Lol. Yeah, i've seen some innovation in rugby, for sure. Well, cricket is one sport that i am passionate about (at least as far as i can be passionate about sport). It's at once a game of supreme patience and incredible reaction speed. You have the batsman who, with the right "guard" and standing perfectly motionless, is practically impenetrable, against a bowler and 10 strategically placed teammates who patiently and cleverly induce the batsman to make a "false" stroke with ever so subtle changes in the speed, flight, movement, trajectory and/or spin of the ball. When it happens, it can be a beautiful thing :)
On Jul 28, 7:23 am, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Until I came to Europe I never was a fan of any sport, since I have become a > fan of rugby ,, ever since I watched a man fall on the ball with the other > team piled on top. But his legs were sticking out of the pile. So his mates > (6) grabbed his legs and used him like a wheel barrow. As for cricket,, I > have never gotten it wrapped around my mind. > Allan > > On 27 jul. 2011, at 17:42, 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 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
