There is something you did say that I agree upon there is too much of the love of war+ more so than to hate it..And the rest of it is somewhat depressing..Here is a upbeat note I wonder if man could handle earth and another planet? uhmmm
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, the glory of war, that strikes me as more the love of war than > the hate of it, the wanting of war and the never ending examination of > politics that create the necessity of war with all its > justifications. Much has been gained through violence in material > terms and huge land grabs sometimes continental. I imagine that once > we successfully navigate outer space there will be planetary land > grabs. Earth will become a useless wasteland by then ie; once we have > established suitable living conditions elsewhere. This place will > most likely become a dump for toxic waste and the rancid deep fryer > oil from all the McDonald's burger joints on planets x y z. Good luck > with your Einstein book! > > On Dec 9, 1:38 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well put and concise Slip. Beyond this god stuff, our society is > > littered with violent images and the glory of war. Much as I like > > Dirty Harry, I think we need some form of 'Dirty Harry by peaceful > > means'. Politeness is a good thing as are manners, yet they also > > prevent much that needs to be said and argued out. Religion seems to > > have a major role in this. I'm currently trying to write a book on > > Einstein and even in an area like this passions run high. Even in an > > area like this one finds entrenched views (including, hopefully one's > > own) and interest groups that want only material that confirms their > > positions. When it comes to religion it seems impossible to try > > anything without hearing the noises of instruments of torture being > > honed. Einstein (or rather scientific development based around his > > work) interests me in that he produced something new that becomes > > essentially revolutionary through a mastery of classical tradition and > > re-articulation of it. I see some connection between this and what we > > need socially. > > Einstein (IMV) took a very empirical step in assuming experimental > > results were right (if approximate) and hence radical changes in > > theory were needed. I think we can see something equivalent in > > politics-religion-society, or at least could if we could base our > > thinking on facts from reliable history. Tyke may well be onto one > > with the religion as faith in violence assertion. We need some new > > ability to 'get empirical' in the social arena. I see this as far > > more difficult than the fantastic voyage Einstein and others launched > > us on. My rather crass current thinking is that Einstein has facts to > > work with. When we try this in the social arena we only have > > bullshit. > > > > On 8 Dec, 19:56, dj Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I do not like war and it would be nice if terroist and other unlikely > > > charcters exist-which cause such things. It is not just Faith and > religion > > > causes this (no doubt it exist also in great amounts)and to torture in > war > > > most of us agree it is unhuman..I find that science existed also in the > > > early days. There has been alot of so called conquerers over time..Such > as > > > Roman and Alexander and many more to conquerer and claim and rule. In > > > another light as we know we have talked about this before. Outside of > God > > > or claiming God there has been wars of all kinds and some was to be > able to > > > hold their kind. I we convert over to totally sceince and as they say > no > > > Gods, no masters would it be less violence? And would some die out and > those > > > realms would totally not exist or their people? > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Welcome tyke. Faith and Violence do exist as bedfellows and they > have > > > > for thousands of years. We might note the absence of science in > early > > > > religious days and how biblical reference to violence may in fact > > > > contribute largely to the concept that through violent acts victory > > > > will be achieved and favor will be found with God. I'm sure the > church > > > > thought they were doing the right thing to Galileo. The controversy > > > > is that while God is presented as loving and as having omniscient > > > > characteristics there are numerous accounts where violence is either > > > > committed or ordered by God. "The belief in a cruel God makes a > cruel > > > > man", Thomas Paine. God's violence is the basis for many of the > > > > teachings in the bible and therefore his followers would also find > > > > justification in the torment and killing of an enemy. God commits > war > > > > time atrocities, the annihilation of entire cities, men, women, > > > > children and animals. God ordered the torturous death of his own > > > > son. God further issues dictates of pestilence, famine, fire and > > > > brimstone to name a few. This is all in the past of course but what > > > > about the future. The bible says that when Jesus returns he is going > > > > to send us sinners into the abyss of fiery damnation to be eternally > > > > tormented. See you in hell, friends, lol. So I guess God's violent > > > > tendencies are not yet over. Considering that God's solutions to > > > > humanities problems are of a violence nature it is easily perceived > > > > that humanity's solution to problems has always been through the use > > > > of violence and it still is. George Bush claimed that God wanted him > > > > to become President and then ordered the bombing of Iraq, resulting > in > > > > the deaths of thousands of innocents. I