrinsic property is possessed by a substance independently of its relations to other substances—such as being square or red or having a certain mass. A relational property relates a substance to other substances—such as being in the corner of the room or being larger than an acorn. Of the properties that a substance has, some are essential and some are nonessential. An essential property is one such that it is not logically possible for that substance to exist without having that property. Occupying space is an essential property of my chair— it cannot cease to occupy space and continue to exist. Being brown, on the other hand, is a nonessential property of my chair—it could be red and continue to exist.
2.3 The Modal Status of Propositions
A proposition is logically possible if and only if it is not a contradiction and does not entail a contradiction. A proposition is logically impossible if and only if it is a contradiction or entails a contradiction. And a proposition is logically necessary if and only if its negation is a contradiction or entails a contradiction.
2.4 Contradiction
A contradiction is a proposition that has the form Q is P and not-P. Sometimes the contradiction is obvious—as in the proposition, John is a married bachelor. But when the contradiction is not obvious one can usually follow out a chain of entailments to find the contradiction. John murdered his paternal grandmother before she became pregnant for the first time is not a contradiction on its face but it entails a contradiction. It entails that John’s father’s mother died before she gave birth for the first time. And this in turn entails, There was a woman who was a mother and who was not a mother.
2.5 Entailment
A proposition P1 entails P2 if P1-and-not-P2 is a contradiction. Thus All men are mortal and Socrates is a man together entail Socrates is mortal because Socrates is not mortal is a contradiction in that conjunction of propositions—it asserts that a man is mortal and not mortal.
2.6 Conceivability
I shall use conceivable in the same sense as logically possible. A proposition is conceivable if it is true or if describing a state of affairs in which it is true does not entail a contradiction. It is thus conceivable that Pythagoras did not exist. Even though this proposition may be false, it is conceivable in the sense that it might have been true if his parents had never met. But Pythagoras drafted a square circle is inconceivable because a polygon that is perfectly round and has four straight sides is a contradiction.
2.7 Events
I define an event as some substance gaining, having or losing a certain property at a certain time or some substance coming into or ceasing to exist at a certain time.
2.8 Criteria of Identity: Properties
I define property A and property B as the same property if and only if having A of logical necessity makes the same difference to a substance as having B and visa versa. Being trilateral is the same property as being triangular because of logical necessity any triangle is trilateral and conversely. But having killed someone is not the same property as having stabbed someone because you can kill someone without stabbing them and stab someone without killing them.
2.8.2 Criteria of Identity: Events
I define an event A and event B as the same event if and only if the occurrence of A makes the same difference to the world as event B. The normal case of two events being the same event is where they involve the same substances, properties and time.
2.9 Supervenience
A property S supervenes on a property P if of logical necessity having S makes no difference to the world additional to having P and any substance which has S has S because it has P but not visa versa. Thus being coloured supervenes on being green. Any substance being coloured is nothing extra than its being green but being green is something extra than its being coloured. To express this slightly differently: Substances are coloured because they are green but not green because they are coloured.
I can now use these definitions to articulate the different views about the nature of human beings.
2.10 Physical Properties and Substances
I understand physicalism as the doctrine that human beings are physical substances—substances whose properties are all physical properties or ones supervening on these. A table is a physical substance because the essential properties of a table are physical—such as being made of wood and having four legs. Among other physical substances are chairs, planets and neurons. A human body is a physical substance because its only essential properties are properties of height, mass, and of having certain organs interacting in certain ways.
2.11 Physical Event
I shall understand by a physical event a substance having, losing or gaining a physical property at a particular time—or a physical substance coming into or going out of existence. Among physical events are events in a human brain such as neurons firing.
2.12 Mental Properties and Substances
Clearly, however, humans have other properties which inanimate substances do not have. Humans get angry, are in pain, intend to go to London and believe that today is Tuesday. And chairs, planets and neurons do not have these properties. I shall provisionally understand a mental property as a property of a kind which humans have but physical substances do not. And I shall understand by a mental substance, if there be any, as a substance which has at least one essential mental property.
3. Physicalistic Accounts of the Mental
Physicalists give different accounts of what makes it the case that mental properties are the same as or supervene on physical properties.
3.1 Analytic Behaviourism
Analytic behaviourism holds that to have a mental property just is to behave in a way which can be analysed in terms of the publicly observable moments of our limbs, tongue and other organs. Thus “Peter is angry with John” means something like, “Peter said that John hurt him and did not shake hands with John in circumstances where he would normally do this.” But, contrary to the analytic behaviourist, it seems obvious that people may be angry without this ever being shown by their public behaviour.
3.2 Analytic Functionalism
A physicalist theory which seeks to take account of this point is analytic functionalism. It holds that having a mental property is to be analysed as having a physical brain state that tends to cause certain kinds of publicly observable behaviour. But, contrary to analytic functionalism, it is evident that expressions denoting mental properties do not mean the same thing as expressions denoting physical properties. “Peter is angry” is not synonymous with his physical brain state or behaviour. To say Peter is angry is to say something about his thoughts and feelings.
3.3 Type Identity Theory
Many contemporary physicalists therefore adopt a theory called type identity theory. It claims that mental events are physical events because empirical science seems to show that whenever a person has a particular mental property he has a particular brain property—and visa versa. For instance: Whenever a human is in pain his C-fibres fire and whenever human C-fibres fire that human is in pain. Therefore, the theory boldly concludes, to have a certain mental property just is to have a certain physical property—the two are literally identical.
Type identity theory violates the account of what it is for one event to be the same as another event. A human being in pain makes a further difference to the world from the occurrence of an event in his brain. It would seem to be a more adequate explanation of what is happening to say that two events are occurring—a brain state and a pain. But there is a more serious problem with type identity theory—the problem of multiple realizability.
3.3.1 Multiple Realizability
It is logically possible that some creature in pain does not have a brain event of the same type as we do. So the property of being in pain cannot be the same property as any one physical brain state. Some fish, for example, do not have any C-fibres but it is possible that they feel pain. And it is possible that for organisms of different kinds, perhaps to be found on distant planets, pain is correlated with events in their bodies totally unknown to us.
3.4 Mind-Brain Supervenience Theory
Faced with the problem of multiple realizability physicalists typically modify their claim of identity to a claim of supervenience. Mind-brain supervenience theory assumes that whenever a mental event occurs a brain even of some type occurs—C-fibres fire, or A-delta fibres fire, or whatever. The mental event could not fail to occur if the brain event occurs. But the brain event occurs only because of other physical events. The mental event, the theory concludes, is nothing extra beyond the occurrence of some brain event or other.
As an illustration of this David Lewis gave the example of a dot matrix picture in which a pattern of dots form a picture of a face. All there is to the picture is dots or empty spaces between dots. But many different arrangements of dots would produce the same picture. Analogously, claims the mind-brain supervenience theorist, there is nothing more to the occurrence of a mental event beyond the brain event and yet the same type of mental event could be correlated with different types of brain event.
But the relation of the dot matrix to the picture it produces is very different from the relation of a brain event to a mental event. And this is because there is a contradiction in supposing that the same pattern of dots which in fact produces a face could have occurred without producing that face. But there is no contradiction in supposing that a certain brain event could have occurred without the occurrence of a mental event of a type normally correlated with it.
I conclude that mental events are extra events in the history of the world additional to physical events. That conclusion becomes even more obvious when we examine the source of the distinction between mental and physical events.
4. Privileged Access versus Public Access
I followed most philosophical discussions in defining physical events as those belonging to physical substances and mental events as those belonging only to human and higher animals. I now suggest that underlying this superficial distinction is a more fundamental distinction.
A mental event is one to which the substance in which it is instantiated has privileged access. Whatever ways others have of finding out whether I am seeing a tree outside my window I can also use. I can study my behaviour by watching a film of it. I can inspect my own brain using a machine or a system of mirrors. But I always have an additional way of finding out whether I am seeing the tree—by having the experience of seeing it. And no one else can have that way of knowing about the event.
By contrast, a physical event is a public event—an event to which no one substance has privileged access. It is equally accessible to any human suitably located with faculties in working order and equipped with the necessary instruments and the right training. A brain event—a certain neutron firing at a certain time—is a physical event. While it may cause someone to have a sensation the brain event is not itself an event to which anyone has privileged access.
It follows from these definitions and from the criteria of identity that no mental event is a physical event. And it follows that no mental event supervenes on a physical event—for the mental event always makes a further difference to the world.
5. Pure Mental Events
I define a pure mental event as one whose occurrence is logically compatible with the occurrence of any particular physical event or none at all. Me seeing a tree is a mental event because I have privileged access to what I am seeing. But it is not a pure mental event because it involves a tree reflecting light rays which cause me to see it—and this is a physical event. Me seeming to see a tree, on the other hand, is a pure mental event because it could seem to me that I am seeing a tree without any tree existing or (conceivably) without any other particular physical event at all.
6. Revised Definitions
From this follow revised definitions of physical and mental properties and substances. A substance has a mental property if it has a mental event—an event to which it has privileged access. A substance has a pure mental property if it has a pure mental event. And a substance has a physical property if it has a physical event.
A physical substance will therefore be a substance all of whose essential properties are physical properties. And a mental substance will be a substance which has a mental property as one of its essential properties.
7. Property Dualism
The theory that there are events and properties of two different kinds that cause each other but that only physical substances exist is called property dualism. We shall now see that property dualism cannot give an adequate account of the mental.
7.1 Event Causation
Physical events often cause mental events—as when I see a tree. And mental events often cause physical events—as when my intention to stand up causes a brain event and thereby a bodily movement. The history of each human consists of both his mental and physical events.
7.1.2 Intentions and Public Events
As we have seen, many philosophers hold that someone having some mental event is simply a matter of the way they behave publicly. But that is not so. Beliefs, intentions and desires by themselves have no consequences for public behaviour. Beliefs only lead to public behaviour if combined with intentions and different combinations of beliefs and intentions may lead to the same public behaviour. You have a headache and I give you a pill. It is a poison and you die. My action may be the result of a belief that the pill was an aspirin and my intention to cure your headache. Or it may be the result of a belief that the pill was poisonous and my intention to kill you.
7.1.3 Objection to Property Dualism
All physicalists hold that humans are the same as their bodies. The only difference between physicalism and property dualism is that, according to property dualism, humans do have some nonessential mental properties and these properties are not the same as, and do no supervene on, physical properties. The obvious objection to the view that humans are physical substances is that if we cease to have the capacity to be conscious we cease to exist. A person no longer capable of being conscious is not a person. So having this capacity is an essential property of persons.
Consciousness itself is a mental property. We have privileged access to whether we have this property of being conscious. Since this mental property is an essential property of persons, persons are not physical substances. They are mental substances. So my argument has now brought me to the result that there are in the world not merely two kinds of properties and events but two kinds of substances—physical substances and mental substances.
8. Pure and Impure Mental Substances
I now define a pure mental substance as a substance all of whose essential properties are pure mental properties. And an impure mental substance as one which has at least one essential physical property as well as one essential mental property. Our body is essential to our humanness but not essential to our personhood. What I shall therefore argue is that we are not essentially human. We could cease to be human by losing our human body but continue to be persons. We are essentially pure mental substances.
The different views in the philosophy of mind are often expressed as claims about if and when two substances are the same. To show that we are essentially pure mental substances I shall therefore need to examine competing theories of personal identity.
9. Theories of Personal Identity
There are complex and simple theories of personal identity. Complex theories analyse personal identity in terms of the relation between various features of persons. These theories may be physical, mental or mixed. Physical theories claim being the same person is having the same body. Mental theories claim that being the same person is having the same memories and character. And mixed theories combine elements of both. A simple theory, by contrast, holds that personal identity is evidenced by—but does not consist in—physical or mental properties.
9.1 The Body Theory
The obvious strong physical theory is the body theory of personal identity. A person P2 at time T2 is the same as person P1 at time T1 if P2 has the same body as P1. The body theory seems to give a clear and plausible answer to what makes two human persons the same under normal circumstances. But there may well be in future many abnormal circumstances where it becomes unclear whether or not two bodies are the same.
Suppose, for example, that all the bodily organs are replaced except the brain. One way to achieve this in a single operation would be to transplant the brain into the skull of a body from which the brain had been removed. Perhaps this would only be possible if the replacement brain were very similar in structure to the original brain—as would be the case with identical twins. There seems no reason of principle why this should not one day be achieved. Suppose your brain were transplanted into the body of your identical twin. Would the resulting body be your body or the body of the person whose brain had been removed? It would surely be your body since you now move its parts. It seems you go where your brain goes.
9.2 The Brain Theory
Hence, among physical theories, the preferability of a brain theory. P2 at T2 is the same person as P1 at T1 if and only if P2 has P1’s brain. Surgeons can now remove parts of the brain and humans seem able to survive even when a whole hemisphere is removed. Patients suffering from otherwise incurable epilepsy, for example, sometimes have a hemisphere removed in an operation called an anatomical hemispherectomy. The functions of one hemisphere are then taken over by the other.
One day surgeons may be able to replace one hemisphere with a hemisphere taken from another person. And if they can do that for a whole hemisphere why not for individual parts of the hemisphere? There seems no reason of principle why this could not happen. Suppose half your brain were transplanted into the skull of your identical twin whose corresponding hemisphere has been removed. On a brain theory of identity the resulting person would have as much claim to be you as your identical twin. We would therefore have to appeal to mental criteria to settle the issue of who that person is and so we would rely on a mixed theory of personal identity.
9.3 The Mental Theory
Before the discovery of DNA, when a man turned up claiming to be a missing person he was questioned to see if he remembered what happened to the person he was claiming to be. For example: The Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family were executed by the Bolsheviks in 1918. But a few years later a woman turned up claiming to be the youngest daughter Princess Anastasia and seemed to remember a lot but not all of the experiences of Anastasia.
A pure mental theory of identity is open to the objection that a boy who is flogged for stealing apples and goes on to become a military general is not the same person if the military general does not remember being flogged. But proponents can meet this objection by claiming: P2 at T2 is the same person as P1 at T1 if P2 remembers much of what P1 experienced or P2 remembers what some person Px at an indeterminate time Tx experienced where Px remembers what P1 experienced. If P1 and P2 are linked by such a chain they are, we may say, linked by mental continuity.
But all theories which analyse personal identity in terms of degrees of physical and mental continuity are open to two serious objections.
9.4 The Arbitrariness Objection
The first is the arbitrariness objection. On any such theory there will always be borderline cases where the answer to whether P2 is P1 lacks justification. The theory might claim that if and only if 55 percent of P2’s brain is derived from P1’s brain P2 is P1. But it would seem totally arbitrary to claim that the replacement of 56 percent changes the identity of a person but 54 percent does not. Perhaps 50 percent seems less arbitrary. But what if P1 undergoes two operations—one replacing 49 percent of his brain and a second replacing a further 2 percent? By the 50 percent criterion the person is still P1 after the first operation. In that case replacing 2 percent of P1’s brain in a different operation does not change his identity. Everything would seem to depend on whether the replacement was done in one operation or two. But how distant in time do the two operations need to be? Any suggested time interval would seem totally arbitrary.
A similar objection can be made to every complex theory— whether physical, mental or mixed. Whatever quantity of brain matter or memories are specified is totally arbitrary.
9.5 The Multiple Candidate Objection
The second objection is the multiple candidate objection. On such theories it is possible for there to be two or more people who satisfy equally well the criteria proposed in the theory for being the same person.
Suppose that the left hemisphere of Alexandra’s brain is put into the skull of a second person Alex whose corresponding hemisphere has been removed. And suppose that the right hemisphere of Alexandra’s brain is put into the skull of a third person Sandra whose corresponding hemisphere has been removed. Both Alex and Sandra will have some of Alexandra’s brain and will claim to remember a lot of Alexandra’s experiences. But they could not both be Alexandra. If Alex and Sandra are both Alexandra then Alex is the same person is Sandra. But after the operation their bodies and brains are formed of different matter and they live different lives with different experiences. On the observable evidence there are three possibilities. Alex is now Alexandra. Sandra is now Alexandra. Or neither are Alexandra because they remain Alex and Sandra.
A complex theory of identity can always be tweaked to ensure that two people never satisfy the specified criteria. For example, one can add a clause that if there are two candidates P2 who satisfy the criteria equally well neither are P1. Only if there is a “closest continuer” (as Robert Nozick puts it) does the original person continue to exist. But that is a very implausible requirement. For it would follow that Alex would be Alexandra if and only if Sandra did not exist. And whether Alex is Alexandra would therefore depend on whether some other person exists or not. If Alexandra herself held to such a theory she could ensure that she survives by bribing the nurse to suffocate either Alex or Sandra—and it would not matter which.
But who a person is cannot depend on what happens to some brain which is never her brain. So no complex theory can provide a universally applicable general answer to what constitutes being the same person.
9.6 The Semantic Indecision Criterion
The only way to meet the arbitrariness and multiple candidate objections is to deny that it is always true or false that some later person P2 is identical with P1. Many concepts are such that it is neither simply true or false that it applies to some object. For example, it is neither true nor false that a reddish-blue object is red. Harold Noonan has suggested that when on the specified criteria it is unclear whether some later person P2 is or is not identical with P1 we should regard this as a case of “semantic indecision.”
This kind of answer is plausible in the case of inanimate objects—if I replace three legs of my table and half the top I may be undecided as to whether I have a new table. But it is implausible in the case of personal identity. Suppose that Alexandra, Alex and Sandra have been kidnapped by a mad surgeon. The surgeon tells Alexandra that he is going to put her left hemisphere into Alex and her right hemisphere into Sandra. At the end of the procedure there will be two conscious persons with equal degrees of continuity with Alexandra.
The surgeon then tells Alexandra that after the operation he will murder one of the two resulting persons. And before the operation he offers Alexandra the choice of who he will murder. Who (or which of her hemispheres) should she condemn if she wishes to survive? On a semantic indecision criterion it won’t matter which choice Alexandra makes. Whatever she chooses, it will be neither true nor false that she will survive.
Someone about to undergo an anatomical hemispherectomy normally hopes to survive. And there seems to be nothing irrational in having that hope. How can this case be any different except that in the first case the patient hopes that his brain will be conscious again and in the second case hopes that the brain that is conscious will be his?
9.7 The Arbitrariness Objection—Again
Moreover, the semantic indecision view holds that there is a truth about whether P2 will be P1. It is only in borderline cases that it is undecidable. But its proponent must therefore define the boundaries of the region of semantic indecision. He may hold that it is definitely true that P2 is P1 if P2 has more than 55 percent of P1’s brain. And definitely false that P2 is P1 if P2 has less than 45 percent of P1’s brain. And so neither true nor false that P2 is P1 if P2 has between 45 and 55 percent of P1’s brain. But this opens it up to the arbitrariness objection. Why define the range as between 45 and 55 percent instead of 40 and 60 percent? Any boundary seems totally arbitrary.
9.8 Partial Identity Theory
Hence it is natural for those sympathetic to semantic indecision to move to a partial identity theory. P1 at T1 is to be regarded as identical with P2 at T2 in ratio to the physical and mental continuity between them. On this view P2 at T2 is only truly identical with P1 at T1 if T1 and T2 follow in quick succession and there are virtually no changes at all between P1 and P2.
Different writers use different terms to express what is entailed by partial identity. Robert Nozick wrote of later persons being “continuers” and “best continuers.” David Lewis wrote of “degrees of relation.” And Derek Parfit wrote of “survivors” of earlier persons. The theme common to all writers is that identity is to understood in terms of degrees of continuity between earlier and later persons.
9.8.2 The Incoherence of Partial Identity
There is, however, a conclusive objection to all partial identity theories. Suppose, again, that each of Alexandra’s hemispheres are to be transplanted into the skulls of Alex and Sandra. Alexandra knows that Alex will receive a million dollars and Sandra will be tortured. If the operation has the result that Alex is partly identical with Alexandra then Alexandra has a good experience to look forward to. But, ex hypothesi, it is only part of Alexandra which will enjoy it; or else Alexandra will only partly enjoy it; or else she will only enjoy a part of it.
But although persons have parts, the parts don’t have experiences. The person has experiences. When I have a visual and auditory sensation at the same time, it is not the case that one part of me has the visual sensation and another part has the auditory sensation. Whoever is aware of one is aware of the other and that “whoever” is the person. In the scenario I have described, no one has partly pleasant experiences or experiences of which they enjoy only a part. And no one has partly unpleasant experiences or experiences of which they suffer only a part. Alex will have a pleasant experience containing no unpleasant part. And Sandra will have an unpleasant experience containing no pleasant part. For if someone is not aware of an experience that experience is not in any way their experience. Alex and Sandra are different persons unaware of each others thoughts and feelings. It makes no sense to talk of a person being “partly identical” with an earlier person. And so the theories claiming this are mistaken.
9.9 The Simple Theory
The failure of all complex theories of identity leaves us with the simple theory: That personal identity is not a matter of the degree of features of which there can be degrees. The obvious thing to say is that in all cases physical and mental continuity is evidence of identity but does not constitute it. And then there is nothing paradoxical in there being multiple candidates. In a like case there is no paradox entailed when the available evidence makes it equally probable that each of two suspects is guilty. Evidence that Alex is Alexandra makes it probable that Alex is Alexandra. But it will always be possible that the evidence is misleading. And no evidence could establish who was Alexandra beyond doubt. Humans are not omniscient and there are limits to what we can discover about the world. This kind of case provides one such limit.
10. The Conceivability Argument
I have reached the conclusion that the only satisfactory theory of personal identity is the simple theory. It is natural to suppose that personal identity is therefore totally unanalysable—Alex either is or is not Alexandra and that is all that can be said. But that does not follow. If Alex is Alexandra there must be some part of her that makes her Alexandra which if she is not Alexandra she would not have. This is due to a principle I call the Identity of Composites.
10.2 The Identity of Composites
If a substance exists for a certain time and has certain parts and properties it is not possible that this substance could form a different substance from the one it does form. We human are composite substances. We can therefore apply the principle of the identity of composites to humans. Consider again Alex who has half of Alexandra’s brain. The resulting person is either Alexandra or not Alexandra. If she is Alexandra there must be something which distinguishes her from the possible person who is not. And if she is not there must be something which distinguishes her from the possible person who is. But both possible persons have exactly the same physical properties. They could only be different if one has a part which the other lacks. And since they have the same physical parts, they must differ in respect of a certain mental part—which I am calling the “soul.”
So our soul is necessary for our identity—it is what makes us who we are. But is it the only thing which is necessary for our existence or do we also need our body? There is a famous argument by Rene Descartes which claims that his soul is the only thing necessary for his existence.
10.3 An Amended Version of Descartes Argument
P1. I am a substance which is thinking. Let us understand “substance” as a component of the world. And let us understand “thinking” in a broad sense that includes having sensations, beliefs, intentions, and so on.
P2. It is conceivable that, in the middle of a period of thought, my body is suddenly destroyed. What is it to have a body? It is to have a chunk of matter through which one can make a difference to the physical world. Some reports of near-death experiences describe the experience of floating above the operating table. We may doubt that those involved had the experience but we certainly understand what the reports claim and they do not contain a contradiction. They claim conceivably, though perhaps falsely, that they had experiences at a time when they did not have a body.
P3. It is inconceivable that I could cease to exist but continue to think. “I am thinking” entails “I exist” and so “I am thinking and I do not exist” entails “I exist and I do not exist” which is a contradiction. And so,
L. I am a substance which, it is conceivable, can continue to exist after its body is suddenly destroyed. Premise 1 to 3 proves L which stands for “lemma” or minor conclusion. If it is conceivable that a substance which thinks can continue to think after its physical parts are destroyed (but inconceivable that it should continue to think but cease to exist) then it is conceivable that it can continue to exist after its physical parts are destroyed.
P4. It is inconceivable that any substance can lose all its parts at once and continue to exist. To account for this continued existence we must appeal to something nonphysical since the substance has lost all of its physical parts. Therefore,
C. I am a substance whose only essential property is the capacity for thought—a soul.
[1] “Examining carefully that which I am, I saw that I could imagine I had no body and no location. But I could not conceive that I did not exist. On the contrary, the very fact that I thought of doubting the truth of other things entailed that I existed. But if I had ceased from thinking I should have no reason for thinking that I existed. From that I knew I was a substance the essence of which is to think. And for its existence there is no need of any place or any material thing. So this “me” (that is to say, my soul) is distinct from my body and is even more evident to me than my body. And even if my body were not, the soul would not cease to be what it is.”
[2] “I am thinking” entails “I exist” and so “I am thinking and don’t exist” entails “I exist and don’t exist” which is a contradiction. For this reason we have infallible knowledge that we exist during a period of thought. Even if we are reasonable in doubting the existence of all other things we are, while doubting, thinking about those things; and so are thinking; and so cannot reasonably doubt that we exist. This is the meaning of Descartes’ famous, Cogito ergo sum.
submitted by Disputabilis_Opinio to DebateReligion [link] [comments]


