The Old One is perennial.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:05 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The point, Para, is not that Einstein is bull, but that interpreting > Relativity as 'new physics' always was. I did my dancing on the rugby > field so you can expect my ballet to be clumsy! Chemistry is more my > line, but Ludwig and Snell satisfy me that the 'paradigm' stuff is > wonky. I suspect we are collectively very dumb as an alternative to > enlightenment concepts - most people don't learn much. Thus they > remain prey to the Old One. Indeed, it's the propaganda of the Old > One that prevents enlightened society, aimed as it is at the dumb. I > believe this may be what leaves us with only the worst of democracy. > There has been no enlightenment,only some space developed away from > the old Idols. > > On Jul 26, 1:01 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> ... >> >> read more »
