Raw REALITY: Rough, Yet Better Hope, Empowering WISDOM!

To those who search for. and love wisdom, the honor of the human spirit, there is something even worse than “Fake News“. Worse than fake news? No-Nothing News, data without worthy passion nor deep knowledge, with inferior explanatory powers, gumming up minds with the absurdity of their vacuity… No-nothing, know-nothing information deforms the passion engine at the core of humanism.

Greater explanatory power, from powerful knowledge networks viewed as data points, is how better understanding is established.

It is often argued, pathetically, that, to avoid pathos, the pain, one should disguise reality… And sometimes one should, in desperate cases, as when lying to a dying child. But life is not an unending despair. Most of the time, life is joyous, thanks to the realism our wisdom embraced.

Thoughts are the tendrils of the spirit, reaching out for reality. Loving wisdom, is the essence of what made humanity human… However, what is “wisdom“? How to love it? What’s wiser? Something that is more true? Are there methods to guess better truths? Wisdom is not just parroting yesterday’s thought, or lack thereof. Wisdom is not just reacting minimally to the waves of happenstance, like a barnacle clinging to the rock of existence, washed by furious surf of no particular significance.

Human wisdom consists in a striving, figuring out more understanding than ever before: wisdom requires an effort, a rearrangement of neural circuitry, an expensive and expansive spirit. Human wisdom is pretty much the opposite of what barnacles do. Human wisdom is not about rolling a rock, the same rock always, as Camus would have it. Our ancestors would have stayed in the trees, if such were the case. Wisdom consists part in embracing the human condition, part exploring new frontiers.

Thus wisdom is not popular, for those attached to the comfort of yesteryear’s ways. Wisdom is not as popular nowadays, in the dominant nation, the USA, as it needs to be. Why that? The USA didn’t become dominant from wisdom, as expressed by the better angels of our nature. Instead, the USA became the mightiest nation on Earth from relentless and cruel acquisition of territory… plus some good fortune.

The consequences of willfully neglecting what truly humanity rests on, namely much more tender loving care, are everywhere visible… in the organization of the world the US imposed, thanks to its might. And what did this US organization bring us? Terrible wars in the first half of the Twentieth Century, where the USA played “Deus Ex Machina” (the God pulling the strings of the machine)… And now the Sixth Mass Extinction, thanks to the US superiority, mother of all superiorities, fully resting on a wealth of fuel burning, to make ever more CO2 (until it becomes unbearable, justifying a switching of the roles empowering a new pretext for mass violence).

Thus, ironically, indeed, philosophy is more necessary than ever… Precisely to contradict the brute force approach which has made the USA so successful.. And this deliberate feeble mindedness has been turned into the world’s organizational foundation.

Philosophy DEVOURS FEEBLE MINDEDNESS, our civilization’s, and any civilization’s, Achilles’ heel.

Feeble mindedness always has been the primordial agent in the collapse of civilizations. This time, we are dragging not just civilization, but the entire biosphere with us.

Wisdom swims in oceans of truth. Thus, the wisest want to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, or the potential, probable, or plausible truth. So help us truth!

Pythagoras man know thyself then-thou-shalt-know-the-universe-and-god-pythagoras-260768

All we know about the universe, we know through our minds. What the universe means, is entangled with what our minds mean. Mathematician cum philosopher Pythagoras died around 496 BCE, a century before Socrates (a lesser philosopher).

Yes, that’s an arrogant task. But the most interesting one. Indeed, fundamentally, the quest for truth is the essence of what makes humanity different… and superior. Searching for truth is, fundamentally, in first approximation, what is called the “love of wisdom“, philosophy.

Tellingly, philosophy is 89th among the majors in US colleges (2017 CE); hence philosophy is not viewed as worthy of study at all!… While the poles melt! The ship is melting, mon Capitaine, and sinking… Yet the capitaine smirks, and says: no problem, let’s think about something else while we sink!

We live in times when youth feels wise to not love wisdom: it’s all about money, that is power, as conferred by the powers that be. We also live in times not seen before, where an animal species, us, has become divine enough to mess up its nest:

For thousands of centuries never that high… Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time probably in three million years.

Philosophy is the set of methods one has to use to guess truths, any truths, or methods to find them, when one cannot yet use the scientific method. Science allows to find truth with certainty, philosophy enables to guess what the truth could be, or what it ought to be (say in ethics).

Some have pontificated that philosophy is all about death. But life already is. All about death. Verily, philosophy is more about giving birth. To truth. As if death were not all what matters. (The best way is to be socially dead already; philosophy is best invented in the desert.)

Anybody finding therein what she or he considers to be a mistake, or an outrage, is vigorously encouraged to leave a comment, however bold, and to bring her or his piece of perceived truth to the fore! I will be always thankful, even if I get dragged in the mud!

I try to find out what is really happening, and, or, what could happen, and what is not happening, or could not possibly happen. I try to find out what is right and what is wrong, on many important questions, and in all sorts of ways.

In other words, I apply thinking relentlessly, even ferociously. I view high emotions as integral, and conducive to thinking. (Zen like Descartes’ method being just one of these emotional states.)

This is why thinking evolved: to find what the truth is. Thinking evolved precisely because it was the ultimate instrument of domination of anything in sight (be it domination of one’s erroneous, or misadjusted self, or of one’s own ideas and emotions, or plain, old domination of the universe).

Thinking evolved to predict effectively, profitably and ambitiously, not to cower in a corner, modest and dazed. Thinking evolved to save lives, sleep, and eat well.

Prometheus’ punishment was a regrettable misunderstanding some Greeks made. We did not steal fire from someone, and certainly not from inexistent gods, we created our mastery of fire, and fire made us what we are, as we wished. Mastering fire was not a sin, the Greco-Romans were wrong on that one. Mastering the unknown, and creating what was not before, is what we are. Fire was part of what we have evolved to be. Masters of the universe, for better or worse.

Philosophy is the state of mind conducive to finding the truth, whatever it takes: weird facts, weird states of minds, exotic knowledge, crazy new perspectives, fancy interpretations of one time events, not just advanced mathematics and the most recent sophisticated knowledge, are vital ingredients.

The philosophical jargon (for want of a better word), brandished, in the last two centuries, among some often viewed as philosophical, is avoided. So is the reverence for reference, a characteristic of the disease that has devoured most of professional philosophy for generations (with the notable exception of Nietzsche).

This is not so much because most commoners do not know about it, but because more recent scientific research has often proven that pseudo philosophical jargon is inappropriate, or even hopelessly erroneous.

Established science is truth so I use it as massively as possible. It’s as close to certainty as we will ever get. Thus science is not shunned, just the opposite.

Philosophy and science are two sides of the same coin: understanding, the essence of the human genus, and of the human genius. The methodologies are complementary, not contradictory.