2020.02.05 15:23 DerKiLLa All-Time-Statistiken für MoinMoin

Hallo,
die Tage kam im Thread "Das beste MoinMoin" folgende Antwort:
Hat sich mal jemand mal die Mühe gemacht zu einem bestimmten Stichtag das Verhältnis aller Likes und Disslikes der Moinmoins zu erfassen? Wenn ja, könnten so eine Rangliste bestimmt werden.
Da dachte ich mir ... wäre mal wieder Zeit für etwas Statistik-Quatsch.
Also die Playlist der MoinMoins genommen, kleines Programm geschrieben und anschließend das Ergebnis analysiert.

Vorab:

Die meisten Likes
Likes Titel Host
14.385 Stress, Burnout & Alopecia Areata Simon & Budi
8.833 Der große Giga-Geburtstag: Küsse & Peinlichkeiten Budi, Etienne, Nils & Simon
7.849 Mit dem Tandem zur Diesel-Demo Etienne und Florentin
7.847 Folge 1000: Top 20 absurder Momente & Neues Intro Budi, Eddy, Nils, Simon & Donnie
7.758 Wie sexistisch ist der neue Gillette-Spot? Eddys Mutter ruft an Etienne
7.613 I have a dream about Chemnitz Budi
7.369 Vollgekotzt auf der Autobahn, Gans essen mit Veganern Etienne
7.154 Reisepass verloren & Flug gestrichen - Wut & Panik in Los Angeles Etienne
7.066 Haare ab bei Simon! Etienne, Simon & Katjana Gerz
6.685 Der große Mayonnaise-Test Etienne und Colin

Die beste Like/Dislike-Ratio
Ratio Dislikes Titel/Datum Host
0,2223% #MoinMoin 10.02.2015 (1/2) Etienne
0,3234% #MoinMoin 05.03.2015 Budi
0,3509% #MoinMoin 04.02.2015 Etienne
0,3814% #MoinMoin 16.05.2016 Feiertag-Spezial - Der RBTV Giftschrank Simon
0,3883% #MoinMoin 03.02.2015 (1/2) Nils
0,3910% #MoinMoin 30.01.2015 Etienne
0,4028% #MoinMoin 08.06.2015 Nils
0,4171% #MoinMoin 10.02.2015 (2/2) Etienne
0,4188% #MoinMoin 13.04.2015 Nils
0,4281% #MoinMoin 07.04.2015 Etienne
Die alten Folgen haben zwar das beste Like/Dislike-Verhältnis, aber hatten auch weniger Likes/Views als spätere MoinMoins. Im Durchschnitt hatten diese 10 Videos nur 1.312 Likes und 30.720 Views.

Da diese Liste ja leider nicht viel aussagt, hier mal nur MoinMoins mit aussagekräftigen Namen:
Ratio Dislikes Titel Host
0,3814% Feiertag-Spezial - Der RBTV Giftschrank Simon
0,4540% Schröck hat informative TV Tipps aka SHITT Schröck
0,5034% Film-Pantomine mit Gunnar und SHITT für die Woche Schröck
0,5636% Spaß im "Green"screen, Verkleidet als Fee, Link und andere Helden Simon
0,5917% Fabian ist wieder da! & Industrie Skypeorama mit Philipp S. Sauer Budi
0,5964% Der große Giga-Geburtstag: Küsse & Peinlichkeiten Budi, Etienne, Nils & Simon
0,6007% Kleine Jungs, große Bagger Etienne & Florentin
0,6068% Spaß mit Profi-Knete,Dramaturgie eines Films Simon und Gunnar
0,6215% Wir raiden auf Twitch: Wahrsagerinnen & Halbnackte Spanier Nils
0,6286% Stress, Burnout & Alopecia Areata Simon & Budi

Zur Vollständigkeit mal die Top10 der meisten Views
Views Titel Host
242.728 Der große Giga-Geburtstag: Küsse & Peinlichkeiten Budi, Etienne, Nils & Simon
233.725 Der große Mayonnaise-Test Etienne und Colin
222.584 Stress, Burnout & Alopecia Areata Simon & Budi
206.797 Haare ab bei Simon! Etienne, Simon & Katjana Gerz
200.171 Der große Salami-Tiefkühlpizza Test Colin & Dennis
185.054 Beansjam, Sendelizenz-Ärger für Gronkh & Pietsmiet, Zahnpflege Etienne
176.752 Chicken Nuggets im Test - Welche schmecken am Besten? Colin
171.918 36 Fragen zum Verlieben Andreas & Nasti
171.247 Folge 1000: Top 20 absurder Momente & Neues Intro Budi, Eddy, Nils, Simon & Donnie
167.435 Löffel Messer Gäbel: Hacksteaks & Rostbratwürstchen Colin & Budi
Gewinner ist hier eindeutig: Löffel Messer Gäbel mit 4 Folgen!

Kommen wir zu den Moderatoren ... wer hatte eigentlich die meisten MoinMoins?
Host Anzahl Views gesamt Dauer gesamt
Etienne 163 12.319.142 131 Stunden
Florentin 158 8.406.452 117 Stunden
Budi 107 4.006.419 92 Stunden
Donnie 106 3.723.195 80 Stunden
Lars 85 1.986.790 64 Stunden
Gregor 73 1.125.104 53 Stunden
Andy 72 1.790.921 60 Stunden
Simon 71 4.444.183 65 Stunden
Nils 70 3.123.288 58 Stunden
Andreas 62 1.731.244 48 Stunden

Und wenn wir schon die Gesamtlaufzeit haben ... was waren die längsten MoinMoins?
Minuten Titel Host
158 Das längste MoinMoin ever & Ansage an Elon Musk - ich blas dir einen! Simon & Budi
153 Der große Giga-Geburtstag: Küsse & Peinlichkeiten Budi, Etienne, Nils & Simon
135 16 Personalities - Wie ticken Budi, Etienne, Nils und Simon? Nils und Budi
112 Fasching in Münster! Unterwegs auf dem Karnevals-Wagen Andy
108 Löffel Messer Gäbel: Hacksteaks & Rostbratwürstche Colin & Budi
108 Kalträuchern & einen Brennen auf der Fischmesse in Bremen Andy Strauß
105 Der große Mayonnaise-Test - Welche begleitet die Pommes am besten? Etienne und Colin
105 Age of Empires 2 am Morgen, vertreibt Kumm-... ähm, naja. Donnie
105 Kampf mit der heißen Folie - Komplettmahlzeiten erneut im Test Colin & Budi
102 Enthüllung der Vote Ergebnisse und Kandidaten Florentin
submitted by DerKiLLa to rocketbeans [link] [comments]


2019.12.31 00:19 DieHermetischeGarage Podcast-PlayList vom Montag, 30.12.2019

Die gesamte Tages-PlayList
Tagestipps
Sendung Titel
BR Kalenderblatt Internationaler Tag des Frühstücksspecks (1)
SWR Zeitwort 30.12.2011: In Samoa fällt der 30. Dezember 2011 aus (2)
WDR Zeitzeichen Theodor Fontane, Schriftsteller (Geburtstag 30.12.1819) (3)
News
Zeit Titel wo min
05:09 Die Zehner Jahre und Europa (Klein, Bettina) DRK 4:38 ?
05:19 Die Zehner Jahre und Russland (Grieß, Thielko) DRK 5:13 ?
05:22 Übertrieben, erfunden, gelogen - Donald Trump und die Wahrheit (Brand, Katrin) DLF 2:59 ?
05:41 Brexit - Best of an Sprüche und Formulierungen (Corall, Astrid) DLF 3:25 ?
05:50 Silicon Valley 2020: Sind die rechtsfreien Jahre vorbei? (Schuler, Marcus) DLF 3:18 ?
06:08 Die Zehner Jahre und die Alltagskultur (Macho, Thomas) DRK 8:49 ?
06:36 Die Zehner Jahre und die Musik (Böttcher, Martin) DRK 7:56 ?
06:47 Die Nuller Jahre und die Wirtschaft (Enderlein, Henrik) DRK 11:42 ?
07:15 Ein Kassenbon für jedes Brötchen - Kassengesetz tritt am 1.1. in Kraft (Sönnichsen, Birthe) DLF 3:08 ?
07:20 Das feministische Jahrzehnt (Eismann, Sonja) DRK 3:55 ?
07:38 Die Zehner Jahre und die Kommunikation (Thomä, Dieter) DRK 8:11 ?
07:49 Die Zehner Jahre und das Theater (Lilienthal, Matthias) DRK 7:58 ?
08:11 Ausgestiegen aus der AfD - Interview Uwe Kamann, MdB, fraktionslos (Heinlein, Stefan) DLF 11:51 ?
08:18 Der wegige Putin - 20 Jahre an der Macht: (Haase, Till) DLF 5:03
08:19 Die Zehner Jahre und das Klima (Loske, Reinhard) DRK 6:56 ?
08:38 Die Zehner Jahre und die Wissenschaft (Mair, Martin) DRK 8:00 ?
08:40 Das Wichtigste heute Morgen (Heinlein, Stefan) DLF 7:05 ?
08:48 Die Zehner Jahre und die Literatur (Böttiger, Helmut) DRK 7:46 ?
11:35 Das muss man 2019 gehört haben - Weltmusik (Friedrich, Grit) DRK 6:31 ?
11:42 Grüne Software mit Blauem Umweltengel - Chaos Communication Congress Leipzig (Römermann, Stefan) DLF 4:48 ?
12:13 Wohin führen Verbote? - Interview mit Gerhart Rudolf Baum, FDP (Heinemann, Christoph) DLF 10:06 ?
14:05 Das Jahrzehnt quer: Dekade Feminismus (Podcast) (Yaghoobifarah, Hengameh) DRK 17:03 ?
15:35 'Satire immer verteidigen' - Interview mitTim Wolff über den Eklat im WDR-Radio (Allroggen, Antje) DLF 7:03 ?
16:08 Musik-Nekrolog 2019: Gestorben, aber nicht vergessen (Zylka, Jenni) DRK 6:00 ?
16:30 Genforschung, Mitbringparty, Wetterbilanz (Preger, Anne) DLF 5:27
16:40 Das gekaperte Kraftwerk: Software zur Turbinensteuerung lässt sich hacken (Welchering, Peter) DLF 4:24 ?
16:50 36C3 - Was hat der Chaos Communication Congress gebracht? (Voß, Michael) DLF 4:54
17:11 Mächtig und umstritten: Amerikanische Tech-Konzerne zunehmend in der Kritik (Schuler, Marcus) DLF 2:50 ?
17:50 Künstliche Empörungskultur - Tanjev Schultz zur Hühnerstall-Debatte (Koldehoff, Stefan) DLF 5:07 ?
18:30 Sexueller Missbrauch in Chile - Wer brachte Colonia Dignidad zu Fall? (Weltzeit) (Ute Löhning, Ellen Häring) DRK 22:29 ?
19:07 WDR-Intendant knickt ein - Streit um eine Kinderlied-Satire (Baetz, Brigitte) DLF 2:55 ?
23:15 Das Beste haben Sie nicht gesehen: Welche Filme 2019 nicht in die Kinos kamen (Wellinski, Patrick) DRK 7:10 ?
23:45 Morddrohungen gegen WDR-Mitarbeiter (Brost, Philip) DLF 2:59
23:46 Wunschdebatten: Davon will ich 2020 mehr hören (Brendel, Gerd) DRK 4:41 ?
Infos
(#) Info
(1) Um ein Weltreich zu errichten, braucht man eine anständige Grundlage im Bauch. Ohne Bacon and Eggs kein Britisches Empire. Aber im Laufe der Zeit haben Cornflakes dem englischen Frühstück den Rang abgelaufen - und das Empire zerfiel.
(2) Samoa liegt im Pazifik mitten auf der internationalen Datumsgrenze. 2011 hat Samoa die Zeitzone gewechselt, um ein Datum mit dem Handelspartner Neuseeland zu haben.
(3) Was soll bloß aus Theodor werden? Papa besitzt eine Apotheke. In der Wohnung darüber wird Theodor geboren. Der Schluss liegt nahe: Sohnemann soll in Vaters Fußstapfen treten! Doch zur Wahrheit gehört: Schon Papa steht nicht gerne im Geschäft. Und Theodor wird zwar den Beruf erlernen, aber irgendwann den Kittel an den Nagel hängen. Schreiben will er! Autor: Marko Rösseler
submitted by DieHermetischeGarage to DasOhrIstDerWeg [link] [comments]


2019.12.17 19:46 Waxmell_Lliwiam Pomognite mi naći ovaj crtani film iz 90-ih

Taj crtani film je bio o nekom slikaru koji je u jednoj sceni sjedio pod nekim čarobnim stablom, u filmu je glavni negativac neko čudovište, ako se ne varam, sa rogovima i na bodlje, njegovi podanici također. U tom crtanom filmu taj slikar crta neke crteže koji oživljavaju i lete, i tu je također kao neki morski kralj koji sjedi na malom vodenom madracu. Datum izlasku su pretpostavljam kasne devedesete.
submitted by Waxmell_Lliwiam to croatia [link] [comments]


2019.12.16 10:46 justanediblefriend The bad science and history of a science-focused story: What does Senku from Dr. STONE get terribly wrong despite the incredible manga’s attention to detail and being so well-researched? Its most central topic: What science is. (Part one, minimal spoilers.)

SUMMARY INCLUDED NEAR THE END. I feel I should emphasize because a lot of people missed the summary and it caused a great deal of confusion. Please see summary if you’d like to know what’s what.
Anyway, hi /badscience! I’m pretty much certain that nobody remembers me, but I used to have fun making these little high effort R1s back in the day here and people really liked them! I truly had a blast, and I recently watched a show that made me want to return here again. So, not that it will mean anything to anyone, but long time no see. :) Really had fun with this one and look forward to any polite thoughts, amendments, addendums, et cetera!

Introduction: What is Dr. STONE all about?

