Warning: mkdir(): No space left on device in /var/www/group-telegram/post.php on line 37
Warning: file_put_contents(aCache/aDaily/post/spectralvalkyriememepod/--): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/group-telegram/post.php on line 50 T e c h n o s c i e n c e | Telegram Webview: spectralvalkyriememepod/17741 -
I will prove that people want this worldview arsenal upgrade, with an example.
The Myers-Briggs personality tests provides a useful analogy for understanding pluralistic ontology.
In MBTI, there's no inherently "better" type -- an INTJ isn't superior to an ESFP. Rather, each type represents a different, yet equally valid way of perceiving and interacting with reality. Each type has its own internal logic and way of making decisions that makes sense within its framework.
Similarly, in a pluralistic ontology, different systems of thought/action (like conventional morality vs. pure action-consequence frameworks as put forth above) can coexist as valid ways of engaging with reality. Just as an INTJ might make decisions based on future implications, while an ESFP might focus on immediate experiential data, different (ontological) frameworks provide different yet valid bases for action.
In monistic ontology (like monotheistic religions or strict materialism), there is ONE fundamental reality or truth. Everything must ultimately be reconciled with or reduced to this single foundation. It's like trying to force every personality into a single "correct" MBTI type, saying "Everyone should be an INTJ" or "Everyone is really just an ESFP deep down."
Monistic thinking is dead and millions of roots grow off its carcass, all shooting for the light.
I will prove that people want this worldview arsenal upgrade, with an example.
The Myers-Briggs personality tests provides a useful analogy for understanding pluralistic ontology.
In MBTI, there's no inherently "better" type -- an INTJ isn't superior to an ESFP. Rather, each type represents a different, yet equally valid way of perceiving and interacting with reality. Each type has its own internal logic and way of making decisions that makes sense within its framework.
Similarly, in a pluralistic ontology, different systems of thought/action (like conventional morality vs. pure action-consequence frameworks as put forth above) can coexist as valid ways of engaging with reality. Just as an INTJ might make decisions based on future implications, while an ESFP might focus on immediate experiential data, different (ontological) frameworks provide different yet valid bases for action.
In monistic ontology (like monotheistic religions or strict materialism), there is ONE fundamental reality or truth. Everything must ultimately be reconciled with or reduced to this single foundation. It's like trying to force every personality into a single "correct" MBTI type, saying "Everyone should be an INTJ" or "Everyone is really just an ESFP deep down."
Monistic thinking is dead and millions of roots grow off its carcass, all shooting for the light.
BY T e c h n o s c i e n c e
Warning: Undefined variable $i in /var/www/group-telegram/post.php on line 260
Pavel Durov, a billionaire who embraces an all-black wardrobe and is often compared to the character Neo from "the Matrix," funds Telegram through his personal wealth and debt financing. And despite being one of the world's most popular tech companies, Telegram reportedly has only about 30 employees who defer to Durov for most major decisions about the platform. Right now the digital security needs of Russians and Ukrainians are very different, and they lead to very different caveats about how to mitigate the risks associated with using Telegram. For Ukrainians in Ukraine, whose physical safety is at risk because they are in a war zone, digital security is probably not their highest priority. They may value access to news and communication with their loved ones over making sure that all of their communications are encrypted in such a manner that they are indecipherable to Telegram, its employees, or governments with court orders. Anastasia Vlasova/Getty Images So, uh, whenever I hear about Telegram, it’s always in relation to something bad. What gives? That hurt tech stocks. For the past few weeks, the 10-year yield has traded between 1.72% and 2%, as traders moved into the bond for safety when Russia headlines were ugly—and out of it when headlines improved. Now, the yield is touching its pandemic-era high. If the yield breaks above that level, that could signal that it’s on a sustainable path higher. Higher long-dated bond yields make future profits less valuable—and many tech companies are valued on the basis of profits forecast for many years in the future.
from us
