It seems I´m not a fascist after all. So I took the test linked below and became "Mostly Liberal", since I agreed with 29 of 39 statements. Note that the test was devised by none other than the Devil himself (James Burnham) in 1964! Clearly, something´s wrong with the questions, I mean, come on...
 |
| Credit: Ecosophia |
Apparently, Nick Fuentes (the Groyper Führer) is going to vote Democrat in the midterms. To punish the Republicans and Trump. Or something. Oh. Amazing that guy still thinks he´s relevant...
 |
| Credit: Elvert Barnes |
Several recent opinion polls show that about 80% of Republicans support Operation Epic Fury, and the number is even higher (about 90%) among self-declared MAGA Republicans.
So that takes care of that, then.
 |
| Credit: Zeynel Cebeci |
Is this the *real* reason why the Powers-That-Be want to introduce (so called) Artificial Intelligence? From JMG´s blog.
Here we go...
Yes—many interpreters (especially in mystical, symbolic, or Pythagorean-influenced traditions) have thought that the miracle of the fishes contains hidden numerical symbolism. The key passage usually discussed is John 21:11, where the disciples catch 153 fish. That oddly precise number has fascinated readers since antiquity.
Below are the main ways people have interpreted it.
The most famous numerical interpretation is that 153 is a triangular number.
A triangular number is the sum of consecutive integers:
1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 17 = 153
This was well known in ancient Greek mathematics associated with the Pythagorean tradition.
Because 153 = T₁₇ (the 17th triangular number), some interpreters argue the number was deliberately symbolic.
One early Christian who mentioned the number’s significance was:
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine suggested the number reflects spiritual completeness.
He noted:
10 represents the Law (Ten Commandments)
7 represents the Spirit or divine gifts
10 + 7 = 17
Then the triangular number of 17 gives 153, symbolizing the fullness of divine law and grace gathered together.
Another early interpretation comes from:
Jerome
Jerome reported a tradition that ancient naturalists believed there were 153 species of fish in the world.
Thus the miracle symbolized:
The apostles gathering people from all nations.
Whether that zoological claim was true or not, the symbolism of universal evangelization became common in Christian exegesis.
Some modern esoteric interpreters point out that:
153 has interesting mathematical properties.
For example:
153 = 3 × 3 × 17
And it also appears in certain vesica piscis geometries.
The vesica piscis (“fish bladder”) is a geometric figure formed by the intersection of two circles. It became a Christian symbol because its shape resembles a fish.
In some geometrical constructions, ratios related to 153 appear when measuring lengths in that figure.
This has led some writers to suggest hidden sacred geometry symbolism.
However, historians debate how intentional this was.
Later mystical traditions sometimes assign symbolic meanings to the digits:
1 → unity or God
5 → the human being (five senses, five wounds of Christ)
3 → divine trinity
Thus:
153 represents the union of God, humanity, and the Trinity.
This type of numerology is less historically grounded but appears in mystical commentaries.
Some scholars think the number is simply meant to emphasize extraordinary abundance.
Ancient storytellers often used precise numbers to create vivid realism.
But even if that was the original intention, later readers quickly began interpreting it symbolically.
It’s plausible that educated readers in the Greek-speaking world would have recognized triangular numbers.
The Gospel of John was written in a cultural environment where:
Greek mathematics
symbolic numbers
philosophical allegory
were widely known.
So the use of 153 might have been intended to invite deeper reflection.
Several layers of interpretation exist:
Historical / literal
a precise count of fish
Early Christian symbolism
fullness of divine law and grace (17 → 153)
Universal mission
all kinds of people gathered into the Church
Pythagorean mathematical symbolism
triangular number and sacred geometry
None of these explanations is universally accepted, but the triangular-number interpretation is the most widely discussed among historians.
If you're interested, there is also a fascinating theory that the 153 fish miracle and the “fishers of men” motif connect to ancient Mediterranean fish symbolism and mystery traditions. Some scholars think the symbolism goes much deeper than most modern readers realize.
ChatGPT tries to debunk Pythagoras, und so weiter.
The golden ratio and the Fibonacci sequence appear in many natural systems (plants, shells, branching patterns). Natural explanations usually fall into a few related categories: growth processes, efficiency/packing, and simple recursive rules. The key idea is that these patterns can arise from very simple biological mechanisms, not from organisms “knowing mathematics.”
First, recall the mathematical relation.
The Fibonacci sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, … where each term equals the sum of the two previous ones.
The ratio of consecutive numbers approaches the golden ratio φ ≈ 1.618.
Many biological structures grow incrementally, where each new unit forms in relation to previous ones.
Example: plant branching.
A stem might produce:
one new branch
then the next stage produces branches from the previous two growth points
If the number of growth points follows a “previous two added together” rule, Fibonacci numbers appear naturally.
This is not intentional mathematics—it’s simply a feedback growth rule.
One of the most famous examples is leaf arrangement on stems, called phyllotaxis.
Leaves tend to emerge at angles close to 137.5°, known as the golden angle.
Why that angle?
Because it distributes leaves as evenly as possible around the stem, minimizing overlap and maximizing exposure to:
sunlight
rain
air
If leaves were separated by simple fractions of a circle (like 120° or 90°), they would line up in vertical rows and shade each other.