So, I just finished Dr. STONE, binged it all while studying for my physics final (which I did pretty well on, thanks for asking). It’s not perfect; I could definitely write a pretty detailed review on its aesthetic and moral accuracies and inaccuracies, but I’m willing to bet plenty of people more experienced with that sort of thing already are, and have repeated the points I’d have to make ad nauseam.
No, what really prompted me to write about Dr. STONE is not my assessment of how good the show is and whatever evidence I have to convince you that I’m right (though I do think it’s a fairly good show), but rather my claims about the accuracy of Dr. STONE’s claims about science. The show, for those unfamiliar with it, is about a teenager with superhuman scientific knowledge trying to see if he can (for reasons I won’t reveal) obtain our technology from scratch.
While he does this, the show explores a lot of topics central to what science is:
  1. Does science produce epistemic achievements about unobservables? That is, does science ever figure out anything? Are our best scientific theories approximating truth?
  2. What is the essence of science?
  3. Does science have a specific method to it? If so, what?
  4. Who should we, and scientists, recognize as having epistemic authority?
All of these are really important questions, but I can’t go over them all. Here’s a brief answer to each of them, and an overview of what I’ll be discussing in this post.
  1. Experts are about four times as likely to say “yes” than “no,” but there’s still a lot of disagreement on the issue. Furthermore, despite the expert consensus on the matter, scientists at large seem to disagree, with many leading scholars observing that scientists tend to hold or express what are called “anti-realist” attitudes.
  2. Not any of the main answers prior to the last few decades.
  3. No, “the scientific method” is a myth (though fortunately, people are listening more and more to experts on the matter) and there’s likely no such thing, though often useful for teaching those unfamiliar with science about it.
  4. There’s disagreement, but there’s been a stronger push away from hard distinctions between observers and subjects in terms of epistemic authority, and naïve notions of objectivity. Much research shows that they have an ironic tendency of moving us away from the objective truth.
I could talk at great length about all of these issues and how the shows explore them. I’m especially passionate about 4. But I’ll be going with 2, and briefly, 3.
I should clarify that I don’t think the show (and presumably manga) is wildly inaccurate, bordering on pseudoscience or anything. Indeed, it’s specifically the fact that the manga is so well-researched, accurate, and pays so much attention to detail that it makes for a good subject of analysis. I mean, who would want to see me give a detailed analysis of how Ant-Man or Avengers: Endgame is at odds with science? I think everyone can tell the films were playing it a bit fast and loose with quantum mechanics (and classical mechanics, and their own mechanics, etc.).
But Dr. STONE can be so accurate that where it gets things wildly inaccurate becomes especially interesting. It’s actually so good that instead of writing a paper like my professor asked for for my final assignment, I wrote a Dr. STONE (and Back to the Future) inspired short story that explores the four issues I just listed above. I won’t be sharing that story, of course; it was a rushed, 3-day final project, but this should speak to just how much I fell in love with elements from this show.
So. What is the essence of science?

How Dr. STONE drops the philosophers’ stone: What Senku says

Senku makes a lot of offhand comments about what science is. While the show proposes several positions with respect to all four topics above, I’ll be focusing on the things relating to topics 2 and 3. Some stuff worth going over are Senku’s claims that:
Some of these, I might mention or comment on in passing while saying quite a bit more on the others. So, what does Senku get right and what does Senku get wrong?

Is Senku right about hypothesizing, experimenting, and replication? Let’s find out.

Is Senku right about hypothesizing, experimenting, and replication? Let’s find out.

Senku claims that science involves hypothesizing and experimenting over and over, slowly, to refute another character’s claim that science was epistemically failing them. Is it true that these are necessary (Senku seems to be claiming that these are necessary rather than sufficient conditions for science; the latter claim would be a bit more untenable) conditions for science?
There’s a lot to be said about whether hypotheses and experiments are necessary to science, but I think I’ll give Senku those since I think the last part is a bit more interesting (and it’s a bit harder to adjudicate what exactly Senku means with the former components, and some ways of interpreting it might run into issues with cases like Bell’s theorem).
Science seems to centrally need replication and reproducibility, does it not? That’s why, after all, the purported replication crisis we’ve had for some time now seems so fundamentally troubling for science.
But as historian of science Friedrich Steinle will note, while replication is important, it’s not so essential that science can be accurately described as the process of hypothesizing and experimenting over and over. Sometimes, you hypothesize, do an experiment, and there’s no demand for replication at all, which, by Steinle’s lights, appears to be a correct judgment. So as it turns out, science’s relationship to replication and reproducibility is incredibly complex, and a great deal of research by historians, philosophers, and social scientists has been necessary to understand this relationship.
Steinle offers an example, noting that “The first vacuum pump was designed and put in operation by the Magdeburg mayor and former technical advisor Otto von Guericke in the 1650….Guericke’s apparatus was unique, complicated, expensive, and difficult to handle….In any case, it is clear that replication was not an issue for Guericke; but even without replication, no doubts were raised about his results. This had probably to do with his public performance that could be witnessed by a large number of participants.” There’s no reason to think that the common sense of scientists at the time was wrongheaded. The judgment that replication was unnecessary in the case of Guericke’s experiment, and unnecessary to science overall, seems to be a very strong datum that it is, in fact, not necessary. This doesn’t mean replication can be neglected or that it’s unimportant, Steinle himself will note that it’s clearly necessary in all sorts of cases. But here, it was not. The need for replication is incredibly contextual, and it is not a part of the necessary or sufficient conditions of science.
Indeed, there may be no such things as necessary or sufficient conditions of science. To elaborate, let’s consider the two related claims that science is fundamentally about figuring out underlying rules, and that it is the “pain-in-the-ass” method by which we discover those underlying rules.

Getting directly at the several millennia old issue: What is the essence of science, and what does Dr. STONE get wrong about science?

So, what about those two claims?
They’re actually precedented. What Senku is claiming here is rooted in a mish mash of historical events, but, as I’ll demonstrate, what these events teach us is actually that Senku is rather confused about what it is that science is. First, we’ll need to talk about the problem we’re grappling with here, then the history of the problem, and finally what we can draw from that history.

What’s the problem?

What we’re dealing with is called the demarcation problem, and it’s a problem we’ve been facing for over two millennia. It’s an incredibly important problem, and is the engine behind a great many events in intellectual history. The importance of this problem to those events is to such a severe extent that some historians or those interested in history have considered it disappointing that those events are taught without this incredibly necessary context.
So, what is the demarcation problem and why is it so damned important that it’s so central to so many historical events? Briefly:
Why is this so important? Well, science has a lot of epistemic weight. Since the ancient era, we listened to scientists. When they said something was going on, we took them at their word. That is, they have epistemic authority. We teach our children, as well as adults, what the results of science were and what scientists are doing today. We fund scientists. And we do all of these things to science in a way where we don’t do it to that which isn’t science; we rightly pass on scientific knowledge and not pseudoscientific knowledge, or at least we try or purport to.
Short of the infeasible task of getting all legislators and everyone else familiar with every branch of academia and its pseudo-counterparts, sufficient to distinguish science from pseudoscience, we’re gonna need a demarcation between science and non-science.
With that in mind, what are some things we want from a theory of what demarcates science and non-science? For ease of reference, I’ll call these desiderata from here on out.

The desiderata of demarcation

I’ll not only be going over the desiderata of demarcation, but why those desiderata are justified. A demarcation between science and non-science should:
  1. be in line with actual scientific practice,
  2. provide the necessary conditions of science,
  3. provide the sufficient conditions of science, and
  4. explain the normative properties of science (i.e. why it’s so valuable in all the ways we think it’s valuable.
So , why do we need to satisfy all four desiderata? I’ll consider them one by one.
(1) Why should a solution to the demarcation problem actually describe scientific practice? A solution should aim to fit within the sciences those paradigmatic sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology. For consider if the demarcation only purported to show some non-actual, ideal demarcation. How would a solution do any of what we want it to then? If physics isn't a science, then our desire to take physicists to be authoritative cannot come from our desire to take scientists in general to be authoritative, since that desire corresponds to non-actual scientists.
(2) Why should a solution to the demarcation problem provide the necessary conditions for science? If it only gave the sufficient conditions, then certainly, we'd be able to know when some investigation isn't pseudo-scientific, is authoritative or worthwhile as such, etc. But now, we'd have no ability to know when some investigation isn't pseudo-scientific, shouldn't be paid any heed, shouldn't be funded, etc.
(3) Why should a solution to the demarcation problem provide the sufficient conditions for science? If it only gave the necessary conditions, then certainly, we'd be able to know when some investigation is pseudo-scientific, isn't authoritative or worthwhile as such, etc. But now, we'd have no ability to know when some investigation is pseudo-scientific, shouldn't be paid any heed, shouldn't be funded, etc.
(4) Why should a solution to the demarcation problem make it clear why science is valuable? If all we're doing is just coming up with some unimportant, formal distinction between fields, the problem wouldn't be any more important than demarcating between various sciences. Sure, we think there's a difference between physics and biology, but if it came to light that this wasn't the case, would it matter, and would everyone focus intensely on figuring out the demarcation? A solution to the demarcation problem should let us know what to fund, who to listen to, etc.
So, without further ado, here is the history of answers to this problem.

What have we already tried?

It’s a little ambiguous what exactly Senku is saying, but I think I have a good idea of what he might be trying to get at. So I’ll try to go over the history (with much thanks to Larry Laudan) independently of Senku’s thoughts, and then offer my comments on what Senku is trying to get across.

A. Aristotle

So, with the four desiderata in mind, what solutions have been provided throughout the history of philosophy and science to the problem? What did people think was the difference between science and non-science? We can trace this problem back to Parmenides of Ancient Greece. Concerns about the difference between episteme, or knowledge, and doxa, or mere opinion, loomed large. Aristotle provided a solution in his Posterior Analytics, positing that scientific knowledge had to involve indisputable, complete, absolute certainty. After all, if scientific beliefs are as uncertain as the rest of our beliefs, it's not obvious that there would be any hard divide between scientific knowledge and mere opinion.
He also thought that scientific knowledge must involve more than knowing how to do things, but knowing why those things work. I may know that trees lose their leaves in fall because of wind blowing them away, but this is not scientific knowledge. I must demonstrate how this occurs from more fundamental, general causes for scientific knowledge. So, scientific knowledge would be deeper, like the knowledge that less sunlight limits chlorophyll which is needed for leaves to stick to trees.
In other words, science had to be “derived from first principles,” so to speak. You can think of Aristotle’s “first principles” as something like the most basic laws of nature. What Aristotle had in mind specifically, was the prevailing geocentric theory having to do with elements. This part of history may be a little more popularly known than some of the other parts. Back in the day, the universe was thought to be geocentric; the Earth was at the center. Why? Was this just some sort of self-importance on our part? No, this seemed to best explain a lot of the phenomena we were witnessing. There were four fundamental elements. There were heavy, Earth-y things, or Fire-y things that went up. But up, down, etc. in relation to what? The Earth. Everything they observed seemed to have the Earth as a “telos,” as Aristotle would say. And they could see that. They could apparently sit down and observe, over and over, that all Earth-y objects have, as their telos, the Earth while Fire-y objects went away from the Earth.
So, they were certain of that much. There was no denying that there were four elements, that interactions between these elements and the rules they played by explained all phenomena. So, if it could just be demonstrated that something was entailed from these first principles, such a thing could be known for certain just like these first principles.
For science, we need principles which we are certain of and can logically derive facts of the world from, and we need to know what is fundamentally happening, on a deeper level, with our observations. This is what gives us absolute certainty.

B. Seventeenth and eighteenth century

By the time of Galileo and Newton, the need to figure out what was fundamentally going on at a deeper level was no longer taken to be needed for science. Galileo Newton refused to figure out why what he was saying was true, but all the same, he knew what he said of free-falling bodies was true with absolute certainty. Newton Galileo similarly didn't claim to know why the celestial bodies moved the way he said they did, but he said he was coming up with theories directly from the phenomena and so he was sure. He wanted to know why, but felt that was unimportant to his theories being scientific.
There were two driving forces behind dropping the second demarcative component devised by Aristotle, and keeping only certainty. First, it didn’t match up with the sciences. By this time, and even before, by the time of Ptolemy, mathematical astronomy was not at all deriving the trajectories of the celestial bodies from first principles. Astronomers were simply figuring out correlations between the movements of the celestial bodies and other bodies, the seasons, and so on. Explanation from first principles was no consideration at all. Some bit the bullet that astronomers just weren’t scientists, but this was a hard bullet to bite since it seems rather clear that we should listen to astronomers.
Second, there was an extremely worrying revolution that shook every scientist and philosopher to her core. The fall of geocentrism and the very first principles that all scientific knowledge had been derived from since then. After this, there was very little agreement over how it was that scientific knowledge was absolutely certain. René Descartes was someone who famously sought to show how we could have scientific knowledge. Certainty was very important, hence he dug down to find a belief in which he was certain, which he thought was his famous Cogito: I think, therefore I am. He thought we could derive all of science from this, and that’s how we could be certain of scientific knowledge. This wasn’t a fruitless endeavor. While he developed this attempt at demarcation, he discovered a lot that we still use to this day. For instance, it was Descartes who came up with science as being concerned with mechanisms and laws of nature, something physicists still do today. Prior to then, science was an investigation into teleology and purpose, not mechanisms and laws. This was a fundamental shift in our empirical investigations, one that has persisted in all sciences and one we can thank Descartes for.
When David Hume potentially showed that we couldn't even form any justification by which we could derive our predictions from just our observations beyond practical need, Immannuel Kant freaked out and spent the rest of his life coming up with an entire system of philosophy meant to show how science could be justified to a point of certainty as well as metaphysics as a science, which was concerned with only a small set of questions which could be answered in metaphysics (anticipating later attempts to throw out metaphysics, he too threw away much of it).
Newton, Kant, Descartes, Locke, Bacon, etc. argued all the time, then, over how it is scientific knowledge is infallible. But nobody denied that, of course, it was, if done right, infallible. If they just figured out how to do it right, they’d obtain certain knowledge.

C. Nineteeth century

By the nineteenth century, the fallibility of all of our beliefs became dominantly accepted, and so this solution could not do any longer. But if not complete and indisputable certainty, what could distinguish science from non-science? Researchers in the nineteenth century tried to demarcate science from non-science via method. There must have been some identifiable scientific method by which it could be shown that some pursuits were scientific and some were not.
The scientific method, they reasoned, could still be fallible, could still lead to mistakes, and so on, and so there was no threat of making the same mistake as the infallibilists of all the eras before them. But this method of testing would allow us to correct ourselves so that we could keep progressing despite our mistakes in our pursuit of knowledge. This attitude can be summarized in E.V. Davis’s pithy remark that, “"if science lead us astray, more science will set us straight.”
To be clear, the idea that there was some specific method of going about scientific investigation was not a new idea. But the idea that it was fallible, but still the best method of forming knowledge, was new. So, everyone tried to figure out what was in common between the sciences, and how it was that this method was better than other methods of trying to figure things out. Various proposals were made, but all of them were not only vague, they didn't even actually match what scientists were doing. Furthermore, nobody was able to explain how their proposed methods were better at forming knowledge than any of the other proposals.
Now, it is taken to be the case that there simply is no such thing as "the scientific method." Despite this, as noted in the following two links (also check their citations, especially Bauer's Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method), many science educators and the public at large still act as if it exists:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522609/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#SciMetSciEduSeeSci

D. Twentieth century

So, certainty doesn't work. Fundamentality doesn't work. Methodology doesn't work. Maybe distinguishing science and non-science via semantics and meaningfulness would work.
This was a large part of the attempts of the members of the Vienna circle, a group of scientists and philosophers who started a movement known as logical positivism. Logical positivism was an incredibly complex movement, which few contemporary summaries do justice. But to give an idea of the movement, I’ll briefly discuss their motivations and two prominent formulations of one of their central theses.