False scientific language and erroneous semantics is shunned.

Yesterday’s science is often today’s technology. Thus, it guides humanity… And not always in the right direction!

Moreover, not all “science” is adulated, far from it. As some elucubrations presented as science are not really science, but science base speculation, I do not refrain from excoriating them. (A prime example is the Big Bang, a certainty for most, far from certain for the Enquiring Minds!)

I cut science down to digestible size, any time I can. Science needs imagination, based on speculation, to progress fundamentally.

Economics, politics, religion and history are viewed as target rich environments for the enquiring philosopher. Engaging philosophy in economy, politics and sociology is the occasion for a reality check of said philosophy.

As the main goal of philosophy is to reveal better ways to get at the truth, in other words, reality, it’s important to engage in such down-to-earth checks. Psychoanalysis is central to the philosophical method. (Psycho-analysis in the sense successful Cognitive Therapy uses.)

Since we are the ones producing truth, by examining ourselves better, we make the source of truth higher quality. Any progress in psychoanalysis is bound to be painful, not to say scandalous, as it puts into question  all knowledge laid down before, and those, individuals, institutions and structures, that rested on it while producing it.

A lot of hard core science derived from criticizing old preconceptions first, so it has been part, and fruit, of deeper psychoanalysis.

The hardest subjects are confronted with the greatest enthusiasm. Just as in mountain climbing, the harder, the better. No mountain is high enough for our universe devouring ambition.

So what is philosophy? It’s not about obscure notions, it’s not even a distantiated way of contemplating life. Instead, it’s at the very core of thinking, spindle neuron territory.

Philosophy is viewed as a METHOD. Philosophy is the set of all the methods of reasoning, and emoting that are best when, at first sight, little evidence seems at hand.

Thus philosophy is the cutting edge of human inquiry, whatever the inquiry is (be it of justice, grace, logic or science). And whatever the methods used (poetry is OK, and so are hard core facts, or the goriest considerations; if it happens, it’s under examination therein: censorship is not applied).

Hence philosophy is the most advanced neurological activity, probably the strongest driver of human evolution, being the most connected to the frontal lobes. In other words, it cannot be boring (if it is really what is taught, rather than the sort of fake, pretentious knowledge that one gets in exchange for a lot of money, and that Socrates was already, and very correctly, riling against).

The point of view of the present site is not just that of the highest, global civilization we have, from all continents, all histories, and all the hardest and deepest subjects. It is the point of view of  the more advanced, more global and ambitious civilization we need, extending its imperium over all men, beasts and space known, from nanotechnology to Alpha Centauri and beyond. From fashion to hard core math.

All good ideas are asked to contribute, all bad ideas will be punished. And no superstition shall be in the way of truth. Even if the truth is felt to be base, at first sight. In general, superstition is viewed as a juicy target. The higher a mountain of prejudice is, the more worthy it is to climb it.

A lot has to be incorporated, for wisdom to contemplate, because a lot has to be rejected.. but only after consideration. Philosophy is an unending search for higher wisdom, always elusive, but still many conclusions have been reached, here and there, and everywhere. Per the nature of advancing knowledge, many of these conclusions falsify certainties taken for granted before.

But not all is destruction. Some conclusions are positive, building new hypotheses, not just deconstructing old ones. For example: respecting individuals is a must, and a pleasure, but respecting despicable moods, and stupid systems of thought is the highest form of immorality, and inhumanity. It is not an option for civilization. This philosophical cleansing starts here.


The post “To Those Caring Enough To Think Better!” will increasingly contain in succinct form some of my main themes, and will be periodically boosted.

[The Tyranosopher website (http://tyranosopher.com/) was run concurrently (at a more sedate pace). It contains older works that are not found here (shorter and more tentative posts are on Pan Terra (http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/ ). Since I was not the person posting the Tyranosopher essays, it seems practically stopped.]


56 Responses to “Raw REALITY: Rough, Yet Better Hope, Empowering WISDOM!”

  1. Ameer Raschid Says:

    You commented on Roger Cohen’s article on Turkey
    Allah wants us to obey whoever detains power: “O YOU WHO BELIEVE! … OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Quran’s fascist principle, S.4; v. 59). It is probable that this sura inspired Hitler directly, for his crucial “Fuehrerprinzip” (the Fuehrer had more than a passing acquaintanceship with Islam as he admired it loudly while spewing contempt on Christianism).
    I love those who quote the Qur’an and proceed to give it their own interpretation without givng alternatives. The verse is to prevent anarchy among the community that had only tribal customary law and led by the elite.
    The Arabic says to obey those who are in authority, “From Among you”.
    The father of Tariq Ramadhan, Said Ramadhan has said that this means those who have been given the authority either by being freely chosen or accepted by affirmation or by not denying their authority(even if it was taken by force). It has been misused to justify toleration of kings and dictators who abused this authority by acting contrary to Islam or not implementing Islam completely. The divine right of kings was used in this manner. While rule by a majority is not always necessary, consultation is required.
    To associate Hitler with Islam is part of the effort by Zionists and their Christian supporters to demonize Islam in order to support Israeli policies of oppression of the Palestinians done of course by the only democratic country in the Middle East!! Hitler exploited the Arabs and a sympathy for Islam for his own military objectives.


  2. Les Taylor Says:

    I read some of your stuff and find it quite interesting. Your reference to “racism without racists,” or aversive racism as they call it, was something I just wrote about in my own blog. I will be reading more of your stuff for sure. This web thing is kinda cool. I found your site through an comment section I was reading regarding a column by Roger Cohen about Kipling and Sarah Palin. This is the very phenomenon I want to study and research while in the doctorate program at East London University next feb; the social networking abilities, whether direct with something like FaceBook, or indirect, like how I found you through a series of hyperlinks. I feel, we are moving into a brave new world, best represented by the potential election of a person of color to the US presidency. I will be sending more comments in the future. Your site is quite inspirational


  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Thank you for the compliments. It is indeed a very brave new world, where the brave and the wise can be heard loud and clear for the first time ever. We have achieved, thanks to advanced technology, something the 80,000 Athenians were after: equal access to speech.

    So now the planetary civilization is in an excellent position to tap all its mental ressources. This is good, all the more since much of the advice coming from below will not be incarnating vested interests, and, thus, will be much more correct. Anyway, i’m delighted and not a little proud to provide some inspiration…


  4. George Machun Says:

    I read you comment on Roger Cohen’s article today. What amazing history you unveiled! thanks so much. now that i’ve found your site i’ll read it as well. Thanks again — you’re brilliant!


  5. nightman1 Says:

    Hello. Today I read your response to Roger Cohen’s ridiculous article on France. You said you might elaborate on that comment on your blog. Please do that if you can.

