domain: culture

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Annual Netanyahuite Lecture: What is Learning - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature72" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/lecture.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Annual Netanyahuite Lecture: What is Learning

A fainting lecture delivered by the Netanyahuite philosopher, father of the school of philosophy of learning, who was finally invited to answer once and for all the question: What is the "learning" whose name he always bears (and twice in every sentence). In an attempt to preserve the spirit of the oral presentation, the transcript of the lecture was edited into boring paragraphs as long as the exile, reflecting the feverish and oxygen-deprived manner of speech of the deceased, which leads to early brain death

By: The Last Lecture

Enthusiastic reactions in the hall (source)

Opening (and Closing): The Learning Circle

What is learning? Like any complete philosophy, the philosophy of learning must answer the question of what learning is using its own tools, otherwise it will fall into contradiction. That is, one must answer the question of what learning is through learning - learning what learning is. And here the logical problem is already reversed - not contradiction, but circularity. Therefore, the question that immediately arises when we come to deal with learning is: how do we learn what learning is? That is, in learning, we quickly shift from the question of what to the question of how. It is enough for us to know how to learn, and this will already be an answer to the question of what learning is, because learning is not an object or action, but a way.

But what is a way at all? The invented object of the how. How do we learn what learning is? This is the same question as how do we learn, and if we answer it we will answer it as well. If so, we have replaced what is learning what is learning what is learning what is... etc. with how to learn how to learn how to learn how... etc., so what have we done? Have we done nothing and just returned to the starting point?

Well, we have completed a full circle, but have we gone backwards? The problem is not in the shape of the circle, every complete philosophy is circular, and its purpose is to close a complete circle - a worldview that stands on its own. The problem is in a regressive circle, which goes backwards, to infinity, as opposed to a circle that moves forward. The direction of movement in the circle is the determining factor. This is the difference between logical circularity and learning circularity, which is an infinite loop, as in programming. That is: a loop that operates again and again and progresses in the world.

Logic and Learning

Hence, learning is not logic (in a side note for the advanced, we'll add: in logic this inference is not valid, but should be reversed, but here we are learning what learning is). In logic, for example, if you repeat the same sentence, it has no meaning - but in learning it does. In logic, repetition is just that, while in learning, repetition and memorization are essential. And if we repeat this idea again, in a different way, we will learn it better. Therefore, logic is foreign to the brain, it is a machine from its perspective, while learning is our mode of operation. When something encounters its own mode of operation - it is difficult for it to define it, and in fact it cannot imagine another mode of operation, but only simulate it, that is, recreate it as a machine. Therefore, we do not understand logic, but can only operate it and use it. We will never think in mathematics, and even the greatest mathematicians do not think in proofs, but in learning - they learn mathematics (even proofs can only be learned). Logic always progresses or goes backwards, while in learning one can progress by going backwards in a circular repetition (even in an argument), because although both involve construction, in logic the construction goes backwards to first principles, while in learning the construction goes forward - we start from somewhere and continue. It cannot be justified, it is unidirectional by nature. Nothing can justify its own mode of operation, because even this justification is in its own mode of operation. A computer cannot prove the laws of logic (neither can mathematics), and therefore it is always built on first principles. Not so with learning, where there are no axioms to return to, but starting points to continue from, and there is no meaning to going back to the beginning in learning - this is an illusion (or simulation). One can only learn forward. In the brain, a thought always causes the next thought, and you have no way to think twice in the same brain, because the brain itself changes. Learning itself changes itself. And therefore, although we have not progressed logically here, we have learned here. The fact that the brain is a sequence of changing thoughts does not mean that we cannot progress, on the contrary, it means we can do only one thing: progress. Because this change is not logical (which would mean there was no progress at all here, just jumps), but it is the progress of learning. And even when a computer learns, it simulates learning using logic, and this simulation indeed learns, but it cannot logically base itself. Because logic can go backwards, and its essence as construction is that it can be traversed in both directions, and checked. While learning knows only one direction: forward. Am I repeating myself? Great. That's how you'll understand. In learning, even repetition advances, because there is only one direction. We repeat forward, not backward. The circle rotates forward.

Time and Learning: Why Unidirectionality?

The unidirectionality of learning and progression in the brain actually stems from the unidirectionality of time. If there was a time machine, could we go backwards in learning? Could we turn into logic machines, able to return mechanically to the previous stage? No, because going back in time would only be to run the film backwards, not to change it. Learning does not stem only from the direction of time flow, but from its unidirectionality, that is, from its being exceptional (compared to spatial dimensions) in being one-dimensional. For there to be real change in learning - and in its progressive circularity - we would need not a time machine but two dimensions of time. And this we cannot grasp at all, unlike additional spatial dimensions. In fact, the whole idea of going back in time and the desire to go back and choose differently is an anti-learning fantasy. "If only we had known" in Chekhov - but if you went back in time and didn't learn, how would you know? (Even the physical problem is probably not going back in time but the return of information in time, in a way that violates learning). And this is also the difference between the childish Christian return to Eden, before the sin, versus the Jewish idea of learning-based correction, after the breaking.

On the opposite side, if we were to remove one dimension from time, and turn it from a line to a point, learning would also be nullified, and the world would pass beyond our perception, and become pure information - a hard drive (or hologram). For if there was no time in the world there would be no learning, only a given state. And even if in that world there was a magnificent logical structure that captures the whole world, for example all of mathematics was written as given (this was the Platonic fantasy) there would be no learning here (this is what Aristotle understood. And therefore also added concepts of time). Why does the lecture take time, why is it long, why do you need to sit here and listen to me, or sit and read it? Because we have no way to grasp this text itself other than in linear reading, in time, that is, other than through learning. We cannot absorb an entire book at once, grasp or think about it simultaneously, and insert it into us all in parallel, but only slowly unravel the thread and follow it, until the book ends when it all turns into one long thread, which was our performance - our reading - of it, that is our learning (therefore everyone reads differently, because one can learn differently).

And if we could read a book like that, it would be like a computer, that is, to copy it into us, as information - and not learning. The text would become pure information, and lose meaning for us. We would not learn anything from all this abundant information, because it would not change us, that is, change our learning itself, unless afterwards within us we would do another process of learning, that is, of linear reading along it. As if a child learned the Kaddish or the Zohar by heart as a code in Aramaic, and then as an adult who learned Aramaic he deciphers it - and actually reads it for the first time within himself. The touch of the divine in religion stems precisely from this relationship to the text as information (pure and therefore sacred and not human), as God has no dimension of time and perceives the world as whole and given. Hence the infinite attempt to learn the text, and to return it from the transcendent timeless dimension to human, Jewish time.

Where is the Innovation?

And if we return (again!) to logic, unlike logic, learning does not engage in the cult of the source, but in the cult of originality (or Jewish innovation), that is, in the search for the next stage - the progression on the path - so that it will not be a logical continuation that is routine and expected, and walking on the same boring path. It seeks the turn in the path, and hence the interest of learning: interest. Interest is what lies ahead of it, and not at its base behind it, the future attracts it more than it is built on the past. Hence the human mathematical instinct (or mathematical curiosity) - to find learning precisely in logic, that is, to overcome logic, using its most unexpected, original and difficult places, and thereby transform logic into learning (of course, from a human perspective). Hence mathematics is a learning decomposition of logic (or in less mathematical language: a learning construction of logic). That is, mathematics is a learning digestion of logic using the brain as a learning machine, as opposed to the computer as a proving machine. Therefore, proofs using computers do not satisfy us, because we have not really learned. We not only want to know the proof as information, but to be able to learn it - and therefore learn from it. Memorizing proofs by heart is not learning, and therefore in learning mathematics there is a need for many exercises. Therefore, our fear of the computer stems from its being a logical machine, but in order for it to have intelligence it must also become a learning system. An entire philosophy book can be logically trivial (and in fact all mathematics is such) but its power is what it teaches - a new learning method.

And if we are looking for originality - and we would never have written this text (or read it, in both senses) unless it was trying to innovate, that is, to teach us something new - we must (unlike in logic) ask what it innovates - to justify it. And not ask on what basis it innovates, where philosophy is very shaky, always, because it cannot be logic, and is not supposed to be, but learning. The stupid hammer for logic is analytic philosophy, or Spinoza's proofs, which do not understand that philosophical construction is learning - not logical (Spinoza's propositions are interesting - the proofs are not). Therefore, contradiction in philosophy is not a disaster - but boredom is. In learning there can be contradiction (for example between Torah and science or between behavioral systems), but not in mathematics. The brain can contain and live contradictions - and even different learning systems. So if so, what is the innovation here? What is the difference between saying that our learning deals with the question of how and not what - and therefore always only demonstrates (and does not define) learning (unlike logic which defines) - and the Wittgensteinian definition of meaning as use?

