Someday I may have the honor of see a game hopefully with some one as knowledgeable as you. Allan
On 28 jul. 2011, at 11:42, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ยป- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