    Living in the US South I have great difficulty keeping in touch with European thought. I once found that easy to do when news of European thought and happenings came to me through shortwave radio listening, but that relaxed medium is gone now. Here in the US our media tells us nothing about Europe except whether you are doing what our government tells you to do. I want to know more, as I believe that in “old Europe” you have actually created a civilized, decent society.

    Will bookmark your blog and hope for more.


  6. Lannes Says:

    You were very right about Tom Friedman’s next column on the bailout.
    But I’m sure you will appreciate the most recommended reader’s comment as much as I did. Very satisfying indeed.


  7. TRUTH Says:

    Great blog – I enjoy your writing.

    What country are you from? What is your current nationality? What is your ethnicity? Religion? Job/class?

    Just trying to get a sense of where you are coming from socially and intellectually.


  8. Embandini Says:

    This is quite a hot information. I’ll share it on Twitter.


  9. Andrei Schor Says:

    Wonderful (albeit sad) comment to today’s Krugman “What’s in a name.” We are becoming an extremely low brow, rude, uncultured, easily manipulated people.


  10. Paul Gray Says:

    I can’t find an RSS feed to your blog. The link at the bottom doesn’t work. Please advise. Thanks.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Paul: I am the one in need of advice here. I am rather blog primitive. OK, I will research the problem, and shall start by asking the friendly folks at wordpress… I detest uppity links which don’t work… In any case you can probably use the “preferred” setting in your browser: when I feel like it, I check the preferred I want to see, such as the Northern Ice Cap of the day (enjoy while it exists!)…. That is what I do, I do not really know what an RSS feed is…

      I went to my site, and clicked at the very bottom on the left the letters in blue, “Entries RSS“. Then the link opened a new page with this on top:
      “Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts
      You are viewing a feed that contains frequently updated content. When you subscribe to a feed, it is added to the Common Feed List. Updated information from the feed is automatically downloaded to your computer and can be viewed in Internet Explorer and other programs. Learn more about feeds.

      Subscribe to this feed

      If one clicks, to “Subscribe to this feed“, one should be done.

      Maybe your browser does not support all this technology (I cannot access everything with my most primitive browsers). Latest Microsoft Explorer, Firefox, etc. work on anything….

      Thanks for your interest, in any case…


  11. Jack Says:


    I ran into your site from the Federal debt black hole article on the coming collapse site.

    I’d like to exchange links with you if you have a link exchange.

    My site is http://thecomingdepression.net

    Let me know if you want to exchange.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello Jack!
      Absolutely! I did not know your site, but it looks excellent. I do believe we are already in a Much Greater Depression. The basic reason being that, whereas the Great Depression of the 1930s was caused by too loose a monetary policy, plus overproduction, plus huge mistakes (enormous 50% augmentation of tariffs!), in other words, causes that could have been easily avoided, the present situation confronts us with much deeper problems, actually the very problems that led to… decolonization and plutocracy (among other things)….
      I do not have a link exchange set, but I am game…


  12. G Says:

    Patrice, your essay, ‘SOPHIA: WHEN POLITICS GOES NUTS’ is very plausible and articulates some of my own vague intuitions.

    I have worked in workplaces where people are oppressed and dominated by cruel bosses, and in workplaces with relatively level hierarchies and mutual respect – the latter type BY FAR are more creative and efficient, and bootstrap the capabilities and motivation of both the individuals and the organization as a whole. And needless to say, happier places to be.

    I have read a few of your articles and although I sometimes disagree with what I perceive to be a ‘systems engineer’ approach to life, I think that there’s so much thought of worth here that I will definitely be adding your site to my blogroll and recommending it to others.

    You seem to be extremely well-read!


  13. bemGlarmWar Says:

    Recent revelations regarding the close and cordial co-operation between Croatia’s late president, Franjo Tudjman and Yugoslavia’s late strongman, Slobodan Milosevic – ostensibly, bitter enemies – expose the role that warfare and instability played in increasing the flow of aid (both civil and military) to belligerent countries. The more unstable the region, the more ominous its rhetoric, the more fractured its geopolitics – the more money flowed in. It was the right kind of money: multilateral – not multinational, public – not private, deliberately ignorant – not judiciously cognizant. It was the “quantum fund” – capable of “tunnelling” (as the Czechs called it) – vanishing in one place (the public purse) and appearing in another (the private wallet) simultaneously. Even the exception – the never-enforced sanctions against Yugoslavia – served to enrich its cankerous ruling class by way of smuggling and monopolies.
    изучение английский язык носитель языка

    выучить английский язык за две недели


  14. ReadersHeaven Says:

    Hi, nice to meet you, thinker !


  15. Spottiswoode Says:

    Hi Patrice.

    I found your site through a comment on this Krugman blog post. I am a recent college graduate in physics, but feel there are bigger problems than the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics, so I have decided to be a journalist. I have been reading as much as I am able to further this goal.

    I am very much in agreement with your writing and have enjoyed reading the articles I have read. I am new to the whole blogging world and I’d really appreciate it if you would take a look at some of my work and criticize the crap out of it.

    Or maybe just swap links?




    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Spottiswoode:
      True, if civilization crashes, so will science. After Athens’ democracy went down, under Macedonian fascist occupation, and internal plutocratic undermining, the rate of scientific, mathematical and technological progress slowed to a crawl, when it did not outright reverse… Informing people, the demos, is the best way to help science.


  16. Ankely Says:

    I just stumbled onto your writings tonight.

    Awesome work !!! Very cool how you incorporate the knowledge and experiences of history.

    I have a thought for you: I just read the About on the https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/ site and you talked a lot of psychoanalysis.

    In what I understand of Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Fundamentalism, Conservatism, and their brethren, I can’t not think that the basis for these behaviors is Sociopathy/Narcissism.

    I believe that this is what the great sages of history were trying to warn us about.

    What do you think?




    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thank you very much, Ankely. Sorry I did not answer before, but I am very busy. In any case I appreciate a lot, and your comments are welcome. I prefer to answer through general comments, because of the time, which is sorely short. It is true, as I make clear, including in the very latest essay I am presently working on, that a lot of human tragedies arise from much more than a question of evil, psychoanalysis, and, even, man. There are other important factors, such as the exponential function.


  17. Nathan Curry Says:

    Hi Patrice, I would be grateful if you would have a look at the book Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard and let know your take on it.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Nathan:
      I will put that on my list of things to do… Let me guess in the meantime, what it could be about.