The Innovation in Contrast to Language

Well, the Wittgensteinian investigation itself is a way of learning, which he demonstrates again and again (but of course does not define). He too can be grasped through learning, and not just the opposite - grasping everything through language, in the dictatorship of the philosophy of language. But the main thing here is that we are not dealing here with linguistic meaning - but with learning meaning, and therefore the how is not how we speak but how we learn, that is, it is not looking for the usual meaning (in which we make use) but for the one that advances us, that has some innovation in it.

Are we essentially basing the entire concept of learning on the specific question word "how" as the basis of the definition, with different question words (for example: why, how, what, whence, etc.) being the basic building blocks? No, because the word "how" has many meanings in language, and most of them are not learning-related (how is the lecture going? Excellent, no one came). But we are not dealing with the specific word, but with one specific and non-trivial meaning of it, the most appropriate and advanced in terms of learning, in which the how seeks how learning is done. The purpose of the idea of how in our learning is not lexical, and not linguistic, that is, there is no definition here, but connecting learning to another idea, because learning never seeks the final step, but one more step to progress. The meaning of sentences in any theoretical text is never to reach some exhaustion of meaning (for example in its first definition or final conclusion), although there are texts that pretend to be such, for example as logical, but every word advances us one step in our learning. If we ever reached the final ultimate meaning, the matter would be sealed and useless, because the use of an idea is always adding meaning, that is, not use that leaves it as it is, but innovation. An idea is a way to continue learning, something that shows how to take the next steps, and enables them (and this of course includes all of Wittgenstein's own sentences, and their importance in their innovation - and in their method precisely).

Therefore, philosophy never leaves anything as it is, but opens it to progress, by showing a way of learning. The stuckness in philosophy is when a new way of learning is not found, and then it remains only as a method, that is, learning becomes mechanical and loses its original vitality, until finally it sometimes really dies. We have interest in the ideas of the Greeks only because we have not exhausted learning from them, and not because of their truth, and on the other hand we have completely lost interest in scholasticism, because we have not found a way to learn from it, and not because it is nonsense (that's how mathematical fields die - or flourish). So when we ask how we learn, we will remember that we are trying to progress in learning, and not in language. Otherwise we will not get out of the previous way of learning. And indeed who is interested in progressing in language, apart from in artificial lexical or philosophical analysis - what really interests the brain is always to progress in learning. Philosophy has always been stuck on what is right and wrong, when what matters is what is interesting and what is boring. If, in a certain learning path, we have an interest in truth, it is only because from truth we can progress. In mathematics, for example, falsehood is a contradiction and leads to the annihilation of learning, hence the problem with contradiction, because from it follows that everything is correct and learning dies. Not because contradiction is invalid in itself, for some logical or transcendent reason - and indeed in other methods it is not invalid (or not with the same sharpness), after all, the brain is not a logical machine - but a learning machine.

Knowledge and Learning

If so, if we have abandoned the idea of defining "what is learning", what are we left with? If we cannot get out of learning, because this is our own mode of operation, and therefore we cannot look at learning from the outside and define it from the outside, what can we learn about it from the inside? First of all, every serious philosophy provides a boundary beyond which one cannot cross. But learning does not draw this boundary from within, but constantly expands it. It is a constant struggle against the boundary - from within. If we succeeded in drawing the boundary of learning once and for all, that is, learning to the end what learning is, we would lose its meaning as learning, and it would become a mechanical algorithm. Therefore, from the perspective of a being with higher intelligence than us, our learning can appear, from the outside, as non-learning, just as we can look at the learning of a fly, computer or virus as a mechanical mechanism. Learning is learning only from within. Therefore, we would not learn what learning is if we deciphered the algorithm of the brain, because one can only learn from within, when one does not know everything, and learning exists only from the perspective of inside the system. To learn, one needs not to know - God cannot learn. Only if we operated the algorithm of the brain - as opposed to deciphering and knowing it - could we learn (and perhaps faster than the brain). And what would we learn if we deciphered it? Not what learning is - but how to learn.

Therefore, if we were able to grasp and understand finally all the operation of the brain to the end, it would no longer appear to us as learning but as a machine - but there is no real concern here for the loss of our learning. Because the truth is that a system cannot know how it itself learns without reaching an infinite regression. As in the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise - when the tortoise is Achilles' brain - when Achilles learns how the tortoise learns, meanwhile the tortoise will learn how Achilles learns that the tortoise learned, and then Achilles will need to learn how the tortoise learned that he learns, and so on. Each time there will be a rise of one level in the level of method, and the method of the method, and the method of... etc., which is possible, but it is not possible to jump the whole ladder and reach the sky, to some final and highest method - there is no ultimate method. From the perspective of any learning system, there is simply no last method up there (otherwise it is a machine, which is actually defined as: having a defined and finite method). Beyond that, knowing the algorithm itself would not allow us to understand the learning of the brain (just as knowing the evolutionary algorithm does not yet allow us to understand evolution, including of course understanding the learning of the brain), because learning does not reside in the very definition of the algorithm, but in its specific application. That is: in the way of learning, which depends on previous steps, and in fact countless steps - since birth and since the beginning of culture (the beginning of collective brain learning).

A system cannot know how it learns, but it can learn how it learns, because it can progress each time one step in the regression - each additional step of Achilles following the tortoise is learning. Knowledge is the limit of learning, in the infinitesimal sense, that is, knowledge is when learning tends to infinity. If learning eventually converges (perhaps like in scientific knowledge), then one can speak of truth, and if it diverges (like in mathematical knowledge, which in principle has no limits) then in the end there is nothing but mystery, and therefore mathematics is more spiritual than physics and biology. The universe can have one final equation, and the brain can have a final algorithm, but not mathematics. Scientific learning or that of brain sciences can end, but not so mathematical learning, or literary, or Torah learning. This is precisely the difference between natural sciences and humanities, and between nature and spirit - not learning itself, but the existence of its limit, which is final knowledge. Hence biology can have an end, one can understand the human body to the end, but not evolution. And the same relationship exists between science and technology. Therefore, evolution and technology belong to the creative world of infinite learning, which is spirit. Biology includes within it the past of evolution, which can be known, but not its future possibilities, which are open to all directions and not imprinted, and therefore it is spirit and not nature. The material has an end, in principle, and the spiritual does not. Religions defined the boundary diverging to infinity as divine, and secularism claimed that there may be no convergence to infinity but just absurd divergence. And the Messiah is the limit of history, and therefore if he is finite he is the final Holocaust of Judgment Day and the end of history, and if he is infinite he is redemption, which is always the world to come. Knowledge is the final solution.

Philosophy and Learning: What is the Depth of My Learning?

Philosophy has always erred in that it wanted to know - and not to learn. That is, it wanted to pretend to be science - when it is part of the world of spirit, and more similar to spiritual technology (the Anglo-Saxon tendency) or spiritual evolution (the Continental tendency). Why did it want to pretend to be science? Because the moment there is truth there is a direction towards which it is correct to learn, while in technology or evolution there is no direction towards which it is correct to develop, but here is the wonderful thing about learning - it does not mean that development is arbitrary. The horror of arbitrariness in philosophy stems precisely from its identification of arbitrariness in the myth that preceded it (and particularly the Greek!). Not everything is possible in evolution or technology, and therefore they are neither arbitrary nor predetermined, but a certain maturity is needed to try to move one more step forward, instead of trying to reach the end, in a leap that falls into the abyss - which is the specialization of philosophy. The goal of the philosophy of learning is to take one step forward. That is: to progress. It is aware that there will be philosophies after it, which will progress further than it. But it is not arbitrary, because it progresses from the previous steps of philosophy, and is built upon them. It does indeed rebel against the domineering and castrating father (Wittgenstein), but unlike Wittgenstein himself - it does not commit patricide. It recognizes its complete genealogy, and does not claim (like him) that it has not read Kant. It does not have the tendency (which is a fantasy) towards philosophical proof, but it certainly engages in philosophical learning. How does it do this?

