I guess this means you won't respond to my questions PSK, right?
On Mar 7, 4:17 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > :) > > > > > > > > > > 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
