Let me save some pennies (wonder what flight and hotel plus the ticket cost will be?) so we can make arrangements. I think it would be great, my oldest brother is a fan but he lives in Australia Allan
On 28 jul. 2011, at 22:54, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > Well Allan, if you ever decide to go see a match, let me know; i'd be > delighted :) > > > > On Jul 28, 9:15 pm, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> ... >> >> read more ยป- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