It identifies previous directions and previous methods in philosophy and tries to continue one more step along the way. Each step along the way is arbitrary only seemingly, because if it was truly arbitrary there would be no path but random walking. There is nothing that forces it not to be arbitrary, but in retrospect one can see that a path was indeed created, and directions and trends can be identified, that is: it works. There is evolution and not just mutations. But what causes this to work? Why is there a path, even in philosophy? The path does not stem from the fact that it reaches and converges to truth, as philosophy tried to delude itself (all along the way). The path does not stem from a final, global direction, but from a local direction.

In fact, philosophy is not one path but a stream of paths, where at any given moment there are all kinds of philosophers, big and small, who try to continue it. The small ones continue on exactly the same path, or with small deviations, and the big ones and charlatans try to jump a step forward, and only in retrospect, from those who continued them, is the path revealed. That is, learning appears as learning only from afar, but up close there is chaos. Therefore, the canon crystallizes long after the literature is written, because it crystallizes from the literature that was already written after it. They decided what to continue, and where the path went - and where it did not go. That is, if there is no continuation to the philosophy of learning, and no additional doctrines emerge from it, then it was a curiosity and not part of philosophical learning. Therefore, being the father of a species in evolution depends not only on you, but on the continuation of evolution. But does this mean that the thing is arbitrary and random?

No, on the contrary. The depth is the understanding of where the path and trend truly continue, for the longer term, and not just the shortest. There is always a lot of superficial learning, but the one who identifies the deepest trends within the path, and continues them or responds to them, is the one who creates deep learning. That is, who not only learns, but understands how to learn, and how to learn how to learn, and so on - and at each such stage deepens further inward, into the method of the method of the method and so on. That is, the progression of learning stems from understanding the derivative, and the second derivative, and the third, and so on, and thus the next step can be bigger and advance us more, and sometimes in a real leap. Like solving differential equations by approximations. And this is the depth of the question of how: how to learn how to learn how... endlessly.

Because previous learning is just an example, and the path is a collection of examples for learning. And from each such example one can continue to many possible directions that it exemplifies, but not to every direction to the same extent (which is the postmodernist mistake, which is the loss of learning and path that Wittgenstein caused). It is not entirely arbitrary because the more economical (and therefore more principled) hypothesis created from the examples is more plausible, and the belief in this is the belief that there is indeed a path. That is, that it has a description significantly shorter than just a collection of points that make up the path - that there is learning and not just information. This perception, that there is learning and not just details, and that there is a story and not just events, and that there is a picture and not just pixels, is the human belief, which is not a superstition (or a harmful cognitive bias to religions and conspiracy theories), but a valid mathematical bias - towards learning.

Depth Does Matter

Hence the tendency of philosophy to summarize reality and search for some general principle that will summarize human learning so far, as much as possible, including philosophical learning itself. Philosophy is a summary of the path - the principled path. And whoever succeeded in this became a great philosopher from whom the path continued, or he was one of its fathers, if we think of evolution as a path, and of adaptation to reality that leads to survival as internalizing the depth of reality. The next stage in evolution is not a conclusion of the previous stage but a continuation of it, but not just any continuation, but a deeper continuation of it, and therefore - more advanced than it. Therefore, true innovation does not stem from disconnection from the previous stage, from a hasty leap, but on the contrary from internalizing the previous stage not only superficially but deeply, to the method of the method of the method and so on, that is - precisely from deeper continuity, which is what allows extrapolation.

Hence the need to study precisely the history of philosophy in order to deepen philosophical learning. This is the reason that the amnestic analytical philosophy will probably be erased like scholasticism, in contrast to a little more continuity (relatively) from Continental philosophy, which is more continuous in relation to the history of philosophy. But in general, contemporary academia, which in a sad joke took over philosophy and art and significant parts of the world of spirit, is not destined to produce more than philosophical dwarfs, because of its tight methods of establishment and castration, and it is actually responsible for the degeneration of philosophical learning. We always deal with great philosophers as examples of how to learn, but it is important to also deal with small philosophers as examples of how not to learn, and how variations do not really advance learning, but constitute a smoke screen - the dust of the road that hides it. And on the other hand, it is also important to learn how the establishment of a significant leap is at high levels of abstraction, which are high levels of method, but not at too high levels, where abstraction loses the information in the path that was made, and deepening becomes mystical, and therefore the leap - arbitrary. These are those who try to jump too many steps forward, despite the fact that it is not possible to decipher the depth trends leading there from the information so far, instead of being content with one significant learning step. There is a limit to what you can learn. You cannot see too far ahead not because you are stupid, but because you do not have enough data yet.

Therefore learning takes generations. The continuity of the path does not depend only on what is inherent in it itself - within it, but on what happens in the continuation of learning, which is not random and arbitrary, but also not known in advance. Just like how a hypothesis of what a dog is after pictures of four dogs is not arbitrary, but also not certain. In the more principled and higher and abstract methods in philosophy, we always remain with a handful of philosophical paradigmatic leaps from the history of philosophy as examples, and things become very speculative, because there we are already forced to stop. That is, even if philosophy continues for a million years, still the most principled possible turns in the path will be few, and will constitute a limit and upper bound on what strength of derivative (the hundredth derivative, the thousandth, etc.) can be talked about. There is a limit to the depth of learning, which stems from the length of learning.

There is No Exit from Learning

Therefore learning, which is not derived in advance unambiguously from examples of the past but continues them and is not arbitrary, is the solution to the psychological problem, which was never really a philosophical problem, of free will, because from within the system (and not from outside) our progress is learning. That is, from our perspective as a learning system, our mode of action does not really work at all through "choice", and therefore is neither free nor predetermined, but through learning. And this is enough for us psychologically, because this is us. Choice is simply the application of our learning judgment - the act of learning. After all, we do not want to choose at all randomly, but in a learning way, and for this to be the meaning of our choice. What bothers us is precisely the "just", that is, the lack of learning. There is no meaning outside of learning.

Is everything predetermined outside the system, outside our point of view, or is everything random, or something else? This is a meaningless question, that is, one cannot learn anything from it - which is the interpretation of meaninglessness. Even an answer to it will not teach us anything. Because we cannot not learn. We cannot, for example, progress randomly, even in the simplest walk, but only find methods that will simulate what seems to us as randomness. To someone who looks at the universe from outside of time, even a completely random universe is predetermined. But because you are within learning - thinking outside of learning is impossible. Even completely opaque thinking, which learns nothing from the world, is impossible. You cannot even be a perfect idiot, even if you want to, just as you cannot be perfectly wise. Because there is no objective universal "reason" or "rationality" that exists somewhere, but only learning. Our current reason was simply learned - whether by evolution or by culture.

Therefore the desire and pretension to know in advance, and hindsight wisdom (for example moral), are anti-learning. The Enlightenment was the pretension to know, and postmodernism the pretension not to know, when both are impossible for the human brain - we are not capable of anything but learning. The preoccupation with certainty in the history of philosophy is a fantasy of the brain to exit learning once and for all - an attempt of the system to get out of the system. Therefore the certain is meaningless. If God is certain He is meaningless. If existence is certain it is meaningless. We learn nothing from it, and it has no value. Meaning is always learning potential.

Mathematics and Learning

Mathematics, for example, is not certain, but learned, and in fact it is the product of very intense learning over generations - and full of mistakes (and how common are the mistakes we make in it as students!). Hence its value and usefulness and rigidity and immunity to contradictions - from learning it and not from its certainty. In every paradox and contradiction and logical and conceptual problem found in the history of mathematics, an enormous learning effort was invested, and only what stood up to the highest learning standards for rigidity - was included within mathematics (which represses these histories). Mathematics is not a perfect body of knowledge of marble that we carved out of stone (which of course was there before as an idea...), but a clay sculpture, where every time a piece of human learning was rigid and durable and dry enough - it was added to it. The power of mathematics is that what stood up to these learning standards already produces from within it things that stand up to a similar standard (there is no perfect - perfect is an illusion), because the most central power of mathematics is that its method itself had to pass such rigid standards. Therefore the definition of mathematics is not what we managed to learn with certainty, but what we managed to create a learning method for without contradiction. Mathematics is the most successful method in the world, and this is exactly the reason why it is so useful in the world. Precisely because it is a learning tool.

