On 24 May, 17:31, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Alright Pat, continuing to ‘uplevel’ the conversation, I’ll say that I > agree that in more ultimate terms it has to do with ‘view’. As to your > most likely rhetorical questions…such things are innate. Yet, I’ll > post something about ethics in a different thread today too. > > However, returning to the level of your previous post, when you ask “… > what are the options?”, on an everyday relative and practical level, I > repeat my observation…the way change (assuming the more common > cyclical form of change) occurs is most often through revolution in > the most common parlance of the term. > > And if a book is used to this end, examples include the Qur’an, The > Bible, Mao’s Little Red Book, Tao Te Ching etc. And, while a bit more > integration of science and theology is appropriate and necessary for > today, my bet is that other books to that end will be more effective. >
Well, it's not just science and theology that I integrate, but also lay down rational philosophy and ethics that can be drawn from that integration. And, God willing, it will be effective for the betterment of humankind before our time runs out. Space-time is expanding faster, that does NOT bode well for a long and happy future. > On May 24, 4:17 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 21 May, 21:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Pat, you appear to reject out of hand the seemingly rhetorical > > > questions you opened this post with. Since we know that most > > > revolutionary change takes just that way…I find that the ‘problem’ > > > lies at the feet of those who won’t accept let alone discuss the > > > obvious. And all too often the obvious is the banality of > > > evil.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns > > > Ahh, but when does a necessary evil become banal or a banal evil, > > necessary? I still say the best way to change society (alluded to in > > my original statement) is to change the way people VIEW their role IN > > society and, to change the way society views the role of the > > individual. These are revolutionary changes that can take place > > peacefully (with any luck) inside peoples' minds and to spur THAT is > > one of the purposes for my book. I'm no Little Eichmann, but my plan > > may take a while to materialise. > > > > On May 21, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 21 May, 11:06, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The UK now has coalition government - we might call it ConDem(n), One > > > > > wants to see some kind of success, beyond the honeymoon period, > > > > > Currently, it's a relief not to have Nulabour (possibly a place near > > > > > Ulan Bator) drones churning out denials under phoney positive spin. > > > > > Nulabour had become functionally Stalinist without the blood-lust. We > > > > > will no doubt discover they have fiddled the books, though the extent > > > > > of this may never be known despite bringing in independent audit. My > > > > > own belief is that it may be so bad we should have joined the Euro so > > > > > we could ask the kindly Germans to bail us out. > > > > > > Currently, we are being promised a referendum on proportional > > > > > representation - this should happen next year, not become subject to > > > > > delay. > > > > > A tough budget is coming soon. I would prefer Angela Merkel did this > > > > > and put in some bwanker-screwing. It would be good if this wasn't a > > > > > typical 'new CEO' blaming the old regime thing. > > > > > Utter crud like police targets are being scrapped, but we have no plan > > > > > to really make things better. > > > > > > After this stuff, which looks like typical flim-flam, I have heard > > > > > nothing about how we will change practice. In the background, our > > > > > Parliament is still full of vested interest, public school products > > > > > and the same old, same old. More people voted against the Speaker > > > > > than for him in the public vote, yet MPs elected him unopposed. Some > > > > > expense scandal creep has been re-elected because we were not told of > > > > > his impending arrest. All the arguments remain at bulldung- > > > > > undergraduate levels, and no one is really engaging public debate. > > > > > > How long before this lot become as vile as the Tories after 18 years > > > > > and Nulabour after 13? Both these governments turned the instruments > > > > > of power against the people through performance management and > > > > > spin,and the leaders all played this childish game to the hilt. How > > > > > long before this lot start denying reality and play games through > > > > > lying statistics, the legal and media systems and blaming the last > > > > > administration? How long before we (as the Big Society) get blamed? > > > > > We ARE to blame insofar as we elected the people who govern us. But > > > > what are the options? Civil War? Revolution? Gunpowder Plots? It > > > > seems to me that the problem lies in the fact that only arseholes run > > > > for election, so why be so surprised when arseholes get elected. Real > > > > reformation will not occur as long as 'people with much to lose' are > > > > in the position to lose that which they must in order for the > > > > reformation to be effective. Until you have decent people in power, > > > > you can expect institutionalised indecency. But 'decent people' > > > > aren't running for election; or, if they are, they don't have the > > > > money/backing to get enough publicity to get elected. Money talks a > > > > lot louder than ethics. Change THAT fact and you can begin to hope.- > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
