[continued from previous message]
This is a very important question in political philosophy, so how
can we answer it? i will start to answer it like this:
Notice that in a society that we form (like in a country), we
are also trying to "unite" so that to avoid desorder and its violence,
so from this kind of "unification" we can say that a decent compassion
and a decent love that is considered decent by morality and by the
people is inherent to efficiency in politics so that to avoid desorder
and its violence ! (read the rest of my thoughts below to understand more)
==
About democracy and corruption..
Corruption is Inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means.
Read the definition of corruption here to notice it:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption
So as i am explaining below that democracy depends on and is guided by
morality that i defined with two abstraction that are: "Perfection at
best" and with Efficiency and compassion and love that are inherent to efficiency (read below to understand), hence we can say that corruption
is also "lack" of efficiency that doesn't follow the rule of morality
that is: The people needs efficiency.
So when i say below that:
===
How must we think democracy in political philosophy ?
I think that we have to be more smart and notice that
democracy is also smart, the big benefits of democracy that it is also
like a morality that is a diversity that prioritize by giving weights to
some important things and processes to be able to succeed, for example
if i ask a question of how to be less corruption ? i think
that democracy is an enhanced system that fights corruption
more efficiently than dictatorship, i think this is
understandable because to be able to "escape" a local maximum
towards a global maximum(like in artificial intelligence) on efficiency
of fighting corruption, we have to be able to vote for another political
party that is more apt and more efficient at fighting corruption, this
is why i think that democracy is better at fighting corruption, also i
think that in democracy the governance must be a "competent" governance
this is how we will enhance democracy to be the best.
===
Corruption above also means that it is lack of efficiency.
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand more:
More political philosophy about democracy..
Is democracy the best thing to do ?
Here is what i said before, and my today answer is below:
=======================================================
How must we think democracy in political philosophy ?
I think that we have to be more smart and notice that
democracy is also smart, the big benefits of democracy that it is also
like a morality that is a diversity that prioritize by giving weights to
some important things and processes to be able to succeed, for example
if i ask a question of how to be less corruption ? i think
that democracy is an enhanced system that fights corruption
more efficiently than dictatorship, i think this is
understandable because to be able to "escape" a local maximum
towards a global maximum(like in artificial intelligence) on efficiency
of fighting corruption, we have to be able to vote for another political
party that is more apt and more efficient at fighting corruption, this
is why i think that democracy is better at fighting corruption, also i
think that in democracy the governance must be a "competent" governance
this is how we will enhance democracy to be the best.
And now about to technocracy or to not technocracy ?
This is a really good subject of political philosophy,
and answering it permits us to understand better our
actual democracies, this is why i will continu
to answer this question:
I said before the following:
Because you have to notice that technocracy needs utilitarianism and
this kind of utilitarianism of technocracy needs "dictatorship", so
technocracy is not democracy and technocracy is dictatorship, and this dictatorship can cause problems of more violence inside the society.
Also this kind of utilitarianism of technocracy is something problematic because it has the tendency to give much more importance to the
"performance" and to the "efficiency" sides to be able to be more "competitive", so this can easily become extremism that also cause
problems of more violence inside the society.
So technocracy is not correct thinking, because
what we need is democracy that needs also a competent governance.
But we have to understand better our world, and you have to notice
on what is based many of the western democratic countries like France
and such, i think that they understand that what we need is also
the right dose of "humanism" that permits us to be a "civilization"
that avoids savagery, this is why the utilitarianism of technocracy is
not correct thinking, and i think we can also "view" this right dose of humanism as the way that USA system is run by the separation of powers
to not "fall" into extremism and savagery ! so as you are noticing that democracy needs a competent governance and i think that democracy and a competent governance is the way to go.
=======================================================================
So is democracy the best thing to do ?
I think you have to understand that democracy "depends" on morality,
it is like guided also by morality, and since as i said in my political philosophy below that morality is efficiency and the right compassion
and love, so democracy also needs those requirements and is guided
by those requirements, so democracy of course needs a "competent"
governance since people needs efficiency, and democracy fights more
efficiently corruption, and democracy needs to know how to avoid
extremism that causes problems inside the system etc.
Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand better:
About morality and political philosophy..
As you will notice i will do more political philosophy so that you
understand better:
If you remember my last thoughts of political philosophy about morality,
it is the following:
===========================================================================
I said in my proof before of: morality is perfection at best, the following:
"Because morality exists because we have to avoid the bad
And we have to avoid the bad by also trying to maximize at best the good
And trying to maximize at best the good is also called: perfection at best
So morality is pushed towards absolute perfection
So that to be able to solve all our problems
And be absolute happiness that is the goal
But morality of today must at least be a decent morality
To avoid desorder and violence inside the system"
I have to be more precise:
When i say: And we have to avoid the bad by also trying to maximize at
best the good
What is it that we call "good" in morality ?
A good is like we have to correct or eliminate a defect or flaw , and
being morality is correcting and eliminating the defects or flaws so
that to attain reliability or flawlessness (you have not to read it out
of context of my above proof), because in morality we have to maximize
at best the good and minimizing at best the bad, that means also that we
have to maximize at best reliability so that to attain flawlessness ,
and this is called perfection at best since from the following
definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection
perfection is also called freedom from fault or defect that we call: FLAWLESSNESS
Also i said above that:
"But morality of today must at least be a decent morality
To avoid desorder and violence inside the system"
Now can we ask the following question:
How can we measure decent morality ?
We can first ask the following question:
How do we measure the truth ?
The truth is measured by our our senses and by our smartness and by
rationalism and by empiricism !
So i think we can feel the relativeness of truth, i mean that the truth
is measured by a reference of measure , but there can be many references
of measure that gives different results of truth ! and thus we have to "prioritize" to be able to succeed ! i give you an example:
when i said (read below) that decent morality has to be measured by the reference of measure that is perfection at best so that the government
enforce more correctly "order", this government needs to prioritize
wich of the reference of measures of the truth are more "valid" !
so there is the reference of measure that is happiness or absolute
happiness , but since law enforcement of "order" that is of a "highest" priority, so the "truth" of: is it decent morality or not ? must be
measured by the reference of measure that is perfection at best in
itself so that to say that it is decent morality or not ! so here again
you are noticing the relativeness of the truth since the reference of
measure is choosen among many and is prioritized !
I will explain more by giving an example:
To be able to say that morality that is perfection at best and that
is guided by civilization that avoids at best savagery is a decent
morality, you have to give weights or a order of priorities to
things or processes , you can for example say that "order" is of highest importance and perfection at best is of highest importance and you can
say that richness is of a highest importance and you can infer that even
if we are somewhat suffering to finally become rich and to be finally
order and to be finally perfection at best, we can say that this process
is decent morality because it gives results that are of highest
importance for us.
Also i think that the tendency of today is that morality that is
Perfection at best is balancing perfection with our kind of
"civilization" so that to not being savagery or desorder.
====
I think that you understand more the essence of morality, but
there is still something to say, i said that morality is
perfection at best, so now we have to ask the following question:
how to avoid "extremism" of perfection that can be dangerous ? i mean
that perfection at best can for example give too much
importance to "efficiency" and this can become dangerous ! so
is my definition of morality that is perfection at best correct
or not ? i think that there is no logical contradiction in
my definition and it is correct because you have to understand
the essence of democracy that is related to morality to understand
better ! because we have to look at our "essence" to understand better
morality ! because since a great part of the people of the society are
more human and they do understand that getting into savagery is "bad" !
so this great part of people of the society does constrain democracy !
since for example the legislative branch or power of the government has
to know how to be "moderation" to avoid extremism that hurt the system
or that causes violence or/and desorder and/or that causes civil war
inside the system ! so this makes us understand that morality that is perfection at best is constrained by democracy so that the "at best"
becomes more human or more moderation that is in accordance of our today
kind of civilization that, as you have noticed, is balancing perfection
with our kind of civilization so that to avoid savagery or desorder. So
i hope you have understood my explanation and definition of what is the
essence of morality, so i think that we have to be more optimistic about morality.
