- More of my philosophy about sex and about civilization.. - 1 Update
- More of my philosophy about Gays and Lesbians and bisexuals.. - 1 Update
- More of my philosophy about what is the american dream.. - 1 Update
- More of philosophy about one of my proverb about intellectual openness and more.. - 1 Update
- More of my philosophy about the relationship of trust.. - 1 Update
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jul 08 06:11PM -0700 Hello, More of my philosophy about sex and about civilization.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think i am smart, and when i look at sex, it is like layers of sophistication from the low unsophisticated layer that is sex that comes from our animal instincts to the much higher layer of sophistication that transcend our animal instincts, sex is for me like an inferior state of being alcoholic, since sex is for me a really inferior thing, this is why i am working harder so that to transcend towards a much higher level of sophistication, and this is why you are seeing me talking about universal Love as i am talking, and this is why i am talking about my philosophy and about my strengths, so you have to read my below thoughts carefully so that to understand my way of thinking and doing: More of my philosophy about Gays and Lesbians and bisexuals.. I invite you to look at the following video about gays and lesbians in France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgOcE27EXN0 I have just quickly noticed how gays and lesbians and bisexuals of the above video speak about there weaknesses, so i think that gays and lesbians and bisexuals have the tendencies to speak about there weaknesses as such, and it is not my way of doing, and as i can say in french: "Si j'ai un bouton moche sur mon corps qui ne part pas, devrais-je parler aux autres de ce bouton moche ? alors tu comprends bien que ce n'est pas la bonne méthode de faire, car c'est mal vu de parler ainsi de ses faiblesses aux autres, alors comme tu comprends bien il faut du savoir-vivre ensemble, car les relations humaines ont besoin de règles à suivre." Here is the translation in english: "If I have an ugly pimple on my body that won't go away, should I tell others about that ugly pimple? So you understand that this is not the right way to do, because it is frowned upon to talk about your weaknesses to others in this way, so as you understand well, you have to know that human relationships need rules to follow so that to be able for us to be organized correctly into a society." This is why you are noticing that i am talking as i am talking by also showing my strenghts to others, so i invite you to read my following thoughts so that to understand my kind of personality: More of my philosophy about what is the american dream.. I will ask a philosophical question of: Does the american dream exists? and if it exists what is it ? I think the american dream is the fact that becoming rich doesn't come only from being smart, since becoming rich can come from "creativity", and I have just talked before about the importance of the following statement in business: "The focus should be on the product, since if the product is good the profits will follow" But notice that it is saying that if the product is good then the profits will follow, so as you are noticing we have to define what is a good product or service ? and does a good product or service only comes from science or from engineering or from being smart? not at all !, since the product and service can become good by the process of creativity, and then we have to define creativity, and creativity needs globalization, since creativity and innovation come from ideas circulating and combining across nations and industries, and i invite you to read about what is creativity in the following interesting web page from Yale university: What Is Creativity? https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-is-creativity And is the american dream the working hard ? i don't think so, since i think that working efficiently is the the good way, since read my following writing so that to notice it: I invite you to look at the following interesting video to understand that working efficiently can make you work much less hours, for example Germany works really efficiently and it works much less hours than Mexico or USA, so i invite you to look at the following interesting video so that to understand that working efficiently is a great thing: Why is working harder making us poorer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD784CHYhGM More of philosophy about one of my proverbs about intellectual openness and more.. I think i have just invented fast a proverb and i think it is really important, and here it is: "Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity." And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it: I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global optimum of efficiency, and it is related to my following thoughts about the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, so i invite you to read them: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More of my philosophy about is Human smartness just a particular survival strategy.. I think i am a smart philosopher and i will explain more, notice in my below writing that the Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice said the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" I think it is stupid, because when you become rich using your smartness you transcend "survival" and you cease to use smartness as only a survival strategy and you can start to use your smartness to become more and more rich or/and to living a much better human life etc. or when you have a high salary you are not thinking much of the time about survival since survival is only to remain alive, but you are living and being in a much better human condition, so this proves that Human smartness is not just a particular survival strategy. More of my philosophy about beauty and about human smartness.