Also football uniforms. Well, we are admiring bodies and physiques in sports, aren't we? :-)
On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > I've always thought that baseball players have an interesting sense of > dress style, rigsy; somewhat "hugging"? :) > > On Jul 29, 2:21 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We have baseball. :-) > > > On Jul 28, 4:42 am, 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
