You're on, Allan; lets pencil in 2012 :)
On Jul 29, 8:40 am, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