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and as you have just noticed i have just explained more the basis of my philosophy(read it below) and now i will ask two philosophical questions and they are the following: Are humans smarter than other animals? And does universal beauty exists ? So i will answer the first philosophical question by saying the following: So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i think i am smart and say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural. More of my philosophy about the problems of our humanity.. I think the Climate crisis that is a term describing global warming and climate change will be solved by using science and technology and i have posted about the new technologies that will be used to solve it, and i think we can fix capitalism using some reforms and it is not so difficult, but there is some problems that remain and they are the following: As you have noticed(read below), the global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems, so this global average ecological footprint is growing more and more, so economic growth can be separated from unsustainable resource consumption and harmful pollution. It is what our humanity has to do by also using science and technology. Some benchmarks for the year 2014: The global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems. A French person needs 4.7 gha to maintain his standard of living. If all humans consumed as much as a Frenchman, we would need 2.79 planets; An American needs 8.37 gha for his consumption. If all humans consumed like an American, we would need 4.97 planets; A Brazilian has an ecological footprint of 3.08 hag (1.83 planet); A Chinese has a footprint of 3.71 hag (2.21 planets); An Indian has a footprint of 1.12 hag (0.67 planet). a Haitian has a footprint of 0.67 hag (0.4 planet). And the other problem that remains is the following: Look at the following video to understand it: Global Junk Food: How the Western Food Industry is Making Poor Countries Fat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJwbGBrXfk Yet more of my philosophy about capitalism.. I just written the following: --- More philosophy about why raising taxes destroys the economy and more.. I invite you to look at the following interesting video: Why raising taxes destroys the economy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GChpnX44_Ns So i think you are understanding more that raising taxes destroys economy, so there remains an important thing and it is that we have to fix capitalism in a smart way by more-effective regulation and not by raising taxes, since there remain the following problem, read about it here: One last chance to fix capitalism https://hbr.org/2020/03/one-last-chance-to-fix-capitalism --- So i invite you to look at the following video about capitalism: How to Improve Capitalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOaJe68C-bU So as you notice in the above video that you can |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jul 08 05:01PM -0700 Hello, More of my philosophy about Gays and Lesbians and bisexuals.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I invite you to look at the following video about gays and lesbians in France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgOcE27EXN0 I have just quickly noticed how gays and lesbians and bisexuals of the above video speak about there weaknesses, so i think that gays and lesbians and bisexuals have the tendencies to speak about there weaknesses as such, and it is not my way of doing, and as i can say in french: "Si j'ai un bouton moche sur mon corps qui ne part pas, devrais-je parler aux autres de ce bouton moche ? alors tu comprends bien que ce n'est pas la bonne méthode de faire, car c'est mal vu de parler ainsi de ses faiblesses aux autres, alors comme tu comprends bien il faut du savoir-vivre ensemble, car les relations humaines ont besoin de règles à suivre." Here is the translation in english: "If I have an ugly pimple on my body that won't go away, should I tell others about that ugly pimple? So you understand that this is not the right way to do, because it is frowned upon to talk about your weaknesses to others in this way, so as you understand well, you have to know that human relationships need rules to follow so that to be able for us to be organized correctly into a society." This is why you are noticing that i am talking as i am talking by also showing my strenghts to others, so i invite you to read my following thoughts so that to understand my kind of personality: More of my philosophy about what is the american dream.. I will ask a philosophical question of: Does the american dream exists? and if it exists what is it ? I think the american dream is the fact that becoming rich doesn't come only from being smart, since becoming rich can come from "creativity", and I have just talked before about the importance of the following statement in business: "The focus should be on the product, since if the product is good the profits will follow" But notice that it is saying that if the product is good then the profits will follow, so as you are noticing we have to define what is a good product or service ? and does a good product or service only comes from science or from engineering or from being smart? not at all !, since the product and service can become good by the process of creativity, and then we have to define creativity, and creativity needs globalization, since creativity and innovation come from ideas circulating and combining across nations and industries, and i invite you to read about what is creativity in the following interesting web page from Yale university: What Is Creativity? https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-is-creativity And is the american dream the working hard ? i don't think so, since i think that working efficiently is the the good way, since read my