Is the very existence of such a method a wonder, that is, something that cannot be explained and cannot be learned why it is so? If we learned something, then learning is the explanation for its existence. We have no access at all to other, transcendent, non-learning (and in particular: certain) explanations. We have no reasons that are not learning (philosophy and science always failed in pursuit of reasons, when what the brain always sought was to learn. Kant was wrong in the category). If evolution learned a human, or a computer, then this learning is the explanation for their existence. And we cannot have any other explanation. Philosophy and reason need to go through a process of internalizing their own learning, and thus we will not encounter the arrogance of knowledge again but the humility of learning (no leader knows what needs to be done, no man knows what the woman needs, etc.).

The need for de-mystification of mathematics is more urgent than the need for de-mystification of faith or the state, and this mystification stems from the fact that mathematics is too difficult to learn for people (and even for mathematicians), precisely because of the high standards it sets. What we can barely learn and continue forward to the next step - touches on mystery for us. But this mystery, in our pride, we do not attribute to our lack of comprehension, but to the field itself. The mouse that learns the maze attributes mystery to it - and finally invents a minotaur for it. The mystification of mathematics, which began in philosophy from the Pythagoreans and their spiritual descendant Plato, created a long-standing anti-learning bias in philosophy. While Greek mathematicians were still struggling unsuccessfully with the primary conceptual problem of incommensurability, Plato had already built a mathematical world of ideas, which remained a philosophical ideal to this very day, which influences not a little on analytical philosophy - not to mention the romantic perceptions of mathematicians themselves. But the power of mathematics is not in its idea, but in its method. Its learning is the longest in human history, and therefore it is so deep. Mathematics should not teach us about knowledge - but about learning. But this does not mean that we are supposed to imitate its method in pastiche (as in analytical philosophy), because then everything that succeeds in this it will annex to itself (logic), and everything that is bad in this will remain philosophy. The irony of fate is that the most successful learning example has become an anti-learning weapon.

Beyond the Good (Platonic) and Bad (Postmodernist) Child

Mathematics, as a learning tool, is what created the scientific revolution and exact science and the scientific method, and the delay in its use in biology created the lag of biology in relation to the rest of science. Darwin was the first to describe an algorithm, in a crude way, in the fields of biology, and thus contributed to turning it into a science, and hence his great importance - as an algorithm developer. That is, the mathematical development, and particularly that of Descartes who showed how to perceive physics in coordinate space (that is, in a mathematical tool), was the historical factor for the rise of the modern era. The artificiality of the mathematical method, which unlike, for example, language learning or behavioral laws is not natural to the human brain, is what created the artificial age, whose peak is the computer. That is, in fact, mathematics represents a learning algorithm different from the human one, and therefore we do not fully understand it, but this does not mean that it is not learned, and exists somewhere outside our learning. And on the other hand, the fact that it is learned does not mean that it is arbitrary, and that we could have invented it as we wished, although of course historically it could have developed in other directions. Mathematics is not predetermined and not random, because both of these modes of description look outside the learning system, while from our perspective it is learned and develops - just like history. And like in history, one can identify trends in mathematics, and depth trends, whose continuation led to the creation of new mathematics.

In mathematics, every proof and definition is an example of learning, and every theory, as a collection of them, is a path. From each such example one can continue to many possible and different directions, according to the mathematical method (not the logical, almost everything that is logically correct is not mathematically interesting - because it does not teach anything). That is, from each example, by its very nature as an example, one can learn different things and learning can progress in different directions - does this make mathematics arbitrary? No, because everything is according to its learning method, which itself was also learned, for in mathematics there are different methods, and in them too there are innovations, which are of course important and principled mathematical innovations. Learning creates possibilities, which are not all possibilities (history too is neither arbitrary nor predetermined), and this is the only causality that exists. Not the necessary, bidirectional one, where one can go in both directions to the same extent (and therefore if you go back one logical step, you can go forward again and reach the same place), but only unidirectional causality (direction), which is learning-possible, but not all-possible (and therefore arbitrary). Far from it - generally learning allows a tiny part of all possibilities, with severe restraints on exponential misbehavior, which creates linguistic grammar.

Of course, it's not just about the number of possibilities, but about the way they are chosen, which is the method, which not only looks at the current junction, but continues the direction of travel from all the way before it. Therefore even if there is more than one turn that continues this direction - it cannot turn to every possible direction. And therefore turning back is actually impossible. Moreover - it's not just that if you go back, and try to learn again, you can reach a different place, but in learning you simply cannot really go back after you've learned. If you learned the Pythagorean theorem, it changed your method itself, even if you forget the Pythagorean theorem (that is: going back is in reciprocal relations with the method). Even quantum physics has already reached this, but philosophers, who have never done real mathematics - stick to their guns. They are stuck in a logical-grammatical-linguistic (which is, historically, very new) view of mathematics - and not learning. And therefore their theory of mathematical innovation - and learning in general - is poor, and similar to evolutionary mutation. And then there is also room for Foucauldian theories that everything is politics/power relations/propaganda/advertising/influences/fashions in development in the world - just because of the arbitrary view. And so art becomes a collection of mutations, because it has lost its method and its learning, and therefore its meaning in the world. But mathematics, as the strongest method in the world, continues to turn the world in its learning, and does not behave according to the anti-learning theory, neither the postmodernist nor the Platonic one. Learning is neither arbitrary nor predetermined (why the denial of the vast space between these two possibilities? Perhaps because precisely both of them are not learning? How difficult it is for philosophy to come to terms with the incompleteness in learning, and to replace arrogance - with a step).

Could there be different mathematics in another universe? Even in our universe it could have developed in other directions. If it was natural for our brain to perceive in non-Euclidean geometry, we might never have discovered Euclidean geometry. But could Euclidean geometry itself have been different, in another universe, will ask both the Platonic idealist and the postmodernist? But again, the moment we found another geometry, and even in our universe, we called it non-Euclidean. But is it possible that in another mathematical learning 1+1=3? The truth is yes, in a group with a single element, but what are you really asking: is it possible for there to be a contradiction in learning where what enters into it is only what is without contradiction? You yourself are not even capable of asking this question, which you want so much, because it is a question outside of learning. If you find a mathematical possibility without contradiction that is not in current mathematics, then at that moment it will be included in our mathematics (and congratulations, you are a great mathematician, and perhaps also a forgotten philosopher, and see Frege today), and if you try to find a contradiction in current mathematics, then again, if you succeed, you will remove the part with the contradiction from the realms of mathematics (and see Frege then).

All the wonders in the world, and especially the wonder of mathematics, try to get out of learning. Nature is a wonder - if there is no evolution. The universe is a wonder - if there is no development. A masterpiece is a wonder - if you have no idea how it was created. Poetry is a wonder - because you are a romantic who denies the method of its writing. Even if you yourself wrote, you are capable of hiding this from yourself - but there is a method. And in fact this is exactly what you claim - that the method is not conscious (oh, the muse). The purpose of the sense of wonder is not for you to get stuck in it, but to arouse the brain to learning - with the help of interest. Love too is a wonder only because the lover is not aware of its method that caused him to fall in love, and whose purpose is to arouse in him enormous interest in the partner. And he, indeed, considers her the most interesting thing in the world, and learns about her obsessively, until finally she of course bores him. And in a happy relationship learning never ends. Therefore if you are boring and your life is boring, try to find yourself a lover who does not learn too quickly. But because love creates such enormous interest, it is very difficult to learn against it itself. Hence the phenomenon of unrequited love, in which the lover - usually a reasonable person - simply does not learn, and on the other hand the enormous patience of lovers for long and obstacle-filled learning, like in mathematics. Indeed, mathematicians too are in love with it, and therefore they are such romantics. Love is boundless interest - a learning obsession (yes, your children are the most interesting in the world!). And therefore philosophy too is the love of wisdom, because it tries to learn something that is sometimes impossible to learn, or certainly to learn to the end. But one must remember that the enemy of love is not disappointment, but boredom. Therefore philosophy is allowed to fail in answering a question, but it must perform learning in this failure. We learn also - and perhaps mainly - from failures.

