Probably helps in teamwork, body strength, the desire to win which translates later to military, business, industry when started young. Spectator sports have additional aims as the fans are part of the equation.//Baseball is a Zen type thing, Arch. Agree about commentary. I like ice hockey- but others, also. Dislike washing uniforms- the boys. :-)//Right- sports do not curb aggression- they channel it.
On Jul 29, 11:53 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Baseball is almost tolerable after a few beers and with the commentary > off Rigsby! I'm not sure the games do much to curb the kinds of > aggression that lead to war. Paradox's rather sweet notions on > cricket obscure just how nasty it can get. > > On Jul 29, 2:24 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Most of the boys who played football are pretty beat up as they aged- > > they need new knees, shoulders, etc. Well, anything to smother male > > aggression is a plus- versus the injuries/deaths of wars. > > > On Jul 27, 6:55 pm, 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
