On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The word "must" implies forcible persuasion.


But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net]>
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

    ----- Receiving the following content -----
    *From:* Stephen P. King <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2013-01-06, 14:08:54
    *Subject:* Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is
    Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.

    On 1/6/2013 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
    > Hi Alberto G. Corona
    > Sounds like fascism to me.

         How so?

    > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net
    > 1/6/2013
    > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
    > ----- Receiving the following content -----
    > From: Alberto G. Corona
    > Receiver: everything-list
    > Time: 2013-01-06, 06:56:37
    > Subject: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is
    Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so.
    > A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social
    consequiences. When I say "A". I don? only say "A is true". I say
    also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set
    of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it,
    you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior
    status than you, the reluctant.
    > As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root
    in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is
    associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of
    ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the
    asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep,
    much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a
    secondary question. ?he creatie, syncere founders are substituted
    by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio.
    > This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards
    the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX
    century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the
    minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying
    free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews
    are ?n many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality
    controls. ?
    > As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a
    separation of State and science as much as was necessary a
    separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique
    church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science
    dominated by the state is a danger for any science.
    > The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical
    consequence of ?he a philosophical stance of protestantism: the
    Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and
    separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the
    knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek
    philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms.
    Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason,
    like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what
    makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a
    matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the
    biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela
    progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a
    nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of
    USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith.
    > ?he other cause were the wars of religion among christian
    denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between
    church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to
    religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was
    admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of
    political religion. This political religion was teist at the
    beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist,
    following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the
    progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence
    of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform
    gave birth).
    > In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country
    history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable
    logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual
    european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming
    inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is,
    the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious
    wars of the XVI century.
    > In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the
    transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the
    divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy
    of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the
    nation-state is inserted in this divine plan.
    > When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among
    them, the ?tate took over Science to legitimate itself, because
    the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor
    his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a
    materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from
    any heterodoxy.?
    > So there is the current science, an image of the state political
    religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to