Not sure of what you mean. Do you want e-books to be controlled in content? Take history, for a long time it was written by the winners/ colonists, etc. until the "losers" started publishing their stories/ recollections. A good example is "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". There are countless books/ personal confessionals (St. Augustine, Newman, C.S. Lewis, etc.) that have inspired others- perhaps readied them for a personal journey of their own. The "enlightenment" is not always religious/spiritual- there are the arts of man/women which also inspire an individual/society. There is also propaganda and deceit as a path to power.
On Jul 25, 11:13 am, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > LOL. Yeah I am still here, > Enlightenment is a fascinating subject, to me it always will be an > experience(s) yet there are may book thumpers thumpers can sight article and > books many volumes justifying what they have to say. When you get discussing > enlightenment you begin discussing personal experience not that of others. > Putting it simply in my opinion your personal experiences will stand on their > own .. > Allan > > On 25 jul. 2011, at 16:30, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with your > > critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive :) > > > Nice pirouette with "optimism" :) > > > You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the one > > "heretic" here already...alan? :) > > > Thanks for the insights. > > > On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist per > >> se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially > >> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect > >> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if we're > >> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be depressing > >> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to > >> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in better > >> times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as > >> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, doing > >> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and > >> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have developed > >> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture > >> with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like > >> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and others > >> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative > >> action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with choice at > >> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton > >> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard > >> enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be more > >> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along with > >> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others are. > > >> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :) > > >>> You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really ought to > >>> get out more :) > > >>> Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though i > >>> suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a > >>> misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the rationality; > >>> in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and > >>> "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix the > >>> "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite > >>> asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in not > >>> one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be > >>> demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument drifts > >>> closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; which > >>> certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable. > > >>> You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound very > >>> optimistic, archytas :) > > >>> On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I see it > >>>> fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by > >>>> others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected with > >>>> more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't make > >>>> me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides as > >>>> hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister was as > >>>> good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. Of > >>>> course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to work. > >>>> I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend to much > >>>> time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner reliance' in > >>>> any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching my old > >>>> team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan have > >>>> been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality makes > >>>> it possible for games like this to take place, even if one side > >>>> appears so much better than the other. We are not all born with equal > >>>> abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of equality that > >>>> interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality involved > >>>> that does. > >>>> That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses we > >>>> generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the stuff we > >>>> come out with trying to explain this is dire. In epistemology > >>>> (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't achieve > >>>> some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't know > >>>> you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with structured > >>>> realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I can tell > >>>> whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this sadly is > >>>> not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long history > >>>> of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and glow, but > >>>> I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. Neither > >>>> matter in a larger sense of things. Equality doesn't collapse on the > >>>> obvious issue that we are not all equal if that equality is built-into > >>>> the public domain (it is increasingly obvious this isn't the case > >>>> because of the operation of wealth in law and education). I'm a > >>>> rational optimist in that this is not the best of all possible worlds > >>>> and we can do better. I suspect the fix for modern narcissism is not > >>>> under the bandages of the Old One and that doing our best for each > >>>> other is a matter even more 'blindingly obvious'. > > >>>> Direct apprehension? Hmm... wobbly jelly, experienced through > >>>> asbestos gloves. Local? We don't even know what end of the > >>>> holographic projection we may be at. A very small number of > >>>> "financial geniuses" have convinced people of magic in much the same > >>>> way as any of this, Argument hardly settled anything as it quickly > >>>> becomes obvious you can make argument do almost anything. There are > >>>> thus hundreds of states postulated one must achieve to be superior to > >>>> argument that fails. Such states are inexplicable or can't be > >>>> demonstrated. It might be enlightened to work out how these tricks > >>>> work on people. Given the massive levels of illiteracy and innumeracy > >>>> there's an obvious start. These are not enlightened practices but > >>>> rather dark arts. This said, the story of Relativity takes us from > >>>> pollen seeds in water, weird fascination with magnets and maths that > >>>> doesn't assume 3 dimensions in space, but does give light a constant > >>>> speed in vacuum. \this is a much magic to most people as the entirely > >>>> stupid application of clever maths to Ponzi schemes that allow > >>>> governments and bankers to steal our wages. Enlightenment may just > >>>> come as people find what's on offer too boring and work out we could > >>>> put work in towards something else. We may not see it coming at all. > >>>> For we are collectively stupid enough to believe the next guy who > >>>> reports the 'secrets' under the bandages. > > >>>> On Jul 23, 12:13 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM. > > >>>>> By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that > >>>>> "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and > >>>>> time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not > >>>>> autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our > >>>>> neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the > >>>>> contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being > >>>>> isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest > >>>>> some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic > >>>>> view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global > >>>>> "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive > >>>>> the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You > >>>>> see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to > >>>>> the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit > >>>>> comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think? > > >>>>> On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> How?...if so, by direct apprehension. > >>>>>> Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality > > >>>>>> On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the > >>>>>>> "more" comes from? > > >>>>>>> On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification. > > >>>>>>>> Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the > >>>>>>>> ‘more’ > >>>>>>>> can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don’t embrace (yet do > >>>>>>>> recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… so > >>>>>>>> this may not fit within your personal context as an answer. > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can > >>>>>>>>> "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements of the > >>>>>>>>> autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but i'm > >>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>> the same page as Molly > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