      Because of the (deeply mysterious, but maybe not so in my way of looking at Quantum Physics, TOW) “Dark Energy“, the universe’s space-time fabric is supposed to stretch ever faster, and in a 100 billion years or so, only the (by then all red) Milky Way should be visible, the rest of the universe being recessing away faster than the speed of light… All this would make Hans Solo (of star Wars fame) smirk: it’s a bit all too speculative: if one does not know why something is going on, to assume it will go on for 100 billion years, is somewhat naive…


  18. Nathan Curry Says:

    Dear Patrice,
    I was just going to add a rider about my comment because if you read the premise of the book I asked you to check out – it comes across as decidedly new agey. And it’s for that reason that I came back just now to add something about this very issue. Despite that being the case – I would encourage you to read beyond appearances on the surface/back cover. I think the book has some merit. He covers quantum physics and also a very interesting psychotherapist by the name of Groddeck.

    As I see it science is a tool for us to flesh out the mysteries of the percieved universe. But Quantum physics points out that the tool and the observer using the tool impacts the research findings. So that tool will always give us relative/skewered results.

    Why I think Gary Renard’s book is interesting is that it broaches metaphysical questions that possibly pave a path for Christian metaphysics (I am not a Christian) to actually make sense in the large scheme of things (it’s not Renard’s invention – his book is a revisioning of another source – which makes sense if you read the book).

    There is a sort of cartoon version of what is said in the book – called: The Universe is a Dream by Alexander Marchand. Both books are worth a read and I have a feeling you would find them very interesting.

    If you share your email address I can send you a pdf of one of these.



  19. Nathan Curry Says:

    PS my email is nathan@bluelotuesolutions.com if you prefer to keep your mail ID private


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Nathan: It is not just that (as I have long rampaged throughout received wisdom, I have been the object of lethal violence), but I also have very little time (baby, job, etc.) So I prefer that people wanting to exchange ideas use the public forum. After all, it’s all about ideas, and making them public, no? Facebook is a half baked public forum, I can be found there.


  20. Nathan Curry Says:

    Dear Patrice, I sent you a link (with an explanation why I need to keep the link itself private as -it is not my intellectual property to share) via facebook. Thank you. Sincerely, Nathan


  21. bishop Says:

    Michelle Ciccati Hopefully the moral law isn’t as fluid as the ever changing starry sky though
    Monday at 4:40pm · Like

    Bohrnagin Ferthheluvitt I love quotes.
    Monday at 4:42pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme Kant said to obey the commander in chief always. Such was his moral law within. dozens of millions of Germans goose stepped behind that revelation, thereafter. Eichman pointed that out at Jerusalem, thus exhibiting his scrupulous morality, sending a few million Jews to death…
    Monday at 5:26pm · Like

    Mark Hopkins ‎”we were only following orders’ from Hitler to Nixon thru Reagan and Cheney….my moral compass is pretty rigidly entrenched in the Judeo Christian ethic. Old school
    Monday at 5:30pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff patrice: to what in kant’s writings are you referring?
    Monday at 5:38pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff http://eastanglia.academia​.edu/KennethRWestphal/Pape​rs/91685/Kants_Qualified_P​rinciple_of_Obedience_to_A​uthority_in_the_Metaphysic​al_Elements_of_Justice
    Monday at 5:38pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme Let me quote Kant’s prefered moral principle: Fiat justitia, pereat mundus, (“Let justice be done, though the world perish”). Ironically found in his 1795 Perpetual Peace (Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf.)
    Monday at 6:15pm · Like · 1 person

    Patrice Ayme Here is another apostle of “peace” of the same sort. A guy with a moustache, who talked about peace all the time, just the same. Adolf Hitler. German philo brought that, and Nietzsche (PBUH) was one of the first and loudest to point that out.
    Monday at 6:17pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff I reject utterly the line you posit from kant to hitler. Diametrically opposed.
    Monday at 7:11pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme Go explain that to Eichman, or Hannah Arendt, who was there. I posit nothing. You do. Countless Nazis hid behind Kant. I quote Kant: “Justice Done, Perish World”. What is it in that 4 word sentence that is not IDENTICAL to Hitler? Maybe you are not familiar with Hitler’s “philosophy”? Hint; it’s: “Justice Done, Perish World”!
    Monday at 8:24pm · Like

    Cheshire Funkmeyer I agree http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov​/image/astro/hst_eskimo_ng​c2392_0007.jpg
    Monday at 9:43pm · Like

    Cheshire Funkmeyer oh but moral law sounds kinda like ego BS…
    Monday at 9:43pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff nazis quoted jesus, too, does that make a line from jesus to nazis? if so, who is not a nazi? noam chomsky and you?
    Monday at 9:47pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff dev, can you elaborate on “moral law” is “ego bs”?
    Monday at 9:48pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme BTW, this is not new, as my reference to Arendt already revealed. The Frankfurt school (Habermas, etc.) and Foucault, later, spoke about that, generations ago. And the 4 words sentence stands, clear enough. I will mention this, at a much higher level, in connection with what thinking means, in my next essay…
    Monday at 9:49pm · Like

    Cheshire Funkmeyer Moral and Law are not words I would put together. Law implies that something has a state of testable fixation. Moral has to do with the ego’s opinion and judgement which (in my humble opinion) come from it’s upbringing education, language structure and experiences. To imply that one could discover a moral idea and connect it with a testable state of fixation in order to call it a law sounds like thinking one person can make calls for another about behavior and it’s value. Which I just don’t feel is the case.
    Monday at 10:16pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff replace moral law with karma…or replace moral with ethical and law with principle embedded in the universe with which your soul is going ro reckon.

    IF not, why have ethics?
    Monday at 10:27pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff patrice, that it isnt new or that fouclat said it or that you have a certain interpretation of the phrase doesnt mean all that much to me. I take kant’s body of work and I’m certainly not going to use the nazis as a standard for judging something’s meaning. YOu didnt reply to the jesus analogy
    Monday at 10:28pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme I did not reply to the Jesus analogy because I was off the Internet. About the Frankfurt school my point is that they tired to see where the nazi madness came from. And they found some ot it, and that included Kant. Now Jesus is an even bigger can of worms, and maybe you should peruse my site before words are said the context of whose would be misinterpreted. Just an hint; it’s not the Nazis, it’s not even Luther or saint Louis who invented mass murdering anti-semitism…
    Monday at 10:34pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme The sentence of Kant you quoted is excellent. It is, in my opinion, his entire body of work which is lamentable. Same for Hegel, Herder, etc… Nazism did not happen in Germany by surprise…
    Monday at 10:36pm · Like

    Cheshire Funkmeyer I see where you are going. For me, ethics and whatever I will have to reckon with as a soul are the part of my journey that I feel is deeply personal, I also feel that those things are personal for others. I support fostering an environment where we can all grow to understand each other and I support communication, but which behavior is good karma is as much a matter of opinion as which flavor of ice cream is best. There is no ethical law that I know of imbedded in the universe unless you are speaking of the law of cause and effect.
    Monday at 10:38pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff what’s wrong with the law of cause and effect? That works for me. But let’s be clear: it’s not the law of cause and effect as understood in the west; that would only apply to purely physical matters, and morality/ethics arent normally understood to be physical. So if they are involved in cause and effect, that’s a huge paradigm shift. Which is great.

    if ethics are involved in inevitable cause and effect relationships, that seems to me the same thing as a “moral law”, though it’s not, I think, precisely what kant meant (not too concerned, ultimately, with what kant meant). The question then becomes – how does it work? What ethical causes will lead to which effects? How’s that gonna show up?