Summary of the Lecture

Therefore, after we have removed the anti-learning spells, all that remains is to ask how we learn, that is to learn how we learn, because of course there cannot be a non-learning answer to this question. But at this stage of the lecture, after all the unnecessary introductions in retrospect (that is, only after we have learned them, as always), and after I was left alone, the only thing left is to understand that in fact all our thinking, our entire spiritual and cultural world, try to answer various and strange answers to this question: how do we learn. And all their progress is hidden in new answers, each of which constitutes one more additional step - in learning how to learn. If so, what is learning? Have we answered the question? No. Have we learned? Yes. And in that we learned, we have answered all possible questions the one and only possible answer - an example of learning, from which one can learn further.

Culture and Literature


text:
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Guide to Literary Sexuality

After physical sexuality replaced literary sexuality (also known as romanticism), we are now witnessing a counter-movement, where physical sexuality is once again being replaced by a new type of literary sexuality - an anti-romantic one. Do less - talk more, love less - think more, woman - more, man - a bit less. The culture and literature supplement transforms from a boring bottom to an interesting bottom (and is there anything interesting besides sex? And is there anything more boring than culture?), and therefore instead of dealing with literature, it publishes (last publication!) the martyr poet who became the harassing poet, after returning from two thousand hours of exile, during which he polished his sins (poetic ones). When the editor is your skin

By: The Beast of Bohemia

Metaphor for Metonymy (Source)

Sexual Education

Defining the function woman(womanˆ):

When the mare's current gushes
Inhales - exhales = adulterates
When the rage of her pleasure from the boot
Rides your back
The foam
- floats
And also nose
You're all shaking -
Hold on
(If you can -
Forever)

And additionally:
Here it is
(Don't let it splash!) Another one
Her poem is
She is poetry
Programming words
Not dictionaries sex is
Programming muscles(yours) to chains(hers)
Do: infinite loops, restrain: divide one by zero
Search: command errors from- to-
\- And not a word about love (tell her, it helps her) -
Hold on
(If possible and you don't
Tremble)

Until her voice thins to all
A taste finer than fine
The status of sex
The strong - hold
On

Because again
The mare is in the vineyard
And the current and the current she thrusts again
The boot
And the outside is shut
And here inside only she only
She only another
Moment
This is the moment -
Hold on
(Just one more
Moment)

The mare's hour
Is an hour
Secret
She
Heeds
Her cries
And you beneath her or beside
This is the time hold
Her tight
By the rib or
The bottom
On

Swollen Underwear

Once upon a time there was a world with a serpentine
Male organ (f.) was a feminine female
In pants she made
A foolish decision
And turned every decision
Foolish
Swollen and inflated (emotionally)
And her memory is your weakness
Personally

To every soft voice drinking you through a straw
To her request you're attentive, emotionally sewn
You won't stand against feminine excitement

The thin squirt flowing from her soul
And bubbling from hot brain to her tongue
A woman's heat
When her soul
Leaves her in bed
From the sack - hanging on you like a yoke
Bringing you down from your stand to Sheol [Translator's note: the underworld in Hebrew tradition]
Won't you kiss her, and her lip
Like the round zero?

Cold-Poem

Watering her in a closed pipe
Stop yourself - your soul a consonant movement
The desire to subdue
Her will in pleasure
Watch your body from outside - a closed circle

The Situation and the Scene

Transparent as an actress
In her own porn movie you're an extra
And a camera
When she closes her eye
Close yourself
Be what
She dreamed
You dreamed about herself
Thread her beneath
The earth

The Surrender

At the beginning of the act
Drive your beast slowly slowly
Like in the funeral of
Your limbs
Your quiet sacrifice
Silent in the small temple
Disconnect your connection - -
And connect the
Disconnect
Only when your riding mare
Presses the switch
When already
Her long hour galloped
Rose and exhausted
From the sweetness
Agree with her on a password
To wake from the grave
And pray that the void within you
Will hear
And surrender to her in silence
While she screams
Herself

The Grammarian

The.purpose.of.the.period
Floating and moving
Distracting your focus from your tail
To your finger - touchscreen
From yourself know
Before whom you
Stand

Naked and barefoot replace
Coarse with gentle
Motor skills rhetoric
Romanticism robotics - your end
Is inevitable

Therefore whisper in her ear
You deserve
You deserve
My duty - is your right
The season

Latest Rumors

A beret picking the sun
Desert generation earth time
With her miracles and wonders
And with you a journey of hardships

Your head washed in daughters' pleasure
And your desire their shadow in a voice of affliction
The peak of their sexuality when they masturbate

And to you the small one in their forest they leave
A trail of crumbs of feelings

Distant rumors, moving

Culture and Literature

source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Guide to Literary Sexuality - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature81" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/kaktus.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Guide to Literary Sexuality

After physical sexuality replaced literary sexuality (also known as romanticism), we are now witnessing a counter-movement, where physical sexuality is once again being replaced by a new type of literary sexuality - an anti-romantic one. Do less - talk more, love less - think more, woman - more, man - a bit less. The culture and literature supplement transforms from a boring bottom to an interesting bottom (and is there anything interesting besides sex? And is there anything more boring than culture?), and therefore instead of dealing with literature, it publishes (last publication!) the martyr poet who became the harassing poet, after returning from two thousand hours of exile, during which he polished his sins (poetic ones). When the editor is your skin

By: The Beast of Bohemia

Metaphor for Metonymy  (Source)

Sexual Education

Defining the function woman(womanˆ):

When the mare's current gushes
Inhales - exhales = adulterates
When the rage of her pleasure from the boot
Rides your back
The foam
-   floats
And also   nose
You're all shaking -
Hold on
(If you can -
Forever)

And additionally:
Here it is
(Don't let it splash!) Another one
Her poem is
She is poetry
Programming words
Not dictionaries sex is
Programming muscles(yours) to chains(hers)
Do: infinite loops, restrain: divide one by zero
Search: command errors from- to-
- And not a word about love (tell her, it helps her) -
Hold on
(If possible and you don't
Tremble)

Until her voice thins to all
A taste finer than fine
The status of sex
The strong - hold
On

Because again
The mare is in the vineyard
And the current and the current she thrusts again
The boot
And the outside is shut
And here inside only she only
She only another
Moment
This is the moment -
Hold on
(Just one more
Moment)

The mare's hour
Is an hour
Secret
She
Heeds
Her cries
And you beneath her or beside
This is the time hold
Her tight
By the rib or
The bottom
On

Swollen Underwear

Once upon a time there was a world with a serpentine
Male organ (f.) was a feminine female
In pants she made
A foolish decision
                      And turned every decision
Foolish
Swollen and inflated (emotionally)
And her memory is your weakness
Personally

To every soft voice drinking you through a straw
To her request you're attentive, emotionally sewn
You won't stand against feminine excitement

The thin squirt flowing from her soul
And bubbling from hot brain to her tongue
A woman's heat
When her soul
Leaves her in bed
From the sack - hanging on you like a yoke
Bringing you down from your stand to Sheol [Translator's note: the underworld in Hebrew tradition]
Won't you kiss her, and her lip
Like the round zero?

Cold-Poem

Watering her in a closed pipe
Stop yourself - your soul a consonant movement
The desire to subdue
Her will in pleasure
Watch your body from outside - a closed circle

The Situation and the Scene

Transparent as an actress
In her own porn movie you're an extra
And a camera
When she closes her eye
Close yourself
Be what
She dreamed
You dreamed about herself
Thread her beneath
The earth

The Surrender

At the beginning of the act
Drive your beast slowly slowly
Like in the funeral of
Your limbs
Your quiet sacrifice
Silent in the small temple
Disconnect your connection - -
And connect the
             Disconnect
Only when your riding mare
Presses the switch
When already
Her long hour galloped
Rose and exhausted
From the sweetness
Agree with her on a password
To wake from the grave
And pray that the void within you
Will hear
And surrender to her in silence
While she screams
Herself

The Grammarian

The.purpose.of.the.period
Floating and moving
Distracting your focus from your tail
To your finger - touchscreen
From yourself know
Before whom you
Stand

Naked and barefoot replace
Coarse with gentle
Motor skills rhetoric
Romanticism robotics - your end
Is inevitable

Therefore whisper in her ear
You deserve
You deserve
My duty - is your right
The season

Latest Rumors

A beret picking the sun
Desert generation earth time
With her miracles and wonders
And with you a journey of hardships

Your head washed in daughters' pleasure
And your desire their shadow in a voice of affliction
The peak of their sexuality when they masturbate

And to you the small one in their forest they leave
A trail of crumbs of feelings

Distant rumors, moving

Culture and Literature


domain: literature

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Final Moral Solution - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/night-life24" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/bosch.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Final Moral Solution

The movement calling for leaving the humanities faculties and changing biology itself, which is the source of injustice, through social genetic engineering, has grown and intensified. After all, both sexes suffer constantly, and worse - they wrong each other constantly, in countless ways that the cultural industry has made clear even to the most idiotic right-wing voter

By: Serial Harasser

A world without sin. The Garden of Earthly Delights - Bosch (Source)

I dreamed that the trend taking over the secular intelligentsia claims that sex itself is the problem. Because if since the dawn of humanity we have not managed to solve the problem of discrimination between blacks and whites - which caused immorality and always infected everyone with either suffering or injustice - then this is a structural problem. Therefore, the only real solution is to abolish the structure itself, an issue that has long since become a broad consensus. Indeed, attempts to abolish the perceptual-ideational structure with various claims that color is only in the eye of the beholder, and that black is actually white and/or vice versa (if you look in the dark and/or if you close your eyes), did not stand the test of social reality, because it's still difficult to ignore what one sees. Therefore, the movement that called for leaving the humanities faculties and changing biology itself, which is the source of injustice, through social genetic engineering, grew and intensified. And instead of a black person and a white person, to create one person - a gray person.

