Do you mean eternal? I was browsing "Eros and Civilization" by Marcuse yesterday. Seems to me the Old One is a victor of a Freudian conflict fought by early mankind. Anti-Semitism can be thought of as hatred for the repression imposed by Christianity and Islam.
On Jul 27, 5:28 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