following writing so that to notice it: I invite you to look at the following interesting video to understand that working efficiently can make you work much less hours, for example Germany works really efficiently and it works much less hours than Mexico or USA, so i invite you to look at the following interesting video so that to understand that working efficiently is a great thing: Why is working harder making us poorer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD784CHYhGM More of philosophy about one of my proverbs about intellectual openness and more.. I think i have just invented fast a proverb and i think it is really important, and here it is: "Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity." And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it: I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global optimum of efficiency, and it is related to my following thoughts about the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, so i invite you to read them: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More of my philosophy about is Human smartness just a particular survival strategy.. I think i am a smart philosopher and i will explain more, notice in my below writing that the Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice said the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" I think it is stupid, because when you become rich using your smartness you transcend "survival" and you cease to use smartness as only a survival strategy and you can start to use your smartness to become more and more rich or/and to living a much better human life etc. or when you have a high salary you are not thinking much of the time about survival since survival is only to remain alive, but you are living and being in a much better human condition, so this proves that Human smartness is not just a particular survival strategy. More of my philosophy about beauty and about human smartness.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and as you have just noticed i have just explained more the basis of my philosophy(read it below) and now i will ask two philosophical questions and they are the following: Are humans smarter than other animals? And does universal beauty exists ? So i will answer the first philosophical question by saying the following: So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i think i am smart and say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural. More of my philosophy about the problems of our humanity.. I think the Climate crisis that is a term describing global warming and climate change will be solved by using science and technology and i have posted about the new technologies that will be used to solve it, and i think we can fix capitalism using some reforms and it is not so difficult, but there is some problems that remain and they are the following: As you have noticed(read below), the global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems, so this global average ecological footprint is growing more and more, so economic growth can be separated from unsustainable resource consumption and harmful pollution. It is what our humanity has to do by also using science and technology. Some benchmarks for the year 2014: The global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems. A French person needs 4.7 gha to maintain his standard of living. If all humans consumed as much as a Frenchman, we would need 2.79 planets; An American needs 8.37 gha for his consumption. If all humans consumed like an American, we would need 4.97 planets; A Brazilian has an ecological footprint of 3.08 hag (1.83 planet); A Chinese has a footprint of 3.71 hag (2.21 planets); An Indian has a footprint of 1.12 hag (0.67 planet). a Haitian has a footprint of 0.67 hag (0.4 planet). And the other problem that remains is the following: Look at the following video to understand it: Global Junk Food: How the Western Food Industry is Making Poor Countries Fat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJwbGBrXfk Yet more of my philosophy about capitalism.. I just written the following: --- More philosophy about why raising taxes destroys the economy and more.. I invite you to look at the following interesting video: Why raising taxes destroys the economy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GChpnX44_Ns So i think you are understanding more that raising taxes destroys economy, so there remains an important thing and it is that we have to fix capitalism in a smart way by more-effective regulation and not by raising taxes, since there remain the following problem, read about it here: One last chance to fix capitalism https://hbr.org/2020/03/one-last-chance-to-fix-capitalism --- So i invite you to look at the following video about capitalism: How to Improve Capitalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOaJe68C-bU So as you notice in the above video that you can also fix capitalism by giving voting rights and tax advantages to long-term shareholders and not by raising taxes, and you need to have sovereign wealth funds and national pension funds representative of the long term collective interests etc, so i invite you to look the above video of "How to improve capitalism" so that to understand more. More of my philosophy about relative and absolute measuring.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so i will ask a philosophical question of: How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ? I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jul 08 12:46PM -0700 Hello, More of my philosophy about what is the american dream.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I will ask a philosophical question of: Does the american dream exists? and if it exists what is it ? I think the american dream is the fact that becoming rich doesn't come only from being smart, since becoming rich can come from "creativity", and I have just talked before about the importance of the following statement in business: "The focus should be on the product, since if the product is good the profits will follow" But notice that it is saying that if the product is good then the profits will follow, so as you are noticing we have to define what is a good product or service ? and does a good product or service only comes from science or from engineering or from being smart? not at all !, since the product and service can become good by the process of creativity, and then we have to define creativity, and creativity needs globalization, since creativity and innovation come from ideas circulating and combining across nations and industries, and i invite you to read about what is creativity in the following interesting web page from Yale university: What Is Creativity? https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-is-creativity And is the american dream the working hard ? i don't think so, since i think that working efficiently is the the good way, since read my following writing so that to notice it: I invite you to look at the following interesting video to understand that working efficiently can make you work much less hours, for example Germany works really efficiently and it works much less hours than Mexico or USA, so i invite you to look at the following interesting video so that to understand that working efficiently is a great thing: Why is working harder making us poorer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD784CHYhGM More of philosophy about one of my proverbs about intellectual openness and more.. I think i have just invented fast a proverb and i think it is really important, and here it is: "Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity." And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it: I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global optimum of efficiency, and it is related to my following thoughts about the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, so i invite you to read them: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More of my philosophy about is Human smartness just a particular survival strategy.. I think i am a smart philosopher and i will explain more, notice in my below writing that the Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice said the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" I think it is stupid, because when you become rich using your smartness you transcend "survival" and you cease to use smartness as only a survival strategy and you can start to use your smartness to become more and more rich or/and to living a much better human life etc. or when you have a high salary you are not thinking much of the time about survival since survival is only to remain alive, but you are living and being in a much better human condition, so this proves that Human smartness is not just a particular survival strategy. More of my philosophy about beauty and about human smartness.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and as you have just noticed i have just explained more the basis of my philosophy(read it below) and now i will ask two philosophical questions and they are the following: Are humans smarter than other animals? And does universal beauty exists ? So i will answer the first philosophical question by saying the following: So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i think i am smart and say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural. More of my philosophy about the problems of our humanity.. I think the Climate crisis that is a term describing global warming and climate change will be solved by using science and technology and i have posted about the new technologies that will be used to solve it, and i think we can fix capitalism using some reforms and it is not so difficult, but there is some problems that remain and they are the following: As you have noticed(read below), the global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems, so this global average ecological footprint is growing more and more, so economic growth can be separated from unsustainable resource consumption and harmful pollution. It is what our humanity has to do by also using science and technology. Some benchmarks for the year 2014: The global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems. A French person needs 4.7 gha to maintain his standard of living. If all humans consumed as much as a Frenchman, we would need 2.79 planets; An American needs 8.37 gha for his consumption. If all humans consumed like an American, we would need 4.97 planets; A Brazilian has an ecological footprint of 3.08 hag (1.83 planet); A Chinese has a footprint of 3.71 hag (2.21 planets); An Indian has a footprint of 1.12 hag (0.67 planet). a Haitian has a footprint of 0.67 hag (0.4 planet). And the other problem that remains is the following: Look at the following video to understand it: Global Junk Food: How the Western Food Industry is Making Poor Countries Fat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJwbGBrXfk Yet more of my philosophy about capitalism.. I just written the following: --- More philosophy about why raising taxes destroys the economy and more.. I invite you to look at the following interesting video: Why raising taxes destroys the economy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GChpnX44_Ns So i think you are understanding more that raising taxes destroys economy, so there remains an important thing and it is that we have to fix capitalism in a smart way by more-effective regulation and not by raising taxes, since there remain the following problem, read about it here: One last chance to fix capitalism https://hbr.org/2020/03/one-last-chance-to-fix-capitalism --- So i invite you to look at the following video about capitalism: How to Improve Capitalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOaJe68C-bU So as you notice in the above video that you can also fix capitalism by giving voting rights and tax advantages to long-term shareholders and not by raising taxes, and you need to have sovereign wealth funds and national pension funds representative of the long term collective interests etc, so i invite you to look the above video of "How to improve capitalism" so that to understand more. More of my philosophy about relative and absolute measuring.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so i will ask a philosophical question of: How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ? I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd", and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy, since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the above philosophical question since you have to measure how to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the basis of my philosophy by reading it below: More of my philosophy about my philosophy.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i have just looked |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jul 08 10:22AM -0700 Hello, More of philosophy about one of my proverb about intellectual openness and more.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think i have just invented fast a proverb and i think it is really important, and here it is: "Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity." And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it: I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global optimum of efficiency, and it is related to my following thoughts about the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, so i invite you to read them: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More of my philosophy about is Human smartness just a particular survival strategy.. I think i am a smart philosopher and i will explain more, notice in my below writing that the Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice said the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" I think it is stupid, because when you become rich using your smartness you transcend "survival" and you cease to use smartness as only a survival strategy and you can start to use your smartness to become more and more rich or/and to living a much better human life etc. or when you have a high salary you are not thinking much of the time about survival since survival is only to remain alive, but you are living and being in a much better human condition, so this proves that Human smartness is not just a particular survival strategy. More of my philosophy about beauty and about human smartness.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and as you have just noticed i have just explained more the basis of my philosophy(read it below) and now i will ask two philosophical questions and they are the following: Are humans smarter than other animals? And does universal beauty exists ? So i will answer the first philosophical question by saying the following: So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i think i am smart and say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural. More of my philosophy about the problems of our humanity.. I think the Climate crisis that is a term describing global warming and climate change will be solved by using science and technology and i have posted about the new technologies that will be used to solve it, and i think we can fix capitalism using some reforms and it is not so difficult, but there is some problems that remain and they are the following: As you have noticed(read below), the global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems, so this global average ecological footprint is growing more and more, so economic growth can be separated from unsustainable resource consumption and harmful pollution. It is what our humanity has to do by also using science and technology. Some benchmarks for the year 2014: The global average ecological footprint is 2.84 gha per person while the average biocapacity is 1.68 gha per person; it takes 1.69 Earth to cover the consumption of humanity; and this global average ecological footprint brings problems. A French person needs 4.7 gha to maintain his standard of living. If all humans consumed as much as a Frenchman, we would need 2.79 planets; An American needs 8.37 gha for his consumption. If all humans consumed like an American, we would need 4.97 planets; A Brazilian has an ecological footprint of 3.08 hag (1.83 planet); A Chinese has a footprint of 3.71 hag (2.21 planets); An Indian has a footprint of 1.12 hag (0.67 planet). a Haitian has a footprint of 0.67 hag (0.4 planet). And the other problem that remains is the following: Look at the following video to understand it: Global Junk Food: How the Western Food Industry is Making Poor Countries Fat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJwbGBrXfk Yet more of my philosophy about capitalism.. I just written the following: --- More philosophy about why raising taxes destroys the economy and more.. I invite you to look at the following interesting video: Why raising taxes destroys the economy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GChpnX44_Ns So i think you are understanding more that raising taxes destroys economy, so there remains an important thing and it is that we have to fix capitalism in a smart way by more-effective regulation and not by raising taxes, since there remain the following problem, read about it here: One last chance to fix capitalism https://hbr.org/2020/03/one-last-chance-to-fix-capitalism --- So i invite you to look at the following video about capitalism: How to Improve Capitalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOaJe68C-bU So as you notice in the above video that you can also fix capitalism by giving voting rights and tax advantages to long-term shareholders and not by raising taxes, and you need to have sovereign wealth funds and national pension funds representative of the long term collective interests etc, so i invite you to look the above video of "How to improve capitalism" so that to understand more. More of my philosophy about relative and absolute measuring.