find, generally speaking, > > > > that religious people are perceived to be kind gentle souls living in > > > > the light and love of the Lord, but just don't piss them off or you > > > > might find yourself under the knife. Truth is that many wars and > > > > atrocities have a underlying religious theme, someone say Jihad?, the > > > > permissible killing of people under the Muslim faith. Well the list > > > > goes on and the examples are too numerous to cite, but we get the > gist > > > > of what is going on with violence in the world. I think the bibles > > > > are not any word of God but simply a convenient manual for humanity > to > > > > justify its warped sense of getting along. Personally I don't buy > > > > into any of it and strive towards a melioristic approach to a > peaceful > > > > environment. Violence is simply a byproduct of judgment which many > > > > times is related to religious retribution. > > > > > > On Dec 8, 1:09 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We have pondered a lot on this in here Tyke. Not sure I should be > in > > > > > so much agreement with someone with a handle suggesting Yorkshire, > > > > > having commitments this side of the Pennines myself! But I agree > > > > > entirely, not least because we seem to need more than 'rationalism' > to > > > > > solve basic problems of getting along. Our increasing > connectedness > > > > > takes many forms, involving floods because trees have been hacked > down > > > > > (a theme in terms of water rights of many old Westerns) and buying > > > > > products from sweat-shops (etc.). In other terms, despite so far > the > > > > > Internet, we remain divided and ruled. > > > > > There is much violence and violent competition in nature and also > much > > > > > cooperation in it. Religion appears easy to use to motivate > violence > > > > > and this scares me, along with seemingly inevitable problems with > > > > > faith being so irrational and incapable of accepting facts at the > > > > > expense of retaining dogmas. One thing I believe bolsters this is > the > > > > > insistence of science as a rational activity and worse politics as > > > > > one. I working on a chapter about Einstein working on relativity > at > > > > > the moment. The relativity principle was already 'old hat' as he > came > > > > > to it rather than something he dreamed up, and there's a key point > at > > > > > which he realises a need to re-invent the underlying kinematics of > > > > > physics to incorporate the relativity principle and consolidate it > in > > > > > electromagnetics. You use a great phrase above 'as it appears is > the > > > > > problem of a whole social structure or social sin which is > outwardly > > > > > ordered and inwardly ridden by psychopathic obsessions and > > > > > delusions'. This resonates in metaphor with a choice he had to > make > > > > > in reconciling Maxwell's work with the relativity principle. Most > > > > > were taking the route that one had to take one or the other. He > made > > > > > the choice to try to reconcile them - broadly succeeding. > > > > > What has to be said here, is that it is easier to stick with the > > > > > science, at least for me. I find the world outside this > insufferably > > > > > irrational and nasty, very much as in your rather Freudian phrase. > > > > > Most people don't do science and though I believe many more could > if > > > > > we didn't mystify it so much, for most it has to be taken on faith, > > > > > through demonstration of its products and so on. Given the > > > > > difficulties involved, it is hardly surprising that people default > to > > > > > stuff they think they can understand like religion and tradition. > > > > > Even as we might debate this, the majority either have no access to > > > > > the debate or no care for it. Sooner or later, in our democracy, > we > > > > > come back to them for a vote. This is not what we would do to > decide > > > > > whether I'm right on Einstein or in developing what is now his > > > > > established theory - we restrict this to elite, esoteric groups. > > > > > > > Science tends to predicate understandings of religion in > neuroscience > > > > > (there is a 'godspot') and such stuff as in-groups and out-groups. > > > > > Even amongst animals we find violence. Human history is full of > > > > > examples of the violence between in and out, and religion is a > general > > > > > presence. The idea of religion as basically mythical and about > social > > > > > control is old. We probably need to reflect more than we do on > > > > > science as social control (there is plenty of academic work - > Foucault > > > > > was a recent favourite). I suspect we tend to see it as producing > > > > > results anyone should understand - a very faulty perspective. Much > of > > > > > what happens socially is based on ignorance, something none of us > can > > > > > do more than claim to be free of, a claim that turns us into liars > as > > > > > we make it. I tend to see the answers in public scrutiny, but our > > > > > understanding of this is currently a can of worms - we elevate it > to > > > > > an ideal forgetting how easy it is to corrupt. Religion too might > be > > > > > a way out, yet again is easy to corrupt. Developing personal > > > > > integrity and virtue is another, again easy to claim whilst using > the > > > > > claim to manipulate others (our idiot political model - perhaps > > > > > derived from religion?). > > > > > > > There has been much work on a model that the correct position to > take > > > > > is the depressive position - pragmatic and seeking only normal > > > > > unhappiness. This is contrasted with the > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en.
