:) On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:39 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where did Poly ask for your judgement, orny baby? Has the mod god job gone > to your head the wrong way up? She asked for opinions. Mind the difference. > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:39 PM, ornamentalmind < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> “i guess ..i meant a secular rather than a religious or theological >> mode of >> understanding things...the world.... “ – PSK >> >> Well, that does point towards an area of your beliefs so thanks for >> this much. Perhaps you could be even more specific? >> >> As far as I’ve found out…reviewing human thought over the ages,… >> secular and religious views often are at the very least intertwined. >> >> On the other hand, perhaps you are being much more literal when you >> use the notion of “…mode of understanding things…”. If this is the >> case, a more specific unpacking of what the two apparently (to you) >> different modes would be of value, OK? >> >> I’ll suspend judgment until I hear more. >> >> >> On Mar 7, 3:01 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > i guess ..i meant a secular rather than a religious or theological mode >> of >> > understanding things...the world.... >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:21 PM, ornamentalmind >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > “…revolution in knowledge and philosophy…” – PSK ??? >> > >> > > To continue the discussion, one would need to know what you mean here. >> > > Would you unpack it a bit? >> > >> > > Before actually knowing what you mean, I see little if any >> > > ‘revolution’ in this context. Yes, there is a process of change in >> > > thought over the millennia yet such general ‘change’ doesn’t mean a >> > > progression towards a more accurate view. Case in point – you are >> > > apparently using the dialectical view of one view being in >> > > contradiction with another. While many do apprehend in this way, in no >> > > way is that an indicator of the accuracy of such a view. >> > >> > > As best as I can see, both can be known consubstantially. >> > >> > > On Mar 7, 2:25 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > I was thinking .... i agree with what yuo guys say ....could it also >> be >> > > the >> > > > revolution in knowledge and philosophy...when it was >> questioned....what >> > > > can an INdividual know.....it kind of pitts one against the whole in >> this >> > > > struggle to know...or salvation through knowledge...what say.... >> > >> > > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:01 PM, pol.science kid < >> [email protected] >> > > >wrote: >> > >> > > > > True we have come a long way..and the word has been taken for >> > > > > granted....but i would like an opinion of each one of you ...on >> the >> > > > > Sanctity of Freedom.... it is also my casual inference >> > > > > that....individuality ...the modern obsession with it....how come >> > > > > some primitive tribes...hold the community at a level above the >> > > > > individual....while it is not quite so in our 'modernised'...or >> rather >> > > > > westernised world.....are there concepts of radicalised >> individuality >> > > > > in the oriental philosophy..... need your opoinions fellows >> > >> > > > -- >> > > > \--/ Peace >> > >> > -- >> > \--/ Peace >> > > > > -- \--/ Peace