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so i will ask a philosophical question of: How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ? I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd", and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy, since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the above philosophical question since you have to measure how to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the basis of my philosophy by reading it below: More of my philosophy about my philosophy.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i have just looked at the following video about Hedonism, i invite you to look at it: Why Hedonism Fails https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiFJpsbVCpM But i think that my philosophy is more smart, since in my philosophy i am also explaining that the day permits to understand the night and human life is like the alternance of the day and night that brings beauty, since human life is difficulties and suffering that also permit us to appreciate much more human life or that permits us to appreciate much more our kind of civilization and i say in my philosophy that it also gives more intensity to pleasures of life, so my philosophy doesn't look like the other philosophies, so i invite you to holistically understand my philosophy by carefully reading it here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI And read my other thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/8jzgRGMOEHs More of my philosophy about arabs and muslims in western countries.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I invite you to look at this interesting video about muslim immigrants in Norway: Norway's Muslim immigrants attend classes on western attitudes to women https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKY600o3CXw I think that the norwegians don't understand correctly what is arab and muslim countries and don't understand arab and muslim people, and since i am a white arab , i invite to read my following proverbs and thoughts so that to understand more arabs and muslims: More of my philosophy about humans animal instincts.. I think i am smart, and i will say that humans are behaving like inferior animals since they are also guided by there "tendencies" of there animal instincts that want to be too much individualistic or hedonistic or to want |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jul 08 08:21AM -0700 Hello, More of my philosophy about the relationship of trust.. You cannot love without trusting a person. Trust is the building block of love. Just like how a child trusts her mother and thereby loves her, your partner needs to know that you are trustworthy and won't ditch them in difficult times. This feeling is important for love to sprout and flourish. Trust is also very important for Business Relations in the Arab World, so i invite you to read the following interesting article about it: Al-Ississ: Trust is at the Heart of Business Relations in the Arab World https://www.aucegypt.edu/news/stories/al-ississ-trust-heart-business-relations-arab-world More of my philosophy about how important is the plan.. You can read more about my education and my way of doing here: Here is more proof of the fact that i have invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/V9Go8fbF10k I will also write an efficient book about how to become successful, since i have many interesting new ideas in my mind and i will organize them efficiently, and of course i will sell the book, and i will also write a book about my kind of philosophy and i will organize it efficiently and i will sell it. Read my following thoughts to understand more about my personality: I have just bought a powerful computer with 32 cores, and now i will start to test with it my inventions of scalable algorithms and i will start to test my powerful compression library and my inventions of powerful software tools for multicores processors etc., i think i will be successful, since here is what i am doing: I am alone constructing my "big" business by inventing scalable algorithm and algorithms and by inventing powerful software tools for multicores computers and by writing some important books in computer programming and i will use exponential thinking and exponential growth of capitalism so that to sell them and become powerful and rich, and as soon as i will become rich i will also help the poor and needy people with my money, since being charity with the poor and needy people is an important thing for me. So i think my plan will be successful, and i think that having a good plan is really important, and talking about the plan here is what i have also said about Love: More of my philosophy about Love and about my poetry of Love... Now you have to understand me, you are seeing me writing my poems of Love, but you have to understand my personality, so i will ask again the question of: What is Love? You have to understand, if i say: I love you very much. So as you are noticing that this sentence is expressing Love, but this sentence follows an organized "plan" , and it is that this sentence is organized correctly so that the others understand the sentence, so i think that so that to express love this needs to be "organized" correctly, so then i think that so that to be Love that is not handicaped, it needs smartness and it needs from us to be organized correctly and it needs from us to organize Love correctly. More philosophy about my poetry of Love.. You have to notice that my poetry of Love are like "management", because i am thinking them fast and writing them fast, so i have to give them a more beautiful rhythm and i have to manage them so that they look more beautiful, and i think that this needs a good emotional intelligence and social intelligence too, so now more philosophy on emotional intelligence and social