Yeah Archytas, i admire the will to win in rugby but i always felt that i might all too easily lose sight of the "finish line", with all that naked physical aggression.
I hear your distrust of "authority" in science; but i'd rather have that professional hazard than not, i think; you see, when you're held to account for your work, with a lifetime of credibility on the line, you better understand your margin of error; which is good news for us consumers, i guess. On Jul 28, 12:55 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I played both Para. Still have the odd 20 over swipe at cricket. I > played rugby before it got to be so much of a war of attrition. The > toughest physical aspect was often resisting cold rain and wind. > My guess on science for many years has been that people doing it have > abilities in observation, patience, language and maths others lack. > Words and concepts don't work well with most, just habit. Something > else is at work but we don't seem to have contact with it. Beyond > that I don't know but suspect 'knowing stuff certainly" is a major way > through which many are convinced by people hooked on being credible > and convincing. > > On Jul 27, 4:42 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I thought that Relativity was pretty revolutionary, actually; less > > "fundamental" than perhaps String Theory, but frame shifting for sure. > > > So, you're a rugby man, eh? I'm more cricketer myself; all that > > physical contact would have strained my control beyond breaking > > point :) > > > Btw, your ballet's not at all lacking :) > > > On Jul 26, 5:35 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