    If it’s true, it’s hard to see how it’s personal, beyond the details.
    Monday at 10:43pm · Like

    Cheshire Funkmeyer well now we are getting somewhere, I will ponder more and get back to you
    Monday at 10:46pm · Unlike · 1 person

    Patrice Ayme Amusingly, I have been working hard on an essay, for weeks, where all becomes physical… all thoughts, and emotions, thus including ethics. Thanks to Quantum Physics, cause & efffects have become very nebulous though… Nighty night…
    Monday at 11:19pm · Unlike · 1 person
    Daniel Brezenoff oh no, you threw hegel under the bus, too.
    Tuesday at 12:13am · Like

    Mark Hopkins Hegel the actress, or Hegel the philosopher…lol
    Tuesday at 7:01am · Like

    Patrice Ayme The Nazi bus.
    Tuesday at 2:43pm · Like

    Brian Addison You know me, Daniel: I am a chatty fuckin’ Cathy but I am left utterly speechless at someone claiming Kant instigated the Holocaust (which is the equivalent of the very ill-informed idea that Nietzsche instigated the Third Reich). Philosop…
    See More
    Tuesday at 8:31pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff this could be a very long thread
    Tuesday at 9:57pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme Nobody has said that Kant instigated a holocaust, let alone “THE” holocaust. What is true is that those who obeyed orders that they should not have followed under Nazism, justified it with Kant’s philosophy that they had been pmprinted to view as an a priori absolute.
    Yesterday at 8:55am · Like

    Patrice Ayme The relationship between Nietzsche and Nazism was Fostered by Mrs Foster-Nietzsche, sister of Friedrich Nietzsche and great friend of Hitler. It’s a long story. Nietzsche was absolutely, stridently opposed to the trains of thought which led to Auschwitz, and the one with kant written all over, was one of them, as Nietzsche himself pointed out.
    Yesterday at 8:59am · Like

    Mark Hopkins Such a small segment of the population reads beyond tabloid journalism, that the point is moot. Suffice to say, power corrupts, yada yada. The Armenian Holocaust and lack of it’s media attention basically opened the door for the next one, which killed 12 million people, Jews and Gentiles. I have always found it annoying that somehow 6 million people’s deaths get ignored.
    Yesterday at 9:00am · Like

    Patrice Ayme To pretend that point of views that one knows nothing about are all about something super stupid is an old rhetoric trick, and an old trick to save brain energy. BTW, Hitler viewed himself as a prophet, philosopher, an intellectual and artist, and was viewed as such by about 100 million of his followers. And he indeed had plenty of ideas, which were deeply wrong, but which steered the Third Reich.
    Yesterday at 9:07am · Like

    Patrice Ayme BTW, people speak of the “Weimar Constitution”, not the Weimar republic. Why? Because, officially, it was still the Second Reich (or words akin to that). There is more to Hitler than meet the common eye.
    Yesterday at 9:08am · Like

    Brian Addison Read Giorgio Agamben’s ‘State of Emergency’ and ‘Remnants of Auschwitz’ and get back to me. Your Kant argument still falls horribly short; yes, I know of Nietzsche’s sister (that doesn’t change Hitler’s massive misreading of his work). And I’m done.
    Yesterday at 9:20am · Like

    Mark Hopkins I’m not sure whose comment Patrice was referring to, but Hitler would have been a lot less trouble if someone had just bought a bunch of his paintings. The fact he never got past the rank of corporal, nor developed long range bombers, nor e…
    See More
    Yesterday at 9:38am · Like

    Skip Leeds Patrice’s basic premise is correct, and many scholars of philosophy have observed the same thing: that German metaphysics, from Kant up to Heidegger, had some role in enabling and facilitating the rise of the Third Reich and the resultant H…
    See More
    Yesterday at 10:04am · Like

    Mark Hopkins the treaty of Versailles and the reparations Germany had to make, along with devaluation of their mark, along with the day’s anti-communist sentiment had a large role in the nazification of Deutschland. Hitler was the original ‘hope and change’ guy.
    Yesterday at 10:09am · Like

    Mark Hopkins The modern-day Germans do a good job of reminding themselves to never allow this to happen again. The WWII documentaries and warnings were pervasive when I lived in Berlin. Just about daily there was another documentary to see. (and in hi res)
    Yesterday at 10:12am · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff i repeat: Absurd. For a man whose core contribution was an absolute morality, which included freedom, who beleived the morals of christianity were near ideal, whose political philosophy advocated constitutional republics and peace between n…
    See More
    Yesterday at 11:00am · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff ‎*every ‘time’
    Yesterday at 11:00am · Like

    Mark Hopkins Nice one Daniel. I concur.
    Yesterday at 11:49am · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff i want to clarify something: Kant called for duty to a moral ideal, not to other people in authority. And in fact, the two are opposed; you cannot raise the “following orders” defense if you are committed to the categorical imperative. Kant, properly understood, is an exhaustive argument against Nazism and anything like Nazism. Improperly understood – well, that’s not Kant’s fault, he was a pretty good communicator.
    Yesterday at 11:55am · Like

    Skip Leeds Kant was a good communicator? Most philosophers don’t think so. He was, on the abstrusity scale, just a notch below Hegel. He invented his own arcane vocabulary, and few think it’s very easy to follow.

    I think his contribution to philosophy…
    See More
    Yesterday at 1:27pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff So, I was right: Everytime someone mentions Jesus and the Gospels, you should say “that created the conditions for nazism”, thus ending any discussion of the merits or true meaning of Christianity.

    And sorry, I dont get this: A moral code, …
    See More
    Yesterday at 1:37pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme How what is beyond oneself, one should nevertheless talk, as Wittgenstein did not say… I of course agree with Skip. Nietzsche was a deeply anti-Nazi philosopher (although some of his work could be snatched).
    Yesterday at 2:25pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff good summary here: http://www.lewrockwell.com​/gordon/gordon13.html

    Objectivism, Hitler, and Kant by David Gordon
    This review of The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America, by Leonard …
    See More
    Yesterday at 2:33pm · Like ·
    Daniel Brezenoff i have yet to read either of you explain a single element of kant’s philsophy that, properly understood, could justify fascism, nor have you explained how a universal morality based on freedom could set the conditions for nazism.
    Yesterday at 2:35pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme OK, let me reframe the debate a bit. Luther was crazily anti-Jewish, and his calls to torture of the Jews so he could enjoy their moans all day and night long, deserve only condemnation. Does that mean that followers of Luther are Nazis? I …
    See More
    Yesterday at 2:36pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff as to kant’s advocacy of christian MORALS, they should not be confused or conflated with support for every damn detail in the NT. His categorical imperative is essentially a pure reason proof for the Golden Rule. Does anyone hear want to explain how “do unto others…” leads to Auswitch?
    Yesterday at 2:37pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff and he explcitly REJECTED any necessity to believe the stories of christianity or even its iconography or metaphysics (theology). He found the morals/ethics in the DOCTRINE compelling. Antisemitism by the NT writers is irrelevant. Jesus cer…
    See More
    Yesterday at 2:57pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme ‎”Do unto others…”?? Well, one can read Hitler, and he talked about peace and the rights of minorities (in general & “HIS ” minorities in particular), all the time. That does not make him a moral authority.
    Yesterday at 3:37pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme It’s like in driving: a drunk driver can drive well, or I mean, drive. That’s does not prove s/he is good on the road. What counts is the danger that a philosophy represents. One mistep is enough, and the car gets off the road, and everybody dies. The pb with Kant was exposed above.
    Yesterday at 3:39pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme One of the commenter totally espoused the Nazs’ basic line, BTW, which is that it was all the Versailles Treaty which did it (an immense absurdity, as Germany did not pay, in all ways, except for a token occupation of the Ruhr, and as if to…
    See More
    Yesterday at 3:46pm · Like

    Skip Leeds You’re wide of the mark, Daniel. I don’t think that the categorical imperative, or the imprinted moral code is the cause of evil. I think that *believing* in those things, when they don’t, in fact, exist is a cause of evil. It is, at any ra…
    See More
    Yesterday at 7:12pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff ‎1. None of what you said about the nature of evil is self-evident, and at least one assertion is self-evidently not so. Evil is often committed not by people who think they have the moral highground, but who simply dont care. I have worked…
    See More
    Yesterday at 10:28pm · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff skip, this “inner voice” thing you attribute to HItler sounds a lot like the position you’re arguing for, one in which ethics are subjective and personal. It’s very new agey, if I can be permitted to use that shorthand.

    Hitler wasnt listenin…
    See More
    Yesterday at 10:32pm · Like

    Patrice Ayme Nietzsche was a system destroyer. He correctly observed that one cannot repair a wound by grafting gangrenous tissues. Kant believed he had a system, and obedience to authority was conflated with morality in that system, a priori. The will to kill the world to enforce morality, clear in Kant, as the ethical universe upside down. Life justifies morality, not the opposite.
    13 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff ‎”obedience to authority was conflated with morality in that system, a priori” This is simply, patently, and utterly false. kant made no such posit. To the contrary, he offered a logical system based on the question: what would happen if everyone behaved as I am behaving. That in no way elevates civil authority, let alone placing it as an a priori axiom. Not sure what on earth you are referring to, but it’s false.
    13 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff This is from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. As you can see, if it’s correct in its explanation of kant’s basis tenets, not only did he not elevate obedience to authority, his entire philosophy is COUNTER to such a stance, as it el…
    See More
    13 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff ‎” a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will…it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect.”
    13 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff kant did posit obedience to legitimate civil authority as an outcome of the CI, but legitimate is an extremely important word here, because it means the authority is also bound by the CI. Here’s a good paper on the subject: http://eastanglia.academia​.edu/KennethRWestphal/Pape​rs/91685/Kants_Qualified_P​rinciple_of_Obedience_to_A​uthority_in_the_Metaphysic​al_Elements_of_Justice

    ‘Kant’s Qualified Principle of Obedience to Authority in the Metaphysical Elements of Justice’. (Ken
    Kant’s Qualified Principle of Obedience to Authority in the Metaphysical Element…
    See More
    13 hours ago · Like ·
    Daniel Brezenoff so any obedience to authority is NOT a priori, but an outcome of the CI.
    13 hours ago · Like

    Patrice Ayme Daniel: did you ever read Hitler, extensively? I did. Thousands of pages, over many many years. The very interesting segment of the SEP above you quoted seems straight out of Mein Kampf. I mean, the obsession with the autonomous will. First…
    See More
    12 hours ago · Like

    Patrice Ayme I imitate Nietzsche’s method, which is actually an atome of the scientific method. When I read a (Nazi) absurdity such as: the Versailles Treaty caused Nazism, I point out that is false. It’s pretty telling that, 80 years later, people are so politically correct that they condemn Nazism, while espousing its basic ideas (or lack thereof).
    12 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff right, and hitler was vegetarian, which makes vegetarianism equivalent to nazism, too, right? This whole thing of elevating animals simultaneously de-elevates humans, get it?

    I’ll say it again: it’s absurd to judge ANY system based on how Na…
    See More
    12 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff the basic idea of nazism are nationalism, racism, industrialism. They have nothing to do with kant. You have not even mounted a defense of your position, you persistently ignore the exerpts of kant I’ve provided and keep referencing hitler. It’s absurd. You may as well condemn the bill of rights because Glenn Beck claims to like it.
    12 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff it’s funny: Facebook keeps trying to get me to “like” “ethics”; the picture that goes with “ethics” is kant. Those Nazis with their damn ethics!
    12 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff Here’s a hitler quote, which I think demonstrated the complete absurdity and uselessness of citing hitler quotes to gain insight into anyone else or any philosophical system other than nazism.

    “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself …
    See More
    12 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff hitler also said this : ” believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. ” There’s your inner voice, I guess – GOD. But contrast with kant, who posits that it doesnt matter if there’s a god or not, the…
    See More
    12 hours ago · Like

    Patrice Ayme There is nothing virtuous with idiocy, quite the opposite. When Kant’s system posits, at the outset, concepts where life is subjugated to what he calls morality, he is, with all due respect, doing exactly what Hitler claimed he was doing, b…
    See More
    12 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff this has veered into incoherence and I’m done.
    12 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff more nazism:

    In “Theory and Practice” Kant makes freedom the first of three principles (8:290):

    1.The freedom of every member of the state as a human being.

    See More
    11 hours ago · Like
    Daniel Brezenoff read this: http://plato.stanford.edu/​entries/kant-social-politi​cal/

    Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    Kant wrote his social and political philosophy in order to champion the Enlighte…
    See More
    9 hours ago · Like ·
    Daniel Brezenoff kant’s political treatise contradicts fascism and nazism in more ways than I can count.
    9 hours ago · Like


  22. Caftsadadubgkbnut Says:

    The Jew
    The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet’s Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Zionist History
    Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, Research & News About Zionism
    We Reveal Zionist Banksters, News Falsifiers, PR Liars, Neocons, Subversives, Terrorists, Spies & More
    The Jew Watch Project’s 1.5 Billion Pages Served Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism
    An Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation

    I wouldn’t include stumbled across this one if it weren’t to go to the fascinating headline.
    The article said “Pilots: Hijacker jumbled during fraught standoff” and since I be versed jews are
    as a rule behind any hijackings, I had to bear a look. I also certain from experience that the people lay down
    up to be paid off these daffy hoaxes are predominantly fed tons of psychotropic and recreational drugs before
    hold away a jewish doctor and drug dealers somewhere, and it was the first factor that came to head when
    I platitude this headline. Only tip is that nobody else seems to hijack aircraft. That’s just apparent suicide,
    and I don’t sadness what you’ve heard nearly “hajis”, most people just don’t do irrational shit like this.
    hate israel

    For more resources supporting our cause, visit and read:
    kill gaza
    kill palestine
    kill palestine
    eliminate arabs
    i hate israel
    eliminate arabs

    Or link to:
    kill gaza
    love israel
    kill arabs
    i hate israel
    eliminate arabs
    kill gaza


  23. My Homepage Says:

    I dont think I have seen anything like this before. So good to find somebody with some original thoughts on these subjects. This website is something that is desperately needed on the web, someone with a little originality. Good job for bringing something new to the internet!


  24. Fumiko Says:

    Have you ever thought about writing an e-book or guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog based upon on the same subjects you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my viewers would enjoy your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e mail.


  25. John Olsen Says:

    It’s hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but you know what you’re talking about! Thanks


  26. Jorge Says:

    It appears that you don’t believe in 9/11 being an inside job. I am surprised. can you explain why?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Jorge: I do believe in conspiracies as the main engine of history: that is a fact, that they are.
      In an important way, in the general meaning of conspiracy (breathing together) 9/11 was of course a conspiracy because the CIA and its employees had engaged, excited, trained, and educated bin Laden and company in the most terrifying ways of exerting terror, including attacking “soft targets” such as schools for girls, and Bin Laden carried over these instructions on its own agenda, where he believed the evil emanated from, namely Wall Street and its bond hedge funds companies (located on top of the WTC). That was a very long sentence, not to be cut in little morsels.

      By the way, Nazism was another plutocratic conspiracy. Same for Mussolini, and Franquism (a conspiracies within conspiracies, as Hitler, Mussolini and various American plutocrats were on it, including oil and truck companies…

      The way the CIA and the like operate, they employ professional operators, often of different nationalities, to plausibly deny. Those can engage in their own tricks. However a CIA station chief had met in an Arab state clinic with Bin Laden, not long before 9/11. That there were explosives in the towers, that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, etc, I really don’t believe. The reality was even weirder, such as the incapacity to intercept the diverted planes…


  27. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Many blogs (and especially mine!) have thinking itself as a theme. That’s intrinsically eclectic. I was talking with a top academic (head of seven museums, no less!), and he thought the internet will change completely academia (it already does through open access). Well, we never have needed more (correct!) thinking. And the easiest way to find what’s correct is by the largest debate possible.


  28. INSTINCT IS FAST LEARNING. | Some of Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] that works is philosophically obvious. In a large animal one needs enormous quantities of motor neurons to send the electricity […]


  29. Patrick Elliott Says:

    Patrick Elliott
    Pure philosophy, with nothing to check against.. can wonder all over the place, and end up with something that is just as likely to be 95% true, as it is 5% true, with no way to know, based on the steps between, without some external sanity checks (this refers to something added to a computer program, to make sure the inputs are limited to what will work, instead of any random thing one wishes to type in, for example – making sure a date is actually a “date” and not a name), to make sure the steps even make sense, never mind the final result of following them.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Tyranosopher > Patrick Elliott
      The philosophical method is all over the place. For example, all over theoretical physics (hence, in particular, the folly of the Multiverse… Just because many physicists do not “like” or do not “feel good” about wavefunction collapse).

      Without heavy usage of the philosophical method, there simply would have been no science or technology (where the aim is 100% certainty in elevator or aircraft operations…

      The Foundations of Quantum Physics are fully a philosophical debate. But the aim is better science.


  30. Mr Me Says:

    Loved…loved…loved your response here 2 hours ago: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140409-nobel-prize-physics-aging-scientists-string-theory-inflation/#close-modal

    Wow I just spent 2 minutes perusing some of your articles…jumping jehosaphat you are intelligent…:-)
    I was fully expecting to find your blog to be physics centric entirely (which would make you no less intelligent of course) and yet I find your writing is obvioulsy not inclusive to even related subjects. I am going to spend some time here…I am duly impressed!



  31. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Scientific American, June 27, 2014.]

    There is a scientific method. It consists in using facts of absolute certainty and significance to establish reality.

    Philosophy also tries to establish reality, but uses all and any facts, including unique, ephemeral facts, and facts that are only suspected or imaginable.

    To ascertain certainty, physicists always have to approach the subject modulo the philosophical method.

    Thus the physicists who claim they use no philosophy are just saying their activity is devoid of significant mental creativity.

    Feynman was rewarded for his efforts: his son majored in philosophy. In person, Feynman was open to drastically new approaches in the foundations of physics. So his utterances in writing were directed to some types of modern philosophers who made no sense (and still do not). He was actually a philosopher, and even used philosophical like arguments in his famous Lectures.


  32. Emil A. Kramer Says:

    Thank you for your recent NYT comment regarding “real democracy” as a potential remedy for our current ills, and for calling our current constitution a representative oligarchy (if it is or ever was even that). I’ve been preachiing both points for years. I’m a classicist, a Platonist, and a historiographer, currently a professor at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois.


  33. katherinejlegry Says:

    I encountered one of your comments on a different site discussing Aristotle and became interested in your work. Do you have articles on “superstition as a juicy target” you have written that you can direct me to in particular? I am new to your site and will be getting to the reading by and by, but the juicy target stood out as in some instances I’ve found superstition connected to the I-Ching eastern Confucian philosophies for example. Jung read and used the I-Ching to determine the “magic” principles… but before I venture into any of this, I’m simply interested in what kinds of superstitions you mean. Thank you if you have time or interest in answering.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello Katherine and Welcome! Thanks for your interest. I have written plenty of articles on superstition. Unfortunately I am not well organized. A trick is to google “Patrice Ayme superstition” and something called “tags” appear, listing articles (I guess it will, I did not check for “superstition”).
      My basic position is that a religion can involve superstition (something above the real), as in Abrahamic religions, or some types of Buddhism… Or not involve superstition: say republicanism.
      It’s particularly true that Eastern Religions have more or less superstitious versions (from not at all, to ridiculous). Also superstition can be more or less taken seriously: educated Indians don’t take the Hindu superstition seriously, still they like its artistic and evocative elements.
      Hope that help.
      Have to run now (daughter to school; maybe more later)