And after it became clear that even distinguished analytical philosophers who reached old age sexually harassed young female students, and no way out of the sexual predicament was found, it was similarly understood that the source of injustice is sex itself - the division into men and women - and that if we don't change this, we will never succeed in uprooting sexual immorality from society, which undermines every human word, thought and action, and morally desecrates them from within. Therefore, engineering was enlisted to make peace in the battle of the sexes, by creating a unified sex.

After all, both sexes suffer constantly, and worse - they wrong each other constantly, in countless ways that the cultural industry has made clear even to the most idiotic right-wing voter, and all relationships fail in the long run in truth, as scientifically proven, with the lengthening of life expectancy. The very fact that a man cannot enjoy sex like a woman is an injustice in every male birth, and the very fact that a girl will grow up to a life of objectification is an injustice in every female birth. Large breasts - one type of suffering. Small breasts - another type of suffering. And the very word breasts - an injustice. Therefore, having children is an immoral act, unless it involves giving birth to an offspring without sex, which includes both the man and the woman, in rebellion against cruel biology.

"Rebellion against biology" became the battle cry of the humanities faculties, and quickly penetrated politics as well, under a simpler slogan: "Down with discrimination". After all, Amendment No. so-and-so to the Constitution, or perhaps the Constitution itself actually, states that all human beings are born equal, and therefore there is a constitutional right for a person to be born neither male nor female. And here comes the day when we can realize the value of equality, because culture is superior to nature, which is evil and heartless and above all - lacking morality. So why not take morality into our own hands?

Here at last we will abolish the primordial injustice done by God in the creation of man, by taking the woman out of man's side, and naming her after the man. And so we can return the woman into man, into the rib. For this shall be called human - androgynous. And the final moral solution, the last intellectual result of veganism and environmental movements and the endless tangle of exploitation, is the abolition of the injustice of taking man out of the earth [Translator's note: In Hebrew, "adam" (man) and "adamah" (earth) share the same root].

Nightlife


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>How I Became a Nazi and a Mass Murderer - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/night-life49" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/vegblood.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

How I Became a Nazi and a Mass Murderer

I don't like meat anyway, and I don't like animals. They always seem like repulsive creatures to me - less God-fearing than secular people and smellier than ultra-Orthodox Jews. I'm terrified of dogs sniffing me, frightened of cats looking at me, and from mice I simply run away. Every encounter I've had with animals has always ended in some comical effect at my expense. Like that time at the zoo when a penguin bit me - because I tried to ask it where its shtreimel [Translator's note: fur hat worn by some Hasidic Jews] was

By: The Admor Tzemach Tzedek

Food is not moral (Source)

I dreamed that I was going to buy a chicken for Shabbat, and there was a protest in front of the slaughterhouse: "Only vegetarians go to heaven - lust for meat leads to hell." "Butcher - rapist, and also murderer." "Don't sin with the sin of the calf - a red heifer is not ketchup." And the girl shouts at me: How can it be kosher if it's not moral? Tell everyone, honorable Rabbi, if you're not ashamed. And I blush and say to those gathered: On the contrary, Judaism actually preceded vegetarianism by thousands of years - with kashrut. Unlike all other nations, we don't eat wild animals from nature, but domesticated animals, and the laws of slaughter don't actually allow killing through hunting. Look at what moral sensitivity Moses had 1500 years before the Common Era! In practice, we eat the most soulless and stupid animals in the animal kingdom: cows and chickens. Eating a monkey or a dog is really not nice!

And she opens her mouth: Isn't a pig a domesticated animal? And I jump: Exactly! An animal that's only for meat - it has no life - that's not nice. On the other hand, the animals we eat are farm animals, which grow up with humans, but have additional uses, like milk or eggs or wool, and only then are eaten, because it's a shame to waste. Not their entire life is a meat factory, like today. A pig is also a smart and cute and very human-like animal, they even do experiments on them because their organs are like ours. Eating pork is really disgusting!

And people start to gather around me. And she feels she's caught me red-handed now and pulls out pictures: This is the neo-Nazi meat industry of animals that are numbered and sent in cattle cars. Here, look how they lead the cows like sheep to the slaughter. And it's all kosher mehadrin [Translator's note: strictest level of kosher certification]! And I leap: Exactly, exactly! That's the secret of kashrut, unlike the industrial extermination of animals by the gentiles, we only take lives using the ancient, manual, pre-modern, slow and meticulously detailed methods, and this makes it personal - not industrial. It also greatly limits the quantities and raises the price of meat, which is why I only buy it for Shabbat and only eat beef on holidays. It's not like Americans or secular people who gorge in diners, and that's why God punishes them and their hearts get clogged and their lives are shortened. Eating meat on a weekday is really a base desire and not a measure of piety!

And she fumes: Come on, kosher slaughter is the least humane! And I exhale: All the advanced humane methods of the gentiles are inhumane. Sterile death is the definition of a crime against humanity, because it's an inhuman death, without respect for the soul. Imagine if instead of gas they had to slaughter the Jews with kosher slaughter, and for each one waste a few minutes to sharpen the knife and find the right vein in the neck and check for defects, and make intentions and bless? Even Nazis couldn't stand it. How many Jewish children could Hitler himself kill with his own hands? He would have broken down very quickly. The most terrible murder is virtual murder without blood and without butchers, like they erased the Jews like files on a computer, without human touch. So it's good that there's blood, because it doesn't allow suppressing the action. And it's good that you need to salt the meat so there won't be a drop of blood in it, because it shows what we really think about blood: yuck!

And she says: Listen to what your mouth is saying. And I say: If only it were possible to live without eating animals. We need to wait for the future - wait until the cholent [Translator's note: traditional Jewish stew] from the future cooks on the hot plate. And if only a hundredth of the energy and resources you spend on protests were spent on scientific research of synthetic meat that's cheaper and tastier than natural, then there would be no more kashrut problems in the world at all, and everyone would be vegetarian except the French. But of course, this wouldn't allow for the real goal - to educate about morality, right? And she says: Why don't you progress? Come try to have a Shabbat meal at our place, with sprouts instead of animals. And I ask: What, can that be instead of meat? Because meat is an insanely expensive business for someone who just dreams all day. After all, everyone wants meat and spirit is worth nothing, certainly not to read dreams, which are the sausages of the spirit. And she says: Try it. You'll see. And she gives me a page that explains how to sprout, and I see that it's cheaper than chicken, and I cross over to the health food store across the street.

And in my heart, a decision forms to become a vegetarian. After all, why should I get involved in a dubious moral problem, who knows if she's not right, and I don't really have the energy to think about it, and it doesn't interest me, because I don't want to think at all - but to dream. I don't like meat anyway, and I don't like animals. They always seem like repulsive creatures to me - less God-fearing than secular people and smellier than ultra-Orthodox Jews. I'm terrified of dogs sniffing me, frightened of cats looking at me, and from mice I simply run away. Every encounter I've had with animals has always ended in some comical effect at my expense. Like that time at the zoo when a penguin bit me - because I tried to ask it where its shtreimel was. On the other hand, I really love plants. Even a cactus. In my opinion, plants are simply dreaming all the time, and this sleep state preceded the waking state in evolution - which is mistakenly called life. Certainly in my case. And a person who dreams all his life is called a vegetable.

So I sprout. And sprout. And sprout and sprout more and more. And now my whole bed is full of bowls and bowls of sprouts. I've turned the sheet into a greenhouse. And I sit among all my nice growths, everyone I've grown and nurtured and succeeded with, and feel like I'm in the Garden of Eden. And in the end, even though I feel very sorry for them, after all the investment and watering, to waste them on myself, I get really hungry. And I see that the chicken in the fridge is already finished, and there's no choice but to start tasting my little ones. And I eat the sprouts, more and more, which make a crunch crunch between my teeth, and it's tasty and feels fresh and refreshing and so alive, much much better than dead meat, each such sprout with its tail full of fresh life, and then I realize with nausea - - that I'm actually chewing babies. Chewing masses of helpless babies, day-old babies who have just begun to sprout, and I don't even give them a chance to live two days in this world, after I finally caused them to open in hope to the world and put out a tail - and I'm actually now committing a crime against humanity, or actually against vegetarianism. I'm Dr. Mengele of plants! Just now the life instinct came out of them, and already I'm eliminating them and grinding them with my teeth, in a strange and terrible death, in wholesale destruction, without any conscience. And it seems to me a million times more shocking than eating meat.

And I think, why doesn't their tremendous life force overcome me, why don't they continue to sprout in my stomach, and grow out of me and eat me instead of me eating them, because how much life they have, and why does death - which is me - defeat them, and not they kill me from within? They seem to me much more vital and young and beautiful and hungry for life than me, each cute root tail that comes out of them in longing to search for water, full of dreams and aspirations, it's all pure will to live - which I lost years ago. And I realize that all these babies are entering my stomach - and dying a terrible death in acid, they have no chance. This is worse than a gas chamber, this thing, and then in the bathroom I repress the terrible thing I did, it's like the crematorium, and there I send them to the sewers far away from me, like the mountains of Jewish ashes, and my behind is actually a disgusting Sonderkommando [Translator's note: Jewish prisoners forced to work in Nazi death camps]. What kind of terrible thing am I. A walking Holocaust. A death machine. An extermination camp. Auschwitz, that's what I am. I am Auschwitz.

And I can't believe I was capable of doing this all my life. Rice, after all, what is it? I suddenly realize. And wheat? They're all seeds that were taken out of the plant, countless embryos torn from their mother's womb, while she was still alive, exactly as the Germans would do. No no, I grasp, it's such a convenient lie that we call them seeds! As if it's our human seed that we can spill millions of, and it's so fun. After all, we're not talking about microscopic seeds that haven't even met an egg yet and won't grow on their own, but really about small children. Hot corn - it's a human atrocity, to cook the mother with all her children. And just because we don't perceive the suffering of plants, after all today we know that plants do feel, and do respond, even to classical music, which chickens don't understand in their lives. Just because of our terrible insensitivity to plants that are different from us, and the dehumanization we've done to them, we're able to eat bread, or crush the poor grapes, and drink their blood, their life juice that wasn't intended for us at all, but was their precious children. No, no, it's a million times worse than meat. Eating rice is like grinding thousands of live chicks in your mouth every day. With your teeth. Yes, I'm guilty of crimes against vegetarianism, inhuman crimes - complicit in the historical sin with the most evil and therefore the most banality of man - and the only fitting punishment is death, to rot in the grave and become fertilizer for plants. But in the meantime - I've switched to a paleo diet.

Nightlife


domain: press-review

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Haaretz is to Blame for Bibi - Part B: This is Not How You Build a Wall - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/press-review10" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/blackwall.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Haaretz is to Blame for Bibi - Part B: This is Not How You Build a Wall

"Haaretz" chose to collapse under rating constraints and hide behind a paywall - the only one in the country! - due to a lack of consideration for alternatives, and mainly - due to a lack of thought about the implications of the decision. Israeli society and the community of Haaretz readers were affected by it in two opposite ways - which severed their connection to each other

By: The Bitch

Head against the wall. And then they wonder about the brainwashing Bibi did to Israelis  (Source)

Recently, Haaretz came out with the headline: "The establishment of 'Israel Hayom' - the fateful day in Netanyahu's career". The claim was that in light of his criminal entanglement in media matters, the reason he brought forward the previous elections (media), and in general in light of all his relations with the media (media!) - the gift given by a tycoon who is also a newspaper owner to Netanyahu years ago appears to be the turning point in his career, as well as in the Israeli ideological shift towards the deep right. But there is another tycoon who is also a newspaper owner, who gave Netanyahu a gift perhaps no less significant years ago, which in retrospect was also a central point in the Israeli shift towards the deep right. His name is Schocken. And this gift is called a paywall.

If there's one additional gift Netanyahu would ask for, besides a free, open, supportive, and loving house newspaper, it's for the opposite newspaper, the most prestigious and opposing one in the market, to hide behind a wall, preventing it from reaching audiences beyond its most loyal base. Haaretz would only convince the already convinced, and Israel Hayom would convince everyone else. In both cases, it's the same exact irrigation method, slow but very effective over time for growing trends: the drip method. In Haaretz, it's more sophisticated and covert, and therefore much more effective and dangerous than the rather transparent method of Israel Hayom, which is why it was very important that it not reach the wider public in Israel.

What did the paywall in Haaretz create? First of all, the wall is transparent to those inside it. For those who read the content, it's easy to quickly forget about all those who are unable to read, and to feel as if the published things have serious resonance in Israeli society. They don't. Even the writers themselves forget this, because they can read everything, as can those around them, and consciousness suppresses how far this is from the situation in the outside world. Before the wall, and for years, Haaretz was a pioneer in digital media, and in fact had a much higher starting point than Israel Hayom, and much higher than the exposure it enjoyed before the digital age (something like 700,000 monthly visitors then, today it would probably have exceeded one or two million or more, compared to the order of tens of thousands today who read the content inside the wall).

In a more fundamental sense, the wall is a bubble - and creates a bubble consciousness. The discourse in Haaretz gradually became a closed, internal discourse of a group talking to itself, whose echo chamber is limited and relatively homogeneous and is also unaware of what happens (and is read) outside it. Hand an average Haaretz subscriber an issue of Israel Hayom (for free!) and you'll get a surprised look and a sense of horror. Yes, Bibi created a huge bubble outside the wall. Something like the difference between the old Yishuv in the Old City and the huge metropolis of our days - after leaving the walls. Within the secluded settlement of Haaretz, there are fashionable and changing waves of moral panic, a lot of representation politics of "I think", few new ideas, exclusion of unconventional voices, and very little discourse with the Israeli reality outside it - and it's entirely mutual.

What used to be the homepage for many Israelis (who are very far from Meretz [left-wing party]) has become a distant memory of a strange and reclusive media outlet (while all Israeli internet is wide open for free!) somewhere within the large Bibi state. If Bibi didn't bother to slander Haaretz from time to time - who would still hear about it? Haaretz has become the ultra-Orthodox of the media. Hated. Unknown. Reclusive. Misunderstood. With all sorts of strange rabbis and strange language and strange boycotts. From a leading media outlet - to a pashkevil [wall poster used in ultra-Orthodox communities].

The Bitch, of course, bypasses the wall through breaches in the fence and has never paid a shekel, but she is aware that due to her special body structure, few are capable like her of squeezing through. If not for fear of plugging the breaches (what's called enemy consciousness, for "Haaretz" is reading here too!) - she would detail them here as a service to the public. Because it's simply against the DNA of the wider Israeli public to pay (for content and for other things. And much more than other nations, because after all, we're not suckers). The fact is that Haaretz - a pioneer of wall and tower - remains the only closed one (!) in the country. On the other hand, a newspaper costs money. So what the hell does the Bitch want from poor Schocken?

First of all, she wants the insight that a media outlet in the internet age is no longer a business venture - but an ideological one. This is not the type of business intended for profit. It's an economic fact that is also a conceptual change. The desire to remain a business organization - is the Marxist root cause for the degeneration of Haaretz. It's true that there's also a depletion of spirit in Haaretz, but without flour there is no Torah [without sustenance there is no learning]. Although Schocken maintains Haaretz's independence to a commendable degree, and in general he personally deserves much appreciation, but independence is the previous war, as today he loses in the campaign day by day and hour by hour, in what is no less than a war over the spirit of the state. It's impossible to establish a new "Haaretz" out of nothing and the fact is there's no competition - but this situation also entails responsibility. In the end, "Haaretz" doesn't belong to Schocken but to us - its readers who are also ultimately its writers.

The moment Haaretz chose the wrong solutions for the new media situation, it doomed itself to inevitable decline and decay, to a slow, torturous, and probably unnecessary death. Even today, it has no way to be a successful business venture and also be a successful newspaper. It's a contradiction in terms. The tensions are too strong for human forces (and yes, there is no Hercules in Haaretz today): more traffic - lower quality. The dominance of traffic thinking - a decline in content thinking. A decline in quality, fewer interesting and quality contents - a decline in reading. A decline in reading - less money. Less money - choosing writers at a lower intellectual level who bring more traffic, layoffs and getting rid of more elitist writers and less content. Occasionally managing to reach a more stable state, but then as always in the internet age comes a technological change like Facebook, or a policy change within Facebook, and again throws into a spin. This is what's called: collapse dynamics. You can delay it - you can't prevent it. And if Haaretz does survive it - it's only because it's turning into Mako [popular Israeli news website]. And then what have we done? Maybe what we're doing today - instead of collapsing economically we collapsed spiritually. Instead of business bankruptcy - cultural and intellectual bankruptcy. And if "Haaretz" chooses to commit suicide - isn't it better to die by your own sword?

Only after all the weight of this penny drops - weighing about two million people in the State of Israel, plus all the historical weight of Haaretz as a vital secular cultural institution - then we can talk. Because what Schocken needed to understand is that he's not Adelson. That this weight is greater than his shoulders (including reinforcement players from Germany) - and also too significant to fall. A sense of true lack of choice would have made it clear that Haaretz needs to find a patron of Sheldon's weight. Schocken is not a tycoon, but there's no shortage of Jewish tycoons in the world who care about Israel's image - no less than the owners of Israel Hayom. There's also no shortage of European donors for peace. A huge donor or a coalition of donors could even turn Haaretz into a free newspaper - as a counterweight to Israel Hayom. If that day had come, and the walls had fallen and opened wide, perhaps after a few years it would have turned out to be a day no less important than the day Israel Hayom first appeared, the day when finally another pendulum shift began in Israeli consciousness, and this time towards the left - and maybe even towards peace.

A well-funded "Haaretz" could also hire ten Gidi Weitzs who would work for years and comb through Bibi's hair with iron investigations - until putting him behind iron bars. After all, his lice are the size of elephants (or whales), and they could have been exposed long ago. But even a not well-funded "Haaretz" could have done this - to focus effort. Even a not well-funded "Haaretz" could have opened the paywalls during election periods. You know what? Just two weeks before the elections. Just for introduction (here's even some business logic in it). If "Haaretz" had understood that just as Bibi has a mouthpiece, the left also deserves a propaganda leaflet, and that it is first and foremost an ideological project and not a business one - these things could have happened even today. But "Haaretz", as organizations tend to do, chose not to rethink itself, not to change perception when reality changed, to cling to the conception - and to wither. And it's a great pity, because "Haaretz" as a free newspaper could have been a wonderful gift to Bibi.

Haaretz Criticism


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Human Engineering - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/human-engineering0" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/castlebirth.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../alata.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

By:

(Source)

(I dreamed that the Rebbe [Hasidic leader] was hiding inside the earth, in a bunker beneath the ghetto. And they were trying to stop the Holocaust - with the help of Kabbalah [Jewish mysticism]. This was the last remaining possibility - to defeat Satan. They had waited for this throughout an entire exile. All the tikkunim [spiritual repairs], experiments, and attempts had failed; all the sources, channels, and secrets had been blocked; all the students, means, and abilities had been mobilized - and now the time of decision had come. And they sit day and night in the eternal night beneath the external day, deciphering from thousands of fragments and shards of knowledge a new picture - of the heavens)

Enter

The Trilogy


domain: commentary

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Expected Death of the Institution of the State - and with it the Conflict over a Palestinian State - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/alternative-commentary3" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/flags.png" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Expected Death of the Institution of the State - and with it the Conflict over a Palestinian State

The question of whether you want a capitalist or socialist economy will not be decided in elections between right and left, but will become a personal question of what kind of economic insurance you buy

By: Yasser Arafat

A simplistic division of land, which will lose relevance in the era of the "state in the cloud" (Source)

One state? Two states? What about a zero-state solution? The institution of the modern state is the strongest institution in the world despite being a relatively new institution on the stage of history that did not exist until the late modern era. But like any historical phenomenon, it too may be approaching its end. There are many signs indicating this: the collapse of the two-party political system, the loss of relevance of the state's frontal education system, the inherent ossification of the state establishment's response to accelerating technological changes, the death of the economic model of journalism - the watchdog of democracy - and the rise of Google and Facebook as meta-political superpowers (controlling the platforms of political discourse itself). But how can the political framework that will replace the state look? Is it possible to imagine a plausible scenario in which the states we know collapse one after another? Perhaps the idea of the virtual state will be the first nail in the coffin of the state as we know it.

Like the collapse of a rickety house of cards, the establishment of the virtual state may produce a relatively rapid domino reaction that will fundamentally change the political structures we have become accustomed to living under. The logic of virtual state supporters goes something like this: Once a virtual state is established, competing with other states in everything states do, every citizen in the world will be able to give up their citizenship and pay taxes and receive services from the virtual state and physically stay in the world as a tourist (or with additional citizenship). As a result, a massive movement of people with means will begin from physical states to virtual states, where people will be able to decide which tax package they pay for which services, in an insurance-like structure. And only the world's poor will remain in existing states, which will gradually collapse under the burden in an escalating dynamic of brain and wallet drain.

Thus, the state will transform from a construct of national ideology to a market where services are purchased, and virtual states will compete for citizens as customers. In a natural and irreversible process, virtual states will become much richer and more efficient than the dying physical states, attracting strong, mentally flexible, and educated populations who are tired of the state tax burden that sustains parasitic populations, corrupt public mechanisms, and just plain poor people. People will be able to choose which security system in the world will protect them, or who will be responsible for infrastructure (the virtual state will be able to pay existing states or private contractors), which health system to belong to, and so on. Surely a basic package will also be offered as a default, which will negotiate with existing infrastructures to reduce costs.

Conceptually, the essence of the state will be understood as insurance, including the judicial system. The idea that the state has interests that are not economic or that people have something to say about foreign policy will seem strange. According to this vision, all national conflicts in the world will gradually fade, and the idea of sovereignty over land that is different from ownership will lose its power. The world will converge into one economic and legal system, but not by external coercion, by force of international organizations and government agreements, but as a result of citizens' behavior from below, many of whom will migrate to successful immigration states open to any person with desirable capabilities in the world, built as economic firms.

For example, beautiful women from all over the world will be able to immigrate to a state that gives preference to beautiful women, for instance through tax exemptions, because the men there want this and are willing to pay taxes for it. A state could also be established for the wealthy, who are willing to pay to live with those similar to them. Or alternatively, a state for the intelligent, who are willing to pay to live in a state with intelligence much higher than the world average. Thus will begin a competition of states for people. Not an empire or a world state will rule the world, but a global stock exchange entity that will be the market of virtual states, without government, just as the internet has no government but does have a market and economy. The question of whether you want a capitalist or socialist economy will not be decided in elections between right and left, but will become a personal question of what kind of economic insurance you buy, what package, and it will no longer be understood why some should decide for others what their package is.

Only the miserable ones without economic value and insurance will live as stateless charity recipients, or as the state of the miserable and aid that other states donate to save themselves trouble, and different miserable states, with charity budgets and measurable goals, will be able to compete for them. Charity will be a firm whose purpose is to turn worthless people into valuable people and market them as citizens to regular states, or to turn people with negative value like criminals into worthless people, and live off the savings created. In such a situation, national identity will gradually die, and with it our conflict, and all the national wars of the past will seem incomprehensible.

As the future of the institution of the state is increasingly called into question before our eyes, and on the other hand, the solution to the conflict is beyond the horizon, it may be that in the end, the death of the institution of the state - both the Jewish state and the Palestinian one - will be a global process that will uproot the complex state component from the conflict. Thus, the true solution to the conflict will be revealed in a sharp irony of history as a zero-state solution.

Alternative Current Affairs