“…I might get to believe in politics if we find a way to redistribute the Haitians, establish decent homes, services and productive jobs…” – archy
The history that ‘we’ know for Haiti is long and quite active. It is peppered with countless invasions. Slavery was outlawed long before it was in the USA. Independence was proclaimed countless times with grave results for whoever decided to rule. Even the most recent coup is listed as a ‘resignation from office by Aristide’ even though it is well known and documented (including live recorded conversations) that yet again the US intervened capturing him and against his will driving him to an airplane telling him that he would be killed if he didn’t sign a letter of resignation before flying him out of the country. And, this is but one of the ‘facts of history’ that will not be taught. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Haitian_history As far as I see it, I would ‘believe in politics’ if ‘we’ (USA government and the rest) would merely do no harm and leave all peoples alone long enough for them to somehow determine the ongoing fate of their countries. The list of events one can find at the above link are as telling as any ideological proclamation. On Jan 13, 4:55 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I made a pact with the devil myself GW, but he didn't show. I have > generally found him as unreliable as God. I might get to believe in > politics if we find a way to redistribute the Haitians, establish > decent homes, services and productive jobs. I might even support Pat > Robertson if he could do that. > > On 14 Jan, 00:01, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Isn't it refreshing to know there are people like Pat Robertson who is > > convinced that he is able to scientifically account for catastrophic > > occurrences such as the Haitian disaster. He understands that 200 years ago > > Haity (I guess he means every Hatian) made a pact with the devil. And now > > 200 years ago they are getting their due. Now how come I couldn't have > > figured that out for myself.; It is so obvious and neat and clean. If only > > we had more thinkers lie him. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: archytas <[email protected]> > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 6:31 pm > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: science > > > The sum of energy in the universe is often considered as zero. > > Science is clearly not just about answers. Most of us would say it is > > about asking questions that can be resolved by observation and > > experiment, one reason string theories may not qualify as physics > > (yet). > > Problems in social science often arise because we are dealing with > > interpretations rather than 'nature' (though science accepts > > observations are theory laden and hence our views on what nature > > 'is'). Hence 'hermeneutics', though I feel these are unreliable > > rather than 'guaranteeing truth' in Gadamer's dogma. > > At some point in any enquiry we are likely to be in a creative > > thinking phase in an imagination in which anything goes if we can > > think it up. This is needed to break up dogma, even if we end up > > putting it together again, perhaps with a better idea of how it works. > > The 'observation states' of observers are often excluded from > > consideration, generally a mistake across all the disciplines. > > There is still a prevalent notion that one can somehow achieve an > > objective state of observation and thinking. On analysis, this turns > > out to have a great deal to do with manners and connected social > > dogmas. General argumentation contains many rhetorical tricks and > > plays with words, often to conceal lying and ignorance and present an > > objective voice that is nothing of the kind and actually appeals to > > ignorance and soaked-up tradition. > > Science tries to makes its assumptions patent. Often we get very > > precise, as in our understanding of CO2 absorption of long-wave > > energies and subsequent photon-puking; but to pretend this in global > > warming models (the precision) is not science. Lay people get into a > > real mess on this point. > > We can only be agnostic about god in thought. This very agnosticism > > is probably at the root of scientific consideration of theory and > > evidence - the trend is towards consideration of theories as under- > > determined by evidence, and evidence as more worthy of epistemic faith > > than theory at any time we know of (yet). > > None of this rules out consideration of religion. I broadly consider > > most of it a mess of lies, but this does not stop me admiring someone > > who has found peace and wishes to share that peace (as long as this > > doesn't involve daft gestures of walking towards hostile aliens, bible > > aloft - though they might be a useful, heroic diversion). > > > On 13 Jan, 17:15, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 13 Jan, 15:58, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 13 Jan., 12:21, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Kant? Wasn't he 'the pissant who was very rarely stable'? > > > > > "A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed ..." :-) > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc > > > > Absotively, Posilutely!! > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- 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.