      • katherinejlegry Says:

        Thanks for the clarifications. I will investigate your tags as per instruction. I have this book Zen and the Brain by James H. Austin, M.D. and it attempts to explain eastern forms of zen by way of both zen practice and through western neuroscience… but this is somewhat oxymoronic if one understands zen at all. Buddhism as philosophy verses a religion has practical applications that do more in the way of “real” than many western “thinkers” caught in “thinking” which is not “real” so…before I try to explain my questions I will read your articles for a better foundation.
        And to be clear, I’m not arguing with you at all, or trying to “prove” my points of view. I’m seeking to expand my own knowledge and go deeper into historical contexts. I also embrace the evolution of science 100% so thanks for your perspectives.
        I Hope you and your daughter have a good day. 🙂


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Katherine: I was not interpreting your queries with “arguing” or “proving” anything, rest reassured about that. Not that there is anything wrong with arguing and proving either: after all, I do this all day long.
          Buddhism is a gigantic field, embracing what are, I would dare to say, different religions (the same is true for Islam: some variants of “Islam” are much more distant from Wahhabist Islam than Christianity is).

          It has been pretty much proven that good meditators (in, say, Buddhism) can control some brain functions that untrained people cannot. But this is a fortiori true to apnea champions (who can slow down their hearts and redirect blood flow). It’s actually progress in neurological control that has allowed people to go without breathing from the old record of 5 minutes to about triple that.

          Thanks for the good day! 😉 You too!


          • katherinejlegry Says:

            Sure, there’s that physiological and neurological component to mediation. But it’s also breaking down what thinking is. What thoughts are. How we load and lend charge to them and what creates reality and what reality is that interests me about zen philosophy beyond the breath control and quiet heart stuff.
            Charlotte Joko Beck has some interesting discussions in Everyday Zen and Nothing Special that provide more nuances to the discussion you seem maybe ready to dismiss? I’m not speaking about the spiritual moral path to enlightenment and compassion or service even. I’m speaking about “thinking” or “imagination” if you prefer. Even the concepts of hope and fear. As these ideas propel all empires… I find zen “deconstruction” practical… and it’s about observation too. Observing thoughts as they come up. Listening. It’s very scientific… really.
            I’m still in need of reading your work so I apologize for embarking on this without understanding your positions. I am also an amateur in the field of philosophers although I’m learning. Anyhow, thank you so much for the discussion!


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Hope and fear are more emotions than concepts or thought. Yet thought and emotion are always entangled. True they propel empires, but plenty of other concepts too. All human concepts, actually.
            The barest bones thoughts are equations (that’s why equations are so useful in science).

            In the matter of meditation, monks and war, let’s remember this: the monks of the huge monastery of Shaoling found that they had to defend themselves. Otherwise they won’t be. So they invented Kung-Fu.

            Wisdom without defense can’t be.


          • katherinejlegry Says:

            Oh, I’m not suggesting that monks don’t have to defend themselves…
            It’s the plugging into a baseboard response (conditioned in all humans in the myriad of experiences) that creates a pattern of thinking leading to the emotions of hope or fear that create wars as much as defenses as much as meditations or lack there of (depending). Observing the science of the body, the tension, or flight or fight in reaction/response depending on emotional control, to the perceived attack imagined or real is what happens in zen mediation and living zen is the direct action taken as response- ability requires in the present moment…everything from observing microscopic organisms, to washing the dishes to said, martial arts.
            So I don’t think we are actually at odds yet.
            Okay… it’s late and I’m off to bed… as I’ve been randomly checking messages today between my work I haven’t really focused my questions to you very well… so I do appreciate your time very much. As I talk about zen and debunking “thinking” you are seeing that I obviously enjoy thinking. Alas, my conundrum.
            Goodnight to you. 🙂


  34. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Fri, Dec 19, 2014 9:21 am
    Wow, your NYTimes comment
    Hi Patrice Ayme,
    I was so impressed just now with your post about Putin (really about
    that I looked you up and I see you have such an interesting blog.
    I’m happy to have found it.
    thank you for writing….

    Melody Chavis
    Author. Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Melody!
      I very much appreciate when people are interested with what I write. Actually, if no one liked it, or no one liked to debate it, I would certainly write much less. So I hope to see you in the comments. I also hope I find time to read your book on an heroine in Afghanistan! The condition of women under some forms of Islam is… abject (there are nearly opposite forms of Islam, and I had the good fortune to be raised, partly, in their midst, so I have no tolerance for the murderous sexists…)
      Thank you for your kindness


  35. Martin J Sallberg Says:

    If prehumans punished the more humanlike individuals for their actions while applying something like “insanity defence” for more apelike individuals, that selective breeding would have prevented humans from evolving. All intention-centered judgmentality is antiintellectual and uncoevolvable with intelligence.

    Since I am blocked from my own blog I have not been able to post modifications, such as I now think restricted access to articles and peripheral debaters using peer review arguments in ways that indirectly support real anti-science denialists are far worse problems than the no redundant publication policy itself, and I no longer believe in my earlier theory of authority being linked to innate stupidity (part of my new general rebuttal of psychiatric link claims). With these disclaimers, enjoy the rest of my website!


  36. Patrice Ayme Says:

    In general, I do not answer private personal messages, and requests for personal meetings, be it only because otherwise I would have no time for public writing on what I deem important. But I do answer public personal messages… Especially if they address even very tangentially, what I write…. And maybe, god knows, one thing would lead to another…
    In some ways, I am like a monk, for real. And that’s rather ironical… in more ways than just one.


  37. Gmax Says:

    Supposedly, French IQ went down 4 points. Test scores in schools are going down, not juse relative to the Chinese, but relative to historical stanards, in the US, France,etc. So you are trying to sell products like truth and intelligence, which are voguish anymore. You have your work cut out for you!

    Personally I find your essays awesome. Thanks a zillion for them, and godspeed!


  38. Dan Hillel Weiss Says:

    … I have enough problems staying off FB to put in my four hours of drilling on the piano. I do miss your writing, your take on things is insightful and not duplicated. Challenging too.


  39. Badger Says:

    Hey Patrice huge fan of your blogs. Not a ‘degree’ holder myself but I’m passionate about learning.

    Quick question, do you think there’s a possibility we’re in a social media/politic bubble?

    Cheers appreciate your time and work


  40. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Answer to query.]
    The site I esteem most is SEP, from my alma mater, Stanford… But it’s purely a reference (no comments, no state-of-the-planet wisdom).

    Let me please dare to recommend my own site. It is contemporary, deals with anything (as philosophy is supposed to!)… is completely unafraid of anything whatsoever (even fatwas from Islamist Republics!) and I do not block or remove comments (only the first one is moderated).


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: