We have probably exchanged words like these before Georges. There is poetry in them, one way or another. You do rather bash about sometimes old chap - doesn't affect me much as I had my head bashed in playing rugby league and know the ultimate criticism of being shot at. Never quite sure how any of this bait gets laid or taken. Paradox does come along from time to time and seemingly unravel what we have knotted up. Whatever I may think of some of the content in here (and elsewhere), I am always more impressed with the tryers who are wrong than the sons and daughters of the idle rich who do no more than learn manners and how to download essays in place of thinking. You are often more intelligible in rather caustic form than in your essays in quasi-dead-pan. Morgenstern used to lash out at others as non-scientific, much (though without the wit) as Kiekegaard lashed the Xtians for not being Xtian enough. Some dreadful Islamicists took this to the extreme of being able to kill everyone else as non-Muslim as only they were pure (we'd be laughing if Uncle Rhemus was telling this tale of a Holy Brer Rabbit). One place I'm teaching this year sets out all the essay questions in the student handbook at the beginning of the year. I have found adequate answers for about £29 on the Net. I could probably do the work to qualify on all its humanties and social science programmes in around two weeks - what a way to become a polymath at last! Instead, I have told them to find someone else. I like to think I will listen to anyone, even the mad and to some extent I do. Somewhere one has to draw lines. Teaching fuckwits to get away with being fuckwits is a fuck too far. Not sure what I mean in any of this - just dredgings from the ocean.
On 4 Sep, 09:21, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Georges, the Pope extrudes similar dogmatic nonsense believed by many. > Mystery from Mystae, mystics etc meaning as peerers into mystery, as hidden > from the senses, is > where and how it all started. There's more to reality than meets the eye. If > so why does > science peer into unknowns? > > etymol> mystic (adj.) Look up mystic at Dictionary.com > 1382, "spiritually allegorical, pertaining to mysteries of faith," from > O.Fr. mistique, > from L. mysticus, from Gk. mystikos "secret, mystic," from mystes "one who > has been initiated" > (see mystery (1)). Meaning "pertaining to occult practices or ancient > religions" first recorded > 1615. The noun meaning "exponent of mystical theology" is from 1679, from the > adjective. The > place name in Connecticut is deformed from Algonquian missituk "great tidal > river," from missi > "large" + -tuk "tidal river." Mysticism coined 1736. > > We most definitely lack a scientific worldview. I rather doubt whether one is > possible, but I'm > willing and happy to be shown wrong. > > How many visitors do you actually get to your site< georges, tell me, eh? > Georges will have to > find himself, Nobody can do that for you. > > adrian > > > > Georges Metanomski wrote: > > > --- On Thu, 9/4/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... > > We lack a scientific world-view (Kuhn was miles off > >> the mark) > >> that accepts mystery (Penrose's Shadows of Mind does > >> but fails) and > >> the way in which much 'physical' and > >> 'spiritual' (at least non- > >> material) can influence rigourous explanation and > >> mathematics. > > ============== > > Whatever you mean by "(non-)material" you certainly have > > my RELATIVISTIC_PHENOMENOLOGY in > >http://findgeorges.com/ > > which postulates > > -that science does not explain mysterious events, but > > only coordinates them, > > -that no matter how rigorously coordinated, the mystery > > of events stays untouched, > > -that this mystery is open to meditation, but not to > > reflexion, > > -that this mystery is right at hand, directly given, > > inseparable from our self, constituting its very fabric, > > -that it's not the mystery that's mysterious, but the > > inexplicable possibility of its abstract coordination, > > -that it's asinine to look for the mystery by idiotic > > contortions of the abstract, like in the Copenhagen > > Interpretation. > > > It all boils down to my "credo" stemming from Newton's > > allegory: > > > Newton compared a scientist to a child playing with shells > > on the ocean shore. > > -Shells represent concepts and theories. > > -Ocean represents the unknown Marvelous wherefrom the > > Shells had emerged and new ones will turn up. > > > It is absurd to restrict, in keeping with pseudo-science, > > the Universe to a few Shells and to deny the Ocean. > > > But it is equally absurd to infer, in keeping with > > religions and dogmatic pseudo-science, > > the details of the Marvelous, to shut It in a Shell and > > to dissect It as if It were an oyster. > > > Georges. > > ==============- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
