On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC+1, Alberto G.Corona wrote: > > Lol. There is no way to avoid the absolute since nothing can be based on > nothing,. > > In this case you reify nothing, which is purely negative, as absence of > anything,, and convert it to "something". And this something that you > implicitly postulate is an absolute ethical principle of humility, which > becomes your highest value with which measure everyone else so it becomes a > criteria for absolute ranking. > > It is obvious that this humility is not humble although it is not arrogant > of course. >
I'd disagree and call it the arrogance of cowardice. But on the ranking idea, i.e. weaponizing ignorance as a rhetorical strategy to enforce the semblance of absolute ranking, you're correct. Telmo has completely adopted Bruno's resignation towards the scientific world, which you can see in the paper he posted. On one level this place is all talk, but some folks run into danger of believing it and taking it literally, even to the extent that they advocate things purely because of Bruno's compulsive posting without even reading the papers and work he refers to and making up their own minds. Scientific discussion on this list? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it does stink of the same unreflected, uncritical faith in the guru, that Bruno warns about constantly. > That kind of humility can be summarized in this phrase refering to false > humble christians: "The progressive Christian know that he is better than > others because he believe that he is not better than others". > > Why we do not admit that everyone need to feel in a better path than > others? I do. I'ts human.It is the reason why We do things. If not, we > would be completely redundant. > I made the point that there is some liberty for a mystic to self-indulge in face of the local modesty inquisition of our zealous agnostics of the last weeks. But not so much that you write novels to reply to every post. That's defensive, as if a thousand explanations hold the castle of obfuscation together. US President uses the same rhetorical strategy: exhaust people by forcing discourse on them and relying on their faithfulness to check facts in discussions he frames, instead of acting in accordance with their personal identity. > > Concerning the adequacy of the agnostic stanpoint for acquiring knowledge > and, in general, for life, I have to say that it is not very good. At least > the atheists have firm beliefs, which are a ground upon which they develop > a program for action (with disastrous consequences, by the way) But in the > meantime they have been very active in achieving things. At least in the > euphoric phase of his bipolar syndrome. But agnostics have no plan, so, as > Aristotle said, reason without passion does move nothing, so agnostics... > are moved to very few achievements, they follow with mild critics and > disdain what is dominant. > Sure, and I'll add the move of them selling the lack of achievement or dreams/goals as the virtue of laziness. But this form of laziness is not the kind of laziness of a beautiful proof or musical line: it is the laziness of a coward who is wrong/naive in terms of interpersonal violence: always walking away from confrontation is not a virtue, as little as always engaging it is. There are points where politicians, managers, conflict mediators of all kinds recognize that they have to assert force to stop a trigger from being pulled, a larger harm from manifesting itself when harm was already done. Unchecked violence is often worse than the original grievance finding singular expression, as it will multiply the violence. Shit exponentializes shit, and the agnostic running away lets the very animal fear dictate their action that they condemn. Particularly where engagement is low risk, e.g. no guns or deadly force involved as in more acute conflict situations on the streets or in war zones. That's where such ignorance based ontologies fall short: not because of some obvious reasoning error, but because at certain times, force can be used to trade a smaller harm for the devastating kinds of larger harms. It is related to the kind of force required to negate pride, but agnostics are as proud of their wisdom/name/rank as anybody. And since computers' command of language is becoming more effective, studying violence/power and say successful linguistic mediation and intervention is another fascinating, inspiring aspect of psychology that would fit AI discussions on this list. And I don't care if the machines are made in Platonia or by Intel, but there is more advanced theology and the struggle with the problem of evil, and its study, advancing on our streets and war zones, than in hair split central of the internet that loses itself in low risk pettiness and infinite advertising of infinite insecurity, the false petty battles suck in our time to dream and search... to which this list has become less and less immune over the last year, which is why I remain less interested in it and why I tend to refrain from getting into discussions with more involvement or regularity. The internet isn't real. PGC > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
