I rode shotgun in our last civil war Gabby. I see little in 'god arguments' other than chronic factionalism and can no longer laugh at Lutherian rants emanating from Belfast. There is something else in religion and I don't agree with those like Dawkins who make fortunes replacing it with science that may as well be 'Latin mass' in general understanding. I'd be happy enough to ride in this context with Allan against the road agents - though I for one would need comfortable suspension and I don't travel well.
God clearly doesn't work once in factional human hands - like Gabby I prefer direct appeal to him/her/it - but even Protestantism is led, collective and so on. Quite how the Protestant tossers who started shooting into Catholic gatherings (and so on) in Northern Ireland could justify themselves with a loving god I don't know- though I'm sure rationalisation was part of it. I much prefer agnosticism on what we don't know to the zealot - and admissions we don't know over 'there is no alternative zeal'. As to what science is, I prefer admission it is replete with values, religion, manic belief and so on, done by social animals, already present in a world before humans and in subjective human reflection on the past. The whole notion of science as 'value free' is a nonsense and has origin in battles in which others held and used the instruments of torture to promote their control fraud. I have no intention of being sent out, as a previous and dubiously historical figure with a sling-shot against god-made- Goliath. To some extent, if we could break the 'argument code' and produce a technology that made decision obvious, we would break the political power complex. The fear is of some Frankenstein nightmare worse than what we have now. Habermas sought to extirpate (root out) ideology and form an ideal-type speech situation in which only Reason would decide (Reason in my take is a 'technology'). He was scoffed at as 'the Professor' by postmodernists as his 'system' would inevitably be totalising - and hadn't we had enough totalising with the Nazis? I think all sides of this argument are little more than academic guff. I wonder whether there is a better starting point in recognising most people are hopeless in argument and whether we might be better placed as individuals if technology could do more of the argument for us as, say, a car can be driven. On 17 Jan, 12:10, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for being late here. Let me go back to your question, Allan, whether > our counting system is bigoted. And let me ask you if you think that there > is a substantial difference between "4" and "IV". I would argue that both > representational symbols do not violate the parameters of human > perceptional limitation, which only allow for up to four visible items > being instantaneously operated upon and produce reliable data > representative. Five dots on a piece of paper should be better put in some > order - in order to be recognized as 5 in a blink of a moment. Or - as > evidence of the Spirit At Work. :) > > As for being afraid of James - what separates us from the other animals is > our deeply rooted belief that we are better than them. That should count as > a valid argument for believing in God, the creator, in whose image we are > being made. > What struck me as "fearful" - to follow your logic - is hearing an American > (highest degree of individualistic socialization, self-localization: > from-coast-to-coast) arguing towards "mutually beneficial outcomes". Across > the pond we have our own understanding of "mutually" and "beneficial", > depending on our different historical cultural backgrounds and present day > socioeconomic situation. > > The global construction of oneness so far has been achieved by the force of > necessity aka God's higher justice. How do you want to improve that > opponent of yours, Neil? > > 2013/1/17 archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > Removing spiritual blindfolds sounds suspiciously Masonic. I'm not > > scared by rationality - but remain very perturbed by what people will > > do in the name of truth. What I'm concerned with is the greater play > > of knowledge in democratic action - in marxism this would be praxis. > > The problem has long been what we can legitimate as knowledge.- > > control of the production of knowledge being as central to power as > > general control of the means of production. It strikes me the problem > > is less important in thinking about the democratic formation of > > knowledge than in description and explanation of what we are caught in > > in the present. We would presumably want to build democratic > > precaution and human rights into technology we wanted to improve these > > matters through. > > > On Jan 17, 7:54 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > what you are proposing is the worst type of dictatorship available.. > > > simple because there is no control.. > > > Judgement is one of the most difficult things to do,, Even under the > > > standard concepts of God judgement is very difficult to the point and > > > is left to God,.. in reality upon your death and resurrection back > > > into the realm of souls.. you are judged solely by yourself only you > > > know the truth and the blindfolds are removed and you are no longer a > > > spiritual zombie and will be able to make that type of judgement,, > > > to sand in judgement of others is even tougher,, > > > Neil not only is it something that is very hard to explain itis > > > something you can not explain.. as all explanations are nothing more > > > than justifying your point of view. > > > Allan > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The technological point Allan would be in terms of the facts even a > > > > few people like us who know each other would accept and "know" via > > > > database - it's very hard to explain. Currently we are generally in > > > > the state you suggest, though exceptionally skilled in harmlessness. > > > > > On Jan 16, 7:05 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Personally Neil I do not think the four of you would be capable of > > > >> making that type of evaluation. > > > >> No offence taken ... every one listed is as bigoted to their own > > > >> view as I am.. (",) > > > >> Allan > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:51 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > I'm a very woolly thinker - and part of the technology I want to > see > > > >> > would entail a bunch of us - say me, rigs, Gabs and James - being > able > > > >> > to decide on whether the public or private sector is 'better' (I > > > >> > suspect we'd all say this depends on circumstances) without making > the > > > >> > question into some ideological contest - and then on to the world > more > > > >> > generally. I've no doubt we could all give examples and counter- > > > >> > examples and suspect we'd find some consensus on not really being > very > > > >> > interested. What I really wonder is why such matters are contested > > > >> > ideologically rather than being subject to transparent record. > > > > >> > On Jan 15, 10:32 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> Didn't know you were a Papist rigs! Which changes about nothing > - I > > > >> >> was dragged up Proddy until I got Dad to write a note to school > > > >> >> excusing me RE. I did my maths and English homework in the > classes - > > > >> >> still took the exams and came top twice - which rather suggests > how > > > >> >> useless classrooms can be. I think a great deal is recoverable > from > > > >> >> religion concerning practical democracy and the loss of decency > and > > > >> >> organic solidarity. > > > >> >> I've been reading a lot of academic material on banking systems > for > > > >> >> some lectures, Most tell the story that what has been done since > the > > > >> >> crash have really done nothing - there's one athttp:// > > papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132152(pdf > > > > > > > > > > >> >> downloads if anyone is interested) - and reading it is typically > > > >> >> bleak. I've stopped the reading, partly because I have enough, > but > > > >> >> more because I'm depressed by how powerless it makes me feel. > Rosanne > > > >> >> Barr seemed the best presidential candidate to me. We need to get > > > >> >> back to farming, building and making the planet a sensible > collective. > > > > >> >> We used to try to teach the logic underlying various discipline - > > > >> >> typically through learning artificial languages that demonstrate > > > >> >> ambiguity lies in even simple constructs in ordinary languages. > > > >> >> Tarski was usually key. One can dream of a machine that would do > this > > > >> >> in real time as politicians speak - but only dream. One can end > up in > > > >> >> such stuff as Chu sets - sadly not as easy as Casey Jones. What I > > > >> >> could see in near-term would be a database that worked in near > real- > > > >> >> time that immediately produced facts that made politician's > statements > > > >> >> as ambiguous as they really are factually and identified > rhetorical > > > >> >> tricks as they spoke. Academic work in this area like discourse > > > >> >> analysis is painfully slow. > > > > >> >> Tony Blair was a good orator - but now he looks the paradigm case > of > > > >> >> 'how do you know this man is lying - because his lips are moving' > > > >> >> along with Nixon. The current technology is some combination of > > > >> >> oratory, rhetoric and infotainment - perhaps even combined with > > > >> >> education as discipline. I would want a technology that was very > > > >> >> different, more transparent and honest - and I would see machine > > > >> >> thinking as part of it all - in some areas of science we are > fairly > > > >> >> sure the machines are smarter than us already. I can think up > some > > > >> >> kind of 'mind-repository' as science fiction - Hawking is saying > > > >> >> biological intelligence may be at the end of its evolutionary > span. > > > >> >> The Frankenstein and totalitarian elements always raise their > heads - > > > >> >> of course. > > > > >> >> Gordon Brown - the idiot who sold our gold reserves - used to say > 'we > > > >> >> must be proud of our British heritage' - but such is never said > in > > > >> >> the spirit of analysis of the good and the disasters. I'm pretty > sure > > > >> >> machines and software could show all our politicians now contest > in > > > >> >> such actually meaningless drivel. Some of us believe this > already. I > > > >> >> wonder if technology exposing such would generate space for the > real > > > >> >> dialogue? > > > > >> >> On 15 Jan, 12:14, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > It appears chimps are willing to share a banana fairly and we > are > > > >> >> > closely related- it's a start. (NPR or BBC) But also heard > farmland > > > >> >> > was selling for $10,000. an acre and discouraging young > independent > > > >> >> > farmers (which will lead to more agribusiness swallowing up the > > > >> >> > land).//There is a very long history promoting power and > wealth- as a > > > >> >> > sign of worldly success and divine favor- not sure if there is > any way > > > >> >> > to abolish that notion- well illustrated by the top tiers of > > > >> >> > socialists and communists- even religious groups.// To be a > > > >> >> > conservative may mean you have something to conserve (from an > old > > > >> >> > deceased friend); conservatives reward themselves with their own > > > >> >> > efforts while liberals reward everyone with other people's > efforts > > > >> >> > (thoughts while cooking-rigs). Politicians make endless > promises to > > > >> >> > the poor and middle class in order to secure their votes and > stay in > > > >> >> > office since they(politicians) become unfit for work in the real > > > >> >> > world.//I think I wanted to be a good person rather than a rich > person > > > >> >> > but I was brainwashed by Catholicism...wasn't I?// > > > > >> >> > On Jan 14, 9:21 pm, James <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > There are a number of trade routes built into the rewards > system though, > > > >> >> > > for example a simple formula might be: > > > > >> >> > > Cities favor growth of tax base and expansion, attraction of > prospective > > > >> >> > > citizens and businesses might favor a financial institution > over a > > > >> >> > > private home builder, the contractor may get tax breaks > through tricks > > ... > > read more » --