The golden angle avoids repeating alignments for the longest possible time.
So natural selection favors patterns close to the golden ratio.
Structures like sunflower heads and pine cones often show two sets of spirals.
Examples include counts like:
34 and 55
55 and 89
21 and 34
These are Fibonacci numbers.
Why?
When new seeds form at the center and push outward while maintaining a constant angle (again near the golden angle), the resulting packing automatically produces Fibonacci spiral counts.
This phenomenon emerges from simple geometric growth rules.
Natural selection tends to favor structures that:
minimize wasted space
distribute forces efficiently
maximize exposure to resources
The golden ratio often appears in optimization problems involving growth and packing.
So patterns approximating Fibonacci ratios may be favored because they are stable and efficient.
In some mathematical growth systems, if two processes interact and stabilize over time, the ratio between them tends to converge toward φ.
This occurs because φ is the stable solution of the equation
x² = x + 1
So when systems involve feedback between two successive stages, the golden ratio can emerge as a natural equilibrium.
The golden ratio in nature is often approximate, not exact.
Many claims about φ in:
human bodies
architecture
art
are exaggerated.
But in botanical growth patterns, the connection is well supported.
The reason Fibonacci patterns appear in nature is not mystical but structural:
Simple iterative growth processes + spatial constraints often produce Fibonacci-like patterns.
So the mathematics emerges from the dynamics of growth itself.
If you'd like, I can also explain something fascinating: why the golden angle (≈137.5°) is mathematically the best possible way to distribute leaves around a stem. The reason involves irrational numbers and is one of the most beautiful arguments in mathematical biology.
Two somewhat rambling videos from Gnostic Informant, the first about Biblical minimalism (the Copenhagen school), the second about Pythagorean number mysticism in the Book of Genesis. Could still be of some interest on a gloomy Thursday afternoon.
It´s intelligent design, captain, but not as we know it.
Oh, and I didn´t know there was an animated cartoon featuring Donald Duck learning about Pythagoras!
Back to the direct realism problematique, this time c/o ChatGPT.
What are the strongest arguments against indirect realism?
The strongest objections to indirect realism come from several different philosophical traditions (analytic philosophy, phenomenology, and some forms of direct realism). They usually try to show that the theory either creates unnecessary entities, fails to explain perception, or leads to skepticism about the external world.
Here are the main arguments.
This is the most famous objection.
If indirect realism is true:
We directly perceive mental representations.
External objects are known only indirectly through those representations.
But then a problem arises:
How do we ever know our representations correspond to the real world?
Since we never perceive the world directly, we cannot compare:
the representation
with
the object itself.
So critics argue the theory leads to radical skepticism.
This line of criticism is associated with philosophers such as:
Thomas Reid
Reid argued that representational theories place a “veil” between mind and world, making knowledge of reality impossible.
If perception works like this:
I perceive a mental representation.
That representation represents an external object.
Then critics ask:
How do I perceive the representation itself?
If I need another representation to perceive the first one, we get an infinite regress of representations representing representations.
Many philosophers think perception must stop somewhere — and that stopping point should be direct contact with the world.
Indirect realism says we only perceive sense-data or mental content.
But then:
How do we know which external object causes those representations?
Example:
You see a red apple.
But if what you perceive is only a mental image, you have no direct access to the apple itself. So how can you identify that the representation corresponds to that particular object?
Critics argue indirect realism cannot explain how perception successfully picks out real objects in the environment.
Many philosophers argue indirect realism misdescribes our experience.
When we look at a tree:
We experience the tree, not a mental image of the tree.
The idea that we see internal sense-data feels artificial.
This criticism is strongly associated with:
G. E. Moore
Moore argued that common sense tells us:
We directly perceive external objects.
Philosophical theories shouldn’t contradict such basic facts without overwhelming evidence.
Indirect realism relies heavily on hallucinations.
But critics argue this reasoning is flawed.
Just because hallucinations occur does not mean normal perception is the same kind of mental event.
Instead, critics propose:
Hallucination is a defective case of perception, not evidence about normal perception.
This view is common among modern disjunctivists.
Key defenders include:
John McDowell
Disjunctivism says:
In genuine perception, we are directly aware of the world.
In hallucination, we are not — even if the experiences feel similar.
So the shared “mental object” assumption may be false.
Some philosophers argue the brain-processing story is misunderstood.
Even if perception involves neural processing, it doesn’t follow that we perceive representations instead of objects.
Instead, the brain may simply be the mechanism enabling direct perception of the world.
This objection targets the modern “scientific image” argument.
Phenomenologists argue that perception is fundamentally world-directed.
When we see something:
our awareness is of the object itself, not a mental intermediary.
This critique is associated with thinkers like:
Maurice Merleau-Ponty
He argued that perception is an embodied engagement with the world, not internal picture-viewing.
Critics say indirect realism:
Solves the problem of illusion by introducing mental intermediaries, but those intermediaries create deeper epistemological problems.
It´s déjà vu all the way down. Seriously. I mean, Trump´s Iran War is rapidly turning into a copycat of the Iraq War and/or the Gulf War. So are the reactions to it. The only thing missing is the "decent left". You know, the leftists who actually supported the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It´s because of the Donald, of course. Imagine being less popular on the left than *George freakin´ Dubya*!