And here is what i wrote about democracy:
I think the success of USA has to be that USA has to understand the
way USA is governed, take for example the separation of powers,
What is the separation of powers?
The U.S. Constitution set up three separate but equal branches of
government: the legislative branch, or Congress, makes the law; the
executive, led by the president, executes the law; and the judicial, or
courts, interprets the law.
But we have to be smarter than that, the separation of powers is not "sufficient", so we have to be smarter and know that the legislative
branch has to understand how to make the legislative branch successful !
look for example at USA , its congress is constituted with both
conservatives and democrats, but this legislative branch has to
understand a very important requirement that the legislative branch has
to know how to be "moderation" to not cause violence or civil war
inside the system ! this is the key to success ! thus the legislative
branch of USA has to avoid "extremism" that causes violence or civil war
inside the system , so it has to know how to be "moderation" !
========================================================================
So you are now understanding that morality is also: Perfection at best.
But is it in contradiction with my previous post about political
philosophy ?
No it isn't because "Perfection at best" is "Perfection"
that is "Efficiency" in my previous abstraction of my previous post, and
it is also the "at best" that is the correct compassion and love in my
previous abstraction of my previous post, since in political philosophy
we have to be "efficient" and since there is also human and animal
suffering etc. so we have to be correct compassion and love that
contains also the correct tolerance and patience, but as you are
noticing there is two of my abstractions of morality that are:
"Perfection at best" or "Efficiency and the correct compassion and love"
Now there is something to add is the following:
Now what is it to be civilized ?
This is a smart question..
You have to understand deeply our kind of civilization to
be able to answer this question, i think that our kind of civilization
is wanting to "maximize" at best by "effort" the avoidance of savagery
even if we are still savagery here and there, you have to be able able
to understand how to prioritize to be able to succeed ! i think that our
kind of civilization is giving a weight of great importance to the
fact of avoiding savagery at best by effort, so this principle doesn't contradict the fact that even if we are still savagery here and there
we have to maximize at best the avoidance of savagery by "effort", and
also this principle has to be in accordance with the fact that
we have to be the right "stability" to be able to
call a society a society or a country a country, so this is
why we are noticing that we are being a kind of "tolerance" and we
are a social system and we are a health care system in our kind of civilization. So to be in accordance with the principle above you are understanding that we have to be efficient and much organized to be able
to be this principle in action, this is why i am
not in accordance with neo-nazism or white supremacism,
because they are inferiority of morality that doesn't
understand the requirements of our today "civilization",
so white supremacists and neo-nazis have to adapt because
they are too much violence.
And read the rest of my previous thoughts of my previous post:
About my thoughts..
I am using the word "confident" in my following thoughts (read below
when i am speaking of the first principle of science)
and it means: certain.
Read the definition of "confident" here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confident
So read my following thoughts:
About from where comes morality ?
I said previously that political philosophy is about (this is my
abstraction):
1- The first principle of science that i talked about (read below)
2- How to be efficient
3- To answer the question: Is compassion and love inherent to
efficiency? (read below)
But there is still something to know about political philosophy..
But from where comes morality ?
This is a very important question:
I think morality comes from the people that needs to be "efficient"
so that to survive better and from the people that needs a decent
compassion and love that is considered decent by morality(so you have
to know where is the reference of measure) so that there is
no desorder that causes violence, so in politics we have
to be "efficient" so that to "satisfy" and we have to be the correct
compassion and love.
Read the rest of my previous post to understand better:
About what is political philosophy..
First you have to distinguish between the inferior and the superior..
Answering correctly such a question as:
What is political philosophy ?
Is something that demand a level of smartness, because you have to be
equipped with smartness to be able to feel it and to know it correctly.
So i will start to answer it by "abstracting" the answer much more
correctly:
In science there is very important principle that is:
There are appearances and there are realities, and there is the false
and there is the truth, so you have to know that in science we are "not" confident with the appearances , that means what you see may not be what
you get or what is truth , so now you are understanding the first
principle of science.
This is the same in political philosophy, political philosophy is also
like science, because in political philosophy we have not to be
confident with the appearances or with what we see, this is why you have
seen me in my previous post asking a question in political philosophy
such as: Is compassion and love inherent to efficiency ? and why am i
answering this question, it is because in political philosophy we are
not confident with the appearances or with what we see ! because we have
to get inside and understand the truth correctly so that also to know if
we are "safe" from something, it is also about safety !. So now you are noticing that in political philosophy, we have to be this first
principle of science that i just talked about above, and from my
previous post, we have to be "efficiency" and we have to know if
compassion and love are inherent to efficiency, i think this is my "abstraction" of what is political philosophy.
Read the rest of my previous post to understand more my thoughts:
About philosophy of expressiveness..
You have to understand more my philosophy, so i have to be more
smart to "abstract" it correctly:
If i say:
"I Love you".
You are noticing that if i had only those 3 words to express,
so i will not be able to express the following:
"I love you very much".
So you are feeling more correctly the constraints over expressiveness.
This is the most important thing in political philosophy.
Because when you add more words to be able to express: "I love you very
much", you are immediately noticing that it also permits not only to
express precisely a feeling, but it allows to express it more
"efficiently", so it is expressiveness of efficiency.
And this is the basis of political philosophy, because in political
philosophy we have to be able to express it "efficiently" , and what
is efficiency ?
Efficiency is: you have the ressources that is our universe(we are part
of the universe) and our other universes, and you have to produce an
output from this input, that is our universe or universes, that is
performant, it is performance.
So as you are noticing it is expressiveness of "efficiency", and now
you are noticing that the first question in political philosophy is: how
to be efficient ? and to be able to be really efficient, so you have to
be high efficiency of technology and science !, and second question: Is
love and compassion inherent to efficiency ?
This is why i wrote previously the following:
More political philosophy now..
I think you know me more now..
Today i will discuss a very "important" subject of political philosophy..
It is also about "expressiveness", you have to know that we can be
constrained and this can make expressiveness "less" expressiveness,
so you have to be smart to know how to "avoid" those constraints to
be able to be more expressiveness of your liberty or your intelligence
or your performance etc. i give you an example so that you understand:
Let us take the history of black slavery..
Black men can say that white people have constrained black people with
slavery and colonialism , so that black people have much less expressed
there liberty and there intelligence and there performance etc. but
notice that like in "mathematics" we can take off this constraint by
saying that slavery and colonialism have permitted the white people
to express much more "efficiently" there liberty and there intelligence
and there performance etc. by becoming much more rich because of slavery
and colonialism, but notice that after white people have become much
more rich, because of that, they have started "help" much more black
africans and black people etc. so as you are noticing this makes us see
more clearly the what about expressiveness..
Other than that:
We are still hating white people because of past black slavery, but i
think that this is not "wisdom", because black africans in the past time
of black slavery were considered to be much more "animals", because in
the past time of black slavery, black africans were looking like animal
monkeys to white people and black africans were considered by white
people much less smart than humans that were defined as being white
people, so white people, in the past time of black slavery, were "not"
able to judge correctly because of lack of "science" and lack of
quality, this is why they have practiced slavery on black africans, so
we have today, and by understanding it, to be able to transcend this
problem and by not being hate towards white people because of past slavery.
Now we have to be more smart and try to feel more and know more with
political philosophy:
Look at my following poem of Love:
============================================
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful wind
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful stars
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful sky
It is like wanting to fly with you high
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful sky
It is like the beautiful that is not wanting to die
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful sky
It is like not wanting to be the bad guy
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful sky
It is like the beautiful Gold of Versailles
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful sky
It is like don't cry my baby, don't cry !
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful sky
It is like never saying to love a Goodbye !
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful sky
It is like being far from war and the cry !
Feeling like i am feeling the beautiful sky
It is also like my great love that want to mystify
So let me fly with you baby, let me fly !
=========================================
You have to notice that what i am trying to do in my poem above
is to make it much more precise with more precise calculations and with
more measure and with more rationality and notice that i am "not"
neglecting compassion and love, so this way you are noticing that it
looks like political philosophy, because what are we doing in political philosophy? we can say that in political philosophy of today and of the
future we are asking a question such as:
Is compassion or love inherent to efficiency ?
This is a very important question in political philosophy, so how
can we answer it? i will start to answer it like this:
Notice that in a society that we form (like in a country), we
are also trying to "unite" so that to avoid desorder and its violence,
so from this kind of "unification" we can say that a decent compassion
and a decent love that is considered decent by morality and by the
people is inherent to efficiency in politics so that to avoid desorder
and its violence ! and now there is an important question that we have
to ask, and it is:
And what about compassion and love globally above this earth ?
I think that there is something to notice, is that since China and
western countries and others are arming themselves with powerful arms
such as nuclear arms etc. so this has its advantages, because this also
forces neo-nazism and white supremacism to take this fact into account
and avoid to repeat an horror like the horror of Hitler that have tried
to exterminate jews and others..
This is why i said the following:
How do you think i am doing it ? you have to notice that i am
also capable of high standards of safety-critical systems programming,
so i am not thinking as neo-nazism or white supremacism, because i am
taking into account the "safety" criterion, this is
the weakness of neo-nazism and white supremacism, because
neo-nazism is inherently "archaism" of nazism, and this is
not acceptable in high standards of safety-critical systems
programming, because it is inferiority, because the first
important thing to notice is that our today time is not
the past history time of Hitler and nazism, because our today world is
equipped with extremely dangerous nuclear arms, China has them
Russia has them and USA has them etc. so more violent ideologies
like neo-nazism and white supremacism are not taking correctly into
account this criterion of safety, because since neo-nazism is more
violent towards other races and white supremacism is more violent
towards other races, so with more violent ideologies such as
neo-nazism and white supremacism we can get "easily" into a very big destructive nuclear war, so this is why i think that neo-nazism and
white supremacism are inherently "archaism" because they have not
adapted correctly to the requirements of our today world, this is why
you have to be able to think correctly and to notice that the game of
today world is also to be able to correctly think the requirement of
safety, and this also requires from us to know how to be "smartness" of "Diplomacy" so that to avoid the mess of violence. This is why you are
seeing me talking about the criterion of safety, please read the rest of
my thoughts to understand better.
And about the logical consistency of my writing about abstraction and efficiency:
I wrote previously the following:
"You can feel it by seeing that mathematically a+a=2*a, it is also
about abstraction, it is like commutative, a+a abstract 2*a
and 2*a abstract a+a"
Is it logically consistent to say so ?
Yes, because you have to read what follows, here is what follows:
"And you can also run the abstraction of 2*a or a+a in your brain and if
your brain contains the consciousness of the understanding of the
abstractions, then the understanding of the abstractions will come to
you quickly, so then, is the understanding of the abstractions is part
of the process that we call abstraction ? i think it is
a more appropriate philosophy, so i think we can answer with
a "yes"."
So as you are noticing i am "including" in my philosophy, that i think
is more appropriate, the understanding of the abstractions in the
process that we call abstraction. So there is no logical inconsistency.
So read again my previous post:
About abstraction and efficiency..
When you abstract and say or write mathematically:
a+a= 2*a
I think this is the most important part of the philosophy
of computing or parallel computing, i think you have to be a wise type
of person like me to see it clearly..
Philosophy about computing is something really important,
what are we doing in computing or parallel computing ? i mean how to
abstract the answer to feel it much more correctly ?
You can feel it by seeing that mathematically a+a=2*a, it is also
about abstraction, it is like commutative, a+a abstract 2*a
and 2*a abstract a+a, and you can also run the abstraction
of 2*a or a+a in your brain and if your brain contains the
consciousness of the understanding of the abstractions ,
then the understanding of the abstractions will come to you quickly,
so then, is the understanding of the abstractions is part
of the process that we call abstraction ? i think it is
a more appropriate philosophy, so i think we can answer with
a "yes".
So now by analogy you are feeling more how to abstract much more
correctly the philosophy of computing, it becomes more clearly
that in computing or parallel computing we are abstracting more and more towards higher level of abstractions, and we are organizing those
abstractions like a "language" to be executed in computers, and the understanding of the abstractions must be part of the process of
abstracting in computing or parallel computing, and the abstractions
must be "efficient" and then we are also running those higher level abstractions in our computers.
This is why you have previously seen me posting the following, read it carefully:
Analogy with parallel computing..
My personality is more complex, you have to understand me more,
when i say i am also a gay like Chevy Chase because i am more
humoristic, you have to understand this "abstraction" of saying
humoristic, i am humoristic like Chevy Chase because i am more
positive and i want the others to be more posititive, so i can
be humoristic to make you positive, but my humoristic way
of doing is more "smart", because i can use a sophisticated humoristic
manner to learn you more about morality and about life and i am
more intellectual in doing so.
And speaking about "abstractions", i think it is a good subject
of philosophy, because i think you have to be capable
of philosophy about computing, i think one of the main part
of computing is also about abstracting, but it is not only
about abstracting but you have to abstract and be sophisticated
in it by making your abstractions "efficient". I give you an example:
As you know i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms, and
one of my last invention is a Fast Mutex that is adaptative,
so i have extracted the abstractions from my Fast Mutex,
and those abstractions are like a language or like an automaton
that is also like a protocol that is constituted of a language,
so when i execute the abstraction that is the Enter() method, it will
enter the Fast Mutex, and when i execute the abstraction that is
the Leave() method, it will leave the Fast Mutex, but you have
to be more smart, because it is "not" enough to abstract, you
have to be more efficient, i mean that i am thinking like a researcher
when i have invented my last Fast Mutex by taking into account
the following characteristics, so i have made my new Fast Mutex powerful
by making it as the following:
1- Starvation-free
2- Good fairness
3- It keeps efficiently and very low the cache coherence traffic
4- Very good fast path performance (it has the same performance as the
scalable MCS lock when there is contention.)
5- And it has a good preemption tolerance.
I think that you will not find anywhere this new invention of mine.
More political philosophy about wisdom..
I think i am like a wise man type of person, but i have to show you more
what is a wise man, a wise man is a composition of both cultural
superiority and genetical superiority that forms a wise man, and you
will notice that a wise man is capable of good judgment , but i will
first make you feel something important, look at the following song of
UB40 - (I Can't Help) Falling In Love With You here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUdloUqZa7w
As you are noticing the song is saying the following:
"Wise man said, only fools rush in !"
Do you understand it correctly ?
You have to be aware of one of the most important principle
of wisdom !
So i will easy the job for you and make you understand:
There is an important principle in Psychology and in Psychiatry that you
have to know correctly to be able to understand, and here it is:
It is that you have to be able to transcend your natural instincts(from genetics) that are emotional and behavioral disorders to be able to be
reason and of a better quality !
Do you understand it correctly ?
And from this, we can logically infer more by asking the following question:
And what is those in the rest of the phenomenal world that look like
those natural instincts that causes to be not able to be reason ?
Look for example at nationalism, a nationalist can for example be more
virility that render him to be not able to be reason, and that's called
"toxic" virility, and those are natural instincts that causes him to be
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)