FORMULATING EARLY LOGICAL POSITIVISM

Logical positivism rose with the apparent increase in success of scientific, logical, mathematical, and linguistic investigation. Feeling the need to throw out all of philosophy which did not appear to show the promise of similar success, logical positivists aimed to restrict what sentences were meaningful down to much less. This would, in effect, allow them to put front and center the sciences, the mathematics, and so on, throwing out what they took to be nonsensical metaphysics. You can consider this a birthplace of certain scientistic cultural elements which persist to this very day.
It should be made clear that the logical positivists came off the heels of an era of philosophy where philosophers would make claims like "The absolute is perfect" or "Nothingness nothings," which the logical positivists saw as just a bunch of pseudo-poetic nonsense, as evidenced by their lack of any form of measurable success against their scientific counterparts, who made claims like "This is the data we should expect from this experiment." The logical positivists were much more sympathetic to the latter form of claims. They really seemed to mean something and weren't just apparently pseudo-poetic word salad, and they really seemed to be getting at some sort of success.
Another causally relevant factor was that Bertrand Russell had a significant influence on how the logical positivists thought of philosophy in the Medieval era. Russell would often mischaracterize them because he really hated them, and many of the logical positivists simply trusted Russell’s account after Russell became a central figure in philosophy due to his immense contributions to logic, mathematics, and the philosophies thereof. So, they aimed to throw away much of medieval philosophy too, which we know now was a grave mistake on their part, perhaps even more problematic than their belief that the claims in the previous paragraph were meaningless word salad.
In short, scientific investigation was good, nonsensical metaphysical investigation, whatever that was, was silly.
With those motivations in mind, in what follows, I will explain early logical positivism and its death as briefly as I can. I can elaborate should anyone be interested in these problems, but I suspect nobody will be, and so I will cut myself short on each part.
Early logical positivists defended the verificationist criterion of meaning, meaning they believed that all declarative sentences were:
A. Analytic: True or false in virtue of the meanings of the terms (e.g. "All squares have four sides," "All ravens are birds"). B. Empirically verifiable: Logically entailed from some finite set of possible observation (sentences), or could in principle be verified by some finite set of observation (sentences). C. Meaningless. It’s difficult to make out exactly what this means, but importantly, it meant that something wasn’t worth investigating.
This account failed.
First, it couldn’t account for sentences of universal form, or sentences of the form “All F is G,” or “Each x is such that if it is F, it is G,” or to put it symbolically, “(∀x)(Fx⊃Gx).” For example, claims like “All stars emit light” or “All electrons repel other electrons.” These weren’t true or false in virtue of the meanings of the terms alone, nor was it possible for them to be entailed by some finite set of observations (or rather, the sentences for those observations).
Second, it couldn’t resist the addition of meaningless disjuncts. Via disjunction introduction, the purportedly meaningless sentences could be added on without problem.
Third, it made certain claims about the same very same thing, of the very same subject, etc. meaningful while their counterparts were meaningless. For example, “unicorns exist” would be meaningful under this criterion, while “unicorns don’t exist” would not be. Why? Well, you may know that all positive statements are logically equivalent to some negative statement. This is often brought up when someone debunks the myth that “you can’t prove a negative.” But perhaps less known is that you can take this further: negative existential statements are logically equivalent to some positive universal sentence, such that negative existential statements run into the problem of being sentences of universal form, and thus (as previously demonstrated) meaningless.
A demarcation which distinguishes between “unicorns exist” and “unicorns don’t exist” as scientific or not is deeply, and perhaps fatally, problematic.
Fourth, Gödel's theorem, often summarized as truth outrunning provability in formal systems, demonstrated that for any language with a finite set of axioms (and inference rules) that let you do some arithmetic, some sentences within that language can't be proven or disproven. This meant that, contrary to the hopes of the logical positivists, mathematics couldn’t all be accounted for analytically via a small set of syntactic rules.
Fifth, the early criterion was self-defeating. The criterion itself was neither analytic nor empirically verifiable. So, if the criterion was correct, then it was meaningless. Otherwise, it was incorrect. A.J. Ayer’s defense against this claim involved taking “meaningless” to be an academic term of art, simply defined a certain way, but that would mean that it has nothing to do with whether something is worth investigating or whether some research was worth respecting.
In short, early logical positivism faced a lot of problems, any of which were individually fatal to it, which prompted later developments.
Later on, many logical positivists (though I emphasize again the incredibly diversity of the movement) defended the translatability criterion of meaning, meaning they believed that all declarative sentences were either:
A. Empirically translatable: Translatable into an empiricist language, which, following Hempel, I'll denote as L. B. Meaningless.
What does it mean for a sentence to be translatable into language L? This can be left a little bit open, so that various languages are proposed which would satisfy the motivations of the logical positivists. But Hempel considers a specific proposal for L that he thinks at least approaches being a serious contender. L is any language wherein:
C. The vocabulary of *L* contains (i) logical expressions like "if...then," "not," "and," "or," "all," "some," and so on, (ii) certain observation predicates, where observation predicates are terms which designate directly observable characteristics like "green," "soft," and "taller than," and so on, and finally (iii) any expression which can be defined via the terms of i and ii. D. The syntax of *L* is the syntax of some contemporary logical system, like that of the Principia Mathematica.
If you don't quite get that, that's fine; the basic idea here is that there is this language which is entirely restricted to sentences which would describe something we can observe and investigate. It has to be about a direct observation, or something that a direct observation implies. If you say "Hey, my good is green," I can do some science on that claim and be like "Yep, sure is, Sam-I-Am," or "Nope, I am afraid you are outside of your mind with respect to the coloration of those items, my dear friend Sam-I-Am." If you say "Hey, this glowing stuff is radioactive," then even though I can't directly observe radiation, I can do some science on that claim too because it entails certain direct observations.
Hopefully, that gives at least some blurry shape to this criterion.
This solves all of the old problems (will elaborate if needed), but comes with fatal new problems.
First, it can’t account for dispositional terms like “fragile.” We can do this today thanks to the advent of possible worlds semantics (which is also how we know, with nearly unanimous consensus, that there exist other possible worlds), but even that probably wouldn’t have helped the translatability criterion.
Second, by the 1950s, plenty of highly sophisticated theoretical abstracts simply couldn’t be defined or reduced to observation predicates. These include terms like “wavefunction” or “electric field.”
Third, accounting for inductive inference syntactically made inductive inference relative or underdetermined by anything other than language. Inductive inference is central to our everyday lives. When you decided to eat food rather than drink arsenic for nutrition this morning, you inferred from what you’ve observed what experiences you haven’t observed would be like. Any theory that can’t account for this is wrong.
In response to problems like this, even later thinkers would allow for theories which had any observational component(s) at all, so long as the rest of the theory was broadly, appropriately, liberally related to those observational components.
But of course, research in metaphysics, much like theoretical physics, does do that. This marked the end of the anti-metaphysics and anti-philosophy of logical positivism, as it was demonstrated despite their best efforts that it seemed impossible to demarcate between the sciences and metaphysics. Later on, logical positivism died.
What were some other attempts worth mentioning in the twentieth century? Karl Popper thought that maybe the sciences were falsifiable while the non-sciences weren’t, but this position is as dead as logical positivism. Others thought that science was unique in that it progressed, while non-sciences didn’t, but this doesn’t turn out well at all either. Others interpreted science pragmatically and as having to do with its useful and practical applications, but this didn’t work out either.
Others have done great work on how these failed, but with this section dragging on a bit, I’ll just note for one of them that clearly, plenty of non-scientific fields progress, like literary criticism, metaethics, history, foundations of quantum mechanics, military strategy, etc. We certainly know more in those fields than we did a century ago, it’d be absurd to tell a military general otherwise. On the other hand, plenty of sciences don’t or didn’t progress for a very long time, tentative candidates brought up by Larry Laudan being: “acoustics from 1750 to 1780; human anatomy from 1900 to 1920; kinematic astronomy from 1200 to 1500; rational mechanics from 1910 to 1940.”
Perhaps an even bigger problem with some of the attempts in the twentieth century is many of them, Popper’s and A.J. Ayer’s in particular, failed to meet the fourth desiderata. They became much closer to simply esoteric distinctions without implications.

E. Do we have a solution today?

So, are we still trying to figure out the demarcation problem now? Or did we figure it out? I think it’s the latter. But insofar as we’re trying to understand what Senku says (he never does touch on the correct answer), this is likely mostly irrelevant for our purposes. But I’ll make a few notes here so as to not leave readers unsatisfied, then move on.
The contemporary answer usually involves giving up necessary and sufficient conditions altogether. This is as revolutionary as it is deeply problematic for practical reasons. Let me offer a historical fact that I’m uniquely situated to give. Once upon a time, there was a United States Supreme Court case meant to decide once and for all whether creationism should be taught in schools. The answer is, of course, that it should not be.
So, the supreme court brought in a very well known expert on the matter: Michael Ruse. Michael Ruse was going to adjudicate on what was and wasn’t science for the purposes of the United States Supreme Court, and was going to change the world with it. What was Michael Ruse’s answer? Something like logical positivism.
Why did he do this? Well, Michael Ruse happens to be my professor’s professor, and so I have a bit of insight into what Ruse was thinking here via what he said when his student asked him about his decision to give a false answer to the demarcation question when he was asked for the goods.
Here’s the problem. The newer answers have no necessary or sufficient conditions. The Supreme Court can’t work with that. But obviously, we need to keep creationism out of schools. The older answers lacked the normative component, and also were demonstrably not the correct necessary and sufficient conditions, but you could work with them. You could clearly adjudicate on what was and wasn’t science for legislative purposes.
But even if all the answers involve quite a bit of vagueness, resistant to the sort of judgments practically necessary, we do have answers. These days, demarcative questions involve quite a bit of vagueness. Laudan himself suggests simply giving up terms like “pseudoscience” and “non-science,” researching only into what knowledge is and isn’t reliable. So, on the one end, you have fields like history, metaethics, literary criticism, biology, foundations of quantum mechanics, modal semantics, mathematics, causation, and so on. These fields give us reliable knowledge. Then, closer to the other end of the spectrum, you have things like social Darwinism, creationism, Myers-Briggs typology, objectivism, acupuncture, conversion therapy, and so on. These fields, theories, topics, etc. don’t give us or involve reliable knowledge.
And then, between the reliable sciences and non-sciences, it’s not uncommon (though not unanimous) to see another sort of spectrum. On one end, you have research that might be thought of as more “direct” or “observational.” Further away, you have more theoretical fields. So, modal semantics, the foundations of quantum mechanics, moral ontology, causation, physical cosmology, and so on.
In short, many contend that the search for strict demarcation has ended, for better or worse, contrary to what Senku seems to want.

What does this mean for Senku? Why is he wrong? (Summary included)

Senku claims that the basis of science is figuring out underlying rules. But as we’ve seen, this Aristotelian view of science didn’t work out so well. Now, of course, one reason was that our understanding of underlying rules wasn’t infallible, which is hardly a problem for us today, seeing as we’re fallibilists. But another is that plenty of sciences simply don’t look for underlying mechanisms explaining the phenomena, etc. I gave the example of astronomy, which for the longest time did no such thing. There are plenty of other examples today. Indeed, many physicists complain that this is the case for large swathes of their field.
He also expresses a belief in the scientific method. But after intense research in the nineteenth century, it doesn’t seem like there’s any such thing. Throughout history, much research, being done clearly as it ought to be, didn’t involve many things often purported to be methodologically necessary, like replication or hypothesizing.
Anyway, I’d love to write more, and if enough people find any part of this interesting, I plan to write more, whether to elaborate on certain things I cut short here or to answer the other questions I listed that the show tackles. But you gotta make the cut somewhere.
All in all, despite these inaccuracies, I don’t want people to be left with the notion that this show is overall scientific hogwash. While it gets its central and fundamental questions wrong, the research into other areas are pretty detailed.
I’d love to talk to the mangaka, Riichiro Inagaki, about all of this. I wouldn’t just bring up the flaws I just mentioned, but my adoration of the show and the aesthetic context it exists in. I’d want them to understand both these flaws and what an incredible achievement with respect to representations of science it is. But alas, I have no way of communicating to Inagaki at this time! Maybe one day, hey?
Anyway, to summarize like I did in the other sections, the show explores a lot of topics central to what science is, two of which are:
  1. What is the essence of science?
  2. Does science have a specific method to it? If so, what?
Here’s a brief answer to both:
  1. Not any of the main answers prior to the last few decades.
  2. No, “the scientific method” is a myth (though fortunately, scientists are listening more and more to experts on the matter) and there’s likely no such thing, though often useful for teaching those unfamiliar with science about it.
Senku has something of a mish mash between Aristotle's, Descartes's(?), and the nineteenth century account, and unfortunately, all of these have been debunked.
Hopefully, everyone’s gained something from all of this. Let me know and let me know if it’s worth writing the rest of what I’d like to write about on the matter. :)

Sources and further reading

To stay under the character limit, I'll add this as a comment below. Someone remind me!
submitted by justanediblefriend to badscience [link] [comments]


2019.12.13 22:46 justanediblefriend The bad science and history of a science-focused story: What does Senku from Dr. STONE get terribly wrong despite the incredible manga’s attention to detail and being so well-researched? Its most central topic: What science is. (Part one, minimal spoilers.)

Introduction: What is Dr. STONE all about?

So, I just finished Dr. STONE, binged it all while studying for my physics final (which I did pretty well on, thanks for asking). It’s not perfect; I could definitely write a pretty detailed review on its aesthetic and moral accuracies and inaccuracies, but I’m willing to bet plenty of people more experienced with that sort of thing already are, and have repeated the points I’d have to make ad nauseam.
No, what really prompted me to write about Dr. STONE is not my assessment of how good the show is and whatever evidence I have to convince you that I’m right (though I do think it’s a fairly good show), but rather my claims about the accuracy of Dr. STONE’s claims about science. The show, for those unfamiliar with it, is about a teenager with superhuman scientific knowledge trying to see if he can (for reasons I won’t reveal) obtain our technology from scratch.
While he does this, the show explores a lot of topics central to what science is:
  1. Does science produce epistemic achievements about unobservables? That is, does science ever figure out anything? Are our best scientific theories approximating truth?
  2. What is the essence of science?
  3. Does science have a specific method to it? If so, what?
  4. Who should we, and scientists, recognize as having epistemic authority?
All of these are really important questions, but I can’t go over them all. Here’s a brief answer to each of them, and an overview of what I’ll be discussing in this post.
  1. Experts are about four times as likely to say “yes” than “no,” but there’s still a lot of disagreement on the issue. Furthermore, despite the expert consensus on the matter, scientists at large seem to disagree, with many leading scholars observing that scientists tend to hold or express what are called “anti-realist” attitudes.
  2. Not any of the main answers prior to the last few decades.
  3. No, “the scientific method” is a myth (though fortunately, scientists are listening more and more to experts on the matter) and there’s likely no such thing, though often useful for teaching those unfamiliar with science about it.
  4. There’s disagreement, but there’s been a stronger push away from hard distinctions between observers and subjects in terms of epistemic authority, and naïve notions of objectivity. Much research shows that they have an ironic tendency of moving us away from the objective truth.
I could talk at great length about all of these issues and how the shows explore them. I’m especially passionate about 4. But I’ll be going with 2, and briefly, 3.
I was actually considering posting this on /badscience at first, but with the season finale being here today, I think this subreddit deserves it the most. I should clarify that I don’t think the show (and presumably manga) is wildly inaccurate, bordering on pseudoscience or anything. Indeed, it’s specifically the fact that the manga is so well-researched, accurate, and pays so much attention to detail that it makes for a good subject of analysis. I mean, who would want to see me give a detailed analysis of how Ant-Man or Avengers: Endgame is at odds with science? I think everyone can tell the films were playing it a bit fast and loose with quantum mechanics (and classical mechanics, and their own mechanics, etc.).
But Dr. STONE is just so fucking good when it comes to matters of science that where it gets things wrong becomes especially interesting. It’s actually so good that instead of writing a paper like my professor asked for for my final assignment, I wrote a Dr. STONE (and Back to the Future) inspired short story that explores the four issues I just listed above. I won’t be sharing that story, of course; it was a rushed, 3-day final project, but this should speak to just how much I fell in love with elements from this show).
So. What is the essence of science?

How Dr. STONE drops the philosophers’ stone: What Senku says

Senku makes a lot of offhand comments about what science is. While the show proposes several positions with respect to all four topics above, I’ll be focusing on the things relating to topics 2 and 3. Some stuff worth going over are Senku’s claims that:
Some of these, I might mention or comment on in passing while saying quite a bit more on the others. So, what does Senku get right and what does Senku get wrong?

Is Senku right about hypothesizing, experimenting, and replication? Let’s find out.

Is Senku right about hypothesizing, experimenting, and replication? Let’s find out.

Senku claims that science involves hypothesizing and experimenting over and over, slowly, to refute another character’s claim that science was epistemically failing them. Is it true that these are necessary (Senku seems to be claiming that these are necessary rather than sufficient conditions for science; the latter claim would be a bit more untenable) conditions for science?
There’s a lot to be said about whether hypotheses and experiments are necessary to science, but I think I’ll give Senku those since I think the last part is a bit more interesting (and it’s a bit harder to adjudicate what exactly Senku means with the former components, and some ways of interpreting it might run into issues with cases like Bell’s theorem).
Science seems to centrally need replication and reproducibility, does it not? That’s why, after all, the purported replication crisis we’ve had for some time now seems so fundamentally troubling for science.
But as historian of science Friedrich Steinle will note, while replication is important, it’s not so essential that science can be accurately described as the process of hypothesizing and experimenting over and over. Sometimes, you hypothesize, do an experiment, and there’s no demand for replication at all, which, by Steinle’s lights, appears to be a correct judgment. So as it turns out, science’s relationship to replication and reproducibility is incredibly complex, and a great deal of research by historians, philosophers, and social scientists has been necessary to understand this relationship.
Steinle offers an example, noting that “The first vacuum pump was designed and put in operation by the Magdeburg mayor and former technical advisor Otto von Guericke in the 1650….Guericke’s apparatus was unique, complicated, expensive, and difficult to handle….In any case, it is clear that replication was not an issue for Guericke; but even without replication, no doubts were raised about his results. This had probably to do with his public performance that could be witnessed by a large number of participants.” There’s no reason to think that the common sense of scientists at the time was wrongheaded. The judgment that replication was unnecessary in the case of Guericke’s experiment, and unnecessary to science overall, seems to be a very strong datum that it is, in fact, not necessary. This doesn’t mean replication can be neglected or that it’s unimportant, Steinle himself will note that it’s clearly necessary in all sorts of cases. But here, it was not. The need for replication is incredibly contextual, and it is not a part of the necessary or sufficient conditions of science.
Indeed, there may be no such things as necessary or sufficient conditions of science. To elaborate, let’s consider the two related claims that science is fundamentally about figuring out underlying rules, and that it is the “pain-in-the-ass” method by which we discover those underlying rules.

Getting directly at the several millennia old issue: What is the essence of science, and what does Dr. STONE get wrong about science?

So, what about those two claims?
They’re actually precedented. What Senku is claiming here is rooted in a mish mash of historical events, but, as I’ll demonstrate, what these events teach us is actually that Senku is rather confused about what it is that science is. First, we’ll need to talk about the problem we’re grappling with here, then the history of the problem, and finally what we can draw from that history.

What’s the problem?

What we’re dealing with is called the demarcation problem, and it’s a problem we’ve been facing for over two millennia. It’s an incredibly important problem, and is the engine behind a great many events in intellectual history. The importance of this problem to those events is to such a severe extent that some historians or those interested in history have considered it disappointing that those events are taught without this incredibly necessary context.
So, what is the demarcation problem and why is it so damned important that it’s so central to so many historical events? Briefly:
Why is this so important? Well, science has a lot of weight. Since the ancient era, we listened to scientists. When they said something was going on, we took them at their word. That is, they have epistemic authority. We teach our children, as well as adults, what the results of science were and what scientists are doing today. We fund scientists. And we do all of these things to science in a way where we don’t do it to that which isn’t science; we rightly pass on scientific knowledge and not pseudoscientific knowledge, or at least we try or purport to.
With that in mind, what are some things we want from a theory of what demarcates science and non-science? For ease of reference, I’ll call these desiderata from here on out.

The desiderata of demarcation

I’ll not only be going over the desiderata of demarcation, but why those desiderata are justified. A demarcation between science and non-science should:
  1. be in line with actual scientific practice,
  2. provide the necessary conditions of science,
  3. provide the sufficient conditions of science, and
  4. explain the normative properties of science (i.e. why it’s so valuable in all the ways we think it’s valuable.
So , why do we need to satisfy all four desiderata? I’ll consider them one by one.
(1) Why should a solution to the demarcation problem actually describe scientific practice? A solution should aim to fit within the sciences those paradigmatic sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology. For consider if the demarcation only purported to show some non-actual, ideal demarcation. How would a solution do any of what we want it to then? If physics isn't a science, then our desire to take physicists to be authoritative cannot come from our desire to take scientists in general to be authoritative, since that desire corresponds to non-actual scientists.
(2) Why should a solution to the demarcation problem provide the necessary conditions for science? If it only gave the sufficient conditions, then certainly, we'd be able to know when some investigation isn't pseudo-scientific, is authoritative or worthwhile as such, etc. But now, we'd have no ability to know when some investigation isn't pseudo-scientific, shouldn't be paid any heed, shouldn't be funded, etc.
(3) Why should a solution to the demarcation problem provide the sufficient conditions for science? If it only gave the necessary conditions, then certainly, we'd be able to know when some investigation is pseudo-scientific, isn't authoritative or worthwhile as such, etc. But now, we'd have no ability to know when some investigation is pseudo-scientific, shouldn't be paid any heed, shouldn't be funded, etc.
(4) Why should a solution to the demarcation problem make it clear why science is valuable? If all we're doing is just coming up with some unimportant, formal distinction between fields, the problem wouldn't be any more important than demarcating between various sciences. Sure, we think there's a difference between physics and biology, but if it came to light that this wasn't the case, would it matter, and would everyone focus intensely on figuring out the demarcation? A solution to the demarcation problem should let us know what to fund, who to listen to, etc.
So, without further ado, here is the history of answers to this problem.

What have we already tried?

It’s a little ambiguous what exactly Senku is saying, but I think I have a good idea of what he might be trying to get at. So I’ll try to go over the history (with much thanks to Larry Laudan) independently of Senku’s thoughts, and then offer my comments on what Senku is trying to get across.

A. Aristotle

So, with the four desiderata in mind, what solutions have been provided throughout the history of philosophy and science to the problem? What did people think was the difference between science and non-science? We can trace this problem back to Parmenides of Ancient Greece. Concerns about the difference between episteme, or knowledge, and doxa, or mere opinion, loomed large. Aristotle provided a solution in his Posterior Analytics, positing that scientific knowledge had to involve indisputable, complete, absolute certainty. After all, if scientific beliefs are as uncertain as the rest of our beliefs, it's not obvious that there would be any hard divide between scientific knowledge and mere opinion.
He also thought that scientific knowledge must involve more than knowing how to do things, but knowing why those things work. I may know that trees lose their leaves in fall because of wind blowing them away, but this is not scientific knowledge. I must demonstrate how this occurs from more fundamental, general causes for scientific knowledge. So, scientific knowledge would be deeper, like the knowledge that less sunlight limits chlorophyll which is needed for leaves to stick to trees.
In other words, science had to be “derived from first principles,” so to speak. You can think of Aristotle’s “first principles” as something like the most basic laws of nature. What Aristotle had in mind specifically, was the prevailing geocentric theory having to do with elements. This part of history may be a little more popularly known than some of the other parts. Back in the day, the universe was thought to be geocentric; the Earth was at the center. Why? Was this just some sort of self-importance on our part? No, this seemed to best explain a lot of the phenomena we were witnessing. There were four fundamental elements. There were heavy, Earth-y things, or Fire-y things that went up. But up, down, etc. in relation to what? The Earth. Everything they observed seemed to have the Earth as a “telos,” as Aristotle would say. And they could see that. They could apparently sit down and observe, over and over, that all Earth-y objects have, as their telos, the Earth while Fire-y objects went away from the Earth.
So, they were certain of that much. There was no denying that there were four elements, that interactions between these elements and the rules they played by explained all phenomena. So, if it could just be demonstrated that something was entailed from these first principles, such a thing could be known for certain just like these first principles.
For science, we need principles which we are certain of and can logically derive facts of the world from, and we need to know what is fundamentally happening, on a deeper level, with our observations. This is what gives us absolute certainty.

B. Seventeenth and eighteenth century

By the time of Galileo and Newton, the need to figure out what was fundamentally going on at a deeper level was no longer taken to be needed for science. Galileo refused to figure out why what he was saying was true, but all the same, he knew what he said of free-falling bodies was true with absolute certainty. Newton similarly didn't claim to know why the celestial bodies moved the way he said they did, but he said he was coming up with theories directly from the phenomena and so he was sure. He wanted to know why, but felt that was unimportant to his theories being scientific.
There were two driving forces behind dropping the second demarcative component devised by Aristotle, and keeping only certainty. First, it didn’t match up with the sciences. By this time, and even before, by the time of Ptolemy, mathematical astronomy was not at all deriving the trajectories of the celestial bodies from first principles. Astronomers were simply figuring out correlations between the movements of the celestial bodies and other bodies, the seasons, and so on. Explanation from first principles was no consideration at all. Some bit the bullet that astronomers just weren’t scientists, but this was a hard bullet to bite since it seems rather clear that we should listen to astronomers.
Second, there was an extremely worrying revolution that shook every scientist and philosopher to her core. The fall of geocentrism and the very first principles that all scientific knowledge had been derived from since then. After this, there was very little agreement over how it was that scientific knowledge was absolutely certain. René Descartes was someone who famously sought to show how we could have scientific knowledge. Certainty was very important, hence he dug down to find a belief in which he was certain, which he thought was his famous Cogito: I think, therefore I am. He thought we could derive all of science from this, and that’s how we could be certain of scientific knowledge. This wasn’t a fruitless endeavor. While he developed this attempt at demarcation, he discovered a lot that we still use to this day. For instance, it was Descartes who came up with science as being concerned with mechanisms and laws of nature, something physicists still do today. Prior to then, science was an investigation into teleology and purpose, not mechanisms and laws. This was a fundamental shift in our empirical investigations, one that has persisted in all sciences and one we can thank Descartes for.
When David Hume potentially showed that we couldn't even form any justification by which we could derive our predictions from just our observations beyond practical need, Immannuel Kant freaked out and spent the rest of his life coming up with an entire system of philosophy meant to show how science could be justified to a point of certainty as well as metaphysics as a science, which was concerned with only a small set of questions which could be answered in metaphysics (anticipating later attempts to throw out metaphysics, he too threw away much of it).
Newton, Kant, Descartes, Locke, Bacon, etc. argued all the time, then, over how it is scientific knowledge is infallible. But nobody denied that, of course, it was, if done right, infallible. If they just figured out how to do it right, they’d obtain certain knowledge.

C. Nineteeth century

By the nineteenth century, the fallibility of all of our beliefs became dominantly accepted, and so this solution could not do any longer. But if not complete and indisputable certainty, what could distinguish science from non-science? Researchers in the nineteenth century tried to demarcate science from non-science via method. There must have been some identifiable scientific method by which it could be shown that some pursuits were scientific and some were not.
The scientific method, they reasoned, could still be fallible, could still lead to mistakes, and so on, and so there was no threat of making the same mistake as the infallibilists of all the eras before them. But this method of testing would allow us to correct ourselves so that we could keep progressing despite our mistakes in our pursuit of knowledge. This attitude can be summarized in E.V. Davis’s pithy remark that, “"if science lead us astray, more science will set us straight.”
To be clear, the idea that there was some specific method of going about scientific investigation was not a new idea. But the idea that it was fallible, but still the best method of forming knowledge, was new. So, everyone tried to figure out what was in common between the sciences, and how it was that this method was better than other methods of trying to figure things out. Various proposals were made, but all of them were not only vague, they didn't even actually match what scientists were doing. Furthermore, nobody was able to explain how their proposed methods were better at forming knowledge than any of the other proposals.
Now, it is taken to be the case that there simply is no such thing as "the scientific method." Despite this, as noted in the following two links (also check their citations, especially Bauer's Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method), many science educators and the public at large still act as if it exists:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522609/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#SciMetSciEduSeeSci

D. Twentieth century

So, certainty doesn't work. Fundamentality doesn't work. Methodology doesn't work. Maybe distinguishing science and non-science via semantics and meaningfulness would work.
This was a large part of the attempts of the members of the Vienna circle, a group of scientists and philosophers who started a movement known as logical positivism. Logical positivism was an incredibly complex movement, which few contemporary summaries do justice. But to give an idea of the movement, I’ll briefly discuss their motivations and two prominent formulations of one of their central theses.

FORMULATING EARLY LOGICAL POSITIVISM

Logical positivism rose with the apparent increase in success of scientific, logical, mathematical, and linguistic investigation. Feeling the need to throw out all of philosophy which did not appear to show the promise of similar success, logical positivists aimed to restrict what sentences were meaningful down to much less. This would, in effect, allow them to put front and center the sciences, the mathematics, and so on, throwing out what they took to me nonsensical metaphysics. You can consider this a birthplace of certain scientistic cultural elements which persist to this very day.
It should be made clear that the logical positivists came off the heels of an era of philosophy where philosophers would make claims like "The absolute is perfect" or "Nothingness nothings," which the logical positivists saw as just a bunch of pseudo-poetic nonsense, as evidenced by their lack of any form of measurable success against their scientific counterparts, who made claims like "This is the data we should expect from this experiment." The logical positivists were much more sympathetic to the latter form of claims. They really seemed to mean something and weren't just apparently pseudo-poetic word salad, and they really seemed to be getting at some sort of success.
Another causally relevant factor was that Bertrand Russell had a significant influence on how the logical positivists thought of philosophy in the Medieval era. Russell would often mischaracterize them because he really hated them, and many of the logical positivists simply trusted Russell’s account after Russell became a central figure in philosophy due to his immense contributions to logic, mathematics, and the philosophies thereof. So, they aimed to throw away much of medieval philosophy too, which we know now was a grave mistake on their part, perhaps even more problematic than their belief that the claims in the previous paragraph were meaningless word salad.
In short, scientific investigation was good, nonsensical metaphysical investigation, whatever that was, was silly.
With those motivations in mind, in what follows, I will explain early logical positivism and its death as briefly as I can. I can elaborate should anyone be interested in these problems, but I suspect nobody will be, and so I will cut myself short on each part.
Early logical positivists defended the verificationist criterion of meaning, meaning they believed that all declarative sentences were:
A. Analytic: True or false in virtue of the meanings of the terms (e.g. "All squares have four sides," "All ravens are birds"). B. Empirically verifiable: Logically entailed from some finite set of possible observation (sentences), or could in principle be verified by some finite set of observation (sentences). C. Meaningless. It’s difficult to make out exactly what this means, but importantly, it meant that something wasn’t worth investigating.
This account failed.
First, it couldn’t account for sentences of universal form, or sentences of the form “All F is G,” or “Each x is such that if it is F, it is G,” or to put it symbolically, “(∀x)(Fx⊃Gx).” For example, claims like “All stars emit light” or “All electrons repel other electrons.” These weren’t true or false in virtue of the meanings of the terms alone, nor was it possible for them to be entailed by some finite set of observations (or rather, the sentences for those observations).
Second, it couldn’t resist the addition of meaningless disjuncts. Via disjunction introduction, the purportedly meaningless sentences could be added on without problem.
Third, it made certain claims about the same very same thing, of the very same subject, etc. meaningful while their counterparts were meaningless. For example, “unicorns exist” would be meaningful under this criterion, while “unicorns don’t exist” would not be. Why? Well, you may know that all positive statements are logically equivalent to some negative statement. This is often brought up when someone debunks the myth that “you can’t prove a negative.” But perhaps less known is that you can take this further: negative existential statements are logically equivalent to some positive universal sentence, such that negative existential statements run into the problem of being sentences of universal form, and thus (as previously demonstrated) meaningless.
A demarcation which distinguishes between “unicorns exist” and “unicorns don’t exist” as scientific or not is deeply, and perhaps fatally, problematic.
Fourth, Gödel's theorem, often summarized as truth outrunning provability in formal systems, demonstrated that for any language with a finite set of axioms (and inference rules) that let you do some arithmetic, some sentences within that language can't be proven or disproven. This meant that, contrary to the hopes of the logical positivists, mathematics couldn’t all be accounted for analytically via a small set of syntactical rules.
Fifth, the early criterion was self-defeating. The criterion itself was neither analytic nor empirically verifiable. So, if the criterion was correct, then it was meaningless. Otherwise, it was incorrect. A.J. Ayer’s defense against this claim involved taking “meaningless” to be an academic term of art, simply defined a certain way, but that would mean that it has nothing to do with whether something is worth investigating or whether some research was worth respecting.
In short, early logical positivism faced a lot of problems, any of which were individually fatal to it, which prompted later developments.
Later on, many logical positivists (though I emphasize again the incredibly diversity of the movement) defended the translatability criterion of meaning, meaning they believed that all declarative sentences were either:
A. Empirically translatable: Translatable into an empiricist language, which, following Hempel, I'll denote as L. B. Meaningless.
What does it mean for a sentence to be translatable into language L? This can be left a little bit open, so that various languages are proposed which would satisfy the motivations of the logical positivists. But Hempel considers a specific proposal for L that he thinks at least approaches being a serious contender. L is any language wherein:
C. The vocabulary of *L* contains (i) logical expressions like "if...then," "not," "and," "or," "all," "some," and so on, (ii) certain observation predicates, where observation predicates are terms which designate directly observable characteristics like "green," "soft," and "taller than," and so on, and finally (iii) any expression which can be defined via the terms of i and ii. D. The syntax of *L* is the syntax of some contemporary logical system, like that of the Principia Mathematica.
If you don't quite get that, that's fine; the basic idea here is that there is this language which is entirely restricted to sentences which would describe something we can observe and investigate. It has to be about a direct observation, or something that a direct observation implies. If you say "Hey, my good is green," I can do some science on that claim and be like "Yep, sure is, Sam-I-Am," or "Nope, I am afraid you are outside of your mind with respect to the coloration of those items, my dear friend Sam-I-Am." If you say "Hey, this glowing stuff is radioactive," then even though I can't directly observe radiation, I can do some science on that claim too because it entails certain direct observations.
Hopefully, that gives at least some blurry shape to this criterion.
This solves all of the old problems (will elaborate if needed), but comes with fatal new problems.
First, it can’t account for dispositional terms like “fragile.” We can do this today thanks to the advent of possible worlds semantics (which is also how we know, with nearly unanimous consensus, that there exist other possible worlds), but even that probably wouldn’t have helped the translatability criterion.
Second, by the 1950s, plenty of highly sophisticated theoretical abstracts simply couldn’t be defined or reduced to observation predicates. These include terms like “wavefunction” or “electric field.”
Third, accounting for inductive inference syntactically made inductive inference relative or underdetermined by anything other than language. Inductive inference is central to our everyday lives. When you decided to eat food rather than drink arsenic for nutrition this morning, you inferred from what you’ve observed what experiences you haven’t observed would be like. Any theory that can’t account for this is wrong.
In response to problems like this, even later thinkers would allow for theories which had any observational component(s) at all, so long as the rest of the theory was broadly, appropriately, liberally related to those observational components.
But of course, research in metaphysics, much like theoretical physics, does do that. This marked the end of the anti-metaphysics and anti-philosophy of logical positivism, as it was demonstrated despite their best efforts that it seemed impossible to demarcate between the sciences and metaphysics. Later on, logical positivism died.
What were some other attempts worth mentioning in the twentieth century? Karl Popper thought that maybe the sciences were falsifiable while the non-sciences weren’t, but this position is as dead as logical positivism. Others thought that science was unique in that it progressed, while non-sciences didn’t, but this doesn’t turn out well at all either. Others interpreted science pragmatically and as having to do with its useful and practical applications, but this didn’t work out either.
Others have done great work on how these failed, but with this section dragging on a bit, I’ll just note for one of them that clearly, plenty of non-scientific fields progress, like literary criticism, metaethics, history, military strategy, etc. We certainly know more in those fields than we did a century ago, it’d be absurd to tell a military general otherwise. On the other hand, plenty of sciences don’t or didn’t progress for a very long time, tentative candidates brought up by Larry Laudan being: “acoustics from 1750 to 1780; human anatomy from 1900 to 1920; kinematic astronomy from 1200 to 1500; rational mechanics from 1910 to 1940.”
Perhaps an even bigger problem with some of the attempts in the twentieth century is many of them, Popper’s and A.J. Ayer’s in particular, failed to meet the fourth desiderata. They became much closer to simply esoteric distinctions without implications.

E. Do we have a solution today?

So, are we still trying to figure out the demarcation problem now? Or did we figure it out? I think it’s the latter. But insofar as we’re trying to understand what Senku says (he never does touch on the correct answer), this is likely irrelevant for our purposes. But I’ll make a few notes here so as to not leave readers unsatisfied, then move on.
The contemporary answer usually involves giving up necessary and sufficient conditions altogether. This is as revolutionary as it is deeply problematic for practical reasons. Let me offer a historical fact that I’m uniquely situated to give. Once upon a time, there was a United States Supreme Court case meant to decide once and for all whether creationism should be taught in schools. The answer is, of course, that it should not be.
So, the supreme court brought in a very well known expert on the matter: Michael Ruse. Michael Ruse was going to adjudicate on what was and wasn’t science for the purposes of the United States Supreme Court, and was going to change the world with it. What was Michael Ruse’s answer? Something like logical positivism.
Why did he do this? Well, Michael Ruse happens to be my professor’s professor, and so I have a bit of insight into what Ruse was thinking here via what he said when his student asked him about his decision to give a false answer to the demarcation question when he was asked for the goods.
Here’s the problem. The newer answers have no necessary or sufficient conditions. The Supreme Court can’t work with that. But obviously, we need to keep creationism out of schools. The older answers lacked the normative component, and also were demonstrably not the correct necessary and sufficient conditions, but you could work with them. You could clearly adjudicate on what was and wasn’t science for legislative purposes.
So, that’s the situation we’re in. Good? Good. Moving on!

What does this mean for Senku? Why is he wrong? (Summary included)

Senku claims that the basis of science is figuring out underlying rules. But as we’ve seen, this Aristotelian view of science didn’t work out so well. Now, of course, one reason was that our understanding of underlying rules wasn’t infallible, which is hardly a problem for us today, seeing as we’re fallibilists. But another is that plenty of sciences simply don’t look for underlying mechanisms explaining the phenomena, etc. I gave the example of astronomy, which for the longest time did no such thing. There are plenty of other examples today. Indeed, many physicists complain that this is the case for large swathes of their field.
Anyway, I’d love to write more, and if enough people find any part of this interesting, I plan to write more, whether to elaborate on certain things I cut short here or to answer the other questions I listed that the show tackles. But a girl’s gotta party, and I do have a party coming up soon.
All in all, despite these inaccuracies, I don’t want people to be left with the notion that this show is overall scientific hogwash. While it gets its central and fundamental questions wrong, the research into other areas are breath-takingly detailed, and it’s the sort of hard sci-fi that I live for.
I’d love to talk to the mangaka, Riichiro Inagaki, about all of this. I wouldn’t just bring up the flaws I just mentioned, but my adoration of the show and the aesthetic context it exists in. I’d want them to understand both these flaws and what an incredible achievement with respect to representations of science it is. But alas, I have no way of communicating to Inagaki at this time! Maybe one day, hey?
Anyway, to summarize like I did in the other sections:
The show explores a lot of topics central to what science is:
  1. Does science produce epistemic achievements about unobservables? That is, does science ever figure out anything? Are our best scientific theories approximating truth?
  2. What is the essence of science?
  3. Does science have a specific method to it? If so, what?
  4. Who should we, and scientists, recognize as having epistemic authority?
Here’s a brief answer to each of them:
  1. Experts are about four times as likely to say “yes” than “no,” but there’s still a lot of disagreement on the issue. Furthermore, despite the expert consensus on the matter, scientists at large seem to disagree, with many leading scholars observing that scientists tend to hold or express what are called “anti-realist” attitudes.
  2. Not any of the main answers prior to the last few decades.
  3. No, “the scientific method” is a myth (though fortunately, scientists are listening more and more to experts on the matter) and there’s likely no such thing, though often useful for teaching those unfamiliar with science about it.
  4. There’s disagreement, but there’s been a stronger push away from hard distinctions between observers and subjects in terms of epistemic authority, and naïve notions of objectivity. Much research shows that they have an ironic tendency of moving us away from the objective truth.
Senku has something of a mish mash between Aristotle's, Descartes's(?), and the nineteenth century account, and unfortunately, all of these have been debunked.
Hopefully, everyone’s gained something from all of this. Let me know and let me know if it’s worth writing the rest of what I’d like to write about on the matter. :)

Sources and further reading

Andersen, H., & Hepburn, B.’s. “Scientific Method” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on 2015, November 13. Fidler, F., & Wilcox, J.’s “Reproducibility Of Scientific Results” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on 2018, December 3. Hansson, S. O.’s “Science And Pseudo-Science” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on 2017, April 11. Hempel, C.’s “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning,” from Revue Internationale de Philosophie in 1950. Laudan, L.’s “The Demise of the Demarcation Problem” in 1983. Lilienfeld, S. O., Sauvigné, K. C., Lynn, S. J., Cautin, R. L., Latzman, R. D., & Waldman, I. D.’s “Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases” from Front. Psychol., 6 in 2015. Myrvold, W., Genovese, M., & Shimony, A.’s “Bell’s Theorem” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on 2019, March 13.
submitted by justanediblefriend to DrStone [link] [comments]


2019.12.07 04:40 fre3thenipple The higher mind pt3

Logic has limits, which are revealed through using sublime intuition upon intellectual content (the portrayal of frequency arcs upon the comparitively discrete conscious grasp). You cannot come to know something that you don't know; you must pass your eyes over content to better appreciate that unknown factor which will come to you. Mind gains more inertia the more that it discovers. You are left with less hyperactivity; less disused and wasted mental energies. Your knowledge and understanding becomes simplified, compacted into a higher compound form, out of view of the inferior original prize. If you didn't know consciously or unconsciously how to downgrade your thinking, as a general property and quality of existence itself;- then this presents a principle of growth and sophistication, going upwards by understanding. Your mind doesn't know how to revert to earlier states or configurations. It has no principles to do so; they are all out of possible mental consideration. The only hyperconformity that remains is that which is still necessitated. This is genuine exercised mental effort in action. This is the principal form of mind: select; appropriate; match; learn; configure; find optimizations and configure solutions; become conscious of more general principles; observe and reveal the big picture. Reflection is a specific, more abstract task of mind, and involves many more continuous visitations upon internal concepts (branching lower and farther down) in order to operate.
Thought is formed from abstract substances laid down with one another. In the continuous process of thought, these facets are interleaved one after the other, in attempt to better highlight the highly varying/variant character of such thought when composed with other, competing thought or with concepts from content. We can imagine an analogous frequency graph which displays continuously emanating wave forms, moving along time (frequency motion in the objective frequency domain of pure mind, which moves along with the objective spatiotemporal domain), interleaving common coordant patterns (concrete) and commonalities (abstract; parallel) which are then grasped as conceptual datum by unconscious mind. Consciousness directs the ebb and flow of these wave activites, by the highest order (the ruling common principles of the mind). With waves, what do you get? You get patterns, and patterns are intuitable as well as distinctly observable (if the mind is itself mathematical and is inherently using mathematics everywhere).
The content you encounter typically rarely changes enough to provoke changes from your seat of consciousness. This is the sleeping kind of life, rather than the examined life. It's all in the interpretation, and active dynamic mind concerns principles of flexing; principles of variation;- principles of (dis)continuity abound. Sensory thinkers can concern themselves with how similar a new experience is to the old regularity. Broad thinkers (conceptual thingifiers) discern intuition or rational analyses. Broad focus can be brought to bear on content ("head in the clouds"), or narrow focus can be selected (becoming aware of distinct individual component shapes in the room around you).
A selected (targeted) waveform will have further constituent constituted properties (suspended properties) to it for examination. Continuous mind revolves and convolves using concepts and appreciations thereof. It encroaches on and develops its own contexts. It traverses eternal conceptual definition and expression (objective mental schema as actualized) by its own internal mental schema (unconscious and conscious understanding; subjective mental schema as imposed characteristically).
Shape, colour, categorizing class, are all mathematical definitions. Mathematics must be ascertaining the locally bound qualities of the math it is feeling and sweeping analytically. Your thought definition is bound by the analytical clout (depth and depth of detail; sophistication; ultimately, the synthesized simplification) you can bring to bear on the thought content. Inwards, content is always constructed upwards (uplifted and upfiltered) from the visual, spatial, objective world. Temporal qualities also count as an aspect of mind. Thought content can be brought to bear on observed mental contents derived from the sensory, temporal apparatus;- mind has a certain window (objective wavefunction collapse) with which to achieve this. With continuous thoughts, you can reflect and suspend something for longer; you can take time to feel out the details, as if you would eventually know it as a large tome (the evidence mounts up). You feel out the mathematical shape (abstract form) for it. You trace how it moves and details and incurs change (modification in synthesis; meta properties of the constituent concept). This takes the time for competing thoughts to be modulated (inhibited or amplified) upon the thinking space.
The frequency with which you visit the spatial condition of things in your home is down to rational, conceptual considerations, and primarily those would be, animating principles (the soul).
"It therefore seems that all the affections of soul involve a body-passion, gentleness, fear, pity, courage, joy, loving, and hating; in all these there is a concurrent affection of the body. In support of this we may point to the fact that, while sometimes on the occasion of violent and striking occurrences there is no excitement or fear felt, on others faint and feeble stimulations produce these emotions, viz. when the body is already in a state of tension resembling its condition when we are angry. Here is a still clearer case: in the absence of any external cause of terror we find ourselves experiencing the feelings of a man in terror. From all this it is obvious that the affections of soul are enmattered formulable essences." ― Aristotle
There are far more abstract animating principles at play. Platitudes or Plato? We engage in conscious selection, which also entails and enlabours unconscious selection, within a community setting (or there is none docked to the considerations). The many flowing states of life are visited upon a consistent mind and person, which may be a prude for example. Social rational considerations are rife (in the Ego). Spiritual and rational concerns are rife (in the Self; or they are not present in some souls). All of this varies dynamically and is up for due rotation as accords a rotating, shifting princple for what issues and items should be closely visited or brought to memory (this varies with the life circumstance and the contest principle). Subject matter is in play, always. The mind has a focus and it has a consciousness principle. Mind actualizes what it sees to be the first due priority according the current task, environment, circumstance, surrounding, and the mental surroundings (the Self; the entire psyche). If we are troubled or inhibited in ourselves by some other force, we cannot reflect.
The principal cause of enmattered formulable essences on Spirit is something which is upfiltered and gained (derived) by the mind as it passes over content (embodiment and the senses and temporal activity). This is provided via various vectors of integration of contents towards unconscious principles. If we are affected negatively by something (fear of death), then this obviously overrides of normal unconscious activity; but this is a spiritual principle, not an empirical principle. You can't organize empirical principles; there is nothing to organize. You are only faced with an unchanging mass of objective content and objective form. Objectivity doesn't parse or translate aspects of objectivity. Only Spirit (subjectivity) can achieve this, and its principal necessary base for doing so is its psyche (spiritual substance). This comes in the form of Ego, persona and thinking as well as Self, archetype and spiritual conviction. In Ontological Mathematics, mind is mathematical organism (thinking substance).
"The doctrine of the Pythagoreans seems to rest upon the same ideas; some of them declared the motes in air, others what moved them, to be soul. These motes were referred to because they are seen always in movement, even in a complete calm. The same tendency is shown by those who define soul as that which moves itself; all seem to hold the view that movement is what is closest to the nature of soul, and that while all else is moved by soul, it alone moves itself. This belief arises from their never seeing anything originating movement which is not first itself moved." ― Aristotle
Reduction and skepticism are extremely important for a true thinker. In this, we get to grips with what we actually mean, via the dialectical oppositions and derivations. When the animating principle (the soul) moves, what is it doing? It's enlivening and actualizing its best base principles that it knows will help it on its journey towards universal understanding and knowledge. It seeks completion, but it doesn't know the conscious aspect of the journey and how this will best go; how best to get to grips with the highest syntheses and slingshot itself by the most insightful means possible. We are all in the interest of optimizing ourselves; do we even know ourselves enough?
The motion of the soul is simply reason. You cannot derive much from this general level of observation and analysis. What concerns Spirit and the animating principle (the soul) is how it is affected by the world through its far-reaching, long-range trials and challenges. You are always supposed to be gaining the maximum possible breadth and depth of knowledge (where breadth knowledge is learning and study, and where intuition is depth knowledge). You are supposed to touch all the most interesting story and knowledge content of the world as you age, and you are supposed to learn by analysis and broad focus of mental activity, and you aren't supposed to skim on thinking contribution. Nothing gets past you, is the idea. To get to more specific principles, we have to examine actual salient problem scenarios (really, these are problem spaces).
The Higher Self coordinates the general, abstract efforts of the Person in locating the best possible outcomes. Alma Deutscher taught herself to play piano at 6. Different minds have different skills and abilities (really, reasoning power) that accord best rational and psychological principles. Highly skilled minds can visit the Higher Self in much more focused, narrow, local/recent, distinct ways than just a general abstract organizing principle (long-range; long-term). The Higher Self need not be convoluted to the conscious mind (this would adapt and modulate through your connection to your unconscious and your soul). The more conscious the mind is, the more powerful and adaptive it can be (owing of course to hard raw unconscious mathematical power). The more active and dynamic and conscious the mind is of itself, the more the Higher Self can grow inwards and towards tighter spots and reaches of near, close, recent mental activity. The soul is the Self of a psyche schema, where the Higher Self furnishes its Ego as well (spiritual Ego; spiritual Ego animating principle); the Higher Self is mostly built of Self concept. The Higher Ego soothes you relating to spiritual conditions. The Higher Self ultimately concerns the Hero Archetype, the (Sublimated) Archon and Phoster archetypes and the God Archetype (all of these present interpersonal and communal qualities, with universal psychology). When your soul selects things for you, you have achieved Soul Contact. Principally this only happens in the rarest of transcendental dreams. Soul Contact concerns the incessant, relentless chasing of the highest animating principle; the profound (robust) motion principle. There is always room for improvement, and Spirit is always seeking out potential in front of itself. It has the best holistic frequency processing means to achieve this. You will only find sustained Soul Contact by breathing the dialectical life onto yourself and undergoing radical change (spontaneous adoption of new opinion and new motion principles). The connection with the unconscious is the most vital and telling part of this. The unconscious houses the Spirit, the soul, the Self, and every potent archetype and libido generation mechanism within it. The soul's resurgence form emanating out of our unconscious contents has to be distinguished for exact purpose, and must be sifted from the rest of unconscious priorities/procession, and this is only possible via the highest symphony of Self, conscious, unconscious, soul, reason, will, intellect, Shadow, libido, and so on. In fact, you don't want consistent Soul Contact; you want optimal Soul Contact frequency. Though you can enjoy the ride of the increased unconscious communication envelope. (And it would be wrong to have transcendental dreams every night; even vivid dreams every 2 nights for extended periods of time. Dreams are motivated by psychodramatic concerns). You are trying to reach the soul on its own; the soul in its essential quality. You are trying to help organize (actualize) it. You are trying to breathe life to its principal condition, but in the conscious self consistently for extended periods of time (pattern; form). Your frequency Self does not have the means to constantly provide support in suggestions, but rather we would prefer better broad form (this is a principle of economy). The soul is a highly abstract principle, whereas left brain mind must accord highly nuanced actualized form (conceptual conscious thinking) which must be folded in from frequency observations and insights. From there, we get personality. When you stop attempting the highest animating principle, the unconscious libido is freed to visit you with prompts and frustrate you. (If we were adventurous we might call this a Call to Action; is this passion, classically considered?). Wake up the underside. Reunite (recouple yourself) with the hinterland.
It takes a lot of effort to break out of common unconscious disruptions and distractions (frequency patterns), through to your soul and its true revealed character and apex appetite/concerns. One principal means you have to perform this is reason. Your consciousness is your base of regenerable reason, and it is furnished by heavily leveraged, repackaged unconscious functionality (where else is it coming from, that would be consistent? It's certainly not coming from consciousness' innate quality!).
The soul doesn't perceive. That's what the left brain conscious self does. The soul intuits, as must the Higher Self. Once you've intuited what you've repressed, you can begin to work with the material, in an elongated reflective process. The soul concerns Higher Superego issues (the state of the world/nation). This is inextricable in forming an overarching life principle of the highest order (broadest meaning and definition).
Satan himself must be absolutely haunted by the intuition of potential constant loss of power. He can't grasp how this would be represented syntactically, because he lacks consciousness. He doesn't anticipate he has any free time to spare. He can't confirm anything, and must rely on pure extroverted intuition; evening thinking (the world of appearances). This is his only basis of measure of any progress. Satan is incredibly insane, with his internal mind movie (more like humming -- "unconscious music"; unconscious hubbub) having him act hurriedly. He is pure Will to Power (unsublimated) without any conscious intellect (what the intuitions pertain to; how they pervade). He is unconscious will incarnate. Phosters all know this.
"Here, the Self is definitely depicted as unconscious, with the Ego as its conscious emanation, but how is the more powerful entity (the Self) able to produce something that seems even more powerful and wondrous (consciousness)?" ― Jack Tanner
Angels produce unity. "An angel in alchemical treatises symbolizes sublimation or the ascension of the volatile principle". This is to produce Soul Contact, or principally the direction of contact between conscious and unconscious; destination (holism) and source (thesis). The more unconscious power (libido) you are able to draw upon, the better the pedal to the metal; the better examination of light thrown upon the problem space. This is a principle of economy. The soul learns to align itself to best principles, where needs allow. The soul eventually becomes conscious. The Self is striving, after all, to be the center and the whole of the psyche (its knowledge; its grasping power). In motivation you will find self-interest predominates to a reliable degree;- as do other major psychic principles.
Consciousness strictly speaking, is a quality of mental focus. It must be rallied around the organizing animating point. The visuals you produce are part of the monadic individual wavefunction collapse (consciousness function collapse). But in there, is all the weight and splendor of the unconscious. The conscious is vaulted upwards by its unconscious. The soul concerns potential.
"The alchemists believed that these secret chemicals could be combined in the Arcanum Experiment, the single laboratory experiment that would demonstrate the archetypal forces and evolution of the universe. Ideally, such an experiment should succeed on many levels, not only corroborating the deepest philosophical and psychological principles, but also providing concrete evidence of their veracity. The Arcanum Experiment exposed the hidden principles connecting heaven and earth, offering a framework in which to explain both microcosmic and macrocosmic events. [...] Ascending birds indicate the volatilization of compounds or their sublimation. Descending birds indicate the fixation of compounds or their condensation and precipitation. Birds shown both ascending and descending indicate the process of Distillation. [...] The caduceus is the magical staff of Hermes, the Messenger of the Gods and revealer of alchemy. The staff is entwined by two serpents representing the solar and lunar forces. Their union is the Conjunction of alchemical principles and their offspring, if it lives, is the Stone. This Stone is represented as a golden ball with wings at the top of the caduceus. ... A naked child symbolizes the innocent soul. In alchemy, the child is the offspring of the King and Queen, the result of their marriage or union. ... Conjunction is the fourth operation in alchemical transformation. It is the coming together of the opposing archetypal forces of the Sun and Moon or the King and Queen. ... intercourse ... The crown symbolizes the successful completion of an alchemical operation or the achievement of a magisterium. It also signifies chemical royalty or the perfection of a metal. ... The dove is a symbol of renewed spirit or infusion of energy from Above. ... Jungian Alchemy Psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung rediscovered the images and principles of alchemy surfacing in the dreams and compulsions of his patients and began a lifelong study of the subject. He concluded that alchemical images explain the archetypal roots of the modern mind and underscores a process of transformation leading to the integration of the personality. ... The King in alchemy represents man, solar consciousness, or Sulfur. The King is naked in the early operations of alchemy and regains his royal robes at the end of his transformation. The King united with the Queen symbolizes Conjunction. ... Mercury’s all-encompassing properties were exhibited in other compounds too. ... The Queen symbolizes woman, lunar consciousness, and Mercury. The Queen is naked during the early stages but regains her royal robes at the end of her transformation. The Queen united with the King is the operation of Conjunction. ... The Quintessence is the fifth element with which the alchemists could work. It was the essential presence of something or someone, the living thing itself that animated or gave something its deepest characteristics. The Quintessence partakes of both the Above and the Below, the mental as well as the material. It can be thought of as the ethereal embodiment of the life force that we encounter in dreams and altered states of consciousness. It is the purest individual essence of something that we must unveil and understand in order to transform it. ... Symbols of Separation include swords, scythes, arrows, knives, and hatchets. [like a cleaver, then;- "a butcher's knife"] ... Soul in alchemy is the passive presence in all of us that survives through all eternity and is therefore part of the original substance (First Matter) of the universe. Ultimately, it is the One Thing of the universe. Soul was considered beyond the four material elements and thus conceptualized as a fifth element (or Quintessence). ... Spirit in alchemy is the active presence in all of us that strives toward perfection. Spirit seeks material manifestation for expression. Ultimately, it is the One Mind of the universe. ... The Stone is the goal of the Great Work. It was viewed as a magical touchstone that could [would] immediately perfect any substance or situation. The Philosopher’s Stone has been associated with the Salt of the World, the Astral Body, the Elixir, and even Jesus Christ."
Cake - The Distance
The Fifth Element: Music Video
The Answer - Never Too Late
Gorillaz - Dare
In alchemy we start with the basic and end up with the purified Philosopher's Stone (the revealed Spirit, and ultimately the face of god). This is a highly abstract journey. You are trying to unite both will and intellect, not one. Similarly you need to draw both from feminine and masculine principles, as in Jungian alchemy.
The song there explicitly drops "lost your way, a fallen knight".
Reductio.
That, not by elucidating of what was suppressed, but by re-connecting ego with its fully autonomous, vital and par excellence transformative source, which unconsciousness – as Jung has shown us – is. In this sense terms metanoia, matamorphosis, transubstantiation, rebirth and transformation through which individuation proceeds are synonymous. Transformation is the goal of therapy. (Jung, CW 17, par. 904)
You don't live in the ideal world (everyone wants to fight with you at all places of disagreement, lifting you up). You live in the practical, objective world. So, you must rely on yourself then, and develop your own unconscious Ascension Program.
Consciousness is predisposed to best organizing principles. That's why it's evidenced so pronounced, capable and competent. It only evolved that way though, through specifying organizing principles (which had to be met in unconscious consideration and rotundity). The capacity of consciousness is furnished with an evolved unconscious. This includes both the Personal Unconscious and the Collective Unconscious. The soul and world soul ("anima mundi") is implicit in this consideration. In fact, the soul envelops the world soul; it has overlap with it. The soul is interested in exigenesis (development from the outside; the onset). Exigenesis is tangenitally related to transubstantiation. It is the Sublima Miracle (The Holy Grail).
Only the Higher Self can give the Person a spiritual name. (Spirit identifying itself and addressing itself consciously). In fact, you can have multiple spiritual titles, to distinguish different roles and contexts.
Automatic writing (autosuggestion) can go like this, on consideration by principle:
They're not interested in it
This is not the way to do it
That confounds the purpose
It does not invite them
It does in ; but mishap pay to do it
(These start as dialectical theses presented for the unconscious to thusly choose from;- to point to conceptually).
You have to pay attention to your unconscious and invite it into the process, which is a mixing of conscious and unconscious contents. The woman within the man (Anima), or the man within the woman (Animus) is a living mental entity borrowing from sexual principles in the Other and with energy (libido). It is mathematics in organ (life; mind; energy; ultimately, Spirit). Repressed contents will resurface if you do not duly engage them and accord their wills! What is mistyping words and sentences? They are of the "must be undersought" category. You must fish it out. The Anima/Animus is your continual underbelly across your life. This is your soul. The soul is neither masculine nor feminine; conscious nor unconscious; Apollonian nor Dionysian; home nor away; waxing nor waning; Shadow nor light; oversoul nor undersoul; world soul nor private soul; sound nor unsound (together they make a sound castle or principally strong foundation/structure; built up in both directions as it were).
"Audacity, and again, audacity, and always audacity." ―Georges Danton
"Boldness, more boldness, and perpetual boldness!" ― Georges Danton
These were the wills of a Spirit (thinking of the world; the anima mundi).
"Chutzpah (/ˈxʊtspə, ˈhʊt-/) is the quality of audacity, for good or for bad. It derives from the Hebrew word ḥutspâ (חֻצְפָּה), meaning "insolence", "cheek" or "audacity". Thus the original Yiddish word has a strongly negative connotation but the form which entered English through Ameridish has taken on a broader meaning, having been popularized through vernacular use in film, literature, and television. The word is sometimes interpreted—particularly in business parlance—as meaning the amount of courage, mettle or ardor that an individual has."
You can have self-referent thoughts while talking or reacting. Intuition is delivered in a flash.
You are aiming for content to cross you with threaded purpose: empowers you or is water off a duck's back.
The soul comes focused by doing. Every thought is backended (bookended) with dialectic. Transubstansive metamorphosis is a process. It is the process.
"Atoms themselves are just information. And information is mental, not physical. There is no physical world at all, only the idea (the collective idea) of a physical world, which is a wholly different concept" ― Mike Hockney
There is no world independent of its actualized expression and the minds which generate it such. The collective is the world. Imagine how small a body you wield in the full scale of things. Now imagine that your mind has docked to the collective's bodies (brain atoms), with the body atoms as your extended mental expressions within such a meta-realm (which could not come into creation without minds reaching towards sentience/consciousness). All your experiences are built atop the body-content of the collective.
Mathematics is about the inside and out, freely feeling in between the creases, with independence.
Have you ever had the thought of your own soul in a body of the opposite sex?- As if all the actions across your life had been done by someone else? This is related to Metempsychosis. You soul is forever.
The soul wants to sing with you and be loud. Unconscious contents crave expression. Vocabulary is an example of tonal range. In fact, you have spoken segment vocabulary as well (quotes from music and movies). This is implicable (pliable) by the frequency Self/mind.
Morpheme
We are also at some instances making direct concord with the Shadow, which has its priorities of engagement. This is still limited. You can still be unaware of things you have done (you need ordering principles brought through the examination). You have to identify with the Shadow fully in all its filth and extreme pole of absolute human darkness; i.e. actually undergo complete Ego death and identify with Satan, then absolve it of moral wrongs, then take it back to reason (leadership by unwavering Higher Self means). (You may meet Lucifer archetypally first upon Ego death). You are interested in the true unification of all opposites (the Divine Child; the Trinity; the godhead). In earlier points of development this would be prescribed by Archon and Phoster templates. You must come to accept your dark side or it will be forever repressed in a protracted war for libido. This is an incredibly important pattern and permeation. Nothing could be more key to self discovery than activating the highest or most pronounced archetypes of ontological existence. The only prime limit is your intelligence. Meet your Shadow or be limited.
"Can’t usually experience the Wise One consistently until we undergo a kind of inner death and lose all certainty. Things seem meaningless, hence the archetype of meaning appears".
"Also, it can be difficult to identify characters in dreams—"all the contents are blurred and merge into one another ... 'contamination' of unconscious contents"—so that a character who seems at first to be a shadow might represent some other complex instead. ... Jung also made the suggestion of there being more than one layer making up the shadow. The top layers contain the meaningful flow and manifestations of direct personal experiences. These are made unconscious in the individual by such things as the change of attention from one thing to another, simple forgetfulness, or a repression. Underneath these idiosyncratic layers, however, are the archetypes which form the psychic contents of all human experiences. Jung described this deeper layer as 'a psychic activity which goes on independently of the conscious mind and is not dependent even on the upper layers of the unconscious—untouched, and perhaps untouchable—by personal experience' (Campbell, 1971). [...] Nevertheless, Jung remained of the opinion that while 'no one should deny the danger of the descent ... every descent is followed by an ascent ...enantiodromia'; and assimilation of—rather than possession by—the shadow becomes at last a real possibility. [...] 'The integration of the shadow, or the realisation of the personal unconscious, marks the first stage of the analytic process...without it a recognition of anima and animus is impossible.' Conversely 'to the degree to which the shadow is recognised and integrated, the problem of the anima, i.e., of relationship, is constellated', and becomes the centre of the individuation quest. Carolyn Kaufman wrote that 'in spite of its function as a reservoir for human darkness—or perhaps because of this—the shadow is the seat of creativity'; so that for some, it may be, 'the dark side of his being, his sinister [at times narcissistic; deflective; evasive; arrogant; insincere; overbearing; selfish; filthy; depraved; infatuated; abrasive; ridiculing; nonchalant; grandeur delusory; silent; hateful; jealous; irrational; but also incisive and expressive and observant, and by no means limited to one principle or quality; plays with myriad forms and desirous aims, and lives in the sear(ch)ing Will; it can reach the apex of the sublime via full integration, after passing through psychological complexes and irrationalities which arrest its progress] shadow... represents the true spirit of life as against the arid scholar'."
"Just spit balling here, but it seems to me maybe Elliot's personalities are compartmentalizations of Jung's psychological model. Elliot is the persona, Mr Robot is the ego that protects the persona... And the third personality is the shadow, which is why we've been unaware of it."
Mental principles flutter in between everything during a thought. The distinction is the detail (the sophistication of the thought). This is "where" the Anima/Animus live, and "where" ultimately phosters and gods are arranged.
The Shadow is in the Ego! It has encroached upon it (there is contamination;- overlap; the Shadow has encrusted the Ego).
You must turn your back on your darkest most troubling throughfare, redirecting energy as spiritual and rational growth; there must be a healing process for navigating the most hurtful, painful preoccupations and triggers that you're suffering from. Principally reason is the best cure. You may have to work through Sublimated understanding (empathic modelling) of individuals, groups or societies to arrive at a resolution to gain closure for something which happened to you, or a loss, or a sense of misdirected life purpose, or the feeling of missing out on life's experiences. You may have to reason yourself through your emotions, rationalizing them as you go along, and holding your own hand. This is now the domain of self soothing and self examination. What is your inner sanctum? Where is your solace?
The Shadow and the Others' shadow is not the arbiter of what's right, but you have to teach it/them. Shadows can be cast down collectively. Isn't there always an interpersonal Shadow? The ultimate Shadow (sublimated Will to Power) is the one that can detail you all about itself;- the cooperative and counterbalancing one.
"A gonad, sex gland, or reproductive gland is a mixed gland that produces the gametes (sex cells) and sex hormones of an organism. In the female of the species the reproductive cells are the egg cells, and in the male the reproductive cells are the sperm. The male gonad, the testicle, produces sperm in the form of spermatozoa. The female gonad, the ovary, produces egg cells. Both of these gametes are haploid cells."
The animating principle (the soul) is thick in frequency and light on spacetime.
"If you could read in dreams, you would be able to directly read the thoughts of the unconscious. In fact, it would speak directly to you, as it did in bicameral times, but in those days its messages were extremely simple and archetypal." ― Dr. Thomas Stark, The Stairway to Consciousness
Picture flowing waves going upwards and downwards, and another set going across. This was a sign received.
The frequency mind/Self is where the wisdom goes. Think of Daniel Tammet and his being annoyed with a disruptive Pi language/landscape.
"So, we have two centres of consciousness, one in the left brain and one in the right brain. The right brain consciousness – associated with dreams, hallucinations, fantasies, intuitions, psychic abilities, internal emotional preoccupations, internal teleology, and so on – was once dominant, but now left brain consciousness has taken over. The more rational you are, the more left-brain dominant you are. Philosophers, scientists and mathematicians are left-brain dominant. All people of faith are right-brain dominant, and only have a veneer of left-brain consciousness." ― Mike Hockney
There is a phase, sort of 5 minutes before "sleep" (wake), (but possibly much shorter!), where the Higher Self can inject salient thoughts exploring the resurgent mathematical themes of concern. This is as the Persona is landing but has not yet fully made the phase transition with its mental schema. (These are highly abstract conceptual scenes, instantiating the Person (exemplification of a higher order agent principle), which do not exist in waking -- "privation"). This affords/efforts conveyance via mental schema but without fully imposing the mental schema of the waking (waning) self. This is hypnopompia "unleasher".
Portmanteau
"The notion of hieros gamos does not always presuppose literal sexual intercourse in ritual, but is also used in purely symbolic or mythological context, notably in alchemy and hence in Jungian psychology. Hieros gamos is described as the prototype of fertility rituals."
We are most primarily interested in dialectics and transcendent meanings. prompt. B side. Identifying fundamentals is key. What is the guiding principle?
"Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations are dissociative, liminal states between sleep (dreaming) and waking. The boundary between these states is rendered unclear and blurred. An enormous amount of human history may have been decided by such states. These mysterious “boundary” states are where prophets, oracles, gurus, mystics, mediums, clairvoyants, spiritualists, psychonauts, and so on, set up home." ― Jack Tanner
"“Hypnagogia is the experience of the transitional state from wakefulness to sleep: the hypnagogic state of consciousness, during the onset of sleep. In opposition, hypnopompia denotes the onset of wakefulness. The related words from the Greek are agogos ‘leading’, ‘inducing’, pompe ‘act of sending’, and hypnos ‘sleep’." ― Mike Hockney
"Ghosts operate at liminal frequencies, right at the edge of our awareness. Human beings, with their restricted, primitive senses, with their consciousness reducing valves, enormous sensory and extra-sensory filters, and intuition and intellect blockers, don’t have a clue what’s truly out there. Science – the perfect subject for people with no imagination, for the sad, autistic, empiricist clowns who want to believe that what they personally experience and perceive is all there is – is the most incredible brake on human evolution, on a par with Abrahamism and Karmism. We need a New Humanity – rational, logical and mathematical – that transcends our primitive perceptions and experiences and accesses the universe in its fullest majesty … the universe viewed by the Gods." ― Jack Tanner
http://www.songlyrics.com/to-leave-a-trace/fight-your-evil-side-lyrics/ (Early bi-conscious camerality; bi-counting; precipitation; precocious. As is Billy Meier's work).
submitted by fre3thenipple to test [link] [comments]


2019.12.03 23:41 Usta_Sauronova Novi Ghostbusters film dobio naziv i datum izlaska

Novi Ghostbusters film dobio naziv i datum izlaska submitted by Usta_Sauronova to filmiserije [link] [comments]


2019.11.06 12:38 EinDenker Marley Cole - Zeugen Jehovas Kapitel 5

Kapitel 5
C.T. Russell: Prophet des tausendjährigen Reiches - "Denn dann werde ich mich in klaren Worten an das Volk wenden, daß sie alle den Namen Jehovas anrufen können, um ihm einstimmig zu dienen." - Zephania 3:9
So die Überschrift über Kapitel 5.
Russell als Prophet und Sprachrohr Gottes.
Die Darstellung ist dabei sehr interessant. Ein Prophet ist nach der Vorstellung der Gläubigen in einem direkten Kontakt mit Gott. Und dieser Prophet ist der erste nach fast 2000 Jahren Menschheitsgeschichte. Was sagt die Bibel:
„Seien es aber Gaben des Prophezeiens, sie werden weggetan werden; seien es Zungen, sie werden aufhören; sei es Erkenntnis [auf übernatürliche Weise erworbene], sie wird weggetan werden“ (1. Kor. 13:8).
Was hier gesagt wird, ist eindeutig gegen die Bibel. Schaut man sich dazu die Lehren Russells an, so sind diese zu großen Teilen durch Rutherford abgeschafft wurden. Dieser "Prophet" wurde augenscheinlich falsch durch Gott inspiriert. Oder glauben wir heute noch, dass Adam der erste Pharao war, Pyramiden Gottes steinere Zeugen sind usw.?
"Russelliten" war der Name, den ihre Feinde ihnen anhefteten, aus demselben Grund, aus dem man die Anhänger des deutschen Reformators "Lutheraner" nannte.
Hier wird wieder auf Krampf die Brücke zu Luther geschlagen. Aber der Satz an sich macht wenig Sinn. Klar, dass eine neue religiöse Strömung welche einem Guru folgt der Leitfigur ist, nach diesen benannt wird. Wie sollte man die Bibelforscher denn anfangs nennen? Zumal die Lehren stark durch Russell geprägt waren und keinen wirklichen biblischen Hintergrund hatten, siehe die Pyramidenlehre.
Er war der erste Prophet des tausendjährigen Reiches.
Hier wird die Geschichte geschönt. Russell war auch der erste in der Geschichte der ZJ, der eine falsche Endzeitvorhersage machte und diese dann umdeutete.
Sein Nachfolger, J.F. Rutherford, erklärte: "Er hat mehr getan für das Königreich des Messias als irgendein anderer, der je auf Erden lebte."
Dieser Nachfolger kassierte den Großteil der Lehren Russells ein, riss vorher die Macht an sich und ignorierte den letzten Willen hinsichtlich der Leitung des Werkes. Auch die Festlegung Russells, dass keine weiteren Druckschriften erscheinen sollten, ignorierte Rutherford. Dies führte zu den Schriftstudien Band 7, ein Buch voll mit Unsinn welches Rutherford ins Gefängnis brachte.
Zur Erklärung: Das theokratische Volk der Israeliten hat seine Entstehung nicht auf Moses zurückzuführen. Moses war sein von Jehovas ausersehener Führer. In ähnlicher Weise war Pastor Russell ein Führer, aber nicht eein Führer der Menschen.
Ach, da sind wir mal wieder bei dem beliebten Spiel von Gegenbildern. Folgt man einfach mal der Bibelfiction zum Thema Mose, dann sticht ein Punkt heraus: Mose konnte beweisen, das er von Gott erwählt wurde und Mose irrte sich in seinen Vorhersagen nicht. Legt man diesen einfach Maßstab an, so scheitert der Vergleich schon da. Stellen wir uns nur vor, wenn Mose Vorhersage zu den Erstgeborenen und dem Blut falsch gewesen wäre. "Upps, blöd gelaufen - jetzt sind alle eure Kinder Tod. Kleiner Irrtum, Blut war falsch, hätte Harz sein müssen."
Unabhängig davon ist der Vergleich einer so zentralen Person wie Mose mit Russell auch anmaßend.
Sie erblickten in ihm den ersten Bahnbrecher einer wahren Erneuerung der Lehre, "eines weiterreichenden und für die Nachwelt wichtigeren Werkes als alles, was seit den Tagen Jesu und der Apostel getan worden ist."
Man kann zur Religion stehen wie man will, aber dieser fortlaufende Größenwahn und Anspruch den das Buch vermittelt, ist für mich erschreckend, passt jedoch zu einer fanatischen Gruppierung. Schaut man in die Kirchengeschichte zwischen den Jahren 100 und 1850, ist sicherlich vieles bahnbrechendes passiert. Schon allein der Buchdruck war eine der bahnbrechensden Erfindungen, wenn es um die Verbreitung und den Zugang zur Bibel geht. Unwichtige Personen die die ZJ als ihre Vorgänger sahen, werden jetzt ebenso an den Rand gestellt. Gerade die Person Luthers kann es laut eigenen Aussagen nicht mit Russell aufnehmen. Ob dem so ist, sollte jeder selbst entscheiden.
Und nun geht es um Das Photodrama - der erste "Tonfilm"
Vorab, wer dies liest kennt meist nur die geschönte Deutung des Photodramas. Wer wirklich nervenstark ist, kann sich das Photodrama auf Youtube anschauen oder bei den Biblestudents im Englischen das Buch dazu herunterladen. Besonderheit dabei: man findet auf jeder Seite etwas, was falsch ist oder nicht den Lehren der ZJ heutzutage entspricht.
Leider habe ich nur einen Reprint der Farbvariante des Buches in Englisch, aber nach wie vor kann ich empfehlen es zu lesen.
Einige Theaterdirektoren versuchten das Drama in regelmäßigen Aufführungen bei bezahltem Eintritt zu bringen, aber das Unternehmen schlug fehl. So haben eigentlich alle Zuschauer den Film unentgeltlich gesehen.
Neben den ganzen Superlativen welche hier zum Photodrama wieder aufgeführt werden, finde ich dies eine interessante Anmerkung. Die Leute waren zugegen und schauten sich diesen Quatsch an, weil es etwas neues war und der Eintritt kostenlos. Sobald man Geld zahlen sollte, schlug es fehl.
Dies hilft vermutlich auch, dieses Spektakel einzuordnen und zu verstehen, dass das Photodrama ein "Erfolg" war, weil es kostenlos war - weniger weil Menschen sich an der Botschaft interessierten.
Schon vierzig Jahre vor dem ersten Weltkrieg konzentrierte sich das Schwergewicht der Predigten Pastor Russells auf das Jahr 1914. Dieses Jahr, erklärte er, "bezeichnet in der Zeitrechnung der Bibel das Datum für das Erscheinen des himmlischen Königreichs."
An dieser Stelle wird dreist gelogen. Russell erwartete Harmagedon und die Entrückung der 144.000.
C.T. Russell had no idea of building a strongly knit organisation. At that time we saw no need for it. We expected 1914 would mark the end of this system of things on earth.
Interessant dazu, das Buch von Macmillan zu betrachten. Auch wenn es ebenso einen guten Teil Fanfiction enthält, lässt sich viel hinsichtlich der Vorhersage bzgl. 1914 erkennen.
Und wie eilig Russell nach oben wollte, lassen seine Worte in Hisicht auf 1915 erkennen:
"If October 1915 should pass, and we should find ourselves still here and matters going on very much as they are at present, ..., then we would think, have we been expecting the wrong thing at the right time? The Lord's will might permit this."
Selbst kirchliche Würdenträger waren geteilter Meinung über die Millenniums-Streitfrage. Es waren nicht wenige unter ihnen, die mit Pastor Russell übereinstimmten.
Russell sagte Harmagedon voraus, zeitlich auf den 1. Oktober 1914 fixiert (siehe dazu seine Ansprache am 2. Oktober 1914 im Bethel). Die Geistlichen hatten sicher nichts mit Pyramidologie, irgendwelchen kruden Bibelstellenreihungen und einem falschen Jahr als Zeitangabe der Zerstörung Jerusalems zu tun. Es waren milleritische Strömungen, die dies glaubten.
Das Buch vollzieht dann einen Kunstgriff und verweist auf eine Kundgebung zum 1. WK in England, welche das Ansinnen scheinbar stützt. Jedoch, erfolgte diese Kundgebung "am Höhepunkt des ersten Weltkrieges" und da war der Drops schon längst gelutscht und Russell hatte bereits 2 fehlerhafte Endzeitvorhersagen getroffen - und zuvor weitere, wirre Mutmaßungen zu Daten.
Das Geschwurbel geht so weiter, ich erspare euch das.
Die Tatsache jedoch, daß die Milleniumslehre die besonders seit 1919 am raschesten zunehmende religiöse Gruppe der Welt gespeist und zur Reife gebracht hat,...
Wir erklären sich da die ZJ die Entwicklung der Mormonen, welche um 1830 Mitglieder hatten und ebenso extrem wuchsen und heute mehr Mitglieder hatten?
Und wenn man es wirklich an dieser Lehre festmacht, dann war das Wachstum einer Endzeitlehre geschuldet, was für eine religiöse Gruppe auch viel aussagt.
Pastor Russell war der erste Prophet des Millenniums, dessen Einfluß sich rund um die Erde auswirkte.
Wenn er der erste Prophet war, brachte er dann eine neue Lehre welche so nicht in der Bibel stand?
Und dann wird Rutherford zitiert, der Rechtsberater Russells, er sieht die Kirchen weltweit...
...vereint in der ausgesprochenen Absicht, diesen einen Mann niederzuwerfen," schrieb er. Der Kampf gegen Martin Luther "scheint eine Kleinigkeit im Vergleich zu diesem", vermerkte Rutherford.
Ähm, ja. Also entweder habe ich in Geschichte nicht aufgepasst, oder in der Historie um Russell einiges übersehen. :D
Cole ergeht sich dann in Argumentationen, warum Luther weniger wichtig war als Russell.
Interessant ist, dass Rutherford über die Entstehung von Strömungen referiert, welche zu Sekten wurden. Schaut man dazu die Geschichte der ZJ als Teil einer milleritischen Strömung an, so sieht man, warum die Verklärung und Herleitung von den ersten Christen so wichtig für das Selbstverständnis ist.
Lehnt das berufliche Priesteramt als Mittel zum Gelderwerb ab
Er brachte selbst Geld ein, machte dann Geld mit Druckschriften und war ein reicher Mann. Sein Vermögen übertrug er dann jedoch der Gesellschaft und lies sich von dort entlohnen - jedoch nicht wegen dem Werk, sondern um so bei der Scheidung von seiner Frau, ihr keinen müden Cent zahlen zu müssen. (Was nicht ganz aufging.) Hintergrund war u.a. der sog. Jellyfish-Skandal in dem es um unpassendes Verhalten gegen eine ggf. Minderjährige ging.
"Eine Religion der Angst, die sich auf die Lehre von den ewigen Qualen gründet, wäre das letzte, worauf Gott zurückgreifen würde, um die Menschen an sich zu fesseln."
Bei dieser Aussage Russells musste ich lachen. Statt dessen ist Gottes Organisation eine, die mit Ausschluss droht, Menschen wegen dem Blutverbot sterben lässt, damals Impfungen verweigerte etc. Legt man den Maßstab Russells an, wäre schon Angst ein Problem, warum ZJ nicht Gottes Organisation sein können.
Um den jungen Russell sammelte sich ein immer größer werdeder Kreis von Männern und Frauen, die sich mit einem systematischen Studium der Bibel befaßten, besonders in bezug auf die Lehre von der zweiten Herabkunft oder Gegenwart Christi.
Schaut man in andere ZJ-Biografien, so war er auf der Suche und entdeckte eine Bibelstudiengruppe. Liest man umfangreichere, externe Betrachtungen wie Endzeit ohne Ende von Penton, so sieht es ein klein wenig anders aus. Bedingt durch sein Kapital konnte Rutherford ganz anders agieren und damit seine Gefolgschaft vergrößern.
Und Russell war von Harmagedon besessen, er konstruierte einen Zeitstrahl an Vorhersagen, welcher am 1.Oktober 1914 in Harmagedon gipfeln sollte.
Rutherford sagte, als es um das Vermögen des Pastors ging:
Der Rest seines Vermögens fuhr der Anwalt fort, "wurde im Einvernehmen mit seiner Gattin, die als Mitarbeiterin an seinen religiösen Bestrebungen teilnahm, der Wachtturm-, Bibel- und Traktat-Gesellschaft überschrieben."
Diese Mitarbeiterin war eine der Direktoren und die Vermögensübertragung sicher nicht einvernehmlich, wenn man sich die Schlammschlacht des Scheidungsprozesses anschaut. Auch hier zeigt sich wieder, wie Rutherford log um die Geschichte zu seinen Gunsten zu beeinflussen.
Auch die Rechtsform hat nichts mit irgendwelcher Wohltat zu tun, wie Cole weiter argumentiert. Russell wollte sein Vermögen vor seiner Frau schützen, was zu großen Teilen gelang.
Wen das etwas weiter interessiert, sei Cedars Buch The reluctant apostate empfohlen.
Die Geschichte um Miss Ball wird in dem Buch nun auch aufgegriffen und natürlich ist der Pastor ein Opfer.
Wie Mrs. Russell angab, hatte der Pastor dem Mädchen gegenüber listig bemerkt: "Ich bin wie eine Qualle. Ich schwimme dahin und dorthin, ich berühre diese und jene, und wenn sie darauf reagiert, nehme ich sie zu mir, wenn nicht, schwimme ich weiter zu anderen."
Es wird oft diskutiert, ob Rose Ball minderjährig war oder nicht. Hierzu gibt es verschiedene Angaben, welche z.T. widersprüchlich sind.
Trotz allem wird die Aussage hier sehr diffus aufgegriffen und "widerlegt". Wobei es erstaunlich ist, dass allem Anschein nach, niemand diese Aussage von Rose Ball bestätigen oder widerlegen lies. Selbst der Pastor, der nachher um das Scheidungsverfahren diverse Verleumdungsverfahren mit Tageszeitungen führte, unternahm keine Schritte in dieser Richtung. Komisch, oder? Gerade wenn man um seinen Ruf kämpft und die Ex angeblich bei dieser Aussage lügt...
"Was das Mädchen betrifft, das im Hause war," belehrte Richter Collier die Geschworenen, "das gehört nicht zur Klage und hat nichts mit dem Fall zu tun, da es nicht vorgebracht wurde; es war seinerzeit verziehen oder übergangen wurden."
Dies wird als Argument angeführt, warum die ganze Geschichte von Rose Ball nicht stimmen soll. Jedoch sagt der Richter nur, dass es nicht zum Thema gehört, die Formulierung deutet aber weniger an, dass der Richter die Aussage von Mrs. Russell nicht glaubt.
Denn Cole bringt hier nur einen Auszug aus der Anhörung von Mrs. Russell. Wie weiter oben verlinkt, ist es sehr spannend, sich dieses Verfahren genauer anzuschauen und den enthaltenen Links zu folgen.
Und weiter geht es mit dem Schönreden eines anderen Skandals: Wunderweizen!
Diejenigen, die Pastor Russell übelwollten, konnten sich nichts Sensationelleres wünschen, als die Abenteuer, die ihm zustießen.
Das klingt eher wie eine Heldensaga, a la Die unglaublichen Reisen des Russell und die 3 Kasperle oder eine ähnliche Erzählung. Wenn ich Schwachsinn bewerbe und abdrucke, bewerbe und drucke ich Schwachsinn ab. So einfach ist das. Ganz zufällig spülte der Verkauf vom "Wunderweizen" aber auch Geld in die Kassen, da der Weizen erheblich teurer war.
Jetzt wird über die Erkenntnisse von K.B. Stoner geschrieben, der den Wunderweizen entdeckte. (K.B. Stoner & Miracle Wheat googlen - falls jemand sich dazu belesen will.)
Sicherlich richtig, dass Russell nicht der Erfinder dessen war, aber er schrieb ziemlichen Käse zum Thema. (Es gibt mehrere Seiten bei Gebhard dazu.) Russell verknüpfte dies dabei auch wieder mit seiner Vorstellung auf ein nahes Ende bzw. eine Phase eines Entwicklungsschubes:
Ist dies Weizen der heranbrechenden Wiederherstellungszeit? Auch wenn nur die Hälfte des oben gegebenen Berichtes wahr sein sollte, so würde das von neuem beweisen , daß Gott wohl fähig ist, hinreichende Mittel zu schaffen, für die "Zeiten der Wiederherstellung aller Dinge, von welchen Gott durch den Mund seiner heiligen Propheten von jeher geredet hat". (Apg. 3,19-21).
Quelle
Dann kam der 22. März 1911, und das Brooklyner Blatt "Daily Eagle", ein gehässiger Gegner des "Wachtturm", begann mit einer Serie von Artikeln und Zeichnungen, die sich über den Pastor, seine Religion und seinen Weizen lustig machten.
Ja logisch. Ein Spinner verkauft Wunderweizen, schreibt Nonsens über Riesenfrüchte usw. und berechnet Harmagedon mit Pyramiden. Jeder normal Denkende, macht sich nun mal darüber lustig.
Da die Streitfrage aber der Weizen und nicht die Religion war, scheine den Geschworenen - zum großen Teil Männer von starker religiöser Voreingenommenheit, einer von ihnen ein Atheist - der Gegenstand der Klage entgangen zu sein, beschwerte sich der Anwalt des Pastors, Richter Rutherford. Der Brooklyner "Eagle" gewann den Prozeß, und Russell berief an den Appellationshof des Obersten Gerichts...
Was Cole leider ganz zufällig vergisst: Russell klagte bis in die höchste Instanz gegen die Zeitung, und verlor. Einfach weil er ein Scharlatan war, der Wunderweizen verkaufte. Aber, auch dieses Verfahren wird als religiöse Verfolgung dargestellt.
Pastor Russells Gelehrsamkeit
Er wird natürlich als scharfsinnig etc beschrieben - wen wundert das schon. Aber, es wird auch eingeräumt, dass er weder Hebräisch noch Griechisch beherrschte.
Worüber er aber verfüge, erklärte der Pastor, das sei die Schulbubenfähigkeit, ein englisches Bibelwort in einem hebräischen oder griechischen Wörterbuch nachzuschlagen. Auf diese Art konnte er herausfinden, wie der ursprüngliche hebräische oder griechische Ausdruck lautete. Ferner konnte er das griechische oder hebräische Originalwort in einem Wörterbuch aufsuchen, das die Definition im Englischen enthielt.... Manchmal stimmte der in der ... Bibelübersetzung gebrauchte Ausdruck nicht mit den englischen Wörtern überein, mit denen das Wörterbuch die betreffenden hebräischen oder griechischen Ausdrücke wiedergab. Da hatte also jemand unrecht - entweder die Bibelübersetzer oder die Verfasser des biblischen Wörterbuches.
Ein Traum von einer Logik. Wer schon mal Texte übersetzt hat, weiß das es eben nicht so einfach ist. Vieles wird durch den Zusammenhang erst klar. Schon beim Lesen einer Interlinearübersetzung kann man dieses Problem erkennen. Und irgendein Luftikus der denkt mit einem Lexikon alles richtig zu deuten und besser zu wissen, ist da vermutlich der falsche Ansprechpartner.
Man sieht es selbst beim Google-Translator, dass er bei komplexeren Sprachen ins trudeln kommt.
Dies erklärt aber vielleicht die Popularität Russells. Er sprach Leute an, welche zwar keine Hochschulbildung hatten, aber sich mit einem Lexika beschäftigen konnten oder so beschränkt waren, dass sie Leute bewunderten, die mit einem Wörterbuch neue Wahrheiten fanden.
Und hätte Russell wirklich begriffen, was er macht, so hätte er in und für nicht verwechselt, was die Grundlage seiner Lehre war und heute noch ist und nie 607 v.u.Z. als Jahr gelehrt, denn es hätte der Bibel widersprochen.
Manchmal fragten sie auch, wenn er gerade vorübergegangen war: "Wer ist denn der distinguierte Herr mit Ihnen?"
Dieser angeblich in Armut lebende Mensch, war so auffällig, das die Leute ihn allen Anschein nach für einen sehr reichen Mann hielten. Denn, im Vorübergehen kann man schlecht die Umgangsformen einschätzen. Die Bilder Russells passen dazu.
Auch wenn dieses Buch keine grundsätzlichen Neuigkeiten hat und die Geschichte beschönigt, so ist dieses Buch trotzdem eine Basis. Denn es ist ein Buch von und für ZJ was in eigenen Quellen erwähnt wird, welches die Skandale Russells erst einmal bestätigt. Weitere Informationen sind schnell gefunden.
submitted by EinDenker to exzj [link] [comments]


2019.11.05 02:04 DieHermetischeGarage Podcast-PlayList vom Montag, 04.11.2019

Die gesamte Tages-PlayList
Tagestipps
Sendung Titel
BR Kalenderblatt 'Nature' erscheint zum ersten Mal (1)
BR Nachtstudio Weltmarke und Wegweiser - Hans Magnus Enzensberger (2)
SWR Zeitwort 04.11.1985 Im Blautopf wird die Unterwasserhöhle entdeckt (3)
SWR Wissen Argentinien - Die Rückkehr des Peronismus (4)
WDR Zeitzeichen Die Zeitschrift 'Nature' erscheint erstmals (am 04.11.1869) (5)
WDR Hoerspiel Mördergrube - Wenn aus Bandkollegen Feinde werden (6)
News
Zeit Titel wo min
05:41 Psychogramm des Attentäters - Film über den Rabin-Mord (Assmann, Tim) DLF 3:29 ?
06:10 klipp und klar - Grundrente (Finthammer, Volker) DRK 1:55 ?
06:14 MTV Europe Music Awards: Die Nacht von Rosalía (Neuroth, Oliver) DRK 0:57 ?
06:22 Ostberlin vor 30 Jahren - legendäre Alexanderplatz-Demo (Balzer, Vladimir) DLF 4:38 ?
07:35 Netzphänomen - Der mysteriöseste Song im Internet (Haase, Till) DLF 5:02
07:48 80 Jahre nach Attentat Georg Elser bekommt Denkmal in seiner Heimat (Götz, Uschi) DLF 5:54 ?
08:41 Das Wichtigste heute Morgen (Heckmann, Dirk-Oliver) DLF 5:04 ?
08:50 'Warum nur ein Green new deal unseren Planeten retten kann' von Naomi Klein (Billig, Susanne) DRK 6:26 ?
09:18 Digitale Kontrolle - Frankreich streitet über den Einsatz von Gesichtserkennung (König, Jürgen) DLF 4:39 ?
11:10 Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash und der Country (Tanck, Fanny) DRK 6:15 ?
11:33 Das muss man gehört haben... oder auch nicht: Clubmusik (Kühne, Gesine) DRK 4:58
14:15 Streit um Rote Flora in Hamburg (Schröder, Axel) DLF 6:04 ?
14:20 Die Klimabewegung und der Pop: Wer repräsentiert wen? (Greiner, Steffen) DRK 6:22 ?
14:37 Godzilla wird 65 - Alles Gute, Riesenmonster! (Buttgereit, Jörg) DRK 14:27 ?
16:30 Fliegende Flüsse, Migrations-Prognose, ISS-Kekse (Lehnhoff, Wiebke) DLF 5:43
16:42 Zwist um Provenienzforschung: 75 Schädel aus Namibia werfen wichtige Fragen auf (Schröder, Axel) DLF 6:00 ?
17:20 Morddrohungen gegen Politiker. Wie die Gesellschaft reagieren sollte (Kopke, Christoph) DRK 5:06 ?
17:48 Lügendetektoren im Saarland. Schüler wappnen sich gegen Fakenews (Krauser, Lisa) DRK 5:08 ?
18:40 Bits, Bytes, Felder - Afrikanische Kleinbauern und die Digitalisierung (Engelhardt, Marc) DLF 18:49 ?
19:05 Ohne Grundrente keine Groko mehr (Capellan, Frank) DLF 3:21 ?
19:07 Gesetz: Verbot von Konversionstherapie (Günther, Ralph) DLF 4:29
19:20 Ost-West-Denken - Wie Medien und Politik das Land weiter teilen (Magazin) (Thilo Schmidt) DRK 8:52 ?
19:25 Wolfgang Brenner - 'Das deutsche Datum. Der neunte November' (Langels, Otto) DLF 7:02 ?
19:40 Timothy Garton Ash - 'Ein Jahrhundert wird abgewählt' (Adler, Sabine) DLF 8:15 ?
19:50 Golineh Atai - 'Die Wahrheit ist der Feind' (Baag, Robert) DLF 7:40 ?
23:09 'Ich bin der ewige Geheimtipp': Zum Tod des Schriftstellers Ernst Augustin (Böttiger, Helmut) DRK 5:41 ?
23:17 Acht Jahre nach der NSU-Enttarnung: Gedenken und Tumulte in Chemnitz und Zwickau (Dischereit, Esther) DRK 8:51 ?
23:26 Nach Drohungen gegen PolitikerInnen: Debatte um Plan gegen Hass (Geuther, Gudula) DLF 3:36
23:31 Digitale Vorsorge - Was wird aus den Patientendaten? (Kuhn, Johannes) DLF 3:19
23:36 Bundespräsident Steinmeier ehrt NS-Widerstandskämpfer Georg Elser (Staudacher, Timo) DLF 0:42
23:38 Gericht schmettert Trumps Klage ab: Er muss seine Steuerunterlagen rausrücken (Passenheim, Antje) DLF 1:06
23:39 Iran setzt weitere Verpflichtungen aus Atomvertrag aus (Senz, Karin) DLF 0:56
23:43 Was vom Osten übrig blieb 1: Thomas Heise (Dell, Matthias) DRK 3:31 ?
23:50 Kongress veröffentlicht erste Vernehmungsprotokolle in der Ukraine Affäre (Kößler, Thilo) DLF 3:33
Infos
(#) Info
(1) Die Welt erklären, und zwar so, dass durchaus viele Leser damit anfangen können - mit diesem Ansatz startet 'Nature'. Aus dem ambitionierten Sammelsurium wird später ein renommiertes Wissenschaftsblatt.
(2) Hans Magnus Enzensberger wird am 11. November 90 . Über 15 Jahre lang hat Knut Cordsen Enzensberger immer wieder getroffen. Aus diesen Begegnungen und dem Gespräch mit Weggefährten ist ein einfühlsames Porträt entstanden.
(3) 04.11.1985: Im Blautopf wird die Unterwasserhöhle entdeckt
(4) Argentinien - Die Rückkehr des Peronismus
(5) Die Zeitschrift 'Nature' wollte die Öffentlichkeit über die großartigen Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Arbeit informieren und für Anerkennung werben, vor allem aber für die weltweite Verbreitung der Fortschritte in den verschiedenen Wissenschaftszweigen sorgen. Autor: Wolfgang Burgmer
(6) •Krimi• Volker Hinze, Mitbegründer der erfolgreichen DDR-Rockband 'Die Kosmonauten' ist am Ende. Er hat sich nach gescheiterter Republikflucht, einigen Jahren Knast und dann Freikauf durch die BRD in den Alkohol und ins berufliche Aus manövriert. // Von Dirk Josczok / Regie: Thomas Leutzbach / WDR 1998
submitted by DieHermetischeGarage to DasOhrIstDerWeg [link] [comments]


DATUM - Film o Swiss Lionu - YouTube AFTER 2 Official Trailer (2020) After We Collided Movie HD Datum Sfi - YouTube FILM FTV ' Antara Jogja dan Solo ', Ariel Tatum Bodynya ... Nebezpečné vztahy Datum vysílání: 26.01.2020 18:20 - YouTube Jak to dopadlo!? Datum vysílání: 09.01.2020 17:10 - YouTube Akció Filmek 2018 - Teljes Filmek Magyarul 2018 - YouTube The Perfect Date  Official Trailer [HD]  Netflix - YouTube Akció filmek (2019) teljes film magyarul 2019 - YouTube Nebezpečné vztahy Datum vysílání: 18.01.2020 18:30 - YouTube

Premiere: Michl Gets Surreal In New Short Film 'Datum' V Man

  1. DATUM - Film o Swiss Lionu - YouTube
  2. AFTER 2 Official Trailer (2020) After We Collided Movie HD
  3. Datum Sfi - YouTube
  4. FILM FTV ' Antara Jogja dan Solo ', Ariel Tatum Bodynya ...
  5. Nebezpečné vztahy Datum vysílání: 26.01.2020 18:20 - YouTube
  6. Jak to dopadlo!? Datum vysílání: 09.01.2020 17:10 - YouTube
  7. Akció Filmek 2018 - Teljes Filmek Magyarul 2018 - YouTube
  8. The Perfect Date Official Trailer [HD] Netflix - YouTube
  9. Akció filmek (2019) teljes film magyarul 2019 - YouTube
  10. Nebezpečné vztahy Datum vysílání: 18.01.2020 18:30 - YouTube

AFTER 2 Official Trailer (2020) After We Collided Movie HD © 2020 - Voltage Pictures Comedy, Kids, Family and Animated Film, Blockbuster, Action Cinema, Bloc... Ha tetszett, iratkozz fel!☺és ne maradj le semmiről. Az izgalmakkal teli és fordulatokban bővelkedő akciófilm egy ártatlan, ámde gyönyörű lányról szól, aki n... FILM FTV ' Antara Jogja dan Solo ', Ariel Tatum Semoga dapat menghibur kalian semuanya.. Jangan lupa untuk klik tombol Subscribe dan Like lalu Share ke teman... nebezpecné vztahy 2020, nebezpecné vztahy 2019, nebezpecné vztahy 2018, nebezpecné vztahy, nebezpecné vztahy live, nebezpecné vztahy honza musil, jak to dopa... Datum Sfi nebezpecné vztahy 2020, nebezpecné vztahy 2019, nebezpecné vztahy 2018, nebezpecné vztahy, nebezpecné vztahy live, nebezpecné vztahy honza musil, jak to dopa... KONFERENCIJA DATUM: Film o implementaciji AB Softovog ERP-a u SwissLionu - Akció Filmek 2018 - Teljes Filmek Magyarul 2018 To save up for college, Brooks Rattigan (Noah Centineo) creates an app where anyone can pay him to play the perfect stand-in boyfriend for any occasion. Watc... nebezpecné vztahy 2018 nebezpecné vztahy 2019 nebezpecné vztahy 2020 nebezpecné vztahy nebezpecné vztahy live jak to dopadlo!? jak to dopadlo!? 2018 jak to d...