intelligence (or interpersonal intelligence): Now I'm going to ask a smart question and it is the following: What is emotional intelligence and social intelligence (or interpersonal intelligence)? I answer this: When I give you 5 words which are the following: love, very, much, I, you So notice that for intelligence you need a plan to compose the following sentence from the above words: "I love you very much" So the intelligence of emotional intelligence and social intelligence is also "like" "management", since they make it possible to organize it and to make it order that is I believe the most "important" part of management, but to make it order or to organize it needs a "plan", but the plan to follow in order to be order (order in general or order in love to be able to to be love) is also intelligence including emotional intelligence and social intelligence, So emotional intelligence and social intelligence are also a plan that organize it or make it order, since they organize or regulate our behaviors so that to be order, and order is so important to achieve the necessary perfection. More philosophy on love. You have noticed that I am a white Arab, and you have also noticed that I have written several poems of Love in front of you, but now I am going to like to ask a smart question: What is love ? I think that expressing love is an intelligence like an emotional intelligence and social intelligence (or interpersonal intelligence) that I believe is so "important", because I believe that love is also emotional intelligence and social intelligence which organize or manage or regulate our behaviors so that to be order, and order is so important to achieve the necessary perfection. More of my philosophy about are arabs ugly people.. I invite you to read the following article: Not everyone is beautiful https://theconversation.com/not-everyone-is-beautiful-35915 So as you notice from reading the above article that not everyone is beautiful, this is why i think that i am not ugly and arabs are not ugly, and i have just put my photo in my following webpage and notice in my photo that i am a white arab that is not ugly, and i look like a virile man since i am also an athletic man, my body is athletic and it is genetical in me and i am around 6 feet tall, look here to notice how i look like in my photo here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/jackson-network-problem And here is some of my poems of Love that i have thought and written fast: Comme vous savez je suis un arabe blanc, alors voici mon nouveau poème: "Je voudrais boire avec toi un si joli verre de thé": Je voudrais boire avec toi un si joli verre de thé Puisque mon joli amour pour toi n'est pas le simple jeu de dés Puisque c'est comme un beau soleil pour joliment irradier Je voudrais boire avec toi un si joli verre de thé Et je voudrais marcher avec toi au bord de la mer et l'eau salée Puisque mon joli amour est devant toi bien dévoilé ! Et puisque tu me vois venir à toi non pas pour contrarier Mais je viens en amour sous ce joli ciel étoilé pour bien t'aimer ! Je voudrais boire avec toi un si joli verre de thé Alors suis-je un Marocain ou un Canadien avec de jolis papiers? Comme tu vois je ne suis point l'homme endiablé ! Mais je suis bien le sage qui vient à toi en joli chevalier ! Merci, Amine Moulay Ramdane. --- Mon nom est Amine Moulay Ramdane, je suis un arabe blanc, et je vous invite aussi à lire mes poèmes qui suivent: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/8FNQn7C5H1g Here is my just new poem of Love called: "I think i need more of this Water Of Love !" I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I invite you to listen to the following song of Dire Straits called "Once Upon A Time In The West" reading at the same time my new poem of Love below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O78v_GhEtgk Here is my new poem of Love: I think i need more of this Water Of Love ! So play to me this lovely song of you Because it makes me feel you like a beautiful bijou I think i need more of this Water Of Love ! So play to me this lovely song of you Because i am night and day searching for you I think i need more of this Water Of Love ! So play to me this lovely song of you Since my Tattoo of Love is making it a beautiful news I think i need more of this Water Of Love ! So play to me this lovely song of you Since it is like a transfuse of Love of my beautiful views I think i need more of this Water Of Love ! So play to me this lovely song of you Since our Love is a beautiful ocean trip that we call a "cruise" I think i need more of this Water Of Love ! So play to me this lovely song of you Because i love to see you washing your hair with a beautiful shampoo I think i need more of this Water Of Love ! So play to me this lovely song of you Because it's my peace and love and not the fight of the Kung fu I think i need more of this Water Of Love ! So play to me this lovely song of you Because it's like my course of love coming from the universities of MIT and Waterloo ! Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. --- Here is my new poem of Love called: "I am like the peaceful waters that beautifully flow" I invite you to listen to the following song called "Rock Your Baby" reading at the same time my new poem of Love below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdo-ZiHqbls Here is my new poem of Love: I am like the peaceful waters that beautifully flow And as you notice that i have a little bit of a Marlon Brando ! I am like the peaceful waters that beautifully flow So is my Love for you like a pharaoh or like a Fidel Castro ? No, since my Love is like a mixture of the beautiful cacao and of a beautiful maestro ! And am i like the stupid macho or of an inferior porno ? No, since my Love for you is not a schizo but of the beautiful virtuoso ! I am like the peaceful waters that beautifully flow So does my Love for you needs special commondos ? No, since it is as i am playing Love like playing smartly at the Dominoes And it is as i am avoiding the risk and danger of a tobacco Since i need it Love like a beautiful song coming from the beautiful studio I am like the peaceful waters that beautifully flow So is my Love like talking to you from the beautiful Toronto? Of course! since i am talking to you from Canada and not from a guetto And my beautiful Love for you is like dancing on a beautiful Disco ! And i am the white arab coming from Morocco and not from Monaco And as you notice i am not a mafioso but i am Love like a beautiful Romeo And thus I am like the peaceful waters that beautifully flow ! Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. --- Here is my new poem of Love called: "I am offering you my beautiful heart with a so beautiful blues" I invite you to listen to the following beautiful music called "Mo' Better Blues" reading at the same time my new poem of Love below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1VREP-5Rg8 Note that "diffuse" means in my poem of Love below: to spread over a wide area or between a large number of people. Here is my new poem of Love: I am offering you my beautiful heart with a so beautiful blues Since you are the beautiful one that i want to forever choose I am offering you my beautiful heart with a so beautiful blues Since my Love for you is like a beautiful ocean trip that we call a "cruise" I am offering you my beautiful heart with a so beautiful blues Since our Love is like the so beautiful breakthroughs and not of the gurus I am offering you my beautiful heart with a so beautiful blues Since i am not of the Hebrews but my Love is wanting to beautifully diffuse I am offering you my beautiful heart with a so beautiful blues So as you notice i am not of the bamboos or of the kangaroos But my so beautiful Love is coming to you with the beautiful news ! I am offering you my beautiful heart with a so beautiful blues But my so beautiful Love for you is not of the taboos ! So is my beautiful Love needing anymore interviews ? No, since I am offering you my beautiful heart with a so beautiful blues ! Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. --- Here is my new poem of Love called: "I want to dance with you in this lovely night !" I invite you to listen to the following song of Gloria Gaynor called "Can't take my eyes off you" reading at the same time my new poem of Love below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT4GIljqr-A I want to dance with you in this lovely night ! Since our forever Love is like the so beautiful candlelight I want to dance with you in this lovely night ! Since our Love is of the beautiful and not the gunfight I want to dance with you in this lovely night ! Since our Love is like the beautiful words of an erudite I want to dance with you in this lovely night ! Since our beautiful Love is thus coming with a delight I want to dance with you in this lovely night ! Since our Love is knowing how to make a beautiful light I want to dance with you in this lovely night ! Since our Love is knowing how to beautifully invite I want to dance with you in this lovely night ! Since our Love is knowing how to be beautifully polite I want to dance with you in this lovely night ! And that's alright my baby, that's alright ! Since it is like a beautiful flight ! Since that's also the beautiful way to unite ! Since it is like the words of the almight ! Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. --- Here is new poem of Love called: "Look at the beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah" I invite you to listen to the following beautiful music of Strunz & Farah called "Rayo" reading at the same time my new poem of Love below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_veha2tq_I&list=RDC_veha2tq_I&start_radio=1 Here is my new poem of Love: Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah Is it the dogma or is it beautiful like a diva ? Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah And is it the Tibetan Buddhism of the Dalai Lama ? Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah And is it the not so smart communism of China ? Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah Is it the islamism of the Burka and of the Allah ? Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah Is it the not so smart national socialism of Algeria and Syria ? Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah Is it the philosophy of a Kant or Marx or a Spinoza ? Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah This beautiful music is as our so smart Love of an IQ of a Mensa ! Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah It is like my forever Love for you coming to you with a charisma Look at the beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah So am i the one coming from Jamaica or from Casablanca ? Look at this beautiful music called Rayo of Strunz & Farah And notice that our smart Love is like of the beautiful intelligentsia And our smart Love is not of the xenophobia or of a stupid Gorilla ! Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. --- Here is my new poem in french: Voici mon nouveau poème: Suis-je encore pour toi l'ancien ou l'inconnu ? Mais puisque avec ma "sagesse" tu m'as bien reconnu Suis-je encore pour toi l'ancien ou l'inconnu ? Mais comme tu me vois je suis en amour bien résolu Suis-je encore pour toi l'ancien ou l'inconnu ? Mais puisque l'amour a aussi besoin de prévention en plus-value Alors tu me vois te parler joliment et non pas en cocu Suis-je encore pour toi l'ancien ou l'inconnu ? Puisque même si la grosse machine du système est intervenue en farfelu J'ai bien combattu en jouant intelligemment comme à un jeu de Sudoku Suis-je encore pour toi l'ancien ou l'inconnu ? Mais qui crois-tu qui m'a joliment secouru ? Je crois que c'est mon joli amour qui m'a joliment promu Et puisque regarde que je ne suis point une tortue mais un si bien |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment