welcome me to the forum!

Hello this is Jreaureah I am new. I have an interest in science and technolgoy and specifically the science of the engeneering and other information in cognitional psychologies. And the philosohpies of carl marx and other science and society like informations. The reason that I am posting is that I take a great deal of pleasure in posting to science sites.

I come from a long background of philosophers starting with may father the great person whom I can t pspeak his name. I am twenty six years old. As soon as you are able to inform me of the information occuring across the world all I would be extrondiarlly pleased with the information. As you know, information technology these days is skrocketing! I am tending to find a great deal of pleasure in posting on science sites.

I am confused in particular with respect to "science and technologies" as well as "engeneering and society" and the distinction here is far less clean and cut than people take or admit... I take rather an interst in other psychologies- other types of which are related. And so engeeering, of which I am most espeical with, I am good with regard to technology and society. The distinguishment is dificult to make and so therefore I am able to speak primarially of the science and society.

Question is, since you think that there to be an informational unforth comming in society, what is the relation there with this area of interest? What do you guys make of the area of relation? Is there a science and society link that seperates the distinguishment lying somewhere else and does this benefit the distinguishment of society and many of the Karl Marx like perspectives? Is society science oriented in that it is mechanial, or is it primarially focused in other directions.

LIke I said I am far more intested in philosohy. This is a great question to pose. And do welcome me to the forum. I am only asking what is your distinction what is your area of cryteria which would subuect yourself to question. I can have a difficult time wording this question because it is extrodinarially diffuclt, but I do not have a question posing the question. It is a question which people could or would freelyl discuss given the proper time to think about it. So I will pose this as an introductory thread. I do not know your thoughts on the issue so I can only state that the problem is none.

Therefore, with this stated it is easy to assume that informational and technologicial issues are not as necessary as mathematical is to assume with relation to mechania, and otherwords which relate well to machine "ages" or other "technological" specification of which is to subject society to test.

Carl Marx was the first to make the distinction. My question is the relation to society. Is there a technologial shortcomming, or is there not one of which is able to be suspected to the intelectual rigious of which society would place us in. I see it is easy to assume that science and society is the easiest debatable issue, particularly people such as Carl Marx as well as what the philosopher HEGEL has stated about the issue in particulars.

The science information which a person would suspect to debate is far more severe or extrodinary... so I was at least to wonder your thoughts.

Particularly the area of distinguishment at the science and society as well as the society and science which is easiest to subject to technological differentation. I will ponder this questoin, but only after posting this thread. It is hard to discuss the issue. I have simply laid out the problem.

The problem is not one of "society" doing all the work for "society at large" rather it is a problem of society making way through the issues and difficulties which society would and does face with respect to technological information. I will post again.

In short: what is your consideration of the conclusion with respect to "information technologies" in an "anti mechanist" world. Area of intrigue to be sure! I shall post later. Thank you for your intest in my post.

jreaurea

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you sincerely. Do you know kung fu. Thank's for the welcome honest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No problem. I'm a reader of Marx and also interested in Hegel.

 

It is very diverse, always in a state of flux.

Welcome and enjoy your stay.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good post cosmic traveler! Very cool GeoffP. It seems to be the case that you suspect that Marx is turtle wax before Hegel. I would assume primarially with respect given to the user cosmic traveller that there is this particular issue which I cannot and will not address, but it seems that the forward direction is in its proper state of flux. IF you've read around you'll find that society is shifting primarially towards the issue of it, that is to say people are concerned it is to say it lightly with how the "poll" of society and world life in terms of liberal movemetns or post modernism. SO I am interested in that side of this debate- my problem is that it is a issue so severe that it's not easy to mention but it may be easy to clarify. In this particular thread, there is however a differentation: what is the forward flux and what is the issue which is not moving with respect to it's diversity, its open endedness, and its seeming not complex nature.

This topic bemuddles me and insures that I have to think it over! Hegel is a great man however and it appears as if he is used to the issue. I have no idea about carl marx thus the post. Thanks for your comment

 

Its very nice to meet you

its very nice to meet someone one here that lives in my city and can see this phyicotic world like i do

 

This was a thinking post. Use the handy dandy thinking cap as they say. Haven't scanned over much of this forum yet but it is a nice forum very intrigue and professional. Well done whoever to the mods are. Bye for now fellow poster.

 

Hi yo JustinBoldin18. Very intresting... the main issue in this thread is that society is at a "shift" with respect to the issue of getting it straight and information technology skyrockets- thus society faces a certain distinction which I can not and will not get straighed out. For unknown reasons.

 

Sort of like saying, if your information technology was in the right place, (without considering liberalist politics or the politics of society and how it is starting to face the distinction of "movement or other") and it is thought of as being god then it is clear to me that a person can not and (will not) be able to access the priority attributed to the issue of the split in respect to a few certain things- i can not describe them adequately but it is easy to assume with due respects to society that there are other issues which to say the least I'm describing in this thread which I cannot word properly. But you see the point I hope.

Excuse the double over posts. Post away........... ....

 

"If I had a cow and a girl flipped, society would do a backwards loop in time".... That would mean, that when it comes to information technology, albeit it appears to be adequately fluxed out, there is a "mechanical structure" of technologial gain. Just trying to return to topic. Thanks for posting.

 

Once again. JustinBoldin the issue is the reverse nature of society with respect to the issue of technologial gain. This is to imply that technologial gain is respectfully attributed to one thing: society and how it is not simply "coordinated" or alined adequtely with respect to adequate beliefs, this topic is an absolute no no with respect to speaking of publicly, that is to say "speaking out loud" - as when a person = huge ego a huge ego = a huge loss. People cannot and willnot be able to speak of egotistical gain with respect to informational technologicail gains, and in this due respect to the nature of society it is an interesting question at least with respect attributed to the issue of how a person can go about discussing safty in society away from discussion of how a person would go about fixing polls or other- technology these days- GEEZE!

 

Some would surely say " what is debatable is discoverable " this is to a large extent- as an example to suffice for trailing a tad off course of op:---- to the discussion on how a person may can or will go about discussing any particular- for example, how I would go about doing any particular thing such as.... "a rock did a 360 backflip and hit a solar moon." now this is a very dangerous thingi- discussing asteroids doing 360 backflips and destroying the earth in relation to rationality and approaches to ratoinality. To discuss things disabides by some form of "reason" which has been discussed in this thread already - and to the time before it was discussed what occured in respects (to stories which people can make and others- which coaline with this thread). What's the most interesting with respect to coalination and other topics of debate which lead to irrational approaches with respect to polls and things, is that this is not really at all the "topic" which I hadh posted- hardley at all yet I have every right to clarify the discussion for the readers whom are still trailing the opening post.......

My opinion is different. If what is debatable is debatable, then what is debatable falls entirely into the absurd. persons can go about debating all lengths of things- and many if not all would not disagree or would not agree rather- yet the topic deserves and requires an undermining itself.

If you haven't read, -GEOFFP already THERE IS A PHILOSOPHER whom has dicussed absolutist marxist principals in respect to society being completely understandable. THIS REFUTES ALL TOPIC OF ARGUEMENTATION DIRECTLY TO MARXISM- which is a topic which EVERY PERSON CAN COMPREHEND WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED- in other words and in my humble opinion only- a full negetive.

Now you are entitled to disagree and I will not reply. I have no reason to state such a thing. But if what people want is a fully uncoverable truth an essence without a depiction, this is asking for all to become none and for god to become non real- it is asking for truth to be singular with respect to the nature of the issue- which is precisely to some extents as to what it is not. THere are a lot for instance of video games these days- the most of them which have the highest level of intrigue are those which I would consider to be INFINTE UNDISCOVERY- STAR OCEAN- FINAL FANTASY VIII - now this last example is entirely different than all others- it is a well known game, but the others, and also the STORIES WHICH THEY HAVE are forever- that is to say- permenetantly lived.

Truth in a word cannot become "absolute and within the reach of everybody whom wants to get their fingers in reach of its princiapsl" and in some ways this is true if not in every final respect- but we are simply not dealing with this type of procedure here at all.

If I said anything about rocks doing three sixtys and hitting a collision, I'd be making a statement contradictory to the purpose of which a person would imply in a relation to information technology - at least technology and marxism with respect to the market of today. Its intriguing because people aren't allowed for instance to run rampant stealing or doing other issues WITH RESPECT to politics philosophy psychology most importantly and other sciences.

 

edit

 

edit

 

edit

 

edit

 

edited

 

edit

 

edit